Digital BW, The Print

There's been considerable talk about the enticing new printers from
Epson's competitors, and various OEM solutions from these and the
latest generation Epsons with regard to B&W printing capability. I
can't possibly count the number of conversations I've had in the last
6 months on and off line about this, the basic tone being- there's no
advantage to monochromatic inksets and product developers for the
masses finally have my fine print aesthetic best interests at heart.
What has struck me as distinctly odd is that most people involved in
staying current about high end B&W ink printing know better. That may
be one reason why they don't take part in these discussions, they are
irrelevant to them. For some strange reason I'm not that smart, I'm
part of this community and chose to remain for now...
I work with UCK3s every day, with a 9800, rgb driver, or RIP. I use it
for color, and monochrome outside the gamut of the mono inksets here.
I'm fully aware of what it can do, and can't. In fact, even for mono
(strong sepia, for example) the epson driver is less adequate here, we
make special ink setups and profiles for that in the RIP.
Anyway, take a look here-

http://tylerboley.com/info/RGB_Quad.jpg

these are sections about .8" high, one from the 9800 UCK3 w/ RGB
driver and custom profile on HPR, the other a straight quad on the
9600, also HPR. Both at 1440, drum scanned at 2000 dpi and downsized
to 1000dpi for posting here. 4000 dpi would have described the dots
better and the difference would have been greater.
The difference is obvious. Clearly there is photographic information
in the file that the RGB driver operating normally is incapable of
describing on paper. Not only resolution details, but levels of gray
and tonal subtleties simply non-existent in one and not the other. To
me, this constitutes "better". No question. That's what we want from
output systems, accurate translation of data to the paper, subjective
issues temporarily aside.
I can't afford to constantly upgrade, I'm a very small business sole
proprietor. So this is not even the current mono ink state of the art,
I'm not  touting that or even my setup. If this was a well done K7 or
K6 (of any brand), particularly at 2880, the difference would be even
more striking.
Can you see the difference by eye, is this dishonest? You can see it,
clearly, and my eyes are old. One looks like large format, the other
medium or fine grain 35mm, these are about 6.5 x 9" prints from 5x7
drum scanned neg. I've not shown any sky, grainy in one and cream in
the other. But you shouldn't believe stuff like that, it's just words.
If you think these differences are relevant to you, look into them
yourself.

Here 's what I'm NOT talking about-
You should or should not care about this difference, be willing to pay
for it, or that it will be relevant to your style or source data.
That you should prefer any particular method. I rarely even mention my
setup on list, I have no interest in talking anyone into anything.

Here's what I AM talking about-
From a purely technical standpoint, writing complex and nuanced
monochrome data to paper, more grays and/or blacks than currently
available from OEM solutions (at least the Epson K3s) are still
better. Demonstrably and significantly. I've heard the HP dither is
more random and photographic, but the Canon coarser, what those would
do in this test remains to be seen.
Slightly surprised we have to go back and demonstrate this again,
actually. OK, slithering back into my cave... well, on the road actually.
Tyler

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Tyler Boley"
<tyler@...> wrote:
>
> There's been considerable talk about the enticing new printers from
> Epson's competitors, and various OEM solutions from these and the
> latest generation Epsons with regard to B&W printing capability. I
> can't possibly count the number of conversations I've had in the last
> 6 months on and off line about this, the basic tone being- there's no
> advantage to monochromatic inksets and product developers for the
> masses finally have my fine print aesthetic best interests at heart.


Pretty damning actually. The kind of eye opener that needs to be shown
once in a while to keep the manufacturers striving to make things
better. And I've mentioned a few times how I think the K3 or any three
black printer should be set up, so I won't go into that again.
Basically just wanted to say thanks for showing me what you see
between your "old" quads setup, and the K3.

The one thing I will ask is did you use the different linearizations
for the multi dot size with the x600, or just a single dot size for
that print? I'm assuming that you used v12 to print it, or are you
still using the older version of the RIP? (Yes I think I've paid
attention to your hardware/software)

Hello Tyler,

>OK, slithering back into my cave... 

Wait! Don't slither away yet.  Got a few questions -

You say these prints are from a scanned 5x7 neg.  I'm wondering how
much difference the two output methods would show on a scanned 35mm
neg, or a digi file from an APS sized sensor?  Would the detail that
the quad printer shows here not be in the smaller images and therefore
it would have nothing to resolve?  Would like your thoughts on that.

Are you planning to come back here at some point with a similar
comparison using the new 3800?  I'm really eager to see if that new
dither will make much difference.

Also same for the new HP printers.  I forget the model, but I recently
read a review of one that said something to the effect that the dots
aren't laid down in rows so there can't be any dither banding.  So I'm
also eager to hear how those printers will be for BW.


>For some strange reason I'm not that smart, I'm part of this 
>community and chose to remain for now...

Maybe you're the smart one [ggg].  I hope you will continue to be
visible and vocal and that the printer makers will continue to improve
the out-of-the-box BW quality.  I'm assuming that the new competition
from Canon and HP will be good for us in the long run.  K3 was a big
step in the right direction and it really changed the landscape.  Now
let's have some more steps like that.

Thanks for the report and your usual great input.


Regards,
Clayton


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

I¹d love to see a 1-1 scan, not a magnified one.

This is like debating the worth of a 50² 1080p plasma screen to be viewed
12ft away by looking at it 6 inches away.  Will you see pixels at 6 inches?
Yes of course. Will the pixel grain at 6 inches look less than 768p at 6
inches?  Yes of course.  But it doesn¹t answer the question as to whether
there is a gain from 1080p over and above 768p at 12 ft?

BTW I¹m not disagreeing with you, I just think the magnified comparison is
an improper way to judge output and thus make your point.  As you noted
yourself, the difference you depict would of course been greater at 4000
dpi, and arguably it would be less at 360 dpi.  Then wind that back to a
sensible viewing distance for the size of the image in question...

From: Tyler Boley <tyler@...>
Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2006 02:17:25 -0000
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: [Digital BW] the times, they aren't a-changing

 
 
 

There's been considerable talk about the enticing new printers from
Epson's competitors, and various OEM solutions from these and the
latest generation Epsons with regard to B&W printing capability. I
can't possibly count the number of conversations I've had in the last
6 months on and off line about this, the basic tone being- there's no
advantage to monochromatic inksets and product developers for the
masses finally have my fine print aesthetic best interests at heart.
What has struck me as distinctly odd is that most people involved in
staying current about high end B&W ink printing know better. That may
be one reason why they don't take part in these discussions, they are
irrelevant to them. For some strange reason I'm not that smart, I'm
part of this community and chose to remain for now...
I work with UCK3s every day, with a 9800, rgb driver, or RIP. I use it
for color, and monochrome outside the gamut of the mono inksets here.
I'm fully aware of what it can do, and can't. In fact, even for mono
(strong sepia, for example) the epson driver is less adequate here, we
make special ink setups and profiles for that in the RIP.
Anyway, take a look here-

http://tylerboley.com/info/RGB_Quad.jpg

these are sections about .8" high, one from the 9800 UCK3 w/ RGB
driver and custom profile on HPR, the other a straight quad on the
9600, also HPR. Both at 1440, drum scanned at 2000 dpi and downsized
to 1000dpi for posting here. 4000 dpi would have described the dots
better and the difference would have been greater.
The difference is obvious. Clearly there is photographic information
in the file that the RGB driver operating normally is incapable of
describing on paper. Not only resolution details, but levels of gray
and tonal subtleties simply non-existent in one and not the other. To
me, this constitutes "better". No question. That's what we want from
output systems, accurate translation of data to the paper, subjective
issues temporarily aside.
I can't afford to constantly upgrade, I'm a very small business sole
proprietor. So this is not even the current mono ink state of the art,
I'm not  touting that or even my setup. If this was a well done K7 or
K6 (of any brand), particularly at 2880, the difference would be even
more striking.
Can you see the difference by eye, is this dishonest? You can see it,
clearly, and my eyes are old. One looks like large format, the other
medium or fine grain 35mm, these are about 6.5 x 9" prints from 5x7
drum scanned neg. I've not shown any sky, grainy in one and cream in
the other. But you shouldn't believe stuff like that, it's just words.
If you think these differences are relevant to you, look into them
yourself.

Here 's what I'm NOT talking about-
You should or should not care about this difference, be willing to pay
for it, or that it will be relevant to your style or source data.
That you should prefer any particular method. I rarely even mention my
setup on list, I have no interest in talking anyone into anything.

Here's what I AM talking about-
From a purely technical standpoint, writing complex and nuanced
monochrome data to paper, more grays and/or blacks than currently
available from OEM solutions (at least the Epson K3s) are still
better. Demonstrably and significantly. I've heard the HP dither is
more random and photographic, but the Canon coarser, what those would
do in this test remains to be seen.
Slightly surprised we have to go back and demonstrate this again,
actually. OK, slithering back into my cave... well, on the road actually.
Tyler

 
    



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

And I guess one really should add UC3 Adv B&W to the line-up.  Epson has of
course recognised explicitly the limitations of the colour driver for B&W
and made available a readily useable Adv B&W driver.

From: Steve Kale <stevekale@...>
Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2006 09:51:45 +0000
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Conversation: [Digital BW] the times, they aren't a-changing
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] the times, they aren't a-changing



I¹d love to see a 1-1 scan, not a magnified one.

This is like debating the worth of a 50² 1080p plasma screen to be viewed
12ft away by looking at it 6 inches away.  Will you see pixels at 6 inches?
Yes of course. Will the pixel grain at 6 inches look less than 768p at 6
inches?  Yes of course.  But it doesn¹t answer the question as to whether
there is a gain from 1080p over and above 768p at 12 ft?

BTW I¹m not disagreeing with you, I just think the magnified comparison is
an improper way to judge output and thus make your point.  As you noted
yourself, the difference you depict would of course been greater at 4000
dpi, and arguably it would be less at 360 dpi.  Then wind that back to a
sensible viewing distance for the size of the image in question...

From: Tyler Boley <tyler@... <mailto:tyler%40tylerboley.com> >
Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint%40yahoogroups.com> >
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2006 02:17:25 -0000
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint%40yahoogroups.com> >
Subject: [Digital BW] the times, they aren't a-changing

There's been considerable talk about the enticing new printers from
Epson's competitors, and various OEM solutions from these and the
latest generation Epsons with regard to B&W printing capability. I
can't possibly count the number of conversations I've had in the last
6 months on and off line about this, the basic tone being- there's no
advantage to monochromatic inksets and product developers for the
masses finally have my fine print aesthetic best interests at heart.
What has struck me as distinctly odd is that most people involved in
staying current about high end B&W ink printing know better. That may
be one reason why they don't take part in these discussions, they are
irrelevant to them. For some strange reason I'm not that smart, I'm
part of this community and chose to remain for now...
I work with UCK3s every day, with a 9800, rgb driver, or RIP. I use it
for color, and monochrome outside the gamut of the mono inksets here.
I'm fully aware of what it can do, and can't. In fact, even for mono
(strong sepia, for example) the epson driver is less adequate here, we
make special ink setups and profiles for that in the RIP.
Anyway, take a look here-

http://tylerboley.com/info/RGB_Quad.jpg

these are sections about .8" high, one from the 9800 UCK3 w/ RGB
driver and custom profile on HPR, the other a straight quad on the
9600, also HPR. Both at 1440, drum scanned at 2000 dpi and downsized
to 1000dpi for posting here. 4000 dpi would have described the dots
better and the difference would have been greater.
The difference is obvious. Clearly there is photographic information
in the file that the RGB driver operating normally is incapable of
describing on paper. Not only resolution details, but levels of gray
and tonal subtleties simply non-existent in one and not the other. To
me, this constitutes "better". No question. That's what we want from
output systems, accurate translation of data to the paper, subjective
issues temporarily aside.
I can't afford to constantly upgrade, I'm a very small business sole
proprietor. So this is not even the current mono ink state of the art,
I'm not  touting that or even my setup. If this was a well done K7 or
K6 (of any brand), particularly at 2880, the difference would be even
more striking.
Can you see the difference by eye, is this dishonest? You can see it,
clearly, and my eyes are old. One looks like large format, the other
medium or fine grain 35mm, these are about 6.5 x 9" prints from 5x7
drum scanned neg. I've not shown any sky, grainy in one and cream in
the other. But you shouldn't believe stuff like that, it's just words.
If you think these differences are relevant to you, look into them
yourself.

Here 's what I'm NOT talking about-
You should or should not care about this difference, be willing to pay
for it, or that it will be relevant to your style or source data.
That you should prefer any particular method. I rarely even mention my
setup on list, I have no interest in talking anyone into anything.

Here's what I AM talking about-
From a purely technical standpoint, writing complex and nuanced
monochrome data to paper, more grays and/or blacks than currently
available from OEM solutions (at least the Epson K3s) are still
better. Demonstrably and significantly. I've heard the HP dither is
more random and photographic, but the Canon coarser, what those would
do in this test remains to be seen.
Slightly surprised we have to go back and demonstrate this again,
actually. OK, slithering back into my cave... well, on the road actually.
Tyler

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

 
    



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

Tyler Boley wrote:
> There's been considerable talk about the enticing new printers from
> Epson's competitors, and various OEM solutions from these and the
> latest generation Epsons with regard to B&W printing capability. I
> can't possibly count the number of conversations I've had in the last
> 6 months on and off line about this, the basic tone being- there's no
> advantage to monochromatic inksets and product developers for the
> masses finally have my fine print aesthetic best interests at heart.
> What has struck me as distinctly odd is that most people involved in
> staying current about high end B&W ink printing know better. That may
> be one reason why they don't take part in these discussions, they are
> irrelevant to them. For some strange reason I'm not that smart, I'm
> part of this community and chose to remain for now...
> I work with UCK3s every day, with a 9800, rgb driver, or RIP. I use it
> for color, and monochrome outside the gamut of the mono inksets here.
> I'm fully aware of what it can do, and can't. In fact, even for mono
> (strong sepia, for example) the epson driver is less adequate here, we
> make special ink setups and profiles for that in the RIP.
> Anyway, take a look here-
>
> http://tylerboley.com/info/RGB_Quad.jpg
>
> these are sections about .8" high, one from the 9800 UCK3 w/ RGB
> driver and custom profile on HPR, the other a straight quad on the
> 9600, also HPR. Both at 1440, drum scanned at 2000 dpi and downsized
> to 1000dpi for posting here. 4000 dpi would have described the dots
> better and the difference would have been greater.
> The difference is obvious. Clearly there is photographic information
> in the file that the RGB driver operating normally is incapable of
> describing on paper. Not only resolution details, but levels of gray
> and tonal subtleties simply non-existent in one and not the other. To
> me, this constitutes "better". No question. That's what we want from
> output systems, accurate translation of data to the paper, subjective
> issues temporarily aside.
> I can't afford to constantly upgrade, I'm a very small business sole
> proprietor. So this is not even the current mono ink state of the art,
> I'm not  touting that or even my setup. If this was a well done K7 or
> K6 (of any brand), particularly at 2880, the difference would be even
> more striking.
> Can you see the difference by eye, is this dishonest? You can see it,
> clearly, and my eyes are old. One looks like large format, the other
> medium or fine grain 35mm, these are about 6.5 x 9" prints from 5x7
> drum scanned neg. I've not shown any sky, grainy in one and cream in
> the other. But you shouldn't believe stuff like that, it's just words.
> If you think these differences are relevant to you, look into them
> yourself.
>
> Here 's what I'm NOT talking about-
> You should or should not care about this difference, be willing to pay
> for it, or that it will be relevant to your style or source data.
> That you should prefer any particular method. I rarely even mention my
> setup on list, I have no interest in talking anyone into anything.
>
> Here's what I AM talking about-
> >From a purely technical standpoint, writing complex and nuanced
> monochrome data to paper, more grays and/or blacks than currently
> available from OEM solutions (at least the Epson K3s) are still
> better. Demonstrably and significantly. I've heard the HP dither is
> more random and photographic, but the Canon coarser, what those would
> do in this test remains to be seen.
> Slightly surprised we have to go back and demonstrate this again,
> actually. OK, slithering back into my cave... well, on the road actually.
> Tyler
Once again, Tyler has show that "he da man" by bringing some reality 
into the conversation. Thanks Tyler. This group needs the education from 
time to time, and I appreciate your efforts.
-- 
Bruce Watson
/












/

Tyler,

Never mind my first question.  After a good night's sleep the question
answered itself - the size of the neg is irrelevent.  duh!


Regards,
Clayton


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

I did a quick comparison of the 2400 in ABW mode against the 2200 with the
4K+ and IJC.  I used a 720 ppi, 1 inch high version of my Rainbow Falls
shot.  It has smooth (moving water) highlights and sharp dark rocks.  I just
used ABW at "neutral" and "normal" darkness, which seemed to generally match
the 2200 image, but I did not do a detailed comparison of the relative
profiles.  The 2400 did well in the smooth highlights (of course there are
color dots there, but I can't see them in the real print), but the dark
rocks with ABW mode show an amazing loss of fine detail compared to the 2200
and IJC.  I can see the difference at normal viewing distance.  I don't
think I would have noticed the lower performance in an actual print that was
not compared side-by-side, but my very initial results tend to confirm
Tyler's observations.  I confess I'm surprised at the degree of difference.


 

I might add that both prints, of course, show a tremendous loss of
information compared to the original file when viewed with a loupe or a
high-resolution scan.  It makes me wonder how much more might be achievable
with even better equipment.  I recall the old arguments about how much
detail the eye can see.   Some tests suggest that we can only "see"
resolutions up to about 5 line pairs per millimeter at normal viewing
distance.  On the other hand, some have claimed that we can "detect" edge
sharpness up to the equivalent of from 30 to 100 lp/mm.  Perhaps there is
more room for improvement in our equipment than we think.

 

Paul

www.PaulRoark.com <http://www.paulroark.com/>  

 

 

  _____  

From: .Tyler Boley



.

http://tylerboley. <http://tylerboley.com/info/RGB_Quad.jpg>
com/info/RGB_Quad.jpg

these are sections about .8" high, one from the 9800 UCK3 w/ RGB
driver and custom profile on HPR, the other a straight quad on the
9600, also HPR. Both at 1440, drum scanned at 2000 dpi and downsized
to 1000dpi for posting here. 4000 dpi would have described the dots
better and the difference would have been greater.
The difference is obvious. Clearly there is photographic information
in the file that the RGB driver operating normally is incapable of
describing on paper. . 



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

Tyler,
 
 As usual, I'm late getting into this thread but, because your post strikes a deep cord with me, I want to throw in a couple of comments and opinions.
 
 To my knowledge there is no canned printing solution that is capable of producing the best quality print from any given system--Epson, Canon, HP or otherwise. None of the OEM drivers, including the Epson ABW, is capable of fully exploiting the capability of a given printer/ink/paper combination. BowHaus, ImagePrint, QTR--won't do it, either. ImagePrint basically substitutes one "black box" for another. At least BowHaus and QTR open the box. 
 
 My point is: if one really wants to see what a given system is capable of, they have to control the basic variables that determine how the printer is applying ink to paper. This includes ink limiting, linearization, and accurately authored print profiles. This requires a LOT of time and money. And love. And a good sense of humor. And time. And money.
 
 More important, even if one can afford the software and hardware they still have to master a steep learning curve. When teaching I try to stress the idea that every photographer has to find their comfort level; the printing process that makes most sense to them. And that decision, in turn, will be reflected in their prints. If they can produce the print they need with the OEM driver and canned profiles (including ABW), terrific. Nothing wrong with that. If they cannot, they have to navigate the learning curve off the OEM path. This can take one down the rabbit hole pretty quickly, but that's the price of admission.
 
 At K2 Press, we're currently running a 9800 with the OEM K3 inkset, and a 7600 with Cone's Neutral and Sepia inks. We print through ColorBurst with the K3's, and use BowHaus to run the 7600. I think our approach is basically like yours, Tyler. The 7600 gives us a very beautiful dedicated grayscale printing solution. The 9800 allows us to print color, tinted grayscale, and PDN's for platinum/palladium printing and photogravuer.
 
 Each printer set-up has it's own character, strengths and weaknesses. I use both all the time, for our clients and my own work (but I have to say, for grayscale printing the Cone inks are my default standard). But, I also use an Epson C84 with Paul's EZ inks to make really good, useful, work prints.
 
 We're pretty excited about the new Canon and HP printers. And, who knows, the OEM results with one of these machines might be exactly what a given photographer wants or needs. Likewise, I think that tools like PrintFIX Pro are pretty exciting because they provide a relatively easy way for photographers to assume more control over the basic variables.
 
 Bill Kennedy
 K2 Press
 Author of "The Photographer's Guide to the Digital Darkroom", Allworth Press

 -----Original Message-----
 From: tyler@tylerboley.com
 To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
 Sent: Sat, 11 Nov 2006 8:17 PM
 Subject: [Digital BW] the times, they aren't a-changing
 
     There's been considerable talk about the enticing new printers from
 Epson's competitors, and various OEM solutions from these and the
 latest generation Epsons with regard to B&W printing capability. I
 can't possibly count the number of conversations I've had in the last
 6 months on and off line about this, the basic tone being- there's no
 advantage to monochromatic inksets and product developers for the
 masses finally have my fine print aesthetic best interests at heart.
 What has struck me as distinctly odd is that most people involved in
 staying current about high end B&W ink printing know better. That may
 be one reason why they don't take part in these discussions, they are
 irrelevant to them. For some strange reason I'm not that smart, I'm
 part of this community and chose to remain for now...
 I work with UCK3s every day, with a 9800, rgb driver, or RIP. I use it
 for color, and monochrome outside the gamut of the mono inksets here.
 I'm fully aware of what it can do, and can't. In fact, even for mono
 (strong sepia, for example) the epson driver is less adequate here, we
 make special ink setups and profiles for that in the RIP.
 Anyway, take a look here-
 
 http://tylerboley.com/info/RGB_Quad.jpg
 
 these are sections about .8" high, one from the 9800 UCK3 w/ RGB
 driver and custom profile on HPR, the other a straight quad on the
 9600, also HPR. Both at 1440, drum scanned at 2000 dpi and downsized
 to 1000dpi for posting here. 4000 dpi would have described the dots
 better and the difference would have been greater.
 The difference is obvious. Clearly there is photographic information
 in the file that the RGB driver operating normally is incapable of
 describing on paper. Not only resolution details, but levels of gray
 and tonal subtleties simply non-existent in one and not the other. To
 me, this constitutes "better". No question. That's what we want from
 output systems, accurate translation of data to the paper, subjective
 issues temporarily aside.
 I can't afford to constantly upgrade, I'm a very small business sole
 proprietor. So this is not even the current mono ink state of the art,
 I'm not touting that or even my setup. If this was a well done K7 or
 K6 (of any brand), particularly at 2880, the difference would be even
 more striking.
 Can you see the difference by eye, is this dishonest? You can see it,
 clearly, and my eyes are old. One looks like large format, the other
 medium or fine grain 35mm, these are about 6.5 x 9" prints from 5x7
 drum scanned neg. I've not shown any sky, grainy in one and cream in
 the other. But you shouldn't believe stuff like that, it's just words.
 If you think these differences are relevant to you, look into them
 yourself.
 
 Here 's what I'm NOT talking about-
 You should or should not care about this difference, be willing to pay
 for it, or that it will be relevant to your style or source data.
 That you should prefer any particular method. I rarely even mention my
 setup on list, I have no interest in talking anyone into anything.
 
 Here's what I AM talking about-
 From a purely technical standpoint, writing complex and nuanced
 monochrome data to paper, more grays and/or blacks than currently
 available from OEM solutions (at least the Epson K3s) are still
 better. Demonstrably and significantly. I've heard the HP dither is
 more random and photographic, but the Canon coarser, what those would
 do in this test remains to be seen.
 Slightly surprised we have to go back and demonstrate this again,
 actually. OK, slithering back into my cave... well, on the road actually.
 Tyler
 
      
________________________________________________________________________
Check out the new AOL.  Most comprehensive set of free safety and security tools, free access to millions of high-quality videos from across the web, free AOL Mail and more.


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

Paul did you select "finest detail" in ABW to take advantage of the 720ppi
resolution?

Mike


On 12/11/06, Paul Roark <paul.roark@...> wrote:
>
>   I did a quick comparison of the 2400 in ABW mode against the 2200 with
> the
> 4K+ and IJC. I used a 720 ppi, 1 inch high version of my Rainbow Falls
> shot. It has smooth (moving water) highlights and sharp dark rocks. I just
> used ABW at "neutral" and "normal" darkness, which seemed to generally
> match
> the 2200 image, but I did not do a detailed comparison of the relative
> profiles. The 2400 did well in the smooth highlights (of course there are
> color dots there, but I can't see them in the real print), but the dark
> rocks with ABW mode show an amazing loss of fine detail compared to the
> 2200
> and IJC. I can see the difference at normal viewing distance. I don't
> think I would have noticed the lower performance in an actual print that
> was
> not compared side-by-side, but my very initial results tend to confirm
> Tyler's observations. I confess I'm surprised at the degree of difference.
>
> I might add that both prints, of course, show a tremendous loss of
> information compared to the original file when viewed with a loupe or a
> high-resolution scan. It makes me wonder how much more might be achievable
> with even better equipment. I recall the old arguments about how much
> detail the eye can see. Some tests suggest that we can only "see"
> resolutions up to about 5 line pairs per millimeter at normal viewing
> distance. On the other hand, some have claimed that we can "detect" edge
> sharpness up to the equivalent of from 30 to 100 lp/mm. Perhaps there is
> more room for improvement in our equipment than we think.
>
> Paul
>
> www.PaulRoark.com <http://www.paulroark.com/>
>
> _____
>
> From: .Tyler Boley
>
> .
>
> http://tylerboley. <http://tylerboley.com/info/RGB_Quad.jpg>
> com/info/RGB_Quad.jpg
>
> these are sections about .8" high, one from the 9800 UCK3 w/ RGB
> driver and custom profile on HPR, the other a straight quad on the
> 9600, also HPR. Both at 1440, drum scanned at 2000 dpi and downsized
> to 1000dpi for posting here. 4000 dpi would have described the dots
> better and the difference would have been greater.
> The difference is obvious. Clearly there is photographic information
> in the file that the RGB driver operating normally is incapable of
> describing on paper. .
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> 
>


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

In a message dated 11/12/06 11:29:31 AM, paul.roark@... writes:


> The 2400 did well in the smooth highlights (of course there are
> color dots there, but I can't see them in the real print), but the dark
> rocks with ABW mode show an amazing loss of fine detail compared to the 2200
> and IJC.
> 
I certainly see loss of shadow detail in Epson B&W as well; but when I 
profile with PFP2, and use appropriate shadow detail settings, I don't. So thats not 
as much a matter of whats possible as what the default gets you.

The question to me is what is actually unattainable via OEM inks and drivers, 
not what you don't get at defaults; after all defaults with a lot of RIPs 
won't get you what you want either, its a matter of the best from one and the 
best from the other.

C. David Tobie
Product Technology Manager
ColorVision Business Division
DataColor Inc.
CDTobie@...
www.colorvision.com


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

Tyler  -
   
  You show K3 and Epson driver, and K4 w/RIP.  Do you have a K3 w/RIP.  That might be instructive.
   
  THX
   
  Tom Baker
  
 


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

Hi Bill,

Shouldn't you be K7 press now?

I bought a copy of your book on Amazon. It is really useful for all us
teachers out there. If list members don't know about it - here it is
-http://www.amazon.com/Photographers-Guide-Digital-Darkroom/dp/158115433X/sr=8-1/qid=1163359461/ref=sr_1_1/104-6945385-1520718?ie=UTF8&s=books
I really liked your clear approach in it.

I am finding myself agreeing with both you and Tyler. I still see the
PiezoTone as the defalt standard for monochrome output, both for the
tonal quality, but now also for their super ease of use and lack of
clogging, in even the old 1440 dpi machines, of which I have 4 now.
This is a realatively low cost solution to extremely beautiful
consistent results. I just ordered the sepia set on Friday. I hope
they are around for a long, long time.

.....And, I am simultaneously interested in what is happening with the
thermal technology of HP and Canon, but right now more in the realm of
color, and specifically glossy color. Now the thing to watch is what
WILL happen in regard to glossy monochrome.  The HP is doing a very
good job with the internal gloss optimizer channel and an onboard quad
set up. Personally I don't think the glossy fiber inkjet papers are
100% there yet, but they will be eventually. Then I'll probably want
to offer that too. As Rumsfeld described - But there are also unknown
unknowns, 
The ones we don't know 
We don't know.

As far as my own art work goes I don't see me leaving the excellent
matte rag papers with Pizo, but I never say never.

We do appear to be moving into a situation where there will be
multiple fine approaches and systems out there and depending on what
kind of work it is we want to produce for a given situation. The
danger in all this is that we'll totally buy into the notion that the
technology makes the art, which it doesn't. I think Frederick Sommer
said it very well 20 years ago when he said that in terms of
technology, photography will be come amazing, but our biggest concern
should be maintaining an attention span long enough to use the
potentials of what we have. And, not constantly looking over our
shoulder at what we don't have. Not only that... it's expensive as hell..

john

In a message dated 11/12/06 11:39:20 AM, BKPhoto@... writes:


> My point is: if one really wants to see what a given system is capable of, 
> they have to control the basic variables that determine how the printer is 
> applying ink to paper. This includes ink limiting, linearization, and 
> accurately authored print profiles. This requires a LOT of time and money. And love. 
> And a good sense of humor. And time. And money.
> 
Thats certainly a perceptive view of the process. What I see happening is 
that this level of involvement, commitment, and cost will continue to draw about 
as many users as it does now (and as it has over the last few years); while 
most of the growth in serious B&W will come from the newer, less complex 
options.

I go to the places where galleries prosper, look for galleries, look in 
galleries, and look at what type of prints, (and especially B&W prints) galleries 
offer. In the last few years I've been able to consistantly find a few places 
where specialty B&W inkjet prints are actually being sold. Thats cheers me up, 
when it happens. Much more often I hear the song and dance about silver being 
the only medium to consider etc... but I hardly consider a Lightjet print to 
be preferable to a serious B&W inkjet print. 

What I expect to see with the new printers and tools becoming available is 
about as many specialty B&W system prints as I've been seeing, but a whole lot 
more inkjet B&W in general, some of it excellent, much of it good, and (like 
the opening of any field to a larger public) much of it inferior.   What I'm 
still digesting at the moment is that prints done with OEM ink processes can be 
displayed on the same wall with those from proprietary ink systems, and not be 
automatically inferior.

C. David Tobie
Product Technology Manager
ColorVision Business Division
DataColor Inc.
CDTobie@...
www.colorvision.com


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

>... What I see happening is ...
> most of the growth in serious B&W will come from the newer, 
> less complex options.

No doubt true.  They are getting good enough to reduce the incremental
improvements relatively minor.

One of the options with the 4K+ approach I'm using now is a 5K+cm ink
arrangement on the 2200 and other k2 printers.  I gave it a try on the 2200
by adding a super-light carbon ink in the 7th position.  I find that the
LLLK (?), super-light carbon ink does improve the highlights.  I'd call it
just perceptible on close inspection.  I'm not sure I would notice the
difference in a blind test if I were not looking for it specifically.  I
think we're at the point where such small incremental improvements will be
significant to only a relatively limited group of users.  But the purists
will continue to show what the limits are.

> I go to the places where galleries prosper, ...
> ... B&W inkjet prints are actually being sold.

Yes they are, thanks in part to all the technical talk here.

> That cheers me up, when it happens.

It especially cheers me up when it's one of mine.

And, from that perspective, few buyers will be insisting on discounts
because the Epson driver was used.  It's the image and general reputation
that will count.

(This will get to sounding like a digital v. film capture debate if we're
not careful.  I know which technology will win, but I still love my film.)

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Greg"
<dfaprinting@...> wrote:
...
> Pretty damning actually.

I honestly didn't mean it to be. I'm pleased there are many more
options for people than there used to be and certainly things have
progressed a lot. This will aork for many.

...
> The one thing I will ask is did you use the different linearizations
> for the multi dot size with the x600, or just a single dot size for
> that print? I'm assuming that you used v12 to print it, or are you
> still using the older version of the RIP? (Yes I think I've paid
> attention to your hardware/software)

yes, it was v12 with some amount of variable dot, but primarily 100%
micro in all positions, so in that sense similar to previous versions.
I assume the RGB driver output was completely variable dot.

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Clayton Jones"
<cj@...> wrote:
...
> Are you planning to come back here at some point with a similar
> comparison using the new 3800?  I'm really eager to see if that new
> dither will make much difference.

if someone wants to send me one and tell my clients to hold off for a
bit while I do the tests, dandy! But I have to say, my first thought
is, if the dither is way better imagine what prints from it with a
bunch of Ks and grays would look like <G>.
Seriously, I'm looking for photographic output here. I suspect some
people don't know what that is. Ever seen, say, an Emmit Gowan contact
8x10 print? Again, this has nothing to do with subjective
expectations. In fact, I'm very aware of your thoughts on coverage and
they came to mind again doing this. I've never criticized them and
consider them valid, just subjective.

Tom and Steve, yes ABW and UCK3 RIP output would have been interesting
too. So would all of them done at 2880, other RIPs, K7s, other
settings, but I'm not the consumer reports department... I got the
information I needed from the test I did. The rest, well, I see output
of all kinds here almost every day. I'm happy to make anyone any kind
of print they want to pay for. It's obvious what is best here, to the
naked eye. I wanted this example to be on the list and in the
archives, amongst the confounding amount of posts to the contrary
here. I'm not that interested in becoming an evangelist, despite
unfortunate tendencies towards self righteousness. Also, I've said
nothing about aesthetics, which prints just tend to be more pleasing.
Talent has a lot to do with this stuff.

Regarding many of the other objections, I think I anticipated most or
all of them in my initial comments.

There are many other posts here, serious posts, that I am frankly at a
complete loss as to how to address. I don't know how productive it
would be either, other than to defend my honor or some such BS.

One thing I would like to say though, not for me. The implication that
a certain luminary was absent at a recent trade show was somehow sad,
or indicative of anything at all, is irresponsible and badly intended.
I don't think he was at the same show the previous year either, though
he was at others, including Photokina I believe. They've always
skipped the occasional trade fiasco, many smaller companies do. To my
knowledge all is well, and compelling and evolving as usual, but it's
none of my business.

The test prints I scanned have gone to two different members of this
community I and others respect. They can comment or not, maybe they
don't care to jump in the same pile I did. The rest, I'll think on it,
but life is short. Mostly there is far too much use of the word I in
this post...
Tyler

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Tyler Boley" 
<tyler@...> wrote:
>
> Here's what I AM talking about-
> From a purely technical standpoint, writing complex and nuanced
> monochrome data to paper, more grays and/or blacks than currently
> available from OEM solutions (at least the Epson K3s) are still
> better. Demonstrably and significantly. 

Allow me to toss out a curve ball, & some related questions running 
through my mind lately: It's quite obvious that getting 60-70 or 
even 80% of maximum available quality out of any system is 
relatively easy. It's always that last little bit at the top that 
takes a disproportionate amount of effort, and it seems we on this 
list are primarily concerned with that area. If we could 
somehow 'increase the headroom' we could perhaps improve our quality 
without quite so much difficulty. 
So how in our case does one raise the ceiling of available quality? 
Even if you use 6, 7, or 27 shades of gray, at some point it will do 
no further good, because we are ignoring the most basic and 
fundamental limit inherent to our system: 256 shades of gray. We are 
stuck with translating a almost infinite palette of grays into 256 
shades, and then somehow trying to reproduce that palette with 
equipment and software designed to print 256 shades. Remember, this 
system was set up many years ago by non imaging related techies who 
thought no one could (or more to the point NEEDED) to see more 
subtle gradation. OK, there were other reasons too, like processor 
and memory limits, etc. If there were software that could give us 
e.g., 512 shades of gray, and drivers that could exploit that, would 
that be a dramatic improvement? My feeling is that it would 
constitute the difference between medium format and 4x5 or even 
8x10. I suppose more to the point, however: is this possible, or is 
it analogous to switching to hydrogen from fossil fuels?
Does printing in 12 or 16 bit with drivers equipped for that come 
out to about the same thing, or not? 

Steven Karafyllakis

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Steven 
Karafyllakis" <stevekphoto@...> wrote:
> Even if you use 6, 7, or 27 shades of gray, at some point it will do 
> no further good, because we are ignoring the most basic and 
> fundamental limit inherent to our system: 256 shades of gray.

IJC does not have that limit.  With an exceptionally well made profile, 
it can do at least 1024 shades.

john

Just be your usual decent self Tyler. Definitely don't slither though.
That would be completely out of character.

Regards
Duane

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Tyler Boley"
<tyler@...> wrote:

> There are many other posts here, serious posts, that I am frankly at a
> complete loss as to how to address. I don't know how productive it
> would be either, other than to defend my honor or some such BS.
> 
> Tyler
>

Tyler,

>Seriously, I'm looking for photographic output here. I suspect some
>people don't know what that is. Ever seen, say, an Emmit Gowan 
>contact 8x10 print? 

Not Emmet Gowan, but have seen a number of beautiful contact prints
over the years (Morley Baer, Edward and Brett Weston and Laura Gilpin
come to mind).  I understand your point, and am glad the technology
is making it possible.  An 8x10 contact print can be breathtaking, but
I have never been willing to buy, haul around and use an 8x10 camera
in order to get that result (although I was temped once [g]).  It just
wasn't worth it for me.  Like Paul said earlier, we each have to find
our own comfort level where the cost-benefit ratio balances with our
aspirations, etc.  

In the film world I went up as far as 4x5 for a time, but eventually
settled in at 6x7 where the bulk of my work for 20 years was done.  On
the processing side I found my comfort level with the Fred Picker
modified zone system, for me a good balance between effort and
result.  

Here in the digi world I've found my upper time/effort limit and have
found little patience for RIPS and curves, etc.  Happily, the 2400 is
producing really fine results that, as a former 6x7 user, are more
than acceptable (nothing I saw before K3, including the best from
exchanges in those days, was completely acceptable to me, for various
reasons).  (If there is anything still not where I would like it to
be, it is the paper, not the printer).  If I had been an 8x10 contact
printer then probably the 2400 wouldn't be acceptable.

Yes, it is all subjective.  We must also remember that in the film
world there existed a realm wherein large format, contact prints or
otherwise, was not considered the measure of superiority.  Bresson
is probably the best example of where content carried greater weight
than technical print quality.  By striving for contact print quality
in carbon ink prints you are essentially hanging your hat in the
digital equivalent of the large format film realm.  But there are the
Bressons of the digital world for whom 2400 ABW prints are perfectly
adequate to get their message across.  We need both of course.

I'm extremely happy that the technology is constantly improving. 
Certainly some of it it will trickle down to my level.  I look forward
to things getting even better.  I'm very appreciative of the Tyler
Boleys and the John Sextons of this world to set the standards - they
are essential.  We just can't all work on that level.


>Again, this has nothing to do with subjective expectations. In fact, 
>I'm very aware of your thoughts on coverage and they came to mind 
>again doing this. I've never criticized them and consider them valid,
>just subjective.

Thank you for that.  You are a gentleman and have always shown respect
even though we are working at different levels.  You are one of the
people who have made it worth staying in this forum during difficult
times.


>...jump in the same pile I did...

This has been a really interesting thread with lots of good thoughts
being shared.  I'm sure there are many readers absorbing a lot and
benefitting from this.  I'm glad we can all discuss these things with
mutual respect and not descend into arguments, etc.  Thanks very much.

Regards,
Clayton


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

John;

IJC is starting out with 256 shades, is it not? If it is indeed 
subdividing into 1024 shades then it is doing something similar to 
interpolation, not starting with a scan or digital file of 1024 or 
even 512 and carrying that throughout the process to the printing 
stage. In other words, you've given up a lot of info the first time 
you break an image into 256 shades. And is the driver making use of 
those 1024 shades, or is it re-interpreting to 256? Mind you, I 
realize things like variable dot size, good profiling, and multiple 
inks help a lot, but again, we're having to work progressively 
harder to squeeze out the top 10% in a system that is inherently 
flawed. My question is, is it possible to gain some 'head room' in 
this direction?

Steven Karafyllakis

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "John M." 
<moodymz3@...> wrote:
>
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Steven 
> Karafyllakis" <stevekphoto@> wrote:
> > Even if you use 6, 7, or 27 shades of gray, at some point it 
will do 
> > no further good, because we are ignoring the most basic and 
> > fundamental limit inherent to our system: 256 shades of gray.
> 
> IJC does not have that limit.  With an exceptionally well made 
profile, 

> it can do at least 1024 shades.
> 
> john
>

Tyler,

>Not Emmet Gowan, but have seen a number of beautiful contact prints
>over the years (Morley Baer, Edward and Brett Weston and Laura 
>Gilpin come to mind).  

I also saw some original 18x22 gold toned contact prints of Yosemite
from glass plate negs by Carleton Watkins and Eadweard Muybridge. 
They were stunning beyond words and I must have looked like the
village idiot standing there with my mouth hanging open as I stared at
them.  They were in "A Gallery" in the French Quarter (322 Royal St.,
New Orleans) - if anyone ever has the opportunity to visit this rare
vintage photography dealer, don't miss it - 
 
    http://www.agallery.com 

It was in 1994 and as I recall the prices began at $17,000.  No
telling what they would be today.  There was also on the 2nd floor a
traveling exhibit of about 40 Bresson 11x14s, beautifully printed and
containing many of his most famous pics.  I was in the French Quarter
for five days at a computer conference, at a hotel just 4 blocks
from A Gallery, so I made several trips (even skipped out on a
few seminars to sneak over there).  I discovered it on one of my dawn
photo excursions and went back later during business hours.  The
prices were beyond my meager budget, so to show some support for the
free photo viewing experience of a lifetime I purchased a book of
Kertesz photos.

They had prints from all the major names (Adams, Weston, Gilpen,
Karsh, Cunningham, Bresson, you name it).  Some breathtaking original
Edward Curtis photogravures.  An early Fox-Talbot.  I'll never forget
it.  I have a photo I took of the store front hanging on the wall here
in my home where I see it every day - incredible memories.


Regards,
Clayton


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

>They were in "A Gallery" in the French Quarter (322 Royal St.,
>New Orleans) - if anyone ever has the opportunity to visit this rare
>vintage photography dealer, don't miss it - 
>  
>     http://www.agallery.com 

I just saw the address on their web site

    241 Chartres Street


They must have moved since I was there.  Apparently a much bigger
place, as they say over 5000 sq ft of space.  The original was a bit
of a little "hole in the wall" sort of place, but very charming.


Regards,
Clayton


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

>IJC is starting out with 256 shades, is it not?

IJC/OPM is 16 bit throughout.  If the image is 16 bit it stays that way.  

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Clayton Jones"
<cj@...> wrote:
>
> >They were in "A Gallery" in the French Quarter (322 Royal St.,
> >New Orleans) - if anyone ever has the opportunity to visit this rare
> >vintage photography dealer, don't miss it - 
> >  
> >     http://www.agallery.com 
> 
> I just saw the address on their web site
> 
>     241 Chartres Street
> 
> 
> They must have moved since I was there.  Apparently a much bigger
> place, as they say over 5000 sq ft of space.  The original was a bit
> of a little "hole in the wall" sort of place, but very charming.
> 
> 

Consider that the move could have been very recent do to flooding.
Wasn't most of the French Quarter under water after the hurricane?

Steven,
I should have made it more clear that I’m assuming a high-bit file to start
with, such as a “16-bit” image from a raw camera file, or a >8-bit film
scan.
For example, people that are drum scanning 5x7 film to make an 11x14 print
have huge amounts of information, both bit-depth and resolution.

I can’t overstate the difficulty in creating ink curves that allow one to
prove a workable difference exists between 8-bit and higher than 8-bit.
I imagine most people would find the difference mostly academic, but I enjoy
the pursuit of that sort of thing.  And yes, I do sometimes find it
unpleasant that I will spend time on such efforts, while my images are more
in need of my attention.

Best regards,
John Moody

-----Original Message-----
From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of Steven
Karafyllakis
Sent: Sunday, November 12, 2006 11:47 PM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Digital BW] Re: the times, they aren't a-changing-so can we start
over again?

John;

IJC is starting out with 256 shades, is it not? If it is indeed
subdividing into 1024 shades then it is doing something similar to
interpolation, not starting with a scan or digital file of 1024 or
even 512 and carrying that throughout the process to the printing
stage. In other words, you've given up a lot of info the first time
you break an image into 256 shades. And is the driver making use of
those 1024 shades, or is it re-interpreting to 256? Mind you, I
realize things like variable dot size, good profiling, and multiple
inks help a lot, but again, we're having to work progressively
harder to squeeze out the top 10% in a system that is inherently
flawed. My question is, is it possible to gain some 'head room' in
this direction?

Steven Karafyllakis


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

Hello Greg,

>>They must have moved since I was there.  Apparently a much bigger
>>place, as they say over 5000 sq ft of space.  The original was a bit
>>of a little "hole in the wall" sort of place, but very charming.


>Consider that the move could have been very recent do to flooding.
>Wasn't most of the French Quarter under water after the hurricane?

Actually I think the FQ was one of the places that didn't flood, but
I'm not positive.  But I'm certainly glad they are still there.

Last night I spent some time at their web site.  The FAQ page is quite
an interesting read.


Regards,
Clayton


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

> IJC/OPM is 16 bit throughout.  If the image is 16 bit it stays that way.  

I'm sure that IJC is building 16 bit transfer curves, but doesn't OPM downsample to 8 bit just 
before printing?  That's my impression but I've never seen it in the documentation.  I'll be 
happily surprised if it's otherwise.

Regardless, applying the transfer curve in 16 bit is a HUGE advantage.  IMHO.


Scott King
K2 Press
Austin, Texas

Yes, I believe that was some mention through the Alt Photo group that he
lost quite a bit of inventory due to flood damage. 

 

Eric Neilsen Photography

4101 Commerce Street

Suite 9

Dallas, TX 75226

http://e.neilsen.home.att.net

http://ericneilsenphotography.com

Skype ejprinter

  _____  

From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Greg
Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 12:44 AM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Digital BW] Re: Contact Prints

 

--- In DigitalBlackandWhit
<mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint%40yahoogroups.com>
eThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Clayton Jones"
<cj@...> wrote:
>
> >They were in "A Gallery" in the French Quarter (322 Royal St.,
> >New Orleans) - if anyone ever has the opportunity to visit this rare
> >vintage photography dealer, don't miss it - 
> > 
> > http://www.agallery <http://www.agallery.com> .com 
> 
> I just saw the address on their web site
> 
> 241 Chartres Street
> 
> 
> They must have moved since I was there. Apparently a much bigger
> place, as they say over 5000 sq ft of space. The original was a bit
> of a little "hole in the wall" sort of place, but very charming.
> 
> 

Consider that the move could have been very recent do to flooding.
Wasn't most of the French Quarter under water after the hurricane?

 



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

In a message dated 11/12/06 9:05:56 PM, stevekphoto@... writes:


> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Tyler Boley"
> <tyler@...> wrote:
> >
> > Here's what I AM talking about-
> > From a purely technical standpoint, writing complex and nuanced
> > monochrome data to paper, more grays and/or blacks than currently
> > available from OEM solutions (at least the Epson K3s) are still
> > better. Demonstrably and significantly.
> 
Indeed, and its that "better" thats the best lever to get more still out of 
the (now very competitive) printer companies in the next round! The degree of 
demonstrability and significance is what Steven is addressing below.
> 
> Allow me to toss out a curve ball, & some related questions running
> through my mind lately: It's quite obvious that getting 60-70 or
> even 80% of maximum available quality out of any system is
> relatively easy. It's always that last little bit at the top that
> takes a disproportionate amount of effort, and it seems we on this
> list are primarily concerned with that area. If we could
> somehow 'increase the headroom' we could perhaps improve our quality
> without quite so much difficulty.
> 
Fair enough, both for OEM based solutions, and for specialty RIPs and 
inksets.

> So how in our case does one raise the ceiling of available quality?
> Even if you use 6, 7, or 27 shades of gray, at some point it will do
> no further good, because we are ignoring the most basic and
> fundamental limit inherent to our system: 256 shades of gray. We are
> stuck with translating a almost infinite palette of grays into 256
> shades, and then somehow trying to reproduce that palette with
> equipment and software designed to print 256 shades. Remember, this
> system was set up many years ago by non imaging related techies who
> thought no one could (or more to the point NEEDED) to see more
> subtle gradation. OK, there were other reasons too, like processor
> and memory limits, etc. If there were software that could give us
> e.g., 512 shades of gray, and drivers that could exploit that, would
> that be a dramatic improvement? My feeling is that it would
> constitute the difference between medium format and 4x5 or even
> 8x10. I suppose more to the point, however: is this possible, or is
> it analogous to switching to hydrogen from fossil fuels?
> Does printing in 12 or 16 bit with drivers equipped for that come
> out to about the same thing, or not?
> 
> I was seriously enthused about the idea of 16 bit export, way back when it 
was still theory (and way back when we had little high bit stuff to feed to it). 
Once I had seen a couple versions of it I realized it was just one more tool. 
  So this year, when it hits the mainstream, and end users and reviewers are 
contacting me full of enthusiasm for testing the new 16 bit export modules for 
the latest printers, I always try to bring their hopes back into perspective. 
Well linearized output of well optimized images, both at 8 bit, have about as 
many levels as the eye can distinguish. High bit is wonderful to allow for 
adjustments, be it to capture, process, or output, but once things are optimal, 
it is, for the most part, overkill. So I see high bit more as a way to improve 
problem images or processing or printing than to further improve top notch 
stuff.

C. David Tobie
Product Technology Manager
ColorVision Business Unit
Datacolor Inc.
CDTobie@...
www.colorvision.com



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

John-
 
 Good to hear from you, and thanks for the book plug. Much appreciated. The book was a real labor of love, written to be a resource for photographers venturing into the digital darkroom. As I note in the preface, it owes a huge debt to the people on this list who've always been so generous with their time and knowledge (Paul Roark is a contributing author).
 
 Incidentally, if you're using the book in the classroom and have any questions, or feedback, please let me know. It's gone into a second printing and I'm anticipating having to do some kind of update at some point. I'd appreciate any feeback I can get, especially as to how the instructional stuff can be made simplier or more clear. This goes for anyone on the list, by the way. Just email me directly and we'll strike-up a correspondance.
 
 Teachers of digital photography are still struggling with very basic issues. I was on a panel at the SPE conference in Portland, and was surprised to learn that most photography programs--ranging from high school to major universities--are still trying to solve the implimentation problems (facilities, equipment, staffing, budget, getting tenured faculty to make the transition...). It's mainly about expense and attitudes.
 
 The real work, in my opinion, lies elsewhere; with creating new curriculum that takes advantage of digital imaging to move photography forward as a means of expression and communication. This thread touches on that in several important ways. Your Frederick Sommer reference hits the mark perfectly. Digital capture and the digital darkroom present far more choice and demand that photographers, truly interested in craftsmanship, know more about their materials, equipment and processes than ever before. Color management is probably the best example. This changes the way photography has to be taught. How do we teach all this stuff and still keep our eye on the real objective, the realized image?
 
 Many photographers do not know that the ability to make photographs with ink on paper is actually less a "new idea" or development, and more the completion of an historic process. Niepce's heliographs were made on recycled engraving plates. He wasn't trying to invent what we now call "photography"; he was essentially trying to create a better engraving process. One that would allow us to capture information directly from nature, removing the subjective hand of the engraver. His intention was to produce images made with ink on paper. We finally have the technology to do that. This technology isn't as transparent, yet, as the technology that supports film capture and the wet darkroom. But its getting there really quick. By analogy, I'd guess that most of the people on this list are transitioning from the wet to dry plate era. We're building a usable vocabulary, ironing out the kinks in the processes, and approaching standardization. The digital ideal of "plug and play" is the equivalent of "you press the button, we'll do the rest".
 
 The new "photo" inkjet papers are exciting and I do anticipate more development, just around the corner. K2 Press has experimented with the Crane stock, and was disappointed by quaity control issues. Lately, I've seen prints made on the Innova stock that looked really promising. Ink formulation technology by Epson, Canon, and HP, has taken huge strides, though I still haven't met anyone who understands more about ink than Jon Cone. His inks are beautiful.
 
 Bill Kennedy
 K2 Press
 Author of "The Photographer's Guide to the Digital Darkroom"

 -----Original Message-----
 From: deanwork2003@...
 To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
 Sent: Sun, 12 Nov 2006 1:48 PM
 Subject: Re: [Digital BW] the times, they aren't a-changing
 
     
 
 Hi Bill,
 
 Shouldn't you be K7 press now?
 
 I bought a copy of your book on Amazon. It is really useful for all us
 teachers out there. If list members don't know about it - here it is
 -http://www.amazon.com/Photographers-Guide-Digital-Darkroom/dp/158115433X/sr=8-1/qid=1163359461/ref=sr_1_1/104-6945385-1520718?ie=UTF8&s=books
 I really liked your clear approach in it.
 
 I am finding myself agreeing with both you and Tyler. I still see the
 PiezoTone as the defalt standard for monochrome output, both for the
 tonal quality, but now also for their super ease of use and lack of
 clogging, in even the old 1440 dpi machines, of which I have 4 now.
 This is a realatively low cost solution to extremely beautiful
 consistent results. I just ordered the sepia set on Friday. I hope
 they are around for a long, long time.
 
 .....And, I am simultaneously interested in what is happening with the
 thermal technology of HP and Canon, but right now more in the realm of
 color, and specifically glossy color. Now the thing to watch is what
 WILL happen in regard to glossy monochrome. The HP is doing a very
 good job with the internal gloss optimizer channel and an onboard quad
 set up. Personally I don't think the glossy fiber inkjet papers are
 100% there yet, but they will be eventually. Then I'll probably want
 to offer that too. As Rumsfeld described - But there are also unknown
 unknowns, 
 The ones we don't know 
 We don't know.
 
 As far as my own art work goes I don't see me leaving the excellent
 matte rag papers with Pizo, but I never say never.
 
 We do appear to be moving into a situation where there will be
 multiple fine approaches and systems out there and depending on what
 kind of work it is we want to produce for a given situation. The
 danger in all this is that we'll totally buy into the notion that the
 technology makes the art, which it doesn't. I think Frederick Sommer
 said it very well 20 years ago when he said that in terms of
 technology, photography will be come amazing, but our biggest concern
 should be maintaining an attention span long enough to use the
 potentials of what we have. And, not constantly looking over our
 shoulder at what we don't have. Not only that... it's expensive as hell..
 
 john 
 
      
________________________________________________________________________
Check out the new AOL.  Most comprehensive set of free safety and security tools, free access to millions of high-quality videos from across the web, free AOL Mail and more.


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

Bill, I just ordered your book from Amazon. Thanks for this post,  
very educational and informative.

Chuck

On Nov 13, 2006, at 9:05 AM, BKPhoto@... wrote:

> John-
>
> Good to hear from you, and thanks for the book plug. Much  
> appreciated. The book was a real labor of love, written to be a  
> resource for photographers venturing into the digital darkroom. As  
> I note in the preface, it owes a huge debt to the people on this  
> list who've always been so generous with their time and knowledge  
> (Paul Roark is a contributing author).
>
> Incidentally, if you're using the book in the classroom and have  
> any questions, or feedback, please let me know. It's gone into a  
> second printing and I'm anticipating having to do some kind of  
> update at some point. I'd appreciate any feeback I can get,  
> especially as to how the instructional stuff can be made simplier  
> or more clear. This goes for anyone on the list, by the way. Just  
> email me directly and we'll strike-up a correspondance.
>
> .
>
> 



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

> > IJC/OPM is 16 bit throughout. If the image is 16 bit it stays that way. 

>... but doesn't OPM down sample to 8 bit just before printing? 

Not according to BowHaus.  Here is Joe Berndt's 1/13/05 post to this forum:

"Yes, IJC/OPM is completely 16 bit, image files that are 16 bit remain 16
bit and all 8 bit files are internally converted to 16 bit.  We drive the
printer with this 16 bit data.

"OPM uses it¹s own method to connect and print to the printer, it completely
by-passes the Epson driver and all system related printing methods.

"OPM actually opens a direct handle to the printer and streams the data
directly to it." 

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

Good sum-up Bill Kennedy. I think we are all a little way excited  
about HP and Cannon. No need to be. They are just adding to the soup.  
A few questions that I've been talking about with other people are:  
With new competition how will all of the inks shake out? Who's going  
to be a loser and who a winner?

I've been thinking about this issue since the print-off and I've come  
to realize that there's room to grow. I believe there is and will- 
always-be a place for true monochrome quad/hex/sept/etc ink even with  
Canon and HP running quad Ks. I think that the industry is currently  
modeled around a system of choice and that is healthy. Every ink will  
find its nitch just like the silver papers of yor. Agfa/Bergger has/ 
had the cream down. Ilford has/had that sweet warm and good neutral,  
etc. Now that  much of the longevity issues are figured out, each  
company that makes inks is able to expand and deepen its quality.

I think there are three large things that are currently hindering  
both the fine-art digital output market and user base.

#1. Quality control. There's a lot of great stuff coming out but it  
has a large percentage of error. This has been a problem with silver  
papers as well but not nearly as much. As the market matures into its  
second generation, I believe the companies with less quality control  
will begin to suffer.

#2. An over-focus on method and less of a focus on aesthetic.  To a  
certain extent, not consciously focusing on aesthetic actually helps  
it grow in a real way. Back in the day there were a lot of totally  
amazing photographers that called themselves scientists and had no  
articulated artistic pursuits. Today the weight of history in  
photography is always a pulling drag and a great re-source. But the  
truth of the matter is, we can't look at this new technology in the  
same innocent light of photo 1.0. We need to take it for what it is  
"a new way to print" and then we need to continue with our work:  
making good prints, making good photographs.

#3. True physical community.  We need to tie the full re-source of  
our great history of photography directly to the current technology  
and not quibble over the finer details. I hope that eventually we  
will begin to create a formal, cultural lexicon that will be neutral  
and varied enough to include the breadth of digital output. Currently  
we are getting so much stuff thrown at us that we are getting caught  
in the mud of description. Although this forum is helpful, we are  
still just looking at computer screens and not at each-other's  
prints. That would probably be way more fun because the truth of the  
matter is, we are all more fascinated by a beautiful physical print  
than an LCD screen. By meeting face to face and seeing each-others'  
prints in the light, we will over-come many of the arguments that go  
on on this forum about (for example) quads vs color mixing, etc.  
Hopefully we will see the strength and weakness of every medium  
(because every medium has both) and begin to each get a grasp of the  
over-all shape of the digital print world. We all have a sort-of  
built in idea of the general shape of the silver world because it's  
been around for over a century. But it's up to us to create the shape  
of the digital out-put world. And we can't build that shape without  
meeting face to face.

all right, now I'm going to go crazy mixing quads on StudioPrint v12  
(because you can do that now, finally).  I'll see you all after a  
couple of rolls of hahnemuhle.

Walker

Walker, this rocked.
Excellent, and a deserved slap ont he wrist for missing the shoot out
in person. Hopefully next time I'll have more freak flyer miles built up.
Tyler

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Walker Blackwell
<wblackwell@...> wrote:

>
> Good sum-up Bill Kennedy. I think we are all a little way excited  
> about HP and Cannon. No need to be. They are just adding to the soup.  
> A few questions that I've been talking about with other people are:  
> With new competition how will all of the inks shake out? Who's going  
> to be a loser and who a winner?
> 
> I've been thinking about this issue since the print-off and I've come  
> to realize that there's room to grow. I believe there is and will- 
> always-be a place for true monochrome quad/hex/sept/etc ink even with  
> Canon and HP running quad Ks. I think that the industry is currently  
> modeled around a system of choice and that is healthy. Every ink will  
> find its nitch just like the silver papers of yor. Agfa/Bergger has/ 
> had the cream down. Ilford has/had that sweet warm and good neutral,  
> etc. Now that  much of the longevity issues are figured out, each  
> company that makes inks is able to expand and deepen its quality.
> 
> I think there are three large things that are currently hindering  
> both the fine-art digital output market and user base.
> 
> #1. Quality control. There's a lot of great stuff coming out but it  
> has a large percentage of error. This has been a problem with silver  
> papers as well but not nearly as much. As the market matures into its  
> second generation, I believe the companies with less quality control  
> will begin to suffer.
> 
> #2. An over-focus on method and less of a focus on aesthetic.  To a  
> certain extent, not consciously focusing on aesthetic actually helps  
> it grow in a real way. Back in the day there were a lot of totally  
> amazing photographers that called themselves scientists and had no  
> articulated artistic pursuits. Today the weight of history in  
> photography is always a pulling drag and a great re-source. But the  
> truth of the matter is, we can't look at this new technology in the  
> same innocent light of photo 1.0. We need to take it for what it is  
> "a new way to print" and then we need to continue with our work:  
> making good prints, making good photographs.
> 
> #3. True physical community.  We need to tie the full re-source of  
> our great history of photography directly to the current technology  
> and not quibble over the finer details. I hope that eventually we  
> will begin to create a formal, cultural lexicon that will be neutral  
> and varied enough to include the breadth of digital output. Currently  
> we are getting so much stuff thrown at us that we are getting caught  
> in the mud of description. Although this forum is helpful, we are  
> still just looking at computer screens and not at each-other's  
> prints. That would probably be way more fun because the truth of the  
> matter is, we are all more fascinated by a beautiful physical print  
> than an LCD screen. By meeting face to face and seeing each-others'  
> prints in the light, we will over-come many of the arguments that go  
> on on this forum about (for example) quads vs color mixing, etc.  
> Hopefully we will see the strength and weakness of every medium  
> (because every medium has both) and begin to each get a grasp of the  
> over-all shape of the digital print world. We all have a sort-of  
> built in idea of the general shape of the silver world because it's  
> been around for over a century. But it's up to us to create the shape  
> of the digital out-put world. And we can't build that shape without  
> meeting face to face.
> 
> all right, now I'm going to go crazy mixing quads on StudioPrint v12  
> (because you can do that now, finally).  I'll see you all after a  
> couple of rolls of hahnemuhle.
> 
> Walker
>

Walker- 
    >> A few questions that I've been talking about with other people are: 
      With new competition how will all of the inks shake out? Who's going 
 to be a loser and who a winner? 
  I don't know. It seems that both Canon and HP are more than willing to compete against and challenge Epson. That makes the consumer the ultimate winner. My hope is the independents, like Cone and MIS, will find their niche market profitable enough to continue innovation.
  
   
 >> I believe there is and will always be a place for true monochrome quad/hex/sept/etc ink even with Canon and HP running quad Ks. 
  I think so, too. At K2 Press we're able to produce exceptional grayscale prints--neutral to tinted--with K3 inks. But, to do this, we run the machine with a ColorBurst rip and impliment a profile authoring process that includes very exact ink limiting and linearization. The software and hardware we use is most definately not in the price range of most average, or even serious, users. Like Tyler, though, I continue to evaluate K3 grayscale printing against Cone inks. This has nothing to do with any technical consideration, it's purely an aesthetic need.
 
 >>#1. Quality control. There's a lot of great stuff coming out but it 
 has a large percentage of error. This has been a problem with silver 
 papers as well but not nearly as much. As the market matures into its 
 second generation, I believe the companies with less quality control 
 will begin to suffer. 
  Yep. I remember, back in the day, when Ilford had quality control issues with sheet film (I loved FP4) and Gallerie paper. It didn't take them long to correct the issues, however. On a similiar note, I've been amazed at how nimble Epson has proved to be.  
 >>#2. An over-focus on method and less of a focus on aesthetic. To a 
 certain extent, not consciously focusing on aesthetic actually helps 
 it grow in a real way... we can't look at this new technology in the 
 same innocent light of photo 1.0. We need to take it for what it is 
 "a new way to print" ... 
  Definately. The technology of the digital darkroom did not evolve from the wet darkroom, it evolved from prepress. Part of the struggle, over the past decade, has "unconsciously" focused on translating traditional wet darkroom practice into the digital domain. This continues to be a very dynamic process. For many photographers, especially those seriously committed to black/white practice, the first serious revelation comes when they realize that the digital darkroom is a color darkroom. Color management, for example, is non-negotable if they want to achieve the same level of print quality they enjoyed in the wet darkroom with black/white materials.
  
   >>#3. ... Although this forum is helpful, we are still just looking at computer screens and not at each other's prints... 
  Absolutely! We're spending WAY too much time looking at, experiencing, and evaluating images behind the glass of our displays. Hooray to you for bring this point up! Thats why I teach and advocate a workflow that takes advantage of Hard Proofing image files (not to plug the book, but this workflow is explained in detail in The Photographer's Guide to the Digital Darkroom). When teaching, either university or workshop classes, I won't evaluate an image aesthetically until it's printed and can be held in the hand. The Hard Proof workflow is perfect for that; quick, easy and reliable. 
  It's so easy to forget that it's about the print. Tyler certainly understands this as well as anyone I know. We can debate technology and technique all day (angles dancing on the head of a pin...), but in the end it's about critical eyes evaluating prints, enjoying the image revealed. 
 Okay, time for me to climb off the soap box. 
 
  Bill Kennedy K2 Press Author of "The Photographer's Guide to the Digital Darkroom"
        
________________________________________________________________________
Check out the new AOL.  Most comprehensive set of free safety and security tools, free access to millions of high-quality videos from across the web, free AOL Mail and more.


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

Walker, you made some important observations in your post. And I think Tyler's side-by-
side comparison makes a much needed point. I am still very excited about the new 
printers, particularly because the years of efforts by Cone, Roark, and others pointed the 
big three printer companies in the direction of multiple K dilutions. I think this can only 
help our search for even more satisfying photographic methods of output. Up till now, the 
answer to "Which printer should I buy?" inolved the letters E-P-S-O-N. I love their 
machines (most of the time) and God knows I've invested large amounts of time and 
money in their hardware over the years. But what the new entries signal to me is the 
potential for more targeted approaches, even within the fine art printmaker market. 
Company A might have the best solution for, say reasonably lightfast glossy output. 
Another company's offerings may be more appropriate for the most stable matte output. 
You get the idea. Of course, the better the big companies get at "good enough", the 
smaller the market for innovative third parties. 
But since many on this list are printmakers concerned with a level of quality and detail that 
is sometimes lost on clients, the question becomes how do we remain relevant? What can 
we provide that a credit card and a trip to B&H can't supply? In some cases, nothing. And 
that requires an adjustment of our target market and marketing approach. 
But here's what I see for the future, and why I'm so excited about the emergence of all 
these new printers. Tyler uses setup XYZ to produce the stunning prints that seem to leave 
his studio like water down a falls. Walker uses setup ABC which fulfills his and his clients' 
aesthetics. John Dean uses yet another system, etc, etc. I think this is where we ultimately 
need to be. Right now, those of us using quads are doing so because no matter the 
content we are printing, they offer demonstrable differences. 
Epsons are a known quantity. Time will tell how the Canon and HP OEM solutions stack up. 
But I hope that as the technology matures, there are primarily aesthetic, rather than 
technical and longevity differences among third party and OEM offerings. Then we can all 
put the ones and zeros back where they belong, completely at the service of our 
photogrpahic vision. Right now a lot of us are using the same tools and still printing 
unique output. Imagine when the tools become more, not less specialized? Are we there 
yet? Likely not, but that's what I want to see in the next few years.

amadou diallo
www.diallophotography.com

"It comes back to sheer information density, and a 256 shade
gray-scale can never quite reach it"

According to Fred Picker in one of his darkroom videos, a maximum of about 
50 distinct shades of gray can be printed on silver based photographic paper 
in a tradional darkroom. Now Fred wasn't always the most reliable source of 
information and I have no idea how he did the test to make this 
determination (he did say he had tested, he just didn't way how). But 
assuming he's right on this one, if the great darkroom printers could make 
the prints they made with 50 or so shades of gray to work with, what's the 
problem with 256? Or was Fred just wrong (I never cared enough to test his 
claim myself)? Or is digital printing just so different from darkroom that 
it's an apples and oranges comparison?

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Steven Karafyllakis" <stevekphoto@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 3:23 PM
Subject: [Digital BW] Re: the times, they aren't a-changing-so can we start 
over again?


David;

> Well linearized output of well optimized images, both at 8 bit,
have about as
> many levels as the eye can distinguish.

This is excatly the assumption I'm questioning; OK, so if you laid
the steps out in a row, perhaps most people couldn't distinguish
from one to the next. If you laid out all the tonal steps in an
average 4x5 or 8x10 neg you certainly couldn't distinguish them,
they would appear continuous even though theoretically since the
image is made of dots (silver grain) it isn't really continuous. And
yet in terms of nuanced subtle gray transitions and tonal richness,
the difference between an inkjet printed in 256 steps and an
SG "continuous tone" print from 4x5 neg or bigger, is usually quite
obvious. It comes back to sheer information density, and a 256 shade
gray-scale can never quite reach it.


High bit is wonderful to allow for
> adjustments, be it to capture, process, or output, but once things
are optimal,
> it is, for the most part, overkill. So I see high bit more as a
way to improve
> problem images or processing or printing than to further improve
top notch
> stuff.

I agree with your evaluation in this regard; but one thing I haven't
gotten clear on yet: does hi-bit equal more shades of gray, or
simply more control over the existing shades? And if the printer
driver converts back to 8-bit before printing, how does it help,
beyond, as you stated, allowing for corrections and more accurate
mapping of the existing shades?

What I'm suggesting, (wishfull thinking really) is killing the
sacred cow and setting up a system based on a more continuous gray-
scale of 512 shades. A scanner function that would scan directly to
B&W in 512 shades. A monochrome digicam sensor that outputs 512
shades in raw format. Software that supports editing of the files
without downgrading to 256. And a printer driver that could make use
of that and deliver at least SOME of the extra info to the paper.
Remember, I'm looking for headroom, not neccessarily a quantum leap.


BTW, David, when IS PFP 2.0 going to be released?

Steven Karafyllakis


> C. David Tobie
> Product Technology Manager
> ColorVision Business Unit
> Datacolor Inc.
> CDTobie@...
> www.colorvision.com
>
>
>
> [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

David;

> Well linearized output of well optimized images, both at 8 bit, 
have about as 
> many levels as the eye can distinguish. 

This is excatly the assumption I'm questioning; OK, so if you laid 
the steps out in a row, perhaps most people couldn't distinguish 
from one to the next. If you laid out all the tonal steps in an 
average 4x5 or 8x10 neg you certainly couldn't distinguish them, 
they would appear continuous even though theoretically since the 
image is made of dots (silver grain) it isn't really continuous. And 
yet in terms of nuanced subtle gray transitions and tonal richness, 
the difference between an inkjet printed in 256 steps and an 
SG "continuous tone" print from 4x5 neg or bigger, is usually quite 
obvious. It comes back to sheer information density, and a 256 shade 
gray-scale can never quite reach it.


High bit is wonderful to allow for 
> adjustments, be it to capture, process, or output, but once things 
are optimal, 
> it is, for the most part, overkill. So I see high bit more as a 
way to improve 
> problem images or processing or printing than to further improve 
top notch 
> stuff.

I agree with your evaluation in this regard; but one thing I haven't 
gotten clear on yet: does hi-bit equal more shades of gray, or 
simply more control over the existing shades? And if the printer 
driver converts back to 8-bit before printing, how does it help, 
beyond, as you stated, allowing for corrections and more accurate 
mapping of the existing shades?

What I'm suggesting, (wishfull thinking really) is killing the 
sacred cow and setting up a system based on a more continuous gray-
scale of 512 shades. A scanner function that would scan directly to 
B&W in 512 shades. A monochrome digicam sensor that outputs 512 
shades in raw format. Software that supports editing of the files 
without downgrading to 256. And a printer driver that could make use 
of that and deliver at least SOME of the extra info to the paper. 
Remember, I'm looking for headroom, not neccessarily a quantum leap. 


BTW, David, when IS PFP 2.0 going to be released? 

Steven Karafyllakis

> C. David Tobie
> Product Technology Manager
> ColorVision Business Unit
> Datacolor Inc.
> CDTobie@...
> www.colorvision.com
> 
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

16 bit output?


Would the size of the print come into play in this?

On Nov 13, 2006, at 8:18 AM, Scott King wrote:
> >I'm sure that IJC is building 16 bit transfer curves, but doesn't  
> OPM downsample to >8 bit just  before printing? That's my  
> impression but I've never seen it in the >documentation. I'll be  
> happily surprised if it's otherwise.
>







Hello All,
I just checked with Bowhaus and I was completely wrong about OPM down  
sampling to 8 bit.  IJC and OPM are 16 bit, end to end.

Directly from Joe Berndt, "Yes OPM is completely 16bit end to end.   
We by-pass the Epson driver and
send 16bit data directly to the printer."


SK

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

In a message dated 11/13/06 3:40:41 PM, stevekphoto@... writes:


> I agree with your evaluation in this regard; but one thing I haven't
> gotten clear on yet: does hi-bit equal more shades of gray, or
> simply more control over the existing shades?
> 

When I send a highbit file (that was captured high bit, and should have more 
than 256 levels in it) to any of the current 16 bit export modules, I get a 
nice creamy result. But I get that same result if I dumb the file back to 8 bit 
before sending. And an indistinguishable result if I send it via an 8 bit 
driver instead of a 16 bit export module (this is assuming similar profiling 
before these tests). So I don't see a real 16 bit advantage, but can't really prove 
where it comes from, or where it goes to...

But neither am I unhappy with the results, so I'm not complaining, just 
unconvinced...

C. David Tobie
Product Technology Manager
ColorVision Business Unit
Datacolor Inc.
CDTobie@...
www.colorvision.com


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

The 16 bit vs 8 bit at printing (rather than for image editing) broken
record is back yet again.  That¹s the problem with
zombies...they....just...don¹t...die!


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

Yes, size matters.
Imagine a smooth gradient, across a cloudless sky for example.  It came from
a very clean drum scan of tech pan at 16-bit.  Now you downsample to 8-bit,
_without_ dither, and this gradient goes from 226 to 240 i.e., 15 steps.  It
’s a large print, so this section is 15” long.  That’s one 8-bit step per
inch.

Now, what does the printer dither pattern do at the distinct transition
between steps?  A very keen eye might see posterization, which can be
“corrected” by adding noise to the image.
If you did not downsample to 8-bit, you would not have the need to “fix” the
posterization because the step size is well below human eye detection.

The same print is now much smaller, and the gradient is only 0.5” long.
There are now 0.5/15 steps per inch, or about 0.033” per step.  The printer
dither over this short distance will blend in with the adjacent steps,
making it much harder, if not impossible to see.

This of course depends on your RIP, paper, profile, and image.  Tyler has
commented in the past that “better” systems can actually look worse, for
cases like this, since the system is finely tuned to put down precisely what
is in the file.  I hope I have not misstated his point with this example.
In any case, it is very subtle, and you need to be looking hard it to find
it.

Best regards,
John Moody

-----Original Message-----
From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of john dean
Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 3:50 PM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Digital BW] Re: the times, they aren't a-changing-so can we start
over again?

16 bit output?

Would the size of the print come into play in this?



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

It is the word “distinct” that holds the key.  A smooth gradient will have
an indistinct transition from end to end.  We certainly would not want to
see 50 distinct shades along the way.  Does that make sense?

Best regards,
John Moody

-----Original Message-----
From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of Brian
Ellis
Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 2:25 PM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: the times, they aren't a-changing-so can we
start over again?

"It comes back to sheer information density, and a 256 shade
gray-scale can never quite reach it"

According to Fred Picker in one of his darkroom videos, a maximum of about
50 distinct shades of gray can be printed on silver based photographic paper
in a tradional darkroom. Now Fred wasn't always the most reliable source of
information and I have no idea how he did the test to make this
determination (he did say he had tested, he just didn't way how). But
assuming he's right on this one, if the great darkroom printers could make
the prints they made with 50 or so shades of gray to work with, what's the
problem with 256? Or was Fred just wrong (I never cared enough to test his
claim myself)? Or is digital printing just so different from darkroom that
it's an apples and oranges comparison?



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

I was A Gallery in N.O. two months ago. They lost almost all their
books but none of their actual prints. It still is quite impressive
for the amount of really high end work they have. It's one of those
"Weston? Do you mean Edward, Cole or Brett? Actually we have works by
all of them" kind of place.  

I must say that besides their inventory, Edward Hebert who is the
"photo guru" is very knowledgeable and informative. I felt like a had
an hour long one on one tuorial about individual photographers styles.
Interestingly, he's primarily a painter. Like Clayton, I escaped with
only a $50 book purchase. But it's a generally unavailable book of
Duane Michals photos so I was happy to get it.

Be assured I will be back there the next time I'm in New Orleans. 

Bob Michaels

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

>
> Hello Greg,
> 
> >>They must have moved since I was there.  Apparently a much bigger
> >>place, as they say over 5000 sq ft of space.  The original was a bit
> >>of a little "hole in the wall" sort of place, but very charming.
> 
> 
> >Consider that the move could have been very recent do to flooding.
> >Wasn't most of the French Quarter under water after the hurricane?
> 
> Actually I think the FQ was one of the places that didn't flood, but
> I'm not positive.  But I'm certainly glad they are still there.
> 
> Last night I spent some time at their web site.  The FAQ page is quite
> an interesting read.
> 
> 
> Regards,
> Clayton
> 
> 
> Info on black and white digital printing at    
> http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm
>

I was at A Gallery in N.O. two months ago. They lost almost all their
books but none of their actual prints. It still is quite impressive
for the amount of really high end work they have. It's one of those
"Weston? Do you mean Edward, Cole or Brett? Actually we have works by
all of them" kind of place.  

I must say that besides their inventory, Edward Hebert who is the
"photo guru" is very knowledgeable and informative. I felt like a had
an hour long one on one tuorial about individual photographers styles.
Interestingly, he's primarily a painter. Like Clayton, I escaped with
only a $50 book purchase. But it's a generally unavailable book of
Duane Michals photos so I was happy to get it.

Be assured I will be back there the next time I'm in New Orleans. 

Bob Michaels

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

>
> Hello Greg,
> 
> >>They must have moved since I was there.  Apparently a much bigger
> >>place, as they say over 5000 sq ft of space.  The original was a bit
> >>of a little "hole in the wall" sort of place, but very charming.
> 
> 
> >Consider that the move could have been very recent do to flooding.
> >Wasn't most of the French Quarter under water after the hurricane?
> 
> Actually I think the FQ was one of the places that didn't flood, but
> I'm not positive.  But I'm certainly glad they are still there.
> 
> Last night I spent some time at their web site.  The FAQ page is quite
> an interesting read.
> 
> 
> Regards,
> Clayton
> 
> 
> Info on black and white digital printing at    
> http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm
>

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Brian Ellis <bellis60@...> wrote:
> According to Fred Picker in one of his darkroom videos, a maximum of about 
> 50 distinct shades of gray can be printed on silver based photographic paper 
> in a tradional darkroom. [SNIP]
>... was Fred just wrong (I never cared enough to test his 
> claim myself)?

Fred used to have a rubber stamp with which he responded to people who wrote to him 
asking things like, "What would happen if..." or "Why do you say that...." .  He'd stamp on 
their letters and mail them right back "Try it and see". 

His 50 step grey scale was mostly a teaching exercise. If you could figure out how to make 50 
*equally spaced*  little prints that spanned the scale from black to white you'd have a much 
clearer understanding of how your paper responds to light, and how to produce the tones 
you want in your prints. But the key was all in actually doing the work. He could be a prickly 
SOB, but what he told you was based on *his* actually doing the work. He'd try it and see.

Mark Stracke

I'm sure it would, and perhaps to the same extent it does for SG 
printing-thoiugh we do seem to be able to go bigger without as much 
quality loss with digital. But for the sake of this discussion lets 
assume a moderate size that doesn't affect quality for either medium

Steve Karafyllakis

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "john dean" 
<deanwork2003@...> wrote:

>
> 16 bit output?
> 
> 
> Would the size of the print come into play in this?
>

Well here's the rub: assume he's right: you can get 50 shades of gray 
out of 35mm as easily as 8x10-is anyone going to claim they produce 
equal results? Even if he is right technically, there's a continuity to 
the negative that is broken up into 256 shades by digitizing, and all 
the rest of the nuances are simply tossed, much like JPG compression. 
We then turn around and try to re-create all that info by other means. 
Mind you, I think we are doing remarkably well, I'm just looking for 
the next major step up.

Steve Karafyllakis


> According to Fred Picker in one of his darkroom videos, a maximum of 
about 
> 50 distinct shades of gray can be printed on silver based 
photographic paper 
> in a tradional darkroom. Now Fred wasn't always the most reliable 
source of 
> information and I have no idea how he did the test to make this 
> determination (he did say he had tested, he just didn't way how). But 
> assuming he's right on this one, if the great darkroom printers could 
make 
> the prints they made with 50 or so shades of gray to work with, 
what's the 
> problem with 256?

It sounds like the hardware itself may be the limiting factor; I 
don't even know for sure if there are inkjet printers capable of 
using the extra info, you or some of the professional printers may 
be aware of such equipment?

Steve Karafyllakis
  
> When I send a highbit file (that was captured high bit, and should 
have more 
> than 256 levels in it) to any of the current 16 bit export 
modules, I get a 
> nice creamy result. But I get that same result if I dumb the file 
back to 8 bit 
> before sending. And an indistinguishable result if I send it via 
an 8 bit 
> driver instead of a 16 bit export module (this is assuming similar 
profiling 
> before these tests). So I don't see a real 16 bit advantage, but 
can't really prove 
> where it comes from, or where it goes to...
> 
> But neither am I unhappy with the results, so I'm not complaining, 
just 

> unconvinced...
> 
> C. David Tobie
> Product Technology Manager
> ColorVision Business Unit
> Datacolor Inc.
> CDTobie@...
> www.colorvision.com
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Apologies if we're boring you, Steve, but this was never intended to be 
a 16 vs 8 bit discussion. My original underlying question is would 
capturing, processing and printing more shades of gray (at any bit 
depth) result in a richer, more nuanced tonal range. Got anything to 
contribute?

Steve Karafyllakis

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Steve Kale 
<stevekale@...> wrote:

>
> 
> 
> The 16 bit vs 8 bit at printing (rather than for image editing) broken
> record is back yet again.  That?s the problem with
> zombies...they....just...don?t...die!
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

David, as I wrote to another responder, I think the technology and 
our  adaption of it is going remarkably well. But in the spirit 
of 'the squeaky wheel gets the grease' I'm just putting the idea out 
there...I would rather not run into a ceiling quite yet when a few 
more increments or one or two major steps might make my 4x5 inkjets 
not virtually but actually indistinguishable from the same SG 
prints. I'm very interested in the new crop of printers and 
particularly in the 3800 for which Epson claims a radical new 
dithering algorithm. Perhaps that's the ticket...

At any rate, my thanks to you and all (well most) other posters for 
their input.


Steve Karafyllakis


 
> > But neither am I unhappy with the results, so I'm not 
complaining, 

> just 
> > unconvinced...
> >

This 8-bit vs 16-bit discussion keeps coming up but the assumptions made are
always over-simplified.   If you just "do the math" and say 8 bit means there are
only 256 grays and 16 bit gives 1000s of grays it's real easy to fall in the trap of
claiming that 16 bits are necessary.

Couple things to consider:

Any perception of gray -- whether it's our eyes or a high tech measuring device --
is over a multiple pixel area.  Take a smooth gradient and counting number of 
grays is almost entirely a factor of the specs on the measuring device.  
Use your eyes and you'll count something like 100 grays, use a densitometer 
that reads 0.00 to 1.64 and you'll get 164 grays, use and eye-one and it'll be 
a 1000 grays.  This is regardless if you use an 16 bit directly or convert it to
8 bit before sending to the driver.

Inkjet printing, especially, requires dithering over an area for perception of grays.
The printers take no where near 16 bits of data.  The most any of the Epson 
printers take currently is 2 bits for any ink.  In fact all the of K7 and K6 setups
use only 1 bit -- none of the setups use variable dot size.  The point being: what
difference does it make to go 16 bit to 1 or 2 bit directly or use the 8 bit value
as an intermediate?   As can be seen from Tyler's print scans, number of gray
inks has one of the biggest effects.   For a K7 ink system you can probably 
estimate about 4 bits or 16 possible grays at each position -- based on a combo
of about 2 inks at any point. But this is still way short of the 8 bits you feed the 
driver.  

I think once you get to the point where adjacent drops of ink are bleeding
into each other on the paper the result is no longer really digital or quantized. 
It's much closer to a continuous, analog image like a silver print made of chunks
of silver.

I'd venture a guess that most all "real" pictures have less than 8 bits of "real data".
I.e. by the time you finish editing the image the low bits of high bit data are
mostly noise.   This isn't to say that you can start with only 8 bits in a scan for
instance because which are the good bits is in different in the shadows and
highlights.  I do mostly 4x5 film scans and the smoothest gradients I ever see
still appear fairly noisy in 8-bit histograms.   Digital cameras are less noisy but
the bottom bit of 8 bit data is typically pretty noisy.

Unfortunately its a bit difficult to demonstate all this in any foolproof way. So I
guess the 16 bit discussion will persist and IMHO the main benefit of getting a full
16 bit throughout will be to take the issue off the table.

Roy

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Steven Karafyllakis" 
<stevekphoto@...> wrote:

>
> David;
> 
> > Well linearized output of well optimized images, both at 8 bit, 
> have about as 
> > many levels as the eye can distinguish. 
> 
> This is excatly the assumption I'm questioning; OK, so if you laid 
> the steps out in a row, perhaps most people couldn't distinguish 
> from one to the next. If you laid out all the tonal steps in an 
> average 4x5 or 8x10 neg you certainly couldn't distinguish them, 
> they would appear continuous even though theoretically since the 
> image is made of dots (silver grain) it isn't really continuous. And 
> yet in terms of nuanced subtle gray transitions and tonal richness, 
> the difference between an inkjet printed in 256 steps and an 
> SG "continuous tone" print from 4x5 neg or bigger, is usually quite 
> obvious. It comes back to sheer information density, and a 256 shade 
> gray-scale can never quite reach it.
> 
> 
> High bit is wonderful to allow for 
> > adjustments, be it to capture, process, or output, but once things 
> are optimal, 
> > it is, for the most part, overkill. So I see high bit more as a 
> way to improve 
> > problem images or processing or printing than to further improve 
> top notch 
> > stuff.
> 
> I agree with your evaluation in this regard; but one thing I haven't 
> gotten clear on yet: does hi-bit equal more shades of gray, or 
> simply more control over the existing shades? And if the printer 
> driver converts back to 8-bit before printing, how does it help, 
> beyond, as you stated, allowing for corrections and more accurate 
> mapping of the existing shades?
> 
> What I'm suggesting, (wishfull thinking really) is killing the 
> sacred cow and setting up a system based on a more continuous gray-
> scale of 512 shades. A scanner function that would scan directly to 
> B&W in 512 shades. A monochrome digicam sensor that outputs 512 
> shades in raw format. Software that supports editing of the files 
> without downgrading to 256. And a printer driver that could make use 
> of that and deliver at least SOME of the extra info to the paper. 
> Remember, I'm looking for headroom, not neccessarily a quantum leap. 
> 
> 
> BTW, David, when IS PFP 2.0 going to be released? 
> 
> Steven Karafyllakis
> 
>  
> > C. David Tobie
> > Product Technology Manager
> > ColorVision Business Unit
> > Datacolor Inc.
> > CDTobie@
> > www.colorvision.com
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>

Thank you for that informed dose of reality Roy.

As for noise in the extremes of scans, I see far less of it in drum
scans than any digital capture I've worked with.

But really, I think the reason that this discussion has reared its
ugly head again is that Cannon is suggesting that with their new
machines that 16 bit is desireable and perceiveable. Othewise why send
it over there. ( I wouldn't anymore than I would output 2880 with
matte paper). We were wondering if there WAS any advantage or whether
it is just marketing talk. I belive you've answered the question.

John

Hi Roy;

Thanks for an informative response; perhaps you're right, that the 
question should be laid to rest, at least until next halloween when 
the_zombies_ will_ rise_ again... but a question first and an 
observation, and then I will shut up. 

First, how exactly is dither accomplished? how does a driver take 
one dot, make it several dots and what information is it using to do 
so?

And the observation: you said > I'd venture a guess that most 
all "real" pictures have less than 8 bits of "real data". Perhaps, 
but we routinely ignore the fact that silver granules convey 
information in more ways than just density: size, for one, which 
variable dot size partially reproduces, when it is used. Shape of 
the clusters, and sharpness of the edges; and perhaps even 
transparency for partially developed granules.  Much of this is not 
visible to the unaided eye, and perhaps not quantifiable, but it all 
contributes. 

Best regards,

Steven Karafyllakis

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Amadou Diallo"
<amadiallo2001@...> wrote:
...big snip...
> But I hope that as the technology matures, there are primarily
aesthetic, rather than 
> technical and longevity differences among third party and OEM
offerings....

Amadou, that's exactly what I meant when I said you should get your
hands on an HP.
The first time I saw a platinum print I felt such an affinity with
it's impact I had to take a hard left turn. Suddenly that missing
something become clear to me, for my aspirations.
When you described how excited you were about the HP output you saw
(leave aside the exciting bells and whistles temporarily) it was clear
to me that it does something without even trying very hard that you
personally responded to.
Sometimes things are as simple as they appear.
Anyway, as you say, these developements represent an actual maturing
process that we have all been hoping for.
Tyler

let's change this thread title eh? I can hardly live with seeing it
any more...
Guys, another important aspect of this is size on the paper itself. A
driver and printer's ability to describe individual levels in a
gradation is also related to how much "distance" it has to work with
getting from one tone to the next.
Dithering is a complex thing indeed. Way over my head. Also, how much
bit depth is truly used in the end seems to be something of a black
box with most of our software. Roy's post is very interesting.
Tyler

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "John Moody"
<moodymz3@...> wrote:
>
> Yes, size matters.

Right, sorry John. You covered it, I'm playing catch-up here...
Tyler

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "john dean" 
<deanwork2003@...> wrote:
>
> Thank you for that informed dose of reality Roy.
> 
> As for noise in the extremes of scans, I see far less of it in drum
> scans than any digital capture I've worked with.
> 
> But really, I think the reason that this discussion has reared its
> ugly head again is that Cannon is suggesting that with their new
> machines that 16 bit is desireable and perceiveable. Othewise why send
> it over there. ( I wouldn't anymore than I would output 2880 with
> matte paper). We were wondering if there WAS any advantage or whether
> it is just marketing talk. I belive you've answered the question.
> 
> John
>

I'd sure like to see someone try it out.   -- print a 16 bit image and then
take the same image convert to 8 bit and print it again.

Roy

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Steven Karafyllakis" 
<stevekphoto@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Roy;
> 
> Thanks for an informative response; perhaps you're right, that the 
> question should be laid to rest, at least until next halloween when 
> the_zombies_ will_ rise_ again... but a question first and an 
> observation, and then I will shut up. 
> 
> First, how exactly is dither accomplished? how does a driver take 
> one dot, make it several dots and what information is it using to do 
> so?

The dither algorithms vary from pretty straightforward to quite complicated.
But the basic concept isn't too tough to understand.  The idea is to simulate
many grays using a smaller number of grays by averaging dark dots and light
dots.  As a simplified example: for a spot on the paper 1/360 x 1/360 inch
and printing at 2880x1440dpi there are 8x4=32 places for dots.  To start with
you can put anywhere from 0 to 32 drops of ink there.   That's 33 levels.  Then
consider multiple inks, there are lots of possibilities of a light ink and dark ink
giving many levels in between all light and all dark.  Overall the idea is to average
many dots.  The difficult part is that the dots can't look like there's a pattern.
Our eyes and brain are extremely observant when it comes to patterns so a lot
of effort goes into eliminating this. 

> 
> And the observation: you said > I'd venture a guess that most 
> all "real" pictures have less than 8 bits of "real data". Perhaps, 
> but we routinely ignore the fact that silver granules convey 
> information in more ways than just density: size, for one, which 
> variable dot size partially reproduces, when it is used. Shape of 
> the clusters, and sharpness of the edges; and perhaps even 
> transparency for partially developed granules.  Much of this is not 
> visible to the unaided eye, and perhaps not quantifiable, but it all 
> contributes. 

The nice thing about silver grain is that it gives the non-pattern look by default.
Even a very grainy film that is excessively enlarged yields a grainy but pleasing
result.   

Roy

> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Steven Karafyllakis
>

On Nov 13, 2006, at 10:41 PM, Roy Harrington wrote:

> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "john dean"
> <deanwork2003@...> wrote:
>>
>> Thank you for that informed dose of reality Roy.
>>
>> As for noise in the extremes of scans, I see far less of it in drum
>> scans than any digital capture I've worked with.
>>
>> But really, I think the reason that this discussion has reared its
>> ugly head again is that Cannon is suggesting that with their new
>> machines that 16 bit is desireable and perceiveable. Othewise why  
>> send
>> it over there. ( I wouldn't anymore than I would output 2880 with
>> matte paper). We were wondering if there WAS any advantage or whether
>> it is just marketing talk. I belive you've answered the question.
>>
>> John
>
> I'd sure like to see someone try it out.   -- print a 16 bit image  
> and then
> take the same image convert to 8 bit and print it again.
>
> Roy

Dan Margulis devoted the last eleven pages (309 - 320) of Chapter 15  
of the 4th [Photoshop 7] edition of his "Professional Photoshop: The  
Classic Guide to Color Correction" (Wiley, 2002) to an earlier  
controversy about 8 bits per channel vs. 16. He didn't find 16 bits  
better in his attempts. But he did, on page 318, "... recommend that  
if your scanner or digicam _can_ give you a 16 BPC file, take it.  
Thereafter, I see no point in maintaining it in 16 BPC, but it  
doesn't hurt either." I can't tell to what extent he was thinking in  
the context of color prints or B&W.

Earlier in this section ("The Emperor's New Clothes"), Dan Margulis  
wrote that he had "... no intentions of lavishing this much space on  
the topic in subsequent editions." But I can't confirm that he  
hasn't; the now five-year-old 4th Edition is the most recent one I  
have, and a newer one might be a better reference for background on  
trying out 16 BPC.
--
Sam

> 
> Dan Margulis devoted the last eleven pages (309 - 320) of Chapter 
15  
> of the 4th [Photoshop 7] edition of his "Professional Photoshop: 
The  
> Classic Guide to Color Correction" (Wiley, 2002) to an earlier  
> controversy about 8 bits per channel vs. 16. He didn't find 16 
bits  
> better in his attempts. But he did, on page 318, "... recommend 
that  
> if your scanner or digicam _can_ give you a 16 BPC file, take it.  
> Thereafter, I see no point in maintaining it in 16 BPC, but it  
> doesn't hurt either." I can't tell to what extent he was thinking 
in  
> the context of color prints or B&W.
> 
> Earlier in this section ("The Emperor's New Clothes"), Dan 
Margulis  
> wrote that he had "... no intentions of lavishing this much space 
on  
> the topic in subsequent editions." But I can't confirm that he  
> hasn't; the now five-year-old 4th Edition is the most recent one I  
> have, and a newer one might be a better reference for background 
on  
> trying out 16 BPC.
> --
> Sam
>
Most of the people here have probably heard about Dan's 16v8b 
challenge and know that till now no one has really proven 16b is 
superior. But this is mainly due to Dan's initial assumptions namely 
a sRGB working space for the file to be output on press, and he can 
not be wrong in this case. For those of you who follows this, this 
paper can be of interest : 
http://www.media.hut.fi/~as75192/tenttima/Ext_gamut.pdf#search
This tends to prove 8 bits suffice in this configuration. Recently 
Dan admitted for wide-gamut color printing that some images benefit a 
larger space, and the debate can rage again.
Now Dan has also always mentionned that correcting a greyscale file 
might call for 16bit for you do not get so many codes to describe 
shades and gamma 2.2 spaces might be best suited.
In the case of a scanner the 16b advantage is else : say your scanner 
is capable of real Dmax 4 (log 10,000 ; 10), then to encode that Dmax 
in bit you need puissance 4^2 hence 16b. So theoretically 8bit gives 
you Dmax 3 ; theoretically because 1 bit encodes whatever Dmax you 
want, but here we assume the bits are perfectly distributed, plus 
some get lost in noise. 
Yet both Tyler and Roy demonstrated that this is a pointless 
discussion when you have the print in hands : so you might benefit 
from a 16b correcting process, but nothing proves AOT the printing 
will benefit from a 16b file feeding. If I'm not wrong Krawitz turned 
Gutenprint in a 16b driver but not for the sole encoding of the 
values, but also to encode variable drop size, ink position, ect...at 
the end of the dithering not so many bits are devoted to the values 
themselves.

Olivier

john dean wrote:
> Thank you for that informed dose of reality Roy.
> 
> As for noise in the extremes of scans, I see far less of it in drum
> scans than any digital capture I've worked with.
> 
> But really, I think the reason that this discussion has reared its
> ugly head again is that Cannon is suggesting that with their new
> machines that 16 bit is desireable and perceiveable. Othewise why send
> it over there. ( I wouldn't anymore than I would output 2880 with
> matte paper). We were wondering if there WAS any advantage or whether
> it is just marketing talk. I belive you've answered the question.
> 
> John

The Canons send 10 or 12 bit to the printer. On 11 ink
channels. So not 2x but at most 1.5x 8 bit at the end of the
process. You will need a very good paper to get it visible I
think. Most will praise the more saturated RGB areas though
which has little to do with 8 or 16 bit.

In B&W it is already difficult to get the 256 shades correctly
separated on a good paper. On mat papers I don't get 256
shades right now with my Epson 9000 quad. Of course newer
models will do that much better, 11 versus 3.5 picoliter.

There have been related discussions before. If you use 4 grey
inks on 4 channels with 2-3 droplet sizes and implant the
right dithering/weaving (16 and 8 bit quality is mentioned for
that too) for that setup I still think that can be equal or
better than having 7 channels with 7 quad inks and just one
droplet size used on a printer. A printer that has the 
dithering and weaving intended for 5 hue and 2 monochrome 
inks. I know it works well but I find it premature to say that 
that will still be better than what the three manufacturers 
bring to the market right now. The hardware is probably not 
the limiting factor in the new models, we have to find the 
right modifications to the software I guess.

Met vriendelijke groeten,  Ernst


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

Ok, here is my 2 cents.

 

Much of the discussion has been about the inks,  bit depth, 6,7,8,12 ink
slots, etc. Some have brought up the idea, of all things, personal
preferences. : )  And two distinct streams of workers coming to this arena;
offset shops and photographic printers. Most photographers that I have
spoken with were rarely happy with their work when it was produced with
offset presses due to lack of detail and blocked up dmax unless done by a
good high end shop. I am most intrigued by the post capture and pre press
treatment of the files that is in our future. I believe it is there that
files are crafted to make great prints regardless of output RIP and printer.
Why? So much attention can happen to a file along the way. One certainly
should pay attention to the final devices to be used, but unless you have
good data no printer will measure up to what some of you seem to be
demanding. 

 

There is always going to be those that look to dots and dither instead of
the final impact of the print hanging on the wall. Some of us have moved
from format, film and tripod to file size, capture mode & depth, gamma and
color space, and sharpening tools. Sharp images were pretty much left up to
the original click before but now the path to paper travels through much
more than a good lens to the paper. 

 

As file capture/creation evolves so will the printers. Before the microscope
and telescopes, we could only guess as to what was there. AS printer/out
device improve the challenge will be how to control the file to match your
vision of the image. Just like we made choices as to film format, or ink on
plate, we will be making noise, grain, sharpening choices to hold or lose
detail. And all of it is happening at once; advances in through put at 16
bit, ink set tone control, speed, flexibility in output. So much of the
opinion is based on limited information. I withheld judgment about print
quality at the show because the quality of light was far from consistent and
the idea of a common workflow would be questionable. I would certainly
expect those displaying prints to show great output, they are there after
all to do just that. Hand them a less than sweet spot file and then see what
happens?  

 

So let's talk turkey.         

    

Eric

 

Eric Neilsen Photography

4101 Commerce Street

Suite 9

Dallas, TX 75226

http://e.neilsen.home.att.net

http://ericneilsenphotography.com

Skype ejprinter

  _____  

From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Ernst
Dinkla
Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2006 5:54 AM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: the times, they aren't a-changing-so can we
start over again?

 

john dean wrote:
> Thank you for that informed dose of reality Roy.
> 
> As for noise in the extremes of scans, I see far less of it in drum
> scans than any digital capture I've worked with.
> 
> But really, I think the reason that this discussion has reared its
> ugly head again is that Cannon is suggesting that with their new
> machines that 16 bit is desireable and perceiveable. Othewise why send
> it over there. ( I wouldn't anymore than I would output 2880 with
> matte paper). We were wondering if there WAS any advantage or whether
> it is just marketing talk. I belive you've answered the question.
> 
> John

The Canons send 10 or 12 bit to the printer. On 11 ink
channels. So not 2x but at most 1.5x 8 bit at the end of the
process. You will need a very good paper to get it visible I
think. Most will praise the more saturated RGB areas though
which has little to do with 8 or 16 bit.

In B&W it is already difficult to get the 256 shades correctly
separated on a good paper. On mat papers I don't get 256
shades right now with my Epson 9000 quad. Of course newer
models will do that much better, 11 versus 3.5 picoliter.

There have been related discussions before. If you use 4 grey
inks on 4 channels with 2-3 droplet sizes and implant the
right dithering/weaving (16 and 8 bit quality is mentioned for
that too) for that setup I still think that can be equal or
better than having 7 channels with 7 quad inks and just one
droplet size used on a printer. A printer that has the 
dithering and weaving intended for 5 hue and 2 monochrome 
inks. I know it works well but I find it premature to say that 
that will still be better than what the three manufacturers 
bring to the market right now. The hardware is probably not 
the limiting factor in the new models, we have to find the 
right modifications to the software I guess.

Met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst

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

 



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

In a message dated 11/14/06 1:45:35 AM, roy@... writes:


> I'd sure like to see someone try it out.   -- print a 16 bit image and then
> take the same image convert to 8 bit and print it again.
> 

Been there, done that, posted about it in this same thread. Results were... 
exactly as I expected. <G>

C. David Tobie
Product Technology Manager
ColorVision Business Unit
Datacolor Inc.
CDTobie@...
www.colorvision.com


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

One print, on one system is hardly conclusive. I ran test with the ProB&W 24
software, with a 7000 and Cones WT Peizo inks. I could certainly see a
difference between them. But back then all the out put files were also at
720 dpi. These were for 5x5, 8x8 and some 16x120, so most of the images were
small enough to work at 16 bit. It was not enough of a difference to
continue at that workflow when the prints got bigger AND we got better at
keeping within the sweet spot of the software and inks. 

 

 

 

Eric Neilsen Photography

4101 Commerce Street

Suite 9

Dallas, TX 75226

http://e.neilsen.home.att.net

http://ericneilsenphotography.com

Skype ejprinter

  _____  

From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
CDTobie@...
Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2006 9:32 AM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: the times, they aren't a-changing-so can we
start over again?

 


In a message dated 11/14/06 1:45:35 AM, roy@harrington.
<mailto:roy%40harrington.com> com writes:

> I'd sure like to see someone try it out.   -- print a 16 bit image and
then
> take the same image convert to 8 bit and print it again.
> 

Been there, done that, posted about it in this same thread. Results were... 
exactly as I expected. <G>

C. David Tobie
Product Technology Manager
ColorVision Business Unit
Datacolor Inc.
CDTobie@colorvision <mailto:CDTobie%40colorvision.com> .com
www.colorvision.com

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

 



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

> This 8-bit vs 16-bit discussion keeps coming up ...

>... number of gray inks has one of the biggest effects.

I've been comparing the 2200 output with LLK being the lightest ink v. when
I put in what I'm calling "LLLK" -- a 1:2 dilution of LLK.  I also compared
a 16 bit file with an 8 bit version of the same.  I only have a 1600 dpi
flatbed scanner to compare outputs.  So, I may not be able to see the
differences that a good drum scanner would see.  On the other hand, when I
have to qualify the observations this way it tells you that we're talking
about very small differences.

With the LLLK added -- making the system a 5K+cm instead of a 4K+cm -- I
don't see more smoothness.  What I see is very slightly better detail or
sharpness in the highlights. 

When I switch the file to 8 bit, the results are about like dropping the
LLLK, but probably less so.  Again, the appearance is not of a smoother
image, but rather one where there *may* have been some image information
that didn't get put onto the paper.  But, again, the limiting factor may be
the ability of my 1600 dpi scanner to see the differences.

I guess my conclusion is that for relatively modern printers like the 2200,
going from 4K+cm to 5K+cm or going from an 8 bit file to a 16 bit file (at
printing, 16 bits for curves and manipulations is a different issue) makes
such a small difference -- if any -- that it's more a matter of principle
than any visible impact on the image. 

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

Recently, Dan has specifically mentioned the advantages of using 16-bit
when using Photoshop's Shadow/Highlight commands. In my work I prepare lots
of color images for B/W offset printing, usually to be done on poor paper
(newsprint and cheap uncoated) where controlling ink is an important issue.
I have found that judicious use of the S/H commands in 16-bit can rescue
problem images. The results are much smoother than when using 8-bit. It
even pays to convert from 8 to 16 just for S/H, and then immediately back
to 8 for other manipulations.

BTW, the fifth edition of Margulis's Professional Photoshop, is out or will
be very soon. Official publication date is Dec. 7, but it will be in stores
before that, according to a post of his on his Color Theory list in late
October. Amazon has it listed as arriving Nov. 22. Dan promises the fifth
edition is the last one he will do; he's announced he's retiring from all
but a few teaching gigs as of early next year.

jonathan wills
_______
wills design
portland, oregon, usa

At 10:09 AM +0000 11/14/06, Olivier wrote:
>Most of the people here have probably heard about Dan's 16v8b
challenge and know that till now no one has really proven 16b is
superior. But this is mainly due to Dan's initial assumptions namely
a sRGB working space for the file to be output on press, and he can
not be wrong in this case. For those of you who follows this, this
paper can be of interest :
<http://www.media.hut.fi/~as75192/tenttima/Ext_gamut.pdf#search>http://www.media.hut.fi/~as75192/tenttima/Ext_gamut.pdf#search
>This tends to prove 8 bits suffice in this configuration. Recently
Dan admitted for wide-gamut color printing that some images benefit a
larger space, and the debate can rage again.
>Now Dan has also always mentionned that correcting a greyscale file
might call for 16bit for you do not get so many codes to describe
shades and gamma 2.2 spaces might be best suited.
>In the case of a scanner the 16b advantage is else : say your scanner
is capable of real Dmax 4 (log 10,000 ; 10), then to encode that Dmax
in bit you need puissance 4^2 hence 16b. So theoretically 8bit gives
you Dmax 3 ; theoretically because 1 bit encodes whatever Dmax you
want, but here we assume the bits are perfectly distributed, plus
some get lost in noise.
>Yet both Tyler and Roy demonstrated that this is a pointless
discussion when you have the print in hands : so you might benefit
from a 16b correcting process, but nothing proves AOT the printing
will benefit from a 16b file feeding. If I'm not wrong Krawitz turned
Gutenprint in a 16b driver but not for the sole encoding of the
values, but also to encode variable drop size, ink position, ect...at
the end of the dithering not so many bits are devoted to the values
themselves.

Olivier


-- 

jonathan wills
_______
wills design
portland, oregon, usa

Roy covered the bases far more eloquently than I could have.

From: Steven Karafyllakis <stevekphoto@...>
Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2006 01:33:55 -0000
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: [Digital BW] Re: the times, they aren't a-changing-so can we start
over again?

 
 
 

Apologies if we're boring you, Steve, but this was never intended to be
a 16 vs 8 bit discussion. My original underlying question is would
capturing, processing and printing more shades of gray (at any bit
depth) result in a richer, more nuanced tonal range. Got anything to
contribute?

Steve Karafyllakis

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint%40yahoogroups.com> , Steve Kale
<stevekale@...> wrote:
>
> 
> 
> The 16 bit vs 8 bit at printing (rather than for image editing) broken
> record is back yet again.  That?s the problem with
> zombies...they....just...don?t...die!
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>



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

And presumably, limiting all of this is the eye¹s ability to discern a
difference in luminance.  Of course everyone¹s eyes are different but one
could estimate an average ability to discern a difference in L* (with a nice
normal distribution around that?).  I remember a debate here as to whether
one could see a 1 L* difference.  Even if we agree we can see a difference
of 0.5 L* (nicely printed in reasonable-sized patches), most matte paper
could only print c166 discernible shades of grey.





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

Not sure what you concluded last time this was discussed, but I've been
printing a lot of 256 step gray wedges on luster paper and I
can easily discern a difference of 1/256 L* between approx L*80 and L*10.
Doing some basic sampling of steps I can distinguish and steps I can't, my
gray tonal resolution under a good light seems to about L* 0.25,
probably less in my optimal zone, which appears to be around L* 50. This is
of course with a step transition between levels, which makes perception of
the change rather easier. Mike


On 14/11/06, Steve Kale <stevekale@...> wrote:
>
>   And presumably, limiting all of this is the eye¹s ability to discern a
> difference in luminance. Of course everyone¹s eyes are different but one
> could estimate an average ability to discern a difference in L* (with a
> nice
> normal distribution around that?). I remember a debate here as to whether
> one could see a 1 L* difference. Even if we agree we can see a difference
> of 0.5 L* (nicely printed in reasonable-sized patches), most matte paper
> could only print c166 discernible shades of grey.
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> 
>


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

Hi Roy,

Can you help me reconcile your point below on mapping between the number of
bits in an image and the number of bits used to control the inks in a
printer, with my real world experience.

My real world tests show me that I can print at least 10 bits of
discontinuous (1024 step wedge) gray tonal resolution from essentially 3
black/gray inks on glossy paper printed on a 4800 with Imageprint and
measured with a spectro. That's way more than 1 bit or 2 bits per ink.
Surely the RIP / Driver must do some magic to translate image tones into
printer tones, I guess by manipulating those 33 printer dots per image dot?

Also even with my fairly poor eyesight I can perceive a discontinuous gray
level of around 0.25 L* (i.e. probably 4 - 500 levels between black and
white) and so I believe that we really do need more than 8 bits in our
images, and its great that the printers can already support 10+bits. Now if
only all the drivers and RIPs did.

Mike

"Inkjet printing, especially, requires dithering over an area for perception
of grays.
The printers take no where near 16 bits of data. The most any of the Epson
printers take currently is 2 bits for any ink. In fact all the of K7 and K6
setups
use only 1 bit -- none of the setups use variable dot size. The point being:
what
difference does it make to go 16 bit to 1 or 2 bit directly or use the 8 bit
value
as an intermediate? As can be seen from Tyler's print scans, number of gray
inks has one of the biggest effects. For a K7 ink system you can probably
estimate about 4 bits or 16 possible grays at each position -- based on a
combo
of about 2 inks at any point. But this is still way short of the 8 bits you
feed the
driver"


On 14/11/06, Roy Harrington <roy@... > wrote:
>
>
> This 8-bit vs 16-bit discussion keeps coming up but the assumptions made
> are
> always over-simplified. If you just "do the math" and say 8 bit means
> there are
> only 256 grays and 16 bit gives 1000s of grays it's real easy to fall in
> the trap of
> claiming that 16 bits are necessary.
>
> Couple things to consider:
>
> Any perception of gray -- whether it's our eyes or a high tech measuring
> device --
> is over a multiple pixel area. Take a smooth gradient and counting number
> of
> grays is almost entirely a factor of the specs on the measuring device.
> Use your eyes and you'll count something like 100 grays, use a
> densitometer
> that reads 0.00 to 1.64 and you'll get 164 grays, use and eye-one and
> it'll be
> a 1000 grays. This is regardless if you use an 16 bit directly or convert
> it to
> 8 bit before sending to the driver.
>
> Inkjet printing, especially, requires dithering over an area for
> perception of grays.
> The printers take no where near 16 bits of data. The most any of the Epson
>
> printers take currently is 2 bits for any ink. In fact all the of K7 and
> K6 setups
> use only 1 bit -- none of the setups use variable dot size. The point
> being: what
> difference does it make to go 16 bit to 1 or 2 bit directly or use the 8
> bit value
> as an intermediate? As can be seen from Tyler's print scans, number of
> gray
> inks has one of the biggest effects. For a K7 ink system you can probably
> estimate about 4 bits or 16 possible grays at each position -- based on a
> combo
> of about 2 inks at any point. But this is still way short of the 8 bits
> you feed the
> driver.
>
> I think once you get to the point where adjacent drops of ink are bleeding
> into each other on the paper the result is no longer really digital or
> quantized.
> It's much closer to a continuous, analog image like a silver print made of
> chunks
> of silver.
>
> I'd venture a guess that most all "real" pictures have less than 8 bits of
> "real data".
> I.e . by the time you finish editing the image the low bits of high bit
> data are
> mostly noise. This isn't to say that you can start with only 8 bits in a
> scan for
> instance because which are the good bits is in different in the shadows
> and
> highlights. I do mostly 4x5 film scans and the smoothest gradients I ever
> see
> still appear fairly noisy in 8-bit histograms. Digital cameras are less
> noisy but
> the bottom bit of 8 bit data is typically pretty noisy.
>
> Unfortunately its a bit difficult to demonstate all this in any foolproof
> way. So I
> guess the 16 bit discussion will persist and IMHO the main benefit of
> getting a full
> 16 bit throughout will be to take the issue off the table.
>
> Roy
>
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint%40yahoogroups.com>, "Steven Karafyllakis"
> <stevekphoto@...> wrote:
> >
> > David;
> >
> > > Well linearized output of well optimized images, both at 8 bit,
> > have about as
> > > many levels as the eye can distinguish.
> >
> > This is excatly the assumption I'm questioning; OK, so if you laid
> > the steps out in a row, perhaps most people couldn't distinguish
> > from one to the next. If you laid out all the tonal steps in an
> > average 4x5 or 8x10 neg you certainly couldn't distinguish them,
> > they would appear continuous even though theoretically since the
> > image is made of dots (silver grain) it isn't really continuous. And
> > yet in terms of nuanced subtle gray transitions and tonal richness,
> > the difference between an inkjet printed in 256 steps and an
> > SG "continuous tone" print from 4x5 neg or bigger, is usually quite
> > obvious. It comes back to sheer information density, and a 256 shade
> > gray-scale can never quite reach it.
> >
> >
> > High bit is wonderful to allow for
> > > adjustments, be it to capture, process, or output, but once things
> > are optimal,
> > > it is, for the most part, overkill. So I see high bit more as a
> > way to improve
> > > problem images or processing or printing than to further improve
> > top notch
> > > stuff.
> >
> > I agree with your evaluation in this regard; but one thing I haven't
> > gotten clear on yet: does hi-bit equal more shades of gray, or
> > simply more control over the existing shades? And if the printer
> > driver converts back to 8-bit before printing, how does it help,
> > beyond, as you stated, allowing for corrections and more accurate
> > mapping of the existing shades?
> >
> > What I'm suggesting, (wishfull thinking really) is killing the
> > sacred cow and setting up a system based on a more continuous gray-
> > scale of 512 shades. A scanner function that would scan directly to
> > B&W in 512 shades. A monochrome digicam sensor that outputs 512
> > shades in raw format. Software that supports editing of the files
> > without downgrading to 256. And a printer driver that could make use
> > of that and deliver at least SOME of the extra info to the paper.
> > Remember, I'm looking for headroom, not neccessarily a quantum leap.
> >
> >
> > BTW, David, when IS PFP 2.0 going to be released?
> >
> > Steven Karafyllakis
> >
> >
> > > C. David Tobie
> > > Product Technology Manager
> > > ColorVision Business Unit
> > > Datacolor Inc.
> > > CDTobie@
> > > www.colorvision.com
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > >
> >
>
>   
>


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