Digital BW, The Print

You make a good point on the calibration -- fifteen years ago, we used to
use SuperMatch calibration pucks, which was just about it for cheap
calibration other than Adobe Gamma. Then those were discontinued, SuperMac
went out of business, and I calibrated entirely by eye. I've been looking at
color for over thirty years, handling printing for much of that, and I can
generally get my screen to match my prints and vice versa without a puck.

But that's not necessarily true for the average newbie who's never worked in
the domain -- a puck is inexpensive insurance that the screen is showing you
what you think it is.

Can't say for sure on the V versus the 5000 -- both are probably "good
enough". I use the 5000, replaced an LS1000 with it, and they are worlds
apart in scan quality.

Jim

On 1/2/06 4:09 PM, "DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com"
<DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

> Message: 15      
>    Date: Mon, 02 Jan 2006 17:14:07 -0000
>    From: "djon43" <djon43@...>
> Subject: Re: new to all of this
> 
> Good advice in general, but it's not necessary to invest in any
> devices at all to control color if you're visually acute colorwise,
> the way traditional color printers were.
> 
> Also, consider the Nikon V rather than $400 more for the 5000, both
> 4000ppi...the latter seems over kill, isn't better in any respect than
> the V except speed (V is already very fast @ 2.5min) and irrelevant
> statistics (5000's nominally greater bit depth and Dmax are relevant
> only to publishers, who do their own scanning anyway).
> 
> When considering paper, consider what you intend to do with prints. If
> you intend to hang them under glass any advantage in gloss or
> semigloss is lost.
> 
> If you intend to distribute prints for press releases (rock bands,
> head shots), gloss becomes more relevant. Two glossy papers that seem
> better than Epsons are Moab Kokopelli and, perhaps even better,
> Costco's Kirkland...which has the advantage of being incredibly cheap
> while being very attractive.
> 
> If your prints are not intended for display, just for personal
> purposes, semigloss seems satisfying to many. Personally, I've settled
> for a while on Moab Kayenta for proofing and play, and Moab Entrada
> bright for display at 12X18 etc...both are matte and both are glassed
> when on display.