daniel_taylor

"I have the tripod listed above. I don't like it. Especially for macro. The weight of the camera and lens is too much for the head when it comes to macro movements."

I've never had a problem, but given the name/price point it wouldn't surprise me to find variations among units.

http://www.ritzcamera.com/product/291660652.htm

The only thing with the label "Quantaray" I would ever recommend.

Choose based on the *system*, lenses and accessories, not the body.

These bodies are close enough, besides the fact that bodies come and go but once you're in a system, you tend to stay.

"I have been sending digital captures to various stock agencies for the last 4 years with a high rate of acceptance. Just recently, I reconverted to film and started scanning 35mm transparencies on a Nikon Coolscan 5000 ED. But eversince , hardly any picture passes the QC, files keep on being rejected for various reasons such as "noise, artifacts or hazing at full size", or even "too much upsizing"."

Where's Les with his maps to educate the stock agencies on the finer points of 35mm film's utter, complete, and crushing superiority over all "digiscams" and their low-rez output? Oh...I'm sorry...you wanted to hear advice, not me laughing at everyone over the years who has started a fight at the first hint of someone suggesting digital offered exceptional image quality.

Let's look at their complaints...

1) Noise - shoot slow speed films and use Noise Ninja. Adjust the settings so that you don't lose real detail, but do suppress the grain and scanner noise.

2) Artifacts - look through your image and clone out any and all spots/scratches not removed by ICE. Be very, very picky about this.

3) Hazing - adjust levels (black and white points) to eliminate this and give better contrast and clarity. Digital images, which they are now used to, are exceptionally "clear" compared to an unadjusted film scan.

4) Upsizing - after you've fixed the above problems at scan size, downsample to their MP requirement to further supress/hide problems.

If you do this right, they may even think you did use digital and won't complain.

"Aren't agencies aware that film has grain if looked at at 100% magnification, which is like 100X150cm size on my LCD monitor."

They get digital and MF submissions all day long. Contrary to the claims of some film fanatics on this site, even slow speed 35mm, unassisted, shows grain at 8x10. Why would they want to put up with this? They can get noise/grain free images from just about everyone now.

If the speed of the dye sub is as claimed above, that would probably answer your question.

I wanted to make one other note regarding ink use: do not change cartridges when the printer starts telling you one is low. Wait until it forces you to swap it out. I get a lot more prints while that red light is blinking. (You probably know this already, but just checking.)

"I mean that was contributed so you can take it up with owner."

Assuming it really was contributed (which is an assumption I would question...you have a history of deception), then only an idiot would accept such a poor sample at face value and declare to the world that ISO 1600 film is superior to a Pentax DSLR at ISO 200.

"Seriously, you've asked on numerous posts like this and if you were to look back the responses have been that you're grossly mistaken."

You better look back again Les. By the end of your "digital and film resolution tests" nobody in the threads gave a rats rear what you had to say. Everyone saw you as the fool you are.

"You know why that is right . . . because a picture is worth a thousand words and I post them as I get 'em while you don't have any of your own still and resort to thievery . . . and yet you ask for my 1Ds MKII images."

Poor Les...every time I show up one of his crops with one of my own, I'm "stealing" from him. Poor, poor Les....

Don't worry Les, I'll stop asking for your 1Ds mkII images. I know they only exist in your mind....

"Daniel, it's quite arrogant to make guesses about what people can see and what they cannot see."

Understand my "arrogance" comes from having to listen to people drone on and on about digital/film differences, only to have those same people utterly fail to guess the source while admiring my prints.

"Film images look different no matter what you do to them."

Heard that one before....

"Believe me, I spend considerable time and money on trying to like digital. Sometimes results are good, but sometimes they're just lifeless copies of the subject. Similarly, sometimes film images look off color and that's irritating, but sometimes they are so lively it's like magic."

It's not the medium. A good photographer with a good subject in good light can use either to make "magic."

I've said it before and I'll say it again: I do think some films have a unique palette/look, namely Fuji's slide films. Given the right scene and light, Velvia is magic, especially in MF. But I can shoot the same scene in digital and while it looks different, it still looks great because of the light. And while it may look different from Velvia, that doesn't mean it's dramatically different from every color film.

"To say that film images look like digital images is just plain ignorant."

I've been creating another DVD archive of my photo library, and just printed a couple old 35mm scans in folders I had never gotten around to finishing. Lo and behold one of the prints is of my cousin's daughter, taken on NPH, and guess what...it looks pretty much identical to the 10D portrait of her I printed last month. (Well...except for her age difference.)

Heck, after Noise Ninja, you couldn't tell the difference based on grain even.

"In principle you need a different sensor and processing algorithms for each imitation. Useless really from an economical point of view."

Hyperbole. You would not need separate sensor designs, unless you're trying to match the wide latitude of certain films, in which case you just need a new sensor design since digital has not achieved that kind of latitude yet.

My last post above was ment to go to another thread. Phone rang...wrong button clicked...oh well.

"It is interesting to see folks new to inkjet printing say pigmented inks are new. Jeepers they go back to when computers were just 386's. Pigmented inks are old news, before Clinton was elected president. Pigmened inks are more permanent, and have been used with large format inkjet for about 2 decades. In signage, pigmented inks last longer, but have a lower color gamut. Dyes have had a broader gamut, put fade quicker, this was known before photoshop existed. Yes have more punch, more gamut, and are popular with amateur, short term, indoor, and wilder images."

I don't know if you were referring to me, but I've been playing with ink jets and photos for about 7 years. (Before that I used ink jets, just not for photos.)

About 6 years ago was when Epson targetted the print permanence issue with their 6-ink Photo series. Almost immediately the ozone fade became apparent. Back then I didn't hold it against them since they were at least trying, and had moved the state-of-the-art forward in both image quality and permanence, despite the ozone issue. But 6 years is a long time with a technology the company knows is seriously compromised, especially when the same company has developed and deployed something far better.

Pigment printers aren't new, obviously, though I would say it's only in the last few years with the Epson models that affordable printers which could match dye printers in photo print quality became widely available. It was two years ago, when the R800 introduced gloss optimizer to an 8x10 printer, that I went pigment and never looked back. Hence, my few remaining fading dye prints which were two years old.

Posted this to the wrong thread initially...

"I will definitely try the "photo" setting. I don't use the "standard" Kodak ink jet paper that you buy from target or something. It is the Professional version."

Fair enough, but these companies design their inks and papers together for permanence. You could, in theory, mix a 100 year ink set with a 100 year paper from another company and get a couple years.

"Please let me know more about testing by Wilhelm, I'm not familiar."

http://www.wilhelm-research.com/

"So I was thinking I would end up bringing the R1800 since my Epson Stylus Photo 900 does not make the best prints in the world."

Don't even get me started on the permanence and stability issues with Epson's dye ink set printers. http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00GaZe

Needless to say, I would not sell Photo 900 prints.

"I do have a Epson Picture Mate that is primarily used for "family" pictures but that might work decently for 4x6's printed from Photoshop. It is very difficult for me to determine how much a print costs on average with my R1800, the inks go at different times."

I don't have exact figures, but I've run some pretty large jobs where I purchased all fresh carts and then checked the ink when finished. Cyan and Magenta go the fastest, while blue and red can last a pretty long time. Based on those larger jobs I figure a PGPP 8x10 costs me roughly $2 and HWM costs considerably less, perhaps <$1. Of course prints with certain dominant colors can end up costing a lot more. I have some fireworks photos I will only print at the local photo lab because they suck the black ink.

"As far as quality goes I have read people claim that their dye sub dominates any inkjet they ever had. Is this still true with the newer ink jets like the Epson R1800?"

I doubt it. That would be the same as saying that a dye sub dominates photo lab printers like the Fuji Frontier. For the most part my R800 8x10's on Premium Luster are identical to Frontier 8x10's I order, and pretty darn close for PGPP. Frontier prints tend to be more saturated, but I can compensate either way in Photoshop.

"I will definitely try the "photo" setting. I don't use the "standard" Kodak ink jet paper that you buy from target or something. It is the Professional version."

Fair enough, but these companies design their inks and papers together for permanence. You could, in theory, mix a 100 year ink set with a 100 year paper from another company and get a couple years.

"Please let me know more about testing by Wilhelm, I'm not familiar."

http://www.wilhelm-research.com/

"So I was thinking I would end up bringing the R1800 since my Epson Stylus Photo 900 does not make the best prints in the world."

Don't even get me started on the permanence and stability issues with Epson's dye ink set printers. http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00GaZe

Needless to say, I would not sell Photo 900 prints.

"I do have a Epson Picture Mate that is primarily used for "family" pictures but that might work decently for 4x6's printed from Photoshop. It is very difficult for me to determine how much a print costs on average with my R1800, the inks go at different times."

I don't have exact figures, but I've run some pretty large jobs where I purchased all fresh carts and then checked the ink when finished. Cyan and Magenta go the fastest, while blue and red can last a pretty long time. Based on those larger jobs I figure a PGPP 8x10 costs me roughly $2 and HWM costs considerably less, perhaps <$1. Of course prints with certain dominant colors can end up costing a lot more. I have some fireworks photos I will only print at the local photo lab because they suck the black ink.

"As far as quality goes I have read people claim that their dye sub dominates any inkjet they ever had. Is this still true with the newer ink jets like the Epson R1800?"

I doubt it. That would be the same as saying that a dye sub dominates photo lab printers like the Fuji Frontier. For the most part my R800 8x10's on Premium Luster are identical to Frontier 8x10's I order, and pretty darn close for PGPP. Frontier prints tend to be more saturated, but I can compensate either way in Photoshop.

Be aware that by using a 3rd party paper you may be compromising print permanence dramatically. Since you're *selling* these prints, this is an issue. I wouldn't trust a 3rd party paper not tested by Wilhelm *with* the Epson ink set, and even then I might be iffy about it. (Kodak, ironically, does not have the best reputation when it comes to ink jet inks or papers in terms of permanence.)

As to print speed and ink use, use the 2nd best setting, "Photo". There is generally no difference to the naked eye between "Photo" and "Best Photo", yet the former prints faster using less ink. It's also hard to say what your paper settings/profile are doing to ink use. I know that different papers require different coverage. Epson Heavy Weight Matte uses considerably less ink than Premium Glossy, for example.

I've filled much larger orders than that on short notice with my R800 and it was fast enough. If somebody asked me for 9 5x7, 2 4x6, and 1 8x10 I wouldn't hesitate to turn on the R800.

At a certain point though it is better to drive to a photo lab time wise. Walgreens is typically open 24 hours with a photo lab kiosk. I once had to have several hundred 8x10's printed at a Walgreens at midnight. (Last minute job for an attorney...don't ask.) They were done in a couple hours, though I will note that I had to call 3 Walgreens to find one that had so few jobs running they would commit to that time frame.

As to dye sub vs. ink jet...I don't know, unless the dye sub model were very fast and lower or equal cost per print, I think I would just add another R800 or R1800 to the mix to run two printers at once.

Or find a Walgreens.

Buy the 50 f/1.4 or 50 f/1.8.

Don't be one of those people who thinks that they have to have every mm from 10 to 300 to be a successful photographer. You don't, and the "gap" you're referring to is easily filled by one lens. Plus having a fast prime will be of tremendous benefit for existing light photography.

"Everybody's known for a long time that dye was inferior to pigment. Older Epsons were designed for dyes because pigments hadn't yet come along. Epson's doing the right thing, both in terms of business and in terms of honor by continuing to serve customers with antiquated equipment."

I didn't say stop shipping *ink*, I said stop manufacturing the printers and switch the entire line to Ultrachrome.

Look, the average person doesn't understand all the catches and gotchas. They read "30 years" and buy a $99 dye ink printer. Heck, there are photographers who sell 1280 prints! Well, they're not 30 year prints. They're not even 2. And while I agree a glass frame with air space between glass and print is best, I'm sure I can produce documentation from Epson that endorses photo albums for maximum print life.

BTW, I haven't yet had a chance to check one of the framed dye prints that I've given away, I will this weekend. But I don't see how a glass frame with an air space would help the situation if it's humidity related. Glass frames are not air tight.

"Traditional color prints aren't nearly as hygroscopic as dye prints like yours."

Then Epson should not make any claims as to print life with their dye printers, period. What user is going to hermetically seal dye prints in a glass frame with a humidity controlled inert gas inside?

As I said above, I like Epson. But I've got to criticize them on keeping this technology in production for consumers, the people *least* likely to understand this and protect their prints. I at least understood the typical issues (non-archival materials, ozone fade) and did my best to protect the prints from those. And they didn't make the 2 year mark. Guess what the average person does?

I will give Epson credit for at least using pigment in the PictureMate series which is targetted at consumers. I don't think any of the other 4x6 printers use pigment ink.

"You can't expect the same good 20-30 year results from ink prints unless you treat them properly, with MUCH more care, which means distancing them from glass or plastic with archival matte spacers, or stacking them in archival boxes with acid-free paper interleaving...not just putting them in sleeves. That the sleeves are "archival" is irrelevant to your problem."

The pigment R800 prints, after two years "just put in sleeves", are identical, under magnification, to fresh prints.

Which reinforces my opinion that Epson should drop the dye printers and make Ultrachrome universal. There may be an undiscovered weakness in the Ultrachome ink set, but it's clearly not as weak and unstable as the dye set.

"Which paper did you use? Newer dye printers have more stable inks than older ones, and you can use papers such as heavyweight matte or colorlife, which should give a 20-year life to them."

The prints are on PGPP and HWM. I never liked the color balance of ColorLife (ironic given the name). Plus while ColorLife helps the ink resist ozone, it is highly susceptible to humidity, something I learned the hard way shortly after it came out. I've never used it since.

"I don't know whose inkjet printers you would recommend, the others started using pigment inks way behind Epson, and they haven't stopped making dye based printers either."

Having inspected my R800 prints and talked to a few people, I'm still confident in recommending Epson's *pigment* ink printers. I actually stopped recommending their dye ink printers a long time ago over other stability issues and clogging. But I still took Epson at their word that protected in a photo album or glass frame, dye prints would last 10-30 years depending on paper.

Here's the deal: I like Epson. They've taken photographers seriously for a while now and have worked hard to improve their products. I love my R800. If I regularly printed >8x10 I would have bought a R1800 without hesitation. I just bought one of their products (not a printer) the other night.

But the dye ink set is not stable and never will be. It was bad enough knowing that my old prints could ozone fade and only had a fraction of a pigment print's life in any case. Which is why I had replaced most of them when I first got the R800. Now I find that they degrade in other ways and weren't safe for just 2 years even in photo sleeves? Which means prints I've given to others behind glass may also not be stable, and probably won't last the full estimated time? Thank God I never sold dye prints!

This just reinforces my (now old) belief that dyes have no business being in ink jet printers. Epson would be wise to eliminate that technology and make Ultrachrome the default ink set across all models.

"Business is business, and faded prints mean frequent needs to reprint, which is more business for the ink makers (which are the printer makers). I thought this practice was fundamental to modern business practices."

That's a good way to go out of business. I will always have photos to print. But finding I have to reprint protected photos will not send me and my money back to Epson, it will send me to a photo lab. How many people, upon discovering a degradation issue with a dye print, will simply say "never again" to Epson ink jets? Most people expect that their children and grandchildren will get to enjoy their photos.

I've known all along that their dye ink set has problems. So as long as my R800 prints are holding up (which they appear to be), I won't walk away from using Epson products. But it's foolish to keep shipping dye ink technology. Let Lexmark be known for crummy, fading, degrading prints. Epson should be better than that. (Besides, it would give them a huge advantage over the competition.)

"1.Dirty heads or the paper moving very slightly as it move through the printer

2. Did you let the print dry before you put it in the sleeve? I have been told that it can take a few hours for the print to dry fully when using inkjet printers."

Understand that these did not look like this when printed, or for that matter any time during the first few months in their sleeves. (Trust me, I would have noticed.) As a rule my prints stay out for a few days before being sleeved. It's not any issue with the printing or initial handling. It's some form of long term degradation.

*****

"You might check what material the sleeves are made of. Just because some company says their product is archival doesn't indicate the extent of research taken to test a wide range of chemical reactions that may occur."

Light Impressions is well known and recommended by the original creator of this site, Philip Greenspun. (I found out about them on one of his pages on this site.) The sleeves are polypropylene.

I'm not ruling out a sleeve/print reaction, but it would be abnormal and presumably unique to Epson's dye set.

*****

"The dyes can reabsorb humidity, re-dissolve... the pigments cannot, don't: due to their microencapsulation the pigments were never in solution in the first place, they were in suspension. Totally different concept."

snip

"Outgassing from archival sleeves may not affect the prints directly but sleeves do maintain contact with the emulsion and they do contain their own microclimates...you wouldn't frame your best directly in contact with glass, without a matte, so you shouldn't expect better from sleeves, which themselves maintain direct contact."

Though you're right about space being better than direct contact, I wouldn't expect, nor have I seen, regular photo lab prints degrade due to archival sleeve storage. Certainly not to this degree or in this manner. (I have seen minor surface abrasions before, presumably from people handling the sleeves and the sleeve rubbing the print.)

I'm thinking it's dye vs. humidity and/or the weak inks in Epson's set breaking down due to atmospheric pollutants. I've double checked a number of the first pigment prints to go into the album, and they are (to my great relief) identical to fresh prints.

Looks like I'll be finishing the reprints of the remaining dye prints in this album, which were the my last any way. I think I'll also start slowly replacing dye prints that my family and friends have on display.

Yet another reason why Epson should dump their dye ink technology and stick with the pigments...

One other comment: looking over these, I'm noticing that it's not a universal "smearing", and that it appears to involve discoloration as well.

I wonder if the light cyan and black inks are breaking down even in the sleeves? As opposed to a physical "smearing".

It didn't strike me that way at first because I remember that problem resulting in the infamous, pronounced "orange" look. But is this the first stages of those inks falling apart?

I just really want to know if anyone has ever seen their pigment prints do this. I want to know if the R800/1800 are safe.

Here's the original photo that section came from. It was the first photo I noticed.

Though I enlarged for everyone to see, believe me when I say the smearing impacts the print at normal viewing.<div></div>

I was thumbing through a photo album tonight that contains a mix of

8x10's printed on Epson's dye photo printers (780 and 8xx something)

and Epson's pigment R800. I noticed a couple of my prints seemed soft,

prints I didn't remember being soft. So I proceeded to inspect the

images in Photoshop and reprint a couple and discovered, to my initial

horror, that on the old prints the ink along dark edges was smearing.

Naturally I began to wonder what had happened and was thumbing through

my album furiously trying to find other prints with the same problem.

After inspection I realized that only the dye prints, all from a

couple years ago, had the problem. (These happen to be my last

remaining dye prints as once I got the R800 two years ago I began

reprinting, and just never finished this album.) My oldest R800

prints, just shy of two years old, appear to be identical to fresh

prints off the same printer. Tomorrow I'll have a chance to reprint a

couple of the dye prints on a friend's dye Epson, but I know they did

not look like this when new.

So my question is: has anyone else seen this with Epson's dye based,

6-ink photo printers? The album and sleeves are archival from Light

Impressions, and the album has not been abused (i.e. extreme heat,

cold, or humidity). Everything I have framed is off the R800, so I

can't comment on framed prints. Some friends have a few of my old dye

prints framed in their homes, so I'll have a chance to inspect those

this weekend.

Even though all the R800 prints seem fine, including ones just as old,

and even though I know chemically pigments are far more stable, I'm a

bit worried now. Light Impressions has a good reputation, but is there

some unforseen reaction going on? Is it limited to dyes? Or do Epson

dye prints just have yet another problem with their longevity?

I'll be blunt: I do not wish to continue recommending or using Epson

printers if the pigment printers have the same problem. But I also

don't want to overreact if they don't. (Stupid Epson should have

trashed the dye technology back when they discovered the ozone-fade IMHO.)

Forgive the print scan quality below, I just wanted to show the

problem. I didn't edit the scans other than cropping/enlarging.<div></div>

"I'm not going to be suggesting anything here, but I'd just like to point out a little fact:

Different people have different levels of visual awareness (spotting different looks in images etc.) And 99% of the people who tell you that emulating film in photoshop is a peace of cake, and then show you examples, end up with demonstrations that are compleatly besides the point, and look like what they are: processed SLR images, usually with tweaked contrast etc."

Along those same lines I honestly believe many people "see" a difference between two shots if you label one film and one digital regardless of what's actually before their eyes. Nobuya is posting some examples, but I've had people go on and on about the differences and the "warmth" and "depth" of film before only to have them completely fail to pick out any shot in my photo album.

"See, this is a great example of a film shot." "Uh, no, that's digital." (A few minutes later.) "This is a nice shot, but it's got that 'digital' look." "Um, actually it's Velvia."

This has happened more than once.

"One thing that fascinates me about films is - however this may sound unfounded and cheesy - their ability to turn ordinary into extraordinary."

To some degree, with some films, I can agree with this statement. While I don't think anything can help poor light much, some of the slide films can help with otherwise "average" lighting, and can sometimes create magic with lighting that would be considered good but not excellent.

Of course post processing can often help with average or good lighting to. More important than a particular film or post processing technique, understanding how the camera sees light and knowing how to expose for that is what can really create extraordinary frames. All my best images would be excellent on digital or film. While I'll sometimes grab a roll of Velvia, my best scenes from that film would have looked great, if different, on digital as well.

"I've uploaded more examples of scanned snaps (#1, #2, #3). They may not look particularly good, but to me they don't look like boring snapshots either (at least to me)."

Not being critical, but I'm not sure what you're seeing in these in terms of our discussion (other than, perhaps, that they look the way you want on the light table or off the scanner while you're not sure how to achieve the same with digital).

None of them are color balanced. I like #3 and think it's an interesting shot, but it's too green. Aside from the balance, it doesn't strike me as something that wouldn't come off in a similar fashion on digital.

#1 and #2 do strike me has having a different "look" from what I would expect straight off a DSLR sensor. But I don't think they would be hard to match. Again, not being critical, but neither strikes me as performing magic with the light available in the scene.

"With this respect, film cameras have served me better."

I've described my 10D to people as a "perfectly behaved film". What I mean by this is that unless AWB royally messes up (which wouldn't even matter with RAW), I can expect a certain look and scene faithfulness from the camera under almost all conditions. Sometimes I use post processing to create a different, less faithful look. But it's my choice, and I consider that an advantage.

But if you like to be surprised, or to change things up simply by changing a role, film will accomodate you. Different films under studio controlled lighting will vary in their "look" by a greater degree than two DSLRs shot under very different lighting.

My problem with that is the experiment will just as often go wrong as right. Before I got my 10D I found myself narrowing my films to a few choices I knew really well, and choosing based on the scene before me (or what I expected that scene to be) rather than experimenting.

"While I really appreciate the great comments people are giving to me here, I'd be even more happier if this discussion does not turn into a hostile one. That certainly was not my intention. Many thanks."

As long as someone doesn't come in here claiming that 110 film is superior to a 39 MP Phase One back, as some fanatics have been known to do, I don't think there will be a problem.

Discussing color, rendering, and post processing differences is certainly more interesting and relevant than the typical "digital vs film" conversation centering on whether line pair #87 or #88 is the last visible one on a stupid chart.

"In my opinion, I agree with you 100%. Digital images are inherently "flat." Period. Anyone that argues otherwise either sees differently or is kidding themselves."

If you're comparing a digital image straight off the sensor, neutral parameters, to a slide on a light box, then yes, you're correct, it's "flat" to begin with. If you could see a positive of NPH on a light box, it would also look flat by comparison.

If you're comparing to a scan, then both are flat but the digital is generally closer to being right.

With post processing, it's entirely up to you.

"You CAN give a digital image a lot more apparent depth by manipulating it in a program like photoshop using a multitude of techniques, including adding grain. However, every tweak you make in photoshop pushes data around and deteriorates the image to some degree or another so you give something up to achieve something you get for free with film."

If you have to make adjustments so severe that you're degrading the image, then something is very wrong. In my experience, the adjustments are more severe trying to get a scan to match the original slide, though still not typically so extreme that the image degrades.

"An image fresh out of scanner, which looks terrible, quickly starts looking great after applying only two adjustments: level for black/white points, and curve in individual color channel to remove color casts. I can't say the same thing for digital camera images. I feel that they require adjustments beyond levels/curves, which I haven't been able to figure out so far...hence my original question."

The majority of my digital photos fall into the following post-processing procedure:

* Set levels.

* Adjust color balance if necessary. If I'm converting RAW in Capture One, I've generally done it there already using their sliders (temperature and warmth). If not, then I actually often use the Variations command. Yeah, that's the "dummy" command but I like the way it works. Shove the amount slider to the left and click the color(s) opposite your cast until it's right.

* Increase saturation, if desired.

* Apply Noise Ninja, if desired.

* Apply USM, if desired.

"Meanwhile, however, I'd like to know if it's correct/wrong to assume that proper white balancing plus simple level/curve adjustments are adequate to more or less achieve color-cast free images with "crisp" colors? (I know this is very subjective, but I'm not necessarily talking about saturated colors.)"

You might also need some extra saturation. DSLRs may have the latitude of slide film (a bit better actually), but they have the color response of portrait film.

You might want to:

- Shoot a photo in JPEG (neutral parameters; daylight white balance) and post it.

- Process that JPEG the way you would normally and post it along with the exact steps you took.

- Say what you think is wrong.

- Let other people process it and give you their steps.