Digital BW, The Print

I'm not sure there is a good answer for this.

First, some observation. To get 4-6 pixels per film grain clump, either 
your grain is just huge, or you found a drum scanner with a one micron 
aperture. IIRC (and it's been a long time -- I'm sure someone will 
correct this if it's wrong or out of date) film grain clumps usually 
range from about three microns on the small side up to about 12 microns 
on the huge side with the median being closer to about six microns. And 
if you are getting 4-6 pixels per grain clump, you are getting a huge 
amount of pixels that contain the "nothing" that is the film base 
*between* the grain clumps. IOW, it must be a really big enlargement. 
IOW, the Photoshop people probably didn't plan on this happening a lot.

This brings us to the idea of how to deal with it. Since film graininess 
is at least partly a function of density, one would want the software to 
grow and/or shrink the grain size as you change the "density" of the 
image via the levels and curves (etc.) tools. This would be difficult - 
complex mathematics, probably an order of magnitude more complex than 
unsharp masking, for example.

This kind of manipulation would also require Photoshop to have some 
knowledge of the film itself. Currently, Photoshop has no information on 
the image source. To get this information, someone somewhere is going to 
have to test fairly extensively the films of most interest. At the very 
least, a color transparency, a color negative, and a B&W negative. Then 
people will want their own films. Then people will want their own films 
with their own developers. I think it would become irreducibly complex. 
IOW, I think it safe to say that Photoshop will never handle this.

So.... how do we handle it with the tools that we have at the moment? I 
think the best we can do is to try to preserve the size, shapes, and 
locations of the grains as best we can. This means some capture 
sharpening to help overcome the softness of scanning, and then some 
output sharpness to help overcome the softness of the output device (for 
example, an inkjet printer printing at 2880 uses 8 ink dots [with the 
attendent dot gain] to make a single pixel at 360ppi output).

We also need a good scan to avoid the need for heavy manipulations. This 
will minimize the problems of mismatch between grain size and image 
darkness/lightness.

Not much help is it? Sigh... I think it all comes back to the "basics" 
of needing an exceedingly high quality scan, manipulating the image as 
little as possible, and careful use of sharpening. These are the same 
things we generally do for every image though. I wish I could offer more 
help.
--
Bruce Watson


Ernst Dinkla wrote:

> Better minds than mine must have thought about the following long 
> before I started wondering:
>
> A lot of the functions in Photoshop rely on the principle that color 
> and greyscale are represented in the pixel information and the 
> distribution of the pixels. When grain is resolved in color or B&W 
> above the level of 1 pixel per grain say at 4 or 6 pixels per grain 
> there's another method of color and tone representation interfering 
> with the pixel information. More extreme in contrasty images with 
> coarse grain. Although the grain doesn't have all the properties of 
> the true B&W screen in offset printing and the grainsize will pair 
> size with density to some degree and doesn't have a hard edge, 
> nevertheless there's information in that irregular screen that behaves 
> differently to the information in the pixels it is build on. With the 
> result that the more contrast and the bigger the grain the less 
> control you have on tonality etc in Photoshop. Like having a true 
> bitmap on top of a greyscale. The simplest example of that observation 
> is when you brighten the shadows the grain there isn't getting much 
> smaller but becomes more grey. In the highlights the grain will change 
> its size as the density - size is more related. The histogram of a 
> grainless image and one of a grainy image can show a high contrast for 
> both while the grainy image isn't contrasty in general but only on its 
> grain level. This doesn't imply that there's no editing possible but 
> ignoring what happens seems impossible. Sharpening can decrease the 
> brightness for example.
> '
> What is the way to cope with it without removing the grain ? Sure I 
> can judge with my eyes on a calibrated monitor but even then there are 
> good reasons to expect a different outcome from the print as the grain 
> will go through that process in another way than its rasterisation to 
> the screen.
>
> Ernst
>

Better minds than mine must have thought about the following long before 
I started wondering:

A lot of the functions in Photoshop rely on the principle that color and 
greyscale are represented in the pixel information and the distribution 
of the pixels. When grain is resolved in color or B&W above the level of 
1 pixel per grain say at 4 or 6 pixels per grain there's another method 
of color and tone representation interfering with the pixel information. 
More extreme in contrasty images with coarse grain. Although the grain 
doesn't have all the properties of the true B&W screen in offset 
printing and the grainsize will pair size with density to some degree 
and doesn't have a hard edge, nevertheless there's information in that 
irregular screen that behaves differently to the information in the 
pixels it is build on. With the result that the more contrast and the 
bigger the grain the less control you have on tonality etc in Photoshop. 
Like having a true bitmap on top of a greyscale. The simplest example of 
that observation is when you brighten the shadows the grain there isn't 
getting much smaller but becomes more grey. In the highlights the grain 
will change its size as the density - size is more related. The 
histogram of a grainless image and one of a grainy image can show a high 
contrast for both while the grainy image isn't contrasty in general but 
only on its grain level. This doesn't imply that there's no editing 
possible but ignoring what happens seems impossible. Sharpening can 
decrease the brightness for example.
'
What is the way to cope with it without removing the grain ? Sure I can 
judge with my eyes on a calibrated monitor but even then there are good 
reasons to expect a different outcome from the print as the grain will 
go through that process in another way than its rasterisation to the screen.

Ernst

Ernst Dinkla wrote:

> I don't have samples like 4-6 pixels per grain but it was more to
> emphasize the issue.  I was working on 4000 PPI scan of a 35 mm Tri-X 
> film with much grain and while working on it there were things 
> happening that could only be explained as the grain interfering. I 
> didn't find it contrasty enough in a sense and either I could sharpen 
> the scan or increase the contrast. In a way the sharpening was more in 
> line with Tri-X analogue than the contrast increase. But the 
> sharpening resulted in a lighter image in total. That led to writing 
> this message. In practice it will be less of a problem than I 
> described it but I wonder how many of us are aware that there's some 
> conflict in editing grainy scans.

Yes. I'm aware, and have seen the same thing. I just accepted it as a 
"normal" problem to have to work around with Photoshop. It is definitely 
interesting to watch the histogram when you sharpen. The histogram says 
it got more contrasty, but the whole image actually seems perhaps less 
contrasty, and it does change the overall tonal balance a bit. I've had 
some images get lighter as you have. I suspect that it depends to some 
extent on the image itself and how much detail (as opposed to fairly 
featureless areas) it contains. Even then, the featureless skies may 
lighten when the entire image is sharpened, as you report.

>
> >
> There's no real problem at my end. A bit more proofing and it will be 
> alright. By trying to get the best scan it backfires more or less when 
> that scan is made of a grainy film. Which essentialy is noise but of a 
> kind that we are used to and learned to appreciate. Taking the grain 
> out one way or another (lousy scan for example) makes more garbage. 
> The print is grainy at less than A4 size so it must have been Tri-X 
> with Rodinal 1:25 or something like that, no record of it.
>
> Ernst

Since my Tri-X scans are mostly my own work, I "cheat" a little. I 
develop in XTOL 1:3 which gives me grain that is fairly small and fairly 
sharp. Then I expose/develop to give me as little density as will give 
me a good scan. In Zone System terms, N-2 more or less. The resulting 
grain in the highlights is quite small (for Tri-X) and easier to work 
with. I can easily do 10x enlargements without visible grain (from a 4x5 
negative). This helps.

Even though my monitor closely matches my prints, I still find that the 
only way to nail a result is to make proof prints. This is as much due 
to the problems you've pointed out as to the problems of scale, where a 
large print looks as if it is tonally different than a small print. In 
the end, I've still got to make full size proofs to be sure that the 
print does what I want.

But if these are my worst problems, I'm doing OK!
-- 
Bruce Watson

Bruce wrote,

>I'm not sure there is a good answer for this.
>
>First, some observation. To get 4-6 pixels per film grain clump, either 
>your grain is just huge, or you found a drum scanner with a one micron 
>aperture. IIRC (and it's been a long time -- I'm sure someone will 
>correct this if it's wrong or out of date) film grain clumps usually 
>range from about three microns on the small side up to about 12 microns 
>on the huge side with the median being closer to about six microns. And 
>if you are getting 4-6 pixels per grain clump, you are getting a huge 
>amount of pixels that contain the "nothing" that is the film base 
>*between* the grain clumps. IOW, it must be a really big enlargement. 
>IOW, the Photoshop people probably didn't plan on this happening a lot.
>  
>

I don't have samples like 4-6 pixels per grain but it was more to 
emphasize the issue.  I was working on 4000 PPI scan of a 35 mm Tri-X  
film with much grain and while working on it there were things happening 
that could only be explained as the grain interfering. I didn't find it 
contrasty enough in a sense and either I could sharpen the scan or 
increase the contrast. In a way the sharpening was more in line with 
Tri-X analogue than the contrast increase. But the sharpening resulted 
in a lighter image in total. That led to writing this message. In 
practice it will be less of a problem than I described it but I wonder 
how many of us are aware that there's some conflict in editing grainy 
scans.

>
>Not much help is it? Sigh... I think it all comes back to the "basics" 
>of needing an exceedingly high quality scan, manipulating the image as 
>little as possible, and careful use of sharpening. These are the same 
>things we generally do for every image though. I wish I could offer more 
>help.
>  
>
There's no real problem at my end. A bit more proofing and it will be 
alright. By trying to get the best scan it backfires more or less when 
that scan is made of a grainy film. Which essentialy is noise but of a 
kind that we are used to and learned to appreciate. Taking the grain out 
one way or another (lousy scan for example) makes more garbage. The 
print is grainy at less than A4 size so it must have been Tri-X with 
Rodinal 1:25 or something like that, no record of it.

Ernst

Hi all

B&W film has grain, color film "dye clouds", noise. They are different things and call for different tools.

For B&W, Try Noiseware:

http://www.imagenomic.com/

and its luminosity grain removal.

Ukko Heikkinen




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

Ukko Heikkinen wrote:

>Hi all
>
>B&W film has grain, color film "dye clouds", noise. They are different things and call for different tools.
>  
>
Partially true... Not all B&W film has grain. There are Chromagenic B&W 
films that use dyes, such as Ilford's XP2..
Keith

 
Keith Krebs

"Just some guy," caretaker of the Multiverse's largest EPSON printer 
User Community (highly recommended by Vogon Poets and MegaDodo 
Publications), at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EPSON_Printers/
and  the Multiverse's largest Canon printer User  Community at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Canon-printers
"For the rest of you out there, the secret is to bang the rocks together 
guys"

Are you saying using color film will eliminate grain? If you are which 
color film do you recommend for using digitally later.

MS
On May 24, 2005, at 5:35 PM, Editor P.O.V. Image Service wrote:

> Ukko Heikkinen wrote:
>
>  >Hi all
>  >
>  >B&W film has grain, color film "dye clouds", noise. They are 
> different things and call for different tools.
>  >�
>  >
>  Partially true... Not all B&W film has grain. There are Chromagenic 
> B&W
>  films that use dyes, such as Ilford's XP2..
>  Keith
>
>
>  Keith Krebs
>
>  "Just some guy," caretaker of the Multiverse's largest EPSON printer
>  User Community (highly recommended by Vogon Poets and MegaDodo
>  Publications), at:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EPSON_Printers/
>  and� the Multiverse's largest Canon printer User� Community at:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Canon-printers
>  "For the rest of you out there, the secret is to bang the rocks 
> together
>  guys"
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other 
> resources as they are often being updated.
>
> 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:
>  - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to 
> keep them short.
>  - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or 
> flames. Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from 
> the membership without notice.
>  - Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital 
> B&W printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be 
> removed from the membership.
>  - By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and 
> guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group 
> Owner and Moderators. See �Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines� in the 
> Files section:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/
>
>  BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE 
> PRINT YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE �OWNER� 
> AND �MODERATORS� OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE 
> LIABLE TO YOU FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, 
> CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, 
> DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS, GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE 
> LOSSES (EVEN IF THE� �OWNER� AND �MODERATORS� OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT 
> YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), 
> RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, 
> THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR ALTERATION OF 
> YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD 
> PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER 
> MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> 	� 	To visit your group on the web, go to:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/
> �
> 	� 	To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> �
> 	� 	Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of 
> Service.
>
>
Margaret Stratton
Professor of Art
Department of Art and Art History
University of Iowa
319-3375064 hm
917-8061076 cell
www.margaretstratton.com


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

MS wrote:

> Are you saying using color film will eliminate grain? If you are which 
> color film do you recommend for using digitally later.

No. The "silver grain" of  traditional B&W films and the "dye clouds" of color films just are different things.

No. Dye clouds, "noise", can be a bigger problem. The "right" type and amount of grain makes a good B&W image.

Film? Any. Fuji NPZ, 800 ASA, is my favorite, but the main thing is to expose for the shadows.

Ukko Heikkinen





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

Doesn't an ASA 800 film give you more "noise" however it is termed, 
that say a 400 ASA film?

Thanks
MS
On May 25, 2005, at 12:50 AM, Ukko Heikkinen wrote:

> MS wrote:
>
>  > Are you saying using color film will eliminate grain? If you are 
> which
>  > color film do you recommend for using digitally later.
>
>  No. The "silver grain" of� traditional B&W films and the "dye clouds" 
> of color films just are different things.
>
>  No. Dye clouds, "noise", can be a bigger problem. The "right" type 
> and amount of grain makes a good B&W image.
>
>  Film? Any. Fuji NPZ, 800 ASA, is my favorite, but the main thing is 
> to expose for the shadows.
>
>  Ukko Heikkinen
>
>
>
>
>
>  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other 
> resources as they are often being updated.
>
> 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:
>  - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to 
> keep them short.
>  - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or 
> flames. Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from 
> the membership without notice.
>  - Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital 
> B&W printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be 
> removed from the membership.
>  - By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and 
> guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group 
> Owner and Moderators. See �Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines� in the 
> Files section:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/
>
>  BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE 
> PRINT YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE �OWNER� 
> AND �MODERATORS� OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE 
> LIABLE TO YOU FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, 
> CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, 
> DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS, GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE 
> LOSSES (EVEN IF THE� �OWNER� AND �MODERATORS� OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT 
> YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), 
> RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, 
> THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR ALTERATION OF 
> YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD 
> PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER 
> MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> 	� 	To visit your group on the web, go to:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/
> �
> 	� 	To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> �
> 	� 	Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of 
> Service.
>
>
Margaret Stratton
Professor of Art
Department of Art and Art History
University of Iowa
319-3375064 hm
917-8061076 cell
www.margaretstratton.com


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

At 07:33 AM 5/25/2005, you wrote:
>Doesn't an ASA 800 film give you more "noise" however it is termed,
>that say a 400 ASA film?
>
>Thanks
>MS


As a rule of thumb, yes... grain in film, noise in digital.

Roy

I've looked for a yahoo group that's about mounting inkjet prints but there 
is none :-)

I've got a few questions which might start and end with "are there any 
recommended books on this subject ?"

My concerns are the effect of heat on inkjet prints doing regular dry 
mounting.  Also the cost of a heat press is pretty high, so is there an 
alternative to a commercial heat press other than a hand iron (my mom used 
to have a trouser presser that seems like it might do the job). What are 
good "non dry mount" (wet ?) alternatives with glues and the like. I have 
questions on techniques of cutting matte boards, technical and aesthetic. 
I've seen some verbal descriptions on the web but haven't found any good 
illustrations.

are there any recommended books on this subject? (I've got 2 in my shopping 
cart on Amazon as I write this and am waiting to add and or click :-)


Thanks Much


Peace

Roy

Hello Roy,

>My concerns are the effect of heat on inkjet prints doing 
>regular dry mounting...

I haven't tried it myself, but have heard others in this forum over
the past few years say that it doesn't hurt them.

OTOH, many also say that they don't dry mount any more, for two
reasons:  One, it isn't necessary because the prints don't wrinkle
because they haven't been wet.  Two, dry mounting has become "out of
fashion" among collectors and museum type folks because it's too
difficult to unmount them.  


Regards,
Clayton


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

Roy,

I have measured test strips of MIS B&W inks before and after dry mounting
and found no significant differences.  I have the press set to 180 and use
Seal Archival mount.  I leave the prints in the press for 1 minute, but
usually have to do more than one press per print for large prints.  I do not
press matte paper -- only sprayed Premium Semimatte.  

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Roy
> Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2005 7:24 AM
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [Digital BW] A bit OT. Mounting Prints - effect of heat on inkjet
> print - any recommended books
> 
> I've looked for a yahoo group that's about mounting inkjet prints but
> there
> is none :-)
> 
> I've got a few questions which might start and end with "are there any
> recommended books on this subject ?"
> 
> My concerns are the effect of heat on inkjet prints doing regular dry
> mounting.  Also the cost of a heat press is pretty high, so is there an
> alternative to a commercial heat press other than a hand iron (my mom used
> to have a trouser presser that seems like it might do the job). What are
> good "non dry mount" (wet ?) alternatives with glues and the like. I have
> questions on techniques of cutting matte boards, technical and aesthetic.
> I've seen some verbal descriptions on the web but haven't found any good
> illustrations.
> 
> are there any recommended books on this subject? (I've got 2 in my
> shopping
> cart on Amazon as I write this and am waiting to add and or click :-)
> 
> 
> Thanks Much
> 
> 
> Peace
> 
> Roy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other resources as
> they are often being updated.
> 
> 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:
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
> them short.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames.
> Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the
> membership without notice.
> - Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W
> printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be removed from
> the membership.
> - By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and
> guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group Owner
> and Moderators. See Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines in the Files
> section:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/
> 
> BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT
> YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE OWNER AND
> MODERATORS OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO
> YOU FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR
> EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF
> PROFITS, GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE
> OWNER AND MODERATORS OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN
> ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE
> OR THE INABILITY TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii)
> UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii)
> STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT
> YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE
> PRINT YAHOO GROUP.
> 
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
> 
> 
> 
>

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Roy
<thinkgreen@s...> wrote:
> I've looked for a yahoo group that's about mounting inkjet prints
but there 
> is none :-)
> 
> What are 
> good "non dry mount" (wet ?) alternatives with glues and the like. 


Hi Roy.
Look at 3M Scotch Positionable Mounting Adhesive. It is considered
"Photo safe" and can be hand done(no press needed).
You simply apply it, peel the backing sheet, position the print and
burnish. It seems to work nicely where suspension mounting isn't
effective for whatever reason.

Regards.
Duane

> MS wrote:
> Doesn't an ASA 800 film give you more "noise" however it is termed,  that say a 400 ASA > film?

"In principle" yes, but if you ask, doesn't Fuji NPZ 800, or Fujicolor Pro 800 Z, as it is now called, give you more "noise" than all the 400 ASA films, "It ain't necessarily so". Since one should always expose for the deepest shadows, I appreciate the speed of the film more often than not, hand-holding my cameras in available light.

For more information. please see for eample
http://forums.photographyreview.com/showthread.php?t=8911

Ukko Heikkinen






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

At 09:39 AM 5/25/2005, you wrote:
>Roy,
>
>I have measured test strips of MIS B&W inks before and after dry mounting
>and found no significant differences.  I have the press set to 180 and use
>Seal Archival mount.  I leave the prints in the press for 1 minute, but
>usually have to do more than one press per print for large prints.  I do not
>press matte paper -- only sprayed Premium Semimatte.
>
>Paul


Thanks Paul

What do you do for matte?


Roy

Roy,

I tape hang matte prints behind an over matte, and then put them in a black
metal frame with acrylic glazing.  Aside from the static & dust on the
acrylic, this is much easier than dry mounting.

I saw some museum glass the other day that would help with reflections.
However, it may be more sensitive than acrylic, and there still are some
(greenish) reflections of lights.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Roy
> Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2005 1:40 PM
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: RE: [Digital BW] A bit OT. Mounting Prints - effect of heat on
> inkjet print - any recommended books
> 
> At 09:39 AM 5/25/2005, you wrote:
> >Roy,
> >
> >I have measured test strips of MIS B&W inks before and after dry mounting
> >and found no significant differences.  I have the press set to 180 and
> use
> >Seal Archival mount.  I leave the prints in the press for 1 minute, but
> >usually have to do more than one press per print for large prints.  I do
> not
> >press matte paper -- only sprayed Premium Semimatte.
> >
> >Paul
> 
> 
> Thanks Paul
> 
> What do you do for matte?
> 
> 
> Roy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other resources as
> they are often being updated.
> 
> 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:
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
> them short.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames.
> Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the
> membership without notice.
> - Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W
> printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be removed from
> the membership.
> - By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and
> guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group Owner
> and Moderators. See Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines in the Files
> section:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/
> 
> BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT
> YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE OWNER AND
> MODERATORS OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO
> YOU FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR
> EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF
> PROFITS, GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE
> OWNER AND MODERATORS OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN
> ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE
> OR THE INABILITY TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii)
> UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii)
> STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT
> YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE
> PRINT YAHOO GROUP.
> 
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
> 
> 
> 
>

I'll preface this with my "credentials" my family's framing business
has been operating since 1892 and I am a 4th generation framer.  I
also have been printing ink jet (large format) since 1991 soo... here
is my suggestions.
I would not mount any original art unless my client begged me for it.
 tape hinging in a book mat is the museum way to go.  if you want to
dry mount, most digital prints (except for wax based prints) can be
dry mounted with no problem except for the possibility of "orange
peeling" (the surface getting a texture from the mounting board)I
would recommend and archival dry mount tissue and a press (irons are
not a good idea uneven pressure.)

Positional adhesives will work and are fairly easy to apply however I
doubt they will last and are usually not archival.  
Spray mount is well... spray mount the only one that really holds is
3M's spray 77 it's like contact cement in a can and is as far away
from archival as you can get.

Wet mounting can be done to water resistant materials i.e. pigmented
inks and is a simple as methyl cellulose wallpaper paste you should
counter-mount the board (mounting a plain paper on the back to prevent
 curl).  And if you get your hands on a vacuum press you can wet mount
with many different adhesives. and have your prints flat as a pancake.


If anyone has any more questions or wants more detail on anything let
me know
-Jeff


I'--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Roy
<thinkgreen@s...> wroit
> I've looked for a yahoo group that's about mounting inkjet prints
but there 
> is none :-)
> 
> I've got a few questions which might start and end with "are there any 
> recommended books on this subject ?"
> 
> My concerns are the effect of heat on inkjet prints doing regular dry 
> mounting.  Also the cost of a heat press is pretty high, so is there an 
> alternative to a commercial heat press other than a hand iron (my
mom used 
> to have a trouser presser that seems like it might do the job). What
are 
> good "non dry mount" (wet ?) alternatives with glues and the like. I
have 
> questions on techniques of cutting matte boards, technical and
aesthetic. 
> I've seen some verbal descriptions on the web but haven't found any
good 
> illustrations.
> 
> are there any recommended books on this subject? (I've got 2 in my
shopping 

> cart on Amazon as I write this and am waiting to add and or click :-)
> 
> 
> Thanks Much
> 
> 
> Peace
> 
> Roy

Jeff,

Thanks for the informative post.  I'm interested in learning more about any
archival mounting system that might be able to replace my dry mounting of
glossy prints.


> Wet mounting can be done to water resistant materials i.e. pigmented
> inks 

I suppose the polyethylene barrier in "RC" papers might help protect the
image from moisture also.  My target would be these types of paper.  Matte
papers tape hang so easily I don't see any need for more with them.
However, glossy papers -- even coated matte papers that become more glossy
-- just do not look good, in my opinion, if there is any evidence of ripples
or waviness.  So, how to hold them totally flat easily and in an archival
manner is my concern.

> and is a simple as methyl cellulose wallpaper paste

Do you actually use wallpaper paste, or is there a more archival version of
it?  I think I've seen mold grow on wallpaper paste.

>you should counter-mount the board (mounting a plain paper 
>on the back to prevent curl).  

>And if you get your hands on a vacuum press you can wet mount
> with many different adhesives. and have your prints flat as a pancake.

This particularly interests me.  Like many old darkroom workers, I have a
vacuum easel.  Is this similar to the "vacuum press" you are referring to? 

Can a vacuum easel be used to hold a print and some kind of mount board
together and flat as it dries?  I'm not sure how long the vacuum easel is
designed to run and not overheat.  For the vacuum easel, it seems like the
mount board would have to be more porous than what I'm used to.

With barrier papers and this wet mounting, it seems like the water is going
to have trouble evaporating out of the system.

At any rate, I'd love to find a better and archival method to hold glossy
prints totally flat.  Thanks for any suggestions.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

jkwait2000 wrote:
> I'll preface this with my "credentials" my family's framing business
> has been operating since 1892 and I am a 4th generation framer.  I
> also have been printing ink jet (large format) since 1991 soo... here
> is my suggestions.

I am listening..that's for sure.

> I would not mount any original art unless my client begged me for it.
>  tape hinging in a book mat is the museum way to go.  

I have no idea what you just said here.. or at least I can't visualize 
it with out a troupe of monkeys showing up in the middle of it.

Is there an example of what this type of mount looks like

All I've ever done is dry mount one photo in class and frame others. I 
like the effect when I guess it would be called double matting..when the 
photo's mounted on a board and then a 2nd matte with the cut out and 
nice beveled edges is put on in front. I've seen 2 and 3 front mattes 
frames built up like this. Are any of these a look that can be 
accomplished with "tape hinging in a book mat"?

if you want to
> dry mount, most digital prints (except for wax based prints) can be
> dry mounted with no problem except for the possibility of "orange
> peeling" (the surface getting a texture from the mounting board)I
> would recommend and archival dry mount tissue and a press (irons are
> not a good idea uneven pressure.)

It's the expense of the press that has me looking for alternatives. I 
want to be pretty self sufficient and that was an expense that's a bit 
hard to wrap my mind around.
> 
> Positional adhesives will work and are fairly easy to apply however I
> doubt they will last and are usually not archival.  
> Spray mount is well... spray mount the only one that really holds is
> 3M's spray 77 it's like contact cement in a can and is as far away
> from archival as you can get.
> 

I ran across one site that was having a problem with what I think you're 
positional adhesives. He was looking for something that could be 
"unmounted" in a couple months. They were constantly popping up or the 
prints came loose after a month.

> Wet mounting can be done to water resistant materials i.e. pigmented
> inks and is a simple as methyl cellulose wallpaper paste you should
> counter-mount the board (mounting a plain paper on the back to prevent
>  curl).  And if you get your hands on a vacuum press you can wet mount
> with many different adhesives. and have your prints flat as a pancake.
> 
> 
> If anyone has any more questions or wants more detail on anything let
> me know
> -Jeff

Have you written a book? I just bought 4 of them on amazon a moment ago.


Thanks for your input.

Peace

Roy

>
>Hi Roy.
>Look at 3M Scotch Positionable Mounting Adhesive. It is considered
>"Photo safe" and can be hand done(no press needed).
>You simply apply it, peel the backing sheet, position the print and
>burnish. It seems to work nicely where suspension mounting isn't
>effective for whatever reason.
>
>Regards.
>Duane


Thanks Duane

How long term is this. I was reading on one guys site that this is a pretty 
short term solution. As I said in my previous post I just ordered 4 books 
from amazon (did I think of trying my library? Nooooooooooooo) but if you 
could tell me what suspension hanging is while I wait for their arrival I'd 
appreciate it.

Peace

Roy

Hello Roy,

>All I've ever done is dry mount one photo in class and frame 
>others. I like the effect when I guess it would be called 
>double matting..

Dry mounting (or not) and the style of matting are really two separate
issues.  Dry mounting makes emulsion prints look better because the
papers curl and wrinkle from being wet.  As for matting, there are
basically two approaches, either covering or not covering the edge of
the image.  Single or double matting is just a matter of style.

Not covering the image is usually favored by
museums/collectors/dealers because it means that nothing is hidden,
such as damaged edges, and assures that the entire image is visible,
nothing is cropped off by the mat.

Assuming the image is not covered, the next question is whether or not
the border is trimmed off the print.  Because dry mounting involves
using tissue which must be trimmed, trimming away the border
completely, what's called a "floating mount", is very common. 

Since the papers we use in inkjet printing aren't wet they don't
wrinkle, so dry mounting isn't required.  We can leave a wide border
around the image and let the window mat cover the paper to hold it
flat (these papers can curl), and still not cover the image, leaving
the same amount of space around the image as we did with float
mounting.  The effect is the same, with the added advantage of the
signature being on the print instead of the mount board.  

If the print is attached to the mount board, as when dry mounting,
it's a challenge to get it positioned perfectly so it's properly
spaced in the window mat.  Since we aren't dry mounting, we can attach
the print to the window mat instead, making it much easier to get it
positioned just right.  This makes the entire process much easier and
faster.

The method of attachment is to use acid free linen tape (there are
various types) in some manner of hinge (various way to do it).  The
important thing is not to tape the image on all sides.  It is said
that there is some shrinking and swelling as humidity changes, and if
the print isn't free to adjust, wrinkling can result.  Most people
here have said they hinge the top side only - that's what I do.

A while back someone posted a link to a web site that showed different
ways of hinging...does anyone still have that?  I hope this is
helpful.

Regards,
Clayton


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








If a different style of presentation not using a mat is desired, then
 some sort of mounting process may be needed to keep the print flat.

Hi Calyton,

Here are two liks reciently mentioned:

http://www.trueart.info/hinging.htm

http://www.nedcc.org/plam3/tleaf66.htm

Guy
--- Clayton Jones <cj@...> wrote:

> A while back someone posted a link to a web site
> that showed different
> ways of hinging...does anyone still have that?  I
> hope this is
> helpful.
> 
> Regards,
> Clayton
> 
> 
> Info on black and white digital printing at    
> http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If a different style of presentation not using a mat
> is desired, then
>  some sort of mounting process may be needed to keep
> the print flat.
> 
> 
> 


		
__________________________________ 
Yahoo! Mail Mobile 
Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Check email on your mobile phone. 
http://mobile.yahoo.com/learn/mail

Guy, thank you, those are the ones.

>http://www.trueart.info/hinging.htm
>http://www.nedcc.org/plam3/tleaf66.htm

Regards,
Clayton


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

good information  you also can get the japanese paper pre-glued I'll
find the source and post it I have found it in the framing section of
art supply stores. I personally wouldn't use linen tape, it was state
of the art some years ago but fell out of favor due to  residual
adhesive problems and the fact that the hinging tape should tear
before the paper it's hinging does.  Film-o-plast is what we use
mostly in my shop for general hinging.
-jeff

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Clayton Jones"
<cj@c...> wrote:

> Guy, thank you, those are the ones.
> 
> >http://www.trueart.info/hinging.htm
> >http://www.nedcc.org/plam3/tleaf66.htm
> 
> Regards,
> Clayton
> 
> 
> Info on black and white digital printing at    
> http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm

Clayton,

Perhaps this is the web site to which you were referring.

http://www.nedcc.org/plam3/tleaf410.htm

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Clayton Jones" 
<cj@c...> wrote:
> Hello Roy,
> 
> >All I've ever done is dry mount one photo in class and frame 
> >others. I like the effect when I guess it would be called 
> >double matting..
> 
> Dry mounting (or not) and the style of matting are really two 
separate
> issues.  Dry mounting makes emulsion prints look better because the
> papers curl and wrinkle from being wet.  As for matting, there are
> basically two approaches, either covering or not covering the edge 
of
> the image.  Single or double matting is just a matter of style.
> 
> Not covering the image is usually favored by
> museums/collectors/dealers because it means that nothing is hidden,
> such as damaged edges, and assures that the entire image is visible,
> nothing is cropped off by the mat.
> 
> Assuming the image is not covered, the next question is whether or 
not
> the border is trimmed off the print.  Because dry mounting involves
> using tissue which must be trimmed, trimming away the border
> completely, what's called a "floating mount", is very common. 
> 
> Since the papers we use in inkjet printing aren't wet they don't
> wrinkle, so dry mounting isn't required.  We can leave a wide border
> around the image and let the window mat cover the paper to hold it
> flat (these papers can curl), and still not cover the image, leaving
> the same amount of space around the image as we did with float
> mounting.  The effect is the same, with the added advantage of the
> signature being on the print instead of the mount board.  
> 
> If the print is attached to the mount board, as when dry mounting,
> it's a challenge to get it positioned perfectly so it's properly
> spaced in the window mat.  Since we aren't dry mounting, we can 
attach
> the print to the window mat instead, making it much easier to get it
> positioned just right.  This makes the entire process much easier 
and
> faster.
> 
> The method of attachment is to use acid free linen tape (there are
> various types) in some manner of hinge (various way to do it).  The
> important thing is not to tape the image on all sides.  It is said
> that there is some shrinking and swelling as humidity changes, and 
if
> the print isn't free to adjust, wrinkling can result.  Most people
> here have said they hinge the top side only - that's what I do.
> 
> A while back someone posted a link to a web site that showed 
different
> ways of hinging...does anyone still have that?  I hope this is
> helpful.
> 
> Regards,
> Clayton
> 
> 
> Info on black and white digital printing at    
> http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If a different style of presentation not using a mat is desired, 
then
>  some sort of mounting process may be needed to keep the print flat.

Clayton,

Perhaps this is the web site to which you were referring.

http://www.nedcc.org/plam3/tleaf410.htm

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Clayton Jones" 
<cj@c...> wrote:
> Hello Roy,
> 
> >All I've ever done is dry mount one photo in class and frame 
> >others. I like the effect when I guess it would be called 
> >double matting..
> 
> Dry mounting (or not) and the style of matting are really two 
separate
> issues.  Dry mounting makes emulsion prints look better because the
> papers curl and wrinkle from being wet.  As for matting, there are
> basically two approaches, either covering or not covering the edge 
of
> the image.  Single or double matting is just a matter of style.
> 
> Not covering the image is usually favored by
> museums/collectors/dealers because it means that nothing is hidden,
> such as damaged edges, and assures that the entire image is visible,
> nothing is cropped off by the mat.
> 
> Assuming the image is not covered, the next question is whether or 
not
> the border is trimmed off the print.  Because dry mounting involves
> using tissue which must be trimmed, trimming away the border
> completely, what's called a "floating mount", is very common. 
> 
> Since the papers we use in inkjet printing aren't wet they don't
> wrinkle, so dry mounting isn't required.  We can leave a wide border
> around the image and let the window mat cover the paper to hold it
> flat (these papers can curl), and still not cover the image, leaving
> the same amount of space around the image as we did with float
> mounting.  The effect is the same, with the added advantage of the
> signature being on the print instead of the mount board.  
> 
> If the print is attached to the mount board, as when dry mounting,
> it's a challenge to get it positioned perfectly so it's properly
> spaced in the window mat.  Since we aren't dry mounting, we can 
attach
> the print to the window mat instead, making it much easier to get it
> positioned just right.  This makes the entire process much easier 
and
> faster.
> 
> The method of attachment is to use acid free linen tape (there are
> various types) in some manner of hinge (various way to do it).  The
> important thing is not to tape the image on all sides.  It is said
> that there is some shrinking and swelling as humidity changes, and 
if
> the print isn't free to adjust, wrinkling can result.  Most people
> here have said they hinge the top side only - that's what I do.
> 
> A while back someone posted a link to a web site that showed 
different
> ways of hinging...does anyone still have that?  I hope this is
> helpful.
> 
> Regards,
> Clayton
> 
> 
> Info on black and white digital printing at    
> http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If a different style of presentation not using a mat is desired, 
then
>  some sort of mounting process may be needed to keep the print flat.

Clayton ..thanks much for the response. Between this and the links
provided by Guy (thanks Guy) I could probably return those books I
ordered :-)
Peace

Roy

Hi again Roy.

Sorry for the delay.(Weekend interfered:)).

I have used the positionable adhesive occasionally but it has always
involved framed prints with matts under glass. I haven't seen failures
as yet but don't have years of experience with it. I do know it must
be burnished down well as it's whole purpose is to be moveable until
perfectly placed.

Suspension mounting is where one puts archival linen tapes on the top
edge of a print on the rear with an inch or so sticking out (goo up)
and then tapes the tape itself to the print backing. Some call it 'T'
mounting. The print hangs from the tapes and that is all that holds
it. A matt covers the visible tape.

Hope this helps.
Regards.

Duane

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Roy
<thinkgreen@s...> wrote:
> 
> >
> >Hi Roy.
> >Look at 3M Scotch Positionable Mounting Adhesive. It is considered
> >"Photo safe" and can be hand done(no press needed).
> >You simply apply it, peel the backing sheet, position the print and
> >burnish. It seems to work nicely where suspension mounting isn't
> >effective for whatever reason.
> >
> >Regards.
> >Duane
> 
> 
> Thanks Duane
> 
> How long term is this. I was reading on one guys site that this is a
pretty 
> short term solution. As I said in my previous post I just ordered 4
books 
> from amazon (did I think of trying my library? Nooooooooooooo) but
if you 
> could tell me what suspension hanging is while I wait for their
arrival I'd 

> appreciate it.
> 
> Peace
> 
> Roy

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Roark" <paul.roark@v...> 
wrote:
 
> I tape hang matte prints behind an over matte, and then put them in a black
> metal frame with acrylic glazing.  Aside from the static & dust on the
> acrylic, this is much easier than dry mounting.

I spray new acrylic lightly with Kleenmaster Brillianize and wipe with a microfiber cloth, 
both from TAP Plastics. This kills the static charge and removes the debris quickly and 
easily.

Michael

This is not a purely b & w question, but it applies.  I need to mount a print on foam core.  What do people use to mount prints and feel comfortable about maintaining archive standards?  Is there any adhesive that won't degrade the print?

Tom,
Wow you jumped on an old thread..Actually I read back a few posts and their are outdated now as far as being correct with some of the newer materials.. 
So it's a bigger question then you think..Today their are many different substrates that we print on.. So the answers will vary.. A couple of the new er materials are scary to mount an dif you do it so it really works they are not archival....but they are mounted..
SO what material are you referring too.

jimbo

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Tom 
  To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Saturday, January 16, 2010 3:32 PM
  Subject: [Digital BW] Mounting Prints


    
  This is not a purely b & w question, but it applies. I need to mount a print on foam core. What do people use to mount prints and feel comfortable about maintaining archive standards? Is there any adhesive that won't degrade the print?



  


------------------------------------------------------------------------------



  No virus found in this incoming message.
  Checked by AVG - www.avg.com 
  Version: 8.5.432 / Virus Database: 270.14.145/2626 - Release Date: 01/16/10 07:35:00

  ----------


No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com 
Version: 8.5.432 / Virus Database: 270.14.145/2626 - Release Date: 01/16/10 07:35:00


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

In the old days prints were left out to dry after washing.  They really
needed to be flattened and secured to mounting board.  Do we really need
to do that to archival inkjet papers?  I have been successful with just
archival linen tape to attach the print to the board and then covering
it with archival matt board using the tape to create a hinge between the
board and the matt.  After framing using a stiff archival backboard when
needed, the print is hanging downward but also gets pressure all around
from the matt and the glass.  It can expand and contract as needed.  And
you can easily do the whole thing over again if something did go wrong.


Thanks

Mike  



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

I did read some of the earlier threads, but after I posted my question so I'm a little red-faced.

I have a 24 x 24 digital print.  It is framed now and is not fully mounted - but hung from the top of the backing board, but it has serious waves/wrinkles that seem to be increasing over time.  It really needs to be flat.  The National Gallery hasn't asked for any of my prints yet so I think it doesn't have to last 100 years.  I would like for it to last for maybe 20 without being affected by the mounting materials; longer would be nice, but I'm not obsessive about it.

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "mrjimbo" <mrjimbo@...> wrote:

>
> Tom,
> Wow you jumped on an old thread..Actually I read back a few posts and their are outdated now as far as being correct with some of the newer materials.. 
> So it's a bigger question then you think..Today their are many different substrates that we print on.. So the answers will vary.. A couple of the new er materials are scary to mount an dif you do it so it really works they are not archival....but they are mounted..
> SO what material are you referring too.
> 
> jimbo
>   ----- Original Message ----- 
>   From: Tom 
>   To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com 
>   Sent: Saturday, January 16, 2010 3:32 PM
>   Subject: [Digital BW] Mounting Prints
> 
> 
>     
>   This is not a purely b & w question, but it applies. I need to mount a print on foam core. What do people use to mount prints and feel comfortable about maintaining archive standards? Is there any adhesive that won't degrade the print?
> 
> 
> 
>   
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
> 
>   No virus found in this incoming message.
>   Checked by AVG - www.avg.com 
>   Version: 8.5.432 / Virus Database: 270.14.145/2626 - Release Date: 01/16/10 07:35:00
> 
>   ----------
> 
> 
> No virus found in this outgoing message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com 
> Version: 8.5.432 / Virus Database: 270.14.145/2626 - Release Date: 01/16/10 07:35:00
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Tom,
You have to very carefull today regarding mounting especially with the photo papers. A few of them are just to scary and in the big picture represent a lot of risk..
A couple of Epsons newer materials that look great are literally junk as far as I'm concerned from a marketing standpoint.. The material deforms way to easily from lower heat temperatures and contains a material that almost works like an old slip sheet so it doesn't bond that well. It may look good at first but when it's subjected to heat can still work loose and wrinkle or get small or even large air pockets.. The spray glues holds them down near as I can see but these are not archival. Their is only one film that seems to work reasonably well and most frame shops don't even know about it. Sadly we've all taken a lot for granted and the manufacturers have changed the content of their material to enhance it and make it more cost effective.. Many of the newer materials are entirely synthetic I think this is the heart of teh issue myself. 
In my experience experienced frame shops do not guarantee their process when mounting medium and larger pieces and also suggest not doing it on pieces that cannot be replaced. Their are to many issues with the films, foam core and prints these days. We do fine art repro and printing here along with mounting framing etc ..in the studio. We do use the right material and finally appear to be having success with the more difficult substrats but I honestly reccommend to artists to change materials due to the potential issues and liability. Many of us sell our prints mounted and matted and also offer a framing option ....but we also sell to galleries or individuals that only want to buy the print and they take care of the rest on their end. What they do is out of our control.. That segment has proven to be a total disaster for some artists. I have a friend in another state that runs production for several weeks every year .. He switched from photo Luster to one of Epson newer materials.. His effort could only be described as a horrer strory.. I have been to many shows and saw artists selling prints of which they had many framed examples on display for sale.. almost all of which contained wrinkles and could not be sold. I remember a gal this past summer that was set up in her craft hut at a show and on the second day every larger piece she had went nuts due to teh heat.... She was so frustrated all she could do was cry.. It was sad..
The potential liability to ones carrear is far beyond the loss of $ at the time.. It could damage your reputation such that it might be difficult to recover. Epson has a couple of materials that require specialized procedures.. They are in denial about the whole thing as thes eare great selling materials for them..
I have in stock about 8 rolls of prem semi matt which I like far better then prem Luster as it doesn't surface mark as easily.. I'll use it over time but only in a very controlled environment..  I have spoken to Epson regarding this material till I'm blue in teh face and they are literally in denial about it.. 
Anyway, what we all need to realize is that theirs way more to the game then how long your print will last from an ink stand point.. That's just a piece of the puzzle.. So who cares if your inks last 30 years if teh material you put them on turns into a washboard when you put it in normal display environments..
Sorry.. I'm kinda pissed about this issue....... and the machine just keeps rolling on.. 

jimbo

----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Tom 
  To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Sunday, January 17, 2010 11:39 AM
  Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Mounting Prints


    
  I did read some of the earlier threads, but after I posted my question so I'm a little red-faced.

  I have a 24 x 24 digital print. It is framed now and is not fully mounted - but hung from the top of the backing board, but it has serious waves/wrinkles that seem to be increasing over time. It really needs to be flat. The National Gallery hasn't asked for any of my prints yet so I think it doesn't have to last 100 years. I would like for it to last for maybe 20 without being affected by the mounting materials; longer would be nice, but I'm not obsessive about it.

  --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "mrjimbo" <mrjimbo@...> wrote:
  >
  > Tom,
  > Wow you jumped on an old thread..Actually I read back a few posts and their are outdated now as far as being correct with some of the newer materials.. 
  > So it's a bigger question then you think..Today their are many different substrates that we print on.. So the answers will vary.. A couple of the new er materials are scary to mount an dif you do it so it really works they are not archival....but they are mounted..
  > SO what material are you referring too.
  > 
  > jimbo
  > ----- Original Message ----- 
  > From: Tom 
  > To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com 
  > Sent: Saturday, January 16, 2010 3:32 PM
  > Subject: [Digital BW] Mounting Prints
  > 
  > 
  > 
  > This is not a purely b & w question, but it applies. I need to mount a print on foam core. What do people use to mount prints and feel comfortable about maintaining archive standards? Is there any adhesive that won't degrade the print?
  > 
  > 
  > 
  > 
  > 
  > 
  > ----------------------------------------------------------
  > 
  > 
  > 
  > No virus found in this incoming message.
  > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com 
  > Version: 8.5.432 / Virus Database: 270.14.145/2626 - Release Date: 01/16/10 07:35:00
  > 
  > ----------
  > 
  > 
  > No virus found in this outgoing message.
  > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com 
  > Version: 8.5.432 / Virus Database: 270.14.145/2626 - Release Date: 01/16/10 07:35:00
  > 
  > 
  > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
  >



  


------------------------------------------------------------------------------



  No virus found in this incoming message.
  Checked by AVG - www.avg.com 
  Version: 8.5.432 / Virus Database: 270.14.147/2628 - Release Date: 01/17/10 07:35:00

  ----------


No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com 
Version: 8.5.432 / Virus Database: 270.14.147/2628 - Release Date: 01/17/10 07:35:00


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

i got tired of using pencil and paper for each and every print/matt combination and spent the last couple of days writing a software program that does all the work for me. All I have to do is input the dimensions of the image area, the offsets I want on each side and the size of the matt board. It spits out the numbers I want in inches and fractional (1/4, 12, etc.) inches.

Did I just reinvent the wheel? Is there something else out there that already does this? I ask because I am wondering if I should slap a pretty face on the software and sell it for a small fee.
> 

David Kachel



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

I don't get it. It gives you what, the size of the matte board?

Mark
http://www.stillrivereditions.com

On Jan 17, 2010, at 3:55 PM, David Kachel wrote:

> i got tired of using pencil and paper for each and every print/matt combination and spent the last couple of days writing a software program that does all the work for me. All I have to do is input the dimensions of the image area, the offsets I want on each side and the size of the matt board. It spits out the numbers I want in inches and fractional (1/4, 12, etc.) inches.
> 
> Did I just reinvent the wheel? Is there something else out there that already does this? I ask because I am wondering if I should slap a pretty face on the software and sell it for a small fee.
>> 
> 
> David Kachel

>>Did I just reinvent the wheel? Is there something else out there  
that already does this? I ask because I am wondering if I should slap  
a pretty face on the software and sell it for a small fee.

Make a 99 cent iPhone app out of it...

C. D. Tobie
Global Product Technology Mngr.
Digital Imaging & Home Theater
Datacolor.com
CDTobie@...

On Jan 17, 2010, at 3:55 PM, David Kachel <david@...> wrote:

> Did I just reinvent the wheel? Is there something else out there  
> that already does this? I ask because I am wondering if I should  
> slap a pretty face on the software and sell it for a small fee.


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

On Jan 17, 2010, at 5:28 PM, Mark Savoia wrote:

> I don't get it. It gives you what, the size of the matte board?

No, the size of the window to cut and at what distance from each edge of the board to make your cuts.

For example; you bought a bunch of 16x20 museum board, but it is really 15-7/8 by 20-3/16.
The image area of your photograph is 9 x 13-3/8.

You want the matt to be 3/8 outside the image edge of your print, except for the bottom where you want a larger space of 1/2 inch. And, you want a wider border at the bottom than the top by one inch total.

Now do the math manually.

David Kachel



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

On Jan 17, 2010, at 5:52 PM, Cdtobie wrote:

> Make a 99 cent iPhone app out of it...

ROFL

David Kachel



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

On Jan 17, 2010, at 3:28 PM, Mark Savoia wrote:

> I don't get it. It gives you what, the size of the matte board?
>
> Mark
> http://www.stillrivereditions.com
>
> On Jan 17, 2010, at 3:55 PM, David Kachel wrote:
>
>> i got tired of using pencil and paper for each and every print/matt  
>> combination and spent the last couple of days writing a software  
>> program that does all the work for me. All I have to do is input  
>> the dimensions of the image area, the offsets I want on each side  
>> and the size of the matt board. It spits out the numbers I want in  
>> inches and fractional (1/4, 12, etc.) inches.
>>
>> Did I just reinvent the wheel? Is there something else out there  
>> that already does this? I ask because I am wondering if I should  
>> slap a pretty face on the software and sell it for a small fee.
>>>
>>
>> David Kachel
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other  
> resources as they are often being updated.
>
> 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:
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages  
> to keep them short.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or  
> flames. Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed  
> from the membership without notice.
> - Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital  
> B&W printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be  
> removed from the membership.
> - By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and  
> guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group  
> Owner and Moderators. See “Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines” in the  
> Files section:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/
>
> BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE  
> PRINT YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE  
> “OWNER” AND “MODERATORS” OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL  
> NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL,  
> CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO,  
> DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS, GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE  
> LOSSES (EVEN IF THE  “OWNER” AND “MODERATORS” OF DIGITAL BW, THE  
> PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH  
> DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY TO USE THE  
> DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR  
> ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR  
> CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP;  
> OR (iv) ANY OTHER MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO  
> GROUP.
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

> No, the size of the window to cut and at what distance from each edge of the board to make your cuts.
> 
> For example; you bought a bunch of 16x20 museum board, but it is really 15-7/8 by 20-3/16.
> The image area of your photograph is 9 x 13-3/8.
> 
> You want the matt to be 3/8 outside the image edge of your print, except for the bottom where you want a larger space of 1/2 inch. And, you want a wider border at the bottom than the top by one inch total.
> 
> Now do the math manually.


The correct answer BTW, as determined by the aforementioned software is to cut 3-1/32 on the left and right, 2-1/2 on the top and 3-1/2 on the bottom.
> 

David Kachel



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

Sam? Did you say something? I see no comment.

Mark
http://www.stillrivereditions.com

On Jan 17, 2010, at 6:58 PM, Sam McCandless wrote:

> 
> On Jan 17, 2010, at 3:28 PM, Mark Savoia wrote:
> 
>> I don't get it. It gives you what, the size of the matte board?
>> 
>> Mark
>> http://www.stillrivereditions.com
>> 
>> On Jan 17, 2010, at 3:55 PM, David Kachel wrote:
>> 
>>> i got tired of using pencil and paper for each and every print/matt  
>>> combination and spent the last couple of days writing a software  
>>> program that does all the work for me. All I have to do is input  
>>> the dimensions of the image area, the offsets I want on each side  
>>> and the size of the matt board. It spits out the numbers I want in  
>>> inches and fractional (1/4, 12, etc.) inches.
>>> 
>>> Did I just reinvent the wheel? Is there something else out there  
>>> that already does this? I ask because I am wondering if I should  
>>> slap a pretty face on the software and sell it for a small fee.
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> David Kachel
>>

I really think you should beta test it with this group.

Sent from my iPhone

On Jan 17, 2010, at 12:55 PM, David Kachel <david@...>  
wrote:

> i got tired of using pencil and paper for each and every print/matt  
> combination and spent the last couple of days writing a software  
> program that does all the work for me. All I have to do is input the  
> dimensions of the image area, the offsets I want on each side and  
> the size of the matt board. It spits out the numbers I want in  
> inches and fractional (1/4, 12, etc.) inches.
>
> Did I just reinvent the wheel? Is there something else out there  
> that already does this? I ask because I am wondering if I should  
> slap a pretty face on the software and sell it for a small fee.
> >
>
> David Kachel
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> 


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

No, thanks, Mark; I inadvertently posted an empty response, but didn't  
mean to post anything at all. Please excuse the intrusion.
--
Sam

On Jan 17, 2010, at 4:03 PM, Mark Savoia wrote:

> Sam? Did you say something? I see no comment.
>
> Mark
> http://www.stillrivereditions.com
>
> On Jan 17, 2010, at 6:58 PM, Sam McCandless wrote:
>
>>
>> On Jan 17, 2010, at 3:28 PM, Mark Savoia wrote:
>>
>>> I don't get it. It gives you what, the size of the matte board?
>>>
>>> Mark
>>> http://www.stillrivereditions.com
>>>
>>> On Jan 17, 2010, at 3:55 PM, David Kachel wrote:
>>>
>>>> i got tired of using pencil and paper for each and every print/matt
>>>> combination and spent the last couple of days writing a software
>>>> program that does all the work for me. All I have to do is input
>>>> the dimensions of the image area, the offsets I want on each side
>>>> and the size of the matt board. It spits out the numbers I want in
>>>> inches and fractional (1/4, 12, etc.) inches.
>>>>
>>>> Did I just reinvent the wheel? Is there something else out there
>>>> that already does this? I ask because I am wondering if I should
>>>> slap a pretty face on the software and sell it for a small fee.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> David Kachel
>>>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other  
> resources as they are often being updated.
>
> 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:
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages  
> to keep them short.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or  
> flames. Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed  
> from the membership without notice.
> - Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital  
> B&W printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be  
> removed from the membership.
> - By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and  
> guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group  
> Owner and Moderators. See “Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines” in the  
> Files section:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/
>
> BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE  
> PRINT YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE  
> “OWNER” AND “MODERATORS” OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL  
> NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL,  
> CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO,  
> DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS, GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE  
> LOSSES (EVEN IF THE  “OWNER” AND “MODERATORS” OF DIGITAL BW, THE  
> PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH  
> DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY TO USE THE  
> DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR  
> ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR  
> CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP;  
> OR (iv) ANY OTHER MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO  
> GROUP.
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

On Jan 17, 2010, at 6:11 PM, Paul Grant wrote:

> I really think you should beta test it with this group.


That's a thought. Let's see how much more response there is. This may be a solution with no perceived problem.

How many members are there in this group?


David Kachel



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

Hi David,
We have a both Wizard and a Fletcher 2100 here.. and they both get used .. What your talking about is standard fair with all the computerized mat cutters. I had my 2100 for a few years prior to getting the wizard and what I did was make a set of 3x5 cards that I would use for all my standard and non standard special mat jobs set ups that would repeat. I actually did a work up in Excel that did what I think your talking about but used the cards instead.. With your computer stuff you fill in the blanks and get the numbers not sure if that's any faster then a 3 x 5 card.. Anyway, it does exist but I'm not sure how marketable it is as most of it can be done in your head unless it's complex stuff.. 
In the end if you do a lot of matting having set up info pays off as it saves time especially if the job is odd.
I'm not sure what equipment your using but the 2100 comes with a special pined spacer that you rotate for the various standard off sets. So you don't really need to do much math.. The wizard is a fill in the blank type thing for the initial program then you just save it. Don't have any of this discourage you.. as in the end it's whatever works right? 

jimbo   

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, David Kachel <david@...> wrote:

>
> i got tired of using pencil and paper for each and every print/matt combination and spent the last couple of days writing a software program that does all the work for me. All I have to do is input the dimensions of the image area, the offsets I want on each side and the size of the matt board. It spits out the numbers I want in inches and fractional (1/4, 12, etc.) inches.
> 
> Did I just reinvent the wheel? Is there something else out there that already does this? I ask because I am wondering if I should slap a pretty face on the software and sell it for a small fee.
> > 
> 
> David Kachel
> 
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

On Jan 17, 2010, at 6:45 PM, James wrote:

> We have a both Wizard and a Fletcher 2100 here.. and they both get used .. What your talking about is standard fair with all the computerized mat cutters.

Though I have no experience with computerized matt cutters I kind of assumed they would have such software. I am thinking of the average Joe photographer like myself who can't afford such extravagances and cuts his/her matts with the matt cutting equivalent of the stone ax.

David Kachel



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

So am I following this right? Lets say your image is 8"x10" and you want to use an 11"x14" finished matte size. This application would tell you how much the sides of the matte should be, in this case 1.5" on 8" side and 2" on 10" side???

Does it also figure optical center? That would be nice.

Mark
http://www.stillrivereditions.com

On Jan 17, 2010, at 7:45 PM, James wrote:

>> All I have to do is input the dimensions of the image area, the offsets I want on each side and the size of the matt board. It spits out the numbers I want

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, David Kachel <david@...> wrote:
>
> i got tired of using pencil and paper for each and every print/matt combination and spent the last couple of days writing a software program that does all the work for me. All I have to do is input the dimensions of the image area, the offsets I want on each side and the size of the matt board. It spits out the numbers I want in inches and fractional (1/4, 12, etc.) inches.
> 
> Did I just reinvent the wheel? 

Somewhere floating around the internet there is an Excel spread sheet that does this. But the iPhone app is a cool idea.

On Jan 17, 2010, at 7:16 PM, Mark Savoia wrote:

> So am I following this right? Lets say your image is 8"x10" and you want to use an 11"x14" finished matte size. This application would tell you how much the sides of the matte should be, in this case 1.5" on 8" side and 2" on 10" side???
> 
> Does it also figure optical center? That would be nice.

Yes to all. It does what you want it to do. If you want 1/4 inch margins on the sides and top, a 1 inch margin on the bottom, and the whole thing offset 2 inches towards the top, it will figure the cuts for you. 

David Kachel



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

How does this differ from Giorgio Trucco's software named Matworks which he offers on his web site http://www.gt-photography.com/matworks.html   ?


>  big snips

> i got tired of using pencil and paper 
 
> David Kachel

Will Clark

On Jan 17, 2010, at 7:27 PM, Will wrote:

> How does this differ from Giorgio Trucco's software named Matworks which he offers on his web site http://www.gt-photography.com/matworks.html ?

Thanks for the reference. That's exactly what I wanted to know... what else is out there along the same lines.

I downloaded and looked at his software. Same idea. Though his is Windows-only and demands you convert fractional inches to decimal and then back again for each measurement that is not an exact whole inch. Seems like he removed one annoyance only to needlessly introduce another one. Software that makes you look things up in a table, twice no less, is not very well thought out software.

David Kachel



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

David,

7037 currently listed members.  Some very small fraction of that are 
ever active.  No idea how many of total count monitor or how frequently.

Moderator

On 1/17/2010 7:21 PM, David Kachel wrote:
>
> How many members are there in this group?
>
>
> David Kachel
>
>

I have looked for software solutions in the past.   I guess if you  
tend to force all your prints to fit the frame then it's not needed.



Sent from my iPhone

On Jan 17, 2010, at 4:21 PM, David Kachel <david@...m> wrote:

>
> On Jan 17, 2010, at 6:11 PM, Paul Grant wrote:
>
> > I really think you should beta test it with this group.
>
> That's a thought. Let's see how much more response there is. This  
> may be a solution with no perceived problem.
>
> How many members are there in this group?
>
> David Kachel
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> 


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

On Jan 17, 2010, at 9:38 PM, Paul Grant wrote:

> I have looked for software solutions in the past. I guess if you 
> tend to force all your prints to fit the frame then it's not needed.

You must be a mind reader. I have had that exact same thought in mind the whole day. If the majority of people are willing to alter their vision to fit a fixed ready-made matte size, then there is little call for such a tool.

I remember how disappointed I was when I met Frederick Sommer. All he could do was focus on the fact I had not printed the entire frame of one particular negative. The fact I told him I had intended the cropping he was seeing from the moment I set up the tripod had no effect on him. He had zeroed in on the crop and otherwise completely ignored the work. I don't worship formats or paper sizes but apparently a lot of people do.

David Kachel



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

Actually the $.99 iPhone App would be a great.    Lots of great apps there a a GREAT market.    The DOF app is outstanding as well a some other photo apps.

Paul
On Jan 17, 2010, at 4:21 PM, David Kachel wrote:

> 
> On Jan 17, 2010, at 6:11 PM, Paul Grant wrote:
> 
> > I really think you should beta test it with this group.
> 
> That's a thought. Let's see how much more response there is. This may be a solution with no perceived problem.
> 
> How many members are there in this group?
> 
> David Kachel
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> 
> 



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

On Jan 17, 2010, at 9:56 PM, Paul Grant wrote:

> Actually the $.99 iPhone App would be a great.    Lots of great apps there a a GREAT market.    The DOF app is outstanding as well a some other photo apps.

I can only do a desktop app. No iphone experience or desire.

David Kachel

Unless you are in a production environment with many non standard size
images, how hard is it to use both a centering ruler and a pencil and paper,
if your math skills won't carry you through this? Sounds like too much time
on your hands. Perhaps if you really need the assist, it is great for you.
Simple is good. 

 

Eric Neilsen

Eric Neilsen Photography

4101 Commerce Street, Suite 9

Dallas, TX 75226

 

www.ericneilsenphotography.com

skype me with ejprinter

 

  _____  

From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of David
Kachel
Sent: Sunday, January 17, 2010 5:55 PM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] software tool for measuring matts

 

  


On Jan 17, 2010, at 5:52 PM, Cdtobie wrote:

> Make a 99 cent iPhone app out of it...

ROFL

David Kachel

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





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

Use Qimage's sizes + borders in a creative way and you get all you need 
for matte dimensions.

-- 
Met vriendelijke groeten,   Ernst


Dinkla Gallery Canvas Wrap Actions

|      Dinkla Grafische Techniek      |
|         www.pigment-print.com        |
|                 ( unvollendet )                 |

I see. Will it run an a Mac?

Mark
http://www.stillrivereditions.com

On Jan 17, 2010, at 6:54 PM, David Kachel wrote:

>
> On Jan 17, 2010, at 5:28 PM, Mark Savoia wrote:
>
>> I don't get it. It gives you what, the size of the matte board?
>
> No, the size of the window to cut and at what distance from each  
> edge of the board to make your cuts.
>
> For example; you bought a bunch of 16x20 museum board, but it is  
> really 15-7/8 by 20-3/16.
> The image area of your photograph is 9 x 13-3/8.
>
> You want the matt to be 3/8 outside the image edge of your print,  
> except for the bottom where you want a larger space of 1/2 inch.  
> And, you want a wider border at the bottom than the top by one inch  
> total.
>
> Now do the math manually.
>
> David Kachel
>

On Jan 18, 2010, at 7:06 AM, Mark Savoia wrote:

> I see. Will it run an a Mac?

I built it on a Mac, though I can package it for Windows too.

David Kachel



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

I do my own matte cutting and custom frames also. I got tired of figuring  
it all out on paper also, so i wrote a program like yours. Mine is a  
little different though. I enter the image size, the frame cross section  
width, frame rabbit width and my desired matte border. The matte border  
has one entry for top and sides and a separate entry for the bottom. I  
also have entries for matte to image overlap and second matte recess for  
double matting. The output shows the overall matte size, the matte cutouts  
for both mattes and the overall frame size. With all that, I cut the frame  
material on my miter saw, assemble it, cut the mattes on my Logan matte  
cutter, cut the glass to the same size as the matte, and then assemble  
everything. Low and behold, it all fits together and I make no silly  
errors. I find it very helpful.

Steve

On Sun, 17 Jan 2010 19:50:53 -0800, David Kachel <david@...>  
wrote:

>
> On Jan 17, 2010, at 9:38 PM, Paul Grant wrote:
>
>> I have looked for software solutions in the past. I guess if you
>> tend to force all your prints to fit the frame then it's not needed.
>
> You must be a mind reader. I have had that exact same thought in mind  
> the whole day. If the majority of people are willing to alter their  
> vision to fit a fixed ready-made matte size, then there is little call  
> for such a tool.

-- 
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/

Matworks is PC only not Mac.

Marvin
pixelphoto@...






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

On Jan 18, 2010, at 11:06 AM, Steve and Ann Taylor wrote:

> Low and behold, it all fits together and I make no silly 
> errors. I find it very helpful.

That's the thing in a nutshell. It's not that the math is difficult. It isn't. It's just prone to silly errors and that wastes materials and time.
When I was testing the software I used the pencil & paper results for several recently cut matts to test the software. I found that I had made some mistakes in the pencil & paper calcs!

David Kachel



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

You might want to look at making it into an APP, here is a video shows  
how easy it is to do (must be, thousands of apps out there). Make some  
cash with it, what the hell.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LtJl799MFA0


Mark
http://www.stillrivereditions.com

On Jan 18, 2010, at 8:26 AM, David Kachel wrote:

>
> On Jan 18, 2010, at 7:06 AM, Mark Savoia wrote:
>
>> I see. Will it run an a Mac?
>
> I built it on a Mac, though I can package it for Windows too.
>
> David Kachel

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "pixelphoto@..." <pixelphoto@...> wrote:
>
> Matworks is PC only not Mac.
> 
> Marvin

I've just tested Matworks on a Mac using CrossOver and WineBottler. Matworks... well works on both.

Winebottler is free: http://mike.kronenberg.org/ Your system will need X11 installed.

http://www.codeweavers.com/products/cxmac/ is a $40.

But seeing that David's app is native to Mac I'm all for his program as Matworks is a little kludgy.

united manufacturers supply has a tool available for matting.

it is a modified T square (12 inch). that sets a guide for marking the back
of the mat for cutting.

to use, you measure the print and subtract from the size of the mat then
divide by 2 to get the number to set for margin.

very easy to use.

fran leblanc

918 902 3005

www.fleblanc.com

www.myspace.com/fleblanc-art

 

 



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

Well, having been a UNIX guy for 30 years, I just wrote a tiny python
script to take care of the one annoyance I have with mat borders: I
like to measure things in mm, but the standard sizes of mats are in
inches. I haven't used it to cut mats yet, but it looks like it's
producing the right numbers. If it doesn't work, let me know.

This program will run anywhere python runs, which includes Linux,
Windows, and Macs. I'm planning on making it a bit nicer, like
adding the ability to have the lower border larger, but you get
the general idea. That MatWorks program was 6 megabytes; this script
is ~1200 bytes. I'm not really trying to compare this tiny program
against probably a very good, graphical program. But, between paper
and pencil and this program, isn't this about what's necessary?

I'll paste it here; I'd rather attach it, but I don't think
attachments will survive the group posting, and I looked at
the files section of the yahoo group page, but it doesn't
seem to allow uploads.

If you can't read it, let me know and I'll email it to you directly.
It's really quite trivial.

Here's a sample output:

$ mat.py 
Photo width (mm): 177.8
Photo height (mm): 228.6
Mat width (11 in): 16
Mat height (14 in): 20
Overlap (0.25 in): 
Left border = 117mm
Top border = 143mm

Defaults are in parentheses; if you want paper to show around the
photograph, use a negative overlap.

Andrew


#!/usr/bin/python                                                                                   
#                                                                                                   
# Compute mat borders                                                                               
#                                                                                                   
# Andrew Sharpe 2010                                                                                
#                                                                                                   
import os
import sys
#                                                                                                   
# in inches                                                                                         
#                                                                                                   
MAT_WIDTH = 11
MAT_HEIGHT = 14
OVERLAP = .25


def mm(inches):
   return (float(inches) * 25.4)

def get_num(prompt, default):
   a = raw_input(prompt)
   if not a:
      a = default
   return float(a)


def main():
   try:
      while True:
         photo_width = get_num("Photo width (mm): ", 0)
         photo_height = get_num("Photo height (mm): ", 0)
         if not photo_width or not photo_height:
            print ("Photo height or width may not be zero")
         else:
            break

      mat_width = mm(get_num("Mat width (" + str(MAT_WIDTH) + " in): ", MAT_WIDTH))
      mat_height = mm(get_num("Mat height (" + str(MAT_HEIGHT) + " in): ", MAT_HEIGHT))
      mat_overlap = mm(get_num("Overlap (" + str(OVERLAP) + " in): ", OVERLAP))         

      lborder = round((mat_width - (photo_width - mat_overlap)) / 2.0)
      tborder = round((mat_height - (photo_height - mat_overlap)) / 2.0)
      print "Left border = %dmm" % lborder
      print "Top border = %dmm" % tborder
      return 0

   except Exception, msg:
      print "Exception", str(msg)
      return 1

if __name__ == "__main__":
   sys.exit(main())



On 01/18/2010 05:26 AM, David Kachel wrote:
>  
> 
> 
> On Jan 18, 2010, at 7:06 AM, Mark Savoia wrote:
> 
>> I see. Will it run an a Mac?
> 
> I built it on a Mac, though I can package it for Windows too.
> 
> David Kachel
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> 
> 

-- 
http://andrewsharpe.com


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

On the Logan site you can find calculators for both Mac and Windows:

http://www.logangraphic.com

Look on the lower right for the Calculators section

Jim

On Jan 19, 2010, at 11:35 AM, Jim Goshorn wrote:

> On the Logan site you can find calculators for both Mac and Windows:
> 
> http://www.logangraphic.com
> 
> Look on the lower right for the Calculators section


I don't see anything.
Are you sure that is the right URL?

David Kachel



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

On Jan 19, 2010, at 12:43 PM, David Kachel wrote:

>> On the Logan site you can find calculators for both Mac and Windows:
>>
>> http://www.logangraphic.com
>>
>> Look on the lower right for the Calculators section
>
>
> I don't see anything.
> Are you sure that is the right URL?

There are there, if you search in the right places; but the Mac  
versions are so old that they are Stuffed instead of Zipped, lots of  
people couldn't even open them these days...

C. David Tobie
Global Product Technology Manager
Digital Imaging & Home Theater
CDTobie@...



Datacolor
www.datacolor.com/Spyder3





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

On Jan 19, 2010, at 2:37 PM, C D Tobie wrote:

> There are there, if you search in the right places; but the Mac 
> versions are so old that they are Stuffed instead of Zipped, lots of 
> people couldn't even open them these days...


When was the last time you looked? I searched the entire site and found nothing.

David Kachel



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

Click on the learn how to... section


Mark
http://www.stillrivereditions.com

On Jan 19, 2010, at 3:40 PM, David Kachel wrote:

>
> On Jan 19, 2010, at 2:37 PM, C D Tobie wrote:
>
>> There are there, if you search in the right places; but the Mac
>> versions are so old that they are Stuffed instead of Zipped, lots of
>> people couldn't even open them these days...
>
>
> When was the last time you looked? I searched the entire site and  
> found nothing.
>
> David Kachel

On Jan 19, 2010, at 3:40 PM, David Kachel wrote:

> When was the last time you looked? I searched the entire site and  
> found nothing.

Today...


C. David Tobie
Global Product Technology Manager
Digital Imaging & Home Theater
CDTobie@...


  ----------



Datacolor
www.datacolor.com/Spyder3





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

Sorry for the incomplete URL:

http://www.logangraphic.com/how-to/

then look for calculators on the lower right.

I have tried them and they do work on my MacPro using 10.5.8.

Jim

On Jan 19, 2010, at 4:41 PM, Jim Goshorn wrote:

> http://www.logangraphic.com/how-to/
> 
> then look for calculators on the lower right.
> 
> I have tried them and they do work on my MacPro using 10.5.8.

Got it, thanks. Though it is the same idea, it seems to only allow a matte that overlaps the image area. I tried inputting a negative border number but that failed. Have you been able to get it to work this way?

David Kachel



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

On the page that says learn how to.   Lower right.

Sent from my iPhone

On Jan 19, 2010, at 9:43 AM, David Kachel <david@...> wrote:

>
> On Jan 19, 2010, at 11:35 AM, Jim Goshorn wrote:
>
> > On the Logan site you can find calculators for both Mac and Windows:
> >
> > http://www.logangraphic.com
> >
> > Look on the lower right for the Calculators section
>
> I don't see anything.
> Are you sure that is the right URL?
>
> David Kachel
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> 


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

On 19/01/2010 David Kachel wrote:
> I don't see anything.
> Are you sure that is the right URL?

It's probably quicker to make your own in Excel...
-- 
Regards

Tony Sleep
http://tonysleep.co.uk

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, David Kachel <david@...> wrote:
>
> 
> On Jan 19, 2010, at 4:41 PM, Jim Goshorn wrote:
> 
> > http://www.logangraphic.com/how-to/
> > 
> > then look for calculators on the lower right.
> Got it, thanks. Though it is the same idea, it seems to only allow a matte that overlaps the image area. I tried inputting a negative border number but that failed. Have you been able to get it to work this way?
> 
> David Kachel

Yep that's a big negative not being able to add reveal and only overlap the image.

Found another one for Windows and Mac:

http://www.fineart-photography.com/BorderCalc.html

On Jan 21, 2010, at 8:11 AM, Jim Goshorn wrote:

> Found another one for Windows and Mac:
> 
> http://www.fineart-photography.com/BorderCalc.html


Thanks, got it. 
Oddly, this is yet another one that inexplicably expects the user to do some of the math. It also does not allow the user to determine the vertical offset but instead imposes a fixed "optical center".

Does anyone have a universally accepted definition for the phrase "optical center"? Googling the phrase only results in a sea of Optometrist web sites. Wikipedia also has nothing.


David Kachel



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

Would it calculate correctly if you added to the real size of the image
the amount of the "reveal"?  So an image that is 5 x 7 becomes 5.5 x 7.5
which is a 5 x 7 with .25 inches all around.

 



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

On Jan 21, 2010, at 9:42 AM, David Kachel wrote:

> Does anyone have a universally accepted definition for the phrase  
> "optical center"?

Its not really optical, its perceptual; and the choice that particular  
tool makes is less weighted than what I'm used to seeing...

C. David Tobie
Global Product Technology Manager
Digital Imaging & Home Theater
CDTobie@...


  ----------



Datacolor
www.datacolor.com/Spyder3





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

Correct


On Jan 21, 2010, at 9:37 AM, M Prestie wrote:

> Would it calculate correctly if you added to the real size of the image
> the amount of the "reveal"? So an image that is 5 x 7 becomes 5.5 x 7.5
> which is a 5 x 7 with .25 inches all around.
> 
> 



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