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 B&W 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 B&W 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 B&W 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 B&W 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 B&W 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 B&W 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 B&W and color, you need to flush >>>the system of the previous inks in the printer prior to each >>>changing back and forth from B&W 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 B&W 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 B&W 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 >> >> > > > > >-- >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