Re: filmscanners: OT-ish Epson 1270, was Repro house..
Photo Glossy Film used to be the premier product in the range, but I'm not so sure these days. It's officially rated only capable of 720dpi I believe. I really like Premium SemiGloss paper and Heavyweight Matte myself. I tried both of these on an Epson 890 I had briefly , but haven't got around to trying them on my 1200 yet. [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Arthur Entlich) wrote: > Regarding output prints from Epson printers for consideration as > material for color separations, today I took a closer look at some > samples of the same image printed on Epson Glossy film versus Premium > Glossy Photo Paper and Photo Glossy Paper. Although the difference is > not huge, the glossy film did provide better detail and deeper, less > posterized, color. (the samples were printed with Photo 700/750 > models). > > Although the glossy film does cost a minor arm and leg, for repro > purposes, it might just be worth it. I wonder if some of this > increased resolution is because it is so thin that the heads are a bit > further away from the "paper" surface, allowing for less splatter or > "velocity related dot gain" (my terms)? If not, I would be nice if > Epson could take this film with its coatings and adhere it to a heavier > bases, since it is vulnerable to kinks. It is a pretty amazing product > in terms of print quality, but inappropriate for most applications due > to its flimsy nature and cost. > > Art > > > Tony Sleep wrote: > > > On Mon, 26 Mar 2001 13:45:20 +1000 Rob Geraghty ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) > > wrote: > > > > > >> Obscanning: I have yet to try printing at A3, but do those who have > > printed > >> at A3 from 2700dpi scans find the scanning resolution adequate? > > > > >
Re: filmscanners: OT-ish Epson 1270, was Repro house..
Thanks everyone for the quick and specific replies. Chris Hargens -Original Message- From: Frank Paris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Tuesday, March 27, 2001 7:51 PM Subject: RE: filmscanners: OT-ish Epson 1270, was Repro house.. >With 50 messages still in my queue from filmscanners, I'm sure someone has >already answered this, but just in case not: > >A3: 297x420 mm (11.7"x16.5") >A4: 210x297 mm >Super A3/Super B: 329x483 mm (13"x19") > >Frank Paris >[EMAIL PROTECTED] >http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumList?u=62684 > >> -Original Message- >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Chris Hargens >> Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2001 7:44 AM >> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Cc: Chris Hargens >> Subject: Re: filmscanners: OT-ish Epson 1270, was Repro house.. >> >> >> Just what size is are A4 and A3 prints? Also, I should note that >> I've often >> heard/read people remark that they can print off scanned images up to such >> and such size (e.g., 11"x14"), but I'm not always clear about >> just what size >> the image is that is placed on the paper. What, for example, is the usual >> image size for a print on A4 paper? Does it vary much? >> >> Chris Hargens > >
Re: filmscanners: OT-ish Epson 1270, was Repro house..
Rob Geraghty wrote: > "Arthur Entlich" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Glossy Photo Paper and Photo Glossy Paper. Although the difference is >> not huge, the glossy film did provide better detail and deeper, less >> posterized, color. (the samples were printed with Photo 700/750 models). > > > I'll have to try it again on the 1160. I wasn't impressed with it on the > 700. > My experience was that it lost shadow detail. > > Rob Getting the proper ink density on the glossy is critical. It takes some careful tweaking to get it correct. You need to slightly raise the black point while not changing mid-tones, or remove a small amount of black from shadow regions. The whole thing with the glossy film is that the substrate cannot accept any ink, unlike most of the other papers. There is nowhere for excess ink to go, so all the ink is visible on the top of the film. If it pools at all in the shadows it muddies up the whole area. This is why the Epson drivers reduce dot size and ink density automatically. Epson Glossy Film is a bit like photo transparency film, it is very unforgiving anything but perfect "exposure", but like transparency film, if you get it "right" it looks great. Unfortunately, being one of Epson's most expensive media, it's had to play around with it. Art
RE: filmscanners: OT-ish Epson 1270, was Repro house..
With 50 messages still in my queue from filmscanners, I'm sure someone has already answered this, but just in case not: A3: 297x420 mm (11.7"x16.5") A4: 210x297 mm Super A3/Super B: 329x483 mm (13"x19") Frank Paris [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumList?u=62684 > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Chris Hargens > Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2001 7:44 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Cc: Chris Hargens > Subject: Re: filmscanners: OT-ish Epson 1270, was Repro house.. > > > Just what size is are A4 and A3 prints? Also, I should note that > I've often > heard/read people remark that they can print off scanned images up to such > and such size (e.g., 11"x14"), but I'm not always clear about > just what size > the image is that is placed on the paper. What, for example, is the usual > image size for a print on A4 paper? Does it vary much? > > Chris Hargens
RE: filmscanners: OT-ish Epson 1270, was Repro house..
> A4 is 8.3" x 11.7" > > A3 is 11.7" x 16.5" > For size (and weights) of paper in other sizes try http://www.tssphoto.com/sp/dg/weight.html (also a good site for printer info and output comparison).
Re: filmscanners: OT-ish Epson 1270, was Repro house..
>From Epson Inkjet Mailing list Resources: http://home.att.net/~arwomack01/ A4 is 8.3" x 11.7" A3 is 11.7" x 16.5" Maris - Original Message - From: "Chris Hargens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: "Chris Hargens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2001 9:43 AM Subject: Re: filmscanners: OT-ish Epson 1270, was Repro house.. | Just what size is are A4 and A3 prints? Also, I should note that I've often | heard/read people remark that they can print off scanned images up to such | and such size (e.g., 11"x14"), but I'm not always clear about just what size | the image is that is placed on the paper. What, for example, is the usual | image size for a print on A4 paper? Does it vary much? | | Chris Hargens | | | | -Original Message- | From: Tony Sleep <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | Date: Monday, March 26, 2001 8:56 AM | Subject: RE: filmscanners: OT-ish Epson 1270, was Repro house.. | | | >On Mon, 26 Mar 2001 13:45:20 +1000 Rob Geraghty ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) | wrote: | > | >> Obscanning: I have yet to try printing at A3, but do those who have | printed | >> at A3 from 2700dpi scans find the scanning resolution adequate? | > | >Back to back comparisons here between A4 1200 prints of 2700 & 4000ppi | scans of | >the same Astia image show a slight fudging of fine detail in the 2700 | print. | >Viewed alone, it's fine, but once you have noticed the slightly 'vaseline' | >effect of lower sampling res, it's hard to overlook if you are being picky. | >However I didn't notice until I did the comparison :) | > | >A3 will make this rather more noticeable, but TBH there are very few 35mm | >images which really benefit from that sort of size unless they will be | viewed | >from at least 3'. | > | >> I was intrigued | >> (and a little depressed) to read Tony's recent comment that the aliasing | >> at 4000dpi was much less than at 2700dpi. | > | >All I meant is that 4000ppi seems to greatly reduce the sensitivity to film | >grain which causes this intractable problem. It's just one less thing to | have | >to worry about. | > | >If you stick to films which don't excite grain aliasing problems (Astia, | >Provia, KR64, Reala - none gave me any trouble with an LS1000, and I'm sure | >there are many others), a 2700ppi unit won't give grain aliasing. Problem | >solved ;) | > | >> I'll bite the bullet in the next | >> few days and actually try an A3 print. | > | >Definitely the best idea :-) | > | >Regards | > | >Tony Sleep | >http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio & exhibit; + film scanner info | & | >comparisons | > | |
Re: filmscanners: OT-ish Epson 1270, was Repro house..
Just what size is are A4 and A3 prints? Also, I should note that I've often heard/read people remark that they can print off scanned images up to such and such size (e.g., 11"x14"), but I'm not always clear about just what size the image is that is placed on the paper. What, for example, is the usual image size for a print on A4 paper? Does it vary much? Chris Hargens -Original Message- From: Tony Sleep <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Monday, March 26, 2001 8:56 AM Subject: RE: filmscanners: OT-ish Epson 1270, was Repro house.. >On Mon, 26 Mar 2001 13:45:20 +1000 Rob Geraghty ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > >> Obscanning: I have yet to try printing at A3, but do those who have printed >> at A3 from 2700dpi scans find the scanning resolution adequate? > >Back to back comparisons here between A4 1200 prints of 2700 & 4000ppi scans of >the same Astia image show a slight fudging of fine detail in the 2700 print. >Viewed alone, it's fine, but once you have noticed the slightly 'vaseline' >effect of lower sampling res, it's hard to overlook if you are being picky. >However I didn't notice until I did the comparison :) > >A3 will make this rather more noticeable, but TBH there are very few 35mm >images which really benefit from that sort of size unless they will be viewed >from at least 3'. > >> I was intrigued >> (and a little depressed) to read Tony's recent comment that the aliasing >> at 4000dpi was much less than at 2700dpi. > >All I meant is that 4000ppi seems to greatly reduce the sensitivity to film >grain which causes this intractable problem. It's just one less thing to have >to worry about. > >If you stick to films which don't excite grain aliasing problems (Astia, >Provia, KR64, Reala - none gave me any trouble with an LS1000, and I'm sure >there are many others), a 2700ppi unit won't give grain aliasing. Problem >solved ;) > >> I'll bite the bullet in the next >> few days and actually try an A3 print. > >Definitely the best idea :-) > >Regards > >Tony Sleep >http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio & exhibit; + film scanner info & >comparisons >
Re: filmscanners: OT-ish Epson 1270, was Repro house..
On Tue, 27 Mar 2001 00:29:32 -0800 Arthur Entlich ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > today I took a closer look at some > samples of the same image printed on Epson Glossy film versus Premium > Glossy Photo Paper and Photo Glossy Paper. Thanks Art. Damn, more tests. Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio & exhibit; + film scanner info & comparisons
Re: filmscanners: OT-ish Epson 1270, was Repro house..
"Arthur Entlich" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Glossy Photo Paper and Photo Glossy Paper. Although the difference is > not huge, the glossy film did provide better detail and deeper, less > posterized, color. (the samples were printed with Photo 700/750 models). I'll have to try it again on the 1160. I wasn't impressed with it on the 700. My experience was that it lost shadow detail. Rob
Re: filmscanners: OT-ish Epson 1270, was Repro house..
Regarding output prints from Epson printers for consideration as material for color separations, today I took a closer look at some samples of the same image printed on Epson Glossy film versus Premium Glossy Photo Paper and Photo Glossy Paper. Although the difference is not huge, the glossy film did provide better detail and deeper, less posterized, color. (the samples were printed with Photo 700/750 models). Although the glossy film does cost a minor arm and leg, for repro purposes, it might just be worth it. I wonder if some of this increased resolution is because it is so thin that the heads are a bit further away from the "paper" surface, allowing for less splatter or "velocity related dot gain" (my terms)? If not, I would be nice if Epson could take this film with its coatings and adhere it to a heavier bases, since it is vulnerable to kinks. It is a pretty amazing product in terms of print quality, but inappropriate for most applications due to its flimsy nature and cost. Art Tony Sleep wrote: > On Mon, 26 Mar 2001 13:45:20 +1000 Rob Geraghty ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > >> Obscanning: I have yet to try printing at A3, but do those who have printed >> at A3 from 2700dpi scans find the scanning resolution adequate? >
Re: filmscanners: OT-ish Epson 1270, was Repro house..
Before we get into a "does not" "does too" fight over the archival nature of the 870/890 1270/1290 inks, it should be noted that although the inks have reasonable lightfast-ness, they are vulnerable to ozone and other pollutants, which are responsible for the "cyan to orange" fading problems. Anyone's personal experience with these materials will be directly related to if their locale has pollutants which the ink is sensitive to. However, do keep in mind that people move around, and although it would appear that if the inks set in a locale that doesn't have the pollutants, that the odds are better that the print will maintain color, it is not an absolute. People who ship prints around, may be disappointed (or the recipients might be ;-)) Art John Bradbury wrote: > I've been using an Epson 870 for the last year. I print onto "premium Semi > gloss" and have had no problems with fading, or shifting to orange. 90% of > the prints I sell (portraits and commercial) are output this way. > The 870 is a joy to use and is not at all to be "dreaded" > John Bradbury
Re: filmscanners: OT-ish Epson 1270, was Repro house..
I've been using an Epson 870 for the last year. I print onto "premium Semi gloss" and have had no problems with fading, or shifting to orange. 90% of the prints I sell (portraits and commercial) are output this way. The 870 is a joy to use and is not at all to be "dreaded" John Bradbury - Original Message - From: Mark Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2001 9:51 PM Subject: RE: filmscanners: OT-ish Epson 1270, was Repro house.. > While on this off-topic :), are many of you using the (dreaded!?) 870/1270 > Epsons in a semi-pro or pro role, and have you or clients experienced those > fading problems? I want to move to A3 width, and can't afford much more > than the 1270.. > > Yes, I realise this is slipping off-topic, but my visits to the Epson lists > and various highly opinionated web-sites have been not-very-helpful. I am > hoping to hear from film-scanning folk with real experience of the problem > - if it still exists - rather than hearsay. Feel free to direct responses > to my address rather than clutter the list. > > Thanks, Mark T. > > At 06:20 PM 25/03/01 -0600, you wrote: > >Dave, > > > >That is very useful information. I have seen packages of EPGPP in the > >stores with "new" and "improved" stickers on them; > > >
RE: filmscanners: OT-ish Epson 1270, was Repro house..
On Mon, 26 Mar 2001 13:45:20 +1000 Rob Geraghty ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > Obscanning: I have yet to try printing at A3, but do those who have printed > at A3 from 2700dpi scans find the scanning resolution adequate? Back to back comparisons here between A4 1200 prints of 2700 & 4000ppi scans of the same Astia image show a slight fudging of fine detail in the 2700 print. Viewed alone, it's fine, but once you have noticed the slightly 'vaseline' effect of lower sampling res, it's hard to overlook if you are being picky. However I didn't notice until I did the comparison :) A3 will make this rather more noticeable, but TBH there are very few 35mm images which really benefit from that sort of size unless they will be viewed from at least 3'. > I was intrigued > (and a little depressed) to read Tony's recent comment that the aliasing > at 4000dpi was much less than at 2700dpi. All I meant is that 4000ppi seems to greatly reduce the sensitivity to film grain which causes this intractable problem. It's just one less thing to have to worry about. If you stick to films which don't excite grain aliasing problems (Astia, Provia, KR64, Reala - none gave me any trouble with an LS1000, and I'm sure there are many others), a 2700ppi unit won't give grain aliasing. Problem solved ;) > I'll bite the bullet in the next > few days and actually try an A3 print. Definitely the best idea :-) Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio & exhibit; + film scanner info & comparisons
RE: filmscanners: OT-ish Epson 1270, was Repro house..
Mark wrote: > I want to move to A3 width, and can't afford much more > than the 1270.. You might want to give serious consideration to an Epson 1160. I bought one just recently. You can fit them with a CIS which makes ink costs much lower (I can't afford one at this stage with the AUD so low against the USD) and allows the use of 3rd party pigmented inks. Even with OEM, the 4 colour inks supposedly last longer in general than 6 colour inks. I could supply some print samples if you're interested. For more info go to www.leben.com and subscribe to the Epson inkjets mailing list - preferably the digest as there's *heaps* of traffic. Interestingly, while that list tends to stay on topic, there seems to be a lot less useful information. ;) Obscanning: I have yet to try printing at A3, but do those who have printed at A3 from 2700dpi scans find the scanning resolution adequate? I was intrigued (and a little depressed) to read Tony's recent comment that the aliasing at 4000dpi was much less than at 2700dpi. I'll bite the bullet in the next few days and actually try an A3 print. Rob Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com
RE: filmscanners: OT-ish Epson 1270, was Repro house..
While on this off-topic :), are many of you using the (dreaded!?) 870/1270 Epsons in a semi-pro or pro role, and have you or clients experienced those fading problems? I want to move to A3 width, and can't afford much more than the 1270.. Yes, I realise this is slipping off-topic, but my visits to the Epson lists and various highly opinionated web-sites have been not-very-helpful. I am hoping to hear from film-scanning folk with real experience of the problem - if it still exists - rather than hearsay. Feel free to direct responses to my address rather than clutter the list. Thanks, Mark T. At 06:20 PM 25/03/01 -0600, you wrote: >Dave, > >That is very useful information. I have seen packages of EPGPP in the >stores with "new" and "improved" stickers on them;
