gary m

Thanks Ellis. I guess I'll just try it.

I'm going to have one of my 4x5 slides drum scanned by West Coast imaging. On

their website, they recommend scanning into the Ekta Space PS 5 color space.

(This is a wide gamut color space). I plan on doing some minor photoshop

adjustments once I get the scan back (dodging/burning, make sure colors look

good, etc.). My question is, since the color space is much wider than my monitor

can handle, how do I know what my adjustments will look like when it's printed?

Thanks for the replies. I tried another firewire card in my computer, but I never did try a new cable, so I'll give that a shot. I'm using the card that came with the scanner now. I don't have any other firewire devices, but that would certainly help isolate the problem. Thanks for the ideas...

My computer is no longer recognizing my Nikon 9000 scanner. I've tried re-

installing the drivers, as well as connecting it to another computer - but it

still isn't recognized. The only option for repair that I've found so far is

to send it back to Nikon in New York. I think that the problem is probably

with the card that connects to the Firewire port. (The power light comes on,

and I can hear the scanner motor moving.) If I could find the card for the

port, I would try swapping it out myself. So... my question is, does anyone

know if I can get parts for the scanner? Any other ideas are also

appreciated. Thanks!

I bought a used MF lens from B&H and was very happy with the results.

1. Epson 1280 and R1800

2. Light, inconsistent use. (A few prints a week to a few weeks between prints)

3. Colorado (Its dry here)

4. Yes - I use Epson inks only.

 

I've had clogging problems with both printers, but the R1800 does seem better. With the 1280, I had several occasions where I had to run multiple cleaning cycles. With the R1800, I've never had a stubborn clog.

I emailed Microtek's sales department. They stated that "The ArtixScan M1 is scheduled to be released at the end of July."

Well... to tell the truth, I've had just as much luck at Walgreen's as I have had at professional mini labs. It all comes down to the luck of getting a skilled operator - or at least one that won't screw up your photos too much. I usually make my own prints since I deal in small numbers, but if I was a wedding photographer or something, I would have to work hard to find a lab that did consistently good prints. I just know that the results I get from mid-level 'professional' labs isn't always that great.

Ask your lab for an ICC profile for their printer. You can then load the profile on your computer and 'soft proof' an image on your (calibrated and profiled) monitor. What you see on your monitor should then be fairly close to their printed result. (In Photoshop CS, you would select View > Custom... > then the profile that they provided.) Hope this at least gets you pointed in the right direction. If your lab doesn't know anything about profiles, you may need to find another lab to get good/consistent results. Good luck!

I agree with Ellis and Patrick - I had EZColor and I wan't happy with the results for a printer profile. I recommend getting something to calibrate your monitor, then either downloading printer/paper profiles, or better yet, have a third party create printer/paper profiles. I've had very good luck with Cathy's Profiles (http://www.cathysprofiles.com/) - I think its only about $50 per profile. If you want to do your own printer/paper profiles, you'll need a higher end system.

Steve - I went through the same process. I shot with RZ and tried the switch to digital. Granted, I don't have the highest end digital camera (its a canon Digital Rebel), but I'm not that happy with the results compared to an RZ slide scanned on a Nikon 9000 scanner. I have supposedly sharp (canon "L") lenses, used mirror lockup, used the sharper apertures, sturdy tripod, etc.

 

I haven't devoted a lot of time trying to get the most out of the digital shots using photoshop. I do have Bruce Fraser's book on sharpening, but I've only worked with it a little. I would rather start out as sharp as possible.

 

I shoot landscapes just as a hobby. If I was dealing in high volume, I would probably try harder to get the digital shots to look better. But at least for now, I just use the digital when it's more convenient and the RZ (or recently a LF) for detailed landscapes.

 

I am an admitted "Pixel Peeper" since this is a hobby... so YMMV....

I can't answer your specific question on compatibility, but several years ago I tried to calibrate my monitor/scanner/printer with the Monaco Ezcolor. I really didn't get very good results. Ezcolor may have improved some since then, but I still don't think that Ezcolor is the best way to go about it.

 

The main problem is that you have to use your scanner to create a printer profile. So, any inconsistencies in your scanner will also be carried over to your printer profile.

 

The system I use and recommend is to purchase a monitor calibration system (I use the Monaco Optix). Then have a 3rd party create custom printer profiles - I've been very happy with the results from Cathy's Profiles. I don't do a ton of scanning, so I didn't bother creating a profile for the scanner - I just do any needed corrections in Photoshop. If you do a lot of scanning, it may be beneficial for you to create a scanner profile.

 

YMMV depending on how picky you are on the results.... Good Luck!

I also cut mine into individual frames. The glass holder is probably a must to keep your film flat.

When I did a few experiments with my epson 1280, I could see a very minor difference in some of the prints for 300 vs 360ppi. The differences were mainly in smooth transitions such as a large blue sky or something. So, when I have enough data available, I print at 360 ppi.

 

For my printer settings, I couldn't see a difference between 1440 and 2880 dpi, so I print at 1440 dpi.

Ditto on the book recomendation. From my limited experience working with LAB, it seems like it's the best way to enhance flat looking images.

Some light meters will give you the ability to take incident light readings as well as reflective, whereas your in-camera light meter can only give you reflective readings. But, if you look at your digital histogram, there's really no a need for a separate light meter.

Why are there so many negative posts to what seems like a valid question from someone who is interested in technical details? If the technical stuff isn't for you, fine - move on to the next thread. But this is the Digital Darkroom forum. Some of us enjoy the technical side of things. Jezz...

I hope you feel better now ;-)

(I know how you feel, I purchased the overpriced glass carrier for my 9000)

Chris, as others have said, your method will work to some extent, but its not the recommended way. If you plan to only print from your printer, and not send any photos to a lab, then you might be ok with your method. If however, you plan on sending a file to lab ocassionally, then you would be better off getting your system profiled/calibrated correctly. This will give you more flexibility and allow you to use other printers with better overall results.

 

Also, I'm guessing that you probably couldn't get as close by adjusting your monitor controls as you could by combining monitor h/w adjustments with the profiles that a calibration system would produce. But, maybe you could get close enough for your needs.

 

If you do decide to calibrate/profile your system, you'll need to purchase a hardware puck and associated software. You'll also need printer profiles for the specific type of paper that you use. I'm not familar with permajet paper, so I don't know if they have profiles available or not. But, you could get custom printer/paper profiles made by someone like Cathy's Profiles for about $50 (US).

 

There is a bit of a learning curve to this process, but if you look through the archives on this site, it should get you started.

I agree with Steve Clark as well. It would be easier for Espon to just charge more or put less ink in the cartridge then to 'trick' the public by not using all the ink in the cartridge. BTW - this case is brought to you by Rust Consulting, the same ones who brought you 'Bill Gates owes you $12, if you live in New York'. I'm not sure if the lawsuit is legit or not, but either way I'm not participating.

I used to shoot Velvia, until I got tired of trying to scan it. (I have a Nikon 9000 scanner). I switched to Provia and like the results much better. I can always bump up the saturation in PS once I get a good scan of Provia. Good luck!

hmmm... not sure why I didn't think of using a standard bookmark. I still think it would be a nice feature, but certainly not a necessity. Maybe if you're really bored someday Brian ;-)

I saw someone post in a thread just so that they could find it in

the future. This made me think that it would be nice to have a

feature where you could mark a thread in some way so that it would

show up in your workspace. That way, over time it would still be

easy to find the tread again.

wow - I'm surprised to hear that some people rarely if ever clean the nozzles. I sometimes go several weeks without printing, and I almost always have to clean the nozzles. One cleaning cycle usually works, but I've had to run it more than once a few times. I live in Colorado Springs, which has a pretty dry climate - maybe that has something to do with it (???)

I think Emre said it above very well, and nicer than I probably would have.