Update: just so you know, the "Pro" part of the name of the Canon printer I've been praising is to be taken as PR, not fact. One of the things which distinguish a pro printer from an amateur printer is the capacity of the ink cartridges. The Epson A2 printer I had, had printer cartridges the size of half a VHS cassette. This Canon's cartridges are the size of a small cigarette lighter. (That's probably true of all A3 printers.) I have printed about 20 pictures, and one of them is already empty (the "photo magenta" one). (Granted, I have printed many prints with much red in them, and most of the other cartridges seem pretty full still.)
--------
I'm trying to find out why digital BW prints often seem disappointing. There should be no reason for that. There is nothing technical that digital lacks, including the blackness of the black in prints. It's way better than the "plastic paper" that most people used in darkrooms, and the best is even better than the best baryt paper ("paper paper").
I suspect it's because digital lacks the "accutance" (artificial contrast along edges, giving the impression of sharpness) that film pictures often have. So this has to be boosted, along with contrast and such.
22 comments:
Have you experimented with the USM
(Unsharp Mask) in Photoshop?
There's also one in PhotoStudio 5.5,
and this apparently sharpens the edges in an image by increasing contrast between light and dark adjacent pixels, according to how you set its variable settings.
I haven't had much experience with this, but you might like to try it.
Could it be a matter of different films and papers which will all produce different results? Couldn't a digital photo be regarded like the result of just another combination of film&print?
Generally I feel, and this applies to colour as well, that film always has something special and inimitable to it.
That's why I've recently revived my film photography. My film photos are different, even after digitalizing them. Funny.
Ray, yes I have. This photo, for example, is sharpened both on the micro level (1-2 pixels) and the macro level (maybe 8 pixels).
I think I'll pass on that printer, then. When will they learn? So many of this type have that problem.
This Canon's cartridges are the size of a small cigarette lighter. (That's probably true of all A3 printers.)
One of the 'joys' of a bigger printer, I'm afraid (they use masses of ink to pring big photos), and also one of the 'dupes' used by ALL printer manufacturers, whenever you buy a new printer.
Cartridges supplied with a new printer are NEVER filled to the same capacity as replacement cartridges, which means that they WILL run out very quickly ... and the cost af replacements can be hideous!
You might like to take a look at lyson.com ... I've used their inks (on Epson printers)for ever, using their bulk pack / feed systems.
The initial outlay can seem a little steep, but if you are doing much printing at all, it works out way more economical, and the results are superb, being able to tweak and customise the inks used to get the best out of a photograph ... which may well be the answer to your other problems of quality.
Try the site ... I think you can still get test / calibration prints FOC from them ... it takes a little messing about, but if you REALLY want good photographic prints, it's possibly the only reliable way to achieve this.
The other thing that you WILL find is that every printer, without exception,performs MUCH better with some papers than others (and frequently these 'better' papers are not the same brand as the printer!)
Unfortunately, if you really ARE after quality, this can be a long (not to mention expensive) process ... online reviews may point you in the right direction (though I've always had great results with Epson papers for the 'routine' stuff, and papers from ILFORD (the photographic company) for 'specials' or commercial work.
There again, I have framed prints that were printed just over 10 years ago on Epson paper that cost me about £10 for 100 sheets of A4!
Having said all of that ... I dunno whether or not Lyson cater for your specific printer?
Oooops! Dunno how that happened? The previous post was mine (Philocalist)... the url given was entered as a url in the Name/URL option!
The Epson A2 printer that you had, was this the 3800 or 4880? Why on earth did you get rid of it for the Canon?
Regards
4800, I think.
1) space. It was too big for the room.
2) the nozzles kept clogging, and I kept getting black runs on prints.
3) The paper cutter kept jamming.
But I got rid of it like two years ago, so it was not in favor of the Canon as such.
I've been trying to figure out why digital B&W conversions/prints are disappointing, too. Obviously not all off them disappoint, but I feel that most do.
A program I've found success with is Nik Software's Silver Efex Pro. It mimics a lot of different film emulsions quite well (most of which are no longer available).
But there's still something I can't put my finger on. What sometimes bugs me about digital B&W is the almost uniform sharpness gives it a surreal look. But it can't be that simple...
Still, there's a reason why I still bother to shoot B&W film. I just can't define it.
Oh, and one other note - in the States, Adorama has a dedicated "True B&W" printing service, using Ilford papers and a special printer. They have a lot of sizes, including square sizes up to 15x15". The prints looks great, even digitally converted ones.
Sounds interesting.
BTW, right now I'm trying to buy NIK's complete suite. But what stops me is that UK is not on the list of countries on the order form!!
Can you go here, pretend to make an order, and see on the next page if I'm crazy or what?
Maybe I need one of those dedicated BW ink sets. Although I see no reason a color set should not work, if anything it should be richer.
In magazine printing, aren't they using special black ink in addition to the 3 prime colour inks which themselves could also produce black, but obviously not black enough on paper.
I don't know if this is as much off-topic as my first comment, but then...
Yeah, but the inkjet printers also have black ink. Some of them even have a "light black" as well.
This canon has eight different inks.
I do see the UK listed on the Nik order form. There's also an American flag in the upper right corner, so it must be able to tell where I am through my IP or something.
Yes, Ray found out that one has to choose one's country *before* choosing a product to buy, for some braindead reason. And I did not see the country popup above the button row.
But a long list of other countries are listed on the second page. But not UK for me. Jakob Nielsen would frown.
... but now I at least realise *why*... it has the same price in Euros as it has in dollars! That's fucking profiteering. Right now one dollar is *exactly* (0.667) two thirds of a Euro.
... In other words as a European I pay FIFTY PERCENT more. For a download. Now I'm upset.
OK...I'm going to ask this, again: Eo...WHY an inkjet when you could have SUPERIOR printing w/a COLOR LASER! And...the the cartridges last *much* longer than ink jets...which are fricken ink HOGS!!!!!!!
TC Girl-
The advantages of inkjet over laser for photos are primarily richer tones and colors, more flexible choices of paper and surfaces. With inkjet the ink absorbs into an emulsion layer and can be gloss or matte or textured.
With laser the toner is melted on top of the paper and can flake, cause differences in shine and stick to other sheets if stored too hot or under pressure
I always say laser is good enough to eaual good magazine printing, but not photo printing.
Ian
Thanks, Ian. I appreciate the info. Some issues I hadn't realized.
... In other words as a European I pay FIFTY PERCENT more. For a download. Now I'm upset.
Europeans must be used to getting screwed that way. Everything in England is at least twice as expensive as it is in the US, for example CD can be as much as 3x as much. No wonder peolple illegally download.
Post a Comment