[filmscanners] Re: Compact Cameras
Roger that. Scott LAURIE SOLOMON wrote: All those may be true; but not everyone wants to print on matte. Those that print on glossy can print with glop if they are using the R800 or R1800, otherwise, that may not be an option even if it were a solution. Spraying the prints is also another option for glossy or even non-glossy prints; but one has to take care to get an even spray and to spray under the right humidity to avoid white specks. All in all, these all constitute the additional extra work that I mentioned in my original post. As for the post that is below which you have attached your message to, I was merely noting that the use of different density black inks or the use of different shades of gray in addition to densities of black might remedy color casts; but it may not in its own right serve as a corrective for bronzing or metemerism. Your response has done nothing to refute my position if that was its intent; but I do not think that was your intent. I believe that you may have just used my post as a vehicle for making your suggestions on how to handle the two problems, which I have no objection to. I am responding just clarify what I was trying to say so that there would be no misunderstanding. Original Message From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, April 24, 2005 7:47 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Compact Cameras As for bronzing, just print matte papers and it's a non issue. I have used EEM and Photo Rag with fine results. For glossy, folks print with glop or spray the prints with Print Shield which reportedly does a good job minimizing bronzing. Scott LAURIE SOLOMON wrote: I think the solution is to have BW ink in different levels of blackness (if that is the correct term) That appears to be one type of solution to some of the issues; another potential solution is to have not just different densities of black but different shades of gray inks. However, this approach alone will not resolve metemerism or bronzing, which appears to be more a intrinsic problem with respect to ink formulations and paper types than densities of black and shades of gray. I'm not sure how the RIP will solve the problem since you would still be making BW with color ink. If one is only using black and gray inks, you would not be making black white with color inks in the same sense as you are doing with the CYMK alternative. However, if one were using colored inks to produce a grayscale rendering with a RIP, the RIP tend to use different algorithms that appear to be more precise than is the case for most standard print drivers when it comes to laying down the inks: and the RIPs tend to exert much more control over the types of dithering and mixing of the inks so as to minimize color casts. I am not sure that RIPs do much to minimize bronzing and metemerism however. At any rate, I was just suggesting that if one were to get a compact digital camera to capture mostly BW images, one might be just as well off (if not better off) for the time being sticking with a compact film camera since the latter permits you to use various different films to achieve better scans from either true traditional wet BW prints or from the film which digital cameras do not allow for even if both face the same digital hardcopy printing limitations. If one is doing mostly color work, than I would say go for the digital compact camera because there is very little difference in the quality of images produced, depending on the nature of the subject matter being captured, the size of the enlargement that can be made, or the resulting prints (there are some colors that digital does not do as good a job at capturing as film does; but they tend to be on the extremes and not the run of the mill colors). Original Message From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, April 24, 2005 4:44 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Compact Cameras I think the solution is to have BW ink in different levels of blackness (if that is the correct term), but the inkjetmall solution is just too expensive for me. I'm not sure how the RIP will solve the problem since you would still be making BW with color ink. Laurie Solomon wrote: I am familiar with it and have heard good things about it from users; BUT that is one of the sorts of things that I consider as the EXTRA WORK required to remedy the issues I am speaking of. :-) First, I believe that you almost need to have a dedicated printer for B W printing to use it: second you need to use special inksets. Third, even if you do not choose to use the CIS but stick with carts so as to be able to switch easily between BW and color, you need to flush the system of the previous inks in the printer prior to each changing back and forth from BW to color. Another more expensive option which I am told helps to remedy
[filmscanners] Re: Compact Cameras
Actually that was my post (Gary). I agree that all software isn't alike, but the RIP is just another way of using software. There is no reason to believe either method is superior. However, you already own the computer, and because a PC is COTS, the cost of the hardware is certainly going to be less than the RIP.. I remember in the dark ages using a color Versatec printer that KMW RIPs were used because the software processing was pretty intense. That is, you needed a dedicated computer to rasterize the image. It actually made sense because the workstation would be down if it had to rasterize. To get back on subject, it may be that service bureaus use RIPs because they came from that school of using RIPs. Old habits are hard to break. I don't want to plug any software I haven't used, but you can google software RIP and find 3rd party programs that claim to do better than Epson. Reality? Who knows. Incidentally, the R1800 is a recent printer. Have you seen output from it? I understand the older R800 didn't look good on glossy, i.e. the ink looked kind of thick. Gary LAURIE SOLOMON wrote: David, I am sure that we would all like to know the answer or at least get additional information as to the difference between RIP and the print driver. However, I am equally sure that software is NOT ALWAYS software. Some software is better than other software; some software has features and functions that other software of the same general category do not; and some software is more sophisticated than other software. The resampling method used by the Epson drivers (if they use the nearest neighbor method) is not the same or as good as Photoshop's Bicubic method or Genuine Fractal's method. Unlike most Epson print drivers, I believe RIPs allow one to exercise additional controls over the type of halftone screen or dithering is to be applied to the image both in terms of the size of the dots, the shape of the dots, and the nature of the matrix used in the halftone cells. But I could be wrong about this. Moreover, I believe that many quality service bureaus and labs as well as printers employ RIPs. Original Message From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, April 24, 2005 8:24 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Compact Cameras The next time I'm at the photo lab (which also has a print service), I'm going to pick their brain regarding RIPs versus just using the print driver. It seems to me that software is software, i.e. the RIP is just doing the processing outside the computer, rather than in the computer. Using a service bureau is of course another option to doing your own prints. http://www.cantoo.com/ They have some sample prints in their waiting room, one of which has a white column in it. The digital artifacts are pretty obvious to me, but the quality is certainly better than any Epson or Canon output I've seen. LAURIE SOLOMON wrote: I think the solution is to have BW ink in different levels of blackness (if that is the correct term) That appears to be one type of solution to some of the issues; another potential solution is to have not just different densities of black but different shades of gray inks. However, this approach alone will not resolve metemerism or bronzing, which appears to be more a intrinsic problem with respect to ink formulations and paper types than densities of black and shades of gray. I'm not sure how the RIP will solve the problem since you would still be making BW with color ink. If one is only using black and gray inks, you would not be making black white with color inks in the same sense as you are doing with the CYMK alternative. However, if one were using colored inks to produce a grayscale rendering with a RIP, the RIP tend to use different algorithms that appear to be more precise than is the case for most standard print drivers when it comes to laying down the inks: and the RIPs tend to exert much more control over the types of dithering and mixing of the inks so as to minimize color casts. I am not sure that RIPs do much to minimize bronzing and metemerism however. At any rate, I was just suggesting that if one were to get a compact digital camera to capture mostly BW images, one might be just as well off (if not better off) for the time being sticking with a compact film camera since the latter permits you to use various different films to achieve better scans from either true traditional wet BW prints or from the film which digital cameras do not allow for even if both face the same digital hardcopy printing limitations. If one is doing mostly color work, than I would say go for the digital compact camera because there is very little difference in the quality of images produced, depending on the nature of the subject matter being captured, the size of the enlargement that can be made, or the resulting prints (there are some colors that digital does not do as good
[filmscanners] RE: Compact Cameras
Hi, I know this question has been asked in the past (and slightly off-topic) but times change so I'd thought I'd raise it again. I recently read an article about a photographer who started out with digital (Fujifilm S2 Pro) but then switched to medium format for colour and to an Olympus XA for 35mm black white. The latter part caught my eye as I use an XA for its size and portability, albeit with slide film. I like the XA and its exposure is normally reasonable but always feel restricted by the lack of manual exposure. (I often use a hand held meter with my proper cameras.) Additionally, although I enjoy occasional scanning - I have a Minolta Scan Elite - it is just too time consuming. Hi Al, Having looked at t'internet for details of this camera (and trying to remain on topic), I'd stick with it. OK - so its aperture priority only, but it appears to be a very neat rangefinder camera - maybe not in the same league as leica, but is seems to be good enough. I'd stick with it. Especially if you're doing BW. Chris -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Compact Cameras
I work mostly in color, but I am interested to know where I might find a comparison of Epson 2200 BW with Quadtone BW. I read a review once that thought very highly of the 2200 BW. Does anyone think it would be worthwhile to set up my old 1160 with Quadtone, rather than simply use the 2200? Let's say I was printing a fair amount of BW. Berry On 4/25/05 7:44 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I had the original system for a number of years and never really used it. When I first got it, I had trouble getting it set up and working properly so I abandoned it and then forgot about it. 6 months or so ago, I found it lying there in a box so I decided to give it another try. But by then the inks had changed and so had the system -- so I had to upgrade into the new Peizography ICC. I use it with the Epson 1160 and I was able to get it up and running pretty quickly. I think the results are great, but unfortunately, I can't give you an effective comparison between the old and the new. If you like, I can send you a sample output from one of the test prints I have lying around. I'm currently using the selenium tone ink set with portfolio black. Austin Franklin wrote: Hi, Excellent. What can you say about the two in contrast with each other? Regards, Austin I had the original plug-in system, but I now have the current ICC system. Austin Franklin wrote: You should check out the PeizographyBW Black and White inkjet printing system from Jon Cone (and inkjetmall.com). It is really amazing. No bronzing, no metemerism, no fading, rich deep black and long tonal scale. It is really, really very good. Hi Lotusm50, Do you have the original, or the ICS system? Regards, Austin -- -- Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Compact Cameras
My brother has the old XA, for many years now, and the Canon 350D, at about 30 oz with lens, must be about 4x the mass, and it isn't going to fit in anybody's shirt pocket. Berry On 4/25/05 7:34 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: David J. Littleboy wrote The small-sensor cameras have been getting _worse_ as they pack more and more pixels into smaller and smaller sensors. Things like the Sony S85 or Canon G3 used to be pretty decent at ISO 100. Recent cameras tend to be noisier at ISO 50 than the S85/G3 were at ISO 100. (One exception: the Canon G5 was a real dog, but the G6 is quite a bit better.) Even though you feel that the G6 is an improvement over the G5, do you still consider it to be too noisy at ISO50 or ISO100? I'm curious as the S70 shares the same sensor as the G6. As I generally use IS0100 slide film, I could live without using the higher ISOs. The new Canon 350D with, say, the 24/2.8 (functions like a 38mm lens) would give the XA a run for the money (and kill the XA at ISO 800 or 1600) and not be a lot larger. (The 350D + 24/2.8 weighs 590 + 270 or so grams.) I can see a lot of merit in this setup but the Olympus XA is a very compact shirt-pocket sized camera. I know the 350D is small but it's not quite that small! It looks as though it will be a while yet before compact digicams of the size I want can start to compare to their DSLR siblings, at least in terms of noise and ISO flexibility. Ironically, my scanner (Minolta Scan Elite) is relatively old and, even with multi-pass scanning, there is some noise in the very deep shadows. As such, it is the weak link in the chain but I don't really want to buy a new scanner. I'd rather put the cash towards my first forray into the world of digicams! Thanks to you (and everyone else) for your comments. Al Bond -- Whatever you Wanadoo: http://www.wanadoo.co.uk/time/ This email has been checked for most known viruses - find out more at: http://www.wanadoo.co.uk/help/id/7098.htm -- -- Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Compact Cameras
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] So my question is this: have digital compacts reached the stage yet where they can give film compacts like the XA a run for their money on image quality? I'd be interested in hearing any experiences list members may have on this. The small-sensor cameras have been getting _worse_ as they pack more and more pixels into smaller and smaller sensors. Things like the Sony S85 or Canon G3 used to be pretty decent at ISO 100. Recent cameras tend to be noisier at ISO 50 than the S85/G3 were at ISO 100. (One exception: the Canon G5 was a real dog, but the G6 is quite a bit better.) The new Canon 350D with, say, the 24/2.8 (functions like a 38mm lens) would give the XA a run for the money (and kill the XA at ISO 800 or 1600) and not be a lot larger. (The 350D + 24/2.8 weighs 590 + 270 or so grams.) http://www.photo.net/equipment/canon/digital_rebel_xt/ David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Compact Cameras
So my question is this: have digital compacts reached the stage yet where they can give film compacts like the XA a run for their money on image quality? I'd be interested in hearing any experiences list members may have on this. As far as I can tell, for pixel counts, yeah, they can. 8.2 MP is enough for a 300 dpi 8x12 print (approx). As for dynamic range, nope. I think (someone will correct me if I'm wrong) that most digicams (Fuji S3 excepted) have about an 8 stop range and are weak on the highlights (Fuji is a 10 stop range) whereas film can have up to a 14 stop range and so you can get HDR (High Dynamic Range) much more easily with film than you can with digicams (although with a tripod and exposure bracketing you can get that too on a digicam) Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: Compact Cameras
While I do not usually engage in this sort of comparative reviewing of products nor in the recommending of them, I will make two general observations from my experiences, which need to be taken with a grain of salt since they entail my biases and preferences. First, even at today's stage in technology, I do not find digital black and white to be all that satisfactory be it captured with a digital camera or scanned in via a scanner. I find that both the monitor displaying and the hard copy printing of digital black white to be full of problems that result in much additional work to correct or minimize or in less than satisfactory quality. Issues such as the ability of dye based inkjet prints or pigmented inkjet prints to render the images with true rich blacks with little bronzing or metemerism with clean neutral whites without warm or cold color casts, the tendency to emphasize grain structure, aliasing, and noise when rendering the image, and the frequent exhibiting of color artifacts in the form of stray color pixels that appear. To be sure, some of this will be found with BW film based captures that are scanned and reproduced just as it is with the digital camera captures since these issues seem to revolve around the rendering and reproduction stages rather than the capture stages; but I have found the problems easier to deal with when scanning BW films and rendering them into monitor displays and prints than is the case with digital camera captures. This is especially true given that there are a number of varying film types and speeds to use that are better for different subjects and scan with differing results with respect to some of the problems mentioned like emphasis of grain structure, aliasing, and noise which is not true for digital camera unless one has an arsenal of different digital cameras to select from that use different sensors in different configurations. However, secondly, for color, I have been quite impressed at the results; and if my experiences are any example, I think that the technology has reached a stage where film versus digital becomes a toss up when comparing small format cameras. I have been using as a personal digital camera which I use for snapshots a Nikon 4300 4 megapixel digital camera. While it is an older model of the point and shoot digital cameras which may not be on the market anymore, I have been quite amazed with the quality of the color images it is able to capture even after those images have been enlarged and printed both full frame at 16 x 20 inches as well as only a cropped section of the frame at 16 X 20 inches. I expected the image to fall apart, display a prominent dot pattern, be soft, and contain numerous color artifacts; this was not the case. The prints did show some of the same sorts of printing problems as BW when they were made with inkjet printers but did not come off as pronounced as was the case with grayscale images. Unlike the BW, you did not have to go to as many extraordinary measures to remedy or minimize the printing issues. However, when I had the images enlarged and printed using one of the hybrid printing process like the LED Chromira printer printing to traditional Fuji color photographic paper - gloss or luster - the prints displayed none of the problems that I saw with the inkjet color prints which I made. Thus, I think a 7 megapixel camera should serve you well for color images. I cannot comment on the remarks by others about a deterioration in the quality of current point and shoot digital cameras due to a cheapening ion sensors and sensor design as compared to the older ones like the Nikon 4300. But I can say that professionally I also use a Nikon D100 and a Kodak Pro 14/n and have found that the quality of the image output of the Nikon 4300 is every bit as good, although it will not stand the degree of enlargement of cropped sections as the other cameras and does not have the flexibility that they have with interchangeable lenses. However, the Nikon 4300 cost me new $499 US while the Nikon D-100 cost $1,000 US used and the Kodak Pro 14/n ran $2,400 US used. Original Message From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, April 24, 2005 10:46 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] Compact Cameras Hi, I know this question has been asked in the past (and slightly off-topic) but times change so I'd thought I'd raise it again. I recently read an article about a photographer who started out with digital (Fujifilm S2 Pro) but then switched to medium format for colour and to an Olympus XA for 35mm black white. The latter part caught my eye as I use an XA for its size and portability, albeit with slide film. I like the XA and its exposure is normally reasonable but always feel restricted by the lack of manual exposure. (I often use a hand held meter with my proper cameras.) Additionally, although I enjoy occasional scanning - I have a
[filmscanners] Re: Compact Cameras
You should check out the PeizographyBW Black and White inkjet printing system from Jon Cone (and inkjetmall.com). It is really amazing. No bronzing, no metemerism, no fading, rich deep black and long tonal scale. It is really, really very good. LAURIE SOLOMON wrote: snip First, even at today's stage in technology, I do not find digital black and white to be all that satisfactory be it captured with a digital camera or scanned in via a scanner. I find that both the monitor displaying and the hard copy printing of digital black white to be full of problems that result in much additional work to correct or minimize or in less than satisfactory quality. Issues such as the ability of dye based inkjet prints or pigmented inkjet prints to render the images with true rich blacks with little bronzing or metemerism with clean neutral whites without warm or cold color casts, the tendency to emphasize grain structure, aliasing, and noise when rendering the image, and the frequent exhibiting of color artifacts in the form of stray color pixels that appear. To be sure, some of this will be found with BW film based captures that are scanned and reproduced just as it is with the digital camera captures since these issues seem to revolve around the rendering and reproduction stages rather than the capture stages; but I have found the problems easier to deal with when scanning BW films and rendering them into monitor displays and prints than is the case with digital camera captures. This is especially true given that there are a number of varying film types and speeds to use that are better for different subjects and scan with differing results with respect to some of the problems mentioned like emphasis of grain structure, aliasing, and noise which is not true for digital camera unless one has an arsenal of different digital cameras to select from that use different sensors in different configurations. Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: Compact Cameras
I am familiar with it and have heard good things about it from users; BUT that is one of the sorts of things that I consider as the EXTRA WORK required to remedy the issues I am speaking of. :-) First, I believe that you almost need to have a dedicated printer for B W printing to use it: second you need to use special inksets. Third, even if you do not choose to use the CIS but stick with carts so as to be able to switch easily between BW and color, you need to flush the system of the previous inks in the printer prior to each changing back and forth from BW to color. Another more expensive option which I am told helps to remedy the issues is to purchase a RIP to use with the printer instead of the printer's driver. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, April 24, 2005 2:21 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Compact Cameras You should check out the PeizographyBW Black and White inkjet printing system from Jon Cone (and inkjetmall.com). It is really amazing. No bronzing, no metemerism, no fading, rich deep black and long tonal scale. It is really, really very good. LAURIE SOLOMON wrote: snip First, even at today's stage in technology, I do not find digital black and white to be all that satisfactory be it captured with a digital camera or scanned in via a scanner. I find that both the monitor displaying and the hard copy printing of digital black white to be full of problems that result in much additional work to correct or minimize or in less than satisfactory quality. Issues such as the ability of dye based inkjet prints or pigmented inkjet prints to render the images with true rich blacks with little bronzing or metemerism with clean neutral whites without warm or cold color casts, the tendency to emphasize grain structure, aliasing, and noise when rendering the image, and the frequent exhibiting of color artifacts in the form of stray color pixels that appear. To be sure, some of this will be found with BW film based captures that are scanned and reproduced just as it is with the digital camera captures since these issues seem to revolve around the rendering and reproduction stages rather than the capture stages; but I have found the problems easier to deal with when scanning BW films and rendering them into monitor displays and prints than is the case with digital camera captures. This is especially true given that there are a number of varying film types and speeds to use that are better for different subjects and scan with differing results with respect to some of the problems mentioned like emphasis of grain structure, aliasing, and noise which is not true for digital camera unless one has an arsenal of different digital cameras to select from that use different sensors in different configurations. -- -- Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.10.2 - Release Date: 4/21/2005 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.10.2 - Release Date: 4/21/2005 Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Compact Cameras
I think the solution is to have BW ink in different levels of blackness (if that is the correct term), but the inkjetmall solution is just too expensive for me. I'm not sure how the RIP will solve the problem since you would still be making BW with color ink. Laurie Solomon wrote: I am familiar with it and have heard good things about it from users; BUT that is one of the sorts of things that I consider as the EXTRA WORK required to remedy the issues I am speaking of. :-) First, I believe that you almost need to have a dedicated printer for B W printing to use it: second you need to use special inksets. Third, even if you do not choose to use the CIS but stick with carts so as to be able to switch easily between BW and color, you need to flush the system of the previous inks in the printer prior to each changing back and forth from BW to color. Another more expensive option which I am told helps to remedy the issues is to purchase a RIP to use with the printer instead of the printer's driver. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, April 24, 2005 2:21 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Compact Cameras You should check out the PeizographyBW Black and White inkjet printing system from Jon Cone (and inkjetmall.com). It is really amazing. No bronzing, no metemerism, no fading, rich deep black and long tonal scale. It is really, really very good. LAURIE SOLOMON wrote: snip First, even at today's stage in technology, I do not find digital black and white to be all that satisfactory be it captured with a digital camera or scanned in via a scanner. I find that both the monitor displaying and the hard copy printing of digital black white to be full of problems that result in much additional work to correct or minimize or in less than satisfactory quality. Issues such as the ability of dye based inkjet prints or pigmented inkjet prints to render the images with true rich blacks with little bronzing or metemerism with clean neutral whites without warm or cold color casts, the tendency to emphasize grain structure, aliasing, and noise when rendering the image, and the frequent exhibiting of color artifacts in the form of stray color pixels that appear. To be sure, some of this will be found with BW film based captures that are scanned and reproduced just as it is with the digital camera captures since these issues seem to revolve around the rendering and reproduction stages rather than the capture stages; but I have found the problems easier to deal with when scanning BW films and rendering them into monitor displays and prints than is the case with digital camera captures. This is especially true given that there are a number of varying film types and speeds to use that are better for different subjects and scan with differing results with respect to some of the problems mentioned like emphasis of grain structure, aliasing, and noise which is not true for digital camera unless one has an arsenal of different digital cameras to select from that use different sensors in different configurations. -- -- Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.10.2 - Release Date: 4/21/2005 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.10.2 - Release Date: 4/21/2005 Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: Compact Cameras
Hi Laurie, I am familiar with it and have heard good things about it from users; BUT that is one of the sorts of things that I consider as the EXTRA WORK required to remedy the issues I am speaking of. :-) It's not an issue if you do a couple of things...as you touch on... First, I believe that you almost need to have a dedicated printer for B W printing to use it: Exactly. That alleviates the issue you bring up of switching inks and flushing. second you need to use special inksets. For BW, yes...quadtone inks. Third, even if you do not choose to use the CIS... I suggest instead of CIS, getting a printer that has LARGE ink cartridges, like the Epson 3000. They are 4oz each I believe. Very good size, compared to something like the 1270/1280. ...but stick with carts so as to be able to switch easily between BW and color, you need to flush the system of the previous inks in the printer prior to each changing back and forth from BW to color. ...that, IMO, is a waste of time and money. You'll spend more in money on flush kits, and clogs than it's worth. Printers are reasonably cheap, and it's the ink that seems to add up in cost, at least for me. Another more expensive option which I am told helps to remedy the issues is to purchase a RIP to use with the printer instead of the printer's driver. I personally recommend the Piezography set-up, though I use the original Piezography that was actually developed by Sundance/R9, not by Inkjet Mall/Cone as was claimed, though sold by them as Piezography. Inkjet Mall/Cone has a new system that I have not used. I think the old stuff is still available from R9 (www.bwguys.com). Regards, Austin Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: Compact Cameras
You should check out the PeizographyBW Black and White inkjet printing system from Jon Cone (and inkjetmall.com). It is really amazing. No bronzing, no metemerism, no fading, rich deep black and long tonal scale. It is really, really very good. Hi Lotusm50, Do you have the original, or the ICS system? Regards, Austin Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: Compact Cameras
I think the solution is to have BW ink in different levels of blackness (if that is the correct term) That appears to be one type of solution to some of the issues; another potential solution is to have not just different densities of black but different shades of gray inks. However, this approach alone will not resolve metemerism or bronzing, which appears to be more a intrinsic problem with respect to ink formulations and paper types than densities of black and shades of gray. I'm not sure how the RIP will solve the problem since you would still be making BW with color ink. If one is only using black and gray inks, you would not be making black white with color inks in the same sense as you are doing with the CYMK alternative. However, if one were using colored inks to produce a grayscale rendering with a RIP, the RIP tend to use different algorithms that appear to be more precise than is the case for most standard print drivers when it comes to laying down the inks: and the RIPs tend to exert much more control over the types of dithering and mixing of the inks so as to minimize color casts. I am not sure that RIPs do much to minimize bronzing and metemerism however. At any rate, I was just suggesting that if one were to get a compact digital camera to capture mostly BW images, one might be just as well off (if not better off) for the time being sticking with a compact film camera since the latter permits you to use various different films to achieve better scans from either true traditional wet BW prints or from the film which digital cameras do not allow for even if both face the same digital hardcopy printing limitations. If one is doing mostly color work, than I would say go for the digital compact camera because there is very little difference in the quality of images produced, depending on the nature of the subject matter being captured, the size of the enlargement that can be made, or the resulting prints (there are some colors that digital does not do as good a job at capturing as film does; but they tend to be on the extremes and not the run of the mill colors). Original Message From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, April 24, 2005 4:44 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Compact Cameras I think the solution is to have BW ink in different levels of blackness (if that is the correct term), but the inkjetmall solution is just too expensive for me. I'm not sure how the RIP will solve the problem since you would still be making BW with color ink. Laurie Solomon wrote: I am familiar with it and have heard good things about it from users; BUT that is one of the sorts of things that I consider as the EXTRA WORK required to remedy the issues I am speaking of. :-) First, I believe that you almost need to have a dedicated printer for B W printing to use it: second you need to use special inksets. Third, even if you do not choose to use the CIS but stick with carts so as to be able to switch easily between BW and color, you need to flush the system of the previous inks in the printer prior to each changing back and forth from BW to color. Another more expensive option which I am told helps to remedy the issues is to purchase a RIP to use with the printer instead of the printer's driver. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, April 24, 2005 2:21 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Compact Cameras You should check out the PeizographyBW Black and White inkjet printing system from Jon Cone (and inkjetmall.com). It is really amazing. No bronzing, no metemerism, no fading, rich deep black and long tonal scale. It is really, really very good. LAURIE SOLOMON wrote: snip First, even at today's stage in technology, I do not find digital black and white to be all that satisfactory be it captured with a digital camera or scanned in via a scanner. I find that both the monitor displaying and the hard copy printing of digital black white to be full of problems that result in much additional work to correct or minimize or in less than satisfactory quality. Issues such as the ability of dye based inkjet prints or pigmented inkjet prints to render the images with true rich blacks with little bronzing or metemerism with clean neutral whites without warm or cold color casts, the tendency to emphasize grain structure, aliasing, and noise when rendering the image, and the frequent exhibiting of color artifacts in the form of stray color pixels that appear. To be sure, some of this will be found with BW film based captures that are scanned and reproduced just as it is with the digital camera captures since these issues seem to revolve around the rendering and reproduction stages rather than the capture stages; but I have found
[filmscanners] RE: Compact Cameras
I have no dispute with anything you have said below. Original Message From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Austin Franklin Sent: Sunday, April 24, 2005 7:10 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] RE: Compact Cameras Hi Laurie, I am familiar with it and have heard good things about it from users; BUT that is one of the sorts of things that I consider as the EXTRA WORK required to remedy the issues I am speaking of. :-) It's not an issue if you do a couple of things...as you touch on... First, I believe that you almost need to have a dedicated printer for B W printing to use it: Exactly. That alleviates the issue you bring up of switching inks and flushing. second you need to use special inksets. For BW, yes...quadtone inks. Third, even if you do not choose to use the CIS... I suggest instead of CIS, getting a printer that has LARGE ink cartridges, like the Epson 3000. They are 4oz each I believe. Very good size, compared to something like the 1270/1280. ...but stick with carts so as to be able to switch easily between BW and color, you need to flush the system of the previous inks in the printer prior to each changing back and forth from BW to color. ..that, IMO, is a waste of time and money. You'll spend more in money on flush kits, and clogs than it's worth. Printers are reasonably cheap, and it's the ink that seems to add up in cost, at least for me. Another more expensive option which I am told helps to remedy the issues is to purchase a RIP to use with the printer instead of the printer's driver. I personally recommend the Piezography set-up, though I use the original Piezography that was actually developed by Sundance/R9, not by Inkjet Mall/Cone as was claimed, though sold by them as Piezography. Inkjet Mall/Cone has a new system that I have not used. I think the old stuff is still available from R9 (www.bwguys.com). Regards, Austin -- -- Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.10.2 - Release Date: 4/21/2005 Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Compact Cameras
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] I'm waiting for some company to release a really capable small digicam with a decent APS sensor, a truly superb lens (maybe a prime in the 40mm equiv. range) and I guess some kind of deluxe EVF. Optical RF based VF is probably hoping for too much :-) I imagine something like this will happen eventually, As I mentioned before, the Canon 350D + 24/2.8 is pretty much exactly that. At this point I'm a Nikonian, I guess, but Olympus and Pentax make some relatively compact DSLRs. Pentax just release a small pancake prime lens that is reportedly very good. Either one of these cameras and a small lens might match the dimensions of the typical larger digicams and offer much greater controls and produce much better results. Worthy of a little research and fondling prior to a buy decision. Yep. My only problem here is large scrawny hands with which both the Pentax *istD and Canon 350D are quite awkward to hold. Most people find them perfectly usable. David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Compact Cameras
As for bronzing, just print matte papers and it's a non issue. I have used EEM and Photo Rag with fine results. For glossy, folks print with glop or spray the prints with Print Shield which reportedly does a good job minimizing bronzing. Scott LAURIE SOLOMON wrote: I think the solution is to have BW ink in different levels of blackness (if that is the correct term) That appears to be one type of solution to some of the issues; another potential solution is to have not just different densities of black but different shades of gray inks. However, this approach alone will not resolve metemerism or bronzing, which appears to be more a intrinsic problem with respect to ink formulations and paper types than densities of black and shades of gray. I'm not sure how the RIP will solve the problem since you would still be making BW with color ink. If one is only using black and gray inks, you would not be making black white with color inks in the same sense as you are doing with the CYMK alternative. However, if one were using colored inks to produce a grayscale rendering with a RIP, the RIP tend to use different algorithms that appear to be more precise than is the case for most standard print drivers when it comes to laying down the inks: and the RIPs tend to exert much more control over the types of dithering and mixing of the inks so as to minimize color casts. I am not sure that RIPs do much to minimize bronzing and metemerism however. At any rate, I was just suggesting that if one were to get a compact digital camera to capture mostly BW images, one might be just as well off (if not better off) for the time being sticking with a compact film camera since the latter permits you to use various different films to achieve better scans from either true traditional wet BW prints or from the film which digital cameras do not allow for even if both face the same digital hardcopy printing limitations. If one is doing mostly color work, than I would say go for the digital compact camera because there is very little difference in the quality of images produced, depending on the nature of the subject matter being captured, the size of the enlargement that can be made, or the resulting prints (there are some colors that digital does not do as good a job at capturing as film does; but they tend to be on the extremes and not the run of the mill colors). Original Message From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, April 24, 2005 4:44 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Compact Cameras I think the solution is to have BW ink in different levels of blackness (if that is the correct term), but the inkjetmall solution is just too expensive for me. I'm not sure how the RIP will solve the problem since you would still be making BW with color ink. Laurie Solomon wrote: I am familiar with it and have heard good things about it from users; BUT that is one of the sorts of things that I consider as the EXTRA WORK required to remedy the issues I am speaking of. :-) First, I believe that you almost need to have a dedicated printer for B W printing to use it: second you need to use special inksets. Third, even if you do not choose to use the CIS but stick with carts so as to be able to switch easily between BW and color, you need to flush the system of the previous inks in the printer prior to each changing back and forth from BW to color. Another more expensive option which I am told helps to remedy the issues is to purchase a RIP to use with the printer instead of the printer's driver. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, April 24, 2005 2:21 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Compact Cameras You should check out the PeizographyBW Black and White inkjet printing system from Jon Cone (and inkjetmall.com). It is really amazing. No bronzing, no metemerism, no fading, rich deep black and long tonal scale. It is really, really very good. LAURIE SOLOMON wrote: snip First, even at today's stage in technology, I do not find digital black and white to be all that satisfactory be it captured with a digital camera or scanned in via a scanner. I find that both the monitor displaying and the hard copy printing of digital black white to be full of problems that result in much additional work to correct or minimize or in less than satisfactory quality. Issues such as the ability of dye based inkjet prints or pigmented inkjet prints to render the images with true rich blacks with little bronzing or metemerism with clean neutral whites without warm or cold color casts, the tendency to emphasize grain structure, aliasing, and noise when rendering the image, and the frequent exhibiting of color artifacts in the form of stray color pixels that appear. To be sure, some of this will be found with BW
[filmscanners] Re: Compact Cameras
I had the original plug-in system, but I now have the current ICC system. Austin Franklin wrote: You should check out the PeizographyBW Black and White inkjet printing system from Jon Cone (and inkjetmall.com). It is really amazing. No bronzing, no metemerism, no fading, rich deep black and long tonal scale. It is really, really very good. Hi Lotusm50, Do you have the original, or the ICS system? Regards, Austin Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: Compact Cameras
All those may be true; but not everyone wants to print on matte. Those that print on glossy can print with glop if they are using the R800 or R1800, otherwise, that may not be an option even if it were a solution. Spraying the prints is also another option for glossy or even non-glossy prints; but one has to take care to get an even spray and to spray under the right humidity to avoid white specks. All in all, these all constitute the additional extra work that I mentioned in my original post. As for the post that is below which you have attached your message to, I was merely noting that the use of different density black inks or the use of different shades of gray in addition to densities of black might remedy color casts; but it may not in its own right serve as a corrective for bronzing or metemerism. Your response has done nothing to refute my position if that was its intent; but I do not think that was your intent. I believe that you may have just used my post as a vehicle for making your suggestions on how to handle the two problems, which I have no objection to. I am responding just clarify what I was trying to say so that there would be no misunderstanding. Original Message From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, April 24, 2005 7:47 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Compact Cameras As for bronzing, just print matte papers and it's a non issue. I have used EEM and Photo Rag with fine results. For glossy, folks print with glop or spray the prints with Print Shield which reportedly does a good job minimizing bronzing. Scott LAURIE SOLOMON wrote: I think the solution is to have BW ink in different levels of blackness (if that is the correct term) That appears to be one type of solution to some of the issues; another potential solution is to have not just different densities of black but different shades of gray inks. However, this approach alone will not resolve metemerism or bronzing, which appears to be more a intrinsic problem with respect to ink formulations and paper types than densities of black and shades of gray. I'm not sure how the RIP will solve the problem since you would still be making BW with color ink. If one is only using black and gray inks, you would not be making black white with color inks in the same sense as you are doing with the CYMK alternative. However, if one were using colored inks to produce a grayscale rendering with a RIP, the RIP tend to use different algorithms that appear to be more precise than is the case for most standard print drivers when it comes to laying down the inks: and the RIPs tend to exert much more control over the types of dithering and mixing of the inks so as to minimize color casts. I am not sure that RIPs do much to minimize bronzing and metemerism however. At any rate, I was just suggesting that if one were to get a compact digital camera to capture mostly BW images, one might be just as well off (if not better off) for the time being sticking with a compact film camera since the latter permits you to use various different films to achieve better scans from either true traditional wet BW prints or from the film which digital cameras do not allow for even if both face the same digital hardcopy printing limitations. If one is doing mostly color work, than I would say go for the digital compact camera because there is very little difference in the quality of images produced, depending on the nature of the subject matter being captured, the size of the enlargement that can be made, or the resulting prints (there are some colors that digital does not do as good a job at capturing as film does; but they tend to be on the extremes and not the run of the mill colors). Original Message From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, April 24, 2005 4:44 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Compact Cameras I think the solution is to have BW ink in different levels of blackness (if that is the correct term), but the inkjetmall solution is just too expensive for me. I'm not sure how the RIP will solve the problem since you would still be making BW with color ink. Laurie Solomon wrote: I am familiar with it and have heard good things about it from users; BUT that is one of the sorts of things that I consider as the EXTRA WORK required to remedy the issues I am speaking of. :-) First, I believe that you almost need to have a dedicated printer for B W printing to use it: second you need to use special inksets. Third, even if you do not choose to use the CIS but stick with carts so as to be able to switch easily between BW and color, you need to flush the system of the previous inks in the printer prior to each changing back and forth from BW to color. Another more expensive option which I am told helps
[filmscanners] RE: Compact Cameras
David, I am sure that we would all like to know the answer or at least get additional information as to the difference between RIP and the print driver. However, I am equally sure that software is NOT ALWAYS software. Some software is better than other software; some software has features and functions that other software of the same general category do not; and some software is more sophisticated than other software. The resampling method used by the Epson drivers (if they use the nearest neighbor method) is not the same or as good as Photoshop's Bicubic method or Genuine Fractal's method. Unlike most Epson print drivers, I believe RIPs allow one to exercise additional controls over the type of halftone screen or dithering is to be applied to the image both in terms of the size of the dots, the shape of the dots, and the nature of the matrix used in the halftone cells. But I could be wrong about this. Moreover, I believe that many quality service bureaus and labs as well as printers employ RIPs. Original Message From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, April 24, 2005 8:24 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Compact Cameras The next time I'm at the photo lab (which also has a print service), I'm going to pick their brain regarding RIPs versus just using the print driver. It seems to me that software is software, i.e. the RIP is just doing the processing outside the computer, rather than in the computer. Using a service bureau is of course another option to doing your own prints. http://www.cantoo.com/ They have some sample prints in their waiting room, one of which has a white column in it. The digital artifacts are pretty obvious to me, but the quality is certainly better than any Epson or Canon output I've seen. LAURIE SOLOMON wrote: I think the solution is to have BW ink in different levels of blackness (if that is the correct term) That appears to be one type of solution to some of the issues; another potential solution is to have not just different densities of black but different shades of gray inks. However, this approach alone will not resolve metemerism or bronzing, which appears to be more a intrinsic problem with respect to ink formulations and paper types than densities of black and shades of gray. I'm not sure how the RIP will solve the problem since you would still be making BW with color ink. If one is only using black and gray inks, you would not be making black white with color inks in the same sense as you are doing with the CYMK alternative. However, if one were using colored inks to produce a grayscale rendering with a RIP, the RIP tend to use different algorithms that appear to be more precise than is the case for most standard print drivers when it comes to laying down the inks: and the RIPs tend to exert much more control over the types of dithering and mixing of the inks so as to minimize color casts. I am not sure that RIPs do much to minimize bronzing and metemerism however. At any rate, I was just suggesting that if one were to get a compact digital camera to capture mostly BW images, one might be just as well off (if not better off) for the time being sticking with a compact film camera since the latter permits you to use various different films to achieve better scans from either true traditional wet BW prints or from the film which digital cameras do not allow for even if both face the same digital hardcopy printing limitations. If one is doing mostly color work, than I would say go for the digital compact camera because there is very little difference in the quality of images produced, depending on the nature of the subject matter being captured, the size of the enlargement that can be made, or the resulting prints (there are some colors that digital does not do as good a job at capturing as film does; but they tend to be on the extremes and not the run of the mill colors). Original Message From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, April 24, 2005 4:44 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Compact Cameras I think the solution is to have BW ink in different levels of blackness (if that is the correct term), but the inkjetmall solution is just too expensive for me. I'm not sure how the RIP will solve the problem since you would still be making BW with color ink. Laurie Solomon wrote: I am familiar with it and have heard good things about it from users; BUT that is one of the sorts of things that I consider as the EXTRA WORK required to remedy the issues I am speaking of. :-) First, I believe that you almost need to have a dedicated printer for B W printing to use it: second you need to use special inksets. Third, even if you do not choose to use the CIS but stick with carts so as to be able to switch easily between BW
