lenny_eiger

<p>I'll offer an alternate view. I am an artist and an educator (which is one way to say I am not a commercial photographer). It isn't about expediency for me, its about the best quality I can deliver. I think the best place to crop is in the camera, for two reasons.</p> <p>The first one is that the less you throw away the more quality you have in your print. This is a generalization... and meant to be read that way. Obviously if you are cropping off a half an inch on a 4x5 it isn't going to matter. If you use only half the neg for your image, however, there may very well be a difference.</p> <p>The other reason is that I have ushered many a student through their aesthetic process, and one of the most helpful things is to get them to get closer to their subject. Often, beginners shoot something interesting, but further away, and its hard to tell what they are looking at. One may be looking at a forest scene with this swooping branch and the camera sees that and 40,000 leaves.</p> <p>It isn't that they aren't seeing something, they are, they just haven't separated it enough from the background. I tell them to go ahead and take that shot, then pick up their tripod and move it closer. See what happens. Most of the time what they were actually looking at comes into view, its much clearer and their statement becomes apparent.</p>

<p>IMO, the best inks are the Cone inks. You can set them up to be any color you want, even perfectly neutral. You're in control... It takes a bit to get it all set up but its the best solution out there. You wouldn't generally ask an enlarger to do colour and b&w, so why expect it from this other type of printing, especially if you've had issues so far.</p> <p>With an inset set up for this, you can go from your "reasonably high standard" to "all the way excellent" if you want to, however far that might be.</p>

<p>Andrew, I'd be happy to....<br> I assume you know where to find me.... if not, just let me know...</p>

<p>Oops, was writing too fast. I'm actually in agreement with most of you. What I was saying was false, and I apologize for my lack of clarity, was that one had to go to the darkroom to realize the wonder of film. I think film is more wonderful than digital. </p> <p>As to the "tonality" issue, it is my experience that black and white film is more sensitive than digital capture. There appear to be more steps between zone 5 and zone 6, for example. I have looked all over but don't see any real comparisons of this. I tend to print like a platinum printer, I want all the delicacy, the atmosphere, etc. </p> <p>Andrew, I am underwhelmed by your scan in your image set. It doesn't seem very sharp to me. My scanner is much sharper than that... There must have been something out of whack...</p> <p>Hope that clears some things up...</p>

<blockquote> <p>it appears that film can actually capture at least as much data as the best FX digital cameras and potentially much more but we can't realize this unless we go back to optical enlargements in a wet darkroom.</p> </blockquote> <p>First of all, this statement is patently false. Digital printing is excellent, usually far exceeds what is possible in a darkroom print. At least in terms of range.</p> <p>Second, the issue isn't resolution. At least not with a good scanner, and good scanning technique. Certainly not a drum scanner. The issue is range of tonality, or bit depth. It gets quite complicated, but it has to do with the smoothness of the print moving thru from one tone to the next. It is quite visible in b&w, which has always been more sensitive than color.</p>

<p>Sharpening after scanning is scanner-dependent. There will be a lot of sharpening for consumer flatbeds, less for film scanners and almost none for drum scanners. I use a drum scanner and my sharpening settings (for the areas I sharpen) are done with a radius of .2. </p> <p>Lenny</p>

<p>I upgraded and I find that it is quite beautiful. Everything works for me, for the most part... Mail drop doesn't do what it says it will do and handoff doesn't work on older computers (before 2012), so my late model Intel Mac Pro will get replaced as soon as the second version of the new Mac Pro comes out... There are wifi and bluetooth issues that continue to plague some, but I figure these will get handled in the next month or so..<br> Photoshop works the same...</p>

<p>No one can answer this question appropriately. There are a number of options. I don't consider the Epson a good scanner for much, but certainly not film smaller than 4x5... but I tend to be interested in the high end...</p> <p>The reason that no one can answer your question is that you haven't indicated what you are going to do with the scans. Are you going to make 60 inch prints? Or are they just for the web? Are you interested in printing as well as Edward Weston? Are you working with family snapshots, are you a commercial photographer, etc. Without knowing the intent of the scans, it is impossible to make a reasonable judgement.</p>

<p>Anyone who watched the rollout of Apple's new Yosemite OS, or their Apple Watch announcement, will note that one of the first things mentioned was how many of their users had upgraded to their new OS. Never mind that they pester the hell out of you to do so. Even so, if they are pointing to this as a benefit of their way of life, the other OS is going to rise (or lower themselves) to the occasion and force everyone to upgrade with increasing regularly. </p> <p>You may like this, you may not. However, I would suggest that this is the world we live in. Everyone is being forced to upgrade with increased regularity, to protect themselves from internet threats, if nothing else. I can appreciate that software developers would want everyone to be using their best code at all times, so that it can be said to be working interactively with everything else.</p> <p>I have gotten away with a standalone CS6 for over a year now. I don't think it will be possible much longer... I am surely missing out on something...</p> <p>A computer is not a refrigerator. You are all expected to upgrade the hardware about every 3 years. You might get away with it for a little while, but soon, the men in the white coats will come to your house if you don't. You're logged in to the cloud - and what I call fartbook - and they know everything about what you are doing and where you are. It's coming....</p>

<p>Anyone who watched the rollout of Apple's new Yosemite OS, or their Apple Watch announcement, will note that one of the first things mentioned was how many of their users had upgraded to their new OS. Never mind that they pester the hell out of you to do so. Even so, if they are pointing to this as a benefit of their way of life, the other OS is going to rise (or lower themselves) to the occasion and force everyone to upgrade with increasing regularly. </p> <p>You may like this, you may not. However, I would suggest that this is the world we live in. Everyone is being forced to upgrade with increased regularity, to protect themselves from internet threats, if nothing else. I can appreciate that software developers would want everyone to be using their best code at all times, so that it can be said to be working interactively with everything else.</p> <p>I have gotten away with a standalone CS6 for over a year now. I don't think it will be possible much longer... I am surely missing out on something...</p> <p>A computer is not a refrigerator. You are all expected to upgrade the hardware about every 3 years. You might get away with it for a little while, but soon, the men in the white coats will come to your house if you don't. You're logged in to the cloud - and what I call fartbook - and they know everything about what you are doing and where you are. It's coming....</p>

<blockquote> <p>I said Epson's were a no because several of your members in other threads said the focus was basically mushy. Now that seems to be a minority opinion. What about that? I'm following all the responses and learning a lot. Thanks. Penny<br> </p> </blockquote> <p>Penny, All consumer flatbeds are mushy. Especially when compared to a drum scanner. The mushy scans can be sharpened, altho' it isn't perfect. It holds up fine for the web, for small prints, etc. The hard part is when someone uses the term "best" and its unclear what they are exactly looking for. You have suggested you want to scan books and 35mm. That is a very wide range.<br> <br> The term best will not be applied to a consumer level scan of a 35mm negative. It won't make a nice 20 inch print. (Or at least by "best" standards.) However, it will do just fine for a web page.</p>

<p>Don't imagine for a minute that Epson gives a damn about you. It's all about the money. They are a very large and very nasty company when it comes to their corporate behavior. They are not out for artists, that's for sure...</p>

<p>Just to keep things accurate - the Epson does not have an optical resolution of 6400. There is a difference between the number of pixels that can be generated and the number of line pairs that it can resolve on something like that Air Force test target... </p> <p>Accounts vary depending on technique but the Epson 750 can only resolve somewhere between 1900 and 2400 ppi.</p> <p>I would choose the Epson over the HP. I have a drum scanner and thankfully don't have to make that choice...</p>

<p>If you want something to look a certain way, don't send it off to someone you can't talk to. Hire a real printer, go down there and watch them work, help them get what you want out of the process. These things have been commoditized, putting plenty of people out of work, and priced for quick sale. You can't be upset if its not what you want.</p>

<p>I'm a professional printer, and scanner operator. I have seen the recent monitor choices and they are all good. I think Apple moving to the 5k mark is a good thing. Each new thing that Tim Cook has put out has had exceptional quality. You may like them or not, but a look at the new iPad Air2's shows that the attention to detail is terrific. The new Yosemite OS is stunningly beautiful. There are many reasons to upgrade if you happen to like macs. I am waiting for this screen to be offered as a separate screen that I can plug in to a Mac Pro. Then I will dump my way-too-expensive 27" Eizo like hot potato. It's delaminating and I have to send it back to the factory. It comes with a 5-year warranty, but apparently doesn't cover the monitor turning to s__t.</p> <p>Despite my upset with Eizo, it is my sincere opinion that color management is simply not all its cracked up to be. Sure, its good to calibrate your screen so that there aren't any color casts, but the major factor in figuring whether your monitor is going to match a print is your eyes. The only calibrator for them is a print, and consistent printing over time.</p> <p>Numerous people told me that it would be so much better for my totally managed workflow, and so I went for it, but it hasn't turned out that way at all. Not $3000 worth. I'd like to get an Apple monitor, it would have an integrated camera, which is useful for all the video conferencing I do... at the moment I am using a Logitech, and it is truly horrible. </p>

<p>First of all, if you have a LaCie RAID, you are in danger. Those things are poorly designed, especially in the thermal category. One thing goes wrong and you lose everything. </p> <p>I got a Burly Storage case (macgurus.com) and put a pile of drives in there. It's a less expensive than the Drobo solutions. Every time I buy a drive, I buy two, one for backup... Everything is so fast these days that RAID is no longer necessary for speed. These guys are very knowledgeable and happy to help.</p>

<blockquote> <p>And no, I never needed to print something 20 times to get it right because I have a perspective on life that makes me keenly aware of what is really important, my time and sanity.<br> </p> </blockquote> <p>Tim, I will go as far as it takes to get it right, for me. There are images that have taken me years to understand. If you want to see what I am talking about, come on over and visit next time you're in the SF Bay Area. I am not trying to be vague, or mysterious. A great print doesn't show up in a jpeg.<br> <br> The "moves" I am talking about are generally curve adjustments. Lighten this area, soften this area, etc. I do a lot of masking and controlling specific areas.<br> </p> <blockquote> <p>Before I go could you answer for me <em>"There's nothing wrong with a print pulled off a 3800" </em>is that a disdainful way of referring to making a print on a standard/basic/good enough printer or do you also describe prints from your Rolands as having been "pulled off"?<br /><br> </p> </blockquote> <p>Mac. I meant no disrespect to a 3800. They are fine, as far as i am concerned. Excellent, in fact, in the right hands. Fully capable of making an exhibition print. In fact, I mean no disrespect to anyone. I spent a lot of years teaching and I wouldn't have been much good at it if I talked down to my students. I don't have this lack of humility you imagine. However, when the words highest quality are mentioned I do know what they mean, whether is be scanning or printing. <br> <br> There are a lot of people on this forum who gush about an Epson 750, for example. It's usable, in certain circumstances. I can also appreciate that many people don't have the budget to afford something else, and have to use a tool like that. We all do what we can. The only time I get into it is when someone says its the best there is. i'll point out that no, it isn't, there are other options. Done. In my world, there are lots of people who paid $50K or more for a scanner, and I am certainly not going to tell them they bought a piece of junk - even if I thought so, or am glad I didn't choose that specific one. One has to find a way to point out differences in things without invalidating them.</p> <p>I celebrate seriousness, and excellence in every endeavor. It's all good.</p>

<blockquote> <p><em>"the technology is just marvellous"</em><br> I have no problem acknowledging the debt owed to the technology for my own ability to create prints I could not previously (i.e with darkroom technology) have created. I'm happy to say I work hand in hand with technology and my own vision of what the print should be.</p> </blockquote> <p>I agree wholeheartedly about the marvelous part. However, I will add that I am one of those people who was able to create excellent results in the darkroom, and in alt process before I took up this latest technology, which I also like very much.</p> <p> </p> <blockquote> <p>Your Kozo test print if it came out requiring some recalibration for the particular circumstances of the day would eventually print to your satisfaction and presumably on that day from that point you could print any number of prints with repeatability and no further need for test prints.</p> </blockquote> <p>It did come out - but I added a little tweak anyway, one last adjustment to the mask. However, I will say that no, that is exactly what I mean. While I am pretty sure that today I would not make another adjustment, I would not assume that when I change to a new roll of paper, or replace a damper or two, that nothing will change. This stuff is quite sensitive. Coating has an absorption factor, which changes depending on temperature and humidity. In a few months, if I was requested to supply additional prints, I would run a test print.</p> <p>If you don't, its because you are relying on the lower level of print. Nothing wrong with that, as you point out in your post. Not everyone is printing to museum quality.</p> <blockquote> <p>It may in fact be totally inappropriate to refer to such levels when answering the majority of the types of questions that get asked here. So although it's nice and esoteric to dabble here with people who do high end, it might be that the <em>"good enough"</em> printing of some will still be better than the majority would be satisfied with and often times will indeed be ... "good enough", particularly if good enough is used without a pejorative nuance.</p> </blockquote> <p>I agree, good enough is fine for many. The OP did ask about "exhibition printing" if I remember correctly.</p> <blockquote> <p>There is artistry involved in the print making but it is the artistry of commanding the technology and not the creative artistry of the photographer.<br> There's nothing wrong with using technology but it doesn't need to be diminished by mystique and mystique it is when presented as the holy grail of printing within a context of forum readers/responders who have no need of such aspirational levels of printing for the majority, or indeed any, of their work. A Costco print works just fine for many/most.</p> </blockquote> <p>You can look at it all as just technology. However, for me there is a collaboration. I may make a move, or suggest something and the photographer may like it, may see something they hadn't anticipated, or not, and take us all in a different direction. It's a very old tradition, printing with someone...</p> <blockquote> <p>What I am questioning is the relevance of these sort of responses to questions in this kind of forum.</p> </blockquote> <p>I always liked it when I was in a forum on a subject where people knew more than I did and were willing to share their expertise. There's nothing wrong with a print pulled off a 3800, and the OP did ask for the higher level of quality. Costco shouldn't be considered for exhibition printing. Others may enjoy it...</p> <p>If the forum participants sincerely only want to hear comments relating to a lower level of photography, then I will just be on my way. But there are plenty who have appreciated my comments, from time to time... and I think its useful to set the record straight once in a while, on a topic like repeatability, for example...</p>

<blockquote> <p>I'm getting a bit confused. So you're a photographer printing your own work for your clients? Or are you printing for other photographers according to their standards? Or both? <strong><br /></strong></p> </blockquote> <p>I am a photographer. i print my own work. I also print for other photographers, and yes, according to their style and standards. I am quite experienced, been doing it professionally since the '80's. I printed for Avedon, among many others. I make most of my photographic income from high-end scanning, on my Aztek Premier drum scanner.</p> <p> </p> <blockquote> <p>Can you post before/after samples of the results from these slight adjustments just to show what level of personal preference these clients demand?</p> </blockquote> <p>No. First of all, its their work, and second the web doesn't show these distinctions.</p> <blockquote> <p>The whole gist of your point of disagreement was to show the limits of inkjet technology.</p> </blockquote> <p>No. My point was that prints are made by people, not technology. The way to make a great print is to know what a great print is (for one's self) and then to make the technology do it for you. The discussion was about Labs, and my point was that having a Lab do jot for you does not guarantee anything, unless you are working with the person at the Lab to get what you want.</p> <blockquote> <p>on how the print should look because a color managed screen to print match workflow isn't getting it done which is not the fault of inkjet printing technology.</p> </blockquote> <p>I have a ton of experience in color management. i've built hundreds of profiles for the different papers I've used, have terrific equipment and software. A fancy Eizo screen. Anyone that imagines what they see on their screen is going to match exactly what they get when they give it to someone else to print, just isn't looking that closely, or doesn't need that kind of quality. It may be that its commercial vs some sort of exhibition or museum quality.</p> <blockquote> <p>Not all printing technology is perfect but to say inkjets require just as much fussing around with tweaks over other print technologies is not being realistic or fair toward inkjets. Having to do tweaks to correct for something this personal can be attributed to any print technology, but I'll take inkjet over anything that came before it which was crap and a PITA to work with.</p> </blockquote> <p>Every professional printer I've spoken to agrees with me. A great print takes as much work in any technology. i have nothing against ink jets, in fact, that's what I print with. (Altho' one of these days I am firing up my platinum again, almost there.) While its mostly much less than that, if you haven't printed something 20 times or more to get it right, you won't know what I am talking about.</p> <p>And I'm sorry, but to suggest that everything that came before was crap is patently ridiculous. Alt process prints are exquisite, for example. Darkroom printing yields wonderful results, and while I don't prefer them, I am not going to diss them. I made a lot of excellent silver prints in my years doing this, and frankly I want to appreciate excellence wherever I find it.</p> <blockquote> <p>Sure you can tweak the digital image all you want but when did color labs in the film days allow this?</p> </blockquote> Having worked in a professional lab, I can tell you that every color and b&w lab tweaks their printing for the customer. Unless we are talking about Costco, or some sort of automated process... they don't even show up on my radar. I'm just not that interested in mediocre. Thankfully, I have the tools and I don't have to be.

<p>First, let me clarify. When I was talking about a vision that's personal to someone, I was talking about theirs, not mine.</p> <p>If you look at the bottom of any page here, you will see a lot of different styles. All are valid. Some of these people are interested in exquisite printing, and some aren't. I've spent a lot of time studying the photosecession, and studying great printers, from Frederick Evans and Sutcliffe, to name a couple, to Paul Caponigro, and plenty of others. I've been training my eyes since I was 9, and I know how to make these kinds of results happen in a variety of technologies. I do have a very small set of clients who appreciate the difference.</p> <p>To attempt to answer your question, I'll offer this: I was printing large images on 38 inch Iris sheets for Craig Carlson when I said the latest print (which he was fine with) needed a slight adjustment. I pulled out a brush, added a dodge adjustment layer, and began to paint with a 3% brush. He asked me what I was doing, he was familiar with the technique but had never done it with anything less than a 15% opacity. I convinced him to be patient and when we pulled the print and put it on the wall it began to radiate. It popped. It sang, it turned the lights on - whatever metaphor you want to use. Craig was stunned, and he thanked me for what he learned that day. I can't show it to you on the internet, unfortunately. It wouldn't show up.... On that day we were working on the photograph, or the final print, as an object (vs a concept, or a shot, I suppose).</p> <p>Now, to the deeper question, "Why does it matter if one makes a change that only they can see?" This question goes to the purpose of photography. What the hell i<em>s</em> photography, after all? What makes a photograph a piece of art? What makes a person an artist? </p> <p>My answer to this, is that its about learning to speak in a visual language; and actually having something to say. My mentor in my college days, Phil Perkis, used to say, "At the end of the day have you anything to share with the rest of us? Do you have any wisdom, have you learned anything during your time here on Earth?" It was a tough question, I was in my 20's and it was eminently clear that I didn't have any wisdom, nor did I have any idea how to get any.</p> <p>After some time, and some looking, learning and ultimately "seeing", things do change. Today when I look at photographs I want to learn something. I like new things, but am more interested in understanding something that I had seen before but not understood fully. I remember doing a reproduction for Arthur Singer, a well-known bird painter. The leaves one one side of a tree were kind of ratty, not smooth. Zooming in to 200% I could see that it was deliberate. He understood that the prevailing winds, in this case, in the tropics, came from one side of the tree. He understood something, and passed it along. Very few people ever saw that distinction, but he knew it was there.</p> <p>I think that part of an artist's journey is integrity. It's about doing something exquisitely, going all the way, having something that one understands and speaking to it in one's visual language. If it is done only part way, its quite visible, and there is the sense that something is missing. People may not be able to see that a print is taken all the way to the nth degree, but if they meet you they can sense whether you have done this or not. It's about one's own personal journey, and not about sales. That's an entirely different matter. I think we all need to stand for something.</p> <p>I am sure that others will disagree, and that's fine. We all have our own way of looking at this... and we all stand somewhere. Sometimes its within the context of our artwork and sometimes its somewhere else. Or in a lot of places. I hope I have answered your question... at least in some measure.</p>

<blockquote> <p>There's a considerable amount of hand in hand going on between the person and the technology. For some people (self included) the current inkjet technology has brought about the ability to produce better and perfectly repeatable prints than were obtained with the darkroom process.</p> </blockquote> <p>I would disagree. What you are talking about is medium-level printing. Basic printing, "good enough" printing. This works well in a commercial context where the print simply has a purpose to satisfy. Most photographers do this., especially those that print dark, or contrasty, use garish color, or glossy paper. There is another level. It's not for everyone, but it doesn't go "hand in hand" with technology. It's about a photographic vision that's personal to someone.</p> <p>The technology is just technology. One learns it enough to master it and then does something with it. It isn't particularly repeatable, and anyone who thinks so is not looking that closely. I am doing a test print right now - on very expensive Kozo paper - for an image I printed a week ago. I have no sense of certainty that it will be perfect. Might be. Truth is, I'm going to look. It's likely it will need a slight adjustment. I have all the best color management toys, I am really good at this, but when we talk exhibition quality print, which is all I make, it requires a look. It did rain yesterday, the temperature is quite moderate and the coating might have soaked a little of that moisture up. Things will change.</p> <p>There are a lot of different kinds of photography. A personal genre may or may not include exquisite printing (whatever that means for someone) as part of the aesthetic. When it does, and if it includes a full range of tones, it forces one to a different level of printing. It's helpful if you've spent time in a darkroom, even more if you've done some alt process. It's essential that you've studied what you are doing, and you know where you want to get to with an image before you start wasting ink and paper...</p>

<p>Xtol is always a good choice, however, there is only a small speed enhancement. The key point is to remember that exposure and development have nothing to do with each other. It's the basic tenet of the zone system and its as correct as it gets (about 99%).<br> The only thing that adding development time will do is add contrast, which is useful some of the time... when shooting in low light, or compressed lighting, like inside light...</p>

<p>If you want things to show up more, ease up on the density. The prints appear dark (at least on my monitor) and a bit contrasty... Develop your film a bit less and lighten the print and I think much would be revealed...</p>

<p>Ellis, hi there. I was careful to get a "quiet fan" model the last time I got something from them. I don't know about the current offerings... everything keeps changing.</p>

<p>These guys have always been very helpful to me: http://burlystorage.com<br> I have an 8 bay that's been flawless.</p>