Jump to content

mark_herring

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    142

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by mark_herring

    Reliability and savings of MediaStreet Niagara II on Epson 2200

    in The Digital Darkroom: Process, Technique & Printing

    Posted

    I would also consider MIS. Their CFS systems are a bit more competitive than Niagara.

     

    Interesting comment about 4000 ink---the larger carts give you more ink per dollar? My colleague at work decided on a novel way of saving money with his 2200--he is buying the large carts for something like the 7600 or 9600--and then extracting the ink and putting into the 2200 carts. Genuine Epson at a lower cost.

    Third party ink in Epson 1280

    in The Digital Darkroom: Process, Technique & Printing

    Posted

    My setup:

     

    general purpose printer, including snaps: Photo 900 (same guts as a 1280) with MIS "Epson-equivalent" dye ink

     

    Serious photo printer: Photo 1280 with MIS "Perpetual archival" pigment ink.

     

    Excellent results with both--bit of a learning curve getting the 1280 profiled--now looking pretty good. I'm currently refilling carts, but will soon get a CFS--at least on the 1280 where the ink usage is higher.

    Determining Megapixel equivalent for scanners

    in The Digital Darkroom: Process, Technique & Printing

    Posted

    I hope this is not too redundant.

    We need to define the term "resolution" to answer these questions. For example, suppose someone says that a given film can resolve 80 lp/mm, that means that you can see the film image from a test target. The megapixel rating of a camera gives you no such metric. All it does is tell you the MAXIMUM resolution imposed by the sampling. Same answer for the DPI (should be PPI) rating of a scanner.

     

    A 3200 dpi (PPI)scanner is sampling at 3200 samples per inch = 81 samples per mm. Thus the MAXIMUM resolution it will support is 40+ cycles per mm. The optics in the scanner further degrades things, as do the film properties.

     

    Beware of applying formulas that add or multiply different parameters. You cant combine the Nyquist sampling MAXIMUM resolution with any other parameter. The sampling sets the limit, and other factors determine the real resolution.

     

    If you want to be rigorous, there are three steps:

    1. determine the limit set by sampling

    2. determine the MTF (modulation transfer function) for each element in the process at a spatial frequency of interest (but below the Nyquist limit). Multiply all the MTFs to get the net system MTF.

    3. determine the system limiting noise factor---eg could be sensor noise, grain, etc. To be resolved the contrast associated with a particular signal must be significantly higher than the net system noise. Here, the circumstances of the test are important. For example, the image of a pair of railroad tracks are visible at a very low ratio of signal to noise, since the eye integrates over a large potion of the image.

    Open letter to Consumer Reports

    in The Digital Darkroom: Process, Technique & Printing

    Posted

    I have no problem with CR supplying "quick and dirty" info at the "Joe six-pack" level. I just object when they give an inaccurate or misleading picture.

     

    BTW...

    My original post contains an error:

     

    CR lists the R300 Epson which is in fact a 6-color printer. What I meant to convey is that Epson's established and popular photo printer models (eg the 1280 and 2200) were never mentioned, whereas NON-photo HP business printers were.

     

    Sorry for any confusion.

    Open letter to Consumer Reports

    in The Digital Darkroom: Process, Technique & Printing

    Posted

    A open letter to Consumer Reports

    Mark Herring, 11 April, 2004

     

    Sirs;

     

    After reading accounts in various forums, I read with some interest

    your recent articles (May 2004) on inkjet printers and third-party

    ink. I must tell you that I find your work superficial and

    amateurish---with the conclusions misleading at best and�in the limit�

    downright erroneous. Inkjet printing for both consumers and

    professionals has been maturing for many years, and is a complex and

    highly-developed technology. You have covered it only at the grade-

    school level.

     

    1. In your printer article, you state: �Eventually all photos fade,

    and inkjet photos have a reputation for fading faster than other

    types.� While this may be true for a typical dye-based printer

    using normal glossy paper, there are many more variations extant.

    First�for dye printing�there are the so-called �swellable polymer�

    papers that absorb and encapsulate the ink. Epson Colorlife is only

    one example. These papers offer lifetime on the order of 25 years

    with dye ink. All of us have seen 1-hour photolab products fade more

    quickly.

    More seriously, you omit ANY discussion of pigment printers. The

    first of these in the consumer market was the Epson 2000. Widely

    criticized for its color rendition, it nonetheless offered 200-year

    print life on selected papers. More recently, Epson has introduced

    several pigment-based printers with trademarks such as �Durabright�

    and �Ultrachrome�. You would have to have been marooned on a desert

    island to have missed their advertising, and yet you make no mention

    of any of these products�some of which are the MOST POPULAR printers

    in use.

     

    2. Your sampling of printers for test is totally skewed, omitting�as

    mentioned above�some of the most popular and widely-used models.

    Your article is slanted towards photo printing, and yet you list

    several HP models that are never considered photo printers (they are

    4-color systems), and you OMIT the most widely used Epson models�

    including ALL of their 6 and 7-color �Photo� printers.

     

    3. Finally, your article about third party ink has serious problems.

    First, consider some basic logic: Inkjet printing has been around a

    long time. Why would anyone believe that a particular manufacturer

    had some magic formula for ink such that nothing else would work in

    their printers? This is simply not plausible. While it IS credible

    to believe that the typical printer manufacturer has taken the time

    to test an ink formula that works well in their printers, it does not

    follow that noone else can make compatible ink.

    If you sample the various forums relating to photo printing with

    inkjets, you will see mention of many sources of 3rd party ink,

    refill kits, and continuous-feed systems. You will also see

    testimonials from both advanced amateurs and professionals who use

    these products. It is wholly consistent with the amateurish nature

    of your article that you mention NONE of the most often recommended

    sources, including for example: MIS Associates, Mediastreet, Lyson,

    ColorBat, Weink. Read the forums---you will find many others.

    In summary, your articles have serious errors of omission and are

    unbalanced in that widely-used products and technologies receive no

    mention. Your blanket statements about third-party ink cannot be

    reconciled with the large user community successfully using these

    products.

     

    To maintain your integrity and credibility, I believe that it is

    incumbent on you to publish something more complete and competent.

     

    I am sure that all participants in these forums join me in urging you

    to respond.

    New To B&W Digital Darkroom

    in The Digital Darkroom: Process, Technique & Printing

    Posted

    OK: You're sticking with film and 35mm and you want to do color and B&W, AND you are tuned in to quality issues.

     

    1. Forget the flatbed scanner--get a good film scanner--eg the Minolta 5400.

     

    2. If you dont want to mess around with 3rd party inks, get an Epson 2200--you cannot go wrong.

     

    3. Get another printer to dedicate to B&W. There are many choices of inksets for printers like the 1160, 1280, and the 2200, i think. High demand for 1160s on ebay because they are so widely used for B&W.

    My personal choice for ink and such is MIS.

    Note: if you any trouble with the B&W printer, the 2200 will do "very adequate B&W"

     

    4. Save some budget for a really good computer: Moderate speed--2.5GHz, LOTS of RAM (1Gb minimum). TWO hard drives--one for PS scratch. External USB or Firewire HD for backup, CD or DVD writer

    scanner dpi to photoshop ppi back to printer dpi?

    in The Digital Darkroom: Process, Technique & Printing

    Posted

    The most useful advice I have come up with is to think in terms of file size in pixels. For a good print, you need 150-300 pixels per inch of print dimension. eg a 4x6 needs 600x900 minimum---better is 1200x1800. Pixels get used intercahngeably with dots which is OK until you get to the printer. The actual DOTS laid down by the printer are finer than the pixel size (to get smooth tonal gradations). You can set printer DPI independently from the file size you are sending it.

    Help with choosing Digital slr

    in Mirrorless Digital Cameras

    Posted

    I would get some experience printing before leaping into a $1000 DSLR.

     

    Most people talk about file sizes to the printer in the range of 150 to 300 PPI (PIXELS per inch)

     

    For 16x20:

    300PPI =4800 x 6000 pixels =28.8 MPixel

    150PPI = 7.2Mpixel

     

    At a safe viewing distance, 6Mp probably is OK for 16 x 20

     

    Then of course, there is upsampling. I am not experienced with the more high-end things like genuine fractals.

     

    I would think of a 6Mp DSLR in terms of really high-quality 8x10s up to "adequate" 16x20s

×
×
  • Create New...