robert_brake1

<p>There is Adobe's raw converter, DNG. It is and always has been free. It converts everyone's raw files pretty much from the day a new camera is issued. You can always use the camera maker's raw converter which, on more and more cameras, is Adobe's free DNG converter. You don't have to buy anything from Adobe you don't want to buy. This really is a non-issue.</p>

<p>James, as someone looking at 4 Epson printers plugged in all over the place I'd be using the 24" version of the HP Designjet Z3200 if I was doing what you want to do. 12 color printer, replaceable print heads, 130ml cartridges and HP inks are doing very, very well so far in longevity testing. I'm even using a custom inkset in one of the Epsons based on the HP Vivera black ink for dedicated b&w printing.</p>

<p>I picked up an Epson 4490 on sale at a Staples a long while back for I think 120USD or thereabouts. It's done great for the document scanner I needed. Does a great job copying an 8x10 b&w print for digital printing and comes with a 35mm and a 120 film insert. It will copy at a native 4880 dpi so I now have a roll of Tri-X in an old rangefinder and I will give the 4490 a try at scanning film when I develop the Tri-X. I think it might do fine, as is, for proofing and I'm even willing to bet it will work OK with a hand made wet scanning rig to do the four to five scans a month I expect to send at it later. Epson has a refurb page on its website that I trust. I'd expect to see one there for less than a hundred US if it shows up.</p>

<p>If you are not using a Right Click mouse you can also go to Get Info (Command i) for any tiff file and scroll down to Open With and change it to PS from Preview.</p>

<p>Doesn't have to be a switch, it is another whole set of tools. Printing digitally runs from straight out of the box solutions from epson and hp that can equal wet prints in resolution, tone, and probably longevity. Varying levels of sophistication can be added from commercial 3rd party inks such as Piezography to do it yourself inksets that can open up whatever your personal vision is. Matte papers are extremely advanced, F type papers can still be a bit problematic but advancing rapidly, if you want RC types I'd probably stay with wet prints for now.</p>

<p>Digital processing can get you an image that can print identically every single time whether on a digital printer or with a digital negative and a wet contact print.</p>

<p>Digital capture is good but in my book expensive. I'm actually going back to some film capture with 135 film and scanning and looking to dig up a MF film camera to see how that fits in, mostly for dynamic range reasons.</p>

<p>Good resources here:</p>

<p>http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/messages?o=1&yguid=253793878</p>

<p>http://www.piezography.com/</p>

<p>http://paulroark.com/</p>

<p>Piezography is equal parts professional printer and inkset manufacturer, they can print an image for you from a digital file or a negative on one of their inksets, though not particularly cheap, for evaluation.</p>

<p>For evaluating a negative to a print with varying inksets/printers there are a large number of professional printers, in addition to Piezography, who are involved in the DB&WthePrint forum who could do everything from scanning to printing. There is a non commercial policy to the group but a website is allowed in the signature so it is easy enough to track down a commercial shop there.</p>

<p>I would try gently applying pressure to the trailing edge of the paper with a couple of fingers splayed apart. You only need do this for the immediate instance the paper starts its travel. If that doesn't work I would look at cleaning the feed rollers. Spraying a sheet of heavy matte paper with windex and running it through the feed can work. Places like Staples carry commercial kits for doing the same. Over time the paper's inkjet coatings transfer onto the feed wheel and diminish its grip. Another indicator the feed wheel needs cleaning is if you are getting a consistent scuff mark on the paper from the feed wheel. The wheel's rubber surface is clogging and is spinning on the paper before getting it to move.</p>

 

<p>Photoshop>Preferences>File Handling>midpage to File Compatibility and then Checkbox for: Prefer Adobe Camera Raw for JPEG Files</p>

<p>Miles, I'm curious how the Canson compares in terms of texture with the Silver Rag and the Gold Fiber Silk. More pronounced, less?</p>

<p>Dave, you can take a look here:</p>

<p>http://regex.info/blog/photo-tech/focus-chart</p>

<p>It is an autofocus target that may be helpful. I use it to map corrections for lenses used for infrared photography. It prints well on a piece of glossy photo paper.</p>

<p>Andy, you may want to drop in here as well:</p>

<p>http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/messages?o=1&yguid=253793878</p>

<p>Many professional printers there and many more former and current darkroom workers. Digital b&w printing was only a few years ago at the "will it ever be as good as silver" stage. A very short time later it has progressed dramatically beyond that point to where silver can now be seen as a particular subset of b&w printing in general: many beautiful things to explore in digital printing and even more techniques in silver with digitally produced negatives and contact printing. The techniques are expanding at a rate far faster than the publishing world can keep up with. </p>

<p>The group has been around for some years so the search function can be highly productive.</p>

<p>I think ratings have to be taken with a great deal of salt. I believe Wilhelm allows in the neighborhood of 30% loss of density in any given color and doesn't take into consideration color shift at all. A pure cyan patch that looses 30% will just look dull but a green that loses 30% of its cyan but only 15% of it's magenta and 10% of its yellow will not be the same color. Ratings for dye inks that stretch into the hundred year mark also assume in sleeves in the dark, not on display. The claria inks are a great improvement over the original dye inks and may also be adequate for the job: if the family portrait that hangs in the sunny hallway is faded after a few years no big deal just print another one. If you've sold that portrait to someone there may be an issue.</p>

<p>1400 is a dye printer with Claria inks. 2880 uses Ultrachome K3 pigment inks. Pigments will outlast the dyes by a large margin. K3 has Black, Light Black (Gray) and Light Light Black (gray) for the b&w plus small amounts of CM&Y for neutral toning The 1400 Claria has only one black and must produce all but the darkest grays purely from Magenta, Cyan and Yellow inks.</p>

<p>Patz, if ever there was a case for Color Management you have just made it! From my setup (a profiled third party monitor and CS3 running on a Leopard Mac) by taking a screen shot and measuring it in PS your original image was made in PS with a red 255 fill and the gradient tool. From your test prints it looks like PS was set to sRGB in color settings when the image was made: all fine and good, but, first you are now trying to print the most difficult image possible from your printer. A smooth gradient shows every minor fault in the linearization aspect of a printing profile and 255 red on a gradient will show every minor fault in the color mixing of a printer with a specialized red/orange inkset. Second, it looks like you are throwing darts in the dark for color management:)</p>

<p>A) What you see on your monitor. Assuming you are viewing through Photoshop with the same Color Settings that produced the image or at least when the image was loaded you chose: Use the embedded profile (instead of the working space) if the Color Settings have changed, what you will see on an un-profiled monitor is what you got and that depends on how close your monitor is to a correctly profiled one. In other words ten profiled monitors viewing that sRGB image through PS with Color Settings at sRGB will show identical images within the limits of each brand of monitor. Any un-profiled monitors will show what they show, they can and generally will show differences in the smoothness of the gradient, those differences are due to the linearity or non-linearity of a non-profiled monitor and can include rings and/or bumps in the smoothness of the gradient; and differences in the tone of the red. The red may vary in hue from having an orange tint to a purple tint. That tint may vary up and down the gradient as well. The only way you will know if your image on the monitor is true to the image on the file is compare it to properly profiled monitor.</p>

<p>B) Your "Proof Settings". I'm assuming you are going to (in CS3 at least) View>Proof Set-up>Custom>your print profile. This should be Epson R1900 Premium Glossy if indeed that is the paper you are using and inkset you are using. This setting will have no effect on your print. It is to be used during editing to have an idea (within the limitations of a backlit image (your monitor) and a reflective image (your print) of what your final print will look like. This will be no more accurate than your profiled or un-profiled monitor. For the moment leave things at Perceptual. An alternative is Relative. These choices have to do with how the printer will map colors if you have out of gamut colors in the image. Since you are trying to print a pure red your printer most likely cannot do that so it will alter the image to either the Perceptual or Relative intent, these have to do with how the eye perceives smoothness and color change. To see if you have out of gamut colors in PS go to View>Gamut Warning and check that on. If it shows that you have out of gamut colors in your print profile then Perceptual and Relative will make a difference in how the image prints and you may have to print both versions to see which is preferable. If you have no out of gamut colors there should be no difference. For the moment ignore Black Point compensation. This is relative when you are concerned about how the deepest blacks are displayed on you monitor relative to how they will print.</p>

<p>C) Here is where things will start to get tricky. Since you are using PS (a color managed program) use: let Photoshop Manage Colors. There are two routes here. If you have a color managed program such as photoshop you will want to let photoshop stay in control. Using Let Printer Manage Colors can take you to the same ouput but is designed for simpler non-color managed programs. For example, if you want to increase the saturation or change the hue of your red color in your final print you could go into PS and change it with all of the control that you paid Adobe for. If you are using a non-color managed very simple application you can use Epson's "Vivid" setting or the color sliders in Printer Manages Colors to increase the saturation/change the hue according to what Epson's built in program tells it to. As I said, you paid Adobe for Photoshop so use that.</p>

<p>D) Since you are using Let Photoshop Control Colors you must now choose a printer/paper profile. If you are using Epson Premium Glossy Photo Paper, choose that profile. If you had chosen Let Printer Control Colors it would automatically choose the same profile, unseen by you, if you chose Premium Glossy Photo Paper in the printer dialogue for paper choice. If you left all of the printer settings at neutral at this point Let Photoshop Manage Colors and choosing the profile SPR R1900 Premium Glossy Photo Paper will print the identical image as Let Printer Manage colors with Premium Glossy Photo Paper chosen in the print dialogue for Paper Choice.</p>

<p>E) since you have Photoshop you have another choice here. Epson produces "Premium Profiles" Go here:</p>

<p>http://www.epson.com/cgi-bin/Store/support/supAdvice.jsp?noteoid=98484&type=highlights&ref=r03074WE4Z</p>

<p>and you can download the premium profiles. With this profile you would follow the same Let Photoshop Determine colors and choose the premium profile from the profile list. There will be settings that need to be duplicated such as Paper Type, Resolution etc.</p>

<p>If you are using Epson papers, Epson profiles and Epson inks there really isn't much to be gained by profiling your individual printer. The Premium Profile will produce the best print that printer can make bearing in mind a single color, especially red 255 with a gradient is one of the most difficult prints you can make. I don't know if you are running a test of your printer or if this particular image is crucial to you, as a backgound for text perhaps. If the r1900 with the premium profile correctly printed, (you have run a nozzle check and all nozzles are firing correctly, paper and resolution settings are correct, etc., and it doesn't provide the results you need you may need another printing method. If your ouput doesn't match you monitor there is nothing more you can do without a profiled monitor. In this case your print is correct and your monitor is off, hence the importance of a profiled monitor.</p>

 

<p>Dan, to sum up: go here:</p>

<p>http://www.adobe.com/support/downloads/detail.jsp?ftpID=4575</p>

<p>download DNG converter. Convert your raw files to dng. Discard or save your raw files as you wish. You can even embed a copy of the raw file into the dng file with, of course, a larger file size.</p>

<p>Open the dng files in Bridge to view the thumbnails. When you open a dng file from Bridge it will automatically open in ACR. Make whatever adjustments you desire in ACR then open in Photoshop.</p>

<p>Personally I would avoid iPhoto like the plague, it wants to control where everything is and does a very poor job of it. I have even removed it from my hard drive.</p>

 

<p>As Patrick mentioned both are fine for the job. It will probably be hard to find someone who has both to compare them because if you have one you really don't need the other. i1 users will probably come heavily from the pro printing ranks as i1, especially with their higher end units, have been around the pro print shops for a long time. DataColor (Spyder) is also big in the industrial color end, and from what I've seen, bought their way into the consumer market. I use Spyder products and have no complaints. One thing to look at is how the monitor profiler hardware/software might work with print profiling if you intend to go that route in the future. Other than that I'd look at price specials/packages and go from there. Spyder has a pretty decent forum/help group here:</p>

<p>http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/datacolor_group/messages?o=1&yguid=253793878 </p>

<p>The forum has a lot of DataColor techs involved and it's occasionally brusque if you approach it whinging, but they're mostly pretty straight forward and informative in helping get the job done.</p>

<p>Not having the ability to view through an ICC or ICM profile before printing has kept me from buying it since first trying the Beta of LR1. I really don't understand why it is so far down the list of LR priorities. Every time a new Beta version comes out I do a quick check to see if it can proof through profiles and when I see that it can't I don't bother looking at it any further. </p>

<p>Barney, before you switch to a PC bear in mind that most Macs, for some time, can boot directly from a mirrored external drive if it is Firewire, (but not usb). I don't know about PC capabilities in that same vein. I have two 500mb Firewire 3.5" drives that keep duplicates of all my photos as well as a bootable mirror on one of the 3.5" drives and another bootable mirror on a small Firewire portable 2.5" drive that goes with me when i travel. If I should ever lose my internal HD, pressing Option while restarting will give me the capability to immediately use one of the mirror drives to get back up and keep working until the internal can be replaced.</p>

<p>Having lost a hardrive on an old PC some years ago that instant recovery is something I can appreciate.</p>

<p>Ron, I regularly fly, this past November the most recent, with a camera bag, (a reporter's style bag: two digital bodies/lenses and three extra lenses) and a brief/computer case. I carry both on board without problem. Only once, while connecting in Puerto Rico from foreign did I have the camera bag physically searched. The laptop bag always gets the full treatment. I do stick some peripherals like a flash and chargers in my checked bag figuring these could always be easily replaced if something went wrong.</p>

<p>Ah, wading through the bs. We've all been there. First, assuming you are going with an LCD: HDMI and DVI are pure digital and are the same except HDMI also carries audio in the same plug. It's more relative to what the outputs are on your computer. I would avoid VGA/SVGA as they are analog standards and will be fading out over time. </p>

<p>Next is what is your end result, print, web or both. For print first, you will most likely need to lower your contrast ratio and screen brightness some when profiling the monitor to match printer output. That means extremely high contrast or brightness is sort of meaningless and in the usual marketing parlance anything that is "enhanced" like a 2000 to 1 "enhanced contrast ratio" is completely meaningless, extreme brightness is the same as you can not duplicate those extremes at the printer. That said, what is important is evenness of the luminance across the screen, and evenness up and down the luminance scale, something you are more likely to get with a higher end monitor.</p>

<p>For the web you will want a profiled monitor and perhaps better luminance/contrast properties although much of it will be lost if the viewer is viewing your image on a crappy monitor. If you plan to display your images on monitors under your control, something we will probably see more of in the future, that is a different story.</p>

<p>Viewing angle is very high on my list. Look at the color/luminance change at even minor viewing angle changes on any laptop and you'll see what I'm talking about there.</p>

<p>Profiling tools are extremely important. You will absolutely want a profiled monitor and if you are printing yourself you may want the ability to profile your own printer/paper/inkset combinations, especially if you like to use a number of different papers. You can have a service do that for you at moderate cost and that works well if you stick to say three papers, a matte, an RC type glossy and one of the F type papers.</p>

<p>Bottom line for me if budget is a consideration is factor in the profiling equipment into the overall cost and if that means a less glitzy monitor so be it. </p>

<p>I don't know how much of a parallel it is but this winter I have been playing with a series of b&w still lifes done with an Infrared converted Nikon D50. One of the light sources I have been trying is candlelight because of its high IR output. From that I discovered that shooting with slow enough times to kick in the in-camera noise reduction (with raw) gives better noise reduction than a higher light source/faster shutter speed and noise reduction in post. Digital IR produces a really ugly noise with no kinship to IR film grain so it is really unwanted. Makes me wonder about the way in camera is done (can it possibly be mapping individual pixels prone to going off color or off luminance?) as opposed to how it is done in post processing software.</p>

<p>Found it! Control click on the Document Window background allows you to set a Custom Color.</p>

<p>Mac OSX Leopard, PSCS3, Calibrated monitor. For some reason the non-image area (background ?) of my Document Window has taken on a magenta cast at what should be the white background when cycling through Screen Mode with the F key. The monitor is calibrated with a Spyder2 device and all other aspect show neutral grays, blacks and whites where they should.</p>

<p>The question is: have I inadvertently changed a value somewhere to get this magenta cast on that background only. The regular gray shows absolutely neutral and the black has no cast when measured with DigitalColor Meter. The White background shows L*82 A*+2.6 B*+2.1 and is an obvious magenta. I use the full screen mode a great deal to visualize an image with a matte and simple black frame and the image viewed through a Print Profile which my monitor replicates well. This background used to be a neutral looking white. If this is adjustable it would be nice to know where the adjustment is as then I could adjust the background to match the actual mattes I use, as of now the magenta is really jarring for both color and b&w work. Any ideas? My searches through PS help have resulted in zip. Thanks in advance!</p>

<p>B&w film has more dynamic range than digital capture but you would not get more DR than what was on the original capture. If there is digital noise you would now add that to the film grain. What are you trying to accomplish? If it is to make silver prints you can make digital negatives and contact print to silver and/or other papers. If that is the case run a search for Digital Negatives.</p>

<p>Anyone know if you can soft proof through printer profiles yet?</p>

<p>Like others mentioned the paper may be contaminated, flaking is usually more of a problem with matte papers. Look for a horsehair drafting brush (usually about five or six bucks) and brush each sheet right before printing. The horsehair will prevent a static charge building up on the paper and attracting dust. Never use a synthetic brush as the static charge created will defeat the purpose.</p>