Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,821   Posts: 1,581,650   Online: 878
      
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 32
  1. #21

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    2,793
    Sorry that I never answered your question directly. I tried looking at the Fuji selection here, but apparently the papers are either labeled or distributed differently.

  2. #22

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    2,793
    Oh, one thing that just occurred to me... I asked a similar question last year to someone who does CA
    printing in another country both optically and digitally. Apparently there are certain papers designed primarily for advertising or trade show displays where they want the lettering to be very crisp black and white. So they've tweaked the curves to dump the blacks a little harder and raise the whites to the max. For this reason they consider them unsuitable for "typical" color neg applications like portraiture. But this doesn't meanthey're insensitive to ordinary exposing lights. You might have to do a little contrast masking to optimize for such papers. I hope this explanation helps. And again, I apologize if I seem to have been
    hijacking the thread. I was simply trying to explain how the effect of digital and analog printers really can
    be made quite analagous.

  3. #23

    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    london, uk
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    45
    Thanks Drew. I just thought the information you were sharing was too valuable to be buried in an unrelated thread. But perhaps it's not that unrelated, I just have to re-read your posts. Cheers

  4. #24

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    2,793
    My thought behind the whole additive exposure diatribe was that certain "digital only" papers might be at risk for crossover in the extreme highlights if a conventional
    YMC colorhead has too much residual white light spillover affecting all three dye layers. This is very difficult to predict since I don't have direct experience with such papers and because subtractive enlargers differ somewhat in how narrow a
    spectrum they pass, Durst and Omega colorheads less than twenty years old generally being superior in this respect to older units. If this happens there are
    ways to correct it. But my assumption, given the general ambiguity of Fuji's literature, is that by "digital only" they mean that the scan might need certain
    curve corrections in PS in order to fit the entire range of certain subjects. In
    analog printing we do this through masking. But it's certainly worth a try. Good
    luck!

  5. #25

    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    805
    Thanks for the info , Drew. That sounds like an awesome setup. Would be cool to see pics sometime. I too wondered if additive heads like beseler 45a could get around the issues with 'digital only' type papers.

  6. #26
    L Gebhardt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    NH - Live Free or Die
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    1,719
    Blog Entries
    1
    Images
    18
    In digital printing they don't generally do the curve corrections in Photoshop, but rather the driver software for the printer has a linearization function. In essence each channel of RGB gets its own curve. At least that's how the LightJet I'm familiar with works.

    I imagine this lets the paper manufacturer have much more leeway in the tolerances for the paper. In essence crossover can be eliminated at the printing stage. Also papers such as what Drew described above could be made to work perfectly fine for regular photos. Of course you could also tweak the output curves for the printer to get really dense blacks and crisp whites. So I guess digital only papers let them ship crap assuming the printer will take care of it. Maybe I'm too cynical.

  7. #27

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    2,793
    I don't think that's the case at all. In advertising displays you have a common scenario where a model might be involved, so you need to retain good highlight
    retention of subtle skintone hues and so forth, yet you also need text copy to
    come out crisp at both extremes. That would mandate printer profiles which have
    a distinct upsweep in the extreme ends of the curve, which could then be custom
    adjusted as needed. Fuji is probably concerned that if a conventional printer gets
    ahold of this kind of product, there will be complaints because analog printing of
    color negatives conventionally uses no contrast alteration at all, but only a choice
    of paper. But for some of us, convention is the first thing to go out the door.

  8. #28

    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    1
    iranzi, how did it go with printing optically on the Fuji type dpII? I'm assuming you have tried it by now and would be interested to know what results you got as I'm thinking of trying the same.

  9. #29

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Chattanooga TN
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    513
    Images
    12
    This is probably a daft question --- but somewhere I have an old Beseler wheel thingy with three filters, R,G,B - that you fit under the lens and use to make three separate exposures by spinning each into place. A very poor man's RGB system. Would that work with these papers? I don't see why not. I may have to renew the filters, they are probably scratched by now.

  10. #30

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    2,793
    That would be sequential additive printing, and it would be slow, tedious to balance, and some enlarger simply might not have enough output for it. Image quality would depend on the quality of
    the filters themselves. And you couldn't dodge/burn without fringing effects. The Beseler-Minolta
    additive system used flash tubes in sequence. Also low light output and sequential, but more user
    friendly. A true simultaneous additive system is a lot tricker problem to put together. The first reason
    for this is that true additive filters are much deeper than subtractive ones, so pass much less light.
    So when you increase your light output you end up with all kinds of maintenance issues with the heat and internal components of the colorhead. The second problem is with the electronics. Won't
    go into that. But for old-school assembly print processes like dye transfer or carbro, those under the
    lens filters might work.

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin