[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 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
[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 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 q
[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 B&W. 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: Oops?
Not sure how it works on a Nikon, but on my Sprintscan 120 Vuescan compensated for the orange mask on color neg by altering exposure times, rather than just twiddling bits, so scanning B&W as raw color neg gave me three differently exposed channels to combine as needed. Almost enough to save pushed TMY. Finally got tired of the Sprintscan's other defects and bought a nice used drum for not much more money. Handles dense highlights effortlessly. On Apr 22, 2005, at 2:40 PM, "" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Thanks to all for their advice. I've never tried a Vuescan raw scan or > a positive scan, so I'll be giving those a try. Already, Vuescan is > giving > me a nice flat scan that I can tweak. > > Me'thinks I'll be delving deeper into the myriad options Vuescan's > provides > from here on out. > > Now I've also got to get some settings together to get a decent *batch* > scan > set of results (not all so flat) on FP4+ for initial quick digital > "contact sheet" > style results. > > Scott > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >> I've got the Kodak kit to do positives from B&W film, but I haven't >> got >> around to using it. I'd like to try the set on Macophot 820C, which >> is a >> very fine grain extended red film. >> >> Vuescan has a "raw" option. By raw, I mean really raw, i.e .no >> correction what so ever. I'd suggest doing a raw scan and then see if >> the blown highlights show up. >> Vuescan has a control to set the white clipping point. I'm not sure >> how >> vuescan sets it, but so the theory goes you should allow a small >> percentage of the pixels to be clipped on the high end. This is >> because >> often some specular highlight ends up setting the high end of the >> display, making most of the image too dark. I like to photograph >> aircraft, and this option just plain doesn't work well since shiny >> subjects can have many specular highlights. I set this option to zero. >> >> Going back to the raw mode, if your highlight are not blown, you could >> try something like this. >> 1) Do a raw scan, saving in grayscale 16 bit. I think the default for >> this is a positive image. If so, then invert it immediately after you >> load it into photoshop >> 2) In photoshop, go to the adjust levels menu >> 3) Set the gamma to 6 (middle text box), making the image look very >> white >> 4) slide the leftmost slider to the right until you start to see black >> specs in the display. This is setting the black clip point. >> 5) Set the gamma to 0.1 >> 6) move the right slider to the left until the white specs are at an >> acceptable level. This is setting the white clipping point. >> 7) move the middle slider until the image is acceptable. For a bell >> shaped curve, this is generally at the peak of the distribution. >> >> Acros and Astia (color slide film) are low acutance films. The images >> don't look very sharp, but they are. I didn't like this low acutance >> at >> first, but now I think it is more realistic. >> >> You have discovered (rediscovered) what people call grain enlargement. >> When you take a high latitude film and adjust the contrast to look >> natural, the grain gets enhanced. This is why I prefer to do slide >> film. >> It may be harder to scan, but you need to adjust the endpoints much >> less, so the grain doesn't get magnified. >> >> >> >> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> >> >> >>> Yes, I actually have purchased a license for Vuescan and >>> haven't given it enough attention, still using NikonScan and >>> the Coolscan V for most of my work. >>> >>> I develop my own B&W negs and then scan them (no darkroom). >>> I shoot mostly HP5+ and FP4+, with occasional TMZ. I dev almost >>> exclusively with HC110 (B) and recently (H). I try to develop for a >>> low contrast, thinner negative to please the scanner, and have >>> achieved >>> pretty good results with HP5 in dilution (H) at both 320 and 800 ISO. >>> >>> >>> But I have some problems. >>> >>> (1) I haven't been so lucky with FP4+, where the highlights are blown >>> routinely even with extrememly conservative development, as in >>> HC110 dilution H at only 8 minutes. I did some film speed tests >>> per Les McLean's book. Black cardboard, white cardboard, lots >>> of cloth, metal, glass stuff on top. Meter with an incident meter and >>> then shoot +2, +1, +0, -1, -2 stops for a whole 35mm roll. Cut into >>> three strips and develop different ways. >>> >>> The coolscan barfed on the highlights (white cardboard) every time >>> except for the -2 stop exposures. But then the shadow detail was >>> unacceptible, as you can imagine. >>> >>> I want to use slower films to support some larger enlargements. I'm >>> about to start experimenting with Delta 100 and Fuji Acros, but these >>> seem to have even less forgiving contrast curves than FP4+ from >>> what I read. >>> >>> I've been trying to tweak analog gain, but this is limited, because >>> big >>> tweaks increase grain appearance, which negates the whole point of >>> using slower film in the first pla
[filmscanners] Re: Compact Cameras
I work mostly in color, but I am interested to know where I might find a comparison of Epson 2200 B&W with Quadtone B&W. I read a review once that thought very highly of the 2200 B&W. 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 B&W. 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
