Digital BW, The Print

I've got a question about fine b&w landscapes. I've been working with 
a dedicated infrared dslr and getting good results with exposure, 
focus, and lighting but I'm having trouble with the final image and 
how I composed them in the field. I did an experimental study of 
images of trees around a pond. The problem is with a DOF that puts 
everything virtually in sharp focus that it renders the main subjects -
 specific trees or groups of trees - less prominent such that they 
look more random than I'd like. Take a look:

http://www.pbase.com/markleewebb/chance_pond_ir_march_1_2008

Question - for shots like this where you are stuck with a background 
of other trees and you have other trees to right and to left and 
sometimes in foreground - can you ever use DOF to emphasize your main 
subject? Nail focus on main subject but go very soft using DOF on, 
say, the background? Is this ever done with landscapes?

markleewebb wrote:
> Question - for shots like this where you are stuck with a background 
> of other trees and you have other trees to right and to left and 
> sometimes in foreground - can you ever use DOF to emphasize your main 
> subject? Nail focus on main subject but go very soft using DOF on, 
> say, the background? Is this ever done with landscapes?
>   
Of course it's "done." Selective focus is just another tool to use in 
expressing one's vision.
--
Bruce Watson

markleewebb wrote:
>
> I've got a question about fine b&w landscapes. I've been working with
> a dedicated infrared dslr and getting good results with exposure,
> focus, and lighting but I'm having trouble with the final image and
> how I composed them in the field. I did an experimental study of
> images of trees around a pond. The problem is with a DOF that puts
> everything virtually in sharp focus that it renders the main subjects -
> specific trees or groups of trees - less prominent such that they
> look more random than I'd like. Take a look:
>
> http://www.pbase.com/markleewebb/chance_pond_ir_march_1_2008 
> <http://www.pbase.com/markleewebb/chance_pond_ir_march_1_2008>
>
> Question - for shots like this where you are stuck with a background
> of other trees and you have other trees to right and to left and
> sometimes in foreground - can you ever use DOF to emphasize your main
> subject? Nail focus on main subject but go very soft using DOF on,
> say, the background? Is this ever done with landscapes?
>
>  


Sure. You might try experimenting with a tilt-shift lens if your camera 
can use one. They allow tremendous control over dof.


Joe R. DiLorenzo

But is it done - and done well- with b&w landscapes? 

Here is why I ask: for landscapes, folks like Ansel Adams taught that 
aperture is the first concern. He and other great landscape artists 
were very concerned about sharpness and capturing a lot of detail. He 
even founded Group f.64 - guess why ! He felt that photography should 
take advantage of the nature of the medium and make photographs with 
as much depth of field as possible. But in some scenes it's hard to 
emphasize a particular tree or group of natural elements because 
they're not well seperated from other distracting elements around 
them. That's why I was asking.

If someone has some good examples and web sites with samples they 
could point me to where the photographer used selective DOF IN A 
LANDSCAPE  - and did it with SUCCESS :) that would help me study other 
works and gain some perspective on an alternative technique that may 
serve me well. 

Thanks.                            


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Bruce Watson 
<bwyg@...> wrote:
>
> markleewebb wrote:
> > Question - for shots like this where you are stuck with a 
background 
> > of other trees and you have other trees to right and to left and 
> > sometimes in foreground - can you ever use DOF to emphasize your 
main 
> > subject? Nail focus on main subject but go very soft using DOF on, 
> > say, the background? Is this ever done with landscapes?
> >   
> Of course it's "done." Selective focus is just another tool to use 
in 

> expressing one's vision.
> --
> Bruce Watson
>

Your question suggests that there is some kind of right way take landscape photographs.  In my view (and the view of many others) photography is an art form and, as such, there are no inviolable rules.  Many people today are using Holga's and other pinhole cameras to capture images where nothing is in focus.  Many of these images are highly prized for their artistic and creative content.  A successful image is one in which you, the artist, are able to convey a sense of mood or feeling that finds a connection with the viewer.
   
  On the other hand, many camera clubs insist on spreading the impression that there are only a limited number of things that are permissible in "good" photography.  Yet, if you'll look at some of  todays most honored work, you'll find that the artist who created it followed his or own muse and did it their own way.  The work of Maggie Taylor, for instance, is held in collections all over the world and her work is done with a scanner!  Her husband, Jerry Uelsmann, is even more widely collected and breaks even more rules.  
   
  My point is, if you feel that your artistic vision is better expressed with the trees in the background out of focus, who is to say that that is wrong?  The only questions that a knowledgeable art critic will ask are: Does it work? and does it have an emotional impact?  Long before you show your work to anyone else though, you should ask yourself: Does this work for me?  That, in the final analysis, is the true measure of whether your picture is "successful".




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

In a message dated 3/6/08 10:05:02 PM, webb.m@... writes:


> Question - for shots like this where you are stuck with a background
> of other trees and you have other trees to right and to left and
> sometimes in foreground - can you ever use DOF to emphasize your main
> subject? Nail focus on main subject but go very soft using DOF on,
> say, the background? Is this ever done with landscapes?
> 

Typically this would be tweeked in Photoshop after the fact, if it can't be 
shot as desired. Careful multiple, gradiated selections of the areas where less 
focus is desired can be saved and made less prominent by reduction of 
contrast, gaussian blurring (which emulates natural depth of field sharpness 
reduction) and other techniques. Often a heavily feathered round or oval selection is 
used to vignette a slight darkening to the outlying areas as well. Even 
without going all the way to a LensBaby/Holga type of effect, a lot of subtle 
emphasis can be shifted to the main focus of the image. Viewers typically will not 
even be aware of the process, if its done carefully.

If you are dealing with a mass of overlapping branches, then making effective 
selections may be difficult or even impossible, and natural depth of field 
differences may be your most practical choice.

C. David Tobie
WW Product Technology Manager
Digital Imaging & Home Theater
Datacolor
CDTobie@...
www.datacolor.com/Spyder3


**************
It's Tax Time! Get tips, forms, and 
advice on AOL Money & Finance.
      
(http://money.aol.com/tax?NCID=aolprf00030000000001)


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Ansel Adams may have been a founding member of f.64, but as I found out 
when I started making landscape images a few years ago, stopping down 
is far from your best option with today's lenses. 

See:
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/50-comparison/f-stops.htm

In fact, if you shoot with a DSLR (I think you use a D70), depending on 
the lens and your sensor, f8 to f11 is probably your best bet. Check 
out the test results.

Paul G.

Mark, it sounds to me that you are letting the DOF control you rather than
controlling IT! Bruce mentioned that it is one of the tools and I'd like to
elevate it to one of the most important tools. Even as David suggest that
many modern user will use PS to control blur these days, and for many
reasons that is not a bad approach, but it sounds like you need to work out
some of that vision before you ever sit down at the computer. A problem with
selective DOF on a landscape is making it work, and making it work in this
case is going to take some good thinking. You'll be fighting that notion
that landscape does indeed need to convey the image sharp from that first
rock to the last twig on the furthest branch; that constant fight between
large format shooters and grain lovers. 

 

AS for digital being best at mid range apertures, some of that comes from
the difference in format to focal length and not a sea change in thinking.
It also comes from an aesthetic that smaller aperture allows for longer
exposure and not ONLY related to DOF. 

 

Eric

 

 

Eric Neilsen Photography

4101 Commerce Street

Suite 9

Dallas, TX 75226

http://e.neilsen.home.att.net

http://ericneilsenphotography.com

Skype ejprinter

  _____  

From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
markleewebb
Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2008 9:05 PM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Digital BW] Depth of Field and Landscapes

 

I've got a question about fine b&w landscapes. I've been working with 
a dedicated infrared dslr and getting good results with exposure, 
focus, and lighting but I'm having trouble with the final image and 
how I composed them in the field. I did an experimental study of 
images of trees around a pond. The problem is with a DOF that puts 
everything virtually in sharp focus 



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

>The problem is with a DOF that puts
>everything virtually in sharp focus that it renders the main subjects -
>specific trees or groups of trees - less prominent such that they
>look more random than I'd like.

Another approach could be done through the the use of tonal
adjustments in PS. A curves adjustment and corresponding mask can be
used to darken background elements thereby bringing the viewers
attention to the main subject. Subtlety applied, the person viewing
the image will not notice it has been done.

>Ansel Adams taught that
> aperture is the first concern. He and other great landscape artists
> were very concerned about sharpness and capturing a lot of detail. He
> even founded Group f.64 - guess why !

Don't forget that f/64 on his large format camera give that same
effective DOF as f/8 on a 35mm camera.  Ever here of f/8 and be there?

Steve Fredrick
Steve@...
http://www.SFredrickPhoto.com <http://www.sfredrickphoto.com/>
http://www.ItsAllAboutTheLightTours.com/
<http://www.itsallaboutthelighttours.com/>




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Steve F"
<steve@...> wrote:
>

> 
"Ever here of f/8 and be there?"
> 
Hi Steve,

The first time I read about that what in story about Senator Barry
Goldwater, a dedicated photographer,in one of the US photography
magazine, don't remember which.

But it was in conjunction with medium format: I think that Mr
Goldwater was using a Rolleiflex at the time.

Cheers,
Andre

Hi,

I've only a can of Kodak IR under my belt and tried unmodified digital IR.

IR is all over the place, so you don't have the same options as with normal films.

Selective focus with this factor and typical wide FOV is problem prone. To make it effective I think you have to choose the subject placement carefully and maybe consider morning shooting when only some things have warmed-up.

I can't relate ansel stuff to IR stuff in any which way.

And I really don't know about the digital end - you don't indicate what wavelength your sensor can resolve.

gar

*********** REPLY SEPARATOR  ***********

On 3/7/08 at 3:43 AM markleewebb wrote:

>But is it done - and done well- with b&w landscapes? 
>
>Here is why I ask: for landscapes, folks like Ansel Adams taught that 
>aperture is the first concern. He and other great landscape artists 
>were very concerned about sharpness and capturing a lot of detail. He 
>even founded Group f.64 - guess why ! He felt that photography should 
>take advantage of the nature of the medium and make photographs with 
>as much depth of field as possible. But in some scenes it's hard to 
>emphasize a particular tree or group of natural elements because 
>they're not well seperated from other distracting elements around 
>them. That's why I was asking.
>
>If someone has some good examples and web sites with samples they 
>could point me to where the photographer used selective DOF IN A 
>LANDSCAPE  - and did it with SUCCESS :) that would help me study other 
>works and gain some perspective on an alternative technique that may 
>serve me well. 
>
>Thanks.                            
>
>
>--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Bruce Watson 
><bwyg@...> wrote:
>>
>> markleewebb wrote:
>> > Question - for shots like this where you are stuck with a 
>background 
>> > of other trees and you have other trees to right and to left and 
>> > sometimes in foreground - can you ever use DOF to emphasize your 
>main 
>> > subject? Nail focus on main subject but go very soft using DOF on, 
>> > say, the background? Is this ever done with landscapes?
>> >   
>> Of course it's "done." Selective focus is just another tool to use 
>in 
>> expressing one's vision.
>> --
>> Bruce Watson
>>
>
>
>
>
>Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other resources as
>they are often being updated.
>
>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>
>If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to
>unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same
>page.
>
>Please follow these basic guidelines:
>- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
>them short.
>- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames.
>Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the
>membership without notice.
>- Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W
>printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be removed from
>the membership.
>- By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and
>guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group Owner
>and Moderators. See “Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines” in the Files
>section:
>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/
>
>BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT
>YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE “OWNER” AND
>“MODERATORS” OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO
>YOU FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR
>EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF
>PROFITS, GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE 
>“OWNER” AND “MODERATORS” OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN
>ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE
>OR THE INABILITY TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii)
>UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii)
>STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT
>YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE
>PRINT YAHOO GROUP.
> 
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Hi Mark,

Harold has it right.

There is no right way to shoot any subject. Groups over the years  
have sometimes had manifestos or particular ways of doing things,  
like the idea of using hyperfocal in landscape photography  
(everything sharp from infinity to as close as possible). Sometimes  
this works and sometimes it doesn't.

Photography is about finding your own expression, something that  
works for you.

Selective focus is something that many photographers have never  
really fully experienced. This is because kit lenses even with many  
dSLRs have a not terribly wide maximum aperture and because of the FL  
multiplication factor you may be using a shorter focal length than  
you would on film. This combinations mean the shallowest dof you can  
get with many starting camera outfits is not very shallow at all.

If you feel you want to shoot landscapes with very shallow dof, do  
so. The only test is whether the images say what you want to say and  
work at some level.

Cheers,

Wayne

Wayne J. Cosshall
Publisher, The Digital ImageMaker, http://www.dimagemaker.com/
Blog  http://www.digitalimagemakerworld.com/
Photography and art forums http://www.dimagemaker.com/forums/
Personal art site http://www.cosshall.com/
wayne@...





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

My camera is a Nikon D70 converted by LifePixel (normal conversion).

Actually, if you look at some of Adam's works, you see very bright 
and white foliage and very drak black skies - very much like an IR 
image.

You're right about choice of subject....but that's not just an IR 
issue. Any landscape where it's not just a wide field all-inclusive 
shot but you're trying to emphasive a particular subject amidst 
other competing elements has this challenge.

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Gary Weaver" 
<garww@...> wrote:
>
> Hi,
> 
> I've only a can of Kodak IR under my belt and tried unmodified 
digital IR.
> 
> IR is all over the place, so you don't have the same options as 
with normal films.
> 
> Selective focus with this factor and typical wide FOV is problem 
prone. To make it effective I think you have to choose the subject 
placement carefully and maybe consider morning shooting when only 
some things have warmed-up.
> 
> I can't relate ansel stuff to IR stuff in any which way.
> 
> And I really don't know about the digital end - you don't indicate 
what wavelength your sensor can resolve.
> 
> gar
> 
> *********** REPLY SEPARATOR  ***********
> 
> On 3/7/08 at 3:43 AM markleewebb wrote:
> 
> >But is it done - and done well- with b&w landscapes? 
> >
> >Here is why I ask: for landscapes, folks like Ansel Adams taught 
that 
> >aperture is the first concern. He and other great landscape 
artists 
> >were very concerned about sharpness and capturing a lot of 
detail. He 
> >even founded Group f.64 - guess why ! He felt that photography 
should 
> >take advantage of the nature of the medium and make photographs 
with 
> >as much depth of field as possible. But in some scenes it's hard 
to 
> >emphasize a particular tree or group of natural elements because 
> >they're not well seperated from other distracting elements around 
> >them. That's why I was asking.
> >
> >If someone has some good examples and web sites with samples they 
> >could point me to where the photographer used selective DOF IN A 
> >LANDSCAPE  - and did it with SUCCESS :) that would help me study 
other 
> >works and gain some perspective on an alternative technique that 
may 
> >serve me well. 
> >
> >Thanks.                            
> >
> >
> >--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Bruce Watson 
> ><bwyg@> wrote:
> >>
> >> markleewebb wrote:
> >> > Question - for shots like this where you are stuck with a 
> >background 
> >> > of other trees and you have other trees to right and to left 
and 
> >> > sometimes in foreground - can you ever use DOF to emphasize 
your 
> >main 
> >> > subject? Nail focus on main subject but go very soft using 
DOF on, 
> >> > say, the background? Is this ever done with landscapes?
> >> >   
> >> Of course it's "done." Selective focus is just another tool to 
use 
> >in 
> >> expressing one's vision.
> >> --
> >> Bruce Watson
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other 
resources as
> >they are often being updated.
> >
> >http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> >
> >If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you 
wish to
> >unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting 
this same
> >page.
> >
> >Please follow these basic guidelines:
> >- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier 
messages to keep
> >them short.
> >- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or 
flames.
> >Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the
> >membership without notice.
> >- Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of 
digital B&W
> >printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be 
removed from
> >the membership.
> >- By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules 
and
> >guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the 
group Owner
> >and Moderators. See "Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines" in the 
Files
> >section:
> >http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/
> >
> >BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, 
THE PRINT
> >YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE "OWNER" 
AND
> >"MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE 
LIABLE TO
> >YOU FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL 
OR
> >EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS 
OF
> >PROFITS, GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF 
THE 
> >"OWNER" AND "MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP 
HAVE BEEN
> >ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) 
THE USE
> >OR THE INABILITY TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; 
(ii)
> >UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR 
DATA; (iii)
> >STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE 
PRINT
> >YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, 
THE

> >PRINT YAHOO GROUP.
> > 
> >Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>

Lots of us have that disease and Penicillin will not work!

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: markleewebb 
  To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Friday, March 07, 2008 8:29 PM
  Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Clarification - Depth of Field and Landscapes


  My camera is a Nikon D70 converted by LifePixel (normal conversion).

  Actually, if you look at some of Adam's works, you see very bright 
  and white foliage and very drak black skies - very much like an IR 
  image.

  You're right about choice of subject....but that's not just an IR 
  issue. Any landscape where it's not just a wide field all-inclusive 
  shot but you're trying to emphasive a particular subject amidst 
  other competing elements has this challenge.

  --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Gary Weaver" 
  <garww@...> wrote:
  >
  > Hi,
  > 
  > I've only a can of Kodak IR under my belt and tried unmodified 
  digital IR.
  > 
  > IR is all over the place, so you don't have the same options as 
  with normal films.
  > 
  > Selective focus with this factor and typical wide FOV is problem 
  prone. To make it effective I think you have to choose the subject 
  placement carefully and maybe consider morning shooting when only 
  some things have warmed-up.
  > 
  > I can't relate ansel stuff to IR stuff in any which way.
  > 
  > And I really don't know about the digital end - you don't indicate 
  what wavelength your sensor can resolve.
  > 
  > gar
  > 
  > *********** REPLY SEPARATOR ***********
  > 
  > On 3/7/08 at 3:43 AM markleewebb wrote:
  > 
  > >But is it done - and done well- with b&w landscapes? 
  > >
  > >Here is why I ask: for landscapes, folks like Ansel Adams taught 
  that 
  > >aperture is the first concern. He and other great landscape 
  artists 
  > >were very concerned about sharpness and capturing a lot of 
  detail. He 
  > >even founded Group f.64 - guess why ! He felt that photography 
  should 
  > >take advantage of the nature of the medium and make photographs 
  with 
  > >as much depth of field as possible. But in some scenes it's hard 
  to 
  > >emphasize a particular tree or group of natural elements because 
  > >they're not well seperated from other distracting elements around 
  > >them. That's why I was asking.
  > >
  > >If someone has some good examples and web sites with samples they 
  > >could point me to where the photographer used selective DOF IN A 
  > >LANDSCAPE - and did it with SUCCESS :) that would help me study 
  other 
  > >works and gain some perspective on an alternative technique that 
  may 
  > >serve me well. 
  > >
  > >Thanks. 
  > >
  > >
  > >--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Bruce Watson 
  > ><bwyg@> wrote:
  > >>
  > >> markleewebb wrote:
  > >> > Question - for shots like this where you are stuck with a 
  > >background 
  > >> > of other trees and you have other trees to right and to left 
  and 
  > >> > sometimes in foreground - can you ever use DOF to emphasize 
  your 
  > >main 
  > >> > subject? Nail focus on main subject but go very soft using 
  DOF on, 
  > >> > say, the background? Is this ever done with landscapes?
  > >> > 
  > >> Of course it's "done." Selective focus is just another tool to 
  use 
  > >in 
  > >> expressing one's vision.
  > >> --
  > >> Bruce Watson
  > >>
  > >
  > >
  > >
  > >
  > >Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other 
  resources as
  > >they are often being updated.
  > >
  > >http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
  > >
  > >If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you 
  wish to
  > >unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting 
  this same
  > >page.
  > >
  > >Please follow these basic guidelines:
  > >- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier 
  messages to keep
  > >them short.
  > >- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or 
  flames.
  > >Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the
  > >membership without notice.
  > >- Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of 
  digital B&W
  > >printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be 
  removed from
  > >the membership.
  > >- By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules 
  and
  > >guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the 
  group Owner
  > >and Moderators. See "Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines" in the 
  Files
  > >section:
  > >http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/
  > >
  > >BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, 
  THE PRINT
  > >YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE "OWNER" 
  AND
  > >"MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE 
  LIABLE TO
  > >YOU FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL 
  OR
  > >EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS 
  OF
  > >PROFITS, GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF 
  THE 
  > >"OWNER" AND "MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP 
  HAVE BEEN
  > >ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) 
  THE USE
  > >OR THE INABILITY TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; 
  (ii)
  > >UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR 
  DATA; (iii)
  > >STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE 
  PRINT
  > >YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, 
  THE
  > >PRINT YAHOO GROUP.
  > > 
  > >Yahoo! Groups Links
  > >
  > >
  > >
  >



   


------------------------------------------------------------------------------


  No virus found in this incoming message.
  Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
  Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.21.6/1317 - Release Date: 3/7/2008 8:15 AM


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Good point!!

I have a kodak IR print from the old 3000(big paper) right next to me and maybe a dozen images on the 'puter. The only thing that has selective focus is a head shot of another motobiker sharing the lane. A good part of that cornfield blur is motion at 50-60mph rather than out of focus

The point I was suggesting is that I don't know if a great Boke' glass will work with IR - It's a lot of scattered light. Who's got glass designed for 900Nm??

My strat was to get into the trees and let the IR open-up the shadows.

I have a small collection of color large format digital IR landscapes I lifted from the web (shh..) and I don't see these people working with selective focus.

gar

*********** REPLY SEPARATOR  ***********

On 3/7/08 at 9:52 PM Charlie Thomson wrote:

>Lots of us have that disease and Penicillin will not work!
>
>
>  ----- Original Message ----- 
>  From: markleewebb 
>  To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com 
>  Sent: Friday, March 07, 2008 8:29 PM
>  Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Clarification - Depth of Field and Landscapes
>
>
>  My camera is a Nikon D70 converted by LifePixel (normal conversion).
>
>  Actually, if you look at some of Adam's works, you see very bright 
>  and white foliage and very drak black skies - very much like an IR 
>  image.
>
>  You're right about choice of subject....but that's not just an IR 
>  issue. Any landscape where it's not just a wide field all-inclusive 
>  shot but you're trying to emphasive a particular subject amidst 
>  other competing elements has this challenge.
>
>  --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Gary Weaver" 
>  <garww@...> wrote:
>  >
>  > Hi,
>  > 
>  > I've only a can of Kodak IR under my belt and tried unmodified 
>  digital IR.
>  > 
>  > IR is all over the place, so you don't have the same options as 
>  with normal films.
>  > 
>  > Selective focus with this factor and typical wide FOV is problem 
>  prone. To make it effective I think you have to choose the subject 
>  placement carefully and maybe consider morning shooting when only 
>  some things have warmed-up.
>  > 
>  > I can't relate ansel stuff to IR stuff in any which way.
>  > 
>  > And I really don't know about the digital end - you don't indicate 
>  what wavelength your sensor can resolve.
>  > 
>  > gar
>  > 
>  > *********** REPLY SEPARATOR ***********
>  > 
>  > On 3/7/08 at 3:43 AM markleewebb wrote:
>  > 
>  > >But is it done - and done well- with b&w landscapes? 
>  > >
>  > >Here is why I ask: for landscapes, folks like Ansel Adams taught 
>  that 
>  > >aperture is the first concern. He and other great landscape 
>  artists 
>  > >were very concerned about sharpness and capturing a lot of 
>  detail. He 
>  > >even founded Group f.64 - guess why ! He felt that photography 
>  should 
>  > >take advantage of the nature of the medium and make photographs 
>  with 
>  > >as much depth of field as possible. But in some scenes it's hard 
>  to 
>  > >emphasize a particular tree or group of natural elements because 
>  > >they're not well seperated from other distracting elements around 
>  > >them. That's why I was asking.
>  > >
>  > >If someone has some good examples and web sites with samples they 
>  > >could point me to where the photographer used selective DOF IN A 
>  > >LANDSCAPE - and did it with SUCCESS :) that would help me study 
>  other 
>  > >works and gain some perspective on an alternative technique that 
>  may 
>  > >serve me well. 
>  > >
>  > >Thanks. 
>  > >
>  > >
>  > >--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Bruce Watson 
>  > ><bwyg@> wrote:
>  > >>
>  > >> markleewebb wrote:
>  > >> > Question - for shots like this where you are stuck with a 
>  > >background 
>  > >> > of other trees and you have other trees to right and to left 
>  and 
>  > >> > sometimes in foreground - can you ever use DOF to emphasize 
>  your 
>  > >main 
>  > >> > subject? Nail focus on main subject but go very soft using 
>  DOF on, 
>  > >> > say, the background? Is this ever done with landscapes?
>  > >> > 
>  > >> Of course it's "done." Selective focus is just another tool to 
>  use 
>  > >in 
>  > >> expressing one's vision.
>  > >> --
>  > >> Bruce Watson
>  > >>
>  > >
>  > >
>  > >
>  > >
>  > >Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other 
>  resources as
>  > >they are often being updated.
>  > >
>  > >http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>  > >
>  > >If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you 
>  wish to
>  > >unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting 
>  this same
>  > >page.
>  > >
>  > >Please follow these basic guidelines:
>  > >- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier 
>  messages to keep
>  > >them short.
>  > >- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or 
>  flames.
>  > >Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the
>  > >membership without notice.
>  > >- Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of 
>  digital B&W
>  > >printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be 
>  removed from
>  > >the membership.
>  > >- By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules 
>  and
>  > >guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the 
>  group Owner
>  > >and Moderators. See "Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines" in the 
>  Files
>  > >section:
>  > >http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/
>  > >
>  > >BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, 
>  THE PRINT
>  > >YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE "OWNER" 
>  AND
>  > >"MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE 
>  LIABLE TO
>  > >YOU FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL 
>  OR
>  > >EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS 
>  OF
>  > >PROFITS, GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF 
>  THE 
>  > >"OWNER" AND "MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP 
>  HAVE BEEN
>  > >ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) 
>  THE USE
>  > >OR THE INABILITY TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; 
>  (ii)
>  > >UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR 
>  DATA; (iii)
>  > >STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE 
>  PRINT
>  > >YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, 
>  THE
>  > >PRINT YAHOO GROUP.
>  > > 
>  > >Yahoo! Groups Links
>  > >
>  > >
>  > >
>  >
>
>
>
>   
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>  No virus found in this incoming message.
>  Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
>  Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.21.6/1317 - Release Date:
>3/7/2008 8:15 AM
>
>
>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other resources as
>they are often being updated.
>
>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>
>If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to
>unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same
>page.
>
>Please follow these basic guidelines:
>- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
>them short.
>- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames.
>Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the
>membership without notice.
>- Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W
>printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be removed from
>the membership.
>- By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and
>guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group Owner
>and Moderators. See �Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines� in the Files
>section:
>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/
>
>BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT
>YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE �OWNER� AND
>�MODERATORS� OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO
>YOU FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR
>EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF
>PROFITS, GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE 
>�OWNER� AND �MODERATORS� OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN
>ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE
>OR THE INABILITY TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii)
>UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii)
>STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT
>YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE
>PRINT YAHOO GROUP.
> 
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

>...if you shoot with a DSLR...depending on the lens and your sensor, 
>f8 to f11 is probably your best bet. 

I think the traditional emphasis on having everything in focus comes
from an attempt at simulating reality.  Our eyes see everything in focus.

As for what f-stop is needed to do that, of course it depends on the
format and focal length.  As for best sharpness, every lens has it's
sweet spot (or sweet range), so the idea is to use only enough f-stop
to get the needed DOF.  IOW, don't use f/22 if f/11 will do the job. 
Ideally the minimum required aperture will still be in the sweet range.

How does one know what aperture is needed?  One commonly used way of
doing that is hyperfocal focusing with the lens's DOF scale.  The
problem with 35mm lenses on DSLRs with smaller sensors is the DOF
scales aren't accurate (and many zooms and new "for digital" lenses
don't even have DOF scales).  I use Pentax 35mm Ltd prime lenses on a
K10 with an ABS-C sensor, so I can't use the scales.  However, there
is another way to do it using DOF tables.

Using an on-line COC (Circle Of Confusion) chart and DOF calculator I
calculated DOF tables for a whole bunch of focal lengths for this size
sensor (this size is used in lots of DSLRs).  I have been using these
in the field and they work beautifully.  I posted all the tables and
an explanation of how to use them in this on-line article

   http://www.cjcom.net/articles/hyperfoc.htm

It's easy to copy and print out the tables.  I keep a copy of
the ones for my lenses in the camera bag. 

I haven't used IR so I'm not sure what the issues are and whether
these tables will work for that.  But it's easy enough to make new
ones with the tools available on-line if you know what adjustments are
needed.  The article contains links to the DOF tools I used.

As for selective focus, that's an artistic decision.  But once you
have correct DOF tables for your setup, they should work just as well
for any desired DOF result.

I hope this helps.

Regards,
Clayton


Info on black and white digital printing at    
http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm
I-Trak 2.0 coming soon

Clayton -- 
  The original question that Mark asked was somewhat different than how does one obtain sharp focus in the foreground and background of an image?  And from there, how does one change what is emphasized in the image? His question has to do with what is acceptable practice in landscape photography.
  This to me is a question of aesthetics.  He asked the question: "Is this ever done in landscapes?"  Which implies that there is some sort of list or set of rules for shooting landscapes. 
   
  >Question - for shots like this where you are stuck with a background 
>of other trees and you have other trees to right and to left and 
>sometimes in foreground - can you ever use DOF to emphasize your main 
>subject? Nail focus on main subject but go very soft using DOF on, 
>say, the background? Is this ever done with landscapes?
   
  Even his clarification is just an amplification of this question.  So, while instructive, it seems to me that your reply on how to calculate the hyperfocal distance is off the mark.  But most importantly, the wavelengths of light in the IR portion of the spectrum are longer and therefore do not conform so neatly to formulas that are used to calculate hyperfocal distance.  Add to that the fact that hyperfocal distance calculations don't account for diffraction (which is a significant issue in IR photography because it is (IR photography) is done when the sun is brightest) and I think mere technical calculations of hyperfocal distance don't supply the answer to Marks question.  As I'm sure you recall, older film cameras' had a separate mark on the lens that marked IR infinity that was different than visible spectrum infinity. 
   
  So, I think that my answer earlier about artistic judgment was closer to the point in responding to his question. I say this not to point out that what you're (Clayton) saying is incorrect but that what he wants to know can't be answered with technical calculations.  These opinions are just my own and, of course, others may think otherwise.




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Yes ... but the original question has little to do with the aim of this
forum.  I'm easy about wide interpretation of the group's raison d'être and
I'm open to almost anything to do with photography.  So, no contribution
really, just an observation.
 
Steve Gledhill
www.virtuallygrey.co.uk <http://www.virtuallygrey.co.uk/> 


  _____  

From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Harold
Jackson
Sent: 08 March 2008 19:19
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: Clarification - Depth of Field and Landscapes



Clayton -- 
The original question that Mark asked was somewhat different than how does
one obtain sharp focus in the foreground and background of an image? And
from there, how does one change what is emphasized in the image? His
question has to do with what is acceptable practice in landscape
photography.
This to me is a question of aesthetics. He asked the question: "Is this ever
done in landscapes?" Which implies that there is some sort of list or set of
rules for shooting landscapes. 

>Question - for shots like this where you are stuck with a background 
>of other trees and you have other trees to right and to left and 
>sometimes in foreground - can you ever use DOF to emphasize your main 
>subject? Nail focus on main subject but go very soft using DOF on, 
>say, the background? Is this ever done with landscapes?

Even his clarification is just an amplification of this question. So, while
instructive, it seems to me that your reply on how to calculate the
hyperfocal distance is off the mark. But most importantly, the wavelengths
of light in the IR portion of the spectrum are longer and therefore do not
conform so neatly to formulas that are used to calculate hyperfocal
distance. Add to that the fact that hyperfocal distance calculations don't
account for diffraction (which is a significant issue in IR photography
because it is (IR photography) is done when the sun is brightest) and I
think mere technical calculations of hyperfocal distance don't supply the
answer to Marks question. As I'm sure you recall, older film cameras' had a
separate mark on the lens that marked IR infinity that was different than
visible spectrum infinity. 

So, I think that my answer earlier about artistic judgment was closer to the
point in responding to his question. I say this not to point out that what
you're (Clayton) saying is incorrect but that what he wants to know can't be
answered with technical calculations. These opinions are just my own and, of
course, others may think otherwise.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



 



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

You think as I do, H..

The rules have to be adjusted for IR. But, I think Mark should be able to maximize his vision alright. In saying that, I again say I don't know what his sensor is capable of.

gar

*********** REPLY SEPARATOR  ***********

On 3/8/08 at 11:18 AM Harold Jackson wrote:

>Clayton -- 
>  The original question that Mark asked was somewhat different than how
>does one obtain sharp focus in the foreground and background of an image? 
>And from there, how does one change what is emphasized in the image? His
>question has to do with what is acceptable practice in landscape
>photography.
>  This to me is a question of aesthetics.  He asked the question: "Is this
>ever done in landscapes?"  Which implies that there is some sort of list
>or set of rules for shooting landscapes. 
>   
>  >Question - for shots like this where you are stuck with a background 
>>of other trees and you have other trees to right and to left and 
>>sometimes in foreground - can you ever use DOF to emphasize your main 
>>subject? Nail focus on main subject but go very soft using DOF on, 
>>say, the background? Is this ever done with landscapes?
>   
>  Even his clarification is just an amplification of this question.  So,
>while instructive, it seems to me that your reply on how to calculate the
>hyperfocal distance is off the mark.  But most importantly, the
>wavelengths of light in the IR portion of the spectrum are longer and
>therefore do not conform so neatly to formulas that are used to calculate
>hyperfocal distance.  Add to that the fact that hyperfocal distance
>calculations don't account for diffraction (which is a significant issue
>in IR photography because it is (IR photography) is done when the sun is
>brightest) and I think mere technical calculations of hyperfocal distance
>don't supply the answer to Marks question.  As I'm sure you recall, older
>film cameras' had a separate mark on the lens that marked IR infinity that
>was different than visible spectrum infinity. 
>   
>  So, I think that my answer earlier about artistic judgment was closer to
>the point in responding to his question. I say this not to point out that
>what you're (Clayton) saying is incorrect but that what he wants to know
>can't be answered with technical calculations.  These opinions are just my
>own and, of course, others may think otherwise.
>
>
>
>
>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other resources as
>they are often being updated.
>
>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>
>If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to
>unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same
>page.
>
>Please follow these basic guidelines:
>- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
>them short.
>- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames.
>Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the
>membership without notice.
>- Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W
>printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be removed from
>the membership.
>- By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and
>guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group Owner
>and Moderators. See �Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines� in the Files
>section:
>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/
>
>BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT
>YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE �OWNER� AND
>�MODERATORS� OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO
>YOU FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR
>EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF
>PROFITS, GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE 
>�OWNER� AND �MODERATORS� OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN
>ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE
>OR THE INABILITY TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii)
>UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii)
>STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT
>YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE
>PRINT YAHOO GROUP.
> 
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Hello Harold,

Your points are well taken.  I admit to not having followed the thread
perfectly because of it being so wide ranging and rather unfocused. 
It seemed at times like three different conversations (and I agree
with Steve Gledhill, it is OT for this forum and I wasn't paying full
attention).  I was motivated to respond this morning by someone's
remark which touched on smaller sensors and lens DOF and such which
triggered memories of the DOF work I did for the article last year and
I thought it might be helpful.  By that time I had lost sight of the
original intent.  Thanks for the feedback and I'll try to be more
attentive in the future.

Regards,
Clayton


Info on black and white digital printing at    
http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm
I-Trak 2.0 coming soon

On Mar 8, 2008, at 7:20 PM, Clayton Jones wrote:

> [snip] I admit to not having followed the thread
> perfectly because of it being so wide ranging and rather unfocused.
> It seemed at times like three different conversations (and I agree
> with Steve Gledhill, it is OT for this forum and I wasn't paying full
> attention).  I was motivated to respond this morning by someone's
> remark which touched on smaller sensors and lens DOF and such which
> triggered memories of the DOF work I did for the article last year and
> I thought it might be helpful.

It was helpful to me, Clayton, and I shared enough of the original  
poster's interests, if not his concerns, to think it was on his topic  
if upstream from this list's focus.

Thanks for your post.
--
Sam

HI,
I have been printing B/W only on Epson printers for a while
and decided to take the plunge and refill the cartridges.
I have An Epson R280.
I read the instructions on the Inksupply .com web site and order a bottle.
Being naive I expected to get a box wither everything I needed.
I didn't.
So I am asking for help.
Is there a web site that has more detailed instructions?
Do I need to buy
	Syringes
	Needles
	The Bottom fill adaptor
	Other?
Do I need on syringe or one for each ink?
Are the needles and syringes reusable?

Thank you very much.

Mike J.

I would ask Inksupply.com tech support for help.

What do you need?  You need the 10cc syringes and needles- one for 
each shade of ink.  They are reusable- just be sure there's no air in 
them before sucking from the bottles and filling the cartridge.

The bottom fill adapter is useful to suck ink out of the bottom after 
you fill to get good nozzle checks.  I have one and rinse it out.  
You fill the cartridges through the top by taking out the plug.

You need a chip resetter unless you have auto reset chips.

Roger


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Mike Johnston" 
<wpajohnson@...> wrote:
>
> HI,
> I have been printing B/W only on Epson printers for a while
> and decided to take the plunge and refill the cartridges.
> I have An Epson R280.
> I read the instructions on the Inksupply .com web site and order a 
bottle.

> Being naive I expected to get a box wither everything I needed.
> I didn't.
> So I am asking for help.
> Is there a web site that has more detailed instructions?
> Do I need to buy
> 	Syringes
> 	Needles
> 	The Bottom fill adaptor
> 	Other?
> Do I need on syringe or one for each ink?
> Are the needles and syringes reusable?
> 
> Thank you very much.
> 
> Mike J.
>

Hi Mike:

Assuming that the R280 has refilleable cartridges available for it:  
You need a set of cartridges, a chip resetter, a bottom fill adaptor  
(or two, they are easy to lose), and a syringe and needle for each  
colour. Yes the needles are reuseable. You could use one needle for  
light cyan and cyan if you were careful, for example, but these  
things are cheap.

The best strategy for economical use of these cartridges is to top up  
all of them when you have to refill any one of them. Also, when you  
fill one for the first time, you will use the bottom fill adaptor to  
pull ink out of the cartridge (so there is no air in the bottom of  
the cartridge). You will have already punctured the bottom hole.

Chips can go bad; I'd suggest you have a few old ones from the  
original epson cartridges put away just in case. They are easily  
interchangeable.

Inksupply has pages that cover all this I believe.

Leslie Otterbein

On Mar 9, 2008, at 8:47 AM, Mike Johnston wrote:

>
> I have been printing B/W only on Epson printers for a while
> and decided to take the plunge and refill the cartridges.
> I have An Epson R280.
> I read the instructions on the Inksupply .com web site and order a  
> bottle.
> Being naive I expected to get a box wither everything I needed.
> I didn't.
> So I am asking for help.
> Is there a web site that has more detailed instructions?
> Do I need to buy
> Syringes
> Needles
> The Bottom fill adaptor
> Other?
> Do I need on syringe or one for each ink?
> Are the needles and syringes reusable?
>
> Thank you very much.
>
> Mike J.

Visit my websites at:

http://homepage.mac.com/lotterbein/

WEB GALLERIES:

http://gallery.mac.com/lotterbein#gallery

Hello Sam,

>It was helpful to me, Clayton, and I shared enough of the original  
>poster's interests, if not his concerns, to think it was on his topic  
>if upstream from this list's focus.
>Thanks for your post.

Just want to acknowledge your post, thank you.  It's good to know it
was helpful to someone.


Regards,
Clayton


Info on black and white digital printing at    
http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm
I-Trak 2.0 coming soon

Just my $.02 worth, as someone who likes to shoot B&W IR landscapes with 
a Better Light scan back and a large format camera.

I'm quite fond of shooting infrared, partly (mostly?) because it's 
really easy to do with a a Better Light scan back. The Better Light has 
no built-in IR filter, so you normally need to use an IR high-pass 
filter in front of or behind the lens for visible light work. I like to 
swap this for a (visible light opaque) IR low pass filter, which makes 
it possible to shoot very high quality IR.

The first thing I'll say is that I've not really seen any problems with 
any of the glass I own with regard to IR -- whilst it would be difficult 
to get a sharp result shooting IR and colour *at the same time*, using 
an IR low pass filter and refocussing gives pin-sharp results. There 
*is* a focus shift, however, which can be troublesome at times, but the 
focus meter capability of the back makes it possible to tweak the focus 
and get it right even though it's impossible to actually focus 
conventionally (i.e. no visible light to focus with). I've had the 
sharpest results with my 150mm Fujinon and my 90mm Super Angulon, but 
then, they are my sharpest lenses anyway (not that my 47mm Super Angulon 
XL or my 210mm Caltar are exactly blurred either, mind you). As regards 
f stops, the usual 'stop down at least 2 stops from wide open, but don't 
go too far or you'll get diffraction losses' advice works for IR just 
fine, and (I suspect) even more so, because the longer wavelengths 
involved will be affected more by smaller apertures, at least in theory. 
I've heard people say that IR gives dreamy, slightly blurred images 
inherently -- from experience, I can say for certain that this isn't 
fundamental to IR because I've had some truly pin-sharp results. It 
probably *is* inherent in some IR shooting techniques, particularly IR 
film, however. There's a bigish print on my office wall of Split Rock at 
Joshua Tree National Monument where pretty much every grain in the 
house-sized rock is clearly visible.

My workflow is pretty simple: take the filter off, set the lens wide 
open, focus and set shifts, swings and tilts conventionally (I use a 
reflex finder as a matter of preference), insert the back, stop down, 
put the filter in place, put the back in, refocus, shoot.

To return to the original point, rather than IR for a moment, depth of 
field can certainly be an issue with large format cameras shooting 
landscapes. The best sharpness is generally found at around 2 to 4 stops 
narrower than wide open for most LF lenses, but this rarely gives you 
depth of field that would have, for example, a meadow of flowers in 
focus from a couple of metres to the horizon. This is particularly 
noticeable with a 'standard' lens or short telephoto (150mm or 210mm 
with a Better Light, a bit longer than that for 4x5 film due to the 
slight crop factor), though it's still noticeable with a 90mm. 
Ultrawides like the crazy 47mm Super Angulon I use sometimes do 
obviously help, but you don't always want to shoot with something that 
extreme. I've had very good results from using a 90mm Super Angulon with 
a small amount of tilt to rotate the plane of focus  -- this is the 
*real* secret of pin-sharp large format landscapes. Stopping down to 
f/64 will indeed give far more depth of field, but it does very 
noticeable soften the image. It's not so noticeable with film, but it's 
*very* noticeable with a modern digital sensor, so tilts and swings are 
where it's at in practical terms unfortunately. (And I mean 
*unfortunately* -- getting them right is difficult and time consuming)

[s]

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Sarah Thompson 
<sarah@...> wrote:
>
> Just my $.02 worth, as someone who likes to shoot B&W IR landscapes 
with 
> a Better Light scan back and a large format camera.
> 
> I'm quite fond of shooting infrared, partly (mostly?) because it's 
> really easy to do with a a Better Light scan back. The Better Light 
has 
> no built-in IR filter, so you normally need to use an IR high-pass 
> filter in front of or behind the lens for visible light work. I 
like to 
> swap this for a (visible light opaque) IR low pass filter, which 
makes 
> it possible to shoot very high quality IR.
> 
> The first thing I'll say is that I've not really seen any problems 
with 
> any of the glass I own with regard to IR -- whilst it would be 
difficult 
> to get a sharp result shooting IR and colour *at the same time*, 
using 
> an IR low pass filter and refocussing gives pin-sharp results. 
There 
> *is* a focus shift, however, which can be troublesome at times, but 
the 
> focus meter capability of the back makes it possible to tweak the 
focus 
> and get it right even though it's impossible to actually focus 
> conventionally (i.e. no visible light to focus with). I've had the 
> sharpest results with my 150mm Fujinon and my 90mm Super Angulon, 
but 
> then, they are my sharpest lenses anyway (not that my 47mm Super 
Angulon 
> XL or my 210mm Caltar are exactly blurred either, mind you). As 
regards 
> f stops, the usual 'stop down at least 2 stops from wide open, but 
don't 
> go too far or you'll get diffraction losses' advice works for IR 
just 
> fine, and (I suspect) even more so, because the longer wavelengths 
> involved will be affected more by smaller apertures, at least in 
theory. 
> I've heard people say that IR gives dreamy, slightly blurred images 
> inherently -- from experience, I can say for certain that this 
isn't 
> fundamental to IR because I've had some truly pin-sharp results. It 
> probably *is* inherent in some IR shooting techniques, particularly 
IR 
> film, however. There's a bigish print on my office wall of Split 
Rock at 
> Joshua Tree National Monument where pretty much every grain in the 
> house-sized rock is clearly visible.
> 
> My workflow is pretty simple: take the filter off, set the lens 
wide 
> open, focus and set shifts, swings and tilts conventionally (I use 
a 
> reflex finder as a matter of preference), insert the back, stop 
down, 
> put the filter in place, put the back in, refocus, shoot.
> 
> To return to the original point, rather than IR for a moment, depth 
of 
> field can certainly be an issue with large format cameras shooting 
> landscapes. The best sharpness is generally found at around 2 to 4 
stops 
> narrower than wide open for most LF lenses, but this rarely gives 
you 
> depth of field that would have, for example, a meadow of flowers in 
> focus from a couple of metres to the horizon. This is particularly 
> noticeable with a 'standard' lens or short telephoto (150mm or 
210mm 
> with a Better Light, a bit longer than that for 4x5 film due to the 
> slight crop factor), though it's still noticeable with a 90mm. 
> Ultrawides like the crazy 47mm Super Angulon I use sometimes do 
> obviously help, but you don't always want to shoot with something 
that 
> extreme. I've had very good results from using a 90mm Super Angulon 
with 
> a small amount of tilt to rotate the plane of focus  -- this is the 
> *real* secret of pin-sharp large format landscapes. Stopping down 
to 
> f/64 will indeed give far more depth of field, but it does very 
> noticeable soften the image. It's not so noticeable with film, but 
it's 
> *very* noticeable with a modern digital sensor, so tilts and swings 
are 
> where it's at in practical terms unfortunately. (And I mean 
> *unfortunately* -- getting them right is difficult and time 
consuming)
> 
> [s]
>


can you explain IR high-pass and low-pass filters to me?  i'm not 
familiar with IR.  thanks.

Hi-pass lets you choose which frequencies are passed to the sensor/film. works the same with low pass. The darkroom light is hi-pass. Can be like tone controls or rumble filters on a hi-fi.

This is just selective filtering and success depends on what you can find.  If you know any IR imaging engineers/designers for space orbit, you might get a line on good sources. The pass frequencies are critical.

gar


*********** REPLY SEPARATOR  ***********

On 3/14/08 at 2:46 PM c1asia wrote:

>--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Sarah Thompson 
><sarah@...> wrote:
>>
>> Just my $.02 worth, as someone who likes to shoot B&W IR landscapes 
>with 
>> a Better Light scan back and a large format camera.
>> 
>> I'm quite fond of shooting infrared, partly (mostly?) because it's 
>> really easy to do with a a Better Light scan back. The Better Light 
>has 
>> no built-in IR filter, so you normally need to use an IR high-pass 
>> filter in front of or behind the lens for visible light work. I 
>like to 
>> swap this for a (visible light opaque) IR low pass filter, which 
>makes 
>> it possible to shoot very high quality IR.
>> 
>> The first thing I'll say is that I've not really seen any problems 
>with 
>> any of the glass I own with regard to IR -- whilst it would be 
>difficult 
>> to get a sharp result shooting IR and colour *at the same time*, 
>using 
>> an IR low pass filter and refocussing gives pin-sharp results. 
>There 
>> *is* a focus shift, however, which can be troublesome at times, but 
>the 
>> focus meter capability of the back makes it possible to tweak the 
>focus 
>> and get it right even though it's impossible to actually focus 
>> conventionally (i.e. no visible light to focus with). I've had the 
>> sharpest results with my 150mm Fujinon and my 90mm Super Angulon, 
>but 
>> then, they are my sharpest lenses anyway (not that my 47mm Super 
>Angulon 
>> XL or my 210mm Caltar are exactly blurred either, mind you). As 
>regards 
>> f stops, the usual 'stop down at least 2 stops from wide open, but 
>don't 
>> go too far or you'll get diffraction losses' advice works for IR 
>just 
>> fine, and (I suspect) even more so, because the longer wavelengths 
>> involved will be affected more by smaller apertures, at least in 
>theory. 
>> I've heard people say that IR gives dreamy, slightly blurred images 
>> inherently -- from experience, I can say for certain that this 
>isn't 
>> fundamental to IR because I've had some truly pin-sharp results. It 
>> probably *is* inherent in some IR shooting techniques, particularly 
>IR 
>> film, however. There's a bigish print on my office wall of Split 
>Rock at 
>> Joshua Tree National Monument where pretty much every grain in the 
>> house-sized rock is clearly visible.
>> 
>> My workflow is pretty simple: take the filter off, set the lens 
>wide 
>> open, focus and set shifts, swings and tilts conventionally (I use 
>a 
>> reflex finder as a matter of preference), insert the back, stop 
>down, 
>> put the filter in place, put the back in, refocus, shoot.
>> 
>> To return to the original point, rather than IR for a moment, depth 
>of 
>> field can certainly be an issue with large format cameras shooting 
>> landscapes. The best sharpness is generally found at around 2 to 4 
>stops 
>> narrower than wide open for most LF lenses, but this rarely gives 
>you 
>> depth of field that would have, for example, a meadow of flowers in 
>> focus from a couple of metres to the horizon. This is particularly 
>> noticeable with a 'standard' lens or short telephoto (150mm or 
>210mm 
>> with a Better Light, a bit longer than that for 4x5 film due to the 
>> slight crop factor), though it's still noticeable with a 90mm. 
>> Ultrawides like the crazy 47mm Super Angulon I use sometimes do 
>> obviously help, but you don't always want to shoot with something 
>that 
>> extreme. I've had very good results from using a 90mm Super Angulon 
>with 
>> a small amount of tilt to rotate the plane of focus  -- this is the 
>> *real* secret of pin-sharp large format landscapes. Stopping down 
>to 
>> f/64 will indeed give far more depth of field, but it does very 
>> noticeable soften the image. It's not so noticeable with film, but 
>it's 
>> *very* noticeable with a modern digital sensor, so tilts and swings 
>are 
>> where it's at in practical terms unfortunately. (And I mean 
>> *unfortunately* -- getting them right is difficult and time 
>consuming)
>> 
>> [s]
>>
>
>
>can you explain IR high-pass and low-pass filters to me?  i'm not 
>familiar with IR.  thanks.
>
>
>
>------------------------------------
>
>Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other resources as
>they are often being updated.
>
>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>
>If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to
>unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same
>page.
>
>Please follow these basic guidelines:
>- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
>them short.
>- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames.
>Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the
>membership without notice.
>- Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W
>printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be removed from
>the membership.
>- By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and
>guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group Owner
>and Moderators. See “Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines” in the Files
>section:
>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/
>
>BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT
>YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE “OWNER” AND
>“MODERATORS” OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO
>YOU FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR
>EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF
>PROFITS, GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE 
>“OWNER” AND “MODERATORS” OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN
>ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE
>OR THE INABILITY TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii)
>UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii)
>STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT
>YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE
>PRINT YAHOO GROUP.
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

c1asia wrote:
> can you explain IR high-pass and low-pass filters to me? i'm not
> familiar with IR.  thanks.
>
>   
OK, it's easiest to start with a bit of basic physics. Light is part of 
the electromagnetic spectrum, along with radio waves, microwaves, X-rays 
and gamma rays. Like all the other forms of electromagnetic radiation, 
light (visible or otherwise) has a characteristic frequency. Radio 
receivers tune to a particular frequency by filtering out other 
frequencies that aren't relevant -- similarly, the human eye perceives 
colour with three sets of colour receptors, one tuned for red, another 
tuned for green and another for blue. In terms of frequency, red is the 
lowest that is visible, then green, with blue being the highest. 
Infrared light isn't visible because the frequency is too low for it to 
be detected by any of the three sets of receptors -- the name basically 
literally means 'lower frequency than red'. In photography, we generally 
deal with what is known as short wavelength IR, also known as near-IR. 
This is close to visible light in frequency, and should not be confused 
with 'seeing heat' -- the thermal imager footage often seen on TV is 
actually much lower frequency (longer wavelength) than the kind of light 
normally dealt with in infrared photography.

Conventional film is only significantly sensitive to visible light, so 
no special technology is needed in cameras or lenses in order to capture 
visible light images. However, silicon imagers, including both the CCD- 
and CMOS-based sensors used in digital cameras, are actually sensitive 
well into the infrared as well as to visible light. This is a 
consequence of the physics involved, it's not something that is 
generally deliberately engineered in. Normally, this infrared 
sensitivity isn't something you want, because it can tend to cause weird 
colour shifts, particularly in strong daylight (where there is a *lot* 
of infrared from the sun). As a consequence, nearly all digital cameras 
contain an infrared high pass filter -- literally, this is a piece of 
specially treated glass that typically looks like it has a slight 
cyan-blue cast to the naked eye, which blocks infrared very strongly, 
whilst passing through visible light more or less unaltered. As I 
mentioned in my previous post, the Better Light doesn't have a high pass 
filter on its sensor, so you have to use an actual filter attached to 
the lens. This means that you can take this off and replace it with an 
infrared low pass filter that blocks visible light and passes infrared 
-- this is key to getting good sharpness in infrared, because lenses 
have a slight focus shift toward the IR, so it is difficult to get both 
IR and visible light in focus at the same time.

Hope this helps,
Sarah

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Sarah Thompson 
<sarah@...> wrote:
>
> c1asia wrote:
> > can you explain IR high-pass and low-pass filters to me? i'm not
> > familiar with IR.  thanks.
> >
> >   
> OK, it's easiest to start with a bit of basic physics. Light is 
part of 
> the electromagnetic spectrum, along with radio waves, microwaves, X-
rays 
> and gamma rays. Like all the other forms of electromagnetic 
radiation, 
> light (visible or otherwise) has a characteristic frequency. Radio 
> receivers tune to a particular frequency by filtering out other 
> frequencies that aren't relevant -- similarly, the human eye 
perceives 
> colour with three sets of colour receptors, one tuned for red, 
another 
> tuned for green and another for blue. In terms of frequency, red is 
the 
> lowest that is visible, then green, with blue being the highest. 
> Infrared light isn't visible because the frequency is too low for 
it to 
> be detected by any of the three sets of receptors -- the name 
basically 
> literally means 'lower frequency than red'. In photography, we 
generally 
> deal with what is known as short wavelength IR, also known as near-
IR. 
> This is close to visible light in frequency, and should not be 
confused 
> with 'seeing heat' -- the thermal imager footage often seen on TV 
is 
> actually much lower frequency (longer wavelength) than the kind of 
light 
> normally dealt with in infrared photography.
> 
> Conventional film is only significantly sensitive to visible light, 
so 
> no special technology is needed in cameras or lenses in order to 
capture 
> visible light images. However, silicon imagers, including both the 
CCD- 
> and CMOS-based sensors used in digital cameras, are actually 
sensitive 
> well into the infrared as well as to visible light. This is a 
> consequence of the physics involved, it's not something that is 
> generally deliberately engineered in. Normally, this infrared 
> sensitivity isn't something you want, because it can tend to cause 
weird 
> colour shifts, particularly in strong daylight (where there is a 
*lot* 
> of infrared from the sun). As a consequence, nearly all digital 
cameras 
> contain an infrared high pass filter -- literally, this is a piece 
of 
> specially treated glass that typically looks like it has a slight 
> cyan-blue cast to the naked eye, which blocks infrared very 
strongly, 
> whilst passing through visible light more or less unaltered. As I 
> mentioned in my previous post, the Better Light doesn't have a high 
pass 
> filter on its sensor, so you have to use an actual filter attached 
to 
> the lens. This means that you can take this off and replace it with 
an 
> infrared low pass filter that blocks visible light and passes 
infrared 
> -- this is key to getting good sharpness in infrared, because 
lenses 
> have a slight focus shift toward the IR, so it is difficult to get 
both 
> IR and visible light in focus at the same time.
> 
> Hope this helps,
> Sarah
>


thanks.  i hadn't heard the terms "high pass" and "low pass" but now 
i understand.  i've always heard it as "IR cut filter" and "IR pass 
filter" where the former cuts IR and the latter cuts visible light.  
i read somewhere (can't remember where) that with the newer DSLRs 
with live view, if you convert them to dedicated IR cameras, you can 
focus more accurately with the live view on IR than with the lens.  
the reasoning is that the focus is based right off the sensor rather 
than through mirrors and eyepiece.

i'm still waiting for iraw mono -- supposedly a superior raw 
converter for modified digital cameras using dedicated 830nm low pass 
filters.  see http://khromagery.com.au/IRaw.html

Hi Sarah,
I would love to see some IR pictures from your camera.
After reading about the scan back, it seems it would not be
very good for action shots :).

Thanks
Mike J.

-----Original Message-----
From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of Sarah
Thompson
Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2008 2:59 PM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: Clarification - Depth of Field and Landscapes

Just my $.02 worth, as someone who likes to shoot B&W IR landscapes with
a Better Light scan back and a large format camera.

I'm quite fond of shooting infrared, partly (mostly?) because it's
really easy to do with a a Better Light scan back. The Better Light has
no built-in IR filter, so you normally need to use an IR high-pass
filter in front of or behind the lens for visible light work. I like to
swap this for a (visible light opaque) IR low pass filter, which makes
it possible to shoot very high quality IR

... snip ...
[s]