amadou_diallo

Thanks John,

Glad you're enjoying it.<br>

Amadou Diallo<br>

Author, <a href="http://www.masteringdigitalbwbook.com">Mastering Digital Black and

White</a>

Try a gentle S-shaped curve, taking are not to clip highlight or shadow detail. With the K7s

you should have a printable range of 2% in the highlights down to 98% in the shadows. Tell

Jean I said hi.<br>

Amadou Diallo<br>

Author, <a href="http://www.masteringdigitalbwbook.com">Mastering Digital Black and

White</a>

Mark,

A common experience when switching from OEM inks and/or driver to a quad or now

seven black setup is the feeling that prints are flatter or lower in contrast than what you're

used to seeing. One thing to keep in mind is that an inkset like K7 offers very subtle

gradations between the K values you see in Photoshop, whereas a canned profile with OEM

inks may actually be blocking up shadow detail. In short, you may be seeing 90% and

higher K values rendered more accurately on paper. If you are used to seeing prints where,

say everything from 93% to 100% prints as maximum black, you will indeed feel that your

K7 prints lack punch. So part of the learning curve may involve tweaking your existing

images since the driver-induced shadow blocking is not occurring.<br>

Now I must also mention that with a pigment inkset like K7, your DMax (maximum black)

is going to be significantly lower than with a pigmented inkset like Ultrachromes which

contain non-pigment "additives" to reach a darker black. Here the tradeoff of density for

long-term stability is inherent to the inkset.<br>

Now if ultimate black density is the goal, you'll want to use the UltraChromes on a glossy

paper. K7 prints are more reminiscent of custom platinum prints than photolab glossy RC

prints.<br>

K7 is one option, Epson UltraChrome is another. Every photographer has different needs,

priorities and sensibilities. So it's really about matching tools and technologies to your

photographic ideal. The K7 (and Piezotone quads for that matter) are capable of absolutely

stunning results. The more you edit your images with this inkset in mind, the more

satisfying results you're likely to see. Of course, you may be equally satisfied sticking with

your previous setup. Really depends on the type of prints you're looking for.<br>

The good news is ther are lots of valid options. The bad news is there is no one-size-fits-

all solution.<br>

Amadou Diallo<br>

Author, <a href="http://www.masteringdigitalbwbook.com">Mastering Digital Black and

White</a>

CS3 is a univeral app so you'll benefit from an Intel Mac over a PPC. RAM is one of the

biggest considerations for performance, so budget in the max that the laptop can use. On

the road, of course you have no choice, but laptop screens leave a lot to be desired for

critical image evaluation. Apart from their small size, the viewing angle is limited and edge

to edge illummination can be inconsistent as well. They are notoriously difficult to

calibrate and profile well. So for home use, you may want to look into an external LCD

display.

<br>

Amadou Diallo<br>

Author, <a href="http://www.masteringdigitalbwbook.com">Mastering Digital Black

and White</a>

Patrick,

The book was written for an intermediate/advanced user rather than someone completely

new to digital photography. The ideal reader would own a relatively recent PS version and

be confident of their exposure technique, but above all be interested in taking their

monochrome (and to a lesser extent color images) to the next level. There's some geek-

level stuff in there but also nuts and bolts issues like preparing a portfolio. Of course, I'm

going to recommend the book since I wrote it:-). But the best way for you to judge if its

worth your $ is to download the free PDF of chapter 4. You can find it at the web site in my

signature.<br>

Amadou Diallo<br>

Author, <a href="http://www.masteringdigitalbwbook.com">Mastering Digital Black and

White</

a>

Create an action where you go to File>Automate>Fit Image. In the Constrain Within boxes

type 700 for both the width and height pixels.<br>

Amadou Diallo<br>

Author, <a href="http://www.masteringdigitalbwbook.com">Mastering Digital Black and

White</a>

Download this <a href="http://tinyurl.com/2fkheo">pdf from HP</a> that explains what

parameters the various paper types affect.<br>

<br>

Amadou Diallo<br>

Author, <a href="http://www.masteringdigitalbwbook.com">Mastering Digital Black and

White</a>

You can watch <a href="http://diallophotography.com/blog/?p=5">2 QT tutorials</a> I

posted a few months ago on the color to b/w conversions options in CS3.

The upgrade from v7, CS, or CS2 to CS3 is $199.

<br>

Amadou Diallo<br>

Author, <a href="http:www.masteringdigitalbwbook.com">Mastering Digital Black and

White</a>

I have an Eizo CG21 and an NEC 1980SXi (the current models have UXi in the product name).

The NEC is a great value. With the NEC Spectraview calibration software and a supported

colorimeter or spectrophotometer you get maybe 85-90% of the performance of the Eizo at a

much lower price.<br>

Amadou Diallo<br>

Author, <a href="http://www.masteringdigitalbwbook.com">Mastering Digital Black and

White</a>

A few things to be aware of:

1. There are "color" color spaces like Adobe 1998RGB, ProPhotoRGB, sRGB, etc. And there

are "grayscale" color spaces. So your bw negs need a separate space like Gray Gamma 1.8

or 2.2. No big difference which grayscale gamma you pick, since gamut is not an issue for

grayscale files. Just be consistent for simplicity in your workflow.

2. The Kodak ProPhotoRGB color space has a wider gamut than those you mention in your

post. For film scans, Adobe 1998 should suffice for a large majority, ie it won't clip colors.

3. No scanner RGB space is meant for image editing. They are by nature non-neutral and

do not behave in a visually relevant fashion. I haven't used Nikon's scan software. But the

approach of intelligent scanning software is to automatically convert from the (hopefully)

custom scanner profile into a synthetic, well-behaved color space like Adobe 1998,

ProPhoto, etc. If your scans open up in Photoshop with a scanner RGB color space then you

MUST manually convert into one of the aforementioned color spaces BEFORE you make any

edits.

amadou diallo

One thing to be aware of with the beta is that while features are fairly well-implemented,

performance tweaks are likely to see the biggest change from now till the real thing ships in

the Spring. So the barefeats-type tests that will sprout on the web in the coming days may

not be indicative of final performance. But of course if it wasn't an improvement over Rosetta,

there would be no point in releasing a preview. So MacIntel users should have good things in

store. And Windows/PowerPC users get to play with new toys.

Adobe's stated rationale for the unprecedented PS beta is support for Mac users on Intel

machines. Though not scheduled for final release until Spring2007, the beta is all but

locked up feature-wise. Unlike Lightroom, Adobe is not looking for feature requests. They

do get customer goodwill, product buzz, and of course a much wider testing platform with

the public beta.

I've set up a blog at http://www.diallophotography.com/blog where I'll post short QT

movies showing some new features. One movie, about the new UI is up now.

amadou diallo

www.diallophotography.com

I don't know of a lab that outputs to bw neg film but I've used https://www.gammatech.com/

html/home.htm to get 35mm slides from grayscale image files.

In my studio I've had artists reproduce pencil drawings. You might want to try Somerset

Velvet Radiant White. This is the original uncoated version that IRIS printers used, not to be

confused with Somerset Enhanced. It's simply a beautiful surface texture and the lack of an

inkjet coating, while sacrificing Dmax, lets the ink sink into the paper more, which is a great

effect for pencil and pen drawings and etchings.

amadou diallo

www.diallophotography.com

Unfortunately, LCD vendor specs don't tell you a whole lot. I don't know of an objective

standard for measuring sharpness. Contrast specs are misleading enough to be almost

useless and aside from the the $5k + monitors which cover Adobe RGB, there is not a whole

lot of difference in gamut.

Having said that, for color critical work you want a display that is 10 bit or higher and DDC-

enabled for "push button" calibration that bypasses the video card for LUT adjustments and

has a viewing angle such that colors do not shift noticeably with small head movemements.

In the current market, price can be a general indicator of quality. IOW don't try to skimp with

a $300 21 inch monitor and expect professional color critical performance.

Creo/Kodak makes a line of flatbeds that can scan 36 frames in one go at quality that should

be somewhere between a desktop film scanner and the Imacon. http://graphics.kodak.com/

global/product/scanners/professional_scanners/default.htm But they're not cheap. If you can

settle for just contact sheet quality the Epson 1680 Pro is still in production and you can just

fit a 36 exp sleeve on its tranny bed. I use it to make digital contact sheets and it works very

well for that purpose.

Have you calibrated the monitor? If so, with what hardware and software? Does the LG have a

DVI port? If so, using a DVI to DVI cable will certainly make a quality difference in the video

signal.

I own a CG21 and for a time had an evaluation unit of the CG19. I also own the NEC 1980Sxi,

which has been updated to the 1990SXi. In my experience, the NEC, when properly calibrated

can deliver about 80-90% of the the performance of the Eizo. This makes it an excellent value

when you consider the price difference. But with the NEC do factor in the cost of NEC's

Spectraview II calibration software (and of course a colorimeter if you don't have one already).

NEC does employ DDC for one button calibration but in a way that makes the fucntion

unusable with third party calibration software like ColorEyes. It seems the 90 series has

consistent color specs across the line so you can save without giving up color accuracy with

the 19 inch model. Hope that helps.

Here's something else to consider (and further complicate the process). Photoshop employs

pretty aggresive anti-aliasing to quickly render its percentage views onscreen. This can

sometimes lead to inaccurate judgements about image contrast and almost always about

image detail. The most accurate view percentages (in addition to 100% of course) are 50, 25,

and 12.5.

If you're only concerned about matching size between a print and the screen, no worries. But

its something to consider.

Outside of some select drum scanner software and the gain feature on the Nikon film

scanners, all scanner controls are simply software adjustments--no quality advantage to

doing it in the scanner software instead of Photoshop.

Does the minolta software allow you to turn off all controls and do a "raw" scan? Try looking

for a 16bit setting that disables contrast, curves, exposure control, etc. If not, the advice in a

n earlier post to scan it as a positive is probably best.

To get back to the original question of "what kind of bulbs do you use", solux -- http://

solux.net --makes highly regarded 4700K MR16-type bulbs that give very pleasing daylight

(no heavy blue cast). Like others have mentioned, the "full spectrum" bulbs you find in

hardware stores are not adequate for color matching.

iView is certainly an option, as is Portfolio. Aperture may be, but you need to carefully

analyze your needs. Are you looking purely for file management? Then a database-driven app

that merely references the actual image files, like iView or Portfolio is going to be leaner and

meaner than the browser features of Aperture, Bridge or Lightroom.

Other considerations: How large is your library? Are we talking a hundred or tens of

thousands of images? Do you need multi-user access to the image catalogue? Are you going

to be creating slideshows or web pages to send to clients? Will you be cataloguing offline

images? The good news is there are indeed a lot of options. The bad news is that to choose

wisely you really have to thoroughly asses your needs.

Your consideration of higher-end displays leads me to assume that you're also going to

invest in monitor calibration hardware and software, and implement a sound color-managed

setup and workflow. The aggregate of all these things will determine whether you can "get

by". There are really no shortcuts or short answers if--and I repeat if--color accuracy,

consistency and repeatability from capture to print is your goal. Photogrpahers have many

different needs. Those that need precise color management have to spend more than those

focused on other aspects of their craft.

Eizo has a highly regarded line of monitors geared towards professional color use--the CG

series. Within this lineup are monitors that can display nearly all of the Adobe RGB gamut.

This is cutting edge technology and priced accordingly at $5k and up. So the short answer

is if you're not sure you need an Adobe RGB gamut monitor, you probably don't. We all

want a monitor that can display the widest possible gamut of colors and the industry is

moving in that direction, but these are very early days in LCD color-critical technology and

the goalposts are rapidly shifting.

For practical purposes the large majority of photographers would be extremely well served

with the normal gamut lineup from Eizo. NEC has perhaps the best price/performance

valus going right now with their SXi line of monitors, available in 19 and 21 inches. My

own experience suggests that with the NEC SXi line you get about 80-85% of the

performance of an Eizo CG210 for less than half the price.