[filmscanners] RE: Compact Cameras

["LAURIE SOLOMON" <LAURIE@advancenet.net>]

> 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: filmscanners_owner@halftone.co.uk
[mailto:filmscanners_owner@halftone.co.uk] On Behalf Of
lists@lazygranch.com
Sent: Sunday, April 24, 2005 4:44 PM
To: laurie@advancenet.net
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: filmscanners_owner@halftone.co.uk
>>> [mailto:filmscanners_owner@halftone.co.uk] On Behalf Of
>>> lotusm50@sprynet.com Sent: Sunday, April 24, 2005 2:21 PM
>>> To: laurie@advancenet.net
>>> 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 listserver@halftone.co.uk, 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 listserver@halftone.co.uk, 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 listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe 
filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or 
body