minicucci

Shawn;

PS can do it. Just enable the History log, found under General preferences. You have a choice

re level of detail (Just how explicit you want the log to be about activities on the file), but all

choices will record when a file is opened and closed in a twenty-four clock.

Zizzy:

What you are looking is the GIMP driver for the 2200. It is harmless, but nothing you'd want

to use for real printing. Tiger did not include the native, Epson driver for the 2200. Just

download the OS X driver from Epson's website and reinstall. When you setup the printer,

make sure to click on "More Printers" at the bottom of the setup dialogue box to access the

Epson driver choices. All of your options will be back.

Sara:

If you have upgraded all of the way to Tiger (10.4), you can use Page Setup to create custom

pages with equal margins, there by allowing cetered prints. It works very well. See <a

href="http://www.robgalbraith.com/ubbthreads/showflat.php?

Cat=0&Number=342896&an=0&page=0&gonew=1#UNREAD">this</a> thread on Rob

Galbraith's forums.

Stephen:

When you set the JPG color space to Adobe RGB (versus sRGB), Canon changes the file

naming protocol to _mg versus IMG. It's in the manual.

I thought it did the same on Windows as the Mac, but maybe not.

Marco:

I'd try a couple of things. First, I'd convert the image's own profile to sRGB from Adobe RGB

before converting to the lab printer profile. I believe that most lab printers are setup for

sRGB, not Adobe RGB. Use the soft proof capabilities to determine which rendering intent

you want to use. I'd start with relative colormetric.

Next, turn on gamut warning and see if the sRGB conversion is clipping. I find that using a

selective color adjustment layer often cures any gamut issues. After proofing for gamut,

try the lab printer profile conversion and see if that clears up the problem.

Robert: I just got around to re-reading this thread and found your question. Sorry about

my lack of a prior response.

What I really meant was incorporating extensive soft proof editing, using custom profiles

for the printer into my routine. I do photo editing as before (device independent) then add

a grouped set of adjustments (curves/levels/hue~saturation or whatever) for the 2200 with

soft proof view on. I've also changed my color working space to ProPhoto, so I am always

careful to do a thorough gamut check. Occasionally, I need to convert to another color

profile (Adobe RGB) or change rendering intent (I usually use relative colormetric) but

that's pretty rare. Deep, vibrant blues can be a trial with the 2200's gamut.

Gareth; Whenever magenta shows up, it's a clue that double profiling may be involved.

Double profiling means that you have PSCS sending one set of color info to the printer and

are also asking the printer to manage its own color output. Worlds then collide.

If you are using Print Preview in PSCS, look at the bottom with more options and see what

instruction set you are sending to the printer. If PS is controlling color, (using a profile), then

make certain that the Epson driver is set to no color management.

Jeff: Bruce Fraser has written an excellent migration guide for upgrading to CS. You can find

the article here (http://photoshopnews.com/2005/05/03/raw-shooters-cs2-migration-

guide/).

Joe: I upgraded from a 1280 to a 2200 about a year ago, so here are my thoughts:

1. The 1280's dye-based inks are more vibrant. No doubt about it.

2. When I first used the 2200, I was appalled by the drab colors. But, with continued use

and practice as well as changing my edit/print prep routines, I am now able to meet or

exceed the color array of the 1280. Color aside, the 2200 is just a flat out better printer.

3. The 2200 is a more consistent printer, day-to-day, and therefore easier hold its own

with custom profiles. The 1280's inks are a bit more volatile.

4. As already noted, the 2200 really shines with matte prints. It is OK with lustre papers

and downright poor with glossy.

Nobody mentioned the need for a dedicated scratch disk, so I will...(and I heartily second

and third Neil and Matt's recommendations.

I don't know how you are managing scratch files today. Odds are PS is using your boot

volume. You should setup a dedicated scratch disk/partiton. A separate FW 800 (7200

rpm) will do it better than a partition on your iBook drive. Figure on devoting at least 10

GB of truly free, empty space. Go to 20 GB if you can.

I have a scratch partition on my PB for instances when I cannot hook-up the FW drive. But I

prioritize the FW drive.

Ummm...Wayne. That's just wrong. Attached is my printer list. Note multiple copies of the

2200. Also see this thread: http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?

msg_id=00Bspk.<div></div>

Hugh: if Elements is anything like regular PS, the "mode" change for bit depth will be under

the image menu/mode/8 or 16 bits. If not, search help for 8 bits and/or 16 bits.

Hi Mark:

I think you have a couple of questions going on here. First, the PS 7.0 plugin for

converting raw files (Adobe Camera Raw or ACR) will not handle the 20D's CR2 files. You

have to upgrade to PSCS (version 8.0) to get the ARC that is compatible with CR2 files.

(And note that PSCS II, version 9 is now shipping).

The EOS Viewer, which is a Canon, not Adobe utility, is not really a raw converter in the

conventional sense. You can, however, download Canon's DPP program (Digital Photo

Professional) for real raw conversion, including re-establishment of white balance, etc.

David: Another to consider is Moab's Entrada Bright White. Comes in 190/301 weight and

has a very nice, cottoney feel. Very white and very cool toned. ImagePrint has decent

profiles but the regular canned profiles were awful. If you do not use IP, you'll have to get

custom profiles. I love this paper with B&W prints.

(It does flake some, so you need a draftsman's brush to pre-brush before using in the

printer.)

At the brightest setting. Also , make certain that your Energy Saver features (like dimming

the screen, and screensavers) are off as well as any of the ambient light screen/keyboard

controls.

Here's the link:

http://www.nyc.gov/html/film/html/permits/still_photography.shtml

Only now it seems the permit is needed whether you use a tripod or not. Hmmm... That's

different than 2 months ago.

LOL at Peter's response. Maybe he's right.

One quick additional note. NYC has passed a law requiring a permit to shoot public spaces

with a tripod. No tripod, no problem but you need a permit if you intend to use a tripod.

On the other hand, they give out the permit by email (you just download a PDF application

form and email it in), so the process is reasonably painless.

Michele: I have the 2200 (US version of the 2100), not the R1800, so factor that into your

consideration of my input.

THe R1800 is the large format (13X19) brother of the R800. As a printer, it is specialized

for printing on glossy papers, using a process called gloss optimizer and reportedly does a

very decent job of reducing bronzing. The printhead nozzles are also smaller than the

2200's, allowing somewhat finer DPI.

The 2200 is the 13 X 19 matte paper workhorse with an older printhead design. Capable

of astonishing print quality, especially with Matte Black ink and high quality matte papers,

it will bronze (pool ink) on some of the glossy papers.

So, if your papers of choice lean toward glossy, go with the R1800. But if you like matte

papers, you will not be sorry with 2200.

Comparing either of the two above printers to something like the 950 is like comparing

apples to oranges. Just a different category altogether.

Since everyone, including the mods, seems to agree that the rating system is primarily one

of popularity (what people like) with no quality controls on the rater cohort, why not just

change the labels to "Popular" versus "Top". It's certainly more accurate and it might offset

some of the griping by getting rid of the pretense that some kind of serious

photographic assessment is going on here.

Maybe "popular" is not an exactly right adjective, but I imagine that you all know what I

mean. I should think this would be easy for the site to manage to as there would be no

changes to the DB.

Best, Pat

Lori: Those last 10 may be in a separate folder. The camera sets up folders for each 100

shots taken, numbered continuously (unless you change the numbering protocol). Perhaps

the first 80 of your shots fell into one folder (labeled something like CANON121 inside the

DCIM folder) and the remaining shots went into a second folder (labeled something like

CANON122). A lot of preview utilities will only select one folder at a time.

Peter; The original EyeOne was $249 too. The biggest difference is that the EyeOne 2 will

read and factor in ambiant light while creating a profile. The original EyeOne does not.

That makes the EyeOne 2 a better instrument. Both use the same software.

I'd spend the $100 and get the updated model.

I think you have guessed right. The grayscale options are in the UK drivers (for Windows)

but not in the US drivers (for Windows). The Mac OS drivers lack the grayscale options on

both sides of the pond.

I suppose you could download the UK drivers. Cannot think of any downside. Just go to

Epson's UK support site.

Sorry if I was not clear. Scale to fit does not resample. It simply uses available pixels in

redefined space. If you've edited at native resolution using say 360 PPI, then scale to fit

bigger, image resolution will be something less than 360 PPI although the file will be

unchanged. It is for the same reason that output sharpening could be a problem.

While the Epson drivers (or any RIP used) <u>will</u> interpolate the file to desired

printer DPI regardless of file input resolution, many (including all of the pixel-genius/

pixel-mafia gang like Bruce Fraser, Jeff Schewe, etc.) believe that optimal print results are

achieved when the file's native resolution PPI is set to a number that is evenly divisible with

1440/2880 printers. I can see the difference but YMMV.

Two things occur to me: it does not resample to spec but simply stretches/condenses

pixels to media size (which is off the evenly-divisible goal for 1440/2880 printers) and it

distorts the level of output sharpening used, potentially resulting in more artifacts and/or

suboptimal sharpening.