[filmscanners] Re: Compact Cameras

["" <scott@adrenaline.com>]

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: 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