almagnus

Can't someone just take the same subject with the same lenses at same aperture using a DSLR and a silver negative, print out at 10*15, scan on flatbed at much higher resolution and publish on this thread. Then we can stop all this discussion, and get down to taking pics.

Thanks in advance for the volunteer.

I read somewhere "Dmax of nearly 3" with a dye printer... and 1.6 to 2 with pigment... I really think someone's mixing things up. Which paper, which settings etc.. etc..? I happily possess both: a dye printer and an pigment printer. I really think the gap is not so large, and the paper is of prime importance. Honeslty, excellent prints can be obtained with dye on glossy, with pigment on semi-gloss and mat. As for archival purposes, don't hesitate... go for pigment.

(this is like a cup of tea on the battlefield...) Marc, so do I have a French keyboard... don't say you just type éèàçùöüï?

If not, great thread. I know you just asked the question to get the biggest amount of comments! Yours AM

Really interesting suggestions... but what I'm most amazed about is how did you manage to insert the accent on "Bolognese" without it looking like "bologn?se". I would love an answer! I've been trying to tackle this for years.

I do mainly B&W work. I started using BW negs. Except for the exceptionnal fine grain Fuji Acros, I don't see any more reason to shoot BW negs when using my workflow (Coolscan, Inkjet). More grain, more dust (no ICE available) muddy blacks. Now, if you still insist, and why not, I had very poor results with Delta 400, without knowing the reason. I now shoot exclusively Reala and Sensia/Velvia. Look at my portofolio for some exemples. Yours, AM

All have been well summed up. I just want add that Ultrachrome inks have a substancial amount of dye... its not just pigment. The differences in gamut are not that great. However, although dye ink lifetimes are in great progress, at the moment, none will live 100 years. For people who don't care, fine enough. But I have some family prints 114 years old, and I'm so glad silver prints had such a lifetime. It's nice to think that what you are doing is not so perishable.

The "socially utopic value" is not 4! In my case, and many others, I only look at pictures that interest me. And so I only rate pictures I already like. So obviuously my average is way above 4!! I we followed what you are to suggest, no way can I give a great rating, and sooner or later, I'll stop rating at all. Selecting a picture is already saying you like the pic.

Canned profiles for the R800 are excellent... Since you did not mention you had a screen calibrator, I would save your money and invest in that instead! Good luck...AM

Sorry Nestor, everything interests me. Can't stop it. And you?

As I said, it's rather difficult to say anything, thats why I posted, to get your advice, and not "wrong approach" words. I'm perfectly aware of the difficulty. Now if we are amateur (which we are!) surely someone here can make something clever out of it, or other stats... I sure find it rather interesting. I would also like to know the relationship between the number of ratings and the rank... surley someone could do that... Yours, AM

Thanks Ted, I only counted the average scores of each photo. What do I think... hard... Your and my graph are complimentary. Yours says that the mean is not 4 (obvious since most people only rate pics they like), but A and O have same tendancies. My graph shows that A and O are not exactly correlated, although close. The fall with rank gives an idea of the distribution of ratings.If it were an ideal gaussian curve, you could predict what the perfect score is (or the rating of the most perfect picture) (probably near 7 anyway)! I would love to see a more detailed study, somewhere near sociology? Yours...

I quickly made these graphs for fun. Does anyone have an idea how to

interpret them? Basically pics are better rated for aesthetics... or

(if rating is "neutral"), photographers prefer to post aesthetic

rather than original photos. What do you think?<div></div>

Chee, your print does look awfull... but again I don't know the scale so I can't take a definite judgment. Basically they're some solutions. Print with Ultrachromes on EPSON white film (a plastic support)... I can find the ref if you want. Or, print on transparent film. Also make sure the negative is really clamped to the silver paper. Try also the thinest paper possible (limit light dispersion)... Last ultimate solution I've opted for... get piezography. It's fantastic.

Started with a Dimage Dual Scan III... and upgraded within months to a Coolscan IV. No comparison... no bad nights any longer!

As already discussed here, the main problem with inkjet negatives is that contrarily to ink setters, the ink sinks into the material, through the glossy coating. This means that the ink is by no way in direct contact with the silver paper. Light diffusion through the back on the inkjet negative makes things worse. Your prints can by no way be sharper. One solution is printing on papers where the ink does not sink down. Photo Glossy Photo Weight (Epson) is a solution but the fibers are awfull. Printing using Ultrachrome inks does makes things better, since pigmented ink does not sink through the coating.

The "A" papers are simple to understand. A1 is 1 square meter paper with the following property: when you fold it into two, you get two sheets with the same aspect ratio (format) as the sheet you folded. This means that length/width = square root of 2. For all A papers.

So A4 = 29.7 * 21 cm. A3 = ?? 42*29.7....And A5 = 14.8*21

Beau, you most certainly ommited to add extra grain. This must be done on the blurred duplicate layer. If not you will have a nasty print with a mismatch in the texture. I think what Beau writes is pretty near. Do think also about doing levels and curves distinctivly on the blurred layer.

Absolutely BAN Brightness/contrast... It literally clips off the edges of the histogram... in other words it is not reversible. Use levels and then curves insteas.

Sorry according to a guy who measures these, the Fuji Frontier does not give the widest gamut (OK I don't know the exact conditions or even if the machine was correctly set etc...). According to this link, Fuji Frontier 350 with crystal archive has smaller gamut than Epson 7600 with Epson PGPP (Premium Glossy). Have a look at the matt papers on a 2200 and Canon i950. Quite interesting. Here's the link :

http://perso.wanadoo.fr/christophe.metairie.photographie/profile2.html

 

Yours...

This is the most fantastic paper I have ever tried, with piezography. Its even better than Concorde Rag (see Inkjetmall), and Hahnemuhle Photo Rag. I think one of its advantages is that it needs probably less ink than HPR, and tends to get very dense blacks. The paper support is probably the best I have ever had in my hands.

It is produced in france, like Concorde Rag (and some of the Hahnemuhle Papers). See http://www.bergger.fr/.

A bit too expensive.

I use Dan Burkholders workflow with success (using a color map).

The main drawback is the negative. I use EPSON film (white plastic support). However, I find the results altough still excellent, slightly inferiour to piezo inkjet by the presence of a slight blurr. THe reason is, I guess, that the inks settle into the negative, and are therefore not directly in contact with the paper, even after mounting the paper and negative on a glass clamp. I now use piezo, but I do miss the deep blacks of semi-gloss silver process, which cannot be reached by matt papers with piezo...

16 bit is a must for high quality BW scans. Firstly, BW negs have a realtively high density range, secondly, alot of exigeant people look at the details on the print inthe highlights and the shadows. This can be greatly improved with 16 bit depth. It is not so much the case with color negs. These can be scanned at 8 bits. Good luck...

Dear BEAU, do you want the truth? I spend more time unclogging the Epson 2100 with UltraChromes (which is not that often) than the 1160 with piezotones! I have simply NEVER had a serious clog on the 1160.

The most serious clogs I ever had was using MIS UltraChrome substitution set (with Eboni Black) on the 2100. In addition I found the colors far inferiour to the Epson UCs. But, I must add, I am very fussy. For BO, Epson matt is way too warm. Eboni Black gives to the green on some papers, and IS NOT as dense as some people say. Try the portofolio black and selenium tone piezos, and you will see what "black" and "neutral" means. There is simply no comparison. Look at my portofolio, choose a print, and I'll send you an exemple if you want...BUT, I do like BO printing. It does have its qualities that should not be misregarded.

Yours, AM

Keith... do you know where I can download a free EPSON 2200 - Hahnemuhle Photo Rag profile?

BW printing?? Buy immediately Piezotones... or something else. It will save you more money than anything you try to get neutral BW prints, and certainly cost you less than running a 2100!. Take my word...