Pages: « 1 ... 7 8 [9] 10 »
 on: Today at 09:57:55 AM 
Started by William Walker - Last post by RSL
It's beautiful, William. You probably should be doing work for a seed catalogue.

 on: Today at 09:56:36 AM 
Started by Mike Sellers - Last post by framah
Realize that there will be a considerable quantity purchase involved before they make a mold for you.... plus a mold making charge.
You might be looking at 5,000 ft of moulding at a minimum.

 on: Today at 09:54:06 AM 
Started by William Walker - Last post by Isaac
I think it looks like an antique botanical print.

 on: Today at 09:46:03 AM 
Started by ripgriffith - Last post by Isaac
These days…

Coincidentally, I turned a page and:

Eggleston says it was in 1976 that he first abandoned using the viewfinder. As a result, he felt, 'You end up looking more intensely as you walk around'. He made an analogy between photographing without a viewfinder and firing a shotgun rather than a rifle: 'You don't look down the barrel and line things up'. Instead, 'With a shotgun it's done with feel'. Such analogies help explain the extraordinary liberational and open aspect of so many of Eggleston's pictures -- their sense of perceptual freedom, a roaming, lyrical, unencumbered response to things in the world.

page 94, Photography Today

I also know that if I'm spending time pouring over contact sheets or LR Grids of images, I'm wasting good time that could be spent refining my work either in the field or on a print.

Unless "pouring over contact sheets or LR Grids of images" contributes to refining your work.

 on: Today at 09:43:01 AM 
Started by FrankG - Last post by MHMG

What you offer and how the info is disseminated is probably way ahead of the crowd.
What I mean is that only 'experts' like Mark (Segal) and Stefan and Ernst etc really get it.
But in the inkjet printing community the majority of users are probably more like me - ignorant in these matters.
And we look for easily digestible answers.

I don't disagree with your assessment. However, my original hypothesis was that there are many knowledgeable printmakers and other industry experts (those that fully understand color management, CIELAB colorimetry, etc.) and who care about archival print materials. Let them be the first line of information dissemination and then let them distill the more technical info down to practical advice for photographers and artists who don't want to know or have the time to absorb all the details. You are witnessing that distillation process going on right here in this forum thread, where the AaI&A test reports have been studied closely by some folks here on LULA, and they are then sharing their conclusions and interpretations of the research with you.

I still believe that worldwide there are thousands of these industry influencers out there who can benefit from the higher level reportage offered in the AaI&A reports and other technical articles. I just didn't connect with enough of them, and Google doesn't point them in my direction very well because AaI&A is more of a scholarly research site not one with commercial ties to the industry that google exploits to generate its ad revenue.


 on: Today at 09:32:04 AM 
Started by dumainew - Last post by dumainew
Thanks for the information . I guess it is a crash. It's been a puzzling situation. Am glad to have your explanation. What do you think I should do next ? Contact Sigma and ask for help ? Find out how to get rid of the 'cruft' ?
Thanks again.

 on: Today at 09:28:43 AM 
Started by JRSmit - Last post by digitaldog
Do you say this because for an individual observer we have no way of knowing for sure what the illuminant will be, whereas in the graphic arts the illuminant will be D50?  I
Well that's one assumption (there are all kinds of ways to view a print we are told are "D50").

There are at least two light sources at play here and often more. The Light source in the measuring instrument and the light source used for viewing the print with all those OBA's (how much?)

In the old days we had basically two options. One was to include the UV, the other was to filter it out. Some would say filtering out, 'ignoring' the UV's affect on the measurement data was dumb. Other's would say it only makes sense to filter it out. And neither approach deals with the 2nd light source; where the print is being viewed.

What X-rite did was provide a method of visually 'tweaking' a profile based on viewing output under the conditions where the final print will be viewed and comparing it with their targets of gray patches with numbers one inserts into the software for dog knows what compensation. Then you visually compare the two. I think, like the idea of a good profile editor (where you work visually, not numerically where sometimes we do get into trouble with visual mismatches), makes sense. This is kind of what's happening here.You have to view the X-rite supplied target and what you print from the profiles side by side, on-site where you wish to view the prints for that compensation just to enter a value into their software.

As to what is affected, pretty sure all colors are affected to some degree and differently depending on the 'compensation' and when you use the X-rite OBA target thingie, it's a group of gray patches you visually examine to decide what compensation if you will, the new profile will undergo.

In the end, it's a mess which causes more work but would all be avoided if you just cease using papers with high OBA's and control how the print is being viewed, something that isn't always possible.

I just built a customer a profile from HanaPhoto Luster 260, the paper white had a bStar of -9.13! For fun I tried running it through ColorAnt using max Brightener compensation (100) and the resulting bStar was 0.39! I can't handle any of this X-rite compensation stuff, the client is in Peru! I provided a profile both ways, he reported that the one with compensation was subtilely better (so nothing super dramatic here). But I have no idea how he's going to view the prints or where and asked him to try different lightning conditions for both profiles. Again, he preferred the one 'fixed' by running the measurement data through ColorAnt. For remote work, that's about the best I can do. And with a bStar of -9, I suggested he find another paper to use! He originally sent me 5 papers to profile and all but this one Luster paper either had no OBA's or tiny amounts.

 on: Today at 09:28:39 AM 
Started by Go Go - Last post by Go Go
New Price, $16,899.00

 on: Today at 09:27:03 AM 
Started by Eric Gulbransen - Last post by audiodoc
Did you see one for the 7890?The one I have ,it is not listed in the drop down.Could be different versions of it.


 on: Today at 09:25:20 AM 
Started by clarkjs - Last post by clarkjs
I have had this printer for 5 years I think. all of a sudden when I am using exhibition fiber paper it jambs up when cutting, i.e. it will not cut through the paper stops about half way through. I just changed the cutter wheel. after running 4 prints it started doing it again.    it does not seem to do it on any of my other papers, canvas, matts. 

 In the printer manual it talks about running the cutter adjustment from the maintenance menu on the control panel. there is no option to print the pattern they discuss on my machine. just cutter adjustment.

any one have any thoughts or issues similar to this?

Pages: « 1 ... 7 8 [9] 10 »