Digital BW, The Print

Hi All,
         I recently found this groups and am intrigued by the idea of 
making B&W prints on my own.  I haven't yet switched to digital capture but 
I also don't have the space for a darkroom so this seems like a great 
solution.  My questions to the group are:

What would you all recommend as an affordable basic setup consisting of a 
printer, inks, papers, software, and perhaps a scanner?

Are there any resources such as a FAQ that go through to get the basic 
concepts down?

I guess I consider myself an impassioned amateur photographer and my 
shooting consists of travel, outdoors, and some people.  I'm a IT person 
who works with MAC's and PC's so I hope that I can contribute to the group 
if anyone has any computer issues.  I'm a total novice to digital photo 
work, so I won't have much to offer in that area yet.

Thanks in advance for any help or suggestions.


Take care,

Jim

Hello Jim,

>What would you all recommend as an affordable basic setup 
>consisting of a printer, inks, papers, software, and perhaps 
>a scanner?
> 
>Are there any resources such as a FAQ that go through to get 
>the basic concepts down?

Good questions.  It would take a book to answer them thoroughly,
and there are no absolutes to any of this.  There are lots of options
and they are growing.  The articles at the link listed below have some
basic getting started info.

Regards,
Clayton


Info on black and white digital printing at    
http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm

Jim  -
 
First of all, if you want to get the best results and most enjoyment from this, you must be well grounded in the processes of making a photographic print. Secondly, try to get a REAL reading on the financial commitment you want to make in this process.  Thirdly, you also must understand how b&w printing, and how much color you will do, and for what purposes.  The last two points are key in determining which hardware/software you acquire.  For instance, RIP's can make life much easier, and the printing process can go well right out of the box, but they tend to be expensive ($300-$2500 or so, depending on the printer(s)). But, if you are going to do equal amounts of b&w and color you will probably either need to use the manufacturer's drivers, or buy a RIP.  If you're going to concentrate on b&w, there is a tremendous amount of information available on this forum that will help you get into it for a very modest amount of money, but with more work and sweat on your part.  Be sure to
 keep in mind that spending more money will not guarantee better end results than you can get with the products/processes discussed on this forum that won't cost you your life savings. 
 
However you go, welcome to an evolving process that is great fun to work with.
 
Tom Baker
 

Jim Mooney <jmooney776@...> wrote:
Hi All,
         I recently found this groups and am intrigued by the idea of 
making B&W prints on my own.  I haven't yet switched to digital capture but 
I also don't have the space for a darkroom so this seems like a great 
solution.  My questions to the group are:

What would you all recommend as an affordable basic setup consisting of a 
printer, inks, papers, software, and perhaps a scanner?

Are there any resources such as a FAQ that go through to get the basic 
concepts down?

I guess I consider myself an impassioned amateur photographer and my 
shooting consists of travel, outdoors, and some people.  I'm a IT person 
who works with MAC's and PC's so I hope that I can contribute to the group 
if anyone has any computer issues.  I'm a total novice to digital photo 
work, so I won't have much to offer in that area yet.

Thanks in advance for any help or suggestions.


Take care,

Jim




Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint

If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same page.

Please follow these basic guidelines:
- Include your full name with your message.
- Include the address of your website, if you have one.
- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep them short.
- As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames
- Complete your Yahoo profile.
- Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various resources on the homepage. 




Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. 



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

In no way minimizing the great pointers so far about where to do
research, I sense you're looking for ideas on specifically what to
buy. I'm a year into this, very happy and not seeing a need for an
equipment upgrade. My thoughts:

Epson 1280 printer - a rock solid simple functional workhorse. Get a
refurb directly from Epson (about $350) as they are essentially new
and have warranty. Remember 99% of digital printers use Epsons. 

Inks from MIS - either Ultra Tone or Full Spectrum Neutral for the
Epson Driver. widely used, great support both from MIS and on this
site. They use free curves & workflows available on the MIS site or
here. Buy them in carts. 

Paper - Epson Enhanced Matte or Epson Heavy Weight Matte. Reasonably
low cost and works very well. You'll go through a lot. 

Film Scanner - for 35mm, The Minolta Scan Dual III should do
everything you need for a long time. Great cost / performance ratio. I
think they're about $300 now. (B&H has always been a reliable supplier
for me)

Software: Photoshop is used by probably 98+% of digital printers.
Although Adobe Elements will get you going. Just don't spend time
learning a version of Photoshop earlier than 7. The earlier versions
work well but your major investment will be in time learning how to
use it, not money to buy it. Learning how to use Photoshop is the
biggest part of the learning curve in making digital prints. Count
your blessings that you're an IT pro. 

bottom line: just buy the stuff and start making prints. Learning how
to improve is a lot more motivating than doing research. 

Bob Michaels

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Jim Mooney
<jmooney776@c...> wrote:
> Hi All,
>          I recently found this groups and am intrigued by the idea of 
> making B&W prints on my own.  I haven't yet switched to digital
capture but 
> I also don't have the space for a darkroom so this seems like a great 
> solution.  My questions to the group are:
> 
> What would you all recommend as an affordable basic setup consisting
of a 
> printer, inks, papers, software, and perhaps a scanner?
> 
> Are there any resources such as a FAQ that go through to get the basic 
> concepts down?
> 
> I guess I consider myself an impassioned amateur photographer and my 
> shooting consists of travel, outdoors, and some people.  I'm a IT
person 
> who works with MAC's and PC's so I hope that I can contribute to the
group 

> if anyone has any computer issues.  I'm a total novice to digital photo 
> work, so I won't have much to offer in that area yet.
> 
> Thanks in advance for any help or suggestions.
> 
> 
> Take care,
> 
> Jim

Hi Tom and All,


>First of all, if you want to get the best results and most enjoyment from 
>this, you must be well grounded in the processes of making a photographic 
>print.

I am working on that as we speak and will be taking a class in the spring 
on tractional printing methods.


>  Secondly, try to get a REAL reading on the financial commitment you want 
> to make in this process.

This is one of the reasons I asked for recommendations on setups, because 
I'm pretty clueless as to what all I need.  I guess I'm looking to 
determine the scope of the gear needed so I can make an educated decision.


>Thirdly, you also must understand how b&w printing, and how much color you 
>will do, and for what purposes.  The last two points are key in 
>determining which hardware/software you acquire.

For the foreseeable future my printing will be strictly B&W for the purpose 
of displaying in my home, giving as gifts and sale at craft fairs perhaps.


>  For instance, RIP's can make life much easier, and the printing process 
> can go well right out of the box, but they tend to be expensive 
> ($300-$2500 or so, depending on the printer(s)). But, if you are going to 
> do equal amounts of b&w and color you will probably either need to use 
> the manufacturer's drivers, or buy a RIP.

Could you define what a RIP is?  I'm not quite sure


>  If you're going to concentrate on b&w, there is a tremendous amount of 
> information available on this forum that will help you get into it for a 
> very modest amount of money, but with more work and sweat on your 
> part.  Be sure to
>  keep in mind that spending more money will not guarantee better end 
> results than you can get with the products/processes discussed on this 
> forum that won't cost you your life savings.

I don't mind the work at all, and I would rather invest sweat than money 
:)  Seriously, that is what I'm hoping to achieve: the best results 
possible at a reasonable cost


>
>However you go, welcome to an evolving process that is great fun to work with.

Thank you for your advice and the warm welcome.

Take care,

Jim

>
>Tom Baker
>
>
>Jim Mooney <jmooney776@...> wrote:
>Hi All,
>          I recently found this groups and am intrigued by the idea of
>making B&W prints on my own.  I haven't yet switched to digital capture but
>I also don't have the space for a darkroom so this seems like a great
>solution.  My questions to the group are:
>
>What would you all recommend as an affordable basic setup consisting of a
>printer, inks, papers, software, and perhaps a scanner?
>
>Are there any resources such as a FAQ that go through to get the basic
>concepts down?
>
>I guess I consider myself an impassioned amateur photographer and my
>shooting consists of travel, outdoors, and some people.  I'm a IT person
>who works with MAC's and PC's so I hope that I can contribute to the group
>if anyone has any computer issues.  I'm a total novice to digital photo
>work, so I won't have much to offer in that area yet.
>
>Thanks in advance for any help or suggestions.
>
>
>Take care,
>
>Jim
>
>
>
>
>Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
>Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and 
>other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
>
>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>
>If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to 
>unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same 
>page.
>
>Please follow these basic guidelines:
>- Include your full name with your message.
>- Include the address of your website, if you have one.
>- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep 
>them short.
>- As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
>- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames
>- Complete your Yahoo profile.
>- Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various 
>resources on the homepage.
>
>
>
>
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
>
>
>
>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and 
>other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
>
>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>
>If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to 
>unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same 
>page.
>
>Please follow these basic guidelines:
>- Include your full name with your message.
>- Include the address of your website, if you have one.
>- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep 
>them short.
>- As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
>- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames
>- Complete your Yahoo profile.
>- Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various 
>resources on the homepage.
>
>
>
>
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Hi Bob and All,

>In no way minimizing the great pointers so far about where to do
>research, I sense you're looking for ideas on specifically what to
>buy. I'm a year into this, very happy and not seeing a need for an
>equipment upgrade. My thoughts:
>
>Epson 1280 printer - a rock solid simple functional workhorse. Get a
>refurb directly from Epson (about $350) as they are essentially new
>and have warranty. Remember 99% of digital printers use Epsons.
>
>Inks from MIS - either Ultra Tone or Full Spectrum Neutral for the
>Epson Driver. widely used, great support both from MIS and on this
>site. They use free curves & workflows available on the MIS site or
>here. Buy them in carts.

Thanks for the suggestions.  By buying cartridges for the Epson driver do 
you mean that they are designed to work with the print driver written by 
Epson for that model vs. a third party driver?  As far as buy the ink is 
cartridges are there may options other than the standard cartridges?  Are 
they more difficult to manage?



>Paper - Epson Enhanced Matte or Epson Heavy Weight Matte. Reasonably
>low cost and works very well. You'll go through a lot.

Is this paper available in the major chain office supply stores or am I 
better off searching at my photo dealer?



>Film Scanner - for 35mm, The Minolta Scan Dual III should do
>everything you need for a long time. Great cost / performance ratio. I
>think they're about $300 now. (B&H has always been a reliable supplier
>for me)

I was already eyeing this one, I had reas several reviews of it and they 
all spoke pretty highly of it's performance.



>Software: Photoshop is used by probably 98+% of digital printers.
>Although Adobe Elements will get you going. Just don't spend time
>learning a version of Photoshop earlier than 7. The earlier versions
>work well but your major investment will be in time learning how to
>use it, not money to buy it. Learning how to use Photoshop is the
>biggest part of the learning curve in making digital prints. Count
>your blessings that you're an IT pro.

I have elements now but I'll plan to upgrade to PS 7, I assumed that was 
what most used, it pretty much seems to be the standard for digital photo work.



>bottom line: just buy the stuff and start making prints. Learning how
>to improve is a lot more motivating than doing research.

Thanks for all the info.
Take care,

Jim Mooney

>Bob Michaels
>
>--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Jim Mooney
><jmooney776@c...> wrote:
> > Hi All,
> >          I recently found this groups and am intrigued by the idea of
> > making B&W prints on my own.  I haven't yet switched to digital
>capture but
> > I also don't have the space for a darkroom so this seems like a great
> > solution.  My questions to the group are:
> >
> > What would you all recommend as an affordable basic setup consisting
>of a
> > printer, inks, papers, software, and perhaps a scanner?
> >
> > Are there any resources such as a FAQ that go through to get the basic
> > concepts down?
> >
> > I guess I consider myself an impassioned amateur photographer and my
> > shooting consists of travel, outdoors, and some people.  I'm a IT
>person
> > who works with MAC's and PC's so I hope that I can contribute to the
>group
> > if anyone has any computer issues.  I'm a total novice to digital photo
> > work, so I won't have much to offer in that area yet.
> >
> > Thanks in advance for any help or suggestions.
> >
> >
> > Take care,
> >
> > Jim
>
>
>
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Hi AZ,
         I do 99% of my stuff in 35mm, other 1% is 120.  I might be moving 
up to 4X5 but not for at least a year or two.

Thanks,

Jim Mooney

> >
> >Thanks in advance for any help or suggestions.
> >
> >
> >Take care,
> >
> >Jim
>
>Jim,
>
>Need to know the format you expect to use for your digital darkroom to give
>decent advice.
>
>AZ
>
>
>Build a Lookaround!
>The Lookaround Book, 2nd ed.
>NOW SHIPPING
>http://www.panoramacamera.us

At 09:44 PM 11/5/03 -0500, you wrote:
>Hi All,
>          I recently found this groups and am intrigued by the idea of
>making B&W prints on my own.  I haven't yet switched to digital capture but
>I also don't have the space for a darkroom so this seems like a great
>solution.  My questions to the group are:
>
>What would you all recommend as an affordable basic setup consisting of a
>printer, inks, papers, software, and perhaps a scanner?
>
>Are there any resources such as a FAQ that go through to get the basic
>concepts down?
>
>I guess I consider myself an impassioned amateur photographer and my
>shooting consists of travel, outdoors, and some people.  I'm a IT person
>who works with MAC's and PC's so I hope that I can contribute to the group
>if anyone has any computer issues.  I'm a total novice to digital photo
>work, so I won't have much to offer in that area yet.
>
>Thanks in advance for any help or suggestions.
>
>
>Take care,
>
>Jim

Jim,

Need to know the format you expect to use for your digital darkroom to give 
decent advice.

AZ


Build a Lookaround!
The Lookaround Book, 2nd ed.
NOW SHIPPING
http://www.panoramacamera.us

Jim -
 
From a functional perspective:  A RIP (Raster Image Processor) is an additional piece of software that "translates" the image file that you would work with in Photoshop, or some other image program, from the image file format to a format that is presented to your printer.  This function is normally performed by the software shipped with a printer.  RIP's however, tend to be more specific in their intent, where the software provided by the manufacture is a more general purpose oriented.  For this reason, if you are doing photographs, certain RIPS will almost always out perform the manufacturer's general purpose software.  This seems to be particularly true if you are doing only b&w.
 
The good news, if you're doing only b&w, is that there are several alternatives to RIP's that range in cost from free to very inexpensive.  That is where the strength of this forum comes in.  (Personally, I print on an Epson 9600 with a RIP called "Imageprint".  An expensive solution for sure.  But, I print both b&w and color.)  Members of this forum are directly involved in developing and originating the type of solution you should be very happy with.  Since I don't use these, I should leave that part of the discussion to others.  Rest assured that there are true experts on this forum that can provide you with all the info you will need to get going, and probably pretty quickly. 
 
Tom Baker

Jim Mooney <jmooney776@...> wrote:
Hi Tom and All,


>First of all, if you want to get the best results and most enjoyment from 
>this, you must be well grounded in the processes of making a photographic 
>print.

I am working on that as we speak and will be taking a class in the spring 
on tractional printing methods.


>  Secondly, try to get a REAL reading on the financial commitment you want 
> to make in this process.

This is one of the reasons I asked for recommendations on setups, because 
I'm pretty clueless as to what all I need.  I guess I'm looking to 
determine the scope of the gear needed so I can make an educated decision.


>Thirdly, you also must understand how b&w printing, and how much color you 
>will do, and for what purposes.  The last two points are key in 
>determining which hardware/software you acquire.

For the foreseeable future my printing will be strictly B&W for the purpose 
of displaying in my home, giving as gifts and sale at craft fairs perhaps.


>  For instance, RIP's can make life much easier, and the printing process 
> can go well right out of the box, but they tend to be expensive 
> ($300-$2500 or so, depending on the printer(s)). But, if you are going to 
> do equal amounts of b&w and color you will probably either need to use 
> the manufacturer's drivers, or buy a RIP.

Could you define what a RIP is?  I'm not quite sure


>  If you're going to concentrate on b&w, there is a tremendous amount of 
> information available on this forum that will help you get into it for a 
> very modest amount of money, but with more work and sweat on your 
> part.  Be sure to
>  keep in mind that spending more money will not guarantee better end 
> results than you can get with the products/processes discussed on this 
> forum that won't cost you your life savings.

I don't mind the work at all, and I would rather invest sweat than money 
:)  Seriously, that is what I'm hoping to achieve: the best results 
possible at a reasonable cost


>
>However you go, welcome to an evolving process that is great fun to work with.

Thank you for your advice and the warm welcome.

Take care,

Jim





>
>Tom Baker
>
>
>Jim Mooney <jmooney776@...> wrote:
>Hi All,
>          I recently found this groups and am intrigued by the idea of
>making B&W prints on my own.  I haven't yet switched to digital capture but
>I also don't have the space for a darkroom so this seems like a great
>solution.  My questions to the group are:
>
>What would you all recommend as an affordable basic setup consisting of a
>printer, inks, papers, software, and perhaps a scanner?
>
>Are there any resources such as a FAQ that go through to get the basic
>concepts down?
>
>I guess I consider myself an impassioned amateur photographer and my
>shooting consists of travel, outdoors, and some people.  I'm a IT person
>who works with MAC's and PC's so I hope that I can contribute to the group
>if anyone has any computer issues.  I'm a total novice to digital photo
>work, so I won't have much to offer in that area yet.
>
>Thanks in advance for any help or suggestions.
>
>
>Take care,
>
>Jim
>
>
>
>
>Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
>Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and 
>other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
>
>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>
>If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to 
>unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same 
>page.
>
>Please follow these basic guidelines:
>- Include your full name with your message.
>- Include the address of your website, if you have one.
>- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep 
>them short.
>- As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
>- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames
>- Complete your Yahoo profile.
>- Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various 
>resources on the homepage.
>
>
>
>
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
>
>
>
>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and 
>other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
>
>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>
>If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to 
>unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same 
>page.
>
>Please follow these basic guidelines:
>- Include your full name with your message.
>- Include the address of your website, if you have one.
>- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep 
>them short.
>- As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
>- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames
>- Complete your Yahoo profile.
>- Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various 
>resources on the homepage.
>
>
>
>
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint

If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same page.

Please follow these basic guidelines:
- Include your full name with your message.
- Include the address of your website, if you have one.
- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep them short.
- As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames
- Complete your Yahoo profile.
- Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various resources on the homepage. 




Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. 



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Jim,

> What would you all recommend as an affordable basic setup
>consisting of a printer, inks, papers, software, and perhaps a scanner?

I just finished my "affordable & easy" printer project.  I've been
determined to bring archival B&W to even non-technical types for as little
initial $ outlay as possible, and I think it's done.  My target has been the
genealogists and scrapbook makers who need to be able to copy, restore, and
archival old family photos, but this is a solution that is also ideal for
anyone who wants a simple, basic but very good archival printing system.
(Have you noticed how many of the people who lost their homes to fire
mentioned the loss of their old family photos as most heart-breaking.  The
valuable old ones should have been copied and given to relatives.  It's the
best insurance.)

While the Epson 1280 with MIS Ultra Tone ("UT") inks is the most flexible,
state-of-the-art combination, the Epson C82 with UT-derived inks is the
affordable, easy way to go.

With the C82 there are no RIPs or special software.  Just print the B&W
files from any application.  There are some Epson driver settings that
matter (EEM paper type, "Best Photo", ICM, No Color Adjustment, High Speed
off).  But this is about as simple as it gets.

The C82 is at the end of it's life cycle, but they are still available from
$69.  Epson probably has refurbished ones and others have new ones.  The
refurbs are as good as new and covered by a new warranty.

The C82 is made for pigmented inks, using the Epson Durabrite inks for
color.  These are as durable as (probably the same as) the Epson UltraChrome
color pigments.  For color, these are fine for archival storage and display.
They have a 70+ year display life.

The inks for B&W are from MIS (www.inksupply.com).  They are based on the
Ultra Tone inks.  This is a pigmented inkset which uses predominantly carbon
black.  For the warm C82 ink, the UT light cyan is perfect.  It goes into
all the color positions of the C82.  The black ink is MIS Eboni.

For a neutral (slight "selenium" tone), I've just finished the formula.  It
basically ads 14% blue (cyan + magenta pigments) to the UT medium gray.

MIS will pre-load these inks into cartridges and, I assume, also sell them
as bulk inks.  I expect them to load the carts ASAP.

These inks, in the UT or raw form, have been more fade resistant in my
initial fade testing than have the Epson Archival inks, which have been
rated at 200+ years of display life by Epson.  The carbon ink in the UT
inkset will probably last longer than our civilization when printed on
buffered cotton paper and stored appropriately; they are very archival from
what I can tell.

The best papers for the system are Epson Enhanced Matte for medium term,
very affordable display.  (It's acidic, so it's rated at only 110 years of
dark storage by Wilhelm.  High humidity and temperature could shorten this
significantly.  It's my main paper for general printing.)  For a cotton
paper that should be archival, Hahnemuhle PhotoRag is the most popular and
what I recommend for the C82.  It gives a dmax of 1.60, which is very
competitive for a cotton paper.  www.MediaStreet.com sells this as "Royal
Renaissance" for a reasonable price.

For the old-photo restoration folks, Epson and Canon both have good flatbed
scanners for about $50.  If you do film get a 4000 dpi Nikon or equivalent.

For basic, affordable image editing the $50 version of Picture Window seems
to be the way to go.  A trial program can be downloaded from Digital Light &
Color at http://www.dl-c.com/Temp/.  One advantage to this program is that
is can use the Photoshop image adjustment curves that are needed to control
many of the more complex, partitioned B&W inksets if you want to migrate to,
for example, the 1280 & UT inkset for large (13") paper.

Enjoy the journey.

Paul
http://www.PaulRoark.com

At 11:09 AM 11/6/03 -0500, you wrote:
>Hi AZ,
>          I do 99% of my stuff in 35mm, other 1% is 120.  I might be moving
>up to 4X5 but not for at least a year or two.
>
>Thanks,
>
>Jim Mooney

Jim,

I agree that choosing the 1280 is a no-brainer for printing.  If you expect 
to be scanning 35 and larger I love my Epson3200 - check the  digital 
darkroom section of my web page for details. Many would suggest a new or 
used dedicated 35mm scanner if that's all you'll be doing for a while. I am 
very satisfied with the piezo plug-in but have seen some good work done 
with Roark curves.  With either there is plenty of support which is THE 
most important thing.  A RIP is unnecessary for B/W quad work. But there 
may come a time when their cost will seem reasonable to you to achieve 
painless B/W prints with OEM, RGBK inks.

AZ

Build a Lookaround!
The Lookaround Book, 2nd ed.
NOW SHIPPING
http://www.panoramacamera.us

Jim: I forgot to mention that you can buy an Epson 890 for $159 now
from Epson. Same as 1280 but prints no bigger than 8.5x11". Actually
that's big enough if price is a factor. Just go buy one. 

Inks from MIS in carts are just like the Epson carts but have varying
tones of black instead of color. Two variations (not exclusive) You
can buy inks that require the $150 Peizo (aka Cone) driver but the
inks are about 2X as much. Some love them. You can do without them. 
You can also use ink in bottles that feed into special carts via
tubes. (CFS or Continous Flow System) This allows you to buy ink in
4oz bottles. But that setup costs about $200. This is for later maybe.
See www.inksupply.com 

I swear by film scanners but some are happy with a high end flatbed.
see www.scantips.com for a load of scanning info. 

Epson Ehanced Matte or Epson Heavyweight Matte is available at CompUSA
and most good photo shops. cheapest on line at www.atlex.com

Photoshop Elements will do for a start. But it's good to plan on
buying Photoshop eventually. 

Consider Black Only printing (using just one Black ink, the regular
Epson black works) see http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm

Bottom line (again): buy something and start printing. Don't spend too
much time analyzing. An Epson 1280 or 890 will take you a long ways.
You can buy inks later. You can use Photoshop Elements for a while.
Consider a used film scanner if money is tight. Just do it. 

Bob Michaels

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Jim Mooney
<jmooney776@c...> wrote:
> Hi Bob and All,
> 
> >In no way minimizing the great pointers so far about where to do
> >research, I sense you're looking for ideas on specifically what to
> >buy. I'm a year into this, very happy and not seeing a need for an
> >equipment upgrade. My thoughts:
> >
> >Epson 1280 printer - a rock solid simple functional workhorse. Get a
> >refurb directly from Epson (about $350) as they are essentially new
> >and have warranty. Remember 99% of digital printers use Epsons.
> >
> >Inks from MIS - either Ultra Tone or Full Spectrum Neutral for the
> >Epson Driver. widely used, great support both from MIS and on this
> >site. They use free curves & workflows available on the MIS site or
> >here. Buy them in carts.
> 
> Thanks for the suggestions.  By buying cartridges for the Epson
driver do 
> you mean that they are designed to work with the print driver
written by 
> Epson for that model vs. a third party driver?  As far as buy the
ink is 
> cartridges are there may options other than the standard cartridges?
 Are 
> they more difficult to manage?
> 
> 
> 
> >Paper - Epson Enhanced Matte or Epson Heavy Weight Matte. Reasonably
> >low cost and works very well. You'll go through a lot.
> 
> Is this paper available in the major chain office supply stores or am I 
> better off searching at my photo dealer?
> 
> 
> 
> >Film Scanner - for 35mm, The Minolta Scan Dual III should do
> >everything you need for a long time. Great cost / performance ratio. I
> >think they're about $300 now. (B&H has always been a reliable supplier
> >for me)
> 
> I was already eyeing this one, I had reas several reviews of it and
they 
> all spoke pretty highly of it's performance.
> 
> 
> 
> >Software: Photoshop is used by probably 98+% of digital printers.
> >Although Adobe Elements will get you going. Just don't spend time
> >learning a version of Photoshop earlier than 7. The earlier versions
> >work well but your major investment will be in time learning how to
> >use it, not money to buy it. Learning how to use Photoshop is the
> >biggest part of the learning curve in making digital prints. Count
> >your blessings that you're an IT pro.
> 
> I have elements now but I'll plan to upgrade to PS 7, I assumed that
was 
> what most used, it pretty much seems to be the standard for digital
photo work.
> 
> 
> 
> >bottom line: just buy the stuff and start making prints. Learning how
> >to improve is a lot more motivating than doing research.
> 
> Thanks for all the info.
> Take care,
> 
> Jim Mooney
> 
> 
> 
> 
> >Bob Michaels
> >
> >--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Jim Mooney
> ><jmooney776@c...> wrote:
> > > Hi All,
> > >          I recently found this groups and am intrigued by the
idea of
> > > making B&W prints on my own.  I haven't yet switched to digital
> >capture but
> > > I also don't have the space for a darkroom so this seems like a
great
> > > solution.  My questions to the group are:
> > >
> > > What would you all recommend as an affordable basic setup consisting
> >of a
> > > printer, inks, papers, software, and perhaps a scanner?
> > >
> > > Are there any resources such as a FAQ that go through to get the
basic
> > > concepts down?
> > >
> > > I guess I consider myself an impassioned amateur photographer and my
> > > shooting consists of travel, outdoors, and some people.  I'm a IT
> >person
> > > who works with MAC's and PC's so I hope that I can contribute to the
> >group
> > > if anyone has any computer issues.  I'm a total novice to
digital photo
> > > work, so I won't have much to offer in that area yet.
> > >
> > > Thanks in advance for any help or suggestions.
> > >
> > >
> > > Take care,
> > >
> > > Jim
> >
> >
> >
> >Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

as the red-headed stepchild of the list I'd like you to also consider
the hp 7960.  i have retired my 1280 with various MIS inks in favor for
anything up to 8x10.  the big pros, other than the b&w print quality are
the ability to also print colour (without a rip), you can buy cartridges
at most office stores, the fact that it prints glossy and that it does
all that out of the box.  main downside to me (other than the size
restriction) is that to achieve the 73 years longevity that willhelm
labs rated it  at you have to use hp's premium plus paper, which is nice
but doesn't leave you much choice.  i'm really excited about hp coming
onto the market.  it makes me hope that there are plans for a large
scale higher end printer.  judging from what this little $300.- job can
do out of the box, i'm scared to think what they could offer for
$3,000.-.
 
cheers,
 
boris
 
www.bawphoto.com
 
ps:  don't mistake this post for epson-bashing.  i still like epson.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I use an Epson 1160 with MIS VM inks and am getting great prints, but 
I am definitely keeping my eye on the HP developments... have been 
hearing great things about the 7960 from a lot of sources.

mark

PS  Amazon.com has the 7960 for $280 and you get a coupon for $50 
toward any digital camera... don't know all the details... 

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Boris 
Wiedenfeld" <boris@b...> wrote:
> as the red-headed stepchild of the list I'd like you to also 
consider
> the hp 7960.  
...
> ps:  don't mistake this post for epson-bashing.  i still like epson.

Thanks for the heads up on this printer.  Would the 7660 do the same 
thing?  Seems like the same print engine without some of the bells 
and whistles...

Also,  what if you use Red River Matte or EEM on the HP printers? 
Would you only get 30 years or something like that?  Just wondering 
out loud here.  Have an Epson 2200 but hate to dedicate it to B&W at 
this point.  Thanks..

Don

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Boris 
Wiedenfeld" <boris@b...> wrote:
> as the red-headed stepchild of the list I'd like you to also 
consider
> the hp 7960.  i have retired my 1280 with various MIS inks in 
favor for
> anything up to 8x10.  the big pros, other than the b&w print 
quality are
> the ability to also print colour (without a rip), you can buy 
cartridges
> at most office stores, the fact that it prints glossy and that it 
does
> all that out of the box.  main downside to me (other than the size
> restriction) is that to achieve the 73 years longevity that 
willhelm
> labs rated it  at you have to use hp's premium plus paper, which 
is nice
> but doesn't leave you much choice.  i'm really excited about hp ]

Hmmm... Who was it who was thinking of "paleo-prints" for the carbon
quadtones?

Thought people might enjoy a little bit of the still ongoing exchange on
Carbon pigment inkjet prints vs. traditional carbon prints from the LF list:


QUOTE:

"Some great info at this link:

http://webexhibits.org/pigments/intro/early.htm

From which comes this:

"Historians hypothesize that paint was applied by brushing, smearing,
dabbing and spraying techniques. Large areas were covered with fingertips
or pads of lichen or moss. Twigs produced drawn or linear marks, while
feathers blended areas of color. Brushes made from horse hair were used
for paint application and outlining. Paint spraying, accomplished by
blowing paint through hollow bones, yielded a finely grained distribution
of pigment, like airbrush."

Hmmm, it DOES appear that the Giclee was around earlier than 'carbon
printing'... oh, about 30,000 years earlier. Guess Katherine will have to
come up with some more 'distinctions'!

>Look. I was making digital prints when some of you were probably in grade
>school. This isn't about Neanderthals refusing to admit that the world
is >changing, it's simply about calling things by their right names.

Guess you better get to work--maybe on some
'post-paleolithic-carbon-UV-frame-prints'. You wouldn't want your
buyers to feel as if you were 'obscuring' names in order to 'fool'
them."

Hi all,

I no longer have use for my Light Cyan and Light
Magenta positions of Full Spectrum (purchased at the
end of summer from MIS).  I pulled about 20cc of ink
out of each 4 ounce bottles (so they're about 95%
full).

Contact me off list at hill14701@... if you
would like them for $10.00 + a buck or two for
shipping.

Don

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree

Hello don,

I tried to email you offline but it came back with the message you 
were not accepting mail from this sender. Let me ask you this online 
then, Are the inks for the Full spectrum inkset to be used with the 
Epson driver (FSN-E) and is it the full spectrum neutral inkset?

Your friend in photography,

Johnny Eades


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "D. Hill" 
<hill14701@y...> wrote:

> Hi all,
> 
> I no longer have use for my Light Cyan and Light
> Magenta positions of Full Spectrum (purchased at the
> end of summer from MIS).  I pulled about 20cc of ink
> out of each 4 ounce bottles (so they're about 95%
> full).
> 
> Contact me off list at hill14701@y... if you
> would like them for $10.00 + a buck or two for
> shipping.


> 
> Don
> 
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
> http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree

Paul, 

If I want to try UT/C82 today, what C82 cartridges, inks and/or 
tools I have to order? Do you recommend waiting for pre-filled 
cartridges or refilling is easy enough? Thanks.


Darko


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Roark" 
<paul.roark@v...> wrote:
> Jim,
> 
> > What would you all recommend as an affordable basic setup
> >consisting of a printer, inks, papers, software, and perhaps a 
scanner?
> 
> I just finished my "affordable & easy" printer project.  I've been
> determined to bring archival B&W to even non-technical types for as 
little
> initial $ outlay as possible, and I think it's done.  My target has 
been the
> genealogists and scrapbook makers who need to be able to copy, 
restore, and
> archival old family photos, but this is a solution that is also 
ideal for
> anyone who wants a simple, basic but very good archival printing 
system.
> (Have you noticed how many of the people who lost their homes to 
fire
> mentioned the loss of their old family photos as most heart-
breaking.  The
> valuable old ones should have been copied and given to relatives.  
It's the
> best insurance.)
> 
> While the Epson 1280 with MIS Ultra Tone ("UT") inks is the most 
flexible,
> state-of-the-art combination, the Epson C82 with UT-derived inks is 
the
> affordable, easy way to go.
> 
> With the C82 there are no RIPs or special software.  Just print the 
B&W
> files from any application.  There are some Epson driver settings 
that
> matter (EEM paper type, "Best Photo", ICM, No Color Adjustment, 
High Speed
> off).  But this is about as simple as it gets.
> 
> The C82 is at the end of it's life cycle, but they are still 
available from
> $69.  Epson probably has refurbished ones and others have new 
ones.  The
> refurbs are as good as new and covered by a new warranty.
> 
> The C82 is made for pigmented inks, using the Epson Durabrite inks 
for
> color.  These are as durable as (probably the same as) the Epson 
UltraChrome
> color pigments.  For color, these are fine for archival storage and 
display.
> They have a 70+ year display life.
> 
> The inks for B&W are from MIS (www.inksupply.com).  They are based 
on the
> Ultra Tone inks.  This is a pigmented inkset which uses 
predominantly carbon
> black.  For the warm C82 ink, the UT light cyan is perfect.  It 
goes into
> all the color positions of the C82.  The black ink is MIS Eboni.
> 
> For a neutral (slight "selenium" tone), I've just finished the 
formula.  It
> basically ads 14% blue (cyan + magenta pigments) to the UT medium 
gray.
> 
> MIS will pre-load these inks into cartridges and, I assume, also 
sell them
> as bulk inks.  I expect them to load the carts ASAP.
> 
> These inks, in the UT or raw form, have been more fade resistant in 
my
> initial fade testing than have the Epson Archival inks, which have 
been
> rated at 200+ years of display life by Epson.  The carbon ink in 
the UT
> inkset will probably last longer than our civilization when printed 
on
> buffered cotton paper and stored appropriately; they are very 
archival from
> what I can tell.
> 
> The best papers for the system are Epson Enhanced Matte for medium 
term,
> very affordable display.  (It's acidic, so it's rated at only 110 
years of
> dark storage by Wilhelm.  High humidity and temperature could 
shorten this
> significantly.  It's my main paper for general printing.)  For a 
cotton
> paper that should be archival, Hahnemuhle PhotoRag is the most 
popular and
> what I recommend for the C82.  It gives a dmax of 1.60, which is 
very
> competitive for a cotton paper.  www.MediaStreet.com sells this 
as "Royal
> Renaissance" for a reasonable price.
> 
> For the old-photo restoration folks, Epson and Canon both have good 
flatbed
> scanners for about $50.  If you do film get a 4000 dpi Nikon or 
equivalent.
> 
> For basic, affordable image editing the $50 version of Picture 
Window seems
> to be the way to go.  A trial program can be downloaded from 
Digital Light &
> Color at http://www.dl-c.com/Temp/.  One advantage to this program 
is that
> is can use the Photoshop image adjustment curves that are needed to 
control
> many of the more complex, partitioned B&W inksets if you want to 
migrate to,

> for example, the 1280 & UT inkset for large (13") paper.
> 
> Enjoy the journey.
> 
> Paul
> http://www.PaulRoark.com

Darko,

>If I want to try UT/C82 today, what C82 cartridges,
>inks and/or tools I have to order?

MIS has the C82 (through Amazon, I think) as do others on the internet and
elsewhere, the C82 empty carts (you may have to call MIS on this), and the
inks.

Eboni goes into the black spot.  For the warm, pure carbon tone, UT hextone
Light/Photo cyan goes into all 3 color spots.  (While the carts and inks are
the same, the chips are specific to the color -- at first.  So, the yellow
chip must be on the cart that goes into the yellow position.  After the
first use, however, that cart can then be put into the other spots.  This
becomes relevant if you want a medium warm tone where you'll be mixing the
warm and neutral ink carts.)

The neutral ink is a new mix.  I'd wait until MIS mixes it for you.  Mixing
small batches to the needed accuracy, especially without an expensive
scales, is a problem.

As to other tools, if you have Photoshop, that's great.  However, any image
editor will do.  I recommend Picture Window 3.5 as a starting program.  It
can be downloaded from Digital Light & Color for free as a trial and then
$50.  If you like it, the Pro version is 16 bit, which is nice.

One big reason I like Picture Window is that it is simple, cheap, and allows
use of Photoshop curves.  That gives you an easy migration route to the
bigger printers and more complex workflows.

As to scanners, it really depends on what your originals are.

>Do you recommend waiting for pre-filled
>cartridges or refilling is easy enough?

If you're just starting out, I think you might be better off waiting for
pre-loaded carts.  The carts MIS received were not what they expected, and
they are not easy to fill to capacity at home.  I'm only putting 12 cc into
them, whereas they should take 16 cc.  (Ink squirts out the vent holes when
more is put in via the easy bottom-fill method.)  So, I'll have to change
carts when the ink monitor reads only 75% used.  MIS (or their contractor)
can do it with vacuums, which is the best way to do these, but it's complex.

You might call to see when they'll be available.  (I'll also e-mail MIS to
see if I can get a schedule.)

If its going to be long, then touch base with me and I'll see what the
alternatives are to get you started.

Have fun.

Paul
http://www.PaulRoark.com
______________________________________




______________________________________


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Roark"
<paul.roark@v...> wrote:
> Jim,
>
> > What would you all recommend as an affordable basic setup
> >consisting of a printer, inks, papers, software, and perhaps a
scanner?
>
> I just finished my "affordable & easy" printer project.  I've been
> determined to bring archival B&W to even non-technical types for as
little
> initial $ outlay as possible, and I think it's done.  My target has
been the
> genealogists and scrapbook makers who need to be able to copy,
restore, and
> archival old family photos, but this is a solution that is also
ideal for
> anyone who wants a simple, basic but very good archival printing
system.
> (Have you noticed how many of the people who lost their homes to
fire
> mentioned the loss of their old family photos as most heart-
breaking.  The
> valuable old ones should have been copied and given to relatives.
It's the
> best insurance.)
>
> While the Epson 1280 with MIS Ultra Tone ("UT") inks is the most
flexible,
> state-of-the-art combination, the Epson C82 with UT-derived inks is
the
> affordable, easy way to go.
>
> With the C82 there are no RIPs or special software.  Just print the
B&W
> files from any application.  There are some Epson driver settings
that
> matter (EEM paper type, "Best Photo", ICM, No Color Adjustment,
High Speed
> off).  But this is about as simple as it gets.
>
> The C82 is at the end of it's life cycle, but they are still
available from
> $69.  Epson probably has refurbished ones and others have new
ones.  The
> refurbs are as good as new and covered by a new warranty.
>
> The C82 is made for pigmented inks, using the Epson Durabrite inks
for
> color.  These are as durable as (probably the same as) the Epson
UltraChrome
> color pigments.  For color, these are fine for archival storage and
display.
> They have a 70+ year display life.
>
> The inks for B&W are from MIS (www.inksupply.com).  They are based
on the
> Ultra Tone inks.  This is a pigmented inkset which uses
predominantly carbon
> black.  For the warm C82 ink, the UT light cyan is perfect.  It
goes into
> all the color positions of the C82.  The black ink is MIS Eboni.
>
> For a neutral (slight "selenium" tone), I've just finished the
formula.  It
> basically ads 14% blue (cyan + magenta pigments) to the UT medium
gray.
>
> MIS will pre-load these inks into cartridges and, I assume, also
sell them
> as bulk inks.  I expect them to load the carts ASAP.
>
> These inks, in the UT or raw form, have been more fade resistant in
my
> initial fade testing than have the Epson Archival inks, which have
been
> rated at 200+ years of display life by Epson.  The carbon ink in
the UT
> inkset will probably last longer than our civilization when printed
on
> buffered cotton paper and stored appropriately; they are very
archival from
> what I can tell.
>
> The best papers for the system are Epson Enhanced Matte for medium
term,
> very affordable display.  (It's acidic, so it's rated at only 110
years of
> dark storage by Wilhelm.  High humidity and temperature could
shorten this
> significantly.  It's my main paper for general printing.)  For a
cotton
> paper that should be archival, Hahnemuhle PhotoRag is the most
popular and
> what I recommend for the C82.  It gives a dmax of 1.60, which is
very
> competitive for a cotton paper.  www.MediaStreet.com sells this
as "Royal
> Renaissance" for a reasonable price.
>
> For the old-photo restoration folks, Epson and Canon both have good
flatbed
> scanners for about $50.  If you do film get a 4000 dpi Nikon or
equivalent.
>
> For basic, affordable image editing the $50 version of Picture
Window seems
> to be the way to go.  A trial program can be downloaded from
Digital Light &
> Color at http://www.dl-c.com/Temp/.  One advantage to this program
is that
> is can use the Photoshop image adjustment curves that are needed to
control
> many of the more complex, partitioned B&W inksets if you want to
migrate to,
> for example, the 1280 & UT inkset for large (13") paper.
>
> Enjoy the journey.
>
> Paul
> http://www.PaulRoark.com



Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and
other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint

If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to
unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same
page.

Please follow these basic guidelines:
- Include your full name with your message.
- Include the address of your website, if you have one.
- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
them short.
- As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames
- Complete your Yahoo profile.
- Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
resources on the homepage.




Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

At 11:36 pm -0700 11/6/03, Tim Atherton wrote:

>Thought people might enjoy a little bit of the still ongoing 
>exchange on Carbon pigment inkjet prints vs. traditional carbon 
>prints from the LF list:

%< snip >%

>>Hmmm, it DOES appear that the Giclee was around earlier than 
>>'carbon printing'...


On a related note about printing nomenclature: Would anyone _really_ 
want their wife to handle "Giclee" prints made by anyone but 
themselves?

  ;>)

Seriously: "Giclee" has got to be the most ridiculous and unfortunate 
term ever foisted on an artistic community.

Whoever came up with the term "Giclee" to describe ink jet prints may 
have had an English-French dictionary, but they didn't have a very 
good grasp of colloquial French.

Any French speaker who walks into an American gallery and sees prints 
marked "Giclee" probably has to run out of the shop, either because 
they can't stifle their laughter or, for the more squeamish, because 
they can't stifle their disgust.

As for Americans who know, the almost universal response is to roll 
up their eyes and wonder why someone so clueless is charging such an 
outrageous price for an ink jet print instead of explaining why 
_their_ particular ink jet is worth that much over cost when, once 
they have the process pegged, they can knock them off by the hour, 
unattended, on the machine in the back room.


Don't get me wrong: I have great respect for artists who spend hours 
and days fine-tuning their output and producing incredible prints.


I have real problems with shops that produce 7 x 9's by the dozen, 
slap the term "Giclee" on them, display them one-up in the shop bins 
and then try to scam the clueless tourists into buying them as some 
kind of "special one-of-a-kind reproduction" at $120+ a pop.

Not only is the term "Giclee" hilariously offensive, but it impedes 
an open discussion between the artistic community and the customer 
about the quality, uniqueness and desirability of the product. The 
lack of such a discussion may well come back to haunt artists when 
mechanical reproduction of fine prints becomes the norm and consumers 
realize that they have been fooled in the past.


-=-Dennis

> Whoever came up with the term "Giclee" to describe ink jet prints 
may 
> have had an English-French dictionary, but they didn't have a very 
> good grasp of colloquial French.
> 
> Any French speaker who walks into an American gallery and sees 
prints 
> marked "Giclee" probably has to run out of the shop, either because 
> they can't stifle their laughter or, for the more squeamish, 
because 
> they can't stifle their disgust.
> -=-Dennis

Someone was in need of a pedantic term to describe an inkjet print.

There was no need to use the equipment to describe these prints as 
there was never any need in the wet darkroom to make reference to the 
equipement to describe prints. Therefore, we never have heard 
of "enlarger prints" or even "chemically processed prints"

Instead we have silver prints, platinium prints. Digital printer need 
to use the print itself to describe it: "carbon pigment print" 
or "color pigment print"

Cheers,
Andre

Dennis  -
 
What you say certainly may be true.  But, what to do?  The term 'ink jet' has no snob appeal.
 
Tom Baker

"Dennis W. Manasco" <dmanasco@...> wrote:
At 11:36 pm -0700 11/6/03, Tim Atherton wrote:

>Thought people might enjoy a little bit of the still ongoing 
>exchange on Carbon pigment inkjet prints vs. traditional carbon 
>prints from the LF list:

%< snip >%

>>Hmmm, it DOES appear that the Giclee was around earlier than 
>>'carbon printing'...


On a related note about printing nomenclature: Would anyone _really_ 
want their wife to handle "Giclee" prints made by anyone but 
themselves?

  ;>)

Seriously: "Giclee" has got to be the most ridiculous and unfortunate 
term ever foisted on an artistic community.

Whoever came up with the term "Giclee" to describe ink jet prints may 
have had an English-French dictionary, but they didn't have a very 
good grasp of colloquial French.

Any French speaker who walks into an American gallery and sees prints 
marked "Giclee" probably has to run out of the shop, either because 
they can't stifle their laughter or, for the more squeamish, because 
they can't stifle their disgust.

As for Americans who know, the almost universal response is to roll 
up their eyes and wonder why someone so clueless is charging such an 
outrageous price for an ink jet print instead of explaining why 
_their_ particular ink jet is worth that much over cost when, once 
they have the process pegged, they can knock them off by the hour, 
unattended, on the machine in the back room.


Don't get me wrong: I have great respect for artists who spend hours 
and days fine-tuning their output and producing incredible prints.


I have real problems with shops that produce 7 x 9's by the dozen, 
slap the term "Giclee" on them, display them one-up in the shop bins 
and then try to scam the clueless tourists into buying them as some 
kind of "special one-of-a-kind reproduction" at $120+ a pop.

Not only is the term "Giclee" hilariously offensive, but it impedes 
an open discussion between the artistic community and the customer 
about the quality, uniqueness and desirability of the product. The 
lack of such a discussion may well come back to haunt artists when 
mechanical reproduction of fine prints becomes the norm and consumers 
realize that they have been fooled in the past.


-=-Dennis


Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT

Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint

If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same page.

Please follow these basic guidelines:
- Include your full name with your message.
- Include the address of your website, if you have one.
- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep them short.
- As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames
- Complete your Yahoo profile.
- Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various resources on the homepage. 




Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. 


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

At 04:12 AM 11/9/03 -0600, you wrote:
>At 11:36 pm -0700 11/6/03, Tim Atherton wrote:
>
>Not only is the term "Giclee" hilariously offensive, but it impedes
>an open discussion between the artistic community and the customer
>about the quality, uniqueness and desirability of the product. The
>lack of such a discussion may well come back to haunt artists when
>mechanical reproduction of fine prints becomes the norm and consumers
>realize that they have been fooled in the past.
>
>
>-=-Dennis
>
>
>
>
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Dennis,

Thanks for that.  Couldn't  agree more with last part.  Only thing to add 
is that shops have been selling reproduction prints as art prints forever.

AZ

Build a Lookaround!
The Lookaround Book, 2nd ed.
NOW SHIPPING
http://www.panoramacamera.us

Paul and group,

I'm also 'just starting out' and you've just answered most of my 
questions in the previous reply.  But .........

Please excuse my questions since I'm sure they must be very basic.

Is the following true?
  For warm tone: 
    Black position: Eboni
    All color positions: UT hextone Light/Photo Cyan

  For neutral tone:
    Black position: Eboni
    All color positions: custom UT neutral mix?


Do I need to tell them the mix percentages for the neutral ink?

Will MIS have stock numbers for all this or will it be delt with on a 
custom basis per customer?


Also to other members looking for the C82:
One 'Staples' in Seattle,WA ($70) and one 'Best Buy' in Olympia,WA 
($80) still have some in stock - at much better prices than the 
internet venders I looked at.


Thanks.
David Polasek
dp4391@...






--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Roark" 
<paul.roark@v...> wrote:
> Darko,
> 
> >If I want to try UT/C82 today, what C82 cartridges,
> >inks and/or tools I have to order?
> 
> MIS has the C82 (through Amazon, I think) as do others on the 
internet and
> elsewhere, the C82 empty carts (you may have to call MIS on this), 
and the
> inks.
> 
> Eboni goes into the black spot.  For the warm, pure carbon tone, UT 
hextone
> Light/Photo cyan goes into all 3 color spots.  (While the carts and 
inks are
> the same, the chips are specific to the color -- at first.  So, the 
yellow
> chip must be on the cart that goes into the yellow position.  After 
the
> first use, however, that cart can then be put into the other 
spots.  This
> becomes relevant if you want a medium warm tone where you'll be 
mixing the
> warm and neutral ink carts.)
> 
> The neutral ink is a new mix.  I'd wait until MIS mixes it for 
you.  Mixing
> small batches to the needed accuracy, especially without an 
expensive
> scales, is a problem.
> 
> As to other tools, if you have Photoshop, that's great.  However, 
any image
> editor will do.  I recommend Picture Window 3.5 as a starting 
program.  It
> can be downloaded from Digital Light & Color for free as a trial 
and then
> $50.  If you like it, the Pro version is 16 bit, which is nice.
> 
> One big reason I like Picture Window is that it is simple, cheap, 
and allows
> use of Photoshop curves.  That gives you an easy migration route to 
the
> bigger printers and more complex workflows.
> 
> As to scanners, it really depends on what your originals are.
> 
> >Do you recommend waiting for pre-filled
> >cartridges or refilling is easy enough?
> 
> If you're just starting out, I think you might be better off 
waiting for
> pre-loaded carts.  The carts MIS received were not what they 
expected, and
> they are not easy to fill to capacity at home.  I'm only putting 12 
cc into
> them, whereas they should take 16 cc.  (Ink squirts out the vent 
holes when
> more is put in via the easy bottom-fill method.)  So, I'll have to 
change
> carts when the ink monitor reads only 75% used.  MIS (or their 
contractor)
> can do it with vacuums, which is the best way to do these, but it's 
complex.
> 
> You might call to see when they'll be available.  (I'll also e-mail 
MIS to
> see if I can get a schedule.)
> 
> If its going to be long, then touch base with me and I'll see what 
the
> alternatives are to get you started.
> 
> Have fun.
> 
> Paul
> http://www.PaulRoark.com
> ______________________________________
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ______________________________________
> 
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Roark"
> <paul.roark@v...> wrote:
> > Jim,
> >
> > > What would you all recommend as an affordable basic setup
> > >consisting of a printer, inks, papers, software, and perhaps a
> scanner?
> >
> > I just finished my "affordable & easy" printer project.  I've been
> > determined to bring archival B&W to even non-technical types for 
as
> little
> > initial $ outlay as possible, and I think it's done.  My target 
has
> been the
> > genealogists and scrapbook makers who need to be able to copy,
> restore, and
> > archival old family photos, but this is a solution that is also
> ideal for
> > anyone who wants a simple, basic but very good archival printing
> system.
> > (Have you noticed how many of the people who lost their homes to
> fire
> > mentioned the loss of their old family photos as most heart-
> breaking.  The
> > valuable old ones should have been copied and given to relatives.
> It's the
> > best insurance.)
> >
> > While the Epson 1280 with MIS Ultra Tone ("UT") inks is the most
> flexible,
> > state-of-the-art combination, the Epson C82 with UT-derived inks 
is
> the
> > affordable, easy way to go.
> >
> > With the C82 there are no RIPs or special software.  Just print 
the
> B&W
> > files from any application.  There are some Epson driver settings
> that
> > matter (EEM paper type, "Best Photo", ICM, No Color Adjustment,
> High Speed
> > off).  But this is about as simple as it gets.
> >
> > The C82 is at the end of it's life cycle, but they are still
> available from
> > $69.  Epson probably has refurbished ones and others have new
> ones.  The
> > refurbs are as good as new and covered by a new warranty.
> >
> > The C82 is made for pigmented inks, using the Epson Durabrite inks
> for
> > color.  These are as durable as (probably the same as) the Epson
> UltraChrome
> > color pigments.  For color, these are fine for archival storage 
and
> display.
> > They have a 70+ year display life.
> >
> > The inks for B&W are from MIS (www.inksupply.com).  They are based
> on the
> > Ultra Tone inks.  This is a pigmented inkset which uses
> predominantly carbon
> > black.  For the warm C82 ink, the UT light cyan is perfect.  It
> goes into
> > all the color positions of the C82.  The black ink is MIS Eboni.
> >
> > For a neutral (slight "selenium" tone), I've just finished the
> formula.  It
> > basically ads 14% blue (cyan + magenta pigments) to the UT medium
> gray.
> >
> > MIS will pre-load these inks into cartridges and, I assume, also
> sell them
> > as bulk inks.  I expect them to load the carts ASAP.
> >
> > These inks, in the UT or raw form, have been more fade resistant 
in
> my
> > initial fade testing than have the Epson Archival inks, which have
> been
> > rated at 200+ years of display life by Epson.  The carbon ink in
> the UT
> > inkset will probably last longer than our civilization when 
printed
> on
> > buffered cotton paper and stored appropriately; they are very
> archival from
> > what I can tell.
> >
> > The best papers for the system are Epson Enhanced Matte for medium
> term,
> > very affordable display.  (It's acidic, so it's rated at only 110
> years of
> > dark storage by Wilhelm.  High humidity and temperature could
> shorten this
> > significantly.  It's my main paper for general printing.)  For a
> cotton
> > paper that should be archival, Hahnemuhle PhotoRag is the most
> popular and
> > what I recommend for the C82.  It gives a dmax of 1.60, which is
> very
> > competitive for a cotton paper.  www.MediaStreet.com sells this
> as "Royal
> > Renaissance" for a reasonable price.
> >
> > For the old-photo restoration folks, Epson and Canon both have 
good
> flatbed
> > scanners for about $50.  If you do film get a 4000 dpi Nikon or
> equivalent.
> >
> > For basic, affordable image editing the $50 version of Picture
> Window seems
> > to be the way to go.  A trial program can be downloaded from
> Digital Light &
> > Color at http://www.dl-c.com/Temp/.  One advantage to this program
> is that
> > is can use the Photoshop image adjustment curves that are needed 
to

> control
> > many of the more complex, partitioned B&W inksets if you want to
> migrate to,
> > for example, the 1280 & UT inkset for large (13") paper.
> >
> > Enjoy the journey.
> >
> > Paul
> > http://www.PaulRoark.com

David,

>I'm also 'just starting out' ...

>Is the following true?
>  For warm tone:
>    Black position: Eboni
>    All color positions: UT hextone Light/Photo Cyan


This is correct for the Epson C82 using the system I just finished.

>  For neutral tone:
>    Black position: Eboni
>    All color positions: custom UT neutral mix?

Yes, and this is not an ink that is part of the normal Ultra Tone inkset.
So, it has to be mixed.

>Do I need to tell them the mix percentages for the neutral ink?

MIS is very much on board with the C82 program.  I expect them to have the
ink available very soon.  They would probably mix it for you in bulk (4 oz.
bottles) immediately if you called them.  It takes them a bit longer to have
carts pre-filled.  I'm not sure what their time table is on this.

>Will MIS have stock numbers for all this or will it be delt
>with on a custom basis per customer?

I don't know.  Call them and ask for Bob.  I'm not even sure what they are
going to call the inkset.  If you tell them its the C82 B&W setup I've been
working on, however, Bob will know exactly what you mean.

Paul
http://www.PaulRoark.com
_____________________________________________



--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Roark"
<paul.roark@v...> wrote:
> Darko,
>
> >If I want to try UT/C82 today, what C82 cartridges,
> >inks and/or tools I have to order?
>
> MIS has the C82 (through Amazon, I think) as do others on the
internet and
> elsewhere, the C82 empty carts (you may have to call MIS on this),
and the
> inks.
>
> Eboni goes into the black spot.  For the warm, pure carbon tone, UT
hextone
> Light/Photo cyan goes into all 3 color spots.  (While the carts and
inks are
> the same, the chips are specific to the color -- at first.  So, the
yellow
> chip must be on the cart that goes into the yellow position.  After
the
> first use, however, that cart can then be put into the other
spots.  This
> becomes relevant if you want a medium warm tone where you'll be
mixing the
> warm and neutral ink carts.)
>
> The neutral ink is a new mix.  I'd wait until MIS mixes it for
you.  Mixing
> small batches to the needed accuracy, especially without an
expensive
> scales, is a problem.
>
> As to other tools, if you have Photoshop, that's great.  However,
any image
> editor will do.  I recommend Picture Window 3.5 as a starting
program.  It
> can be downloaded from Digital Light & Color for free as a trial
and then
> $50.  If you like it, the Pro version is 16 bit, which is nice.
>
> One big reason I like Picture Window is that it is simple, cheap,
and allows
> use of Photoshop curves.  That gives you an easy migration route to
the
> bigger printers and more complex workflows.
>
> As to scanners, it really depends on what your originals are.
>
> >Do you recommend waiting for pre-filled
> >cartridges or refilling is easy enough?
>
> If you're just starting out, I think you might be better off
waiting for
> pre-loaded carts.  The carts MIS received were not what they
expected, and
> they are not easy to fill to capacity at home.  I'm only putting 12
cc into
> them, whereas they should take 16 cc.  (Ink squirts out the vent
holes when
> more is put in via the easy bottom-fill method.)  So, I'll have to
change
> carts when the ink monitor reads only 75% used.  MIS (or their
contractor)
> can do it with vacuums, which is the best way to do these, but it's
complex.
>
> You might call to see when they'll be available.  (I'll also e-mail
MIS to
> see if I can get a schedule.)
>
> If its going to be long, then touch base with me and I'll see what
the
> alternatives are to get you started.
>
> Have fun.
>
> Paul
> http://www.PaulRoark.com
> ______________________________________
>
>
>
>
> ______________________________________
>
>
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Roark"
> <paul.roark@v...> wrote:
> > Jim,
> >
> > > What would you all recommend as an affordable basic setup
> > >consisting of a printer, inks, papers, software, and perhaps a
> scanner?
> >
> > I just finished my "affordable & easy" printer project.  I've been
> > determined to bring archival B&W to even non-technical types for
as
> little
> > initial $ outlay as possible, and I think it's done.  My target
has
> been the
> > genealogists and scrapbook makers who need to be able to copy,
> restore, and
> > archival old family photos, but this is a solution that is also
> ideal for
> > anyone who wants a simple, basic but very good archival printing
> system.
> > (Have you noticed how many of the people who lost their homes to
> fire
> > mentioned the loss of their old family photos as most heart-
> breaking.  The
> > valuable old ones should have been copied and given to relatives.
> It's the
> > best insurance.)
> >
> > While the Epson 1280 with MIS Ultra Tone ("UT") inks is the most
> flexible,
> > state-of-the-art combination, the Epson C82 with UT-derived inks
is
> the
> > affordable, easy way to go.
> >
> > With the C82 there are no RIPs or special software.  Just print
the
> B&W
> > files from any application.  There are some Epson driver settings
> that
> > matter (EEM paper type, "Best Photo", ICM, No Color Adjustment,
> High Speed
> > off).  But this is about as simple as it gets.
> >
> > The C82 is at the end of it's life cycle, but they are still
> available from
> > $69.  Epson probably has refurbished ones and others have new
> ones.  The
> > refurbs are as good as new and covered by a new warranty.
> >
> > The C82 is made for pigmented inks, using the Epson Durabrite inks
> for
> > color.  These are as durable as (probably the same as) the Epson
> UltraChrome
> > color pigments.  For color, these are fine for archival storage
and
> display.
> > They have a 70+ year display life.
> >
> > The inks for B&W are from MIS (www.inksupply.com).  They are based
> on the
> > Ultra Tone inks.  This is a pigmented inkset which uses
> predominantly carbon
> > black.  For the warm C82 ink, the UT light cyan is perfect.  It
> goes into
> > all the color positions of the C82.  The black ink is MIS Eboni.
> >
> > For a neutral (slight "selenium" tone), I've just finished the
> formula.  It
> > basically ads 14% blue (cyan + magenta pigments) to the UT medium
> gray.
> >
> > MIS will pre-load these inks into cartridges and, I assume, also
> sell them
> > as bulk inks.  I expect them to load the carts ASAP.
> >
> > These inks, in the UT or raw form, have been more fade resistant
in
> my
> > initial fade testing than have the Epson Archival inks, which have
> been
> > rated at 200+ years of display life by Epson.  The carbon ink in
> the UT
> > inkset will probably last longer than our civilization when
printed
> on
> > buffered cotton paper and stored appropriately; they are very
> archival from
> > what I can tell.
> >
> > The best papers for the system are Epson Enhanced Matte for medium
> term,
> > very affordable display.  (It's acidic, so it's rated at only 110
> years of
> > dark storage by Wilhelm.  High humidity and temperature could
> shorten this
> > significantly.  It's my main paper for general printing.)  For a
> cotton
> > paper that should be archival, Hahnemuhle PhotoRag is the most
> popular and
> > what I recommend for the C82.  It gives a dmax of 1.60, which is
> very
> > competitive for a cotton paper.  www.MediaStreet.com sells this
> as "Royal
> > Renaissance" for a reasonable price.
> >
> > For the old-photo restoration folks, Epson and Canon both have
good
> flatbed
> > scanners for about $50.  If you do film get a 4000 dpi Nikon or
> equivalent.
> >
> > For basic, affordable image editing the $50 version of Picture
> Window seems
> > to be the way to go.  A trial program can be downloaded from
> Digital Light &
> > Color at http://www.dl-c.com/Temp/.  One advantage to this program
> is that
> > is can use the Photoshop image adjustment curves that are needed
to
> control
> > many of the more complex, partitioned B&W inksets if you want to
> migrate to,
> > for example, the 1280 & UT inkset for large (13") paper.
> >
> > Enjoy the journey.
> >
> > Paul
> > http://www.PaulRoark.com




Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and
other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint

If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to
unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same
page.

Please follow these basic guidelines:
- Include your full name with your message.
- Include the address of your website, if you have one.
- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
them short.
- As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames
- Complete your Yahoo profile.
- Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
resources on the homepage.




Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

At 10:20 am -0800 11/9/03, Alan Zinn wrote:

>Thanks for that.  Couldn't agree more with last part.  Only thing to 
>add is that shops have been selling reproduction prints as art 
>prints forever.


Alan --

That some would sell reproductions of arts prints as original prints 
(if I understand the subtlety of your distinction) is more a matter 
of explicit fraud than the inherent prevarication my last two 
paragraphs attempted to address. But you are right: That is a bad 
thing and should be addressed.

Regardless, reproductions are a valid and necessary medium of 
production and sale for numerous reasons, and not something I would 
try to argue against.

My point in those paragraphs was that, with terms like "Fine Art 
Print" or "Fine Art Reproduction" even the most clueless customer 
knows (more or less) what they are getting. The door is left open for 
a discussion of the merits of the reproduction. There is an 
invitation to discuss and analyze its quality, fidelity, longevity, 
and etc. The customer can come away with not only a beautiful picture 
that they like, but as intrinsic idea of its value as a piece of art.

This contrasts with the term "Giclee Print" which has two different, 
and individually condemnable, aspects:

First, the phrase "Giclee Print" is hilariously idiotic and should go 
away simply because it is ludicrous.

Secondly, and my biggest concern, is that so many shops hide behind 
the phrase "Giclee Print." The obscurity of the phrase not only 
allows them to, it encourages them to. They slap it on the back of a 
repro of an enjoyable but essentially mediocre watercolor (or pastel, 
or oil, or...even a photograph) and then implicitly try to pass it 
off as though this "Giclee Process" were the medium. (Presumably an 
ancient medium the artist only rediscovered through some rigorous 
ascetic regimen.)

I cringe when I see that. I know that when the customers who've been 
scammed find out the whole story they are going to become so cynical 
that it will be an all-day job to talk them into buying an original 
oil for fifteen percent over cost-of-materials. Meanwhile, their 
respect for inkjet printing will have gone down so far that just 
getting them to pay cost-of-materials will be difficult.


Best wishes.

-=-Dennis


p.s.: That "Lookaround" system is really interesting. I'm thinking 
about getting the book and trying to build my own. I've been trying 
to figure out whether or not you get a usefully different effect if 
you construct it so that it rotates around the nodal point of the 
lens rather than the film plane. Have you tried any experiments like 
this (or do you know off-hand)? I could probably do the diagrams and 
work up the math, but it's a lot easier to just ask... :-)


-

At 04:31 AM 11/10/03 -0600, you wrote:
>At 10:20 am -0800 11/9/03, Alan Zinn wrote:
>
> >Thanks for that.  Couldn't agree more with last part.  Only thing to
> >add is that shops have been selling reproduction prints as art
> >prints forever.
>
>
>Alan --
>
>That some would sell reproductions of arts prints as original prints
>(if I understand the subtlety of your distinction) is more a matter
>of explicit fraud than the inherent prevarication my last two
>paragraphs attempted to address. But you are right: That is a bad
>thing and should be addressed.
>
>Regardless, reproductions are a valid and necessary medium of
>production and sale for numerous reasons, and not something I would
>try to argue against.
>
>My point in those paragraphs was that, with terms like "Fine Art
>Print" or "Fine Art Reproduction" even the most clueless customer
>knows (more or less) what they are getting. The door is left open for
>a discussion of the merits of the reproduction. There is an
>invitation to discuss and analyze its quality, fidelity, longevity,
>and etc. The customer can come away with not only a beautiful picture
>that they like, but as intrinsic idea of its value as a piece of art.
>
>This contrasts with the term "Giclee Print" which has two different,
>and individually condemnable, aspects:
>
>First, the phrase "Giclee Print" is hilariously idiotic and should go
>away simply because it is ludicrous.
>
>Secondly, and my biggest concern, is that so many shops hide behind
>the phrase "Giclee Print." The obscurity of the phrase not only
>allows them to, it encourages them to. They slap it on the back of a
>repro of an enjoyable but essentially mediocre watercolor (or pastel,
>or oil, or...even a photograph) and then implicitly try to pass it
>off as though this "Giclee Process" were the medium. (Presumably an
>ancient medium the artist only rediscovered through some rigorous
>ascetic regimen.)
>
>I cringe when I see that. I know that when the customers who've been
>scammed find out the whole story they are going to become so cynical
>that it will be an all-day job to talk them into buying an original
>oil for fifteen percent over cost-of-materials. Meanwhile, their
>respect for inkjet printing will have gone down so far that just
>getting them to pay cost-of-materials will be difficult.
>
>
>Best wishes.
>
>-=-Dennis
>
>
>p.s.: That "Lookaround" system is really interesting. I'm thinking
>about getting the book and trying to build my own. I've been trying
>to figure out whether or not you get a usefully different effect if
>you construct it so that it rotates around the nodal point of the
>lens rather than the film plane. Have you tried any experiments like
>this (or do you know off-hand)? I could probably do the diagrams and
>work up the math, but it's a lot easier to just ask... :-)


Dennis,

I don't think most people understand distinctions among types of art 
reproductions and so forth or even care to learn.  They want "sofa-size" 
for $49.98,   or just any  "pretty"  picture no matter the medium.  I'm not 
being cynical just reporting from many years of experience trying to 
promote the arts.  I cringe when I think of the way my own parents 
decorated!  :-)  Yes, artists can educate if they wish to but most 
don't  and go along with the flim flam.

RE the Lookaround - although, there are fine rotating cameras that do 
rotate around the nodal point it isn't necessary.  Nodal point rotation IS 
required for swing lens cameras.  Getting a lens (other than a simple, 
fixed lens) to rotate exactly around the nodal point requires a rather 
complex and fussy drive and film transport - you think banding's a problem 
with ink jet printers!. The beauty (if I do say so myself) of the 
Lookaround is it's simplicity. Once you see the innards you won't want to 
change anything - it would be like putting a motor drive in a box Brownie.

AZ


Build a Lookaround!
The Lookaround Book, 2nd ed.
NOW SHIPPING
http://www.panoramacamera.us