Film vs. Digital or..... DIGITAL V. DIGITAL PRINTING

[Uhooru]

Tony, go for the Luminous Landscape Epson 2200 articals, its a good start. If you can

afford the couple of hundred USD for a good calibrator, it will make life easier, otherwise

pure trial and error. But they have some good "out of the box" techniques. Also Clayton

Jones has a very nice technique for Black only printing on the Epson 2200.

http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm

 

 

good luck!

[brambor]

Tony,

At home I also have ps7. My little boy wished a color printer this christmas and we spent about 200 bucks on an HP photoprinter. It is capable of printing above 600dpi. I printed my very first inkjet prints last night at 600dpi and they came out stunning. I bought ILFORD paper (the green box) for $13 per 25 8.5x11 sheets. All I need to do at work now is to cut them on a good paper cutter as the bordera size didn't fit the paper exactly.

 

Alternatively you could upload them to online service. Many of them provide free prints the first time through so you have nothing to lose.

[todd frederick]

Tony,

 

I am sure I will be repeating many of the good suggestions here, but I have a few ideas.

 

I also share your frustration. I just spent about a week trying to print a portrait and kept getting micro-banding using my older Epson 1280 printer. After extensive head cleanings, the problem was resolved.

 

1. There is nothing wrong with Photoshop 7. I would suggest that you by a book by Scott kelby on Photoshop 7. I think I saw one at Barnes and Noble, and it should be available through Amazon.

 

2. For your purposes, make printing as simple as possible. To do this, try to get a print-ready image in your camera by using a high resolution jpeg format, and set the camera for high sharpness. Don't use RAW capture at this point. Such requires much post processing in PS, and PS7 probably would not support you camera in RAW capture anyway.

 

3. The paper you use is very important. You simply can't get a good print using inkjet text (typewriter) paper. Photo paper has special coatings and often has only one side for printing. As mentioned I would suggest either Epson Enhanced Matte Paper or a less expensive Epson Heavyweight Matte Paper (which is not as heavy as the Enhanced version!). The Epson standard, and inexpensive, Glossy Photo Paper produces a nice print with a good semi-gloss surface, but is not archival. The Matte papers are durable and should serve your purposes well.

 

4. Also, practive with small prints to start: 4x6 and 5x7. You must set the image size before printing in PS under Image>Image Size, and when you print, be sure to check the print settings (properties) for high quality printing, landscape or portrait, paper type, paper size, and such.

 

5. If you want to have instant fun, just buy one of the Epson PictureMate printers (or an HP equivalent), which will give you a fine small 4x6 print every time.

 

There is a learning curve on this, and I'm still learning big time. Marc Williams once suggested, as did others here, to simply send the images out for printing in a lab, but it is fun to print your own once you get everything under control.

 

I hope this helps.

[al_kaplan1]

Huw, it's kindof amazing that fixed and washed RC paper is cheaper than ink jet paper. Of course Kodak, Iklford, etc. have always covered their butts claiming the paper wasn't stable, then there's the environmental thing with all that silver and chemistry going into the environment. By the time you go to all that trouble why not just use it for photo paper under the enlarger? Oh yeah, Brad doesn't own one. He probably has no trays or print washer anyway.

[j_woo]

Tony, sorry if this is obvious, but it bears asking: Did your friend e-mail these photos to

you? It's possible that they're are of too low resolution to get an adequate printout on your

Epson. When I e-mail JPEGs to friends, they are in the 72-150ppi range, way too low to get a

decent print from any output device.

[todd frederick]

Tony,

 

If they were e-mailed, open one of the images in PS7 and use the magnifying glass tool to enlarge the image. If it breaks down (pixilates) you can't make a good print. However, sometimes you can get a decent 4x6 from an e-mail image, and then you can scan that print to make a larger print. If you don't have a print scanner, you can scan them at a drugstore lab. This is kind of like what Edward Weston did when he made enlarged copies of small negative to 8x10 size so he could contact print them. It's really not cheating...just another way to get the job done.

[Ed_Ingold]

Tony said, "So does my screen profile and printer profile talk to one another somehow, or does one profile connect the two devices? And I take it that both devices need to be set to the same "color space"? If so, that makes some sense to me."

 

A profile, in this sense, is a type of correcting factor between the image file and the device, be it a monitor, printer or (sometimes) a scanner or camera. Profiles don't "talk" to each other. Think of this as a "star" configuration with the image file at the center. As an aside, a set of personal preferences can be called a "profile." That's something different, even if the term is similar.

 

The image file is supposed to be the gold standard - a set of numbers which each represent colors defined by the color space - Adobe RGB, sRGB for example. Photoshop, and other color-managed programs, recognize which color space is employed, and send the appropriate data to the printer or monitor. The output device does not need to know the nature of the source.

 

The most important profile is for the monitor - the display profile, which comes from calibrating your monitor. If done correctly, a given file will look the same on your monitor as any other calibrated monitor. This is a critical step, because you use your monitor to make corrections which you trust will be reflected in the output - screen or print. This really calls for an hardware calibration solution - Monaco or Gretag-MacBeth (and others). In lieu of a calibration system, you can use Adobe Gamma. This seems to work reasonably well with CRT monitors, but not with LCD monitors (mine was really off the wall before calibration).

 

Likewise, printer profiles "correct" the image file as it is sent to the printer to compensate for variations from one paper type to another. This is clearly illustrated in the book by Martin Evening - on of the best narratives I've seen. Epson (and probably others) "calibrate" their photo-quality printers to compensate for manufacturing tolerances. While this makes them more consistent, it cannot account for the way different papers and settings react. That's what printer profiles are for - getting accurate results out of each paper.

 

Some calibration systems, Gretag-MacBeth Eye One Photo for example, can measure prints and generate print profiles. I find that my 2200 works very well with published profiles, and is very consistent. Conversely, my Tektronics color laser changes each time a major component is replaced - cartridge, imaging unit or fuser - and with age. I calibrate it once a month (Eye One Photo) or before a job run.

 

I also find that a well-run minilab gives good results without using a special profile. I just send them an adjusted JPEG file, converted to sRGB color space. The lab's calibration procedure constitutes a "printer profile". (If you can't get good color out of a lab, go to a different lab - it's a problem with the personnel and management, not the process.)

[brambor]

Al said: <i> By the time you go to all that trouble why not just use it for photo paper under the enlarger? Oh yeah, Brad doesn't own one. He probably has no trays or print washer anyway.</i>

<p>

 

Al, there is no trouble. You buy paper, you stick it in the printer and you print photo. Setting up dark room, mixing chemicals, pouring them into trays, checking their temperature, turning on the enlarger, cleaning the negative, setting the negative in to the holder, doing a test print, setting the time for the enlarger, positioning paper on easel, taking exposure, placing paper into developer and stirring it, placing paper into stop bath, placing paper into fixer, washing paper in print washer and drying paper - THAT SOUNDS LIKE A LOT OF TROUBLE - it's fun to be able to do it but please don't mess with reality.

 

<br>

<p>

 

And your stab at Brad in this thread where the conversation like getting caught with your hand in a cookie jar. How long will it be before the moderators realize that these ad hominem attacks come from you?

[al_kaplan1]

Rene, if you'r read the thread, and my post, IN CONTEXT, instead of jumping around because you saw my name, I WAS REFERRING TO USING FIXED OUT AND WASHED RC PHOTO PAPER for ink jet paper. Read the damned thread, not the last few posts. It was suggested that it was better and cheaper than ink jet paper.

[brambor]

ok. point taken Al. I re-read it and you are right.

 

However, the second part of my post holds valid. In this thread you made two references to Brad. He doesn't even participate in this thread. You need a restraining order. ;-)

[andyaitken]

Rene:

 

A word of warning. I did the same when I got my HP printer (using the green box Ilford paper) and the prints look great at first but then fade very quicky - especially if you print mono. After much experimentation with other papers it became apparent that the best results and permanence BY FAR was from HP paper (duh!). Save yourself loads of hassle and get some HP Premium Plus high gloss paper. Now my prints look great. The HP grey cartridges do superb black and white.

[brambor]

Thanks for the tip. I will seek it out. I'm printing with the cartridges that came with the printer and it looks great but should I be buying something else?

[al_kaplan1]

Rene, you did a great job of filling in for Brad, jumping all over me without really reading what I wrote or what had been posted before that I'd referred to. I stand by what I said. It seems dumb to me to take perfectly good silver gelatin photo paper and chemicals, waste wash water, just to get a base for a digital print. The manufacturers really found sone suckers when they discovered that they could charge even more money for inferior paper and not have to coat it with sensitized emulsion first. Then of course spread the word that you should buy the cheaper sensitized stuff AND chemicals and invest time in gettng it ready to feed your printer. Does that make any logical sense?

[socke]

First things first, when I want colour prints I go to a lab doing colour printing. I do this with negatives, scans from slides and files from my dSLR. It's cheap, conveniant and fast.

 

Once or twice a year I print some pictures myself because I need them faster or I just want to waste some ink, then I use the printing utility which came with my printer and, as has been mentioned, paper and inks certified for that printer and known to the utility. That's probably only 90% as good as it can get, but the next 5% are so expensive and time consuming that a well run minilab is better and cheaper, see above :-)

[socke]

Al, which posting of Brad are you referring to? I can't find one here.

[brambor]

Al, what the hell. Why don't you admit fault? I have just replied that you were right and I was wrong on the first issue. It isn't very hard to do, believe me.

 

The second issue has nothing to do with Brad. I'm just sick of you taking stabs at someone and then claim no fault. As I said, Brad doesn't even participate in this thread and you take stabs at him. That's uncalled for. And for the record, I've had my differences with Brad and I have no connection to him. I'm just not happy with cheap shots and you give them in droves.

[Brad_]

<I>And Tony, if all else fails you can ask Brad...LOL</I><P>

 

<I>Oh yeah, Brad doesn't own one. He probably has no trays or print washer anyway.

</I><P>

 

Al, AGAIN, would you please stop referencing me in your threads where I have not posted

anything. We all know you're trying to provoke and stir up the pot. Please stop.<P>

 

Tony, I think Al needs at least a time-out.

[al_kaplan1]

Oh goody. Brad is back on the Leica Forum. Digital Brad. The guy who doesn't shoot Leicas or even a Leica clone, just here to chide those of us who do use them. And YOU'RE complaining? Get a life. Or get a Leica and learn howto use the darned thing. If you stayed over on the digital forum I'd get off your case and you wouldn't know if I did say something. Stop trolling the Leica Forum until you can give some worthwhile input on LEICA techniques and equipment.

[Brad_]

<I>Oh goody. Brad is back on the Leica Forum.</I><P>

 

No Al. I'm asking you to stop stirring up the pot and using my name in threads where I have

not posted.<P>

 

Tony/Brian, can you give Al a hand on understanding this?

[Brad_]

<I>Get a life. </I><P>

 

And Al, please stop with the personal attacks.

[brambor]

LOL Al, I'll let you to complete the seppuku or in your case it is harakiri.

 

Andy Aitken or anyone - should I be buying different inks for the HP printer and if yes what are the benefits?

[al_kaplan1]

Or maybe give Brad a hand? He NEVER has any useful information on Leica technique or equipment. He comes here just to "stir the pot", as he puts it.

[thomas_sullivan]

"...and you wouldn't know if I did say something..."...hmmmmmmmm.....I remember another thread on here that said something about "mirrors"...

[Brad_]

<I> If you stayed over on the digital forum I'd get off your case ...</i><P>

 

Al thinks he's the moderator here and needs to get on my case. I wish he would stop.

[bob_zinasc]

<Email me Tony, I'll give you my phone # ...>

 

That's not fair. If Tony is writing as Joe Blow (no offense Joe) then good results should come off the shelf. I wouldn't expect a new budget-priced car to be painted with a can of Rustoleum. How many buyers avoid that first digital venture assured of ugly out-of-the-box results? I'd like to think that I'm getting reasonably good software instead of knowing that good prints are five tiers away.

 

And, shut up Al.