beepy

I second the 3800 recommendation - it is 17" wide and has matte and glossy black installed.

I wince when I switch 4800 inks.

<p>

The 3800 doesn't have roll paper support - if that is an issue?

Hey Mark - thanks. Was trying to read the Epson site quickly.

<p>

I found the cartridge swapping from Matte to Photo or back to be a big hassle. :-( Same

for the 4800 I have. Makes me nuts:-) The 3800 has both simultaneously (as it seems the

R1800 does as Zach relates).

<p>

Anyway, for all my frustrations with Epson wide printers - they produce beautiful prints. I

have to say I put out some B+W 16x20 prints (from 4x5 scans) to my 4800 as soon as I

powered it on and they were gorgeous with no hassle.

<p>

I am increasingly intrigued by the advances Canon and HP are making -

<a href="http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/printers/canon-ipf5000.shtml">

the 16 bit support</a> in a recent Canon printer, and the

<a href="http://www.photokina-show.com/0445/hp/photoprinter/hpdesignjetprinter/">

embedded spectrophotometer</a> in the HP Z series.

I suspect I will be picking up a next gen one of these printers unless Epson responds in

turn. Even with both Matte and Photo Black cartridges in the Epson 3800, it still shares a

single black ink feed line requiring a flush cycle (without changing cartridges). The Canon

printer I think does not execute a flush cycle - has separate lines.

<p>

Anyway - interesting thread.

Sorry for recommending the 3800 - I know it is more than needed. Some smaller Epson

printers don't have the three black inks (Light-Light, Light, and Photo or Matte Black). And

I can't figure out if any smaller Epson supports Matte and Photo (Glossy) Black inks

simultaneously. Both aspects may be important for B+W printing on a variety of media. Also,

it's not clear to me that 3rd party paper manufacturers are providing profiles for many of the

smaller Epson printers.

<p>

Any suggestions or thoughts I would find interesting.

Jared - what printer(s) are you using now, that you don't like? And what do you mean by

"clarity"? Where do the B+W images come from? Digital SLR or scanned film (color or B+W)?

If you are converting a color source to B+W how are you doing it?

<p>

I guess I'm assuming that the image on a monitor is to your liking - it's the print you don't

like?

<p>

In the absence of any other info, I think the Epson 3800 (which will do both matte and

glossy black using different full black cartdridges) is your best bet from Epson currently

(the cartridge swapping nonsense to do deep matte blacks on the 4800 is a real pain).

<p>

And then all you are left with is the decision on what paper to use to get the results you

expect?

<p>

Where are your expectations coming from? Are you a traditional darkroom printer? What

are you comparing your results to?

First, poke around <a href="http://www.photo.net/learn/making-photographs/

light">photo.net and use its resources</a>. Really. You can even stay.

<p>

<a href="http://www.webphotoschool.com/">Web Photo School</a> has some modules

that helped me through in a stepwise fashion many aspects of lighting (natural and studio

and modifiers). Not sure what is costs for a subscription. But then again, Google is your

friend - look up "natural lighting in photography and read, read, read!

<p>

Not sure what is costs for a subscription. There are many books out there, I would drag

myself to a large library or a Borders Books or Barnes and Noble or Canadian equivalent

and start browsing the stacks. I have a lot of books on lighting I've drawn from but no one

book that pops to mind as a first reference.

<p>

Consider a workshop at

<a href="http://theworkshops.com/">The Maine Photographic Workshops</a>. Great

lobster dinner on Friday nite.

<a href="http://theworkshops.com/catalog/courses/index.asp?

CourseID=2269&SchoolID=20">For example, this class</a>.

Ahhhhh... thanks. Two stops over on a neutral gray. That could explain my problem with

overexposing white background.

<p>

And I think I need to modify my homemade reflector/blocker to block spill better... Not sure I

can do before next shoot though.

I wanted a little feedback on lighting ratios of what is essentially a high key image against a white

background. There is some nudity

<a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/6120384">in this example image</a>.

I have a few questions (some perhaps basic).

I am shooting primarily a Canon 1Ds Mk II, but am shooting some 4x5 Fuji Astia.

<p>

First, so I know the rule to get a "white" background is to have the white background 2 stops over the

meter reading of the primary subject. So, how do I think about this given I am essentially spray painting

the model white and looking for her to be white with texture and separated from the background? Would

someone expose the background to be *blown* out in terms of highlights to get two stops over? I find

that gives some blow out of subject hair on edges. What I am doing (which may be incorrect) is to expose

the white background at highest part of histogram essentially, retaining subtle shadow at least around

figure and uniform white in back, with subject metered just below that to get a white on white that I can

dodge and burn as necessary. I'm not sure tis is right - curious how others do it or would approach it?

<p>

Second, as you see in the image while the image is primarily a white on white study, I am using a large

black bowl as an element in the studies. It is a deep black lacquer. I think I am seeing some noise in the

darkest portions of the bowl and believe I am really setting up a worst case scenario in terms of a

exposure challenge by shooting primarily high key with a deep black element. Again, lighting and how

should I think through this?

<p>

And I am not sure how Fuji Astia slide film would be different than perhaps my digital camera response?

I am happy with my digital captures - have some slide film queed up for development (local lab that did

4x5 moved - need to switch to a "development by mail" model:-)

<p>

I am really attached to the shadows below the bowl.

Hmmmmm... I have 3GB on a MacBook Pro - it runs fine? How much disk free space do you

have?

Some notes from some exchanges

with Kevin Sullivan several months back

from

<a href="http://www.bostick-sullivan.com/">Bostick and Sullivan</a>

and my final findings when I was wrestling with Cyanotypes on

the various papers and coating methods:

<p>

<blockquote>

COT320 is really hard surfaced, so it takes a lot to

get the emulsion soaked in, and I could see how it might bleed more because the

emulsion is closer to the

surface, less absorbed. I find that the COT320 should

be brushed with a stiff brush, like those disposable

foam brushes you get at the hobby store. Coating rods

and some bristle brushes don't scrub it enough and the

coating won't sink in far enough. Tween usually helps.

The Crane's Platinotype is softer and I would expect it to hold

more stuff down if you aren't getting it stuck into the COT320 well enough. But any

cyanotype is probably

going to bleed some, I just keep the agitation going

and hose the print in a tray occasionally to really

blast the loose stuff off and keep it moving off the

paper and away.

<p>

I went and read your posts on photo.net just now and

the graininess in the midtones also sounds like the

COT320 hardness, the little valleys in-between the

paper fibers fill up with sizing and if you don't get

enough liquid and scrubbing action for it to sink in

through those valleys, then the emulsion dries on top

and floats away into the rinse water, increasing the

bleeding problem.

<p>

Cyanotype is a shorter tonal scale process and the

classic problem is that by the time you expose long

enough to get the highlights to stick properly, the

shadows have blocked up. This is why the acid bath (in

your case muriatic should do the same thing, you just

use a lot less) is almost essential to making a really

good looking one.

</blockquote>

<p>

So, catching up on all this. With Crane's Platinotype and Classic Cyanotype I did a basic 1:1

solution A to solution B (from Bostick and Sullivan), with one drop of Tween added to

about 6ml total solution I believe. Crane's Platinotype has a "smooth" side and a "rough"

side also - and this is determined by first marking a package side and a test strip with

pencil and soaking a strip of Platinotype for 20m in plain water

and then allowing it to dry - the rough side becomes obvious. I coat the smooth surface -

because I think the "sizing in the

valley" accumulation may be a factor in "mottling" and run-off with Platinotype as well.

The coating method does not matter - once I get it working, rod or brush coat equally

well.

(I can tell the "rough" from the "smooth" side of COT 320 out of the package dry simply by

touch).

<p>

Once you determine the "top" of a pack of Platinotype paper - mark the pack (or corners of

paper)

with either "bottom" or "top" notation to always coat the same side (this assume the paper

in the pack is all oriented similarly). I do keep my humidity up with a humidifier in my

preparation area and spread the sheets of Platinotype out to allow them to reach ambient

humidity.

<p>

Bergger COT 320 I use exclusively for Palladium printing (with Na2 contrast control at a 1s

contrast for a very long tonal scale and about a 6m30s exposure in a UV box). With

nominal 60% humidity, COT 320 takes Pd solution when rod coating very nicely. I never

did get a good Cyanotype with it. I air dry both Palladium on Bergger COT 320 and

Cyanotype on Crane's Platinotype - I do not force accelerate drying the paper with a hair

dryer as this has variously caused "run off" of emulsion even with Palladium. My exposure

time in a UV box for cyanotypes runs around 20m.

<p>

Though that is okay. The processing time for a cyanotype is much shorter (wash under

gently running slightly acid water, hydrogen peroxide intensify) than Palladium (Pd)

processing - one problem I had with Crane's Platinotype was the paper growing

increasingly fragile during Palladium printing after develop, three five minute Permawash

baths, and a 30 minute archival wash. And I ended up liking the COT 320 look more for

Palladium as it is.

<p>

Everything is good - except of course that I found out last week that

<a href="http://www.bostick-sullivan.com/cart/home.php?printable=Y&cat=18">Crane's

Platinotype has been discontinued</a> and replaced by another Crane's product.

I have a stockpile of Platinotype to continue my cyanotype work though for quite a while.

That said, I have ordered the new Crane's paper to take it for a test drive.

<p>

I am generating digital negatives for all the processes I am exploring (including

<a href="http://www.albumenworks.com/printing-out-paper.html">Centennial

POP paper from Chicago Albumen Works</a>, Seagull Oriental VC, and the Palladium and

Cyanotypes) with

<a href="http://www.precisiondigitalnegatives.com/">Mark Nelson's method</a>.

Uhhhhh... I'm unaware of any other film that anyone uses for this process (well, other than

trying to run negatives through a Fuji Lightjet). I use

<a href="http://http://www.precisiondigitalnegatives.com/">Mark Nelson's method</a>

(he is in the backyard studying a CDRP palette on POP paper looking for ink "grain"

differences between swatches). I am using the Ultra Pictorico OHP - not even the normal

one (and the Ultra only comes in rolls).

The Ultra material has lowere dot gain on ink laid down, and supposedly can take more ink

(which is good if you need more density to get paper white while pursuing Dmax).

<p>

Good luck finding an alternative.

There is a small bump at the top of the camera (I think) under the "skin" (leather cover). Press

it down - voila?

Just finished putting the flooring in my work area after ripping carpet up to reduce dust flying

around when I do my 4x5 scans. Definitely time for a beer and later a nice dinner - next four

days in private workshop on advanced digital negative technique with

<a href="http://www.precisiondigitalnegatives.com/">Mark Nelson</a>... should be fun.

Adams was involved early on in evaluation and consulting with Polaroid Corporation on

their instant films - he seemed to be relatively unafraid of considering new technologies.

He ended up writing the

<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Polaroid-Land-Photography-Ansel-Adams/dp/

0316712744">canonical book</a> on using Polaroid films. My suspicion is he would be

neither zealot nor bigot. Sheesh, he used 35mm cameras at times depending on

assignment. And he did shoot color film. I'm not sure why this is such a contentious topic.

<p>

(and on his one great picture - I actually like his

<a href="http://www.anseladams.com/index.asp?

PageAction=VIEWPROD&ProdID=256">shot of Georgia O'Keefe</a> very much).

<a href="http://www.ischool.utexas.edu/~cochinea/html-paper/a-wilker-04-

instantfilm.html">Google is your friend</a> (use interesting keywords and search furher -

look for the relevant patents).

While I shoot nudes, I've been sort of puzzled myself at the frequency of nudes in top

rated photos. I have this faint recollection of massive gyrations resulting finally in the rate

recent average calculation and default to damp down mate rated and targeted rating of

some categories (aka nudes). But there they are again dominating the Top Rated Photos

category.

<p>

Again, I shoot nudes, but certainly note that nudes are but one genre in photography. The

Top Rated Photos do not reflect a balance of the genres. I guess they reflect the viewer's

taste.

<p>

Can anyone explain the dynamics of the top rated photos calculations and why the images

have once again drifted to a preponderance of nudes? I'm curious what the site admins

think is going on.

Google around searching for "cleaning epson print head windex" and read some articles.

There's one or two out there that will help.

Like <a href="http://www.colorbat.com/clearingnozzles.htm">this one</a>.

<p>

Standard disclaimer - this is probably not supported by Epson and certain techniques have

potential for damaging your print head.

<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/21/arts/design/21stei.html">

Interesting article</a> on some recently rediscovered Steichen autochromes.

Why not save processing for when you get home? Release the packet, mark exposed, then

process all through the holder once home. No mess, no worries?

<p>

I've had negatives disintegrate in solution in 1 - 3 days when I got distracted from

completing cleaning of 665 and 85 (related P/N) negatives.

What camera is it? The strobes will freeze most action (firing for a shorter duration than the

shutter sync speed). If Canon digital SLR max shutter speed likely 1/125s with external

strobes. (Canon has 1/250s sync speed with their ETTL flashes - this tripped me up).

I think the answer is yes. The film is pretty much like any other film. You want to keep the 55

unprocessed film cool, maybe in a Ziploc bag to make sure chemicals don't dry out?

So, at roughly the same time I installed CS3, I believe my Mac (if you are running a Mac)

also suggested a software upgrade which required a reboot? Or it may have been on install

of CS3. I noticed that the software upgrade didn't reboot the machine seemingly, but

rather logged off and put up a login screen? Something odd.

<p>

So anyway, yes, I was getting this error. After feeling like I'd made a big mistake installing

CS3 I shut my

Mac down and made sure I booted from scratch. And I was able to then access my network

drives.

<p>

I think it was unrelated to CS3, as I am running CS2 on my tower and hit the same odd

upgrade behaviour. (didn't completely shut down - more like log off and log on). So I did

a complete shutdown and restart there also.

<p>

Just a thought... haven't seen the problem since the reboot.

I've not used it, but prior experience with other untreated watercolor papers suggests you

may be disappointed. If the paper is not coated for ink jet use, you will get significant

bleeding and muddied colors? You can use something like

<a href="http://www.inkaid.com/Products/Products.html">Ink Aid</a> to coat materials for

use in an ink jet printer.

<p>

Never saw a profile for the paper also...

Depending on what you want, a bellows is not completely necessary (helical mount if no

movements, shooting handheld).

<p>

That said, is there a reason you want to build one vs. buy one (with lens) on the used

market? I've seen some good prices on any number of 4x5 cameras used that certainly

would be better (more stable) and more full featured than something I could build that

would make me decided to buy used and spend the time I would've spent

building the camera doing more shooting instead...

<p>

Perhaps I'm being difficult...

<p>

I do like building pinhole large format cameras with a (thicker) piece of cardboard duct

taped to a (Polaroid) large format film back and a carefully homemade pinhole out of brass

stock... Very wide angle:-)