arden_howell4

<p>Nicholas, Make a "finished print" on each of the two papers then lay them side side. If you can't see the difference why bother. I use presentation matte as a next to last step then produce the final final on the higher quality paper. I have no problem seeing the difference and I suspect you won't either. Although I consider the presentation matte ( Epson Ultra Presentation Matte) quite nice, it can't compare with Hahnemuhle Photo Rag 308 or 305 gsm or other premium photo rag. I usually see the biggest difference in highlight detail and overall depth and crispness. IMHO Arden</p>

<p>Colin: Thanks for your response. Unfortunately, I have been unable to find out how one "enables thick media" We may be using different operating systems. Mine is OSX 10.1 At any rate I can't find and reference to thick media pertaining to the sheet feeder. As it stands now, I can't seem to get any paper over 265 gsm ( Velvet Fine Art Paper) to load. Can you steer me in the right direction? Thanks, Arden</p>

<p>I am trying ti determine the heaviest g/m2 paper that can safely be sent through the rear single sheet feeder on the Epson 2880. The info from Epson was given in mm.<br>

Conversely what is the lightest weight material that can be sent through the front thick media slot? Can anyone help me out here? It seems that many newly available fine art papers<br>

Have very high g/m 2 numbers. Thanks</p>

<p>I have just printed photos of watercolor paintings on bright white paper. The photos look great in the camera and in Aperture. I transferred them into PSE for printing on an Epson 2880. The resulting prints had gray to bluish backgrounds and are unusable. I have had no prior problems with prints matching my monitor. I have tried both with the Epson managing the printing and with Photo Shop in control, and got the same results. This may be the first time I have dealt with such a large expanse of white white. I am using Epson Velvet Fine Art paper. Can anyone help? I am very familiar with photographing white, so I am pretty sure that this is a printing problem.</p>

<p>Kent: Thanks so much for your help. Actually, with the help of my wife, I discovered what the problem was. Instead of using the browser to load the photos from Aperture to Photomatix, I was dragging them directly into Photomatics. This resulted in bypassing the selection box governing the desired file size. Anyway, the files are now the correct size! I knew it had to be something simple.</p>

<p>I am new to Photomatix and HDR processing. I am having a problem with my processed and saved image size. My imported bracketed photos are each 12.2 megs but after tonemapping and switching to PSE for post processing the file size is reduced to one half size. The 2144 X 1424 pixels make a 7.1 X 4.7 in. print. What am I doing wrong? I would like to make 11X 14 prints. I figure I am doing something stupid but haven't figured it out. Can any one help?</p>

<p>Charles, I am using IPhoto 09. It obviously handles the JPEGs perfectly, but not the NEFs. I found a list of compatible cameras for this version which listed the D90 with a asterisk, indicating that this camera required Aperture 2. It seems very strange to have iPhoto 08 work but not 09, but this seems to be the case. Several of the above posts suggest I pick up version 11. Unfortunately, it is packaged with other software which I don't need, and is not getting very high marks from users. You may have a jewel with version 08.</p>

<p>Charles, Thanks for pointing out the big mistake in my last post. I should have stated that I was told that IPhoto does not support the D90, at least not for NEF files. The version 11 also refers to iPhoto and not PSE. I must have had PSE on the brain when I wrote that! From your experience, that must not be the problem. It still leaves me with NEF files in iPhoto that I am unable to edit or transfer. I appreciate you input. </p>

<p> </p>

<p>Imott, I tried your method, but the file immediately snaps back to IPhoto. I heard from a tech at Apple who told me that Elements 9 does not support the D90. I am now tryin to find out if the newer version 11 does. Thanks for the responses.</p>

<p>I use both A Nikon D40 and a D90. Images from both have been up-loaded into IPhoto. Most of these files are JPEGS, but some are NEF (raw). I use Photoshop Elements to make alterations before printing. The JPEGS pose no problem. JPEG files from either camera will transfer easily. The D40 raw files go first through Camera Raw 5.5, an Elements plug-in, then on to a full edit in Elements. . The problem is the Raw files from the D90! I am unable to do anything with them. They seem to just permanently reside in IPhoto and cannot be opened or transferred once there. There must be some sort of incompatibility with the D90 files? Any ideas? I do have Nikon Transfer and if new raw images are uploaded this way there is no problem. It's the existing IPhoto files I would like to access. Thanks</p>

<p>I am an advanced amateur film photographer still in the wet and the dark. I would like to set up a dedicated ink jet printer capable of exhibition quality b&w output . (I understand the learning curve will be steep in both time and effort) Can anyone direct me to the best source , book, website, or whatever, to start laying out and understanding my many possibilities? Printer choices, inks available etc. I am confused by conflicting claims of the best system to choose: all black, or color inks to fill in the mid tones, Cone or 100% carbon. Any help would be appreciated. yes, I do shoot some color digitally but I am really interested in just b&w. Any guidance accepted!</p>

There are many Macbeth service centers to be found on the Web. I would think that any of them could supply you with samples of known densities to make your calibration. If the Macbeth works like my Tobias, you simply read a sample of known density and then turn a small dial so that your reading matches the sample. You could probably use a piece of neutral density acetate or any other piece of film of known density.

Another developer to consider is Kodak HC-110. It is wonderful with HP5

and comes as a liquid concentrate. Just mix what you need from the concentrate. The remaining developer will keep for years! Unless you plan to develop several rolls of film in a fairly tight time frame, you will save money and storage hassles with a concentrate.

Yes, just search "Unsharp Masking" you will get both digital and traditional darkroom techniques. I would consider some type of written quide to walk you through the process mandatory. You can get started without a registration punch and easel until you decide the process is for you. I suggest using ortho film as it makes good masks and allows you to work under a red safelight. The real trick is in learning to match your positive or negative with the right strength mask. Years ago Bob Pace produced a book and video that was a step by step guide. Maybe someone out there still has a copy. While masking to sharpen prints from negatives is a great tool, making contrast reduction masks is a must to get the most from Ciba.

Another tap water fan here. I have used it in several different locations and gotten reliable results.

I had the same problem with a older Super Chromega. It was a burned socket that was shorting the bulbs. I got a new socket from Harry at Classic-enlargers.com and haven't had a bulb blow since. Harry is the Guru for all things regarding Omega enlargers.

My method is thus: Put the film strip or single negative into a small tray of water and allow several minutes for the emulsion to become saturated. Agitate the strip with tongs from one end or from the sprocket holes for two or three minutes. Add a couple of drops of photo flow and continue the agitation for another minute, hang to dry. I have never scatched a negative doing this. In my experience however, I usually find that if a liberal dose of Edwals Film Cleaner won't budge the spot then rewashing usually won't either.

I also think that the shot of the trees is really not all that bad and with some skillful printing could be quite nice. Shooting IR is a skill in itself. As you mention being a beginner, it might help you to stick with one film and one developer until you learn that combination, and don't hesitate to bracket exposures. It appears that the tree exposure could have benefitted from another stop. As this would have brightened the foreground leaves and helped the dense shadows. Technically, your photos are not bad. Don't get discouraged, just keep taking pictures. Most any seasoned photographer will tell you that the largest percentage of their shots go in the trash. Your percentage can only improve with time and practice.

You don't need Hypo clearing agent for film. Water is all you need! Save the clearing agent for prints.

Way Beyond Monochrome by Lambrecht and Woodhouse is outstanding but a little pricey. It is definitely weighted more towards printing and geared for the more advanced amateur. It's worth every cent for those who wish to consistently take their photograpic efforts up a notch!

Put an overlay of clear acetate or a piece of clear film over your negative. Make a dark or even opaque dot on the acetate directly over the offending black dot. Make a new print with the acetate sandwiched above your negative. The black dot on the new print will become either much lighter or even a white area which will be easier to fix. I was taught this technique as "dye dodging" many years back. It should be fairly easy with a 6x7 negative.

In any case, it appears that your negative is a bit on the flat side. You can try intensifying it in selenium. While you will probably gain no more than half a grade in contrast, from what you describe it might be enough. Use 1 part selenium to 5 parts water. Agitate in a small tray for 3 to five minutes. Wash and use a wetting agent, hang to dry. I have never damaged a negative with this technique.

While I don't use Ilfosol when developing HP5, The time you mention also agrees with the data on The Massive Development Chart which is usually quite accurate. You should certainly get usable negatives. Given your first time results, you should be able to tweak future negatives to eventually arrive at your optimum processing level. Much of this is dependent on the many variables inherent in processing techniques and equipment as well as your idea of a great negative.

Another voice for HP5. This has to be one of my all time favorite combos.

As Michael said, start with syrup right out of the container. I never make a "stock" solution. For instance: Dilution B can be 1 ounce syrup plus 31 ounces water. Dilution H is 1:63 or half the Dilution B strength. Just double the time given for B. It's very handy if developement times are less that 5 minutes with Dilution B. If you haven't discovered it, go to http:www.covingtoninnovations.com/h110