Digital BW, The Print

I'm having good results with Eboni-6 in the 1800.  While there may be 
interesting and unique ink installations, I'm inclined to go with the 
stock Eboni-6 inks, but in an ink order that makes the most sense in 
the 1800.  This ink order I currently think is best simply follows the 
color wheel.  It prints well with the Epson drive and facilitates Epson 
curves and a color managed workflow.

See http://www.paulroark.com/BW-Info/Eboni-6-1800.pdf

With QTR the Eboni-6 (which maybe ought to be called Eboni-1800 for 
this printer) workflow can be combined with the 3-MK workflow -- not 
only in the sense that the same printer can have both approaches 
installed, but also in that the QTR profiles will be able to be 
combined via the sliders in QTR.  Initial experiments with this are 
producing some very intersting results, basically sliding between Eboni-
6 smoothness and 3-MK neutrality.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

Hi Paul,

My Epson R1800 died with a severe yellow clog and I began to use HP
printers for a while but they have other problems, too. Recently I
acquired a used R1800 on craigslist and began to use the MIS OEM
refill tools and now I can really say I know how to use this printer.
I can swap the OEM chips by switching the entire piece that holds the
chip, it's much faster and safer than having to touch the chip itself.

There are other techniques that allows me to keep the printer in great
shape and troublefree operation that makes me fall in love with the
R1800 all over again. The best technique I found is I always use
cleaning cartridges to quickly get clean nozzle checks, often with
just one push of the ink replace button, then quietly swap back the
color carts without the printer ever knows what's going on (I had to
scroll saw the top cover to make this work), and print some purge
pages using QTR. Bypassing the ink priming cycle sure prevents lots of
problems. Then I reverse the process before an anticipated period of
non use.

So your continuing work on this printer is much appreciated. I'm
looking forward to employ the 1800 eboni-6 in this printer. Do you
have a write up on the Eboni-1800/3-MK combination QTR workflow
somewhere, or is this something you're planing to do?

Thanks,
--nick

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "pr_roark"
<pr_roark@...> wrote:

>
> I'm having good results with Eboni-6 in the
> 1800.  While there may be interesting and unique
> ink installations, I'm inclined to go with the
> stock Eboni-6 inks, but in an ink order that
> makes the most sense in the 1800.  This ink
> order I currently think is best simply follows
> the color wheel.  It prints well with the Epson
> drive and facilitates Epson curves and a color
> managed workflow.
> 
> See
> http://www.paulroark.com/BW-Info/Eboni-6-1800.pd
> 
> With QTR the Eboni-6 (which maybe ought to be
> called Eboni-1800 for this printer) workflow can
> be combined with the 3-MK workflow -- not only
> in the sense that the same printer can have both
> approaches installed, but also in that the QTR
> profiles will be able to be combined via the
> sliders in QTR.  Initial experiments with this
> are producing some very intersting results,
> basically sliding between Eboni- 6 smoothness
> and 3-MK neutrality.
> 
> Paul
> www.PaulRoark.com
>

That's good news, Paul, I know you'll keep us posted. Perhaps at some
point down the line it will be also be possible to use the C-6
approach. This has an economic appeal, as far as I can tell from your
pdf document on that approach. Everything in its own time, however.
Thanks for all the good work!

Paul

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "pr_roark"
<pr_roark@...> wrote:

>
> I'm having good results with Eboni-6 in the 1800.  While there may be 
> interesting and unique ink installations, I'm inclined to go with the 
> stock Eboni-6 inks, but in an ink order that makes the most sense in 
> the 1800.  This ink order I currently think is best simply follows the 
> color wheel.  It prints well with the Epson drive and facilitates Epson 
> curves and a color managed workflow.
> 
> See http://www.paulroark.com/BW-Info/Eboni-6-1800.pdf
> 
> With QTR the Eboni-6 (which maybe ought to be called Eboni-1800 for 
> this printer) workflow can be combined with the 3-MK workflow -- not 
> only in the sense that the same printer can have both approaches 
> installed, but also in that the QTR profiles will be able to be 
> combined via the sliders in QTR.  Initial experiments with this are 
> producing some very intersting results, basically sliding between Eboni-
> 6 smoothness and 3-MK neutrality.
> 
> Paul
> www.PaulRoark.com
>

Hi Nick,


> ...
> I can swap the OEM chips by switching the entire piece that 
> holds the chip, it's much faster and safer than having to 
> touch the chip itself.

Interesting.  What empty carts that would be suitable for third party 
inks are you using with the OEM chips?  I just have the usual MIS 
carts, and I don't think that would work -- or does it?


> There are other techniques that allows me to keep the printer
> in great shape and troublefree operation ...

> The best technique I found is I always use
> cleaning cartridges to quickly get clean nozzle checks, often with
> just one push of the ink replace button, then quietly swap back the
> color carts without the printer ever knows what's going on (I had to
> scroll saw the top cover to make this work), and print some purge
> pages using QTR. Bypassing the ink priming cycle sure prevents 
> lots of problems. Then I reverse the process before an 
> nticipated period of non use.

So, as I understand it, you cut out a part of the inside of the case 
above the carts so you can replace the carts without hitting the ink 
changing button.  Correct?

If this is correct, then it sounds like you occassionally put in 
cleaning carts and simply print a purge pattern with QTR to do the 
cleaning or when the printer is going to sit idle for a while?

> ... I'm looking forward to employ the 1800 eboni-6 in this 
> printer. Do you have a write up on the Eboni-1800/3-MK 
> combination QTR workflow somewhere, or is this something 
> you're planing to do?

I just have not had time to do any more yet.  However, I do intend to 
write up more as I have time.  I'll put whatever I do at the existing 
PDF address -- http://www.paulroark.com/BW-Info/Eboni-6-1800.pdf

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "pr_roark"
<pr_roark@...> wrote:
> ...
> > I can swap the OEM chips by switching the entire
> > piece that holds the chip, it's much faster and
> > safer than having to touch the chip itself.
> 
> Interesting.  What empty carts that would be
> suitable for third party inks are you using with
> the OEM chips?  I just have the usual MIS carts,
> and I don't think that would work -- or does it?

Actually I'm using the Epson OEM carts using the
refill adapter (a rubber ball plug with its
receptor). Using the OEM cart you can just pull
out the entire chip block with a pair of pliers
without the clumsiness of prying the chip with a
small screwdriver. I can swap the chip blocks
for the whole 8 ink set in about ... 30 seconds.
 
> So, as I understand it, you cut out a part of
> the inside of the case above the carts so you
> can replace the carts without hitting the ink
> changing button.  Correct?

Yes.

> If this is correct, then it sounds like you
> occasionally put in cleaning carts and simply
> print a purge pattern with QTR to do the
> cleaning or when the printer is going to sit
> idle for a while?

Yes. Now I don't bother to use the chip
resetter, but use the SSC utility to reset the
ink levels - this is much faster. I don't even
bother to use SSC's ink counters (head shots)
to figure out when to refill, but instead weigh
the cartridge with an ounce scale since it's so
easy to just remove the cart and place it right
back.

I discovered that it's the ink priming cycle
that introduces foam into the heads much more
than the act of removing the cartridge and place
it back in, at least not so much as we often
dreaded. Using this technique I almost never
allow the printer to use its destructive
cleaning pump at all. But if it does get
activated for some reason and I got missing
jets, I just plug back the OEM carts filled with
cleaning fluid by pushing the ink change button,
get good nozzle check immediately, well almost
always immediately. Then quietly sneak the color
carts back in then run QTR to purge.

These days I can clear clogs in minutes instead
of hours. And the ease at which I can plug the
cleaning carts back in help me to almost never
the leave the color carts in to avoid ink
settling problem which could kill the head.

This also makes it very to switch the printer
for monochrome printing.

However one can easily adapt this technique to
use refillable carts instead of OEM - easier
refill though a little clumsier chip swapping.
The key is in the ability to replace cart
without pushing the ink change button.

--nick

Hi Paul,

Are you still shooting film or have you "gone digital"?

I shoot mostly digital, and want more maga-pixle. New cameras coming 
out soon look interesting.

Have you shot any of the microfilms....?

Thanks,
Scott

I still shoot film. The fuji Pro 160S scanned on a Fuji Frontier at Walmart gives you an outstanding result. My take on this one is that scanners are like digital cameras. They always get better and I can always scan my films with a better resolution. Once it is shot with a digital camera, this is what you get. 
my 0.02

PO

From: scott_now_coming 
Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2008 10:28 AM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com 
Subject: [Digital BW] OT: Film or digital


Hi Paul,

Are you still shooting film or have you "gone digital"?

I shoot mostly digital, and want more maga-pixle. New cameras coming 
out soon look interesting.

Have you shot any of the microfilms....?

Thanks,
Scott



 

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

Until they stop making film and film scanners (look around the corner)

Mark
http://www.stillrivereditions.com

On Sep 18, 2008, at 10:50 AM, Le Globe Trotteur wrote:

>  My take on this one is that scanners are like digital cameras.  
> They always get better and I can always scan my films with a better  
> resolution. Once it is shot with a digital camera, this is what you  
> get.
> my 0.02



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

True...We'll see...

From: Mark Savoia 
Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2008 10:52 AM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com 
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] OT: Film or digital


Until they stop making film and film scanners (look around the corner)

Mark
http://www.stillrivereditions.com

On Sep 18, 2008, at 10:50 AM, Le Globe Trotteur wrote:

> My take on this one is that scanners are like digital cameras. 
> They always get better and I can always scan my films with a better 
> resolution. Once it is shot with a digital camera, this is what you 
> get.
> my 0.02

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



 

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

But that is pretty darn good from a high end 35mm or 2 1/4 back,  
especially shot in RAW. I have made some hugh prints and being there  
is no grain.......

Mark
http://www.stillrivereditions.com

On Sep 18, 2008, at 11:36 AM, Le Globe Trotteur wrote:

>> Once it is shot with a digital camera, this is what you
>> get.



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

I still shoot film as well (hell, I am still shooting with an ALL-MANUAL camera!) and use an Epson 4990 flatbed scanner. I am looking into getting the fluid mount soon, too. It works perfectly for me :)

AnnMarie Tornabene
www.annmarietornabene.net

I've given this digital stuff a try, and it just doesn't do anything 
for me. It does have a good place in news and family photography. 
I started shooting large format B&W 40 years ago on the 27 of this 
month. I stopped for a year to shoot strictly digital and I'm going to 
quit digital for anything but family snapshots. This thread started me 
evaluating how the last year has gone, and I made the decision to 
clean my darkroom up and start it up again. If they stop making film I 
still know how to make wet colloidial plates and I use Pyro and have 
enough film frozen to last 20 years.
You folks can have all this techno stuff.
Dennis
--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, AnnMarie 
Tornabene <faeofavalon@...> wrote:
>
> I still shoot film as well (hell, I am still shooting with an ALL-
MANUAL camera!) and use an Epson 4990 flatbed scanner. I am looking 
into getting the fluid mount soon, too. It works perfectly for me :)

> 
> AnnMarie Tornabene
> www.annmarietornabene.net
>

"It does have a good place in news and family photography."  

I really beg to differ. We all choose the methods that work for us, and it's wonderful that 
you have discovered how you prefer to work and with what tools. However, that sort of 
dismissive statement on this forum might get you a raspberry or two. ;)~  


Sarah




--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Dennis  Baecht" <dbaecht@...> 
wrote:

>
> I've given this digital stuff a try, and it just doesn't do anything 
> for me. It does have a good place in news and family photography. 
> I started shooting large format B&W 40 years ago on the 27 of this 
> month. I stopped for a year to shoot strictly digital and I'm going to 
> quit digital for anything but family snapshots. This thread started me 
> evaluating how the last year has gone, and I made the decision to 
> clean my darkroom up and start it up again. If they stop making film I 
> still know how to make wet colloidial plates and I use Pyro and have 
> enough film frozen to last 20 years.
> You folks can have all this techno stuff.
> Dennis
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, AnnMarie 
> Tornabene <faeofavalon@> wrote:
> >
> > I still shoot film as well (hell, I am still shooting with an ALL-
> MANUAL camera!) and use an Epson 4990 flatbed scanner. I am looking 
> into getting the fluid mount soon, too. It works perfectly for me :)
> > 
> > AnnMarie Tornabene
> > www.annmarietornabene.net
> >
>

I love this forum...Keep me updated on the technology. So I still use film and I shoot only when I see is worth having because film is more expensive than digital. I also have binders full of negs instead of HD space filling up.
I use my darkroom for silver prints. I love to see the photo revealing itself in the tray. Still magic to me.
My process is:
Shoot Film
Have it scanned
Retouch and convert to B&W in photoshop. (that where I think digital is awesome. hard to do under a traditional enlarger)
Create an curve using my own plug-in.
Print  the photo with the curve generated above using my epson printer and a CIS. (use dye...no need for pigment.)
Contact print this inkjet print with my Ilford FB paper.
Develop in the trays, stop, fix and wash.

Dry mount...

I get an old traditional silver print that matches the B&W  displayed on my screen...Perfect blacks and white.
I do not think I would be able to obtain the same output if I only used my neg in the enlarger. Photoshop is the key in this process.

Best of both world. No bronzing, spray.....

My 0.02

PO

From: Dennis Baecht 
Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2008 6:55 PM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com 
Subject: [Digital BW] Re:OT: Film or digital


I've given this digital stuff a try, and it just doesn't do anything 
for me. It does have a good place in news and family photography. 
I started shooting large format B&W 40 years ago on the 27 of this 
month. I stopped for a year to shoot strictly digital and I'm going to 
quit digital for anything but family snapshots. This thread started me 
evaluating how the last year has gone, and I made the decision to 
clean my darkroom up and start it up again. If they stop making film I 
still know how to make wet colloidial plates and I use Pyro and have 
enough film frozen to last 20 years.
You folks can have all this techno stuff.
Dennis
--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, AnnMarie 
Tornabene <faeofavalon@...> wrote:
>
> I still shoot film as well (hell, I am still shooting with an ALL-
MANUAL camera!) and use an Epson 4990 flatbed scanner. I am looking 
into getting the fluid mount soon, too. It works perfectly for me :)
> 
> AnnMarie Tornabene
> www.annmarietornabene.net
>



 

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

Yep.� Not to forget that learning digital is not as easy as a mouse click.� Think about how long it took to master the wet process.� Digital will take you almost as long.� I'm an 'ex' 4x5 and 8x10 photographer.� (Damn those are heavy beasts.)
�
Tom Baker

--- On Thu, 9/18/08, Sarah Renkes <sagaface@...> wrote:

From: Sarah Renkes <sagaface@...>
Subject: [Digital BW] Re:OT: Film or digital
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Date: Thursday, September 18, 2008, 5:02 PM






"It does have a good place in news and family photography. " 

I really beg to differ. We all choose the methods that work for us, and it's wonderful that 
you have discovered how you prefer to work and with what tools. However, that sort of 
dismissive statement on this forum might get you a raspberry or two. ;)~ 

Sarah

--- In DigitalBlackandWhit eThePrint@ yahoogroups. com, "Dennis Baecht" <dbaecht@... > 
wrote:
>
> I've given this digital stuff a try, and it just doesn't do anything 
> for me. It does have a good place in news and family photography. 
> I started shooting large format B&W 40 years ago on the 27 of this 
> month. I stopped for a year to shoot strictly digital and I'm going to 
> quit digital for anything but family snapshots. This thread started me 
> evaluating how the last year has gone, and I made the decision to 
> clean my darkroom up and start it up again. If they stop making film I 
> still know how to make wet colloidial plates and I use Pyro and have 
> enough film frozen to last 20 years.
> You folks can have all this techno stuff.
> Dennis
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhit eThePrint@ yahoogroups. com, AnnMarie 
> Tornabene <faeofavalon@ > wrote:
> >
> > I still shoot film as well (hell, I am still shooting with an ALL-
> MANUAL camera!) and use an Epson 4990 flatbed scanner. I am looking 
> into getting the fluid mount soon, too. It works perfectly for me :)
> > 
> > AnnMarie Tornabene
> > www.annmarietornabe ne.net
> >
>

 













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

Probably much longer.


--- On Thu, 9/18/08, Tom Baker <tbaker1328@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> From: Tom Baker <tbaker1328@...>
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re:OT: Film or digital
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Thursday, September 18, 2008, 8:33 PM
> Yep.  Not to forget that learning digital is not as easy as
> a mouse click.  Think about how long it took to master the
> wet process.  Digital will take you almost as long. 
> I'm an 'ex' 4x5 and 8x10 photographer.  (Damn
> those are heavy beasts.)
>  
> Tom Baker
> 
> --- On Thu, 9/18/08, Sarah Renkes
> <sagaface@...> wrote:
> 
> From: Sarah Renkes <sagaface@...>
> Subject: [Digital BW] Re:OT: Film or digital
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Thursday, September 18, 2008, 5:02 PM
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "It does have a good place in news and family
> photography. " 
> 
> I really beg to differ. We all choose the methods that work
> for us, and it's wonderful that 
> you have discovered how you prefer to work and with what
> tools. However, that sort of 
> dismissive statement on this forum might get you a
> raspberry or two. ;)~ 
> 
> Sarah
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhit eThePrint@ yahoogroups. com,
> "Dennis Baecht" <dbaecht@... > 
> wrote:
> >
> > I've given this digital stuff a try, and it just
> doesn't do anything 
> > for me. It does have a good place in news and family
> photography. 
> > I started shooting large format B&W 40 years ago
> on the 27 of this 
> > month. I stopped for a year to shoot strictly digital
> and I'm going to 
> > quit digital for anything but family snapshots. This
> thread started me 
> > evaluating how the last year has gone, and I made the
> decision to 
> > clean my darkroom up and start it up again. If they
> stop making film I 
> > still know how to make wet colloidial plates and I use
> Pyro and have 
> > enough film frozen to last 20 years.
> > You folks can have all this techno stuff.
> > Dennis
> > --- In DigitalBlackandWhit eThePrint@ yahoogroups.
> com, AnnMarie 
> > Tornabene <faeofavalon@ > wrote:
> > >
> > > I still shoot film as well (hell, I am still
> shooting with an ALL-
> > MANUAL camera!) and use an Epson 4990 flatbed scanner.
> I am looking 
> > into getting the fluid mount soon, too. It works
> perfectly for me :)
> > > 
> > > AnnMarie Tornabene
> > > www.annmarietornabe ne.net
> > >
> >
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [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
> 
> 
>     (Yahoo! ID required)
> 
>    
> mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
> 
>

Almost entirely 35mm film (the balance gets shot with an Olympus C-8080 
digital). Scanning chores are split between a UMAX PowerLook 2100XL 
tabloid flatbed (digital "contact" sheets from entire rolls of film, 
among other things) and a Minolta DS 5400 film scanner. Prints, both 
b/w and color, are printed on an HP 8750 (I like the b/w output "lots" 
on this printer, but the color output holds its own as well...I opened 
a one-person show last week with color prints made on on it).


- Barrett

Scott,


> Hi Paul,
> 
> Are you still shooting film or have you "gone digital"?

My main camera is a Bronica RF 645 with the 45 mm lens.  I expect it 
to remain in use for a while.

For serious B&W landscape shooting where I want a medium telephoto, I 
still take the 135 mm lens for the Bronica, but, as I noted just 
above, I bought a Canon 90mm Tilt Shift lens in anticipation of the 
new 5D.

I've found that 11 x 14 prints with my 8 mp camera are usual fine 
with a very good medium telephoto.  Digital wide angle is still too 
plagued with artifacts for my liking.  So, the 21 mp of the new Canon 
and the full frame should (I hope) be enough to satisfy my 
requirements at least when an excellent prime, symetrical lens is 
used.  The 90 TS fits the bill perfectly.  I very much miss the tilt 
of my Rollei SL66. (I still have the system, but it's a heavy and 
can't handle Tech Pan film well.)  So, the 90 TS with a full frame 21 
mp DSLR is my ticket back to the perspective I really like the best --
 and what is used for the image (Cambria Surf) that is on my home 
page now.


> I shoot mostly digital, and want more maga-pixle. 
> New cameras coming out soon look interesting.

See the post above.

> Have you shot any of the microfilms....?

No, I have a freezer full to MF Tech Pan, so I'm set for some time to 
come.  A MF TP wide angle shot is going to be very hard for any 
digital camera that costs less than $20,000 to match.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

This lens may be one of the best wides available for the 5D II:
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0809/08091901carl_zeiss_distagon_t_21mm.asp

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "pr_roark" <pr_roark@...> wrote:

>
> Scott,
> 
> 
> > Hi Paul,
> > 
> > Are you still shooting film or have you "gone digital"?
> 
> My main camera is a Bronica RF 645 with the 45 mm lens.  I expect it 
> to remain in use for a while.
> 
> For serious B&W landscape shooting where I want a medium telephoto, I 
> still take the 135 mm lens for the Bronica, but, as I noted just 
> above, I bought a Canon 90mm Tilt Shift lens in anticipation of the 
> new 5D.
> 
> I've found that 11 x 14 prints with my 8 mp camera are usual fine 
> with a very good medium telephoto.  Digital wide angle is still too 
> plagued with artifacts for my liking.  So, the 21 mp of the new Canon 
> and the full frame should (I hope) be enough to satisfy my 
> requirements at least when an excellent prime, symetrical lens is 
> used.  The 90 TS fits the bill perfectly.  I very much miss the tilt 
> of my Rollei SL66. (I still have the system, but it's a heavy and 
> can't handle Tech Pan film well.)  So, the 90 TS with a full frame 21 
> mp DSLR is my ticket back to the perspective I really like the best --
>  and what is used for the image (Cambria Surf) that is on my home 
> page now.
> 
> 
> > I shoot mostly digital, and want more maga-pixle. 
> > New cameras coming out soon look interesting.
> 
> See the post above.
> 
> > Have you shot any of the microfilms....?
> 
> No, I have a freezer full to MF Tech Pan, so I'm set for some time to 
> come.  A MF TP wide angle shot is going to be very hard for any 
> digital camera that costs less than $20,000 to match.
> 
> Paul
> www.PaulRoark.com
>

> This lens may be one of the best wides available for the 5D II:
> 
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0809/08091901carl_zeiss_distagon_t_21mm.asp

I love seeing competition with the OEM lenses by top optical 
companies.  But, I must say, I have a "legendary Distagon" lens on my 
SL66, and like all other retro-focus lenses, even when film is used 
they are second rate compared to symetrical designs.  When one adds the 
digital artifacts to the retrofocus wide angle performance, the results 
I've seen leaves a fair amount to be desired.  

What I would like to see is high resolution MTF curves of these 
lenses.  While Canon's low resolution MTF charts are of some value, I 
have yet to find a substitute for the old Photodo tests and actually 
trying the lens.  Some of the European magazines may have these, but 
I'm not that familiar with them.  

I suspect the digital wide angle that will convert me will be a 
symetrical lens design on a dedicated wide angle rangefinder, 20+ mp 
camera.  Microlenses on the sensor that are matched to the short focal 
length probably have the best chance of catching MF and larger format 
film performance, and I think several companies are moving in that 
direction.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com   

> > <pr_roark@> wrote:
> ... 
> > My main camera is a Bronica RF 645 with the 45 mm lens.  
> > I expect it to remain in use for a while.
> > 
> > ... but, as I noted just above, I bought a Canon 
> > 90mm Tilt Shift lens in anticipation of the new 5D.
> > 
> > ...  Digital wide angle is still too plagued with artifacts ...

pr_roark wrote:
>> This lens may be one of the best wides available for the 5D II:
>>
> http://www.dpreview.com/news/0809/08091901carl_zeiss_distagon_t_21mm.asp
> 
> I love seeing competition with the OEM lenses by top optical 
> companies.  But, I must say, I have a "legendary Distagon" lens on my 
> SL66, and like all other retro-focus lenses, even when film is used 
> they are second rate compared to symetrical designs.  When one adds the 
> digital artifacts to the retrofocus wide angle performance, the results 
> I've seen leaves a fair amount to be desired.  
> 
> What I would like to see is high resolution MTF curves of these 
> lenses.  While Canon's low resolution MTF charts are of some value, I 
> have yet to find a substitute for the old Photodo tests and actually 
> trying the lens.  Some of the European magazines may have these, but 
> I'm not that familiar with them.  
> 
> I suspect the digital wide angle that will convert me will be a 
> symetrical lens design on a dedicated wide angle rangefinder, 20+ mp 
> camera.  Microlenses on the sensor that are matched to the short focal 
> length probably have the best chance of catching MF and larger format 
> film performance, and I think several companies are moving in that 
> direction.

I guess for true symmetrical wide angles you have to stay
with film. None of the wide angle designs from Leica,
Schneider, Rodenstock for digital sensors used without a
mirror box is symmetrical and the trend in new designs
(Leica) show it even more. They do not have to be retro-focus
in that case but they all try to get the angle right at
which the light rays fall on the sensor. Biogon designs are
not symmetrical either and tend to become less symmetrical
too. If the "symmetrical" actually refers to non retro-focus
then there's plenty choice.

What is available from European tests is represented on the
Photozone pages and in Colorfoto test downloads (available
for a fee). I'm not that familiar with the tests to know
which one is better or measures up to the old Photodo tests.
These days they have to be tested for every sensor type to
know what the combined result is so plain lens tests are not
saying enough. For non DSLR you better read what Erwin Puts
writes about M mount lenses. The recent Leica wide angles
are no longer short either.

www.photozone.de
www.colorfoto.de

http://www.imx.nl/photo/Analysis/page118/page118.html


-- 
Met vriendelijke groeten,  Ernst


|  Dinkla Grafische Techniek  |
|     www.pigment-print.com    |
|             ( unvollendet )            |

> > I have a "legendary Distagon" lens on my 
> > SL66, and like all other retro-focus lenses, even 
> > when film is used they are second rate compared to 
> > symetrical designs. 

It would have been better to say "more symetrical" lens.  I'm not 
sure there are exactly symetrical ones outside, perhaps, 1:1 copy 
lenses.  The typical SLR "retrofocus" lenses, however, have had to 
stretch the rear lens to film distance beyond what is optimum for 
most image quality factors, particularly for film shooting, and I can 
sure see the differences when comparing them to rangefinder wide 
angles and SLR relatively symetrical "normal" and medium telephoto 
lenses. 

> ...  they all try to get the angle right at
> which the light rays fall on the sensor. 

Yes, the reality of current sensors has caused companies to try to 
get those light rays coming in at a more perpendicular angle.  That's 
why I think progress on micro-lenses over the pixels is part of what 
is needed to get the best digital wide angle images.  Of course, I'm 
speculating.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

I take a survival stance. Digital is another tool, but I don't bank on it (my hobby, I don't cater to buyers).

gar

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

On 9/18/2008 at 10:55 PM Dennis  Baecht wrote:

>I've given this digital stuff a try, and it just doesn't do anything 
>for me. It does have a good place in news and family photography. 
>I started shooting large format B&W 40 years ago on the 27 of this 
>month. I stopped for a year to shoot strictly digital and I'm going to 
>quit digital for anything but family snapshots. This thread started me 
>evaluating how the last year has gone, and I made the decision to 
>clean my darkroom up and start it up again. If they stop making film I 
>still know how to make wet colloidial plates and I use Pyro and have 
>enough film frozen to last 20 years.
>You folks can have all this techno stuff.
>Dennis
>--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, AnnMarie 
>Tornabene <faeofavalon@...> wrote:
>>
>> I still shoot film as well (hell, I am still shooting with an ALL-
>MANUAL camera!) and use an Epson 4990 flatbed scanner. I am looking 
>into getting the fluid mount soon, too. It works perfectly for me :)
>> 
>> AnnMarie Tornabene
>> www.annmarietornabene.net
>>
>
>
>
>------------------------------------
>
>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
>
>
>

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Nick H. Nugent" <nghin@...> 
wrote:

> Actually I'm using the Epson OEM carts using the
> refill adapter (a rubber ball plug with its
> receptor). Using the OEM cart you can just pull
> out the entire chip block with a pair of pliers
> without the clumsiness of prying the chip with a
> small screwdriver. I can swap the chip blocks
> for the whole 8 ink set in about ... 30 seconds.

Are you still around Nick?  I read your exchange with a great deal of interest and have 
some questions.

I can see the plastic block on the Epson carts, is it attached with any adhesive or plastic 
welding or just snapped into place?  All my Epson carts are still half full or so so I can 
visualize how a heavy hand could make a real mess.

Have you sacrificed a cart and opened it up.  I'm curious about the size of the sponge it 
contains, if it contains one, as regards flushing a cart for a different ink.

How did you keep the plastic chips from falling into the mechanism when scroll sawing 
the lid?  I'm also wondering if a hot knife type blade in a soldering iron might do the job 
as well.

I have an inherited 1800 that someone had given up on after CIS leaks had made a mess 
of it, maxed out the counters, etc., so it's a perfect platform to experiment with.  It's 
printing fine now with Paul's 3MK and cleaning carts but I have some other ideas I'd like 
to play with as well.

Hi Robert,

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "robert49brake"
<robert49brake@...> wrote:
> ... 
> I can see the plastic block on the Epson carts,
> is it attached with any adhesive or plastic
> welding or just snapped into place?

Just snap into place. The plastic is rather durable as I have worked
with a set at least several dozen times without any problem. There's
no need to use any adhesive.
 
> Have you sacrificed a cart and opened it up.
> I'm curious about the size of the sponge it
> contains, if it contains one, as regards
> flushing a cart for a different ink.

These OEM carts have no sponge. I have successfully used carts from
printers other than the R1800, ie. R2400 and some others without any
problems, you have to of course flush the old ink out first. The R2400
LK and LLK work great in the R1800 for b/w printing.
 
> How did you keep the plastic chips from falling
> into the mechanism when scroll sawing the lid?
> I'm also wondering if a hot knife type blade in
> a soldering iron might do the job as well.

I actually removed the top cover so I could saw off the part. However
your hot knife idea is probably much better.

Let me know if you have any questions.

--nghi

pr_roark wrote:
> It would have been better to say "more symetrical" lens.  I'm not 
> sure there are exactly symetrical ones outside, perhaps, 1:1 copy 
> lenses.  The typical SLR "retrofocus" lenses, however, have had to 
> stretch the rear lens to film distance beyond what is optimum for 
> most image quality factors, particularly for film shooting, and I can 
> sure see the differences when comparing them to rangefinder wide 
> angles and SLR relatively symetrical "normal" and medium telephoto 
> lenses. 

There are plenty of purely symmetrical lenses out there. The view camera 
world is loaded with them. The classic dialyte, planar, and dagor 
designs come to mind.

There are few symmetrical designs for smaller formats because of the 
design restrictions placed on lens design by the camera body. 
Specifically, the lens mount is a fixed distance from the film plane. 
For shorter lenses this can require a retrofocus design, which is 
mandatory for SLR cameras (to accommodate mirror travel) but may be used 
to a lesser degree on rangefinder cameras (to accommodate the shutter 
mechanism). The fixed position lens mount will also effect the design of 
longer lenses because of the requirements of focusing in a fixed lens 
mount. So, in general, smaller format cameras (especially SLR designs) 
seldom have symmetrical lens designs. This is one of the reasons smaller 
formats didn't become really popular until after WWII -- when lens 
coatings improved to the point that the many element asymmetrical lenses 
became practical.

I'm just saying, there are dozens of purely symetrical lens designs in 
active use today. Just not in small format cameras. LF photographers, 
from 5x4 up to 24x20, use them every day. I've got three in my pack as 
we speak. Two I bought new within the last few years, one that dates 
from the 1950s (a classic Goerz Red Dot Apo-Artar -- a dialyte design). 
Razor sharp and fully corrected.

 From an engineering standpoint, these old, simple, sharp, contrasty, 
highly corrected designs are really elegant.
--
Bruce Watson