andreas marx

<p>Just to get this one closed:<br>

It was the Firefox buffer: Some days before (actually before the renewal) I looked at some of my inages using a 3G connection - that gave me very low res.<br>

Obviously Firefox just gave me the impression to load the photos, but showed me the old (low res) ones.</p>

<p>Just to let you know</p>

<p>So Josh - I am sorry that I did bother you! I can clearly see it is on my end :-(</p>

<p>Oh well, ....</p>

<p>Thanks Josh,</p>

<p>maybe before doing so please have a look at the shot attached. On my system it looks extremely pixellerated, in fact as if it was a ultra - low re, ultra - jpeged photo.<br>

If you see it the same way, I upload it again for comparison.</p>

<p>But if you see it as being ok, then I need to check my system, perhaps (no clue where...)<img src="../photo/14363008" alt="" /></p>

<p>Cheers,</p>

<p>Andreas</p>

<p>Hi,<br>

I paused my membership for over a year (maybe even two?), simply because I was not taking too much photos in that time. At a certain time my old posts got reduced in size and quality, quite heavy.<br>

Fair enough - I was not paying, so I can't expect to use huge space on photo.net.</p>

<p>But now I renewed my membership and - the photos are still in lousy quality!</p>

<p>Do I need to delete them or will this be fixed by the system?</p>

<p>Thanks</p>

...and then again: sometimes you see images, photos wich have all the infedients:

- willing model

- oh yes - she's looking damm good

- perfect light

- perfect sharpness

- well trained pose

- perfect hair style

..... and you watch that perfect pizza, but it does not taste. Something is missing. You know what? It's all about spices!

So take the same perfect girl, have a medicore photographer - but with a great idea or feeling - have ok light and just combed hair. What do you get? A beautiful photo, a true piece of art, a well composed pizza....

(Ad to this all the babies, cats, dogs, whatever you like)

@Ellis Vener:

Is this BW or colour?

I find colour nearly trouble free - but BW VERY complcated. My (old) Canon machine never gave me neutral bw, my (newer) HP machine is dead neutral with HP paper, but the paper is a piece of plastic...

Well, that is what is said.

But then again: Why does Harman offer a profile for the Dye printer?

Hi there,

there has been a lot of hype about pigment inks, specially for BW (which is what

I am interested in) and indeed, pigment inks have developed like crazysince the

days of the Epson R 2100 / R 2200.

However, they never did good for me and here is the simple reason:

I am not fond of matt paper, I simply like the glossy look of a baryt paper.

There are some outstanding matt papers around, but to my eye they never did

catch up with the "look and feel" of a silver halogene chemistry photo.

Now, up to recent, anybody wanting that look in digital had to go for a naasty

compromise: Take this plasicy hi gloss paper which is around. Indeed, excellent

print quality wwith dye inks, but ugh... never touch ist.... PLASTIC!

So many went the pigment route, because there is a million matt papers out which

give you excellent results... still matt, no high gloss.

Once you go to high gloss, the dye ink printer shows much, much better quality!

Bronzing - not an issue with dye ink! No gloss optimizer needed, deep rich

blacks....

These days there is the anouncement of several igh gloss quaality papers, like

- Hahnemuhle Fine Art Baryta 325

- Harman Gloss FB AI

- Ilford Galerie Gold Fibre Silk

(see review at www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/printers/baryta.shtml)

Here is my question:

At least the Harman seems to be capable of dealing with dye inks, Harman offers

a profile for the HP 8750, which is dye based.

To me this sounds like the solution!

Back to dyes, yes, instead of 200 years they only last 110 years - but I can't

care less, at the age of 46 :-)

What are your feelings about this? I think it would just be great to get the hi

gloss quality of a good dye based printer together with the beauty of such a paper.

I own a 8450 myself and I think that the print engine is quite the same (the ink is the same anyway).

Same problem here:

Take the (awfully plasticy) HP paper and you get brilliant BW with no color cast to speak of. Even more, the prints are rich and deep and thus could match chemical process indeed.

Could. But they can't because the "feel" of the HP paper is just lousy.

So I tried out different other papers - no luck here: Even using the grey inks only (HP 100) produces a strong cast (yes, sort of sepia). Must have something to do with the chemestry between paper and ink.

Workaround:

Get the paaper you like. Print,using all colours (i.e. swich off geryscale option) and then correct in the printer driver in very (!) small steps until you found what your'e looking for.

Store this settings in the printer driver.

Then print ONLY using this settings (i.e. do NOT allow your application to take care of colour management).

Painful, but the results are great and they match every Epson printer easily

@Joe:

Thanks - I just heared that the Entrada paper might be too heavy for the 8450 (over 300 g/m?)?

@Isaac: Thanks a lot - your suiggestion is a REAl surprise to me, as I have specially on Ilford papers a terrible toning in the BW prints (yes, just using #100 grey to black ink! No colour involved - its greenish *Ugh*). Further more I am not particulary keen on pearl.

Gie: Thanks a lot - been through that task, but no real suggestion?!

What I did in the meantime (and my it help some others...):

I bought a paper, which is very nice, it has a relatively un- structured surface, is very white (my use optical brighners...)and is very cheap. Here in Europe it is called "Brilliant" and exclusively distributed via Calumet (the pro photo shop chain, I think you have them in the States also, right?)

Firts prints, using only black and grey were terrible. So I started using colour in addition.

In the printer driver you have the option to adjust colour, tone and so on. What I did (specific for this paper!):

Made the colour tone -3 cooler, added +10 black and +3 magenta.

WOUW!

Now, that's neutral... VERY nice, just a tad warm, but no way near any tone.

True for halogene light, bulb and daylight - no metarism to speak of.

Excellent - and 25 sheets A4 (which is "letter" in the States, I asusme) cost you 6 US$!

Tech data: Weight 230g /m?, Caliper Thickness 9.5 mills, Opacity: 98%, Brightness: 90%

For my day-to-day BW's I am happy.

Still.... THIS IS NO baryth Paper!

Any more hints welcome :-)

Hi,

I use a HP 8450 for my BW work (which is a large portion of my photography) and

I am happy with my prints on HP premium Plus Paper - rich tonality, neutral,

detailed.. very good.

The paper itself is less impressive - feels like plastic, no way near the good

old analog paper (like Baryt - remember Ilford Galery?)

Now, I tried several matt paters but I am not confinced yet:

Some seem to have a colour shift (I am ONLY using the grey inks), others just

don't show the details.

Anyone experience if there is a mtt paper (possibly like Baryt)out, whith which

the HP can deal very good?

Thanks (and don't tell me I shall buy an Epson - may be true, but there is no

money...)