[Leica] Re: Leica Users digest V12 #41

["Robert Jones" <drrjones@flashcom.net>]

- ----------
>From: owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us (Leica Users digest)
>To: leica-users-digest@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
>Subject: Leica Users digest V12 #41
>Date: Tue, Oct 5, 1999, 11:43 AM
>

> I'm going to upgrade my printer soon, as well.  Have you compared the
> output between the 1200 and the 3000?  Are you satisfied that the 3
> color+B&W inks of the 3000 equal the performance of the 4 color+B&W of the
> 1200.  Any other considerations than the capacity of the ink cartridges?
>
> Thanks for any feedback that you can give me.
>
> Chandos

Chandos,

I've been using the Epson 1200 for a few months. The results are simply
outstanding. Optimum output from it is obtained when you set the dpi of your
image to an integral divisor of the printer's output (1440); going above 480
doesn't seem to help, so I typically use 360 for larger prints and 480 for
smaller ones. As far as enlargements then go, you can back calculate the
required scan: for a 10x enlargement (8x10) from a 35mm frame when printing
at 360 dpi, you should scan at around 3600 dpi (for the longer side). This
will minimize pixelation and give a clarity that resolves around 6 - 8 lpm
as does silver based prints.

As for cost, when I've printed larger 12" x 17" images on 13x19 Pictorico
paper, I've calculated it costs me at most $4 for ink (Epson) and $2 for the
paper. I've also begun using the MIS Quadtones inks; they are very good. One
comment about inks, be careful swapping them; it resets the software
monitoring of the ink levels by the computer allowing one to run a cartridge
dry, leading to air in the lines. I solved this problem by having a second
printer just for B&W.

You might be interested in a couple of tests I recently ran on B&W and color
films. I ran an informal test comparing 35mm Fuji Superia Reala 100 (pro
version), digitally converted to B&W, to 35mm Ilford's Delta 100. The former
was locally processed; the latter I processed in Xtol.

I shot the same scene with the same lenses (15 mm Heliar and 1.4/35 Summilux
ASPH) using two similar bodies (M6s), one with each of the above films
(these images were taken a few weeks ago at the Grand Palace in Brussels;
sorry we missed meeting Nathan). I scanned both on the Polaroid 4000 dpi
unit, trying to optimize each at the time of the scans. The Fuji film was
scanned as color negative and the Ilford as B&W negative materials, both at
4000 dpi. (This Polaroid unit is truly excellent unit; perhaps not as good
as the Imacon, but it's about 1/10 the price.)

Once in PhotoShop, I did tried 3 different conversions on the Fuji film:
the Grayscale menu item (the auto-conversion function as I understand was
changed for version 5.5 to use different ratios of the RGB channels); a
manually tuned one using a selected channel (in this case the Red channel
gave the best result); and finally converting the image to LAB and taking
the Lightness channel for the B&W image. The latter two methods were
subsequently adjusted as necessary to optimize the images. The best result
for color to B&W conversion seemed to be using the PS
Grayscale menu item.

Now as to the comparison between the two films, there is very little
difference. The tonality seems identical as does the resolution. At this
point, I definitely do not see any reason to continue using B&W film if I'm
going to process my images digitally. (In fact, I've stopped using any
filters on my lenses since their effect on image can be reproduced in the
computer.)

With the newest Fuji slide film (100F) that I just tried this past week, the
results should be even finer that the Delta 100 once converted to B&W. The
100F is incredibly fine grained with very good skin tones, bright colors,
and excellent shadow detail (this latter aspect is something I've always
found sorely lacking in Velvia).

I hope this helps. If not please email me.

Robert Jones
California