silverpixel

<p>I am looking at an Epson 9900 to print under Snow Leopard but am unsure of what may be a good starting point for general printing, where saturated colors are more important than mid-tone accuracy. Can anyone offer advice on settings for initial testing of factory profiles, before building and editing my own? Thanks to all!</p>

<p>Hi Shelly, I have moved several of these machines and may be able to help, or get you in touch with someone who can. Do you still need assistance?</p>

<p>best regards,</p>

<p>Mike Wilson</p>

<p>Any additional transforms (like an internegative) before the final print will complicate tonal control and reduce sharpness, to some degree. A file printed directly to paper is your best bet. There are several technologies to choose from for that purpose, and my experience is that digital enlarger heads provide adequate sharpness for some images. If your image and subject matter need the absolute best sharpness and durability possible, contact me for details about my prints at RES 160 (over 4000 dpi), 16 bit grayscale on good old fashioned double weight, fiber based, archivally processed silver bromide paper. The best there is.</p>

<p>Michael is right (mostly). The Flextight isn't really a drum scanner, although it does scan very, very flat. Where a drum scanner beats others is in film flatness, dust and scratch reduction as a fringe benefit of fluid mounting, and the prodigious dynamic range of PMT sensors (photomultiplier tubes), which read film one pixel at a time, also reducing crosstalk common in the linear CCDs used almost universally elsewhere. The dynamic range figures published by manufacturers for non-PMT scanners usually include software processing, rendering them somewhat meaningless. Scanning above about 5500 dpi is usually pointless regardless of equipment, for other reasons. The downside of true drum scanners is the long learning curve - it's a specialist's craft.</p>

<p>IMHO, the Nikon does a great job for the price, much faster and without the graduate degree in scanning, although knowledge certainly helps. The Imacon does visibly better with some images, and a drum scanner will grab shadow and highlight detail that the other two might not see. How much is enough depends on your standards for image quality and on the characteristics of your film images.</p>

<p>I would probably use the Nikon for most of the scans because I like to keep control, and send a few tough (high contrast) slides or negs to the Flextight to check the results, and maybe drum scan the really tough ones if the other two fail to deliver the quality you want. That way you minimize cost and still get the benefits of higher tech where needed. Of course, no scanner will recover detail where there is none.</p>

<p>Realize that any mistake or accident may ruin your scanner completely, as glass and mechanism are delicate. On the other hand, it doesn't seem to be much good the way it is, so if you have basic skills, I say try it.</p>

<p>Before you start, turn off power, disconnect all cables, and make sure to eliminate all dust from scanner exterior and work area. Then follow the basic instructions which can be found in comment #1 here:</p>

<p>http://www.fixya.com/support/r805587-clean_scanner_glass</p>

<p>Recovering the moon landing images is a curious analogy, since they had to track them down first! Which is relevant: maintaining the storage and organization of a growing data library can expand into a full time job in itself. Transfer across media even with DA or AD conversion is certainly easy in the conceptual stage, but can be a tremendous chore whose magnitude over time can be described as the product of time needed to perform times frequency dictated by the media/equipment life cycle. Being familiar with computer basics is certainly a plus, but doesn't negate the time investment required to make it happen.<br>

Along those lines, pairing the words "analog" and "volatile" seems contradictory when digital media has a much lower longevity than prints. As a matter of personal preference, establishing a more frequent transfer plan may suit some people better. Also, please realize that silver halide prints are hardly "analog" - each grain is either developed or not, and ultimately that represents digital storage of ones and zeros in a medium that is readily useable and doesn't need the transfer job nearly as often.<br>

IMHO the underlying matter is that being able to collect mountains of data will consume the time we might prefer to use shooting or otherwise living. If we bite the bullet and select which images really deserve to be preserved, the issue becomes much easier to deal with. Editing is part of the work of being a photographer, and just because technology allows us to become librarians doesn't mean we should.</p>

<p>The resolution of your file is the product of dpi times size - neither of these factors alone is sufficient. For the web I usually go with 72 dpi and a long dimension of 6 inches, which looks decent on screen, but not really enough to print with good quality. In Photoshop, choose image / size, make sure Resample Image and Constrain Proportions are both selected in the lower left of that window, enter the values, and go. You may want to run a sample print from the resulting file to see if it's bad enough for your needs!</p>

<p>I agree with John - outputting your images onto the highest resolution paper or film possible is the best solution. Digital media is very short-lived, although it seems unbeatable for holding the most data in a small space. Top-notch silver gelatin prints on archivally processed fiber, properly stored, don't need a dubious durability prediction, as its lifespan of over a century has already been demonstrated in reality. The images can be re-scanned at some future time, recovering all the meaningful data, and printed again indefinitely. For color the Fuji Crystal Archive seems to be as good as it gets when budget is a concern, with a reasonable 40 year life cycle.</p>

<p>I print digital images on traditional silver halide baryta coated fiber black and white paper at RES 160 (lines per milimeter), processed archivally. I believe this to be the ultimate storage medium for the long haul. Email me if you'd like more info.</p>

<p>I have to admit my D70 gets little use since the D300 came to town, and that I envy the available darkness shooting my friend gets with his D5000. Pixel count is a fringe benefit compared to big, bright screens, low noise, and easy quality capture. If chasing pixels was necessary to finance the research leading to such improvements, so be it! On the other hand, I can't help resenting the loss of great friends like Kodachrome along the way, even though it hasn't been surpassed by the new tech yet, IMO. I guess there's no turning back now...</p>

<p>I have shots from a 3MP camera that look tack sharp, and also 12MP images (double the sensor resolution) that look soft. At first glance this makes no sense, but there are good reasons.</p>

<p>Marketers have focused our attention on an isolated, measurable parameter of the chain that generates the perception of sharpness in the final image - one that is particularly convenient for their purposes, a linear description of an exponential need. This has enabled them to straw-feed consumers, and train us to spend more often on their products over time.</p>

<p>In reality, sharpness is a perceptional phenomenon that has always defied simple measurement. It depends on the nature of fine detail in the subject matter, relying more heavily on contrast than resolution. The "modulation transfer function" used by Rodenstock back in the 80's to describe their lenses bears this out, demonstrating that a lens with good resolving power could yield soft images, whereas a low resolving lens with higher contrast might do better in the perceived sharpness department. Transferring this concept to the digital world is nearly impossible, as the MTF would have to include lens, sensor, electronics and in-camera image processing software issues, the latter of which are even more strongly dependent upon subject characteristics - a completely unpredictable variable. It seems to me that advances in sensor technology and camera firmware have been more significant for final sharpness than the increase in pixel numbers.</p>

<p>Since I value the look of a finely detailed image, I want more pixels when I have the choice, but remain skeptical to the value of such an increase. I'm more willing to shell out for better tonal rendition and control at this stage. I would jump on a camera with easily upgradeable firmware from a manufacturer that actively supported that, but their current business model forbids that possibility.</p>

<p>I take refuge in remembering that MF film cameras from decades ago still win the fine detail contest, so I don't need to wear myself out in the MP carrot race. Newer tech isn't always better. Right tech always is.</p>

<p>Brad is absolutely right. Sharpness is a perceptional phenomenon. Subject contrast, which is directly influenced by texture and lighting, will go much further to create the appearance of sharpness than any amount of post-processing, which is also necessary to compensate losses along the way as Patrick points out above. Start with a rock-solid camera/tripod, if possible lock up your mirror or use a rangefinder to avoid slap, favor shorter focal lengths and exposure times, use fewer filters on your lens, choose the right balance between specularity and softness of lighting, and the rest of the process will be easier. Also be aware that great specs don't guarantee every lens off the line will be sharp - there are rare manufacturing imprecisions, and elements can become misaligned by a jolt even before you buy, so you may want to find a dealer that will let you test several units of the same model until you find one that is as sharp as you want.</p>

<p><em>Mike- "Art went down Duchamp´s urinal nearly a century ago"<br /> Care to cite some specific examples or continue using pithy puns (pissy puns?)</em><br>

<em><br /> </em><br>

Nicely put, Martin. No specific example of course - merely an attempt to emphasize Duchamp's own recollection of his intention when submitting the piece. An aesthetic concept regarding originality is more valuable to art-talk than to art-making, where the limits imposed can easily become a hindrance. I believe this to be an example of semantics and syntax tripping over one another, first in verbal language, and then in visual, as your post seems to point out. In my opinion it wasn't art that got flushed, but the idea that it ought to be clearly defined. Rebellion against prevailing aesthetics is a permanent theme in great art, often confused with the pursuit of originality for its own sake.</p>

<p>Art went down Duchamp´s urinal nearly a century ago. Expression and the human soul, on the other hand, are still here, as Groucho demonstrated.</p>

<p>Just like to correct my goof above, obviously should have typed CMOS instead of CCD - both times. Thanks for pointing out, Michael and Kari.</p>

<p>George DeWolfe is a truly accomplished master printer, and I recommend reading his book to anyone interested in his enlightened insight along with invaluable technical advice regarding digital B&W. It covers the gamut from his personal vision on the art and craft of photography to specific techniques. Not aimed at the novice, it's quite readable nonetheless.</p>

<p>There is an underlying issue here involving the need for new semantics as a result of the digital transformation in photography. Specifically, the lines defining "printmaking" apart from the rest of the photographic craft have been shifted. Most of the creative enhancement that used to be a direct part of printing has moved away from the printer to the computer. The printing stage itself is now ideally performed in a technical, transparent numeric fashion, without creative interpretation, which in turn has taken place previously while preparing the image file. While the master print may be said to begin before the shutter is released, I suppose the terms representing the stages of workflow have become more ambiguous. I make silver gelatin prints that are near-perfect representations of the source digital file, so I no longer think in terms of master printing, but rather focus on mastering image handling, shooting and previsualization. The accurate print is now a given, the result of tonal management, reliable equipment, and informed implementation.</p>

<p>DeWolfe's book covers all these areas without being an exhaustive reference on any of them, but I believe you will find reading it to be time well spent.</p>

<p>The dynamic range of modern digital cameras is quite adequate for most situations, especially CCD sensors. Where it falls short of my expectations is in the appearance of washed-out highlights caused by improper exposure technique or excessive scene contrast, as occurs often on a stage. Film compresses several stops of detail into the shoulder of its characteristic curve, and mimics our eye's response better. I find that 100 ISO film works surprisingly well for stage work, as I expose for proper highlights and let the shadows fall where they may. That way I avoid the grain of high sensitivity film and the noise of non-CCD digitals. You'll be in a tough spot if you need detail in your print from shadow to highlight from a high-contrast scene regardless of capture technology, so I suggest you try them both and see which one's limitations you prefer.</p>

<p>What may be "considered fine art" is rather impossible to anticipate as it depends on aesthetics, a dynamic cultural construct that varies with place, time, and even individual interpretation. As the language of visual art evolves, repeating the use of a concept may seem to make it trite or abused, but the introduction of some other element, whether tangible or merely perceived, may cause it to again be hailed as "original". The fickle finger of fashion has next to nothing to do with science and verifiable facts, being completely subjective in the end, regardless of the highly entertaining rationalizations and justifications one may postulate.</p>

<p>The perception of originality is key for market purposes, but for the creative person, I have to side with Joseph Braun's advice above. Pursuing originality (which in my opinion is overrated) as an end in itself almost invariably results in a contrived or gimmicky appearance in the work, which may capture the attention of some for a while, but will probably not endure the test of time. If the product of your honest expression seems derivative or influenced by someone else's prior work, accept it and use it. No one creates in a vacuum. As long as you don't violate property rights, I say go for it, and deal with the audience's reaction last.</p>

<p>Toning a B&W image yields a color file, which ought to be faithfully rendered when printed in color mode and with proper color management. Monochrome printing will eliminate the toning. Metamerism is a result of the mismatch between the spectral characteristics of dyes, illumination, and the observer's eyes, and can be handled best by controlling the first two. A dye set or printer alone cannot completely eliminate the problem, as any solution must consider the color of the illuminant - even if you perfectly compensate for one type of illumination, a change in lighting will reveal metamerism.</p>

<p>Well, I don't really feel comfortable doing this from memory, but since I have no OS9 set up anymore, I'll offer this to try if no one else can give you better instructions, and please take it with a grain of salt:<br>

1. disable Local talk in the chooser.<br>

2. In Apple Talk control panel assign it to connect via the modem or some other NOT ethernet.<br>

3. In TCP/IP control panel assign to connect via Ethernet and set manual IP address to the same as your other computer's, changing the value of the final digit group to a value not in use elsewhere on the network. You may have to set a subnet mask as well.<br>

4. Make sure sharing is enabled in its control panel and that you have a shared folder.<br>

5. Plug ethernet cable to powerbook and router (or crossover cable from powerbook to other Mac).<br>

6. You should be able to get online and see the other Mac, at least, at this stage. If not, try rebooting both.<br>

Hope it works!</p>

 

<p>Cross platform networking with older OS's is not for the faint of heart. Local talk, Ethernet, Appletalk, sharing, TCP/IP and other control panels need to be set up, and in the proper order, in a fashion that is dependent upon your network's configuration in the Powerbook and elsewhere. Unless you really need the network and are determined to deal with the learning curve, I suggest you download the Apple USB Mass Storage Support 1.3.5 here<br>

http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=60394<br>

which should make your jump drive work.</p>

<p>If all you want to do is move some files, a USB drive will do it much more easily.</p>

<p>Sorry for the lapse in logic - my mistake. Bonjour, installed on the PC, lets the mac see the pc - not the other way around. You may also need to use an network addressing scheme called Samba. This is not point and click, and there are too many variables to give you step by step, but it can be done. I suggest you start here:<br>

http://support.apple.com/kb/HT2959</p>

<p>You can download Bonjour from the Apple website and install that on the PC(s). That will enable you to see the Mac from the PC's, but probably not the other way around. If you want full connectivity in both directions, you may need to install PC MacLan instead. In any case some configuration will be required which depends on your network and system specifics. The Apple site has good info on how to do it.</p>

<p>Good luck!</p>

<p>You are absolutely right, David, in that continuous tone as understood in the realm of light as wave doesn't translate to print in any common medium, as all prints contain discrete image elements, whether grain or dye, which are either on or off - so ultimately all photographic images are in fact digital, clipping the intermediate analog values. It happens from capture regardless of technology, gets diffused in optical or electronic transform recovering some of the <strong><em>appearance</em> </strong> of continuous tone, which is what commonly refers to in a print.</p>

<p>So you are again right in that perception has the final say in defining continuous tone. Resolution beyond the limits of our senses lets us comfortably ignore the data lost in conversion to digital. If gradations seem smooth and artifact free at a given distance or magnification, we can call it a rose if we like, but there is not yet a standard for how closely we should look. Meaning evolves. Chomsky's E-language at work.</p>

<p>I must mention one curious exception I'm aware of, briefly described in the book "Color Photographic Printing" where IIRC a tank of ionized mercury is used to reproduce an optical interference pattern yielding true continuous tone, matching the projected image wavelength for wavelength at each atom. The image isn't permanent but it must be the ultimate print!</p>

<p>Hi Dave, that's some memory for a post almost a year old! Personal issues have kept me from starting full work on the market side of this project but I'm confident that the website and lab will be operational in the US within a month.</p>

<p>I'd be glad to answer any questions, within the limits imposed by the need to protect a marketable "secret". The DPI and RES ratings for consumer-oriented equipment are unfortunately rather meaningless. The perception of sharpness is a complex psychological phenomenon and manufacturers have mostly resorted to claiming "apparent" resolution, since a flat spatial frequency figure ignores other even more important variables such as fixed vs. variable dot size, the geometry and sharpness of the dot itself, number of shades or inks or bit depth, patterned or randomized distribution of dots, sharpness loss and recovery in the RIP and printing head...the list goes on and on. In the case of Fuji Frontier and Noritsu minilabs, they rate optimistically in DPI and who am I to say the math is questionable if the consumer likes the product?</p>

<p>My machine has addressability at RES 160 (no typo) with an effective exposing dot size averaging 6 microns, depending on the intensity of the laser beam for each pixel. It is certainly overkill since Galerie stock can't come close to resolving it, but that ensures any artifacts are below the grain/emulsion scatter threshold. In practice I find that a good 600MB file upscaled in my RIP is quite hard to distinguish from a full resolution file even with a good loupe, and even my 6MP files from a D70s look decent. I don't have computer hardware capable of editing a full page image at RES 160 and 16 bit depth, so I've used small prints for testing at that level, realizing the impracticality but wanting to see the possibilities.</p>

<p>The laser dot on the paper surface has a diffuse edge falling off appreciably from about 60% of radius, so I think it's fair to say that even with 8 bits the process is continuous tone up to full resolution. Again, the limits imposed by scatter within the emulsion and the size of paper grain are the real limits. Theoretically this means to me that the full capacity of the material to render sharpness is utilized, so if the file is good, there really is no chance of making a sharper print with silver gelatin paper, regardless of exposure method.</p>

<p>Some inkjet printers use variable dot size coupled with multiple inks at very high resolution to simulate continuous tone very effectively and I've seen outstanding prints. My current size limit of 11x14" certainly is a point against me, but will be easily overcome if the project flies. Back at the math, though, since my printer also varies dot size and uses a 16 bit palette at close to 4000 dpi, when an inkjet can use 65,535 vials simultaneously at those same parameters, we ought to have a contest, which the inkjet may win if the manufacturers can make dot size the same as drop size by that time. And yet, some of us diehards may continue to prefer the look and feel of silver gelatin fiber even then. Time will tell.</p>

<p>The whole point I was after was to smear the divide between digital and wet photography so we can reach for the tool of choice without having to accept the accompanying limitations on print medium down the line. Now I can shoot film or digital, process in my image editor, and output to whatever I see fit with no regrets. My prints take over half an hour to expose and I process by hand with old fashioned archival wash, so they aren't cheap, but I've yet to find anyone dissatisfied with the results.</p>

<p>So, I stand by my boast and invite anyone to a shootout. For more information or to arrange to see a sample, or even to discuss theory and practice in this area, everyone is welcome to contact me. I look forward to it and wish the best to all.</p>