john_roberts15

I have today set up my new HP 9180. I have up to now used an HP 8450 which has

produced prints that look pretty close to my monitor (NEC multisync). I have

been pleased with the results of my 8450 but wanted to move up to A3 size

prints.

I have previously done a calibration check on my monitor with an Eye-one 2.

 

My first two prints off the 9180 look dark and muddy compared to my 8450

versions. i have tried changing the settings to make use of both the printer

based colour management and the Application based colour management systems,

both with the same muddy results.

 

I am using PW Pro for minor editing , not being a fan of the "photoshop"

experience, for my limited requirements which I find quite adequate.

 

The problem is that most information, guidance, plug ins etc appears to be

geared around photoshop use, for amending, calibrating etc.

 

Is there any out there who can help a simple luddite, like me, through the

complexities of the settings required to get a print off my 9180 printer that

looks like the image on my monitor ?

 

Any comments offered would be much appreciated.

 

Thanks

 

John

Hi Maurizio

 

Check back on a thread that I started back in 19th August last year on the 2090uxi, and in particular follow the details about the gaming link. It really does work !

 

With this software you can use any of the calibrators. I use the Eye-One2 very effectively

 

regards

John

Hi

 

Thanks to everyone who offered very sound advice.

 

I searched around Manchester (UK) but couldn't find anywhere that dealt in the potential Zeiss ZM, so that I could compare the Leica and Zeiss options side by side.

 

In the end I found a dealer who had in stock what I think may be the best solution, a mint Leica M6TTL 0.58 model fitted with a mint Zeiss 35mm F2.0 lens. I tried the combination out and could actually see the framelines for not only the 35mm but also the 28mm. This was a much different experience from my earlier 0.72mm viewfinder episode.

 

Half an hour later the combination was mine.

 

I think that this is could be a marriage made in heaven, Leica 0.58mm body build quality combined with the optical, and build quality, rendition of the Zeiss lens.

 

I'm hoping so .........

 

I'm mindfull of the comments, made particularly by Jonathan, that if the Leica doesn't quite suit then it can always be sold hopefully without loss, making it a relatively painless experience

 

Cheers

John

Like Alex, my camera club still has regular slide competitions, both slide and digital. It is quite evident that there is a world of difference in the quality of image projected. Film projection wins hands down.

 

What appears to be in vogue now is to have digitised images uploaded to a lab who reproduce onto slide film (producing good results), at 2 pounds a slide. Projected slide remains supreme, however made, for the best quality image.

 

Although you might want to factor in the convenience factor for home use, digitally projected/displayed images are poor, and have none of the magic of a large projected image, when compared to a half decent film projector

 

Long live slide film (and projection)

 

Regards

John

Hi

 

Thanks to everyone who has kindly replied to my call for advice. Although I am tempted by the Zeiss, I am not going to buy "blind" until I get the opportunity to try all the three candidates out - "Focus" show coming up in the UK in Birmingham, at the end of February. Problem in the UK is that it is difficult these days to find good camera shops not selling digital only

 

I hadn't realised that you could get magnifiers. In the event that the Zeiss viewfinder is still not quite right, then that will probably confirm the decision in favour of the R4M or Leica 0.58 with magnifiers to give me a bit more flexibility, on lens use.

 

Your comments are very helpful and much appreciated

 

Thanks

John

Hi to All

 

I tried rangefinder photography (Leica M6) 4/5 years ago and must confess I

struggled a little. Great camera with 35mm lens but...... I found it difficult

to see even the framelines of the 35mm lens fitted when my wearing my specs

(essential requirement). The viewfinder was the 0.72mm version.

 

After a year I sold it and went back to SLRs (film and digital). However I miss

the compact size and enjoyment of rangefinder shooting, even with its

limitations.

My interest is street using wide to standard lens set up

 

Thinking back I believe that my basic mistake was in not getting the 0.58mm

viewfinder which I think would have been much better suited.

 

I am interested in trying again and would welcome advice on options available,

before handing over sizeable amounts of hard earned cash.

 

Whilst I am looking for some good quality equipment I am not automatically

jumping straight back to Leica but want to explore options available that meet

my brief:-

 

Compact sizing,

Quality build of both body and lenses,

Either Manual or auto,

Easy viewing of wide to standard lenses (24mm to 50mm) whilst wearing specs,

preferably without use of additional viewfinder

 

I am familiar with the quality of zeiss lenses as I have owned Contax SLRs in

the past

 

A few questions come to mind :-

 

Do Zeiss have viewfinder options or just the 0.72mm I know that Voigtlander do

but do they qualify under the "quality buld " requirement?

 

Can viewfinders be adapted to suit specs wearers?

 

Are the majority of Zeiss and Voightlander users pleased with their gear ?

 

Impartial comments invited

 

Regards

John

Guy -Yes, treat yourself to a bargain.

 

David - well spotted. I hadn't realised that it was just a sticker. There quite clearly is the confirmation of Multisync LCD 2090UXi

Guy/Graham

 

In answer to your question about colour calibration, whilst I haven't tried it yet, the spec certainly refers to Colourcomp and various levels of colour calibration. I think that for the environment that this momitor was intended, that it it is a very sophisticated machine capable of very high levels of accuracy in calibration both in colour and mono. You obviously need to add the particular calibration system to achieve the result that you want (Gretag Macbeth or whatever) but the capability is there to handle it, no doubt

 

In answer to Graham's query on rotation, the answer is buried deep in the Users Guide on the accompanying CD. If you refer to page 24 it states

 

IMAGE ROTATION

AUTO: The display image automatically rotates according to the orientation of the OSM. If AUTO is selected in the OSM Rotation menu, the display image rotates according to the orientation of the monitor.

OFF: The display image is not rotated. IMAGE ROTATION is set to OFF by default.

ON: The display image always rotates.

 

Cheers

John

Hi Frans

 

I've sent an enquiry through to the NEC Technical Dept but no answer yet. I also did a price comparison in the UK the standard 2090UXi retails for approx 450 pounds incl tax, and as you said the MDview 202 approx 800 to nine hundred incl tax. On the face of it (and comparing the specs) it seems as though I have got good value for money.

 

I'll keep you posted with any responses from NEC UK.

Hi

 

I've checked out the NEC web site and the specs of the various machines, and I'm pretty sure that the MDview 202 has all the ingredients of the 2090 and more. It cerainly is a super screen.

 

Thanks for your commets

 

John

No - just the Monitor and the Cd for the GammaCompMD. I know that NEC do various versions such as a Photo version and also a Spectraview version, but I thought that I was buying a standard 2090 UXi.

As part of an exercise to upgrade my old CRT, I have bought this weekend from

an EBAY trader in the UK an NEC 2090UXi, or at least that's what it said on the

side of the new unopened box. It also had on the box a label saying MDview 202.

The monitor itself, duly badged MDview 202, is superb with wonderful image and

clarity. It also has something called GammaCompMD which I understand to be some

sort of Gamma control software. It was obviously designed to be primarily used

in a medical environment.

 

I was delighted with both the monitor and the price paid of 189 pounds. What I

am trying to understand is, is this a model variance of the 2090 UXi with extra

features or a 2090 UXi with lesser facilities, or indeed something different

altogether. Does anybody have any experience of this particular model, or can

throw any light on to the variances if any ?

 

I am intrigued, and look forward to any comments.

 

regards

John

Jordan

 

Thanks for comment about digital ice. I turned it off and tried another scan - this time excellent result (albeit that the contrast levels needed some adjustment)

 

For interest I downloaded a trial copy of Vuescan and got an excellent scan at the first attempt (better contrast levels)

 

I think that for the relatively modest cost of Vuescan that it will be a worthwhile investment for my novice attempts.

 

thanks and regards to all for some very useful comments.

 

In a few minutes you have eased a lot of anguish about how to tackle my problem.

 

John

Hi Frederick

 

I've tried scanning with different combinations i.e. positive, colour neg, RGB, grayscale, but it all comes out the same.

 

I've had decent results previously on FP4

 

John

Hi

 

I have recently purchased a Nikon V scanner and am having some fun

scanning different films, using the default scanner settings.

 

I am having a big problem however in trying to scan Ilford Pan F.

Although I appear to have reasonable thumbnail images on screen,

when I preview scan, and scan, I get soot and whitewash images.

 

Is this to be expected with this particular film or do I need to

approach this film differently from the others and use different

settings.?

 

Any advice from experienced Nikon scanner users would be much

appreciated.

 

regards

 

John Roberts