[filmscanners] RE: Compact Cameras

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

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: filmscanners_owner@halftone.co.uk
[mailto:filmscanners_owner@halftone.co.uk] On Behalf Of
scott@adrenaline.com
Sent: Sunday, April 24, 2005 7:47 PM
To: laurie@advancenet.net
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: 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




--
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