lf-photo.org.uk

Hi Joanna ( and everyone else).

As I commented before, I was more than impressed with the prints you obtained with this printer. I needed a printer and had prevaricated for a long time but decided to buy the 2400 on the basis of your prints.

I have since got through a box of 8x10 Epson Archival Matte and Somerset Enhanced Velvet matte with mixed feelings.

I do enjoy the black and white prints but seem unable to completely get rid of a slight cast despite using profiles. I have not yet explored the advanced black and white menus so perhaps this will improve things, but reviews of this printer suggest that a neutral print is obtainable without using these controls.

I telephoned the manufacturers of Somerset Enhanced in Wells and they said there is an inherent 'pink' cast with that paper. Have you had trouble obtaining a completely neutral print or do you use the advanced menus??. These images have been scanned from 5x4 and 10x8 film so there is no other quality issue.

Secondly I have printed some colour digital files from my Nikon D70. This was harder than I envisaged. I do need to get my monitor calibrated and that will improve things I am sure. But my reaction to the colour prints were mixed.

I am firstly disappointed by the quality of the images produced by the Nikon. I was hoping to interpolate the files up to at least 12x16 or even 16x20 but when I try this there is a noticeable degredation of image quality. They do seem to print nicely at their true image size but the matt rag paper seems to be unforgiving at higher file sizes. The resulting print seems to change from a photographic quality to an almost 'painterly' quality, slightly impressionistic. Am I being overly optimistic at hoping to interpolate these files to these larger files, even using incremental resizing techniques ( in Photoshop), and if I reqularly want to print at A3+ sizes do I really need a higher megapixel camera? Would using a pearl or glossy paper enhance the apparent 'sharpness' and detail in the image?

Secondly I am having to adjust to an entirely different 'experience' of the photograph via the digital and inkjet medium. I am not displeased with it but it is certainly different than silver photography (and not necessarily inferior). People say they advertise and sell these images (which I am sure is true) but can anybody comment on the size of this market, the profile of the client group (should such a neat profile exist) and whether these digital images are targetted at the traditional photographic market or at a more 'art conscious' group.

This is the first time I have tried to produce high quality colour prints from digital, so perhaps my workflow methods need refining as well.

Any comments would be helpful.
Thanks
Geoff

I bought an R2400 a week or so before the Somerset gathering, I've been busy at work so it's still in its box. Tomorrow I'll set it up.

I came across a usefull artical here http://www.cjcom.net/articles/digiprn9.htm the other day, you may find it usefull.

Thanks Steve. A very comprehensive overview of digital printing with interesting pointers and tips. (As well as some great images). Looks like I have quite a learning curve to get the best out of the medium.

On my last point, how large does other forum members print their files from their digital cameras and maintain quality?

Geoff,
I have had my R2400 for 3 months, and although I have only produced 2-3 prints on it as yet ( because of getting au fait with the production of digital negatives), I have been delighted with the results. As you probably know there are many reports on the web of very beautiful images being produced by this printer. The link to Clayton Jones that you were given is an excellent resource.
If you are looking to avoid colour casts, I would make three points:
1) You must must must get your monitor properly calibrated, using bespoke hardware, and re-calibrate at periodic intervals. I use a Spyder 2, which is easy to use and seems accurate. This process cannot be avoided, and is the key to colour accuracy in everything else that follows.
2) Initially, while you are acquainting yourself with the R2400, use Epson papers which will match the printer well. Epson Matte Heavyweight has worked well for me. I am awaiting delivery of some Fine Velvet Art paper by Epson, which seems to be getting good reviews.
3) When your monitor is calibrated, then with further software like Spyder or Monaco EZ, you can embark on the (somewhat arduous) process of producing ICC profiles for other papers.
It's a steep learning curve, and I am still groping my way towards the top!
John Fontana

Geoff B wrote: I do enjoy the black and white prints but seem unable to completely get rid of a slight cast despite using profiles. I have not yet explored the advanced black and white menus so perhaps this will improve things, but reviews of this printer suggest that a neutral print is obtainable without using these controls.

Have you profiled your monitor as John suggests ? This is the single most important factor in judging whether your pictures will come out as the should. If the screen is not calibrated, you have no base reference by which to judge any printed output.

Geoff B wrote: I telephoned the manufacturers of Somerset Enhanced in Wells and they said there is an inherent 'pink' cast with that paper. Have you had trouble obtaining a completely neutral print or do you use the advanced menus??. These images have been scanned from 5x4 and 10x8 film so there is no other quality issue.

If you buy coloured (tinted) paper then you have to expect tinted prints. The inks will not compensate so you have to choose a paper that will give you the base "white" you desire.

Geoff B wrote: Secondly I have printed some colour digital files from my Nikon D70. This was harder than I envisaged. I do need to get my monitor calibrated and that will improve things I am sure. But my reaction to the colour prints were mixed.

I am firstly disappointed by the quality of the images produced by the Nikon. I was hoping to interpolate the files up to at least 12x16 or even 16x20 but when I try this there is a noticeable degredation of image quality. They do seem to print nicely at their true image size but the matt rag paper seems to be unforgiving at higher file sizes. The resulting print seems to change from a photographic quality to an almost 'painterly' quality, slightly impressionistic. Am I being overly optimistic at hoping to interpolate these files to these larger files, even using incremental resizing techniques ( in Photoshop), and if I reqularly want to print at A3+ sizes do I really need a higher megapixel camera? Would using a pearl or glossy paper enhance the apparent 'sharpness' and detail in the image?

When dealing with digital files, you have to consider the resolution of the original digital image as captured on the sensor and then relate that to the anticipated size and resolution at which you intend to print.

The Nikon D70 has an image area of 23.7mm x 15.6mm with pixel dimensions of 3008 x 2000. It used to be recommended that you worked with files at a printing resolution of 300dpi, although Photoshop CS2 suggests a resolution of 240dpi as default.

Taking the long side of the sensor at 3008 pixels in 23.7mm, this gives us a resolution of 3224 pixels per inch. Converting a file to 300dpi will then give you a picture size of 254mm (3224 / 300 x 23.7) x 169mm (3256 / 300 x 15.6); at 240dpi you are going to get 318mm x 212mm

Increasing the size of an image in Photoshop beyond these sizes requires that you use the "bicubic smoother" mode of sizing in Photoshop to obtain the best results. I personally have bought the Genuine Fractals plugin and find that this gives better results; the only real difference being that I found it best to sharpen the image after Photoshop sizing but before Genuine Fractals sizing. If you want sharp images at A3+, then you are on the borders of possibility with the small original image that the D70 gives you.

Another factor to consider is that you should turn off all in-camera sharpening and only apply sharpening in Photoshop. Also ensure that you are using RAW (uncompressed) format and open the files using the Adobe camera RAW plugin for Photoshop that matches your camera.

Concerning choice of paper, I would recommend that you avoid art rag papers for B&W; I use Fuji Hunt Satin which gives astoundingly good results. Colour pictures will turn out sharper on satin and "painterly" but beautiful on art rag.

If you are wanting to convert colour images from your camera to B&W, then you must first of all convert them in Photoshop using a Channel Mixer adjustment layer, setting the option to monochrome and then adjusting the sliders to give you whatever contrast effect you find best. This adjustment tool also allows you to change the levels of the red, green and blue channels to simulate the effect of any filters that you might have used to take a B&W picture. After applying the Channel Mixer, change the mode of the picture to 16bit monochrome.

The article that Steve links to really is quite dangerous as it is written on the premise that the R2400 printer is similar to previous models where you had to use colour inks to obtain B&W prints. This is simply not true!! The K3 inks provided with the 2400 provide an astounding tonal range of pure B&W inks without any use of colour inks at all.

Only if you use the advanced B&W options do you then start to use minute traces of coloured inks to tint the lighter tones as required. My experience is that using very small adjustments (horizontal 9, vertical 6) produces a lovely slightly warm but not "toned" feel to the print.

Geoff B wrote: Secondly I am having to adjust to an entirely different 'experience' of the photograph via the digital and inkjet medium. I am not displeased with it but it is certainly different than silver photography (and not necessarily inferior).

With a bit of tuition and practice, digital prints, especially B&W can be every bit as stunning and indistinguishable from silver prints.

Thanks Jo and John for the advice.
These are the main points I have distilled from the feedback:

1 Calibrate monitor
2 Choose cheaper papers to establish a baseline understanding of the capabilities and functions of the printer, preferably Epson's own. I cannot though see Epson Fine Velvet Art advertised anywhere.
3. Merely the use of profiles does not a great print make (as is suggested in much of the hype for the 2400); in fact according to Clayton Jones profiles are not required. But profiles are merely a further link in the chain of calibration of all equipment rather than a mystical link to great printing.
4 Pearl and gloss give 'sharper' and closer to conventional photographic results.
5 Matt provides a different 'photographic feel' (which can be defined as 'arty') with colour images though it appears to have a well regarded place for fine art b/w images, but does not please everybody including Joanna. Clayton Jones suggests with colour that the printer produces excessive ink.
6 The digital files from my Nikon f70 (and presumably other approx 6 megapixel cameras) has limited capability for routine resizing to exhibition size (conventionally 12x16ins and above). I do exclusively use raw files, use bicubic smoothing, sharpen only in Ps and use the channel mixer for conversion. But the general point I wanted confirming is that the quality obtained through resizing (even incrementally) is limited. Good; I can stop using using my Nikon for 'quality work' without feeling either guilty or a failure and revert back to using existing medium and large format cameras and scan for best quality.
7. Joanna virtually states that in B/W mode ONLY black inks are used (and by definition no colour inks) so it should be impossible to obtain a tint. There seems some debate about this; is this assertion categorical? This is an important point to clarify. I am going to experiment with BO printing with my redundant 2100 (which I failed to master) just for interest sake (as it seems so cheap)
7 Reading more generally has given me a feel about the quality obtainable by the Epson and I actually feel quite inspired by the majority of comments I have read. I am now in a better place. If only it printed 16x20..............

Geoff B wrote: 2 Choose cheaper papers to establish a baseline understanding of the capabilities and functions of the printer, preferably Epson's own. I cannot though see Epson Fine Velvet Art advertised anywhere.

Fotospeed do a great range of papers and offer free profiling for any paper that you purchase. This involves you printing a file that you download from their site and sending the print to Fotospeed; they then measure the print and send you a profile by e-mail.

It is very important that you realise these profiles are designed to be used with one particular set of settings on the printer, on one particular paper with one particular brand of inks. If you were to change to using a continuous ink system or a different paper, you would need to get another profile made.

Geoff B wrote: 3. Merely the use of profiles does not a great print make (as is suggested in much of the hype for the 2400); in fact according to Clayton Jones profiles are not required. But profiles are merely a further link in the chain of calibration of all equipment rather than a mystical link to great printing.

Clayton Jones is just plain wrong in indicating that profiles are not necessary. If you want reliable, consistent results, you need profiles.

Geoff B wrote: ...Clayton Jones suggests with colour that the printer produces excessive ink.

Once again Clayton is ignoring the fact that a good profile adjusts the inkflow making "tweaks" in the driver unnecessary.

Geoff B wrote: Good; I can stop using using my Nikon for 'quality work' without feeling either guilty or a failure and revert back to using existing medium and large format cameras and scan for best quality.

Good! you know it makes sense Throw away that nasty little digital and buy yourself another lens

But don't forget that, in scanning colour transparencies or neg film that you need a profile for your scanner for each type of film that you intend to scan. Also you should turn off any autoimatic adjustments or profiles provided with the scanner; profiles are assigned only after the image arrives in Photoshop. Check out http://www.targets.coloraid.de/ for such profiles.

Geoff B wrote: 7. Joanna virtually states that in B/W mode ONLY black inks are used (and by definition no colour inks) so it should be impossible to obtain a tint. There seems some debate about this; is this assertion categorical?

Absolutely! The K3 inks provide black, light black and light light black.

Geoff B wrote: This is an important point to clarify. I am going to experiment with BO printing with my redundant 2100 (which I failed to master) just for interest sake (as it seems so cheap)

The 2100 only has two black inks; the lighter shades are very difficult to produce. This is the reason that Clayton talks about using curves to correct tone of printing; something that simply isn't required on the 2400.

Geoff B wrote: ...If only it printed 16x20..............

Well, you could always splash out on an Epson 7800

Hi Jo

Thanks for the reply.

It is easy to get trapped in all the detail of digital. Last night I spent some time in my darkroom printing up some 8x10 negs of woodland shots and realised how tactile the process is and remembered how much I used to enjoy it. Here am I trying to make some sense of digital because I have bought a 2400 printer to make my life easier and having to get my head around a bundle of science in order to produce 'art'.

Fotospeed provide a profile service ( monitor, scanner, printer and profiles for 4 papers for £200 if you live within 100 miles of bath; is this good value or is it better to better purchase calibration eqipment and do it yourself?

Regarding the 7800 this may be excessive cos my scanner isnt too hot but the 4800may well be a definite possibility

Geoff, you have to realise that the digital darkroom can take as much learning as it does to produce really good darkroom prints

For profiling, take a look at this http://shop.colourconfidence.com/produc ... 582c0c5045

It is the Monaco software that allows you to profile monitor, printer, scanner, etc, together with a colorimeter for the monitor side of things.

For the price, I think it is good value as you can check your monitor often, as it can drift over time.

I would recommend that you get transparency targets from coloraid.de if you need to profile your scanner, they work with the Monaco software.

As to printer profiles, Fotospeed will provide them for papers you buy from them for free.

Joanna

Jump taken and bundled profiling software ordered......



Seriously thanks for the encouragement, and now cant wait to be profiled

I checked the coloraide site but it is not clear which link leads to the 'transparency targets', could you clarify? Thanks.

Cant wait for WYSIWYG for the first time ever

Hi Geoff

The scanner targets can be found at http://www.targets.coloraid.de/

Be sure to get the right ones for the transparency films that you are using; the results of assigning a wrong profile can be quite garish

Ok Thanks.

Are similar targets available for B/W - I rarely shoot colour transparency but thats not to say I have never wished to. Do I need these targets??

Calibration kit arrives tomorrow.

Cheers
Geoff

Geoff, you don't need targets for B&W or colour neg scanning, only colour trannie scanning.

You should scan in B&W as 16bit B&W; I turn off all profiling when scanning anything colour and then apply the correct profile in Photoshop, but for B&W, you might want to try the automatic correction provided by the driver software.

To get a neutral tint on your B&W prints, you need to adjust the additional B&W settings on the printer driver control panel. I use something like horizontal +9, vertical +6 to get a nice (to me) slightly warm feel without getting horrible over-rich sepia.