Kat D.

January 15, 2013

Okay, worked on this most of the day yesterday.

First of all, there’s nothing wrong with my files. The problem was that what I saw on screen (calibrated Eizo) did not match what was printing (as shown by file vs scan of print posted above).

After reading article I posted above about settling ink and problems in lines, and knowing my printer has been sitting unused for almost a year, I thought ink / head / line problem most likely. Writer of article said you could possibly have intermittent problems, especially at beginning, which would explain my two prints that printed fine. So I shook all the cartridges, did nozzle clean.

Made a Photoshop file with the three images I had been working with as well as the test file from Andrew.

Printed, using same settings I had been using (Photoshop manages color, 16 bit, Relative Colorimetric, Black Point Compensation, Exhibition Fiber and then Gold Fibre Gold profile). Same results. Prints dark, posterized, colors whacky. The test image which had printed fine alone (but was now included on page with my images) now looked too blue, like my images.

Shook cartridges again. Did a power clean which used a lot of ink. Still no help.

Decided to import the images into InDesign to bypass all the Photoshop settings so I could see if problem there or physical problem in printer. Printed from InDesign. Used cheap HP photo paper. Prints looked pretty good. Color not perfect, but they were close, and no posterization at all.

So I knew nothing wrong with printer.

Went back into Photoshop. Tried a new paper and its profile: Harman Photo Gloss FB Al. Same bad results.

Did something I should’ve tried earlier — let printer manage color. Used these settings:

Printer settings:

Luster

Accuphoto HD2

Color Mode: EPSON standard (sRGB)

2880 dpi

high speed

16 bit

Advanced Color Settings at defaults (all zero)

paper thickness 4

Color Matching: EPSON color controls

In Color Management area: 16 bit and Relative Colorimetric checked.

Print turned out fine.

Okay, that was great. Just have printer manage color, forget using the paper profiles.

But why did two of the prints I made at the beginning — one of my images and Andrew’s test file — using the paper profiles (Exhibition Fiber or Galerie Gold Fibre Silk) turn out okay?

Since I had made smaller versions of those images to place in a new Photoshop file so I could print all four images on one sheet for my new tests, the printer settings were still intact when I opened the original files. Very convenient! I saw what I had done differently when I printed those two images: I had NOT checked 16 bit in either the Printer Settings or Color Management.

So I tested this. Printed my image with 16 bit checked. Colors dark, whacky, posterized. Printed with 16 bit unchecked, colors good.

So, with the paper profiles, I cannot send as 16 bit to printer.

However, when I let printer manage color, 16 bit works fine.

The image files are 16 bit.

Isn’t this weird?

Howard M suggested I uncheck 16 bit early on, but I think I just accidentally didn’t check 16 bit for those two images, because I figured if the images were 16 bit, it should be checked. You were right, Howard.

On another subject: When I was thinking I would have to let printer manage color, I was wondering if the fact that Epson color control uses sRGB means I would be losing color information from my Adobe RGB 1998 files (since sRGB lower gamut). Is more info sent via the paper profiles?

Thanks all for your input.

January 13, 2013

Good article about infrequent printer use, settling of pigments in ink:

http://www.inkjetmall.com/wordpress/maintenance/infrequent-printer-use/

January 13, 2013

What could be wrong with the files?

January 13, 2013

Hi Russell and Andrew.

All images soft proof just fine with the Ilford Gold Fibre Silk and the Epson Exhibition Fiber profiles. I often have images printed at Labs, with no issues, so I know my monitor and image files are good. Now that we've discussed the printer settings in Photoshop, I also believe we've eliminated that as the problem. I'm thinking the ink cartridges aren't working properly due to many months of sitting there unused. I will shake each one tomorrow and see if that helps. Haven't had time to work on this today.

Any advice about the shaking? Just gently roll the horizontally-held cartridge from side to side as illustrated in the manual? Or shake more vigorously? Don't want to cause a new problem, and they are so expensive to replace.....

Thanks for your input.

January 13, 2013

I have used the Hasselblad check to spec. Very happy with service. They adjusted a lens that wasn't focussing properly at no extra charge. Have also used Hasselblad for other repairs and found the pricing very reasonable. They did a few things free, such as remove a finder that was stuck on camera.

January 13, 2013

Mac: Thanks for your advice. I think shaking the ink cartridges is the next thing to try. It doesn't seem to be a software issue at this point.

John: Thank you for pointing out that I should refer to the paper's thickness as specified on the box when setting thickness in Photoshop print window. Should've been obvious, but it didn't occur to me!

January 12, 2013

Hi Zack. Thanks for your detailed reply! You are right, it's crucial that I specify that Photoshop manage the colors. I'm in CS6, and I believe I have chosen all the right settings in that regard.

Glad you don't think it's an ink blockage issue.

What is confounding me now is that one image out of three printed so far turned out perfectly fine (plus the test image from Andrew). Don't understand why some prints will match what I see on screen and others won't -- with exactly the same print settings, paper, and color space. One image I printed a little while ago turned out partially posterized.

I think you are right that all printers are secretly operated by magical demons that want to confound and annoy us.

January 12, 2013

Hi Andrew.

I printed your Printer Test File with same settings I had used for my image, on the Ilford paper, and it turned out great. So I printed another of my photos (jpeg version of file shown here; this is not scan of print), and it also turned out well, except for half a dozen spots of magenta ink in various parts of image.

I wonder what could be going on with my other image? Both images in Adobe RGB (1998), both viewed on same monitor.

Do I need to change the paper thickness setting to avoid the splashes of ink?

Thanks so much for taking the time to help.<div></div>

January 12, 2013

And here is scan of print. (Her skin looks especially red in original file when it is next to the print which is lacking red, doesn't look so odd when standing alone. She was actually sunburnt that day.)<div>

00bEGb-513453784.jpg.f7efbdc75dff8137aaddbe4a77f2d28c.jpg

</div>

January 12, 2013

Update:

I checked print heads. No broken lines in printout.

I downloaded the Epson profile for Exhibition Fiber, installed, used settings in the ReadMe for the profile, printed on the Ilford Gold Fibre Silk. Same result as before. Found a couple sheets of Exhibition Fiber in sample pack, printed on one. Basically same result as on the Ilford paper.

Settings that I changed from what I had before (per Epson ReadMe): used Superphoto 2880 instead of 1440, checked "high speed," media type to Ultra Premium Photo Paper Luster.

I'm attaching a jpeg of my file and a scan of a print (on Epson paper; looks very similar on the Ilford paper). The colors not exactly right in the scan, but you can get the general idea. You see how the reds and yellows are lacking. I wonder if there's something wrong with those ink cartridges. When I printed the test for the nozzle check, the yellow looked very light.

Checked expiration date on the ink: August 2012. Read a lot of posts on net where people say they have used ink up to 2 years after expiration date without problems.

I have not used this printer in many months. Should have mentioned that earlier. I wonder if the ink has settled. Have seen mention of tilting the printer back and forth to mix the inks. Do you think I should do that? I will need to get someone to help, too heavy for me. Read that taking cartridge out and putting back in can cause air in line (?).

Thanks everyone for your help.

January 12, 2013

Thanks, Douglas and Howard, for your replies.

Douglas: The printer cleaned the print heads when I turned it on (then I later turned printer off and on again and heads cleaned again). But I will use the utility for checking print heads. I now see in the manual that color issues can be due to expired inks. Bought this printer a few years ago, will have to check dates on ink. Will be a drag if I have to buy all new ink. But I kind of doubt if this is the problem. Platen setting: I'll adjust (was at default before).

Howard: ColorSync was selected (not by me) but greyed out. I don't check "Send 16 bit data" even if images are 16 bit?

After I posted here, I poked around the web and found some people unhappy with the Ilford profile for this paper and the 3800/3880. Being a novice, I just assumed the paper manufacturer's profile would be good. I will try the Epson fiber profile, as you suggested Douglas.

January 11, 2013

I attempted to print on Ilford Galerie Gold Fibre Silk with my Epson 3880 with horrid results. The colors in the print were not just slightly off, they were totally out of whack, missing most of the reds and yellows.

I have a hardware calibrated Eizo monitor, have had photos printed at labs match what I see on my monitor, do print design work all the time -- so the problem is not on monitor end.

The photo is in Adobe RGB (1998), 16 bit. Photoshop CS6.

This is my first real effort to print photos on the 3880. I must be doing something wrong with the settings in Photoshop. I believe I followed the instructions in the Read Me that Ilford supplied with the ICC profile. The instructions were written for earlier version of Photoshop, so they didn't exactly match what I was seeing on screen. One thing they said to do which I didn't do was "select ICM" in the printer setup box (I didn't see anything like that).

If anyone can tell me what I'm doing wrong, I'd appreciate it. Below are the settings I used:

In Photoshop CS6 Print Settings window —

Print Settings in Printer Setup box:

Color Matching: Color Sync and EPSON Color Controls are greyed out

Printer Settings:

-- Advanced Color Settings: “Epson Driver Color Management is Off”

-- Basic:

Media Type: Premium Photo Paper Semi-gloss (selected per Ilford Read Me for Galerie Gold Fibre Silk)

Print Mode: AccuPhoto HD2

Color Mode: Off (No Color Management)

Output Resolution: SuperPhoto - 1440 dpi

High Speed, Flip Horizontal, Finest Detail unchecked

Color management box:

Document Profile: Adobe RGB (1998)

Printer Profile: IGGFS13_EPP3880_PSPPn

Send 16-bit Data is checked

Normal Printing

Rendering Intent: Relative Colorimetric

Black Point Compensation is checked (unchecking it didn’t help with color)

July 22, 2012

Cleaning the electrical contacts on viewfinder, film back, and body (except for front where lens attaches) with pencil eraser fixed the problem. Sorry, forgot to post this sooner.

June 17, 2012

I found this thread at flickr. Will see if any of this advice helps.

http://www.flickr.com/groups/contax645/discuss/72157624692890675/

June 17, 2012

The viewfinder display on my Contax 645 has been disappearing. I don't mean when it times out. (I've had this camera for years and know how it works.) Even if I touch the shutter release lightly, it doesn't come back on.

The camera still seems to work when this happens. At least the camera makes all the normal sounds when I focus and hit shutter release. I haven't developed the film yet.

When this happens, I turn the spot/average metering switch back and forth, turn the camera on and off a number of times, or take the battery out and put back in. Eventually, the display will come back. I haven't figured out if anything I'm doing is causing it to come back. Replacing the battery didn't help.

I have been switching backs lately. Don't know if that could have anything to do with it.

The first time it happened was after the eyepiece shutter had accidentally closed when camera put in camera bag. I opened the shutter, VF display problem started that day. Don't see how they could be related, but thought I'd mention.

Is there anything I should try myself before sending it to ToCAD for repair?

Thanks for any advice.

June 9, 2012

Bruce: I see that, unfortunately, the dark slide will not come out if the back is off the camera. I switched the pressure plate to 220 and back to 120 several times, in case that would help. I did have to switch from 220 when I got the back....maybe it didn't click into place properly? Although, I didn't have problem with images from new back being out of focus. It was just that dark line at bottom frame line.

When I finish the film in my old back, I'll look at both together to see if I can see any differences (the old back is working fine). Thanks for your input. Will let you know if I figure this out.

June 6, 2012

I will check tomorrow.

When I got the film back, it was set for 220 film, so I had to change to 120 (rotating pressure plate). Don't know if that's a clue.

I don't think I can return this to ebay seller now. As I remember, it was a "no returns" sale. Also, I've had it about a month, just didn't have time to try until now.

Thanks.

June 6, 2012

Hi Bruce. Thanks for your reply. The images were taken at much lower speeds: 1/90, 1/180. Also, I don't see the problem in photos taken with my other film back. So it must be caused by the new film back somehow?

June 6, 2012

I recently bought an extra film back for my Contax 645 (ebay because they were so outrageously expensive at Keh).

I've shot a couple rolls of Provia 100F so far, and I've noticed a shadow along the bottom frameline. I checked film shot with old back, and while there is a very slight shadow on those, it isn't as pronounced or as wide.

So I assume there is something about the new back that is causing this? Film flatness issue?<div></div>

June 1, 2012

There are quite a few SL66 photos at flickr.

June 1, 2012

I use my Hasselblad 501CM and 80/2.8 CFE with Proxars for closeups. Seems quite light and compact to me. Some people say Proxars degrade image, but I don't see that. They're handier than extension tubes.

March 24, 2012

Thank you. I believe the slight dimness is noticeable.

March 24, 2012

Thank you, Q.G.

I wonder if the non-mirroring dots affect the image I see through viewfinder in any way. I've always felt my 501CM was easier to focus -- with same type of focusing screen, lens, viewfinder (PM5).

March 23, 2012

Okay, I should've set the camera to B and looked inside to begin with. Having done this now, I see there is a piece of cloth tape that runs across the top edge, and part of it is hanging down on the left. That was causing the triangle in the photos. Also, the tape is not running evenly across the edge. Besides the part that's hanging down on the left, some of the tape is sticking up too far on the right, so that the sticky side can be felt.

I compared to the inside of my 202FA. It has the same tape on that edge, but it's positioned perfectly evenly and is secure.

It seems like a simple thing to fix, as long as you have the proper kind of tape. Maybe I should just send to Hasselblad; they would have the proper material. I feel I could fix it myself if I had the right kind of tape, though I'd be nervous because I've never done any camera repair myself.

"Light pipe" -- interesting. I just checked my manual and read about this. I never use flash so was totally unaware.

Thank you so much, Q.G. You have often helped me with my Hasselblad questions!

Oh...as long as I have your attention....I have always wondered why there is an oval area of dots on the mirror in my 202FA?

March 23, 2012

Hi Len. That was a fast response!

I just did a thorough check of the film back and insert which I used for these photos, and I don't see any old paper or film. That would've been easy fix, though. Darn.

Thanks for the thought (and the compliment on photo).

Sign In

Profiles

Forums

Blogs

Events

Downloads

Gallery

Store

Posts posted by Kat D.