Apache-Talk @lexa.ru 

Inet-Admins @info.east.ru 

Filmscanners @halftone.co.uk 

Security-alerts @yandex-team.ru 

nginx-ru @sysoev.ru 

   


   


   















      :: Filmscanners
Filmscanners mailing list archive (filmscanners@halftone.co.uk)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[filmscanners] Re: Compact Cameras



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: 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



 




Copyright © Lexa Software, 1996-2009.