AaronFalkenberg

Joseph, I started buying it precoated here: http://www.booksmartstudio.com/store/index.php?main_page=index&cPath=199&zenid=7edslo3qmgqfu56mgv8pu2ai62

 

Now, I'm coating my own - far less expensive.

 

Jon, for portfolios I prefer a nice "tactile" matte (Moab Entrada 300). I don't mind luster, I liked it with the 2200 because it was the only gloss paper that showed minimal gloss differential - bronzing was still there. I always found the pearl/stippled surface distracting, though. You'll get a bunch of Luster sheets with the printer to play with.

 

With the 3800+K3 inks in B+W mode, I've started testing all the fiber gloss papers that are out there. So far, my favorite is Harman FB Al. Like Patrick said, make sure you have the latest drivers from the website. Make sure you also get all of the packing tape and inserts off of the printer. There is tape and plastic retainers everywhere, so be mindful to get them all. Setup (USB) is pretty straight forward. It's a good idea to run an automatic head alignment, first thing.

Setting up the printer via ethernet is 50/50. For some it goes smoothly, for others (myself included) it's a pain. I won't go into details, but I eventually got it fully functional.

 

So far, I've found the color gamut to be about the same as the Utrachrome inkset, but this printer excelles at B+W. Mine turned out to be extremely linear right from the start.

 

Cheers,

Aaron

Only through the auto sheet feeder, and rear slot, I belieive. The front slot is usually used for thicker/unbendable media only. I actually tried the full version of ColorBurst RIP because I needed to print on some long sheets of aluminum. It worked great. If you plan to stick with paper, however, there really isn't much need for the RIP.

The "Pro" model comes with a limited version of ColorBurst RIP. The RIP allows you to print on sizes that the Epson driver does not allow (e.g. longer than 23" through the front slot). It also has profiles for Epson brand paper.

 

I print both B+W and color. I bought the regular version. I make my own profiles (though the canned ones are good). I used to use QuadTone RIP on my 2200 for B+W, and thought I would do so on the 3800, but after much comparison I now use the built in Epson Auto B+W mode. On Harman FB Al, the prints are better compared to anything I could produce on the 2200.

 

Cheers,

Aaron

Purely personal experience here, but I've never been able to get a decent silver scan from Vuescan. For B+W I prefer the Epson utility or Silverfast.

Color is a different matter. I actually prefer Vuescan for color slides. It's too bad it is such a clunky piece of software, but I got used to it, and how it works, and it gives the most accurate results with the least amout of adjustments.

I don't look for perfect scans (just ones that have the most amount of information) that's what post processing is for.

Custom profiles might further refine the printer's ability to separate low values.

Your starting with a fairly high pixel density to begin with so I doubt you would see any benifit to resizing. I disagree with Colin when he says 180dpi is sufficient, but it depends on the kind of image to some extent. You might benifit by resizing in PS if the raster in the printer was really bad at converting your 530dpi image to its native resolution of 360dpi, for example. I'm not exactly sure what the HP's resolution is.

 

Where I have noticed a difference is with images that have less than the printer's native resolution at a desired print size. For example, I have an image I want to print at 13x19". Without resampling, the resolution is 160dpi at that size. If I send it to Qimage, that 160dpi 13x19" image gets resampled to the printer driver's native resolution of 720dpi. Even without putting my "nose to the prints" it was clear the Qimage print had much smoother tonal transitions

This is a fun site:

 

http://www.lesnumeriques.com/duels.php?ty=6&ma1=88&mo1=240&p1=2322&ma2=52&mo2=95&p2=969&ph=8

 

It shows angular comparisons between monitors and lists panel type as well as other specifications.

No problem Jeff. I should add that VFA is also warmer in tone than EEM. Something to consider depending on what you are printing.

The Epson velvet fine art is a much heavier paper than EEM and will not curl when printed. The only time I noticed flaking was when I printed on the wrong side. It is very hard to tell the coated side from the non-coated side. Luckily, Epson packs all of their paper the same way, so when you open the box, the printable side faces up. Or, if you are in doubt, run a test print on both sides - you will know immediately the coated side.

 

I really like the velvet fine art, it has a nice texture, but like most rag papers, the black aren't very deep, even compared to EEM. They have a nice "velvety" quality, though. I guess that's why they named it "velvet fine art."

 

I haven't noticed a big difference in image sharpness between the two, but there is more texture in the VFA, so that might obscure the smallest details. Then again, EEM isn't as sharp as a good gloss or lustre paper, either.

 

VFA is not more colorful than EEM. More like the other way around. EEM can show a slightly wider range of red tones - or so my custom profiles tell me.

 

Cheers,

Aaron

Jack, what you see in the info panel is the value for each pixel or small group of pixels. That value can range from 0 - a shadow, to 255 - full highlight. There is no "black/gray/white" reading, but the number between 0-255 will tell you the density of the pixels. A sky, for example, might read 245, 245, 255 RGB. Conversly, the shadow of a pine tree might read, 11, 13, 18 RGB. Here, all values are low, near black, but there is a little more blue, typical of shade.

 

For a grayscale image, 50% is a middle value, 100% is pure black, and 0% is full highlight or no density.

I should add, for a color image CS3 gives the value for each color (RBG). In Grayscale, it turns to percent black.

In CS3, the info panel is shown as an "I" on the right side. If this panel is hidden, simply go "Window-->Info" from the drop down menu, or hit F8.

 

"Gray" can take on an astonishing range of values and still look correct. It really depends on what you want in the specific image.

20 in the deepest shadows is generally a good starting value for an unprofiled printer. With good custom profiling you can get is down as low as 5 or 6 and still have tonal separation.

Don't be afraid to go all the way to 255 with the highlights in an image. This is where inkjets shine! If you were preparing an image for an offset printer, you would want to be conservative in the highlight value.

I use 1&1. No complaints for the year I've been with them. No downtime, either. Pretty cheap, too.

 

There really are so many to choose from. I've heard of Godaddy, but have no experience with them.

Max internal RAM, and if you really want to speed things up, the Gigabyte I-RAM drive.

Many motherboards, especially Intel based chipsets, but Nvidia as well offer built in HARDWARE level RAID. Most are quite good for a two disk Raid0 or Raid1. The fancy RAID combinations (offered by an additional controller card) like 3, 4, 5 and more complex nested arrays are generally not supported and would tax the CPU too much, anyway. Mendel makes a good point about power, but any well known 600-800W PSU is fine.

 

The great thing about Vista is that it has basic RAID drivers built in, so you can setup your RAID and install your OS all at the same time. Previously, XP required that you have your chipset RAID drivers on a separate floppy disk ready to install before Windows setup would be able to see the array and have something to install to. This was a pain, especially since many systems no longer have a floppy drive. There are some good things about Vista, believe it or not...

AID0

 

check out

 

http://www23.tomshardware.com/storage.html

 

for their transfer tests, as well.

Hi Ray, I went through this very dilemma about a year ago.

 

If you are not going to have more than two disk and want to keep them separate (-not RAID), Western Digital Raptors are your best bet. The 10,000 RPM speed significanlty reduces random access.

 

Another alternative (overlooking cost) would be to set up a RAID 1 to contain your OS and images, and get a Gigabyte I-RAM drive (hard drive made out of conventional DDR400 memory - max 4GB) and put your scratch disk on that. Incredibly fast, but kind of expensive for just scratch space.

 

Your last option (3 disk setup) is exactly what I use at the moment, and it is a great balance between speed and cost. I have the new and very fast Seagate 7200.11 500GB by itself (Vista x64+page file) and two inexpensive Hitachi 160GB in AID0 for my images and Adobe scratch space. Large images (250MB and up) open instantly and render quickly, and when the memory fills up, the AID0 array offers excellent scratch speed.

 

I make routine image backups of the host drive, and file backups for the images on the array.

 

My HDTune speeds for the single drive and the array are attached. As you can see, the single 500GB drive can keep pace with a Raptor, costs much less, and offers far more storage.

 

Lastly, 4GB of RAM or more is great for Vista x64, but PS won't use it. It's stuck in 32-bit space and will only use about 3GB. After that, it is all page file/scratch.

 

Best of luck configuring you new system - you'll notice a leap in speed compared to what you currently have!

 

Cheers,

Aaron

As I understand it, the main differences between the 2 and the 3 are software/workflow, not hardware. You really can't go wrong with either of these scanners, especially since they are better than and comparably priced to the Imacon lineup.

 

The folks over here are much more knowledgeable about such devices:

 

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/

Assuming you are using the full 2.25" side, you would need to scan at about 4000 dpi to get a 30" print:<br><br>

 

2.25"x4000dpi(input)=9000 pixels/inch<br>

9000ppi/305dpi(output)=29.5" print size<br><br>

 

Depending on which Imacon scanner you are using there may be interpolation, but it is quite good. Better than the interpolation on any flatbed, and better than bicubic in PS.

You've got your wires crossed. It's not the processing that will give a "traditional" look, but the output only. Those images seem to have deep shadows, low midtones with a quick transition to full highlights. It doesn't matter if they were taken via digital or analog (the only exception being film grain).

 

If you want the silver gelatin look, there are a few labs that still offer custom silver gelatin printing. What they do is print your digital image onto a piece of film, and put that under an enlarger. You could also go the chromogenic route (Kodak Endura, etc.) which is technically still a silver based process, though nowhere near as archival. Lastly, you could use a properly profiled inkjet with some of the new fibre gloss papers. These have some very appealing surfaces and can produce a wonderful array of tones. But, to reiterate, there is nothing inherent in the processing part of the workflow that will give a "silver" look. Silver geltain prints can range from extremely contrasty to dull and lifeless. It just depends on the qualities of the image being printed be it digital, analog, or otherwise.

 

Cheers,

Aaron

Unless you already have a color managed workflow I suggest finding a reputabale lab near you and have them professionally printed. A Chromira printer loaded with Kodak Endura paper or Fuji Crystal Archive will last OK and looks quite good.

 

If you are willing to invest the time and money to produce your own prints then by all means look at the latest offerings from Epson or HP, calibrate your monitor, profile your ink/paper (or use canned profiles from the manufacturer in a pinch), find a good gallery who will give you a discout on framing, and never look back.

 

Generally, for printing keep your images around 300dpi. Try to avoid interpolation. If you are shooting a digicam, this will limit your print size. Realising good sharpening technique develops over time.

 

Cheers,

Aaron

Never mind folks, I've since found out that attaching the aluminum to a larger carrier sheet will work.

Hi,

 

I'm wondering if anyone knows of a printer (Epson or otherwise) that will print

full bleed (no margin left/right/top/bottom) on a non-standard or oddly sized

sheet. My image sizes are 16x16" and 20x24." I tired it on an Epson 7600 and

ended up with a border no matter what margin or paper type (roll/sheet)

settings I entered.

 

I'm printing on aluminum so rolls are out of the question.

 

The images are all B+W, and I tried using QuadTone Rip thinking that it would

override the printers margin settings, but it won't allow for 0" margins.

 

Any thoughts on borderless inkjet printing would help.

 

Cheers,

Aaron

I agree with Erie, gels are excellent, but fragile. I've crinkled several of mine in windy conditions. Luckily, they are very cheap compared to resin filters, so I don't worry about replacing them. I'm not really familiar with Lee filters, but you get what you pay for with resin filters. Cheap Cokin filters will reduce sharpness with longer lenses, and there is noticeable focus shift. By contrast, I haven't noticed any degradation or focus shift with Singh-Ray filters.

I'm more familiar with Epson printers and ink, but if you're lucky, all you need to do is make (or have someone make) a paper profile for the specific paper/ink combination. Then, turn off any kind of color controls in the printer software, and led PS handle the color managment using your custom profile.<br><br>

If, on the other hand, you are unlucky (like me with my Epson 2200), a simple paper/ink profile will not bring B+W neutrality, although color prints give a great match. In this case, I needed a RIP (<a href="www.quadtonerip.com">www.quadtonerip.com</a>) to get neutral B+W prints. It uses a custom set of curves to balance and eliminate any color casts that are in the inks themselves when trying to print neutral color. You might want to check to see if it supports your printer.<br><br>

 

Lastly, as I said, I'm not familiar with that printer, but you might be able to try printing with "black ink only." The tones might not be as smooth, but it might be more neutral than trying to get a neutral print using all the ink colors.