lfbrown

I' m using RGB. Would that effect how a graduated scale is rendered? I think I've solved the problem, however. Part of it is screen render in ACR. I'm using CS5 and it appears - never noticed it before - that at 25% - 50% image render the on screen image is terrible. Once I move up to 66% the tonal scales improve immensely. So it seems partly a perceptual problem. Often, however, I go straight to PS as in my CS5 ACR there is no way to do selections and trying to isolate out skies with complicated horizons or foreground objects intruding into sky space is - for me - difficult to impossible. Once in PS I work the tools there and also go to two Topaz plugins: Clarity and Details. Sometimes one or the other and sometimes both. And it is easy to go past reasonable limits with those hence my original question as to whether or not using a full frame camera would would allow more tolerance of brute force editing. While I don't think it is worth anyone's time for me to upload a raw example, perhaps someone could enlighten me as to how to do that in the future. Do I just load it up in the window offering uploads following this message box and know that it will load outside of the message or is raw just altogether too big and I need to achieve it in some other way? I'll try doing more in ACR this coming week and if I'm still having problems I'll post again with examples. Thanks for all the input and fast response. And if anyone has an opinion on whether or not a larger sensor would give more editing latitude I'd appreciate a note.

Re Andrew's post: the problem would probably appear in any given gradiation dropped a couple of stops. However, I most consistently seem to be changing the value in the sky tones and never (almost) move other tones in the image that far. So I'm always dealing with a sky, properly exposed for its actual light value, but then cranking it down in value for esthetic purposes. The effect, as noted I the OP, is not so much banding (which I am familiar with when a large graduated tonal scale is scaled down too severely) but literally a mottled appearance. However, this could be attributed to the fact that skies are almost never perfectly graduated tonal scales.

My camera captures in 14 bit and I send the raw image from ACR to Photoshop as a 16bit image. I want to emphasize that the sky areas not subjected to heavy tonal manipulation have no hint of the problem. It's only after shifting the tonal value down 2 or 3 stops that the pixel structure begins to lose its monotone appearance. I like those dark skies but they aren't always achievable at the moment of exposure.

I use an APS-C camera and have noticed that when darkening skies in Photoshop during post processing there comes a point - and rather quickly - when the smooth tonal range begins to posterize producing an unpleasant mottling. I've come up with various workarounds but I was wondering if this is as much of a problem when using a camera with a full frame sensor. In other words, can an image from a full frame sensor be pushed further before damaging artifacts begin showing up I the image. Thanks

<p>You apparently cannot click on Notify Me of Responses and add a photo. One more time.</p><div></div>

<p>Trying to get a photo in the column is tricky. Here's another try.</p>

<p>Hi Bill, thanks for the post, I tried your suggestions. Doing the calibration test rotated 90 degrees the banding changed direction relative to the step wedge rows but still parallel to head travel. I printed a page out of a PDF file both though the standard printing routine the Epson has for that plus a version through QTR. While the QTR version is much less clean (and very dark which I attribute to using standard ink jet printer paper rather than my heavy photo matte photo paper) but no sign of the banding. This is not inconsistent with what I see in my calibration step wedges where the density from 1.50 and up do not show the artifact - probably because the amount of ink just overwhelms the striping.</p>

<p>Following up on this issue. I finally sat on the phone for thirty minutes to talk the problem over with Epson - the person I talked to, BTW, turned out to be very knowledgeable and even a little helpful- who suggested running a print straight out of Photoshop. In doing that none of the artifacts noted above were present. It doesn't print half as well as through QTR especially in the shadows but in none of the light and mid-tones did I have any kind of problem. <br> So that seemed to implicate QTR. I then completely uninstalled QTR and re-installed only to have the same problem. I uninstalled it again and this time downloaded the most recent version (2.7.5) and tried that. Running in the calibration mode the problem is still there but very much reduced although the actual quality of the ink spray is terrible. Very grainy. Going on to the 21 step wedge seemed clean but on looking through magnification the striations running parallel to the head travel are still there. What's more, I was using the same ink characterization as I had been in 2.7.2 but every step was measurably lighter than when printed in that version. <br> Perhaps there is a problem with the print heads that only shows itself when using QTR to drive the printing. I don't know but I've about had it. Buying a new 1410 seems like the last chocolate in the box but it's a pretty expensive way to test a hypothesis.<br> Anyone with information leading to more creative expression and less technical nightmare please write.</p>

<p>Peter, re your comment on analyzer: My screen calibration analyzer? Epson cartridges don't have nozzles. Those are built into the heads which normally clean out just fine during a normal head cleaning cycle. But I've had another comment from another photographer I know making the same comment as well as the guy who fixes my computer. I'm going to try a new set of cartridges as soon as I can and see if it makes a difference. </p> <div></div>

So that didn't work either. Last Ry or I have to wait until tonite to scaled photo small enough for site to take it. Sorry.

Ok. So doing this from an iPad is harder. I'll try again here for the image.

I use an Epson 1400 with MIS Eboni dedicated B&W inks (6 tones). I use QuadTone Rip software to do my printing with. It has all worked fine for several years. Of late, however, two problems have cropped up: the first, and longest noticed, is the banding seen in the attached photo of a black ink only tonal range scale. Note the horizontal banding parallel with the path of the printing head. The interesting thing is that it always shows up in this calibration scale but so far not in the corresponding tonalities of prints. The second problem is that all six scales of all six inks has lost density between when I last calibrated in June and my most recent yesterday. It is across the entire scale so not a result of just one or two inks. From my lightest density (.05 above paper) to my max (1.59 above paper) the densities have decreased resulting in lighter prints. For the record I did, just previously refill my cartridges but was exceptionally careful to match inks to the appropriate cartridge. Any input on the why's and solutions would be appreciated. Thanks

<p>Well, I thought I had responded to Bob Eskridge last night but now don't see it on the forum. So thanks, Bob, for the comments. I do appreciate the info on mounting the lens as I had tentatively tried to fold the camera up with the Symmar in place but it wouldn't close. I didn't pursue it, just removed the lens after my first two rolls. I'll implement your suggestion after my next round of exposures.<br> I used to own a very nice Schneider 180mm specifically designed for closeup photography which I was doing a lot of in those days. Schneider offered two in this series with the other being a 120mm. I don't remember the exact designation given them, however. Fantastic images. I am hoping that this one is as good.</p>

I got it. Wasn't as tight as I thought. A better grip and fingers did the trick. I appreciate the tips for future reference, though.

I have a lens in a Copal #0 which I need to mount. I cannot, however, get the rear element to unscrew. I've only had this problem once before with a very old, second hand Graflex shutter/lens combo. In that case applying all my strength finally broke it loose - a strategy I'm reluctant to use on a more expensive lens. I was wondering what methods others have used to solve this problem or if there are "approved" approaches I'm unaware of. Thanks.