bruce_hooke

I've run into a very odd issue with printing from Photoshop CS5 to an Epson 3880. It seems like Photoshop fails to transmit the correct print settings to the printer so even thought I'm telling the printer that I am printing on Epson Enhanced Matte paper it prints using Photo Black ink, which, of course, does not look right on matte paper. This is on a Mac running OS X Version 10.9.5. I've very carefully gone over the settings in the print dialogs to make sure there are no errant settings that could be causing the problem. I've worked with Epson support to re-install the Epson driver. And I've checked and confirmed that CS5 is up to date in terms of patches and updates.

 

I am using the usual recommended print flow where I let Photoshop handle the color management rather than handing this task off to the printer.

 

One key insight came as a result of the fact that this computer also has Photoshop CS3 installed on it. If I print an image from CS3 using the same settings I'm using in CS5 the printer behaves correctly and prints the image using Matte Black ink. Unfortunately there's some degradation in the image quality, I think because CS3 is so ancient (12 years old) and certain subtle aspects of the software have improved in newer versions.

 

Has anyone run into this problem? Does anyone have any suggestions on how to fix this? It makes it pretty much impossible to print on matte paper using this computer and printer.

I'm looking for something that seems like it should exist but that I'm having a hard time finding I think in part just because of the flood of related devices that make it hard to sort through what's out there. I have a medium format film camera that I use to make images that include me in the image. I currently use a baby monitor camera to see what I look like from the camera location but I keep thinking that a Bluetooth camera that I could connect to my iPhone would give me better information as the image I see from the baby monitor camera is in black and white, is pretty low-resolution, and lacks basic things that I'd get with the iPhone like the ability to zoom in on the image. It's important to note that the image I see via this remote monitoring system is not the final image. That is captured on film via the medium format camera. Also, right now I simply aim the monitor camera in the same direction as the camera. Ideally I'd like to be able to aim the monitor camera at the ground glass to really see what the medium format camera is seeing. So, here's what I'm looking for in this "monitor camera":

 

- Remote camera that can connect to my iPhone 6S via Bluetooth. Since I often work in remote areas I can't count on their being a Wifi or phone signal.

- An available App that I can install on my phone to view the output.

- Either powered by a self-contained battery or powered by 12v or 9v DC.

- Compact since I'm often carrying this whole rig in a backpack and don't want to add a lot of weight

- I'm trying not to spend a whole ton of money on this.

 

The "obvious" solution would seem to be a GoPro Session but I've read that they now require you to sign into their system on a regular basis to use the App. This makes it useless to me. GoPro in general seems to be going downhill fast. I also don't need all the features GoPro cameras comes with.

 

It would be nice if the camera:

- Is wide angle enough to match a 40mm medium format lens (about 17mm equivalent on a 35mm camera). If that's not possible then at least something like 60mm (medium format) would be the next best.

- Can focus close enough to be aimed at the ground glass from an inch or two away (note that this would make the wide angle piece irrelevant).

 

Any ideas? Thanks!

OK. Thanks. I did find one open-source system but it seemed to require another piece of open-source software that is no longer available.

 

It seems like there should be a service where one could send the reference file and the scanner output and get back a profile but maybe there isn't enough demand.

Thank you to both of you. When I price out SilverFast AI for my scanner the price I'm quoted is $450, which is really more than I can afford to spend. I suspect my price is higher because of the higher-end scanner I'm using. I also already use VueScan for my scanning software and I've spent a lot of time refining how I use it so I was hoping to find a solution that was just for creating profiles, rather than a complete scanner software system.

I'm looking to profile my scanner and it's easy to find suitable targets but I'm having trouble figuring out what software to get. I'm quite willing to pay for suitable software but I can't afford to spend $500 or $1,500 on the fancy software that does all sorts of things besides just take an input and compare it with the reference file and generate a profile. Does anyone have any recommendations?

Thanks Glenn. I wish that place revealed what thickness of Plexiglas they use. That would be useful information. I'm also a woodworker so I'm planning to build the shadow box myself. Supporting nine pounds of Plexiglas should not be a problem but that weight is good to know. I've certainly see this done before in museums and galleries so it's just a question of figuring out the right materials.

Thank you to both of you. I know the usual trade-offs on glass and Plexi that places like Frame Destination and lots of other websites easily found via Google seem to address. I may not have phrased my question well enough. The real heart of the question is for a shadow box this large will 1/8" Plexiglas work and look good or is there a better solution? The fact that this is a shadow box frame makes things a bit different from the usual because it means the glazing is out there in space rather than being supported, at least near the edges, by the mat, as in a conventional frame. Right at the edge it will be held in place by the shadow box but that's it. Also, the size of this image puts it outside the realm of the usual framing places. I tried Googling for information about shadow boxes and all the information I could find was focused on small "crafty" shadow boxes of the type you might find at Michaels or similar crafts stores, not on framing large-scale art photography. I talked to a place that sells glass and Plexiglas and they did not really like the idea of Plexiglas but didn't have another good option to offer, given that the venue where this is going won't allow glass.

I need to frame an image that's about 58" wide by 28" high. My plan is to put it in a shadow box so there's no mat and the "glazing" will be free-floating. The exhibition venue requires that I use Plexiglas. My concern is that if I use 1/8" Plexiglas it may warp and look hideous. If I use thicker Plexiglass I'm worried that it will distort the image. Does anyone have any experience with this and any recommendations? Thanks.

<p>Thank you Howard. Those documents will be very helpful.<br>

I'm familiar with the software having purchased it to set up another printer for Piezography printing. Unfortunately that was a 3800 whereas it's a 3880 I'm trying to fix, so I'll probably need to buy it again, but that's not a big deal.</p>

<p>I expect you've already done this, but just in case, let's eliminate the obvious: have you double-checked both the printer profile setting in the program you are using to send the image to the printer and the printer profile setting in the printer setup? In the Photoshop print dialog I typically set the profile to the paper I'm using and in the printer dialog I turn off the printer's color management.</p>

<p>Thank you Doug and Howard. That's a big help. The $180 is credited towards the repair cost so it's not a totally bad deal but I wasn't keen on spending $180 to be told that, say, the printhead needed to replaced and it would be too expensive for that to make sense. I've read other references to replacing the ink valve/damper assembly and since I'm usually pretty good at mechanical things I think I'll go ahead and try to replace it myself. Thanks again!</p>

<p>I enjoy traveling to interesting places to photograph but I realized recently that many of my best images were made within a 20 minute walk of my house. </p>

<p>I have an Epson 3880 that does fine printing on matte paper but when I switch to glossy it immediately starts leaking ink. It's obvious that something needs to be repaired, what I'm trying to get a sense of is what it's likely to cost. The Epson service center just says they'll look at it, and charge me $180 to do so. If I could get this printer repaired for, say, $400, I'd probably do it. But if they're going to tell me it would cost $800 to repair then it wouldn't make sense. I'm hoping someone else has run into this issue and will have some idea of what the repair cost might be. Thanks!</p>

<p>Thank you, Barry, for tracking down the solution but most of all for coming back and posting it here. I ran into the same problem today, as I was scrambling to make a number of prints to take on a trip. Your solution of turning off the paper size check on the printer's menu worked for me, at least so far. I'm using Red River San Gabriel, which is also a somewhat heavier paper and I'm using hand-cut roll paper since Red River was out of stock on sheet paper in 17 x 22 so the paper isn't as flat as might be desired, which may also be causing issues. <br /><br />For those who may be confused, the setting we're talking about is right on the actual printer's menu, not anywhere on the computer you are using to send files to the printer. It took me a few moments to figure that out.</p>

<p>As far as the file format to save in goes, I always use Photoshop's native format but TIFF should also be fine.<br>

I generally do not try to "add" pixels, I just let the number of pixels/inch decrease as I increase the dimensions, but others who are responding on this thread appear to know more about the relative merits of the two approaches (adding pixels or not).<br>

What I always do before making a print that I know is pushing the limits of what the image can handle is make a print of just one part of the image at the intended final size -- so pick out one section to print on letter size paper at the scale of the intended final print.</p>

<p>Thanks Mark and John,<br>

Mark in particular gets at a question that I have not found a perfect answer to, which is in the current environment does it make sense to pay to have something like an F3 body overhauled regularly and repaired by a professional camera repair shop or does it make sense to simply buy a new used body from KEH when something goes wrong. For what it is worth, the body that broke had been overhauled a few months ago and the experience of having the body overhauled and then having something go wrong not long afterwards does leave me even more doubtful about the value in having a used F3 body overhauled, but it is still not a clear cut decision to me.<br>

An added factor is that most camera repair places seem to want to charge a goodly sum to diagnose the problem. This is perfectly fair but of course what one does not know going in is will the answer that comes back be that it will cost more than the body is worth to have it fixed, which, as John's story illustrates, is quite likely if it is an electronics problem.<br>

For what it's worth, I don't even bother with Craigs List or eBay for used camera gear since I figure that way too much of what is sold there has undisclosed issues, but I have gotten a lot of good gear from KEH. The "as is" approach from KEH does not make so much sense to me as the hassles and cost of getting the camera overhauled would seem to bring the cost up to what a "Bargain" body goes for from KEH and a "Bargain" body is ready to use.<br>

That, at least, has been my thinking...<br>

Thanks again for all the input!</p>

<p>Thanks everyone.<br>

Paul: Yes, this is happening even when the counter is well beyond the first three frames.<br>

Brian: Thanks! Yes, the ASA dial was a good thing to check. Thanks for suggesting that. I agree that at this point it is time to get the camera into the hands of my camera repair guy. Sadly, given the price of used F3 bodies chances are good it will not be worth repairing this one but it is at least worth checking with him in case he knows from experience that it is something easy.<br>

Thanks everyone for your ideas and suggestions!<br>

Bruce</p>

<p>Thanks Jose and Brian. I tried moving the ASA dial back and forth but that did not seem to help. It also occurs to me that since the light meter does appear to be reading properly the ASA setting must be at least getting through to the light meter...</p>

<p>Robert,<br>

When I originally experienced the problem there was film in the camera. There is not now...<br>

Peter,<br>

No problem, I know how easy it is to read past things. If nobody here has an ideas I will probably take the camera to my camera repair guy next time I am in town</p>

<p>Thanks Peter. I did try a new known-to-be-good battery and it did not fix the problem.</p>

<p>I have a Nikon F3 that seems to only be shooting at one speed. I am guessing the speed is 1/80 but all I can tell is that it is a fairly fast shutter speed. The shutter speed shows correctly in the viewfinder both on "A" and with the speed set manually but when I actually press the shutter release the shutter opens and closes quickly even if I have the shutter speed set on 1 second or even on B (of if I have it set on A and point the camera at a dark corner of the room so the light meter is showing a slow shutter speed). This is not just happening with the frames before the counter gets to 1. The counter is advancing. I have put in a new battery.<br>

I am guessing there is something major wrong in the camera that will require the attention of a camera repair person (in which case this body will probably become a "parts" body) but just in case there is something obvious I am overlooking I thought I'd put this up here and see if anyone has any ideas. Thanks!<br>

Bruce</p>

<p>Thanks everyone. Some very useful information all around. I am using an Epson 3880 so I am using the K3 inks. Aardenburg does look like a good operation to support.</p>

<p>Ashleigh, on the lab results you posted a link to (the first link in your post), do you know if the inks used for this test were the K3 inks (or something similar)? I presume they were but I don't see that listed on the certificate. Thanks! Bruce</p>

<p>I am considering trying out some of Hahnemuhle's bamboo paper but I am wondering if anyone has heard anything at all about print longevity with this paper (on an Epson 3880)? I can't find anything on the Hahnemuhle website or the Wilhelm Institute website. Thanks!</p>

<p>I store my 35mm slides in binders, in the order in which the images where made. So, I keep each roll together as a roll rather than resorting the images based on some other categorization. I tend to look for slides based on when and where I made the original image so this sorting makes sense for me.<br>

If I take slides out of a binder for, say, a slide show, then when it came time to return the slides to the binder I would find it quite hard to figure out where a given slide belongs if I did not keep every slide in each roll (except for half-frames and the like at the start and end of a roll).<br>

For medium format slides I much prefer handling the slides as strips of three. This means that it would almost never make sense to discard since I would be discarding three images rather than just one. Plus, since the medium format slides are not mounted they take up very little space.<br>

So, I keep pretty much every slide. Yes, I have quite a few binders!</p>

<p>Thanks Charles. I also have that book but I'll admit I have not yet made time to really dig into it. However, in looking through what would seem to the relevant sections I have not been able to find an answer to my question.<br /> However, the more I think about my question the more I think that it must be the printing that the "time period" refers to. After all, when it comes to magazines, they not so uncommonly sell back issues printed decades earlier and I doubt they paid for perpetual licenses for the images and other licensed content.</p>