Re: [pinhole-discussion] Re: digital giclee
At 07:01 PM 12/5/00 -0800, you wrote: Gregg, I am in the market for a new printer and am considering doing more printing digitally of my pinhole photos. > Generally speaking, you get the right color match when setting up and > "calibrating" your monitor and printer, not with each image you print. But > in practice, I tend to make several "test" prints using cheaper paper until > I have what I want, then print on higher quality paper (same as I've always > done in a darkroom). What are some of the "higher quality papers" that you have had success using your printing digital photos? Are you cutting them to fit the printer or are you finding them in standarts sizes? Thanks, -Chuck- Chuck, I took an easy path to go from darkroom to digital darkroom, but it may not have been the best path. So, I wouldn't necessarily recommend it to others. After following several digital/inkjet discussion groups for a year or so, I bought an Epson 1270 last summer. It was much hailed and then much criticized for what it promised but didn't completely deliver. That said, I have been very pleased with mine. I have only used it to print pinhole photos, mostly B&W, but some color. I have not experienced the problems that others have reported (color shift). I use a relatively inexpensive Epson "photo-quality" paper for test prints, and Epson Heavyweight Matte paper for final copies. The reported life span of the matte paper is around 25 years (if you believe Epson). There are other (perhaps better) choices of Epson printers that allow 3rd party inks and papers that you might want to check into, but I do believe that Epson is the brand for photo printing. I'm not aware of any other brand that has even shown an interest the longevity of their prints. As with the rest of computer technology, the longer you wait, the better the product. But, the trade-off is not gaining any hands-on experience. I wouldn't spend too much money to get your feet wet, but you'll know what you want for your next step up. Gregg _ Pinhole Visions at http://www.p at ???
Re: [pinhole-discussion] Re: digital giclee
I use an Epson 1270 printer. Epson's matte paper works well, as does Somerset Velvet, which I get from Inkjetmall.com. - Original Message - From: Chuck Flagg To: Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2000 9:01 PM Subject: Re: [pinhole-discussion] Re: digital giclee > > > Gregg, > I am in the market for a new printer and am considering doing more printing > digitally of my pinhole photos. > > > Generally speaking, you get the right color match when setting up and > > "calibrating" your monitor and printer, not with each image you print. But > > in practice, I tend to make several "test" prints using cheaper paper until > > I have what I want, then print on higher quality paper (same as I've always > > done in a darkroom). > > What are some of the "higher quality papers" that you have had success using > your printing digital photos? Are you cutting them to fit the printer or are > you finding them in standarts sizes? > Thanks, > -Chuck- > > > > > > > > ___ > Pinhole-Discussion mailing list > Pinhole-Discussion@p at ??? > unsubscribe or change your account at > http://www.p at ???/discussion/ >
Re: [pinhole-discussion] Re: digital giclee
Gregg, I am in the market for a new printer and am considering doing more printing digitally of my pinhole photos. > Generally speaking, you get the right color match when setting up and > "calibrating" your monitor and printer, not with each image you print. But > in practice, I tend to make several "test" prints using cheaper paper until > I have what I want, then print on higher quality paper (same as I've always > done in a darkroom). What are some of the "higher quality papers" that you have had success using your printing digital photos? Are you cutting them to fit the printer or are you finding them in standarts sizes? Thanks, -Chuck- > >
Re: [pinhole-discussion] Re: digital giclee
Another suggestion for test printing is to select and copy a strip one inch by the width of your image and paste this into another document used just for test printing. This document should be white or transparent. Use a piece of your good paper to print the test, but save it along with the testprint file for the next test. The next time you need a test print on good paper, copy out another one inch strip and paste it into your test print file next to your last image. Now go to your last image in the layer palate and throw it away. Put your test print paper into your printer (facing the same way as before) and make a test print. Working this way you should be able to get 10 tests on a page, considerably cutting your cost. Gregg Kemp wrote: > At 07:36 AM 12/4/00 -0500, Guy wrote: > >Even then, the current cost of giclee and other archival digital > >printing processes is prohibitive for most people. Think that you have > >to spend several prints (ink + paper) before you get the right color > >match for your print. This can make the final print very expensive and, > >unless you have generous donators or rich clients, it becomes really > >prohibitive. > > Generally speaking, you get the right color match when setting up and > "calibrating" your monitor and printer, not with each image you print. But > in practice, I tend to make several "test" prints using cheaper paper until > I have what I want, then print on higher quality paper (same as I've always > done in a darkroom). > > - Gregg -- Chris Peregoy | http://www.gl.umbc.edu/~peregoy | http://imda.umbc.edu/
Re: [pinhole-discussion] Re: digital giclee
At 07:36 AM 12/4/00 -0500, Guy wrote: The difficulty for photographers shooting and printing color - whether pinhole or, God forbid, glass photography - is the lack of fine art emulsions. Plastic is all you have to print on and there are many times where I was sorry that I did not shoot in B&W so that I could print on nice fiber-based paper. This led me to experiment with my printer on fine art paper. But the lack of archival properties of the inks, until recently, was quite disappointing. Guy - regarding "I was sorry that I did not shoot in B&W", one advantage of digital printing is that you have the option of printing a color image as b&w. Lately I have been shooting color transparency film, scanning, and then converting the image to b&w using Photoshop. Color transparency film has great latitude and works great for b&w digital prints. Even then, the current cost of giclee and other archival digital printing processes is prohibitive for most people. Think that you have to spend several prints (ink + paper) before you get the right color match for your print. This can make the final print very expensive and, unless you have generous donators or rich clients, it becomes really prohibitive. Generally speaking, you get the right color match when setting up and "calibrating" your monitor and printer, not with each image you print. But in practice, I tend to make several "test" prints using cheaper paper until I have what I want, then print on higher quality paper (same as I've always done in a darkroom). - Gregg _ Pinhole Visions at http://www.p at ???
Re: [pinhole-discussion] Re: digital giclee
"Erich C. Decker" wrote: > > Impressive results indeed! But considering the tremendous cost > of new printer, paper and - most of all - the archival inks, > why not continue with high quality silvergelatine papers. > There are enough on the market which are fairly cheap and > still of highest quality. Erich, The difficulty for photographers shooting and printing color - whether pinhole or, God forbid, glass photography - is the lack of fine art emulsions. Plastic is all you have to print on and there are many times where I was sorry that I did not shoot in B&W so that I could print on nice fiber-based paper. This led me to experiment with my printer on fine art paper. But the lack of archival properties of the inks, until recently, was quite disappointing. Even then, the current cost of giclee and other archival digital printing processes is prohibitive for most people. Think that you have to spend several prints (ink + paper) before you get the right color match for your print. This can make the final print very expensive and, unless you have generous donators or rich clients, it becomes really prohibitive. I was quite impressed with your site which I had visited a year or two ago and I was really intrigued with the "lith" section. I have a number of questions relating to availablity of these chemicals for people like me living in Canada but perhaps I should write to you privately on this. Best wishes, Guy Glorieux Montreal, Canada
Re: [pinhole-discussion] Re: digital giclee
Thanks, Tina This is a situation I am all too familiar with, it was just the term "giclee" that threw me. I thought maybe someone had made a breakthrough while I wasn't paying attention. Some day there will be near-continuous tone inkjet printing that allows the use of archival inks on good paper...let us hope. Colin __ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Shopping - Thousands of Stores. Millions of Products. http://shopping.yahoo.com/
Re: [pinhole-discussion] Re: digital giclee
Erich, Your work is fantastic. I have a great respect for it. You are right about staying with conventional photographic chemistry, it still makes the best pictures. A good printer and a computer opens a lot of doors for a hobbyist like myself. I don't have to deal with chemicals. I don't have to work in the dark, and in some way I can still enjoy the art of photography. Years ago I loved to work in the dark room and prints. Max (Oklahoma USA) At 08:09 AM 12/4/00 +0100, you wrote: >Hi, > >Tina Martin wrote to Colin: > > > it's a whole other photographic world! > >Amen to THAT! > >This past summer during the 5th European Fine Arts Forum in >Braunsfels, Germany (about 5 miles away from the Leica home) >I saw the first digital 'giclee' prints on fine paper. > >Impressive results indeed! But considering the tremendous cost >of new printer, paper and - most of all - the archival inks, >why not continue with high quality silvergelatine papers. >There are enough on the market which are fairly cheap and >still of highest quality. > >For mass duplication though, I can see an advantage for the >professional photographer who can "print on demand" while he >works on another project at the same time. There may be an >aspect of saving time. There's no need to be in the darkroom anymore. > >Erich (Mainz, Germany) > > >http://www.fotair.de > >___ >Pinhole-Discussion mailing list >Pinhole-Discussion@p at ??? >unsubscribe or change your account at >http://www.p at ???/discussion/ >
Re: [pinhole-discussion] Re: digital giclee
Hi, Tina Martin wrote to Colin: > it's a whole other photographic world! Amen to THAT! This past summer during the 5th European Fine Arts Forum in Braunsfels, Germany (about 5 miles away from the Leica home) I saw the first digital 'giclee' prints on fine paper. Impressive results indeed! But considering the tremendous cost of new printer, paper and - most of all - the archival inks, why not continue with high quality silvergelatine papers. There are enough on the market which are fairly cheap and still of highest quality. For mass duplication though, I can see an advantage for the professional photographer who can "print on demand" while he works on another project at the same time. There may be an aspect of saving time. There's no need to be in the darkroom anymore. Erich (Mainz, Germany) http://www.fotair.de
[pinhole-discussion] Re: digital giclee
Hi Tina What do you mean by digital giclee prints? I think someone else asked about this. You might want to reply on list. Thanks Colin Hi Colin! Giclee is a "fancy" term used to describe photographic inkjet prints. They were originally produced on Iris proof printers which cost $20,000.0 plus. Over the past few years Epson has come out with a number of printers capable of making real photo quality prints on a wide variety of artist papers such as watercolour. The problem with Epson is that their inks are not very archival at all. However many third party companies producing archival ink for both colour and black and white work soon appeared, and people started filling their own cartridges with the archival ink. The printers range from desktop 8 1/2 x 11 in size up to the epson 9000 which can produce prints about 40" wide and any length. The latest wrinkle is that the newest epson printers have a digital chip in the cartridge to prevent third party non epson ink cartridges from being used. No one is happy about this, and it remains to be seen if Yankee ingenuity can get around it! It looks like Brit ingenuity might do the trick! See: http://www.alogic.co.uk/ILRS.htm The reviews of epson's latest effort to produce an archival ink/paper combination are mixed. It also gets quite expensive if one cannot refill or use a continuous bulk ink system feed. Continuous flow systems are now available for a wide range of Epson printers and are quite affordable ($60-125). Archival color and quadtone inks are also available. I just got a continuous flow system with four 4-ounce ink bottles -- an incredible amount of ink compared to Epsons cartridges. The 16 ounces of ink cost $58. I cannot imagine how many Epson cartridges I would go through to equal that. I was able to get a new Epson 860 printer for $80 (www.outpost.com). Small format (8.5x11"), but the price was right. (The 1160 13x19" printer is now $299.) Continuous flow quadtone system with ink was $120. Both the 860 and 1160 were highly recommended for B&W work. For color, six-tone printers seem to be the preferred route. I got my CFS from http://www.inksupply.com/. Other options are: http://www.tssphoto.com/sp/dg/ http://www.inkjetmall.com/ Lots of good inf at each site. Tom
[pinhole-discussion] Re: digital giclee
Hi Tina What do you mean by digital giclee prints? I think someone else asked about this. You might want to reply on list. Thanks Colin Hi Colin! Giclee is a "fancy" term used to describe photographic inkjet prints. They were originally produced on Iris proof printers which cost $20,000.0 plus. Over the past few years Epson has come out with a number of printers capable of making real photo quality prints on a wide variety of artist papers such as watercolour. The problem with Epson is that their inks are not very archival at all. However many third party companies producing archival ink for both colour and black and white work soon appeared, and people started filling their own cartridges with the archival ink. The printers range from desktop 8 1/2 x 11 in size up to the epson 9000 which can produce prints about 40" wide and any length. The latest wrinkle is that the newest epson printers have a digital chip in the cartridge to prevent third party non epson ink cartridges from being used. No one is happy about this, and it remains to be seen if Yankee ingenuity can get around it! The reviews of epson's latest effort to produce an archival ink/paper combination are mixed. It also gets quite expensive if one cannot refill or use a continuous bulk ink system feed. There are high end service bureaus that produce prints, again quite pricey. I could go on for pages, its a whole other photographic world! From: Colin Talcroft Reply-To: pinhole-discussion@p at ??? To: pinhole-discussion@p at ??? Subject: Re: [pinhole-discussion] new image upload Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2000 23:04:32 -0800 (PST) __ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Shopping - Thousands of Stores. Millions of Products. http://shopping.yahoo.com/ ___ Pinhole-Discussion mailing list Pinhole-Discussion@p at ??? unsubscribe or change your account at http://www.p at ???/discussion/ _ Get more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com
