lenny_eiger

<p>Let me correct my claim before anyone makes too much of it.... I was making b&w prints, using a small processor. I think it was a "Kodamatic" ? It was small, about the same size as a small inkjet printer..., sat on the desk, had two chemicals in it... a developer and a neutralizer-fixer...</p> <p>It took about 30-40 seconds to develop a print. I would put the neg in the enlarger, make an exposure, then put the print in the processor. While waiting I used a second negative carrier to put another image in the enlarger and expose it. If the first image was good I would move on to the next, or would put the first neg carrier back in. I was moving pretty fast.... I was a young kid at the time...</p>

<p>Bill C, I can certainly appreciate this. I have worked both sides of the street. I've worked in printing labs and even worked for a wedding photographer who paid me 10 cents a print, for 5x7's he could put into booklets to show his clients. I made 60 good prints an hour... with a little processor and two negative carriers to swap in and out.... In the '70's that was double the minimum wage and it was a little extra cash for me...</p> <p>Certainly Levels can make a change. However, any change you can make with Levels you can make with Curves. The Curve action will be better, result in a better print. I realize that's a blanket statement but its at least 90% true. One will also learn to use Curves, they will get more and more intuitive and that is a very valuable thing, IMO.</p> <p>Q.G. - I often return to prints. Often years later my aesthetics have changed, and I want to print it again with a different feel. I usually print something then leave it out where I can see it. It takes me time to understand things at a certain level. In the morning I might make one more change, or decide that I like it the way i've done it. I need to be able to go back to it. That may be different for you.... and there are many kinds of printing, from the kind that Bill C is speaking about to everything in the middle...</p>

<p>You are correct, if you have the change in the History states then you can reverse it. Of course you lose everything after that point... </p> <p>Adjustment layers are a great thing. Masking in conjunction with adjustment layers makes PhotoShop reasonable, and is the main reason to use it over other solutions, IMO.</p> <p>It seems to me like arguing for one's limitations. I just don't see a reason not to use a valuable tool.</p>

<p>I am happy to disagree politely. Too much of the other on these forums.</p> <p>When someone asks me to make a print for them, its their image. If they want me to make it a little more green, I am happy to do so. I don't throw out anything that a client sends me. If I make it greener without an adjustment layer, and its too much, backing off by making it more magenta will hurt the image. Do it enough and the image will be mush. By contrast, an adjustment layer can be corrected all day long back and forth and it won't affect the image. And if you don't like it you can throw the whole thing out....</p> <p>I don't ever want to have to revert to a backup after 4 hours or more of work, spotting, masking, correcting one thing or another. There are always multiple things going on, multiple issues to address. A backup is just not enough... and adjustment layers fit the bill quite logically.</p> <p>If you tell me a 3 Gig file went to 6 Gig, I would be concerned as well... however, its never happened to me. If the image size is doubling on a decent-sized image, then something is going wrong...</p>

<p>I generally start with files that are a gig or more. (I have a drum scanner.) The file size does not double with adjustment layers, not even the first one, or it would be unusable. It adds maybe 10-20%. I don't doubt that it might add more at much smaller sizes.</p> <p>Duplicating the background layer will definitely double the size of the file, however. I don't do it unless a High Pass filter is required, which is rare.</p> <p>Frankly, with all due respect, it is not reasonable to make adjustments that you can't back off of. I think anyone with experience, certainly anyone who prints for a living will tell you that adjustment layers are a must.</p>

<blockquote> <p>I took a class many years ago and learned how to adjust levels in Photoshop. I haven't done this in a while and may have skipped some steps. </p> </blockquote> <p>I am a professional printer. First, you will do yourself a huge favor if you forget that Levels exist. This is a "sledgehammer-level" tool that more often than not makes a mess. Curves are a much finer tool, they keep everything else in the image in relationship with what you are doing. Hue/Saturation is good too, but learning one's curves is the first step towards getting a handle on PhotoShop.</p> <p>Second, I can't imagine any other way than with adjustment layers. If you make a change that goes too far, you can just adjust it back. (Without an adjustment layer, doing this will degrade your image.) Further, adjustment layers offer the ability of working with masks. These are specific areas that you select to make changes to. You can add as many layers as you want, but 1-5 of them are usually plenty. There are lots of great masking techniques, but you didn't ask about that...</p> <p>I save in psd unless its bigger than 500mb or so, then I use psb (Large Document Format). The only time I use jpg is to put an image up on the web or to send it too someone...</p>

<blockquote> <p>For quality scans, the highest quality, a good lab with a drum scanner.</p> </blockquote> <p>I would say this is almost correct. Drum scanning is an art, not a science. It is best done by scanner operators with lots of experience. I do this professionally, as do many others. We look at the film carefully, the aesthetics of the individual photographer and adjust things so that the prints they want to make are possible.</p> <p>The model of a lab is based on volume. They often have people who are paid very little, experienced, etc. running the scanners. The often treat the machine as if it will do all the work, just stick the neg in there. You get what you get. It might be a little sharper but it ins't a great scan. This is not always the case, some labs have operators that are terrific. There are good stories and bad....</p> <p>Just like hiring a person to print for you, you want to find someone who understands your aesthetic, who you can talk to, etc. If you are going to pay for this expensive service you should get something just right for your needs.</p>

<p>Rex and Sebastian,<br> If you are after top quality you should be looking at a drum scanner vs the consumer options. If your concern is with cost then tweaking the consumer options is your path...</p>

<blockquote> <p>I have owned many scanners......I don't find my Epson V700 inferior in any way. I can only surmise you are an inexperienced person at scanning, or have never used an Epson of this quality.<br> </p> </blockquote> <p>Really? Seriously? You want to put the consumer flatbed's up against a drum scanner? I have an Aztek Premier, it does 8000 ppi, its known as one of the best scanners ever made. It is actually quite sharp, edge to edge, and is far out of the range of what the best Epson can do. (Yes, I have tried this.) I scan professionally, people send me film from all over the world. I'm not trying to sell anyone on anything, but I've been doing this for a while and no, I'm not inexperienced at scanning, in fact, quite the opposite.</p>

<p>I have no idea what you want to do or what kind of quality you are after. I wouldn't buy an Epson of any variety for 35mm. It won't do much more than snapshot level. I would get a dedicated film scanner.</p>

<p>You went to a place known for the cheapest and worst quality overall, for all of the inventory they sell, not to mention the issues with workers and such, and you are surprised that their scans are low quality? </p> <p>Very good scans (and above) are produced by people with good equipment, who have trained to work with their tools, who analyze the images carefully. Good scans are not made but sticking them in a device and pressing Go. They probably have consumer level flatbed scanners that are traditionally soft to begin with. Some folks get these to work for them by using creative sharpening techniques, or much larger film. Scan prices range from .60 to $100 for 35mm. Scanners range from $250 or so to $40K. There is a reason for this, one gets what one pays for and everyone has to find the happy medium for their work, whether it be professional, professional artist, hobbyist or someone shooting family snapshots.</p>

<p>I will add one comment to what has already been said well, by Bruce and others. (I'm also a drum scanning operator.) Drum scanning is an art, not a science. While these machines are excellent, one doesn't just mount the film and let the device do the work. Drum scans from a scanner operator who looks at your work, talks to you and attempts to help you get what you need are far superior to just dropping your film off somewhere.</p>

<p>well, now we're further off topic. But since you posted one side, here's Jon Cone's response to the Aardenburg ratings:</p> <p>In my opinio, Aardenburg is a whole new paradigm shift in longevity testing. He was hired to try and fix the problems encountered by the WIR methods years ago. For whatever reason - the WIR methods are still in place. EPSON uses them. Pays for them. And gives their ratings based upon the WIR version 3 methodology - even though WIR admits that they have lost the ability to analyze changes in the modern Epson ink sets that contain more than 4 ink positions when they use the WIR methods. The WIR method ONLY tests a patch of cyan, magenta, yellow and black and then reports when one patch has faded 35%. So therefore an EPSON rating is based upon 35% density loss of one of those 4 patches. There is no effort with the WIR method to measure for color shift. There is no method to test for shifts to gray balance, flesh, reds, greens, blues, you name it. The only result is that one of the four ink patches faded 35% and it takes X years for that to happen.<br /><br />The Aardenburg method uses a color spectrophotometer to measure not only density - but also color on more than 30 patches which include paper, neutrals, flesh tones, colors, etc. This is the huge paradigm shift. WIR testing is in effect - color blind and fully density based. While that worked for photographic chemical processes that used 4 dye layers (CMYK) - it does not work for modern inkjet sets. Aardenburg also sets the criteria from 35% fade to about 5% fade which it believes its interested audience can see. EPSON believes that its audience requires a loss of 1/3 before its customers will notice fade. And probably - the average EPSON consumer does require that much. Photographers and fine artists are more visually aware. 5% is about right.<br /><br />The PASS signifies that the results are for an ink set that does not lose color shift or density at that point. But the real information is in the downloaded PDFs and well worth the price of membership. The Piezography CARBON ink sets are at 200 megalux and totally unmoved. But of course that's CARBON. The universe is made of it. Other Piezography ink sets have a wide variety of ratings because the system is so sensitive that in the case of many tests the paper faded very quickly and that triggered a fail mark. While all Piezography inks are made of carbon and carbon based pigments - the CARBON ink set is never going to be affected by something as benign as light. But, all of these piezo tests are worth downloading to see that the density of the inks is extraordinary. Mark has said that any of the Piezography ink sets will last more than 100 years without visual density loss. The CARBON ink set on the other hand, is in a league all of its own. It loses no density - but also no color. <br /><br />A Selenium ink set will eventually reduce to its carbon component. No density loss - but at some point the color begins to shift subtle.<br /><br />The Aardenburg results are based upon length of exposure and loss of color and loss of density. With the EPSON test - you have NO IDEA when the results faded 5%, 10% or 20%. You only know that in XX years it will fade 35%. But, what if your target was 10% fade and you would accept a 10% fade. Would you want to know that an Epson ink faded 10% in 5 years? That is just for illustration. The Aardenburg method gives ratings every 10 megalux which is about 10 years indoors. And you can get an idea of the density loss or color loss you are willing to accept. <br /><br />WIR is allowing beta sites to use a similar technology as Aardenburg. In all practicality it is the exact same technology because it was developed there. We are a site for this and we do our own i*metric testing on our inks. For our new Claria replacement - we have decided to mix the EPSON 35% results with the i*metric. Rather than compare 5% fade results to 35% fade results - we are allowing our targets to be faded to 35%. This way we have a more direct comparison to the Epson Claria ratings. We've been testing now for many many months and we have a very good picture of our inks side by side with Epson Claria.<br /><br />What does it all mean? You should become a member of Aardenburg. You should understand Epson ratings for what they are and not draw conclusions that they mean that your work will not fade. The Epson ratings are more of a guarantee of horrible fading at that amount of years - and you have no idea whatsoever how bad they will be prior. Aardenburg tests give you a year by year roadmap of what to expect in 10 years, 20 years, etc etc... <br /><br />Unfortunately - ignorance is bliss. Epson ratings are like "things go better with Coke". It is a perfect marketing slogan. 100 years! Sounds like a long time - and feels like a sure bet. But 35% fade is not something you want to communicate to your customers. Aardenburg has their work cut out for them - because it forces consumers to think and forces them to choose what longevity they really want.<br /><br />Having said all that - most people want to accept the 100 years of Epson and then not accept the blame for when the work fades 10 or 15% in a fraction of the time they guaranteed their customer. THey have Epson to fall back on. Epson has WIR to fall back on. The WIR methodology only indicates "easily detectable fade". Who is going to argue with that? Things do go better with Coke!<br /><br />With Aardenburg - you get facts. But you need to dig down. It is a far superior method if you can understand it and its worth being a member because your support is what makes that happen. Aardenburg does not allow manufacturers to submit. Only consumers can. WIR does not allow 3rd party inks to be tested - only the OEM can pay for those services. So Aardenburg obviously is on your side!<br /><br />There are two interesting tests in place now on Neutral. One test has a premature failure - one test is at 40 megalux and still going. The subtleties of paper OBAs are actually a huge component of these tests. You can have a long lasting ink but put it on a paper that is totally crap. WIR can not measure for OBA failures. It's all very very interesting.<br /><br />What WIR has and continues to contribute is a vast history of knowledge about why inks fade and what contributes to it. Henry is extraordinary. I am sure that if the OEMs wanted to use i*metric and reduce their customer's expectations - WIR would be publishing it. AS it is - i*metric is only in limited use now at WIR. It is in full swing at Aardenburg. I would not want a world without Aardenburg or WIR. The OEMs finance WIR. You need to help contribute to Aardenburg. So get over there and pay the small fee he asks to download the pdfs. And yes - you can submit tests!</p>

<p>Eric, I can't help the OP. I have no knowledge of this vendor. However, I noticed 4 or so people saying that OEM inks were better than non-OEM. This is a place where a lot of people new to this are reading these postings. I do not believe that this opinion should become "the word on the street" about this issue. I've been working with these printers and different inksets professionally for over a decade and I don't find this opinion to be true. Epson doesn't actually make any ink, they buy it from a vendor and repackage it.</p> <p>I may not be responding to the OP, but I am responding to the posts in this thread...</p>

<p>Respectfully, I disagree. There are plenty of good inksets out there. I might agree with "stay away from crappy ink" but there are many good vendors that sell ink - that I would rather use than Epson ink any day...</p> <p>For black and white, I use the Cone inkset. He has a color set he sells as well. Both are excellent.</p> <p>The key thing is to get larger capacity cartridges. Ink gets cheaper as the quantity goes up. For office printing I have a separate all-in-one from Epson with 75 ml cartridges. The ink comes out to be a fraction of the cost. For that printer I use very cheap ink, I think the last set of 4 carts cost me $10 and lasts about a year.... they have been perfect....</p>