Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Gloss differential and Rip  (Read 8975 times)
robertwatcher
Guest
« on: February 19, 2006, 07:12:08 PM »
ReplyReply

Every since I purchased my Epson 2200 several years ago, I was quite disturbed by the look of RC type prints (which are the only type I use with my portrait and wedding business) with the pigment inks - where light and white toned areas looked quite different from darker areas with ink buildup. I was not told about this in the sales literature and even when I replaced that printer with a new 2400 last year presumed Epson dealt with it successfully by using as their ads suggest, a gloss molecule bound on the pigment. It was not the case though - while slightly better than the 2200, it was still quite visible and makes it difficult to sell these prints without some type of spray to minimize the effect. It really doesn't matter what RC paper is used - the look is still there - although surprisingly less with Ultra Premium Gloss paper than Premium Semi Gloss or the ugly Luster papers I used from Ilford with my 2200.

So the thing is that I am moving on to the 4800 as I have finally realized the huge ink savings over my 2400 - but when I visit Vistek and see their samples printed from the 4800 and 7800, the gloss differential is very evident. I have heard stories that a good rip like the Imageprint Colorbyte rip will be more successful at correcting this (if so Visteks samples must not be printed with one). The reason I even think that this may be possible is because I have used the "Highlight Point Shift" feature with the B&W inks, which lays down a light gray ink throughout the image and does mask the effect somewhat.

Is this true - or just more hype - - - has anyone had experience with a rip like this to see if indeed gloss differential can be controlled or minimized in this way?
« Last Edit: February 19, 2006, 07:16:30 PM by robertwatcher » Logged
eleanorbrown
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 628


WWW
« Reply #1 on: February 19, 2006, 09:13:53 PM »
ReplyReply

I have used the 2200, then the 4000, now I have both a  7800 and 2400.  I use Imageprint 6.1 with the 7800 and the epson driver with the 2400.  No RIP is going to get rid of gloss differential or bronzing.  These undesirable effects are due (in my opinion and experience) to the properties of ink reflectance and paper surface.  The best thing you can do is to preserve highlight detail in Photoshop before you print.  Still there will be prints where you have some gloss differential.  In these cases I use premier art print shield spray to eliminate the gloss problem.  With the new K3 inks there is no bronzing using all three shades of black/grays.  I was using Imageprint 6.1 Phatte black system (excellent profiles and prints look identical to ones printed using all three blacks)---however I found that bronzing was unacceptable using Phatte black on papers that require photo black.  Phatte black prints (photo black) really need to be sprayed to eliminate bronzing.  If one wants absolute top quality from K3 inks and Imageprint (or the epson driver for that matter) I would suggest using all three shades of black.  eleanor

Quote
I have heard stories that a good rip like the Imageprint Colorbyte rip will be more successful at correcting this (if so Visteks samples must not be printed with one). The reason I even think that this may be possible is because I have used the "Highlight Point Shift" feature with the B&W inks, which lays down a light gray ink throughout the image and does mask the effect somewhat.

Is this true - or just more hype - - - has anyone had experience with a rip like this to see if indeed gloss differential can be controlled or minimized in this way?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=58572\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Logged

Brian Gilkes
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 431


WWW
« Reply #2 on: February 20, 2006, 02:56:11 PM »
ReplyReply

Useful experience Eleanor,
Bronzing is more refraction than reflection. The thickness of very thin films can be  close to, or fractions of, the wavelength of the light falling on them and can interfere with the light changing the colour depending on the thickness. Think of bubbles or oil slicks. The glossier the surface the worse the problem. I agree with Eleanor,RIPs can't overcome this. Absorbant coatings like some HP papers  can, by containing the ink, much like traditional C prints.The surface spray does much the same thing  if you can get it even with no spattering. How do you apply it Eleanor?
To retain highlight detail , or at least tone, I determine where the brightest highlight is with the theshhold slider, and then allocate a  value to it with the highlight dropper in a levels adjustment layer. The value would depend on the image , but with a specular highlight, I would probably assign 5,5,5 to 10,10,10.This should ensure no gaps in the ink coating .
Re the Phatte system, I would like to hear more experiences . Has anyone noticed if applications of profiles is just as consistent with Phatte  as without? What about critical monochrome tonalities?
What we really need is side by side comparison tests. That means two printers, If we had two identical 800 printers we wouldn't even look at Phatte!
Cheers
Brian
www.pharoseditions.com.au
Logged
eleanorbrown
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 628


WWW
« Reply #3 on: February 20, 2006, 03:42:52 PM »
ReplyReply

Brian, I usually assign values of 45, maybe 50 to specular highlights.  Still even doing this there may be gloss differential.  some papers are able to minimize this more than others.  Sometimes I spray the entire print (carefully with two light coats of premier art print guard ) and sometimes I isolate areas on the print with a piece of paper with a hole cut out.  I apply one very light quick spray to this area of the print only to cover the gloss differential in this area.  Many times I can get away with no spray.  all depends on the print, the highlights and shadows and the paper.

If you disregard gloss differential and bronzing I can't tell a Phatte black print from the same print done using all three blacks in Imageprint.  Profiles match and are excellent.  But Imageprint can't control the way the ink reflects unfortunately---that's an ink and paper problem.  eleanor


Quote
The value would depend on the image , but with a specular highlight, I would probably assign 5,5,5 to 10,10,10.This should ensure no gaps in the ink coating .
Re the Phatte system, I would like to hear more experiences . Has anyone noticed if applications of profiles is just as consistent with Phatte  as without? What about critical monochrome tonalities?
What we really need is side by side comparison tests. That means two printers, If we had two identical 800 printers we wouldn't even look at Phatte!
Cheers
Brian
www.pharoseditions.com.au
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=58635\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Logged

Brian Gilkes
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 431


WWW
« Reply #4 on: February 20, 2006, 06:15:52 PM »
ReplyReply

Eleanor,
Do you mean 50 in an 8 bit/channel depth of 256 tones?
Wouldn't this mean loss of a lot of highlight tonality?
A value of 20 is suggested by Scott Kelby, but I would have thought that was for offset printing and current inkjets would print tone  well below this level.
Sorry if I have missed something.
Brian
Logged
eleanorbrown
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 628


WWW
« Reply #5 on: February 20, 2006, 07:53:49 PM »
ReplyReply

Major WHOOPS!  I meant 245 or 250!! sorry. eleanor

Quote
Eleanor,
Do you mean 50 in an 8 bit/channel depth of 256 tones?
Wouldn't this mean loss of a lot of highlight tonality?
A value of 20 is suggested by Scott Kelby, but I would have thought that was for offset printing and current inkjets would print tone  well below this level.
Sorry if I have missed something.
Brian
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=58653\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Logged

TomTom60
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 9


« Reply #6 on: February 21, 2006, 12:21:39 AM »
ReplyReply

Man,

This series of posts has gotten me sort of upset.

I have been reading reviews, Including Michael's (right name ?) from this site, about how the new K3 inks reduce gloss differential almost nothing. It REALLY bothers me to read that there is in fact gloss differential that, according to what I have read here, is very apparent. Im glad I haven't gone and pulled the trigger to quickly on a K3 printer.

I read a quote somewhere from, I think, Jeff Schewe, that said something like.."Black and White inkjet printing has arrived at last"...something like that. Correct me if I am off on this quote. sort of implied that everything was taken care of for practical purpose.

I guess it's true that the best marketers are liars?...or at least, they are slick at bending the realities. Not like we haven't seen this wiggly speak by Epson before.

 I wonder if someone could clarify as to how much of a difference there is from the older ultrachrome system. I realize that it varies from print to print depending on contrast etc. but Im wondering if, for example, on a scale of 1 to 10 those of you that are using K3 could rate how much has this problem been improved upon? Do your best I spose...Thanks very much.

Sincerely,

Disturbed
Logged
Stephen Best
Guest
« Reply #7 on: February 21, 2006, 12:40:12 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I have been reading reviews, Including Michael's (right name ?) from this site, about how the new K3 inks reduce gloss differential almost nothing. It REALLY bothers me to read that there is in fact gloss differential that, according to what I have read here, is very apparent. Im glad I haven't gone and pulled the trigger to quickly on a K3 printer.

The new inkset isn't going to make any difference where there's no ink laid down, K3 or otherwise. That said, it only a problem with gloss/resin-coated papers and only when viewed at an angle. The best strategy (other than spraying etc) is not to let your highlights blow out in the first place, or pull them back to something less than 255/255/255 (you'll have to experiment). I've noted that some other manufacturers get around this by automatically adding some density in the highlights in their driver so you can't even get paper white.
Logged
KenS
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 104


« Reply #8 on: February 21, 2006, 04:20:29 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
...
 I wonder if someone could clarify as to how much of a difference there is from the older ultrachrome system. I realize that it varies from print to print depending on contrast etc. but Im wondering if, for example, on a scale of 1 to 10 those of you that are using K3 could rate how much has this problem been improved upon? Do your best I spose...Thanks very much.

Sincerely,

Disturbed
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=58682\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

When I sold my Epson 4000 and purchased the 7800 I had high expectations.  I print both B/W and color and was pleased to find that bronzing was gone with the K3 inks.  With the 4000 I used Roy Harrington's Quad Tone Rip and while this produced good B/W on a variety of luster or glossy papers  BUT I did not like the bronzing (which I could not entirely eliminate on some prints, even after spraying with Print Shield).

With the 7800 I was somewhat disappointed that gloss differential remained a problem (I shoot landscape, white snow, clouds, high contrast... all aggravated the GD).  My  7800/K3 solution, which I am very happy with, is to print on Kodak Premium Rapid Dry Glossy (or Kodak Professional Glossy) AND then put a single heavy (wet but not running) coat of Print Shield over it.  There is no GD (or bronzing) in any of the dozen B/W or color prints I've made with this approach so far.  I have had good success in putting even coats on all my prints, up to 24 x 32 inches (for large prints I use two cans at once, spraying at a common aim point as I move across the print).   It's now part of my workflow, and I actually enjoy seeing the finished print after spraying increase in surface gloss, become more scratch resistant, and in certain light and angles give the appearance (measureable?) of more saturation and increased DMax.

Bottom line for me, I'm glad I got the 7800 vs the 4000.  If you don't print glossy (or luster) then perhaps the move would be less compelling.

Ken
Logged
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5489


WWW
« Reply #9 on: February 21, 2006, 04:59:21 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I read a quote somewhere from, I think, Jeff Schewe, that said something like.."Black and White inkjet printing has arrived at last"...something like that. Correct me if I am off on this quote. sort of implied that everything was taken care of for practical purpose.

I guess it's true that the best marketers are liars?...or at least, they are slick at bending the realities. Not like we haven't seen this wiggly speak by Epson before.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=58682\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Well, pretty nasty for a first post doode...since you chose to use my name to associate with the "issue" I'll respond. I wrote an article for Digital Photo Pro magazine where I indicated that yes, digital B&W has finally arrived...based upon a variety of factors. And I truly believe what I write, otherwise I wouldn't write it.

With the K3 Advanced B&W Photo driver, there is essentially zero metameric failure, The gloss differential is greatly minimized and the D-Max meets or exceeds that of silver gelatin prints. The neutrality along the luminance between black and white is outstanding.

So, if you want to call me a liar, I suggest you back it up with facts...

With regards to gloss differential, that is a function of the reflectance of the ink not matching the paper. Which is at fault, the ink or the paper? I personally blame the paper. When I printed in a chem darkroom I never liked RC papers and preferred to use fiber based paper. Ironically, the reason I didn't like RC paper was because of gloss differential-the images looked like it was sitting on the paper as opposed to being in the paper.

I still don't like RC type papers and that includes the current crop of paper such as Luster, Semi-Gloss and Semi-matte from Epson or from any other supplier. I don't like the look to the sheen and I don't like the feel of the paper. But that is hardly the fault of the printer, now is it?

I would expect that in the near future we'll see a new crop of paper coming along since now the inks and the printers are there.

BTW, in that same article I wrote that the limiting factor now is the papers...
Logged
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6945


WWW
« Reply #10 on: February 21, 2006, 06:08:09 PM »
ReplyReply

Jeff, that is a very interesting perspective you put on the issue: complementarity of ink and paper. I'm using an old digital work-horse: Epson Enhanced Matte. I know many people turn their noses up at it, BUT it's inexpensive, stores well (so-far), has a nice unobstrusive matte finish and the brightening I find helps to partially overcome some of the flatness associated with matte media. Results look crisp and clean.

The main issue I have with gloss and semi-gloss papers is that they all have surface reflections which distract from a proper viewing of the image content. That much said, I recently had an opportunity to print a file on Crane Museo Silver Rag, and the result is rich in look and texture. Is this an example of what you mean by one of the new generation of papers, or did you have something altogether different in mind?

Regards,

Mark
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5489


WWW
« Reply #11 on: February 21, 2006, 07:33:36 PM »
ReplyReply

Mark,

Yep. . although I've not used it, I know some that have...and yes, the relationship of the ink to the paper has an enormous impact on the integration of the image in the print as opposed to sitting on the surface.

The paper ink relationship of matte and watercolor papers has pretty much been solved. It the old DWDM fiber based paper that is missing from the arsenal of digital printing that has kept digital prints from completely taking over from silver gelatin and that will change soon. While I like the look and feel of say Somerset 505 gram watercolor, the fact that the surface can't carry the D-max is still limiting to the dynamic range of the final print. K3 on Luster has the D-max (about 2.4, beating silver at about 2.3) by the ink still looks like it's sitting on instead of in the paper.
Logged
TomTom60
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 9


« Reply #12 on: February 21, 2006, 08:35:41 PM »
ReplyReply

Thank you Jeff, it's nice to hear that you believe what you write. I wasn't referring to you as a "marketer" Are you in marketing? Or, are you a tool of marketing? I would suppose that the latter would be correct. That is, unless you are writing copy or guiding the direction of the copy being written for the always hyped new arrivals in the digital realm. That applies to Epson and lots of other companies who's products are always realeased with semi-truths. Maybe it comes down to leaving out the bad stuff and building up the good stuff.

And by the way, referring to you as a "tool of marketing" is not a slight in any way so dont take it that way. I do believe that the next big release for Epson will lend quality to your statement. Maybe that will be a paper product? Maybe it will be the K4 inkset...

The fact is, that as we speak and as of the release of the K3 system, there are and have been no glossy papers on the market that complete the system...So, it's still a waiting game, same as it's been for a long time. That, in fact, is the fact that you might have been hoping for.

You might know about something that is not available to the public...you seem to suggest to this in your post here. So be it, for what we know as "the public"  bw digital printing hasn't "arrived"...yet.

There are many people kneeling at the feet of these companies and they are dying to believe that this might be the last considerable moneys they will have to spend on their digital darkrooms, at least, for awhile. I just wish the hype was a bit less hyped. Marketer ARE liars. It's just a tradition.

And by the way, referring to you as a "tool of marketing" is not a slight in any way so dont take it that way.

Yes, pairing the correct papers with your printer is very important. Though, I've come to know that there are no glossy papers out right now that do the job in a complete way. And, that the black end of most images which contain subtle details, even not so subtle, are a bear to produce properly on matte papers using matte black ink, sludge. In my opinion, PK ink is the only way to go. You can do some great things on gloss paper with it...but you have to blind yourself to the bronzing, gloss differential and crappy look of RC papers in general.

Also, Mark, the history of fine art photography (traditional) is pretty much all about glossy papers. It's pretty much the standard. A subtle gloss on a fiber base print has never been a distraction for most people in that arena, It has been the standard because the apparent dmax is superior and it just looks better. the matte look was cool because you didnt have to deal with surface issues but the low end is pretty much sludgy if you try hit a hard a black.

the jist of this thing is not about being impatient with the development of the technology...It's about the hype that comes with these releases. I think the answer to Roberwatcher's question about whether a RIP like Imageprint will solve these problems is a no

Sincerely,

Disturbed Doode
« Last Edit: February 21, 2006, 08:48:35 PM by TomTom60 » Logged
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6945


WWW
« Reply #13 on: February 21, 2006, 10:52:03 PM »
ReplyReply

I am pleased to see that you are calling yourself the "Disturbed Doode", so I don't have to tell you that you sure do come accross that way. As a new member to this web forum, you should be made aware that people have been banned from posting here for insulting and offending other members. You have on this website and web forum the benefit of enormous amounts of talent, experience and good-will, hence in your shoes I would want to learn from it rather than alienate it. When you tell someone they are a "marketing tool", whether you intend it to be insulting or not, it is insulting, and in this particular case a grave injustice to one of the most accomplished and helpful members of the digital graphic arts community. Although the comment was not directed at me, I take serious offence to it, and I think you should retract it.

You can be full of attitude about what you think is "hype", but this is a rapidly evolving new technology and as technical progress is made, new models incorporating the most recent improvements are released. Their sale, which requires advertising - and yes frankly some marketing hype, as for most other product advertising that assails us on a daily basis) finances the next round of technical change. Don't confuse this with educators in the digital graphic arts community who objectively document and explain the differences between new models and old models; they are not engaging in hype - they are performing a valuable educational service giving us guidance about what to expect or not expect and how to deal with it. I find this rather valuable.

As for your comment about photographic papers directed at me, I don't know how many exhibitions of fine art photography or photography museums you have visited, but the notion that fine art photography is all about glossy papers is just plain wrong. We know all about the problems of tonal separation at the bottom of the tonal scale, but that has never prevented matte papers from being used in fine art photography, because photographers select paper according to the intent of the photograph; hence all kinds of finishes have beeb used since time immemorial. ALso, many photographers sell expensive prints done on various matte finishes - check their websites if you don't believe me.

Finally, whether IP resolves the deep dark tonal separation issue to any significant extent is open for discussion. I've seen test material (not produced by ColorByte) indicating that it helps, and I've seen other stuff indicating that improvement is marginal. It probably depends on the image.
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
eleanorbrown
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 628


WWW
« Reply #14 on: February 21, 2006, 11:13:18 PM »
ReplyReply

I was a confirmed (somewhat perfectonistic) darkroom printer in a past life,  and I can say that I'm making prints on my epson 7800 printer on the Crane Museo Silver Rag that are all are good as my darkroom silver prints.  I'm getting a Dmax of 2.46 to boot with this ink/paper combination.  No bronzing, metamerism and only occassional gloss differential in certain prints.  I'm using Imageprint with all three shades of black ink but I can say that the epson driver is also excellent.  Eleanor
Logged

TomTom60
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 9


« Reply #15 on: February 21, 2006, 11:39:40 PM »
ReplyReply

Dont take it to hard Mark. Jeff is capable of dishing it out and, hopefully, he is capable of taking it. I did not intend to insult him, he made the mistake of seeing himself as a "marketer" instead of as an "objective educator", with regard to my "liar" comment. The fact is that what i said was not a "grave injustice" to anyone, it was the truth. Epson has gained because of Jeff and vice versa. You read to much into my use of the word "tool". Don't be tempted that way..perhaps I should have said "device". Jeff has gotten into more than his share of word wars on the internet. His associates think it's entertaining and perhaps, endearing.

Yes, I can be full of attitude and many other things...Many people are weary of the hype machine. As I said, Im not impatient with the rate of technology, im impatient with the circle of market speak we are all given on a daily basis.

I quoted Mr. Schewe because I believe that, at the time, the statement was not altogether factual based on my observation of prints made with K3 on glossy papers, early on in the K3 releases. I did not think that "it" had arrived. It had gotten better, but it hadn't achieved what it was trying to emulate...traditional process. Maybe the Dmax is there now but the surface issues, with the current crop or papers available now and a year or so ago, are still present and have to be kludged with spray. Gak, pain in the ass spraying is.

As I said before, Jeff may be aware of products not yet released to the general public...that does not affect the collective perspective of demanding photographers around the world who want to use PK on a decent gloss stock. They are still in the position of not being able to make the prints they want to with PK on gloss. In a sense, BW printing has not arrived for them because they haven't had access to the ideal paper. Keep in mind that K3 was released a while ago at this point.

I have seen a lot of photography in my day and, for the most part , most fine art photographers (traditional) prefer to use fiber based gloss dried slowly in the air. Of course, there are other processes and paper surfaces out there, but again, for the most part, the previously described surface is preferred, and, is what is missing from the digital repro system.

Robertwatchers question was about Image Print being more successful with dealing with gloss diff and bronzing, surface issues. That is what I was answering. As for Image print and the deep blacks..when you get down to the dark darks it cant really seperate the subtleties on matte paper, it's because of the matte black ink/matte paper struggle, not the program.

Tom
Logged
TomTom60
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 9


« Reply #16 on: February 21, 2006, 11:46:24 PM »
ReplyReply

Eleanor,

are you dousing your highlights as a general rule? I mean..do you regularily add tone to them in Photoshop?

Im wondering because I read a post where you mentioned this as a workaround for your gloss diff issues.

Tom
Logged
pad
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 19


« Reply #17 on: February 22, 2006, 02:01:46 AM »
ReplyReply

I am an amateur photographer/printer. I do large landscapes using Photoshop and hand stitching, printed on my Epson 2100.

I have produced several prints for sale in a local photo processing shop that does the usual "wet" process. They can also produce photo prints from digital data to any size, at a price.

So, my question to this posting is: are you printing limited editions for exhibition, or your own home display, or comercial distribution?

I ask because if you want photo quality, then why spend 1000's on printers, inks, papers, colour profiles, RIPs, sprays etc. when you can get a glossy "real photo" print produced by a third party. Have you considered how many prints you could produce like this for the outlay on the equipment you've made?

What is it that drives us to print our own photos? striving for perfection? satisfation of total control of the process? money/profit? fame?
« Last Edit: February 22, 2006, 02:02:18 AM by pad » Logged
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6945


WWW
« Reply #18 on: February 22, 2006, 08:52:27 AM »
ReplyReply

Firstly, high quality inkjet printing from well-prepared digital files generally exceeds the quality of what is usually achieved with wet processes and also exceeds the longevity of wet processes by country miles.

Secondly, it affords a level of self-managed control over results that is expensive, awkward and difficult to achieve when working with outside printers unless the two sides share profiles and set aside enough time to insure that what the photographer sees on his/her monitor is what will come out of the printer's printer.

Thirdly, the cost of the investment will pay for itself over variable time periods depending on the volume printed and sold. We recently had a post on this website from a very well known professional photographer saying that his Epson 4800 paid for itself with one week of print sales. Remember also that in many countries investment in such equipment for professional purposes can be written-down against income taxes, so the net cost to the photographer is considerably less than the gross purchase price.

I don't sell any photographs, but I wouldn't dream of going back to reliance on outside printers unless I really needed something that exceeds the capability of my Epson 4800. Just as an advanced amateur hobbiest, the volume of final prints I've made and kept has returned the investment times over compared with the cost, lesser quality and more frustration I would have endured sending this stuff out.
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
eleanorbrown
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 628


WWW
« Reply #19 on: February 22, 2006, 10:55:39 AM »
ReplyReply

Tom, I handle highlights differently depending on the image.  Sometimes I globally  reduce my white point to 245 or 250 and sometimes I just select areas of the image and use the shadow/highlight tool to gain more highlight definition.Sometimes I do nothing and either spray the entire print or select areas of the print that show gloss differential and do one quick spray just on that area to equalize the gloss.

On advertising, I do think many companies leave out the bad points in advertising.  Case in point:  with the advent of the new K3 printers, to my knowledge Epson didn't make a point of the huge costs in making ink changes.  I use the 7800 and really like the output but, I have been forced to choose between using matte black and photo black (I chose the latter).  I used Imageprint Phatte black system for a while but the bronzing, to me personally, was not acceptable so I went back to using Imageprints regular K3 profiles with three blacks.  Of course Imageprint didn't advertise that bronzing was an issue with Phatte black either.  They just left that part out.  I just think this is the nature of marketing and advertising.  That's why we have forums like this one so we can share our "less than ideal" findings and pass that on to others.  eleanor


Quote
Eleanor,

are you dousing your highlights as a general rule? I mean..do you regularily add tone to them in Photoshop?

Im wondering because I read a post where you mentioned this as a workaround for your gloss diff issues.

Tom
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=58790\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Logged

Pages: [1] 2 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad