[Leica] RE: Digital FIBER Prints

[cochranpr at mac.com (David Cochran)]

I am no expert here but I want to say this.

I purchased sometime ago an EPSON R300. I wanted the, then new EPSON 
1200 but could not afford it...still can't afford it.

So I purchased a bunch of different papers to try them on my printer. I 
use the EPSON inks. I began an interesting journey of how to make good 
prints on my new printer. It was fun and taught me a lot about what is 
it out there in terms of marketing vs quality.

The thing that I learned was to calibrate my computer screen with a 
simple technique that was featured in View Camera Magazine. It is an 
"eyeball" and Photoshop thing.
You make a gray chart that you then print on your particular printer, 
then you scan on your particular scanner, you then view it with your 
particular screen and in Photoshop work with the "curves" until 
everything matches, more or less. The technique was more for the 
application of making digital negatives for contact printing in a wet 
lab.

All of this to say that I really did not spend too much money on this, 
if I decide for a wet lab it is going to be very expensive compared to 
using what i already have.
One thing I did find out, for regular prints I would go to the local 
Lab and have them print my digital files on photo paper with chemistry, 
much more cheaper and better quality than my printer.


peace

On Nov 12, 2005, at 11:35 AM, Ted Grant wrote:

> Subject: Re: [Leica] RE: Digital FIBER Prints
>
>
>> Norm Aubin wrote:
>> Then there's inks - MIS quad tones - Piezo inks (so to speak), EPSON 
>> inks, and others yet.  So how do you sort this all out?  At least 
>> with papers you can see a lot of other folks work and get a feel for 
>> what the papers look like - and what the various developers do to 
>> those papers.
>
>> Here in this brave new world of infinite possibilities it's daunting 
>> - at
>> least in the fiber world we had the works of a generation or two of
>> photographers helping us sort the wheat from the chaff.  Now we have 
>> to
>> start over: it's exciting, but it's time consuming and fraught with 
>> lots of
>> ways to fail.  >>
>
> "Nathan Wajsman responded:
>> I don't think it is that different than with film. Let's say, 10 
>> years ago, before the digital revolution started decimating the ranks 
>> of film/chemicals/paper makers, you could also go crazy trying to 
>> figure out which film, which developer, which paper, which paper 
>> developer etc. The solution then, as now, is to find something you 
>> like and stick with it, unless something new comes along that is 
>> absolutely compelling.
>>
>> For me that meant that I had a default film for each speed (Fuji 
>> Acros for 100, Tri-X for 400 and Fuji Neopan for 1600) and my default 
>> developer, XTOL. Now in the digital world, I similarly stick to Epson 
>> Matte Heavyweight and MIS inks (I am obviously talking B&W here) is 
>> my combination, although I will try the Hahnem?hle papers too in the 
>> near future.
>
>> Unless you find a personal standard and stay with it, more or less, 
>> you'll end up spending all your time on testing rather than on 
>> photography.<<<
>
> Hi Norm & Nathan,
> We can all relate to the paper digital ink printer dilemma as we 
> who've done wet tray printing for many many years, this digital-ink 
> jet thing is like starting all over.
>
> We knew what we liked coming out of the wet tray, the look, the paper 
> & feel when dry. Then along comes digital and it's a whole new ball 
> game as we became rookies again. Yep digital inkjet is a new learning 
> curve and to some degree the internet, as helpful as it is at times,  
> can also be very confusing! WHY?
>
> Well 20 thousand people give you all the versions of how they think 
> ink-papers should be and that becomes confusing. In the olden days a 
> buddy or a small camera club had a few folks who were pretty damn good 
> printers.
>
> The choices of film, developer, paper were pretty limited so it was 
> much easier all round. Not to forget, it was much cheaper. ;-)
>
> Today? Holy mackerel there's a gazillion kinds of printers, inks and 
> paper and like I said, twenty thousand people giving advice off the 
> screen, not to forget camera clubs are now... "near all experts of 
> confusion."
>
> As Nathan says wisely, "pick one, work with it, beat the hell out of 
> it learning how to squeeze the very best out of it." Then try 
> something else if you're so inclined. But don't jump all over the 
> place "changing papers, inks and machines mid-stream" because all 
> you'll do is become more confused and never satisfied. The only thing 
> you'll become good at is wasting your money testing all the time.
>
> Wise words Nathan, thanks.
>
> Oh yeah and to add to the paper confusion. ;-) Have any of you tried? 
> "MUSEO" fine art paper by Crane? And of course ;-) it's beautiful & 
> expensive.
>
> ted
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information