mark_herring

A PC and MAC together...hmmmm: at first, they will get along fine. Eventually, however, they are going to fight. It is subtle at first: You try a key stroke on one that was meant for the other, and you get a surprise. Then you get file compatibility issues--especially using standardized MS software. Pretty soon, you'll notice that they play tricks on each other in the middle of the night. If you modify the PC, the MAC will sometimes get jealous and spontaneously pop open it's case--inviting you to rummage in its innards. Of course you cannot do this.

All this proceeds until one or both has a meltdown, leaving you no choice but to convert to Linux (No problems there...)

Confusing conversation here...

Cropping normally means selecting a portion of the picture and deleting everything outside the selection. It makes no difference what the DPI settings are---you are still throwing away pixels.

there are two ways to change image size and resolution in PS:

1. crop----normally involves discarding part of the image

2. image size---does not discard any of the image

In both cases you can specify print size and DPI and whether the image is re-sampled.

I use roll paper in only two situations: Snaps--on 4" roll, and for sizes wher I cannot buy sheets---eg panoramas. Any cost savings in roll would be negated by the extra work of cutting the paper.

I am using printers that go to 13 X 19. for the larger (pro) prnters, I might have a different view.

I'd start with the HP web site.

Care to share why HP vs--eg--the Epson R800?

For Robert;

Let's see....I think you just told us that you had one bad sample of a 3rd party ink, and that proves that it is best to stick with OEM.

OK: I am using MIS pigment in my 1280 Epson. I get an archival solution which Epson does not offer in the 1280, and I get good-looking prints---ANd I dont have any reliability issues. This OBVIOUSLY proves that 3rd party is superior.

actually, both assertions are just plain wrong. Some 3rd party solutions are clearly inferior to OEM and some are better. And it is certainly true that OEM can be the safest solution--if not the best or the cheapest.

Lots of traffic lately on the pros and cons of OEM vs 3rd party

consumables. Two pretty polarized camps are evident:

I. Locked into the OEM-only idea

II. Lots of experience with--and confidence in--the 3rdparty products

And of course MANY people somewhere in between.

I offer a few basic observations:

1. The printer manufacturers WANT you in group I--that is their

business model, and they will spend big bucks on advertising to

promote it. Remember all the stories about how Detroit manipulated

the public to NEED all manner of things in cars---many of which

turned out to be very bad ideas. Never underestimate the power of

advertising

2. To support the business model--and their reputation--the big OEMs

will invest heavily in testing paper and ink combos. Thus you have

some assurance of consistent results with OEM consumables.

3. The reality of #2 does NOT negate the existence of other ink and

paper combos that are equal to or better than OEM. There are

infinite combinations---some good and some not. Many non-OEM

solutions are better than OEM.

4. There is no basis in any fundamental chemistry or physics to say

that 3rd party ink and paper cannot match or exceed OEM. Even if a

particular ink formula were to be patented, it would be virtually

unenforceable.

5. There's a lot of testing in place for specific 3rd party

products, and many offer better performance than OEM in some aspect---

eg lifetime.

6. There is a sizable group of professionals and advanced amateurs

that have found good non-OEM combinations and are selling their work

in serious markets. This group cannot be dismissed. I have read

material from specific professionals that demonstrated an

understanding of the issues far beyond what I ever hear from a

printer manufaturer. For just one example, look at Paul Roark's site

(a user of MIS B&W inksets).

Saying the you MUST have OEM to get good results is like saying that

your car will not work properly without OEM tires, oil,belts,

batteries....etc etc. What's pretty humorous about this is that car

manufacturers buy many things from subcontractors---many of whom also

sell to the repair and maintenance trade. You can very easily

imagine buying something from Ford that is the same as what you would

buy from Pep Boys. I wonder if this is happening in printer-land....

Warranties are written to protect the seller--not the buyer.

My 1280 is out of warranty, and the MIS pigment ink shows no sign of damaging anything. If it does, I'll repair or replace the printer.

The manufacturers want you to believe that it is bad to print with 3rd party ink---their business model depends on it. The idea has no basis in any fundamentals---Buy into it and you will pay more for less results. Your choice.

Imagine Toyota arguing that you had to use their tires, oil, or batteries or you would void your warranty--or even die in a horrible accident.

Using a Canon and sticking to OEM ink and paper guarantees that you are not using the most archival solution available.

The only thing guaranteed by an OEM combination is some level of predictability. There is no basis in any fundamentals for saying that something besides OEM cannot be equal to or better than OEM.

Read up on all the people using Epson printers with either OEM or 3rd party archival pigment ink---and on the issues with trying to use pigment with the HP or Canon head technology.

The printer companies have built a business model based on having you believe that you need to use their ink and paper. The basic premise has no more credibility than if Toyota tried to claim that you had to use their brand of tires, oil, or batteries.

Best? No such thing

different? definitely---you have to decide what you like.

Colorlife a contender for best?? Not a chance. Oops--scratch that: You might like it......

I thought I was the only one that owned one of those.

Until I sold it, mine worked fine with Win 2000. I think it might have done something annoying as you describe, but it always got past it.

I always leave computers on---this may explain why I was seldom annoyed.

Dont spend too much time on this---there are hugely better scanners out now.

Gustavo;

You asked what was best for Black and White.....As many have said, it is not likely to be a "standard product". Consumer inkjets are made for----well--consumers. And they print color. Getting shades of gray with color inks will always be difficult.

Buy a 1280 and put in some MIS cartridges---they would argue that this constitutes a standard product.

Many will tell you that the best B&W is with a dedicated inkset. These are available for a wide variety of printers. start with vendors like MIS, Lyson, or InkJetArt.

Also take a look at Paul Roark's site, and Piezography (if it is still active)

Dale;

I dont question for a minute that HP is claiming these things.

I do question the assertion that dye can outlast pigment. Test results can be used--and misused--in many ways. Have not been to Wilhelm lately---do they have any "apples to apples" test results?

A few random observations and questions on this thread:

Is there any confirmation of HP's longevity claims? Most of my reading says pigment is better than any dye--even with special papers.

Many feel that the best for B&W is a 3rd party B&W inkset in one of several Epson models.

There is nothing magic about OEM paper (or ink). they are just a few of the zillions of possible combination that the mfg has checked. Its just like Kodak darkroom paper in Dektol---work fine, but so do many other combinations.

From Laurence:

"I have a Epson 2200, its a new machine, most places do not have the ink for it yet. Get your ink from Epson.com, $11.95 per color, $1.50 shipping."

HUH????

Epson 2200 has been out for maybe two years, and LOTS of people have the ink--both OEM and 3rd party. Read the other replies here for some specifics.

OEM: atlex

REAL cost savings means 3rd party: I would start with MIS, but there are several other good sources.

To REALLY save money, get a CFS (Also at MIS)

I have seen the comment before that only Epson technology works with pigment. If this is true, does anyone know why?

In re the comment about dye and special paper matching pigment---I do not believe this is correct. The typical number for the best dye combos is 20+ years. The pigment numbers---depending on paper--are out in the 50-100 range.

I agree that Michael was not whining.

Here's a different perspective: When will Adobe port photoshop to Linux?

I would give anything to become Microsoft-free. I do not, however, want to give up Photoshop. The conflict is unbearable....:)

If a significant number of Photographer/Computer nuts would jump on the Linux bandwagon, then the GIMP would fairly quicklymatch Photoshop and Adobe would have to do **something**.

With OSX now being Unix-based, Photoshop for Linux cannot be that big a deal.

Watch what Microsoft does when biggies like Adobe start supporting Linux....

CD-R is so cheap, why bother with CD-RW?

for short-term backup, just use another hard drive.

I'm a bit confused by one answer here...

The effect is fundamentally a variation in specular reflection for various densities. This causes the print to look different at different viewing angles. It is not the same for different paper/ink combos--ie sometimes DARK areas look light at certain angles

I was just sent some snaps printed on some kind of Kodak Printer. The effect is so bad, I wonder whey this printer was ever released.

R800 has pigment inks (long life) and roll paper (I think).

Epson is the only mfg with pigment printers.

acceptable lifetime on dye printers requires special paper which sometime looks yucky.

In terms of visual quality, HP, canon, and Epson are now very close. I still prefer Epson.

Another trick for emulating a shift lens is stitching.

I have a number of pictures made by taking two or more shots--tilting the camera vertically between shots--and then stitching them in Panotools**. In the process of stitching, the perspective correction automatic. In this particular SW you have a lot of parameters that you can tweak--eg the reference point (the point where you eye would be looking straight on.

The nice thing about Panotools is the unlimited ability to stitch both horizontally and vertically--with no need to control camera tilt.

**I actually use PTAssembler, a GUI front end for Panotools developed by Max Lyons. He provides the whole package: www.tawbaware.com

What causes noise?

Small children, trash trucks, and any electronic system at a temperature above absolute zero. I think its the last category you're interested in....;)

The dominant noise in digital imaging is called the "readout noise" in the sensor. For most applications, it is a constant. The reason that higher ISO seems to increase the noise is that the gain is increased, placing the noise higher in the digital encoding.

For very long exposures, the variations in the dark signal may become dominant. These may appear as either random noise (indistiguishable from the read noise) or pattern noise---fixed patterns that appear the same in every image.

The other major issue is the so-called "encoding noise" associated with the Analog to digital conversion process.

Finally, you may see various artifacts associated with re-sampling and other imaging processes. The patterns in a low-quality JPG are a perfect example.

There are a lot of combinations of things that can happen when you process so it's hard to give a comprehensive answer. As you gain experience, you will see what's important and what's not.

Ditto the comment about dedicating a printer to B&W. Lot's of choices for ink, and the cost of the printer is small compared to ink and paper. The Epson 1160 is a popular choice ($200 or so on ebay).

Or--convert the 1280 to b&W, and get something else for color.