roscoetuff
Well-known
Cal:
Thanks! Might not be on the prowl yet, but I have a friend who just sold off a printer for $200... and he's got enough experience the two of us might be able to handle something like this and give it enough biz to keep it
occupied. I'll float it by him (even though he's a color man). Adding that a 225 pound machine....!!!! Needs a nickname besided P7000. Something like Kowabunga or Godzilla. Just sayin'.
- Skip
Thanks! Might not be on the prowl yet, but I have a friend who just sold off a printer for $200... and he's got enough experience the two of us might be able to handle something like this and give it enough biz to keep it
occupied. I'll float it by him (even though he's a color man). Adding that a 225 pound machine....!!!! Needs a nickname besided P7000. Something like Kowabunga or Godzilla. Just sayin'.
- Skip
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
Skip,
The thing I learned from doing Piezography is to think ahead. Also remember that you can also print digital negatives for contact printing. There is a bigger picture here. It does not get better than this.
Cal
roscoetuff
Well-known
Cal: While we're at it (speaking of K7 inks), did you focus on one of the ink sets, pick out a custom set by ordering one bottle at a time, or go with a ready-made set of "Warm Neutral", "Carbon", "Selenium", "Special", or "Neutral" route? or did you try them all? (I think the Pro set is supposed to offer the printer the sense of "having it all" in one set, but at perhaps a bit of a give-up relative to a dedicated single purpose set - if that's right). Or do you use the K7's for Digital Negatives? And is it fair to assume you have the DN's printed by Cone or someone else?
Sorry to pester with questions, but it's what comes to mind... THanks for your patience!
Sorry to pester with questions, but it's what comes to mind... THanks for your patience!
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
Skip,
You ask thoughtful questions, so it is no bother.
With K-7 I decided to go splitone. I blend my own inkset for cool highlights (Selenium) and warm shadows ( Warm Neutral). In effect I get a three way split because the black is a tone of its own that brings out mucho depth in the shadows. Really dramatic in night shots.
K-7 really is about shadow details. Many people crush the blacks in their prints. I can be a bit of a jerk, and one of my friends from the NYC Meet-Up, Joe, gave me a remarkable file to print shot near Columbus Circle, but within Central Park where somehow remarkably he captured the surrounding skyscrappers without blowing them out. This file had incredible amount of dynamic range (shot on a Monochrom) on a otherwise bright sunny day.
Understand that I dim down my EIZO to about 50 Lux to lower contrast, and this is in a darkened room. So of course I really pull the contrast down and maximize everthing for dynamic range. I use the image on my EIZO as well as the histogram to draw out all the maximum detail.
So in this print I compared the print to the image on my EIZO and discovered a squirrel in the foreground in the shadow of a tree that was not visible on my EIZO. This was an epiphany for me because I learned that I can print what I can't see. Pretty much there is mucho shadow detail available in my files, and most people, including me crush out detail in the shadows.
Now I learned that at this level I have to proof prints and actually have learned how to tease out even more detail. If you look at and admire large format prints you will take notice of the enhanced amount of shadow detail that is present, and the amount of depth displayed.
In my prints there is a certain amount of depth created via the split tone. My early K-7 prints blended my split 50%Selenium/50% Warm Neutral at shade 4, but this was too much warmth, so I further diluted shade 3 25% Selenium/ 75% Warm Neutral. Understand all Piezography inks can be blended, the only rule is not to mix shades (exception was for an old digital negative system that now is obsolete). Pretty much I made my own custom inkset by blending inks.
After experience with Piezography Pro with the new PK-HD, I decided to upgrade my inkset to K-7 HD. Pretty much it involved just changing out the PK (black) cart for a cart filled with PK-HD (Glossy Black High Density) and using brand new curves developed by Walter.
You need to know that this PK-HD is the same glossy black developed for Piezography Pro. This black is so dense that interesting to note that in use not a lot is used in printing, and mostly on my printers the inks most depleted through use are the mids.
Also know that from using PP extensively I learned to moderate my splitone in K-7 even further, so I increased the dilution in shade three, and even went a step further and started diluting Shade 2 with Selenium to tone down the warmth.
Basically I made the splitone more subtle and nuanced. Some might say I kinda neutralized the warmth from the ink, but the proportions of 50/50 don't work that way, especially since all the papers I use/like are kinda warm, and that interaction of warmth from the paper interacts with the warmth or coolness from the ink. There is mucho complexity going on here, but in a print it is very clear: a new layer of detail.
I would say my initial K-7 prints are inherantly overly warm, especially images/files that have mucho blacks and lots of shadow details. On some prints it is a bonus, but on others overdone. This is one reason why I say PP is a great thing, dispite the wonder of K-7 HD. In particular NYC night shots are rather spectacular in a splitone.
Selenium is the most favored inset at Piezography. It is hyped as being most like a wet print when used on Baryta coated papers. The amount of depth created with cool highlights verses warm shadows with the blackest-black available is pretty hard to imagine.
If you look into Piezography you will learn that each shade is a very long curve that interacts and overlaps with many others. It seems in the bigger prints things really open up, the image becomes less about contrast, and is more about fine gradation and detail revealed mostly in the mids.
This is how I am able to transcend formats and get medium and large format results from a small format camera. Also I will repeat that the original Monochrome has an innate huge midrange to exploit, and that the M-246 (a better more advanced camera in almost every way) has scooped mids in comparision, but smoother roll-off in the highlights, and better/more shadow detail.
For K-7 I have the ultimate printer, Epson 7800, (same as 7880 as far as hardware, only thing different is the inkset), the only thing better would be a 98XX. All I need for my glossy printing is eight channels: 7 for black inks; and one for Gloss Overcoat.
Pretty much from PP I learned once dialed in the splitone settings are really paper dependent. The Canson Platine Fibre Rag and the Jon Cone Type 5 I use are both rag papers, both are Baryta coated, and both look great with the same blend of split one, but the Canson is a true glossy, and the Jon Cone Type 5 has a "satin" finish and to me is not a true glossy. In effect I use this as my "matte" print.
Another point is that the Gloss overcoat adds durability and protection to my prints. At Meet-Ups I horrify people where I spit on one of my prints and squeegee the wetness off with my hand. No damage occurs.
For more detail on how "Big Prints Don't Lie" check my post on Bill's thread "Splitting Hairs." It further explains why I like printing big and the effects that others disregard. It takes a lot of "balls" to print big, it definitely will be judged, and judge by many who don't know or understand the impact and meaning of a big print.
Cal
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
Skip,
Part Two. LOL.
With Piezography Pro I already have digital negative capabilities. The only thing I have to do is buy some software and a device like an I1 Pro. No ink change is required.
The bottleneck for me is lack of studio space, but that can change as I am now 60 and will retire in the not too distant future.
So contact printing bigger than 8x10 requires use of a vacuum frame for optimum results. I figure I would want to print 20x24 so a good amount of space/darkroom is required.
Currently I live in Madhattan...
I'm afraid that for doing digital negatives would be best served by doing a Jon Cone Digital Negative Workshop. One day I want to meet this man, and also I have heard from many that these workshops are really-really great and in one weekend you learn a lot (mucho).
So I have the capability to make digital negatives today, but have not, and I lack the required studio space to wet print. One day...
I figure wet contact printing is a good way to go if printing limited editions, and this very much would be akin to simulating large format contact printing, except exploiting small format digital or along with maybe scanning medium format film.
Cal
Part Two. LOL.
With Piezography Pro I already have digital negative capabilities. The only thing I have to do is buy some software and a device like an I1 Pro. No ink change is required.
The bottleneck for me is lack of studio space, but that can change as I am now 60 and will retire in the not too distant future.
So contact printing bigger than 8x10 requires use of a vacuum frame for optimum results. I figure I would want to print 20x24 so a good amount of space/darkroom is required.
Currently I live in Madhattan...
I'm afraid that for doing digital negatives would be best served by doing a Jon Cone Digital Negative Workshop. One day I want to meet this man, and also I have heard from many that these workshops are really-really great and in one weekend you learn a lot (mucho).
So I have the capability to make digital negatives today, but have not, and I lack the required studio space to wet print. One day...
I figure wet contact printing is a good way to go if printing limited editions, and this very much would be akin to simulating large format contact printing, except exploiting small format digital or along with maybe scanning medium format film.
Cal
roscoetuff
Well-known
Cal: Thanks once again. I've seen very much as you post elsewhere, but your detail and discussion makes it all make sense. THanks!
roscoetuff
Well-known
Cal: Just thought I'd follow up to say that after a weekend running paper through the printer - okay maybe not THAT many prints, but re-processing shots and then printing a few, I'm finally comfortable saying I've started with the process and I'm lovin' it.
Here's my take: "Is Piezography worth it?" just isn't the right question. It's not cheap - and that's often the biggest beef with it. But for my bit, printing in B&W has been fine without Piezography but had its limits in that I've not felt like I'm getting the best I could. So why go there? Because I know that "better" is out there, and Jon Cone and Walker Blackwell are both master printers who have sorted out some ways that are accessible for the rest of us to produce similarly with our own inkjets. To benchmark ALL of this on price is to miss the fact that we're actually comparing the cost of using our small inkjet printers to output produced by master printers off the industry's top hardware. I've got a higher degree of confidence that we're getting a lot closer to that level of quality using this process than otherwise, but sure, it can be done some other way, too. To read their manual and to push your images according to how they suggest (at least in part) -or for the same objectives, you are producing the "best" you can from your source files (or scanned negatives). At that point, printing using their system isn't required of course, but it is very satisfying. My images now come out looking very, very very much like set up on the screen - even to the point that sometimes I haven't seen everything that's there and have to re-edit the crop or something else because my eyes simply elided over artifacts I meant to remove... as a result of over-familiarity (I just stopped seeing them until I printed). So I've gotten use to "proof prints" as a norm. And as long as I'm fine with the 7 X7 on an 8.5 X 11 sheet, then it's time to go into the real "keeper". Is this more work than I was used to before? Sure, but the images are better, too.
So far, I'm still using only the B&W matte 'cause I have only matte paper and the curves I'm using are the canned curves for the Cone paper and PiezoPro inksets. I'm running "Neutral" 'cause I'm not into "Warm" and "Cool" is probably better for glossy. I've seen the range that folks are able to produce with their own ink sets and with their own sets of curves, so I've hardly scratched the surface of the creative prospects within the system. To put that into context, if there really are thousands of potential combinations, the "one and only defaults" that I'm using barely do it justice. But they do a fine job. And the great thing for a B&W shooter is that now ...at last, I feel that I have all the tools I need.
And that's a sweet spot that turns the whole back from tools towards how to use them and putting the controls back into my head. I've only printed 10 images so far, but that's enough to say, "Hey you can really do a lot with this stuff. Ain't nothin' holdin' you back... nothin' (base line cuts in here I think)..." so it's time to dance off and get back to the photography. But fairly as Cal puts it, it took me more print runs to do that than just 10 prints. I've probably burned 20 sheets. Paper and ink.... it's what it's there for, huh? I've burned a lot of both over the last month or two and many many of these pushing one image for everything I could get out of it. Thought it was ridiculous at first, and would kick myself over the waste, burn rate, etc. But then if you look around, seems everyone who wants to push themselves finds that's really where the progress in producing better images comes from. "Don't fear the burn...". Yeah. I think that's why this is resisted in truth... BECAUSE we do fear it. And yet it is so worth it.
At the end of the day, can you make better prints another way? Wet? Dry? Sure. I wouldn't say otherwise. But you'd have to push yourself to edit the images to the "Nth degree" the way Piezography would too. But these inks, these tools, curves, profiles, and all the rest can make it easy to do the next step... not necessarily "better". That's a subjective word and always debatable, and I've been around the track to know that what took me some time to find the tools or talent to produce, a master craftsman out there will produce with a stick and some glue to my utter amazement, shame, etc. But however you get there, the goal is production that leads to pushing me back to my source images, and as I get that done, back into the field knowing what can be tangibly... yes TANGIBLY produced with confidence. And that's a thrill.
I don't see in B&W, but with an accessible feedback loop through the Piezography tools for B&W it's a lot easier to see what works and doesn't work in this medium, and the range of what works well may widen a smidgen as a result. The more you like the midtones, the better these tools work. I may even feel inspired to shake the dust off my dust off the Sony A7Rii and Zeiss Loxia lenses and see what those things can do as well.
Here's my take: "Is Piezography worth it?" just isn't the right question. It's not cheap - and that's often the biggest beef with it. But for my bit, printing in B&W has been fine without Piezography but had its limits in that I've not felt like I'm getting the best I could. So why go there? Because I know that "better" is out there, and Jon Cone and Walker Blackwell are both master printers who have sorted out some ways that are accessible for the rest of us to produce similarly with our own inkjets. To benchmark ALL of this on price is to miss the fact that we're actually comparing the cost of using our small inkjet printers to output produced by master printers off the industry's top hardware. I've got a higher degree of confidence that we're getting a lot closer to that level of quality using this process than otherwise, but sure, it can be done some other way, too. To read their manual and to push your images according to how they suggest (at least in part) -or for the same objectives, you are producing the "best" you can from your source files (or scanned negatives). At that point, printing using their system isn't required of course, but it is very satisfying. My images now come out looking very, very very much like set up on the screen - even to the point that sometimes I haven't seen everything that's there and have to re-edit the crop or something else because my eyes simply elided over artifacts I meant to remove... as a result of over-familiarity (I just stopped seeing them until I printed). So I've gotten use to "proof prints" as a norm. And as long as I'm fine with the 7 X7 on an 8.5 X 11 sheet, then it's time to go into the real "keeper". Is this more work than I was used to before? Sure, but the images are better, too.
So far, I'm still using only the B&W matte 'cause I have only matte paper and the curves I'm using are the canned curves for the Cone paper and PiezoPro inksets. I'm running "Neutral" 'cause I'm not into "Warm" and "Cool" is probably better for glossy. I've seen the range that folks are able to produce with their own ink sets and with their own sets of curves, so I've hardly scratched the surface of the creative prospects within the system. To put that into context, if there really are thousands of potential combinations, the "one and only defaults" that I'm using barely do it justice. But they do a fine job. And the great thing for a B&W shooter is that now ...at last, I feel that I have all the tools I need.
And that's a sweet spot that turns the whole back from tools towards how to use them and putting the controls back into my head. I've only printed 10 images so far, but that's enough to say, "Hey you can really do a lot with this stuff. Ain't nothin' holdin' you back... nothin' (base line cuts in here I think)..." so it's time to dance off and get back to the photography. But fairly as Cal puts it, it took me more print runs to do that than just 10 prints. I've probably burned 20 sheets. Paper and ink.... it's what it's there for, huh? I've burned a lot of both over the last month or two and many many of these pushing one image for everything I could get out of it. Thought it was ridiculous at first, and would kick myself over the waste, burn rate, etc. But then if you look around, seems everyone who wants to push themselves finds that's really where the progress in producing better images comes from. "Don't fear the burn...". Yeah. I think that's why this is resisted in truth... BECAUSE we do fear it. And yet it is so worth it.
At the end of the day, can you make better prints another way? Wet? Dry? Sure. I wouldn't say otherwise. But you'd have to push yourself to edit the images to the "Nth degree" the way Piezography would too. But these inks, these tools, curves, profiles, and all the rest can make it easy to do the next step... not necessarily "better". That's a subjective word and always debatable, and I've been around the track to know that what took me some time to find the tools or talent to produce, a master craftsman out there will produce with a stick and some glue to my utter amazement, shame, etc. But however you get there, the goal is production that leads to pushing me back to my source images, and as I get that done, back into the field knowing what can be tangibly... yes TANGIBLY produced with confidence. And that's a thrill.
I don't see in B&W, but with an accessible feedback loop through the Piezography tools for B&W it's a lot easier to see what works and doesn't work in this medium, and the range of what works well may widen a smidgen as a result. The more you like the midtones, the better these tools work. I may even feel inspired to shake the dust off my dust off the Sony A7Rii and Zeiss Loxia lenses and see what those things can do as well.
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
Skip,
Nothing wrong with matte prints. Like I said I live in a very small universe and only print glossy on Baryta papers.
I think you will do well in becoming your own master. I don't think I have it in me to be like Jon Cone and Walter who live in the realm of a much larger universe, and I'm perfectly happy in the small and very limited one I live in now.
You are correct in burning through materials, but this kinda creates your own style IMHO. The burn rate slows down considerably.
I think once you dial in a paper that my settings in Piezography Pro remain kinda fixed. Pretty much I optimize for the tonality and interaction with the paper warmth or coolness, and that is kinda fixed.
Good news is that I may have a printing gig. In the past I have printed for other artists who have sought me out. I don't promote or advertise printing for hire, and basically I get approached for these gigs because of my experience and reputation. So I will have a meeting later this week to collaborate with this Japanese historian who has all these vintage 5x7 glass negatives.
We both agree that the defects and damage should be printed as artifact. I proposed doing limited editions in two sizes. One hand holdable, say a 13x19 1/2 image size on 20x24 paper; and a 20x30 on 24x36 sheet.
I expect that when I show him some of my prints made from small format digital that he will see that I have the large format tonality and resolution at hand. Not sure how this will all translate, but we are talking large format vintage negatives being printed with Piezography.
I'm kinda excited over the possibilities...
Cal
Nothing wrong with matte prints. Like I said I live in a very small universe and only print glossy on Baryta papers.
I think you will do well in becoming your own master. I don't think I have it in me to be like Jon Cone and Walter who live in the realm of a much larger universe, and I'm perfectly happy in the small and very limited one I live in now.
You are correct in burning through materials, but this kinda creates your own style IMHO. The burn rate slows down considerably.
I think once you dial in a paper that my settings in Piezography Pro remain kinda fixed. Pretty much I optimize for the tonality and interaction with the paper warmth or coolness, and that is kinda fixed.
Good news is that I may have a printing gig. In the past I have printed for other artists who have sought me out. I don't promote or advertise printing for hire, and basically I get approached for these gigs because of my experience and reputation. So I will have a meeting later this week to collaborate with this Japanese historian who has all these vintage 5x7 glass negatives.
We both agree that the defects and damage should be printed as artifact. I proposed doing limited editions in two sizes. One hand holdable, say a 13x19 1/2 image size on 20x24 paper; and a 20x30 on 24x36 sheet.
I expect that when I show him some of my prints made from small format digital that he will see that I have the large format tonality and resolution at hand. Not sure how this will all translate, but we are talking large format vintage negatives being printed with Piezography.
I'm kinda excited over the possibilities...
Cal
roscoetuff
Well-known
Cal:
I'm actually planning to try some glossy... just to see whether Piezo cures my distaste for glossy ink jet that came from some of my early Epson prints years back. If so, that could change a lot in what I do, or at least open up another possibility.
Your printing project sounds like fun. Wish you luck! Wouldn't it be great to find you could retire to be a printer? A fellow could do a lot worse!
Best,
Skip
I'm actually planning to try some glossy... just to see whether Piezo cures my distaste for glossy ink jet that came from some of my early Epson prints years back. If so, that could change a lot in what I do, or at least open up another possibility.
Your printing project sounds like fun. Wish you luck! Wouldn't it be great to find you could retire to be a printer? A fellow could do a lot worse!
Best,
Skip
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
Skip,
I'll cut the chase again.
I happen to like the added detail that glossy presents. The Piezography glossy had the guys in the Leica booth at PhotoPlusExpo fooled because my print resembled a wet print. Pretty much they could not believe my image capture was on the primative first version Leica Monochrom, and that it was a wet print shot of film and wet printed using at least 120 or 4x5.
The Canson papers I use are true glossy, but if this is overdone for you there is Jon Cone Type 5 which to me has a dull satin kinda look and does not have that mirror like gloss and shine. The JC Type 5 seems to be beloved by the color printers and can be described as a Crane's Silver Rag clone that has been optimized for Piezography for a blacker-black. This is an art paper and has a bit of texture. I kinda use it as my matte paper, but it holds the detail like a glossy paper.
Overall I think the Canson Photographic Baryta is the most glossy and brightest of the bunch of papers I use. I tend to use this paper for testing as it has a trace amount of OBA's, so for the main body of work I avoid using it. It is because Photographique is so inexpensive that I use it. It also prints the most/higher contrast.
The Canson Platine Fibre Rag is not as smooth and has the rag paper feel. I think Jon Cone designed glossy Piezography around this specific paper.
Walter is a self proclaimed "Canson Freak," and he actually helped develop Canson Prestige which is a heavy paper that is like a hybred between the Photographique and the Platine being a mix of cellulose and rag. I don't favor the Prestige because it is mucho expensive and premium priced, but also because it has trace amounts of OBA's like the cellulose Photographique mentioned above.
While the Canson papers print the blacker-black, the JC Type 5 has the vast midrange won. So now with PK-HD anchoring a black is not an issue either, just tweak and dial in the contrast a little on a Canson file for JC Type 5.
Under glass I think the JC Type 5 works and appears like a matte print without the glare/flare, but has that added detail. So if I had only one paper for the rest of my life it likely would be the JC Type 5. Kinda like a blend between matte and glossy with the best of both.
I will also add that the "Gloss Optimize" (K-7) or "Gloss Optimizer" (PP) adds a layer of durability and allows for a good amount of physical handling, so much so that I'm using prints to make books and bound folio's.
At age 60 1/2 I'm getting ready for retirement, a rich one. By age 62 I figure I have to be ready for any surprise since 66% of Americans don't work to full retirement age, many Americans just get forced out of work, and it is not necessarily because of health or disability or choice.
I'm lucky that I don't have to slave away with my printing to be happy, and if I sell any work it is extra money. A lot of momentum is going on lately in my art career that got put on the side so many times and was interupted.
Cal
roscoetuff
Well-known
Cal: Finding that I've finally discovered / latched on to the Capture One tools for driving midtones in my photos, I'm a happy man and photos are coming along sweetly with the dimensions I'm looking for. So your comments on Cone 5 papers are on the mark for me. THanks!
Thanks as well for the rest of the discussion (again).Soon as Inkjetmall gets back from July 4th holiday week, I'll have to try their Cone 5 papers. I have a couple of boxes of Hahnemuhle FineArt Baryta Satin on hand though (25 pages per) and that's probably as good a place to start with the glossy and see if it's gonna work for me... now that so much has changed in the last year. Will have to give the Canson Photographic Baryta a shot as well.
Maybe my opinion on gloss will have changed, too, with the improvements wrought using Piezography. Hope so. Nevertheless, Paul Roark's case for "all matte all the time" - especially if you're going to frame it under glass.. remains pretty convincing. The good thing is now the "colors" of B&W, the grays and all the rest... at last have me satisfied that I really do love B&W as an expressive medium... as one that's not like everyone else's iPhone "snap", one that's worth the trouble, and has a beauty all its own.
Thanks as well for the rest of the discussion (again).Soon as Inkjetmall gets back from July 4th holiday week, I'll have to try their Cone 5 papers. I have a couple of boxes of Hahnemuhle FineArt Baryta Satin on hand though (25 pages per) and that's probably as good a place to start with the glossy and see if it's gonna work for me... now that so much has changed in the last year. Will have to give the Canson Photographic Baryta a shot as well.
Maybe my opinion on gloss will have changed, too, with the improvements wrought using Piezography. Hope so. Nevertheless, Paul Roark's case for "all matte all the time" - especially if you're going to frame it under glass.. remains pretty convincing. The good thing is now the "colors" of B&W, the grays and all the rest... at last have me satisfied that I really do love B&W as an expressive medium... as one that's not like everyone else's iPhone "snap", one that's worth the trouble, and has a beauty all its own.
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
Skip,
Digging into printing has made me a better photographer.
My approach is to simulate a large format shooter and maximize image capture as if for contact printing a large negative to minimize required post processing, digital noise, and digital artifact.
Be aware that Piezography has mucho shadow detail and the look for me is of larger formats in my printing. This become more evident in larger prints that "open-up" in detail and tonality.
Also be aware that there is a HDR and resolution that can be overdone.
Trust your trained eye and think like a large format shooter.
Also for digital image capture use Heliopan filters that are marked "Digital." These filters have additional IR and UV filtering, and they clean up the histogram by removing signal that is not visual information. I would argue that this could be considered "noise." These "Digital" filters also curb or eliminate clipping.
Realize that the added resolution and fidelity of Piezography means making clean files and minimizing processing has great payoffs. Try to emulate the detail and tonality of large format that is contact printed. Print for proofing, and realize that you can print what you can't see even on a calibrated monitor that is dimmed down in a darkened room.
Jon Cone suggests dimming down your calibrated monitor to 50-80 Lux.
All the best.
Cal
POSTSCRIPT: I failed to mention that the histogram is a great tool to use to anchor your black and your highlight/paper white. Learning how to gauge tonality via the histogram cuts the "paper burning." A calibrated monitor can only go so far...
Digging into printing has made me a better photographer.
My approach is to simulate a large format shooter and maximize image capture as if for contact printing a large negative to minimize required post processing, digital noise, and digital artifact.
Be aware that Piezography has mucho shadow detail and the look for me is of larger formats in my printing. This become more evident in larger prints that "open-up" in detail and tonality.
Also be aware that there is a HDR and resolution that can be overdone.
Trust your trained eye and think like a large format shooter.
Also for digital image capture use Heliopan filters that are marked "Digital." These filters have additional IR and UV filtering, and they clean up the histogram by removing signal that is not visual information. I would argue that this could be considered "noise." These "Digital" filters also curb or eliminate clipping.
Realize that the added resolution and fidelity of Piezography means making clean files and minimizing processing has great payoffs. Try to emulate the detail and tonality of large format that is contact printed. Print for proofing, and realize that you can print what you can't see even on a calibrated monitor that is dimmed down in a darkened room.
Jon Cone suggests dimming down your calibrated monitor to 50-80 Lux.
All the best.
Cal
POSTSCRIPT: I failed to mention that the histogram is a great tool to use to anchor your black and your highlight/paper white. Learning how to gauge tonality via the histogram cuts the "paper burning." A calibrated monitor can only go so far...
Last edited:
roscoetuff
Well-known
Cal: Your postscript is on the mark. In Capture One, you get histograms for RGB, Red, Green and Blue (least significant of these and often untouched), and each with 3 "wands". I don't know what they're called, but you can use the ends of these to set the White and Black points at the base on either side of the humped histogram. This works very well and is actually much better than the eyedropper approach to setting it. I believe the middle one is for mid-tones, and this is the "new to me" (as of this past weekend) place to drive the grays. Yes, it should be a "DUH!" but there you are, there are a lot of tricks I'm sure I still have to learn in this program, and it just keeps getting better and better. I imagine Photoshop works similarly. I do this then set the RGB and Luma curves which I like to shape like a Bruce Barnbaum densitometry "zone freak" curve ( a little toe, a little head (?) and a lot of middle straight). Very little else is really needed... I will look at the Highlights and Shadows if necessary, but usually - since I tend to meter manually these days, exposure needs very little tweaking. I do tend to dial down Contrast. I will still use the B&W button even though I'm working with a B&W negative, just because the Hue/Saturation channels give me some tweaks on the grays. Biggest thing I forget is really making sure my crop covers the image I want printed, and since I'm scanning, if I haven't set it right, I end up with some black frame showing, so I end up having to re-export for Quadrip and print a 2nd (final) run.
I should use layers more for my edits, but haven't graduated to that yet. Played with one photo using this, and it was effective in removing distracting highlights on a foreground leaf, and I've seen how it could be useful. And yes, you can REALLY do a lot with these tools if you want and need to. Something to think about. But for now, I'm still pretty much a KISS method and work with the main image.
Cone suggests importing with a raw image scan rather than the Vuescan negative scan, and once upon a time I subscribed to that. But that succeeds chiefly in meaning you have to completely reverse the controls, or do a one time edit, conversion, export and re-import before making adjustments. So I'm not convinced that's worth the squeeze and dropped it. Yes, many of my Photrio (was APUG) friends insist you don't maintain control of the image if you allow Vuescan to convert your image... but I'm willing to save that until I really have a "signature" shot. For most of what I do, this is just fine and the other edits together with Piezography will do it for me at least for now.
I don't know whether you're using filters on your MM, but I still use filters on my Delta 400 films. Yellow's my favorite, but in Charleston, SC at the beach, I threw deployed the Orange and Red from time to time because the Rolleiflex I took with me only shoots up to 1/500th. Put some light grays in the sky and your clouds pop like they should.
I should use layers more for my edits, but haven't graduated to that yet. Played with one photo using this, and it was effective in removing distracting highlights on a foreground leaf, and I've seen how it could be useful. And yes, you can REALLY do a lot with these tools if you want and need to. Something to think about. But for now, I'm still pretty much a KISS method and work with the main image.
Cone suggests importing with a raw image scan rather than the Vuescan negative scan, and once upon a time I subscribed to that. But that succeeds chiefly in meaning you have to completely reverse the controls, or do a one time edit, conversion, export and re-import before making adjustments. So I'm not convinced that's worth the squeeze and dropped it. Yes, many of my Photrio (was APUG) friends insist you don't maintain control of the image if you allow Vuescan to convert your image... but I'm willing to save that until I really have a "signature" shot. For most of what I do, this is just fine and the other edits together with Piezography will do it for me at least for now.
I don't know whether you're using filters on your MM, but I still use filters on my Delta 400 films. Yellow's my favorite, but in Charleston, SC at the beach, I threw deployed the Orange and Red from time to time because the Rolleiflex I took with me only shoots up to 1/500th. Put some light grays in the sky and your clouds pop like they should.
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
Skip,
I only rely on LR5. My tweaks are very so minor.
On my Monochrom, a very crude and not advanced camera, the on camera histogram with the clipping indicators set at 1% is a great way to learn perfect exposure for maximum detail and broadest tonality.
I think you have a lot more sophistication and experience in post processing than me, but my style is the slacker's way of simple and the minimum.
On my MM I use a 2X yellow that makes the contrast I need. I also get wonderful clouds, sky, and depth because the 2X yellow compresses the histogram into the "sweet spot" of my CCD sensor. Most of my histogram is mids, just where I want it.
Pretty much I adjust/tweak contrast by just using a "S" curve.
My contrast is set by the filter at time of image capture, and I don't use the contrast slider in Lightroom to boost contrast, but I use a "S" curve in the tone curve section to tailor the distribution of tonality. The highlights get the most boost and the darks get the most subtraction, with the mids only getting minor tweaking. In fact sometimes the mids I leave flat on some images.
Since I have no Bayer Filter Array, and no anti alias filter I never adjust the sharpening slider, and I use the Lightroom default setting of 25. The clarity control is kinda important to put a spread on the mids. The clarity slider is where perhaps increased sharpening is set in my case.
I will say that files from my SL require more processing. The highlights have a smoother rolloff than the MM due to the CMOS sensor. Some people say they don't see a difference, but if you print big and as your eye gets trained you will see the difference in the highlights.
Also you will see that the CMOS sensor has more shadow detail than the CCD sensor with an educated eye. The histogram clearly shows though that the CMOS sensor is kinda scooped in the mids. The MM histogram clearly shows most of the detail, information, and tonality is in the mids.
In practice I think I make the best B&W images with my Monochrom with Piezography even though it is only 18 MP. The SL takes more effort and tends to want to render via contrast (light and dark) instead of the mids.
The high ISO on the MM kinda sucks when compared with my SL, but I tend to only go as high as 800 ISO, like when shooting film for maintaning IQ.
For me less is more. I live in a very small universe, but I'm mucho happy.
Cal
I only rely on LR5. My tweaks are very so minor.
On my Monochrom, a very crude and not advanced camera, the on camera histogram with the clipping indicators set at 1% is a great way to learn perfect exposure for maximum detail and broadest tonality.
I think you have a lot more sophistication and experience in post processing than me, but my style is the slacker's way of simple and the minimum.
On my MM I use a 2X yellow that makes the contrast I need. I also get wonderful clouds, sky, and depth because the 2X yellow compresses the histogram into the "sweet spot" of my CCD sensor. Most of my histogram is mids, just where I want it.
Pretty much I adjust/tweak contrast by just using a "S" curve.
My contrast is set by the filter at time of image capture, and I don't use the contrast slider in Lightroom to boost contrast, but I use a "S" curve in the tone curve section to tailor the distribution of tonality. The highlights get the most boost and the darks get the most subtraction, with the mids only getting minor tweaking. In fact sometimes the mids I leave flat on some images.
Since I have no Bayer Filter Array, and no anti alias filter I never adjust the sharpening slider, and I use the Lightroom default setting of 25. The clarity control is kinda important to put a spread on the mids. The clarity slider is where perhaps increased sharpening is set in my case.
I will say that files from my SL require more processing. The highlights have a smoother rolloff than the MM due to the CMOS sensor. Some people say they don't see a difference, but if you print big and as your eye gets trained you will see the difference in the highlights.
Also you will see that the CMOS sensor has more shadow detail than the CCD sensor with an educated eye. The histogram clearly shows though that the CMOS sensor is kinda scooped in the mids. The MM histogram clearly shows most of the detail, information, and tonality is in the mids.
In practice I think I make the best B&W images with my Monochrom with Piezography even though it is only 18 MP. The SL takes more effort and tends to want to render via contrast (light and dark) instead of the mids.
The high ISO on the MM kinda sucks when compared with my SL, but I tend to only go as high as 800 ISO, like when shooting film for maintaning IQ.
For me less is more. I live in a very small universe, but I'm mucho happy.
Cal
roscoetuff
Well-known
Cal:
I used LR for a while and I think it's fine. I switched to Capture One because it worked better with Fuji's greens and then with Sony it was more native. C1 is somewhere between LR and headed toward Photoshop. But the truth is that I went back to film in part to get a way from time spent on the computer. But what am I doing with my hybrid approach? Oh yea... scanning, C1, and Quadrip. So the effort to dodge the computer failed... only I'm NOT spending as much time as I did originally. Snobs will tell you LR's isn't up to snuff. Maybe they're right? "Right for them"? Yes, definitely the latter. Maybe even more.
One fact I've learned is that I know only where I am with all this today, but can't honestly tell you what would have happened had I stayed with what I started with. I know what I've learned along the way, but attribution is a bit dodgy. My guess is while there's clearly a benefit gained in switching gear and even software as I have, there's also a penalty in learning time sunk, and amount of learning, so it could be I'd have ended up at the same place only faster without the chimera of seeking the Holy Grail... which I didn't find, btw. Big surprise.
Yeah, the truth is, I'm toning contrast down, not up with sliders. If you want subtle grays for the richness of what's in the image, then I think you tone things down. But then by setting the Hue/Saturation stuff that tends to hit the grays... you make more of them (not less). This seems to change something of where your grays are I think, and that's useful when it's useful. This seems to leave the core of the image to stand out... from the grays. (I'm thinking of a shot of my little black dog on the flagstone). The S curves... what I called the RGB and Luma curves (Capture One), that's where most of it happens for me, too. Those are simple tools. But what you find in the others I mentioned is that these others set the outline of the histogram shapes you'll see in the S curves. Like I said, I'm just beginning to see how that can work for me. It is VERY quick, and it's a bit iterative, but then when I'm done, I'm done. As experience rises, you'll try some of the other tools, too. The S curves alone have their limits, and some restraint is welcome - even there. Well... actually everywhere. Especially in this software.
As you'll remember, I'm working with film negatives, and film works from over-exposure to capture the shadow detail before turn it down to recover the highlights. Digital's the opposite and you protect the highlights from blowing out to recover detail out of the shadows. With fillm, I almost never have a bad histogram. Digital can be harder that way. What intrigues me about the MM is the best of both! and simple menus. Most digital camera menus... uh... er... I keep a spreadsheet to record my settings. People rave about Fuji's and slam Sony's, but really its tweedle dee and tweedle dum. I think Leica is probably the only one really making an effort to dum it down to a reasonable level - which is where it should be.
So the tweak tools will vary a little, but the manner in which I think they allow you to fine tune - and that's the key here fine tuning, NOT recrafting. The great thing is what you're after is an image that doesn't look "digitized" or "made in the computer" but remains authentically tied to the camera's capture. I want the light conditions to look like what I saw. I know lots of folks change it, but I tend to look for the right time of day in the first place, and then I want my photo to look like what I saw. I don't want NIGHT to become DAY, though I see folks who do that a lot. There can be a reason for that... "journalism" or a dislike of flash when in fact it's needed, but it's not me.
Cone's Community Edition suggests basically four things: 1) Work on the grays (what I call the mid tones), 2) Exercise restraint, 3) Limit the controls you work with, and 4) Keep a log of what you do for each image. I haven't set up for # 4, but the other three are pretty much the norm. And fairly, what seemed like a LOT once upon a time, now seems less largely 'cause you learn what works and what doesn't. Capture One is great for customizing a workflow for B&W... and that's kind of what I do. But the greatest thing is to speed your way to "done".
I used LR for a while and I think it's fine. I switched to Capture One because it worked better with Fuji's greens and then with Sony it was more native. C1 is somewhere between LR and headed toward Photoshop. But the truth is that I went back to film in part to get a way from time spent on the computer. But what am I doing with my hybrid approach? Oh yea... scanning, C1, and Quadrip. So the effort to dodge the computer failed... only I'm NOT spending as much time as I did originally. Snobs will tell you LR's isn't up to snuff. Maybe they're right? "Right for them"? Yes, definitely the latter. Maybe even more.
One fact I've learned is that I know only where I am with all this today, but can't honestly tell you what would have happened had I stayed with what I started with. I know what I've learned along the way, but attribution is a bit dodgy. My guess is while there's clearly a benefit gained in switching gear and even software as I have, there's also a penalty in learning time sunk, and amount of learning, so it could be I'd have ended up at the same place only faster without the chimera of seeking the Holy Grail... which I didn't find, btw. Big surprise.
Yeah, the truth is, I'm toning contrast down, not up with sliders. If you want subtle grays for the richness of what's in the image, then I think you tone things down. But then by setting the Hue/Saturation stuff that tends to hit the grays... you make more of them (not less). This seems to change something of where your grays are I think, and that's useful when it's useful. This seems to leave the core of the image to stand out... from the grays. (I'm thinking of a shot of my little black dog on the flagstone). The S curves... what I called the RGB and Luma curves (Capture One), that's where most of it happens for me, too. Those are simple tools. But what you find in the others I mentioned is that these others set the outline of the histogram shapes you'll see in the S curves. Like I said, I'm just beginning to see how that can work for me. It is VERY quick, and it's a bit iterative, but then when I'm done, I'm done. As experience rises, you'll try some of the other tools, too. The S curves alone have their limits, and some restraint is welcome - even there. Well... actually everywhere. Especially in this software.
As you'll remember, I'm working with film negatives, and film works from over-exposure to capture the shadow detail before turn it down to recover the highlights. Digital's the opposite and you protect the highlights from blowing out to recover detail out of the shadows. With fillm, I almost never have a bad histogram. Digital can be harder that way. What intrigues me about the MM is the best of both! and simple menus. Most digital camera menus... uh... er... I keep a spreadsheet to record my settings. People rave about Fuji's and slam Sony's, but really its tweedle dee and tweedle dum. I think Leica is probably the only one really making an effort to dum it down to a reasonable level - which is where it should be.
So the tweak tools will vary a little, but the manner in which I think they allow you to fine tune - and that's the key here fine tuning, NOT recrafting. The great thing is what you're after is an image that doesn't look "digitized" or "made in the computer" but remains authentically tied to the camera's capture. I want the light conditions to look like what I saw. I know lots of folks change it, but I tend to look for the right time of day in the first place, and then I want my photo to look like what I saw. I don't want NIGHT to become DAY, though I see folks who do that a lot. There can be a reason for that... "journalism" or a dislike of flash when in fact it's needed, but it's not me.
Cone's Community Edition suggests basically four things: 1) Work on the grays (what I call the mid tones), 2) Exercise restraint, 3) Limit the controls you work with, and 4) Keep a log of what you do for each image. I haven't set up for # 4, but the other three are pretty much the norm. And fairly, what seemed like a LOT once upon a time, now seems less largely 'cause you learn what works and what doesn't. Capture One is great for customizing a workflow for B&W... and that's kind of what I do. But the greatest thing is to speed your way to "done".
ptpdprinter
Mentor
I thought that the P7000 didn't accept third party inks, that John Cone's decoder board only worked on the P800. Am I not keeping up on developments?
roscoetuff
Well-known
Off the Inkjetmall website:
"SureColor P7000 / P9000: We are now testing a new solution for the Epson SC P6000, P7000, P8000, P9000, P10000, P20000 printers and it is looking very promising! REFRAIN FROM EVER UPDATING FIRMWARE ON ANY OF THESE NORTH AMERICAN REGION PRINTERS."
So perhaps they're in-between "No" and on their way to "Yes".
"SureColor P7000 / P9000: We are now testing a new solution for the Epson SC P6000, P7000, P8000, P9000, P10000, P20000 printers and it is looking very promising! REFRAIN FROM EVER UPDATING FIRMWARE ON ANY OF THESE NORTH AMERICAN REGION PRINTERS."
So perhaps they're in-between "No" and on their way to "Yes".
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
PTP,
Somewhere around mid July new carts are expected to be available. for the floor standing printers. These new carts use/have a 700 ml capacity, and after 700 ml of ink is used the "chips" have to be replaced as expenibles.
This solution is different than the P800.
If you want PM me your e-mail and I'll forward you the e-mail.
BTW I have a meeting tomorrow about printing an archive of vintage glass negatives. I might have justification to buy a P7000 to dedicate to Piezography Pro.
Don't tell anyone but having large prints as work samples to demonstrate capacity, skill and high image quality pretty much creates paying work. I don't solicit or advertise.
Cal
POSTSCRIPT: I have a longer response and explaination in the NYC Meet-Up thread. Read Post number 23.
Last edited:
roscoetuff
Well-known
Cal:
So now I see what you're talking about in terms of photo clean-up. Found a shot that otherwise looked fine on the screen printed with smudges which I've had to fix. Using Capture one, fixing involved learning a fair amount more about "layers", "heals" and other "repairs" ("clone") as my go-to "Dust" has a limit on the number of spots, but also doesn't "heal" as well as doing this in a layer. All my issues were in the sky. And yes, this was a cloudless sky... another reason to love clouds! So I had to make masks of a variety of sorts to hide it all. But finally was able to run a clean print. I imagine this is why Jon and Walker suggest making an initial print ASAP.
But all in, I think it took 5 rounds or so printing to get everything all fixed up. Maybe more. So I'm running through my 1st ink carts fairly quickly. Paper, too. And like you said, printing is where we spend the dough. And when you're done, absolutely... the print looks better than any other way of viewing your results. That's a good thing... even if it's a bit hard to explain to folks in this web lovin' world.
So now I see what you're talking about in terms of photo clean-up. Found a shot that otherwise looked fine on the screen printed with smudges which I've had to fix. Using Capture one, fixing involved learning a fair amount more about "layers", "heals" and other "repairs" ("clone") as my go-to "Dust" has a limit on the number of spots, but also doesn't "heal" as well as doing this in a layer. All my issues were in the sky. And yes, this was a cloudless sky... another reason to love clouds! So I had to make masks of a variety of sorts to hide it all. But finally was able to run a clean print. I imagine this is why Jon and Walker suggest making an initial print ASAP.
But all in, I think it took 5 rounds or so printing to get everything all fixed up. Maybe more. So I'm running through my 1st ink carts fairly quickly. Paper, too. And like you said, printing is where we spend the dough. And when you're done, absolutely... the print looks better than any other way of viewing your results. That's a good thing... even if it's a bit hard to explain to folks in this web lovin' world.
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
Skip,
The rewards are great.
Another thing I don't think people don't understand is that with even small format digital you can print crazy big. There is this thing I call "impact" between a small and large print.
I print in two sizes: one is 13x19 1/2 on 20x24. This print is designed to have big borders for framing, but the size is the ideal hand held size. It is just a little bigger than my 12x18 image size that I use from proofing on 17x22 cut sheets but the modest increase in size has a lot of "impact."
There is something very intimate about holding a print on rag paper in the hands. It is a very special experience. When I first started to learn how to print I printed small 8 1/2x 11's, but the bigger one prints the more detail gets revealed, so small prints were like looking at half a picture.
So on a 20x30 image on 24x36 sheet the image "opens up;" the tonality becomes less about contrast (the blacks); and the mids become the voice of detail to transscend formats to resemble medium and large format. These poster sized prints catch a viewer from across the room and invites then to approach for a closer view. Even on these sized prints nothing gets fuzzy on these Monochrom files. This is a very different experience where a print acts like a sculpture because it has mucho depth and occupies the room.
I doubt many challenge themselves. Printing big shows and amplifies any flaws and over processing. Good technic is well rewarded. Very few learn how good their equipment is, because if they did they would realize that their cameras and the technology is better than they are. "Big prints don't lie."
Cal