almagnus

Matt, contrarily to what Mr. Ingold says, it is not a waste of time. His opinion about densities is of no worth. You can get splendid prints with this technique. I recommend A3 printing and contact exposing, sandwiched in a sheet of heavy glass. However, the most difficult choice being in the inkjet paper. You should find enough data on this. In a few hours printing on test strips, you can get a near perfect result, without Dans' book or other external help and curves. The basic idea is that the black point is fixed by the transparency of the paper, and working the exposure to get the black point as dense as possible, without greying the white point. Then simple adjustment curves.

 

The main drawback of this technique I found is the slight blur given by fact that the ink is not directly in contact with the silver paper.

Good luck, its' worth it.

AM

Look at www.mwords.co.uk. It'a all written out in detail. Good luck, AM.

Eric, this link: www.galerie-photo.com/comparatif-scanner-epson.html

will give the most extensive tests and comparisons ever seen on these scanners on the net. The answer to your question is impossible if you don't specify the output size. If you print out at 10cmx15cm... any scanner would do. Yours, AM (if someone could tell me how to insert a link...)

For those who wonder how long silver halide photography has been around, first see this link : http://www.niepce.com/home-us.html.

The first silver photograph was taken in 1826 by Joseph Nicephore Niepce. The invention was bought by the state, and left open as a "gift for humanity" allowing further developments... maybe a lesson worth thinking about...<div></div>

The bit depth you need when printing depends on the density range of your printer-ink-paper combination. With a density range of 2, you need roughly 340 levels (in addition, these levels must be correctly mapped but thats another question...): 8 bits are not sufficient (or more precisely, you can make a better printer with more than 8 bits).

This means also that you should scan at more than 8 bits since the fiddling around in PS will generally (for example by enhancing the shadows) reduce the number of real levels.

So yes; you should scan at more than 24 bits, and yes, there is a difference, especially in B&W prints between 8 and 16 levels of grey.

In this article www.galerie-photo.com/canoscan-d2400uf.html (in french so good luck), you will probably find the answer. As Andy put it, there is a difference betwenn resolution and acuteness. This article shows how a perfectly sharp line is scanned, the MTF (modulation transfer function) is calculated and the sharpening corrections necessary to correct the scanners imperfect acuteness. As a conclusion, you do need sharpening. If you don't understand the text, the figures are rather self-containing. Good luck. AM.

Contrarily to what Matt says, an EPSON 2200 will give you great BW pictures using QTR (50$), with tint control. I do understand that if you're interest in glossy prints you will have some problems with the UC inkset. You should also specify the longevity of the print. There's tons of information about this issue elsewhere (yahoo). Good luck...

QTR is just 50$.... 450$ for the layering out option is a bit hard to justify.

QTRgui is your answer. Desgned for the job.

QRT, no doubt about it. MUCH better than Black only, good results even on semi-gloss. IP is just too expensive for the extra plus.

Hahnemuhle papers are top archival quality, and have been used for decades before for other applications (although not the coating) with no serious flaw like you say. I myself have two year old print on the same machine and paper with no problem at all, even displayed with no glass, in a light place. I think you should sort it out with Hahnemuhle, get a replacement pack.

Over here, Epson Archival Matte is simply not sellable. It yellows within 10 to 20 years. I would use Hahnemuehle PhotoRag or equivalent.

You said "Instead it was an misplaced attempt to look for some more interesting photography from a specific region in Europe that doesn't see much variety these days and I'll leave it at that".

 

I took a look at your folder. Who are you to judge a person? Who are you to judge italians? Who are you to think PN represents the most creative people out there? and you say you don't post any ethnic or racial slurs of any kind... now, how can I believe that!

I am very touchy about the quality of my prints... and the price. A good scanner is a must (loads on info on that on this site).

A flatbed scanner is not (at the time writing) sufficient.

Is also exclusively shoot only Fuji Velvia or Sensia or Reala even for BW work, with represents about 2/3 of my output.

I just don't see the reason to shoot BW anymore, but I do understand people "who like the TMax look" etc... I always scan 16 bits, with very carefull histogram adjustements, and limit PS greyscale work to the strict minimum (although I do heavily work the rest! see my folder).As for printing, I bought a cheap Epson 1160 and equipped it with continous flow BW ICC Piezography.

The results are outstanding on the right paper.

I also used BO printing. I do not like the dots in the greys, nor the too warm color cast. I also tried and hated the Eboni Black carts.

I hated the ink color (seemed green!).

I now also use QTR, just for printing on semi-matte papers when high Dmax is necessary (Piezo gives one of the highest Dmax on matt papers). But all in all, the best quality/price ratio goes with no doubt to the 1160 equipped with piezos. Its a real working horse, NEVER blocks, reliant and simple.

Thats my "happiest methodology", but I'm sure the techniques above are just as good. (However, having compared BW ICC piezo (on a 1280) with MIS (on a 2100), I definitely think BW ICC is superiour. The selenium tone is wonderfull.

I understand your problem. I found a solution with Epson Glossy Paper - Photo weight. Its not a shiny paper like ordinary glossy paper, since it has no gloss film on top. Its was released for glossy prints with UC inks and gives the most dense prints with these inks. It is no longer distibuted over here...unless someone can give me a retailer...

Yours, AM

Let's change the odds a bit. OK, english is number one language, but most people speak something else than English. Now just imagine two americans in Italy being forced to speak to each other in Italian! They will end-up speaking English even if they master the language. So I don't think you should (can)enforce or restrict the use of any language. Photo.net is victim of its success, and thats the way it is. Photo.net reflects the people using it and so it should remain. The PN webmasters could be proud of that.. just think of it, people comminicating in so many language on their site.

I read "i adjust brightness, contrast" etc.. now, if you use the brightness/contrast controls of PS, no wonder you get poor histograms. These controls literally destroy your picture by clipping the information. Try it out by viewing a hist. before and after. As a rule, NEVER TOUCH brightness/contrast controls. NEVER.

You can use 2200's on 2100's and vice-versa. I've tried it.

Dear Van,

although you do tend to distort the reality, my opinion is sure close to what you think. However, I answered Williams question. He didn't wan't a top pro printer, or a museum archival printer, or a high thruput printer. Just a simple desk-top printer, with good archival properties. I don't think William wanted more. I have not enough confidence in the HP 130. And longevity tests are not complete. Simply that. As for the printers used for displays, it just depends where you are. Over here its all EPSON, in Japan also. As for the pigment-dye choice, yours seems to be made. I'm not so sure. I would patiently wait a while and let time decide as so little is understood, especially the ink-paper interactions. I had no intention in making a row, but simply moderating what you wrote above.

Yours

As a response to posters,

1) saying archival properties with the HP130 dyes is no longer an issue, is true with two papers. IT IS SIMPLY NOT TRUE in general.

2) Saying the colors are more vibrant, is somewhat true, but only slightly, and still depends heavily on the paper.

3)"Being a dye printer, I would expect less clogging problems" is simply not true. Look at a recent post about tyhis issue.

4) Tell me who, apart from FLAAR, seriously prones the HP dye inks to the ultrachrome inkset for the original question posted...

I think you should seriously all consider reading this http://www.inkjetart.com/news/archive/IJN_05-27-04.html

 

Maybe you want the truth? Here's an extract.

(Not at all, but) I do not always agree with the propaganda that is distributed by BGSU via the "FLAAR" organization. Although they are considered "experts" by many, I question FLAAR's objectivity in some cases because they rarely ever rate Epson large format printers ahead of any other printer in their comparisons. This always seems peculiar to me since we see so many glowing reports from photographers and giclee printing houses. Some museums will not use any large format printers except Epson for their art reproductions. Example: http://store.yahoo.com/mfapublications/about.html

 

Now read further on:

"BACK TO THE LONGEVITY QUESTION ON THE HP 130: FLAAR makes this statement in their online HP DesignJet 130 report, "Chemists agree it is easier to create a dye ink that lasts a long time than a pigmented ink that has a full color gamut." http://www.wide-format-printers.org/inkjet_printer_reviews_price_comparisons_ratings/Hewlett-Packard_DesignJet_130nr_HP_30n_printer_reviews.htm"

This misleading and outdated statement is so typical of FLAAR reports. Although early pigment inksets from all manufacturers had low color gamuts, the Epson new UltraChrome inkset has forever changed the perception of pigment inks. Show me an HP dye ink that will come close to the longevity of the UltraChrome pigment inks, AND show me the color gamut map comparisons of the HP and Epson UltraChrome inks. Epson's UltraChrome color gamut is very high, and equals many of the dye inksets out there. Quoting the Luminous-Landscape: "These are pigment [ultraChrome] inks that are very close indeed to the wider colour gamut of dye-based inks."

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/printers/Epson2200.shtml

http://www.photo-i.co.uk/Reviews/printers/UltraChrome.htm

http://www.pictureline.com/digital/dprinters/depson/pdf/UltrachromeInk.pdf"

 

Now William, make your own choice. You love the ultrachrome inkset? Stick to your good opinion.

Basically, the problem is simply that inkjet print ARE different, no better, no worse. Technically speaking, inkjet print equal silver prints in Dmax AND archival properties. Take piezography for an exemple which uses pigement inks. However, the way the light is reflected/diffracted is obviously different because of the layering on the paper and ink-paper properties. But behind a glass, most people cannot tell the difference, viewed at 50 cm, between a silver print and the best inkjet prints. IMO, the most penalising effect of inkjet printing, is the tint, which even on a HP 7960 is green.

 

Anyway, it seems that there is alot of "emotion" behind this issue. Take for exemple what you call "lifeless" "depth" etc... these seem very diificult to put a measurable figure on it. Maybe you should just accept that inkjet BW printing IS different from what you are used to see, like missing the graininess on digital captures.

I personnaly don't see any reason why BW inkjet printing should strive to equal the look any other technique including silver halide.

Maybe you could be impressed by a deep piezo print on a Hahnemuhle photo rag. I am.

Jim, digital photo paper has a considerable amount of R&D in it, and is quite far from RC paper. It is a complicated layering (sometimes up to 9 layers).

Here's another interesting test between scanners : flatbed epson 2450, 4870 and Nikon LS-8000 ED and Flextight Imacon.

 

http://www.galerie-photo.com/scanner-epson-4870.html

 

As a conclusion, it is said (in french sorry), that contrarily to what is commonly believed, the scanning depth of the 4870 is comparable to that of LS4000 or Imacon, but the accutance is not as good. Thanks for the post.

Dear Van,

Firstly, when I said you are getting things mixed up, I obviously meant, that you should take into account the paper. For exemple, a deep black on a silver gelatin print will get a Dmax around 2.2 on baryte paper. On matt papers, whether dye or not the Dmax is substancially lower, and the difference between dye and pigment is reduced (1.6 to 1.8). Now when Epson claims a Dmax of 3, I would like to know the paper and ink combinations and exact technical details. Some people, years ago in the printing industry, were also measuring fabulous Dmax... by enhancing the brilliance of the support and measuring at a favourable wavelength. Anyway, no need to worry, excellent pigment prints (using UC or piezo) easily rival in many aspects with dye prints and silver prints.