Digital BW, The Print

I would like to purchase a new (or refurbished) LCD monitor for my PC
to use only for editing black and white photos with Photoshop. Any
reasonably priced recommendations? Thanks. Paula

Define.

Mark
http://www.stillrivereditions.com

On Oct 18, 2008, at 12:53 PM, lawprof2001 wrote:

> Any
> reasonably priced recommendations?

HP has just come out with a new 24" monitor that uses the newest 
generation S-IPS panel.

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "lawprof2001"
<Berg@...> wrote:
>
> I would like to purchase a new (or refurbished) LCD monitor for my PC
> to use only for editing black and white photos with Photoshop. Any
> reasonably priced recommendations? Thanks. Paula
>
19" and 20" LCD monitors
http://www.digitalversus.com/article-411.html

22" LCD monitors
http://www.digitalversus.com/article-358.html

23" to 28" Full HD LCD monitors
http://www.digitalversus.com/article-357.html

Cheers,
Andre

Peter De Smidt wrote:

> HP has just come out with a new 24" monitor that uses the newest 
> generation S-IPS panel. 
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> 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 \ufffdGroup Topic, Rules and Guidelines\ufffd 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 \ufffdOWNER\ufffd AND \ufffdMODERATORS\ufffd 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  \ufffdOWNER\ufffd AND \ufffdMODERATORS\ufffd 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
>
>
>
>
>

See: http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/hp_lp2475w.htm

Hello:

I've used many monitors over the years, and the first suggestion I  
have is to avoid a glossy screen. But that's just my preference.

Here is an excellent and affordable option-with a matte screen:
DellTM  UltraSharpTM  2408WFP 24-inch Flat Panel Monitor

I found this list of refurbs below, and I've purchased a refurb  Dell  
24" 2405FPW (previous version) monitor on behalf of a client with no  
problems. The DellTM  UltraSharpTM  2007WFP 20-inch Flat Panel  
Monitor is really well=priced at $269.

<http://outlet.us.dell.com/ARBOnlineSales/topics/global.aspx/arb/ 
online/en/InventorySearch?c=us&cs=22&l=en&lob=MON&MODEL_DESC=ALL&s=dfh>

or

http://tinyurl.com/fctuc

It is about $450. and they go in and out of stock. One of my students  
recently purchased one and loves it.

There is one issue to consider. If there is a dead pixel (or even a  
few), they may or may not exchange it. Just read the info they  
provide. The 24" monitor I helped a client order and set up was  
flawless.

Hope that helps, and please let me know if you are making better  
prints since the class.

All the best,

Andrew
---------------------------------------------------
Andrew Darlow
Editor, The Imaging Buffet
http://www.imagingbuffet.com
Author, 301 Inkjet Tips and Techniques:
An Essential Printing Resource for Photographers - http:// 
www.inkjettips.com




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

> The DellTM  UltraSharpTM  2007WFP 20-inch Flat Panel  
> Monitor is really well=priced at $269.

I have a model like this.  The screen is very nice but I cannot
recommend it.  It will show a beautiful image with great viewing
angles but the resolution is too high for the screen size.  Text is
way too small.  Yes, you can adjust the text size but then many
webpages are not shown/formatted correctly.  Outlook does not display
many areas with the enlarged font size so the font is so tiny that it
is hard to read (and proof).  Also, some menus still use the smaller
native font size even after the increased size is set (at least in XP
Pro, maybe Vista is better). 

I would go for a 19" with its lower resolution over a 20" just because
it is easier to read. Definitely go for a 24" if you are going for a a
screen larger than 24".  A 26" would be even nicer since it uses the
same resolution ;)

My $.02,

Doug
---
www.BetterScanning.com

>>Definitely go for a 24" if you are going for a a
screen larger than 24".<<

That should be, "Definitely go for a 24" if you are going for any
screen larger than 19"."

Doug
---
www.BetterScanning.com

I like my Samsung 214T monitor much better the my 24" Dell.  The colors are more accurate, making for many more first time prints.  The Dell seem color deprived in the blue-green colors, and I need to do many more reprints then the Samsung.

The Samsung is inexpensive.

I also have two Eizo monitors that are wonderfully color balanced.  But these take a hunk of cash to purchase.  The Samsung is the better value of all the monitors that I have.

Ben



__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 

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

Andre -

 

I glanced at the links you furnished regarding the monitors and noticed that
they did not have either LaCie, Apple or Eizo monitors - all of which I have
understood to be great monitors.  However, I believe that the critical issue
regarding those 3 monitors may be the ability to calibrate the monitor and
adjust the colors.  So, I'm wondering, if one's primary interest is B & W
printing, is there any reason to be worried about calibration?

 

Thanks,


Tom



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

I too have been REALLY looking and looking for some site like these that has somewhat definitive tests and comparisons as the blacks and near blacks on my Lacie CRT's are 
looking pretty funky.  My search results haven't brought on much in the way of up-to-
date reviews or much detail in the reviews.
Throwing money at the issue and getting an Eizo or Lacie isn't an option and I don't have a 
printer worthy of testing what I see onscreen, so thank you for these links and any other 
site referrals that may come!
Eric

> 19" and 20" LCD monitors
> http://www.digitalversus.com/article-411.html
> 
> 22" LCD monitors
> http://www.digitalversus.com/article-358.html
> 
> 23" to 28" Full HD LCD monitors
> http://www.digitalversus.com/article-357.html
> 
> Cheers,
> Andre
>

I am reading this on a Dell 24 set to its highest resolution with late
sixties eyes and have no problem whatsoever.  I use the monitor both
for work and PS and really like it.  

Steve

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

>
> > The DellTM  UltraSharpTM  2007WFP 20-inch Flat Panel  
> > Monitor is really well=priced at $269.
> 
> I have a model like this.  The screen is very nice but I cannot
> recommend it.  It will show a beautiful image with great viewing
> angles but the resolution is too high for the screen size.  Text is
> way too small.  Yes, you can adjust the text size but then many
> webpages are not shown/formatted correctly.  Outlook does not display
> many areas with the enlarged font size so the font is so tiny that it
> is hard to read (and proof).  Also, some menus still use the smaller
> native font size even after the increased size is set (at least in XP
> Pro, maybe Vista is better). 
> 
> I would go for a 19" with its lower resolution over a 20" just because
> it is easier to read. Definitely go for a 24" if you are going for a a
> screen larger than 24".  A 26" would be even nicer since it uses the
> same resolution ;)
> 
> My $.02,
> 
> Doug
> ---
> www.BetterScanning.com
>

Hi,
you might also look at the 215TW which is the wide screen version.

It got excellent reviews.

Richard

Quoting ben schneider <benjschneider2@...>:

> I like my Samsung 214T monitor much better the my 24" Dell.\ufffd The colors
> are more accurate, making for many more first time prints.\ufffd The Dell
> seem color deprived in the blue-green colors, and I need to do many more
> reprints then the Samsung.
> 
> The Samsung is inexpensive.

Richard Smallfield wrote:
> Hi,
> you might also look at the 215TW which is the wide screen version.

With Samsungs it is a mixed bag, some models can be color 
corrected and other models are harder to get in line. Some 
have been distributed with two kinds of panels which makes 
it difficult to say whether they are suitable for color 
control. Then there is the ergonomic side the 225BW had the 
nicer height adjustment that was no longer available on the 
226BW.
Next to the NEC 2690wuxi I have the 205BW that has both the 
right height adjustment and good color control is possible 
on that model.

There are some tools to compare two next to one another, a 
good and a bad exponent of Samsung:

http://www.digitalversus.com/duels.php?ty=6&ma1=36&mo1=120&p1=1287&ma2=36&mo2=199&p2=1949&ph=6

-- 
Met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst


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

Go to Newegg.com and sign up for their newsletter.  It actually is daily 
specials (they ARE one day only).  Free shipping on most items.

Watch for the Samsungs to come up.  Mine was $229--before rebate--nine 
months ago when it hit (22"). 

It has it's own calibration software, but works well my EyeOne. 

Seth

Hi Ernst,
thanks a lot for that - Wow! I would never have expeced such a disparity 
between two similar models.

Both TN however - you obviously find it adequate, which is heartening at that 
price.

If ever there was a case for needing to do market research, it is with monitor 
purchases.

Richard

Quoting Ernst Dinkla <edinkla@...>:
> Next to the NEC 2690wuxi I have the 205BW that has both the 
> right height adjustment and good color control is possible 
> on that model.
> 
> There are some tools to compare two next to one another, a 
> good and a bad exponent of Samsung:
> 
> http://www.digitalversus.com/duels.php?
ty=6&ma1=36&mo1=120&p1=1287&ma2=36&mo2=199&p2=1949&ph=6

www.richardsmallfield.com

Hi,
I have wondered about buying Qimage for a while ... but, being pleased with my 
output, have not been able to justify another software purchase.

Can anyone give three compelling reasons for getting Qimage? I prefer not to 
upsample much anyway (and tend to shoot 25-35mp images), so their improved 
algorithms may not be that important to me.

I sometimes print D70 images on 13x19" paper, but even then I'm not sure their 
pyramid interpolation would be worth the extra purchase.

However, there may be some feature that I've not thought of that is really, 
realy, really, really (really, really) a bit useful.

thanks,
Richard



www.richardsmallfield.com

It cost less then a tank of gas, not much of an investment. There is  
a 30-day trial to download.

Mark
http://www.stillrivereditions.com

On Oct 20, 2008, at 3:04 PM, Richard Smallfield wrote:

> have not been able to justify another software purchase



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

Hi,
back in the days of film I used to get the exposure right first time, nine 
times out of ten (often using a grey card).

Now, with digital, I must confess to having become rather sloppy. I always end 
up with the right exposure, but often after a test shot or two.

Digital has resulted in my thinking less before shooting, because it's so easy 
to reshoot. 

This is a bad habit, because you have to get it right first time on some 
occasions - so getting out of the habit of thinking first is very  
undesireable.

Are others finding the same thing?

I'm working on regaining my former discipline of thinking more first.

I think of Magnum-type photographers who must be very disciplined in this 
regard because they really only get one chance.

Richard

www.richardsmallfield.com

That is why RAW exists.

Mark
http://www.stillrivereditions.com

On Oct 20, 2008, at 3:10 PM, Richard Smallfield wrote:

> Hi,
> back in the days of film I used to get the exposure right first  
> time, nine
> times out of ten (often using a grey card).
>
> Now, with digital, I must confess to having become rather sloppy. I  
> always end
> up with the right exposure, but often after a test shot or two.
>
> Digital has resulted in my thinking less before shooting, because  
> it's so easy
> to reshoot.
>
> This is a bad habit, because you have to get it right first time on  
> some
> occasions - so getting out of the habit of thinking first is very
> undesireable.
>
> Are others finding the same thing?
>
> I'm working on regaining my former discipline of thinking more first.
>
> I think of Magnum-type photographers who must be very disciplined  
> in this
> regard because they really only get one chance.
>
> Richard
>
> www.richardsmallfield.com
>


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

Your exposure SHOULD look "wrong" at first blush with digital.  You  
should expose to the right and be pulling the histogramme to the left  
in your RAW converter.



On 20 Oct 2008, at 20:10, Richard Smallfield wrote:

> Hi,
> back in the days of film I used to get the exposure right first  
> time, nine
> times out of ten (often using a grey card).
>
> Now, with digital, I must confess to having become rather sloppy. I  
> always end
> up with the right exposure, but often after a test shot or two.
>
> Digital has resulted in my thinking less before shooting, because  
> it's so easy
> to reshoot.
>
> This is a bad habit, because you have to get it right first time on  
> some
> occasions - so getting out of the habit of thinking first is very
> undesireable.
>
> Are others finding the same thing?
>
> I'm working on regaining my former discipline of thinking more first.
>
> I think of Magnum-type photographers who must be very disciplined in  
> this
> regard because they really only get one chance.
>
> Richard
>
> www.richardsmallfield.com
>



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

Qimage is really designed for a production environment such that a busy
photo studio might have. For printing one offs it is really overkill.  The
user interface is somewhat idiosyncratic and less than intuitive. I have
used it for some years now but primarily for printing color photos when I
need numbers of 
An assortment of images. It does a fine job of interpolating, probably
better than Photoshop when you have a need to resize up.  It is relatively
inexpensive and having bought it, upgrades, which are frequent, are free for
life. It has a useful trial period that should allow you to see if it fits
your particular situation and is long enough to gain some degree of
familiarity.

I don¹t use it for serious B&W work since QTR and my sturdy 2200 do the job
as well as I could ever want.
Roger

On 10/20/08 3:04 PM, "Richard Smallfield" <r.smallfield@...>
wrote:

>  
>  
> 
> Hi,
> I have wondered about buying Qimage for a while ... but, being pleased with my
> output, have not been able to justify another software purchase.
> 
> Can anyone give three compelling reasons for getting Qimage? I prefer not to
> upsample much anyway (and tend to shoot 25-35mp images), so their improved
> algorithms may not be that important to me.
> 
> I sometimes print D70 images on 13x19" paper, but even then I'm not sure their
> pyramid interpolation would be worth the extra purchase.
> 
> However, there may be some feature that I've not thought of that is really,
> realy, really, really (really, really) a bit useful.
> 
> thanks,
> Richard
> 
> www.richardsmallfield.com



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

I've used it for years because of its complete (and simple, once you get 
used to the interface) control of placement of multiple objects on a 
page, the purpose for which it was originally designed.  Two examples.  
First, I print my own Christmas cards, with a 4.5 x 4.5 image and a 4.5 
x 1.5 greeting below it, printed two "cards" to a page of 8.5 x 11 and 
cut to 5 x 7 for mailing.  The card "layout" is saved as a template, so 
each year I just drop a new image in the image spots and a new greeting 
in the greeting spots and print 50 pages giving me 100 cards.

Second, I print books of photos as Christmas gifts for various family 
members, but the books are different for different branches of the 
family.  The images are 8 x 8 printed on the "right" end of landscaped 
8.5 x 11 paper with quarter inch margins top, right and bottom, with the 
image name printed at the far "left" end of the page.  The image name 
lets me assemble the right images into the right books (I print from 
worksheets made up in advance showing who gets what image, then print 
the number of each image needed and stack 'em up.)   When it's time to 
assemble the books I can easily sort from the worksheets according to 
the image name on each print, and once the proper set of images is 
assembled for a particular family member the image names are cut off to 
leave the proper 3/4 inch binding margin and the images bound up in 
covers.  Again, the images are all dropped into a template that places 
the image for the proper margins and puts the name where it belongs.

If all you ever print is a single image on a single sheet then this 
multiple print flexibility won't mean much.  But if you've got a need to 
control the size and placing of multiple images on a page (or if you 
just want the easiest way to produce a collection of images on a single 
sheet - one 5x7, one 4x5 and some wallets, for example) I don't think 
you'll find a better product than QImage.  I've certainly never 
regretted whatever it cost to buy in the first place.

Cheers,
Kip

Richard Smallfield wrote:
>
> Hi,
> I have wondered about buying Qimage for a while ... but, being pleased 
> with my
> output, have not been able to justify another software purchase.
>
> Can anyone give three compelling reasons for getting Qimage? I prefer 
> not to
> upsample much anyway (and tend to shoot 25-35mp images), so their 
> improved
> algorithms may not be that important to me.
>
> I sometimes print D70 images on 13x19" paper, but even then I'm not 
> sure their
> pyramid interpolation would be worth the extra purchase.
>
> However, there may be some feature that I've not thought of that is 
> really,
> realy, really, really (really, really) a bit useful.
>

> ___ 


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

FYI

--- On Mon, 10/20/08, Steve Kale <stevekale@...> wrote:

From: Steve Kale <stevekale@...>
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] OT - Digital Exposure
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Date: Monday, October 20, 2008, 3:21 PM






Your exposure SHOULD look "wrong" at first blush with digital. You 
should expose to the right and be pulling the histogramme to the left 
in your RAW converter.

On 20 Oct 2008, at 20:10, Richard Smallfield wrote:

> Hi,
> back in the days of film I used to get the exposure right first 
> time, nine
> times out of ten (often using a grey card).
>
> Now, with digital, I must confess to having become rather sloppy. I 
> always end
> up with the right exposure, but often after a test shot or two.
>
> Digital has resulted in my thinking less before shooting, because 
> it's so easy
> to reshoot.
>
> This is a bad habit, because you have to get it right first time on 
> some
> occasions - so getting out of the habit of thinking first is very
> undesireable.
>
> Are others finding the same thing?
>
> I'm working on regaining my former discipline of thinking more first.
>
> I think of Magnum-type photographers who must be very disciplined in 
> this
> regard because they really only get one chance.
>
> Richard
>
> www.richardsmallfie ld.com
>

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

 













__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 

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

I only use 1024 pixel on my 21" 1600 resolution Monitor. You should be able to use a readable screen size.

gar

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

On 10/19/2008 at 4:41 PM scanzzz wrote:

>> The DellTM  UltraSharpTM  2007WFP 20-inch Flat Panel  
>> Monitor is really well=priced at $269.
>
>I have a model like this.  The screen is very nice but I cannot
>recommend it.  It will show a beautiful image with great viewing
>angles but the resolution is too high for the screen size.  Text is
>way too small.  Yes, you can adjust the text size but then many
>webpages are not shown/formatted correctly.  Outlook does not display
>many areas with the enlarged font size so the font is so tiny that it
>is hard to read (and proof).  Also, some menus still use the smaller
>native font size even after the increased size is set (at least in XP
>Pro, maybe Vista is better). 
>
>I would go for a 19" with its lower resolution over a 20" just because
>it is easier to read. Definitely go for a 24" if you are going for a a
>screen larger than 24".  A 26" would be even nicer since it uses the
>same resolution ;)
>
>My $.02,
>
>Doug
>---
>www.BetterScanning.com

For most digital snaps, I use a electronic viewfinder that gives me the preview. Using a normal viewfinder is "old hat". With the "old hat" DSLR, I still manage to get some good exposures. My film still comes out good unless I send it out.

You do have to learn to switch modes with digital. I operate in get what you can mode and forget to go to take your time mode all too often.

gar

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

On 10/20/2008 at 8:21 PM Steve Kale wrote:

>Your exposure SHOULD look "wrong" at first blush with digital.  You  
>should expose to the right and be pulling the histogramme to the left  
>in your RAW converter.
>
>
>
>On 20 Oct 2008, at 20:10, Richard Smallfield wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>> back in the days of film I used to get the exposure right first  
>> time, nine
>> times out of ten (often using a grey card).
>>
>> Now, with digital, I must confess to having become rather sloppy. I  
>> always end
>> up with the right exposure, but often after a test shot or two.
>>
>> Digital has resulted in my thinking less before shooting, because  
>> it's so easy
>> to reshoot.
>>
>> This is a bad habit, because you have to get it right first time on  
>> some
>> occasions - so getting out of the habit of thinking first is very
>> undesireable.
>>
>> Are others finding the same thing?
>>
>> I'm working on regaining my former discipline of thinking more first.
>>
>> I think of Magnum-type photographers who must be very disciplined in  
>> this
>> regard because they really only get one chance.
>>
>> Richard
>>
>> www.richardsmallfield.com

Hi Kip,
thanks very much - that's just the sort of input I was hoping to get.

That's helpful to me, because I'm printing four greeting cards to a 13x19" 
sheet and laying them out in Photoshop, using an action. It sounds like your 
workflow might be advantageous.

BTW, what paper do you use for the cards? I've found Sparrowhawk excellent 
value.

thanks very much,
Richard

Quoting Kip Babington <cbabing3@...>:

> I've used it for years because of its complete (and simple, once you get
> 
> used to the interface) control of placement of multiple objects on a 
> page, the purpose for which it was originally designed. 

www.richardsmallfield.com

On 20/10/2008 ben schneider wrote:
> like my Samsung 214T monitor much better the my 24" Dell.  The colors 
> are more accurate, making for many more first time prints.  The Dell 
> seem color deprived in the blue-green colors, and I need to do many 
> more reprints then the Samsung. The Samsung is inexpensive. I also 
> have two Eizo monitors that are wonderfully color balanced.  But 
> these take a hunk of cash to purchase.  The Samsung is the better 
> value of all the monitors that I have.

Ben, what sort of monitor calibration are you doing?

Peter Marquis-Kyle

Well, I'm cheap so I've been using Red River 50# Premium Matte, a double 
sided matte paper.  I have been printing a few lines on the back of the 
cards the past few years, telling people where the kids are.  Before Red 
River I used Epson Enhanced Matte (I know, I know, non-archival and all 
that, but there are only a couple of recipients that keep the cards.)  
Basically I'm now doing digitally what I began doing in  about 1978 in a 
wet darkroom (4 exposures per sheet using a multi-print easel and 
appropriate masks - what a pain in retrospect, although I thought it was 
pretty cool when I was doing it.)

Cheers
Kip

Richard Smallfield wrote:
>
> Hi Kip,
> thanks very much - that's just the sort of input I was hoping to get.
>
> That's helpful to me, because I'm printing four greeting cards to a 
> 13x19"
> sheet and laying them out in Photoshop, using an action. It sounds 
> like your
> workflow might be advantageous.
>
> BTW, what paper do you use for the cards? I've found Sparrowhawk 
> excellent
> value.
>
> thanks very much,
> Richard
>
>   


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

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Richard
Smallfield <r.smallfield@...> wrote:
>
> back in the days of film I used to get the exposure right first
time, nine 
> times out of ten (often using a grey card).
> 
> Now, with digital, I must confess to having become rather sloppy. I
always end 
> up with the right exposure, but often after a test shot or two.

You can use a standard gray card and a reflected-light meter to
measure the average light intensity at your card, without regard to
the range of brightness in the subject lighted by (what you hope is)
the same light source.  You could instead use an incident-light meter
in place of the card, for equivalent results.

Or, you can use a digital camera to show you the actual light
intensity across your entire field of view.  That's the result of
taking "a test shot or two."  This way, you see any saturation in
bright areas or spots, or in dark areas or spots, even if they are so
small that they have little effect on the average exposure.

The gray card is a blunt instrument compared to the digital camera. 
You can consider the digital camera to be a comprehensive light meter
that also records photographs.

Dick Rawson

And, you really don't need the grey card. Just calibrate the palm of your hand. When I decided slides where the only real form of photography(ha), I used the palm method with great results on the period ST801 and RTS. The difference is - then one could instinctivly open or close the iris while looking in the viewfinder - now it's artificial intelligence.

This is true in printing, also.

gar

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

On 10/21/2008 at 4:11 AM Dick Rawson wrote:

>--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Richard
>Smallfield <r.smallfield@...> wrote:
>>
>> back in the days of film I used to get the exposure right first
>time, nine 
>> times out of ten (often using a grey card).
>> 
>> Now, with digital, I must confess to having become rather sloppy. I
>always end 
>> up with the right exposure, but often after a test shot or two.
>
>You can use a standard gray card and a reflected-light meter to
>measure the average light intensity at your card, without regard to
>the range of brightness in the subject lighted by (what you hope is)
>the same light source.  You could instead use an incident-light meter
>in place of the card, for equivalent results.
>
>Or, you can use a digital camera to show you the actual light
>intensity across your entire field of view.  That's the result of
>taking "a test shot or two."  This way, you see any saturation in
>bright areas or spots, or in dark areas or spots, even if they are so
>small that they have little effect on the average exposure.
>
>The gray card is a blunt instrument compared to the digital camera. 
>You can consider the digital camera to be a comprehensive light meter
>that also records photographs.
>
>Dick Rawson
>
>
>------------------------------------
>
>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 the studio, under controlled lighting conditions I use the digital
camera as my light meter. I simply shoot a very bright withe sheet of
paper where the subject will be... and bring the peak in the histogram
to the far right... just before it clips. Done.

Could be done outside I guess also...

Denis

> Or, you can use a digital camera to show you the actual light
> intensity across your entire field of view.  That's the result of
> taking "a test shot or two."  This way, you see any saturation in
> bright areas or spots, or in dark areas or spots, even if they are so
> small that they have little effect on the average exposure.
> 
> The gray card is a blunt instrument compared to the digital camera. 
> You can consider the digital camera to be a comprehensive light meter
> that also records photographs.
> 
> Dick Rawson
>

Richard,

I use Qimage, and there is really only one reason I use it.  I think
it makes my prints look better.  They claim they optimize data sent to
the printer better than PS, and it's possible that part of the
difference I see is this optimization.  But the program also has a
very interesting printing-side sharpening filter which seems to
outperform anything I've seen anywhere else - in PS or using
Focalblade or whatever).  Photos look noticeably sharper without
looking digitally sharpened at all.  Again, I have no idea how much of
this is the sharpening filter, and how much is the superiority of
their data optimization, but my images flatly look better using it. 
(I'm using good lenses - Rodenstock and Schneider despite my screen
name, and am not making up for lack of good glass or good view camera
focusing technique with digital sharpening filters; I am just looking
to get the same sharpness I see in my negs onto the paper.)

How good is the program at printing sharp images?  I have been
experimenting with QTR and Cone's K7 inks in my R2400.  So far, the
main thing that keeps me from switching to the K7 inks permanently is
that I have to give up using Qimage, which relies on the Epson drivers
to work.  When I print with the K7's and QTR, the image is subtly but
visibly softer than when I print with Qimage.  I think Cone's K7 inks
and QTR do a visibly better job of printing than PS, I just think
Qimage goes a step further still.  I'd probably be happy with QTR and
K7 if I had never seen what Qimage will do.

That's my 2 cents worth.  It is true Qimage is primarily designed for
people with a much higher volume than I print and for controlling
image placement on the paper. Still, I don't find it's overkill for
the less frequent printer to use it for single image printing if it
really improves the printed image.  Others may have different
experience, but if you want one reason to experiment with Qimage, it's
that it may make your prints look better than they do already.

-Gary Gervin



--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Richard
Smallfield <r.smallfield@...> wrote:
>
> Hi,
> I have wondered about buying Qimage for a while ... but, being
pleased with my 
> output, have not been able to justify another software purchase.
> 
> Can anyone give three compelling reasons for getting Qimage? I
prefer not to 
> upsample much anyway (and tend to shoot 25-35mp images), so their
improved 
> algorithms may not be that important to me.
> 
> I sometimes print D70 images on 13x19" paper, but even then I'm not
sure their 
> pyramid interpolation would be worth the extra purchase.
> 
> However, there may be some feature that I've not thought of that is
really, 

> realy, really, really (really, really) a bit useful.
> 
> thanks,
> Richard
> 
> 
> 
> www.richardsmallfield.com
>

Gary

Have you tried "Print to file" and then printed the resulting image through
QTR?  It gives you the benefit of Qimage's sharpening/resizing but allows
you to use the non Epson printer driver.

David Whistance

  -----Original Message-----
  From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of Gary
Gervin
  Sent: 21 October 2008 07:43
  To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
  Subject: [Digital BW] Re: Qimage


  Richard,

  I use Qimage, and there is really only one reason I use it. I think
  it makes my prints look better. They claim they optimize data sent to
  the printer better than PS, and it's possible that part of the
  difference I see is this optimization. But the program also has a
  very interesting printing-side sharpening filter which seems to
  outperform anything I've seen anywhere else - in PS or using
  Focalblade or whatever). Photos look noticeably sharper without
  looking digitally sharpened at all. Again, I have no idea how much of
  this is the sharpening filter, and how much is the superiority of
  their data optimization, but my images flatly look better using it.
  (I'm using good lenses - Rodenstock and Schneider despite my screen
  name, and am not making up for lack of good glass or good view camera
  focusing technique with digital sharpening filters; I am just looking
  to get the same sharpness I see in my negs onto the paper.)

  How good is the program at printing sharp images? I have been
  experimenting with QTR and Cone's K7 inks in my R2400. So far, the
  main thing that keeps me from switching to the K7 inks permanently is
  that I have to give up using Qimage, which relies on the Epson drivers
  to work. When I print with the K7's and QTR, the image is subtly but
  visibly softer than when I print with Qimage. I think Cone's K7 inks
  and QTR do a visibly better job of printing than PS, I just think
  Qimage goes a step further still. I'd probably be happy with QTR and
  K7 if I had never seen what Qimage will do.

  That's my 2 cents worth. It is true Qimage is primarily designed for
  people with a much higher volume than I print and for controlling
  image placement on the paper. Still, I don't find it's overkill for
  the less frequent printer to use it for single image printing if it
  really improves the printed image. Others may have different
  experience, but if you want one reason to experiment with Qimage, it's
  that it may make your prints look better than they do already.

  -Gary Gervin

  --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Richard
  Smallfield <r.smallfield@...> wrote:
  >
  > Hi,
  > I have wondered about buying Qimage for a while ... but, being
  pleased with my
  > output, have not been able to justify another software purchase.
  >
  > Can anyone give three compelling reasons for getting Qimage? I
  prefer not to
  > upsample much anyway (and tend to shoot 25-35mp images), so their
  improved
  > algorithms may not be that important to me.
  >
  > I sometimes print D70 images on 13x19" paper, but even then I'm not
  sure their
  > pyramid interpolation would be worth the extra purchase.
  >
  > However, there may be some feature that I've not thought of that is
  really,
  > realy, really, really (really, really) a bit useful.
  >
  > thanks,
  > Richard
  >
  >
  >
  > www.richardsmallfield.com
  >



  


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

David Whistance wrote:
> Gary
> 
> Have you tried "Print to file" and then printed the resulting image through
> QTR?  It gives you the benefit of Qimage's sharpening/resizing but allows
> you to use the non Epson printer driver.

That's the way I have used it for my quad 9000. Print to 
file (Tiff) to 360 PPI in my case but you could use 720 PPI 
with a more recent Epson model. Drop that file (RGB as 
Qimage doesn't know anything else) in QTR. The rest can be 
customised in QTR. Some waste of paper as the Qimage print 
page has to fit QTR's print page. Smart print sharpening is 
as good for B&W as it is on color.

Now I use Qimage for both color and B&W mode (+ QTR profile) 
of the HP Z3100. Not the best cooperation possibel between a 
driver and Qimage but that's more HP's fault it seems. 
Despite that still better than with PS.

There's a lot more to Qimage than so far mentioned but it's 
hard to describe what aspect may appeal to a new user. The 
demo will tell much more. The border functions + cut marks. 
The nesting of more images including different sizes. The 
sizing on the fly. The templates. The job recall. Not that 
there are no things to be fixed in Qimage as well. I have 
quite a list meanwhile but my goodwill with Mike must have 
been lost in time. The mailing list is a good source for 
advice though.

-- 
Met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst


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

Dennis, If your shooting in a studio, u may want to profile your 
camera. Saves a bunch of effort.
greyscale

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "the_des_bois" 
<thedesbois@...> wrote:
>
> 
> In the studio, under controlled lighting conditions I use the 
digital
> camera as my light meter. I simply shoot a very bright withe sheet 
of
> paper where the subject will be... and bring the peak in the 
histogram
> to the far right... just before it clips. Done.
> 
> Could be done outside I guess also...
> 
> Denis
> 
> 
> > Or, you can use a digital camera to show you the actual light
> > intensity across your entire field of view.  That's the result of
> > taking "a test shot or two."  This way, you see any saturation in
> > bright areas or spots, or in dark areas or spots, even if they 
are so
> > small that they have little effect on the average exposure.
> > 
> > The gray card is a blunt instrument compared to the digital 
camera. 
> > You can consider the digital camera to be a comprehensive light 
meter

> > that also records photographs.
> > 
> > Dick Rawson
> >
>

I have only been using it for a short time but find that their 
sharpening algorithm is right on, I can't do better myself.  Also, 
since I always sharpen after sizing, it is more convenient to use 
Qimage since I don't need to save sharpened images at different 
sizes, nor sharpen each time I resize a saved image.  

I have found it to be a good value and don't regret the purchase.

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Richard 
Smallfield <r.smallfield@...> wrote:
>
> Hi,
> I have wondered about buying Qimage for a while ... but, being 
pleased with my 
> output, have not been able to justify another software purchase.
> 
> Can anyone give three compelling reasons for getting Qimage? I 
prefer not to 
> upsample much anyway (and tend to shoot 25-35mp images), so their 
improved 
> algorithms may not be that important to me.
> 
> I sometimes print D70 images on 13x19" paper, but even then I'm not 
sure their 
> pyramid interpolation would be worth the extra purchase.
> 
> However, there may be some feature that I've not thought of that is 
really, 

> realy, really, really (really, really) a bit useful.
> 
> thanks,
> Richard
> 
> 
> 
> www.richardsmallfield.com
>

I find I take more shots, but more because I use the opportunity to 
look carefully at the histogram and use that as an exposure guide.  
This enables me to "tweak" the exposure right in the field.  
Obviously this doesn't work very well for mobile subjects, but I use 
it when I can, espcially for landscapes that might have a broad 
dynamic range.

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Richard 
Smallfield <r.smallfield@...> wrote:
>
> Hi,
> back in the days of film I used to get the exposure right first 
time, nine 
> times out of ten (often using a grey card).
> 
> Now, with digital, I must confess to having become rather sloppy. I 
always end 
> up with the right exposure, but often after a test shot or two.
> 
> Digital has resulted in my thinking less before shooting, because 
it's so easy 
> to reshoot. 
> 
> This is a bad habit, because you have to get it right first time on 
some 
> occasions - so getting out of the habit of thinking first is very  
> undesireable.
> 
> Are others finding the same thing?
> 
> I'm working on regaining my former discipline of thinking more 
first.
> 
> I think of Magnum-type photographers who must be very disciplined 
in this 

> regard because they really only get one chance.
> 
> Richard
> 
> www.richardsmallfield.com
>

David and Ernst,

A great smile of delight has spread across my face as I read this. 
No, as a matter of fact I haven't tried that before, in fact it didn't
even occur to me.  I will definitely experiment further with it.

I thought my post might help someone else, and it turns out it helped
me!  But of course this sort of tip is the very reason I subscribe to
this group.  Thanks both of you for the idea.

-Gary Gervin

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Ernst Dinkla
<edinkla@...> wrote:
>
> David Whistance wrote:
> > Gary
> > 
> > Have you tried "Print to file" and then printed the resulting
image through
> > QTR?  It gives you the benefit of Qimage's sharpening/resizing but
allows

> > you to use the non Epson printer driver.
> 
> That's the way I have used it for my quad 9000. Print to 
> file (Tiff) to 360 PPI in my case but you could use 720 PPI 
> with a more recent Epson model. Drop that file (RGB as 
> Qimage doesn't know anything else) in QTR. The rest can be 
> customised in QTR. Some waste of paper as the Qimage print 
> page has to fit QTR's print page. Smart print sharpening is 
> as good for B&W as it is on color.
> 
> Now I use Qimage for both color and B&W mode (+ QTR profile) 
> of the HP Z3100. Not the best cooperation possibel between a 
> driver and Qimage but that's more HP's fault it seems. 
> Despite that still better than with PS.
> 
> There's a lot more to Qimage than so far mentioned but it's 
> hard to describe what aspect may appeal to a new user. The 
> demo will tell much more. The border functions + cut marks. 
> The nesting of more images including different sizes. The 
> sizing on the fly. The templates. The job recall. Not that 
> there are no things to be fixed in Qimage as well. I have 
> quite a list meanwhile but my goodwill with Mike must have 
> been lost in time. The mailing list is a good source for 
> advice though.
> 
> -- 
> Met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst
> 
> 
> |  Dinkla Grafische Techniek  |
> |     www.pigment-print.com    |
> |             ( unvollendet )            |
>

Gary Gervin wrote:
> David and Ernst,
> 
> A great smile of delight has spread across my face as I read this. 
> No, as a matter of fact I haven't tried that before, in fact it didn't
> even occur to me.  I will definitely experiment further with it.
> 
> I thought my post might help someone else, and it turns out it helped
> me!  But of course this sort of tip is the very reason I subscribe to
> this group.  Thanks both of you for the idea.
> 
> -Gary Gervin

This route has been discussed some years ago and for Windows 
Stephen added on request a hotfolder to his QTR envelop so 
one could direct the Qimage print to file output to that 
hotfolder and QTR would directly take over at that stage. I 
have not used QTR for some time but I guess it is still 
available.


-- 
Met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst


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

Suggestion: try printing from Lightroom 2 (I think there's a free test
download). 

I've not fully abandoned QTR for Lightroom (lack of practice) but I
suspect I will... Lightroom's far-greater "B&W" tone control is
interesting (not yet fully explored) and it's printer-side sharpening,
which seems to contribute without adding artifacts to
already-carefully-sharpened files.

I know nothing about Aperture, other than urban legends that it's not
as competent for printing as Lightroom. 


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Gary Gervin"
<e-gg@...> wrote:

>
> Richard,
> 
> I use Qimage, and there is really only one reason I use it.  I think
> it makes my prints look better.  They claim they optimize data sent to
> the printer better than PS, and it's possible that part of the
> difference I see is this optimization.  But the program also has a
> very interesting printing-side sharpening filter which seems to
> outperform anything I've seen anywhere else - in PS or using
> Focalblade or whatever).  Photos look noticeably sharper without
> looking digitally sharpened at all.  Again, I have no idea how much of
> this is the sharpening filter, and how much is the superiority of
> their data optimization, but my images flatly look better using it. 
>

I would to really like try Qimage for the benefits discussed, 
however, because I usually use the ABW mode, I would have to switch 
to the RGB B&W mode.  Even though I cannot see any discernalbe 
differnce beween the two modes, measurements have indicated a small 
0.3 increase in Dmax, and a very small difference in metamerism.  
Still, it might be worthwhile to switch...? 

Also, I wonder if the there is really improved sharpness as compared 
to using Pro Photo Zoom S-spline interpolation for uprezzing and 
Photokit Sharpener?  That combo does a great great job.  And this is 
for relativley small increases in interp file size (not 6 foot 
prints but more like 20x30 in  tack sharp...) when using a 5D as 
capture...  

SteveB 

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "djon43" 
<djon43@...> wrote:
>
> Suggestion: try printing from Lightroom 2 (I think there's a free 
test
> download). 
> 
> I've not fully abandoned QTR for Lightroom (lack of practice) but I
> suspect I will... Lightroom's far-greater "B&W" tone control is
> interesting (not yet fully explored) and it's printer-side 
sharpening,
> which seems to contribute without adding artifacts to
> already-carefully-sharpened files.
> 
> I know nothing about Aperture, other than urban legends that it's 
not
> as competent for printing as Lightroom. 
> 
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Gary Gervin"
> <e-gg@> wrote:
> >
> > Richard,
> > 
> > I use Qimage, and there is really only one reason I use it.  I 
think
> > it makes my prints look better.  They claim they optimize data 
sent to
> > the printer better than PS, and it's possible that part of the
> > difference I see is this optimization.  But the program also has 
a
> > very interesting printing-side sharpening filter which seems to
> > outperform anything I've seen anywhere else - in PS or using
> > Focalblade or whatever).  Photos look noticeably sharper without
> > looking digitally sharpened at all.  Again, I have no idea how 
much of
> > this is the sharpening filter, and how much is the superiority of
> > their data optimization, but my images flatly look better using 
it. 
> >
>

Steve,

I have always used the ABW mode when printing from Qimage.  I can't
comment on comparisons with Photokit Sharpener, since I've not used
that tool.  I do think you should try the Qimage demo and see for
yourself how it does.  You will see that ABW mode is no problem.  (If
you do try it, maybe you should let us know how the two products
compare in sharpening.)

I will also mention that my images are large, greyscale mode .tif's
with multiple unflattened layers, and none of that presents a problem
when printing from Qimage either.

I am supposing your reference to RGB came from Ernst's comment that
Qimage "knows nothing other than RGB."  He wrote it in the context of
using Qimage to print to file so that I could use the resultant file
in QTR.  Since I know that Qimage does work with greyscale .tif's as
input, I imagine that he was referring to the file output by Qimage
when printing to file.  Since I haven't tried the print to file
function yet (in the middle of developing and scanning right now), I
haven't verified that Qimage puts out only in RGB.  But in any case,
you don't need to convert images to RGB or give up ABW to experiment
with Qimage.


-Gary Gervin





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

>
> I would to really like try Qimage for the benefits discussed, 
> however, because I usually use the ABW mode, I would have to switch 
> to the RGB B&W mode.  Even though I cannot see any discernalbe 
> differnce beween the two modes, measurements have indicated a small 
> 0.3 increase in Dmax, and a very small difference in metamerism.  
> Still, it might be worthwhile to switch...? 
> 
> Also, I wonder if the there is really improved sharpness as compared 
> to using Pro Photo Zoom S-spline interpolation for uprezzing and 
> Photokit Sharpener?  That combo does a great great job.  And this is 
> for relativley small increases in interp file size (not 6 foot 
> prints but more like 20x30 in  tack sharp...) when using a 5D as 
> capture...  
> 
> SteveB 
>