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 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 >> >> > > > > >-- >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
