Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Oce Lightjet vs. Epson 11880  (Read 7954 times)
MHMG
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 596


« Reply #20 on: December 31, 2010, 05:12:56 PM »
ReplyReply


The L range: Dmax-Dmin as presented in Aardenburg's data on the Fuji Crystal doesn't suggest that its tonal range is wider than that of inkjet prints. The gamut isn't wider than N-Channel pigment printer's gamut either when profiles are compared.


If you consider that the dyes in chromogenic color processes like Crystal Archive have to be formed by a chemical reaction that involves the oxidation by-products of depleted color developer agents, it's a pretty constrained class of dyes that can be created with chromogenic color prints like Crystal Archive. There are far more degrees of freedom in selecting and synthesizing dyes and pigments for inkjet processes. Hence, very easy to beat both color gamut and longevity of chromogenic color systems. Ernst has called that outcome correctly.

It took decades of research to improve chromogenic color prints as far as they have come in terms of color fidelity and longevity (they suffer from thermal degradation issues as well as light fade issues). Always amazes me what the great photo chemists of the 20th century were able to achieve.

There is indeed a subtle but different aesthetic to Lightjet prints that is related to the modulated continuous tone of the process, but it's still not entirely analog due to its rasterized "line scan" process, so banding can sometimes be seen. For high-end quality prints, just like inkjet, the machines have to be kept in top shape to avoid noticeable banding.  Nevertheless, if the photographer likes the Lightjet "look" better than inkjet at some visceral, subjective, and hard-to-quantify level, it's hard to argue one's preferences aren't based on some relationship with reality. Smiley
Logged
Scott Martin
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1311


WWW
« Reply #21 on: January 01, 2011, 07:27:37 AM »
ReplyReply

if the photographer likes the Lightjet "look" better than inkjet at some visceral, subjective, and hard-to-quantify level, it's hard to argue one's preferences aren't based on some relationship with reality. Smiley

Respectfully, I find that a bit condescending and unfair. No one is questioning the fact that inkjet has better numbers when it comes to Dmax and color gamut. Silver Halide papers have different surface qualities that are harder to quantify. "Gloss differential" is one term that helps but there's more to it than that. When you hold metallic silver halide and metallic inkjet paper paper samples in your hands and move them around to see how they react to light at different angles, it's pretty obvious that the silver halide print has vastly superior surface qualities even if the color gamut isn't as large. When working with images that don't demand a large color gamut, a photographer that chooses a silver halide product based on these close examinations is doing so with a close relationship to reality and an understanding of the options.

I ran one of the first 10 Lightjets in the country and know exactly how finicky they can be. I also know how improved the modern ZBE and Nortisu machines are that labs can choose from today (the Lightjet is a long ago discontinued product). Again this is more of a silver halide vs. inkjet (not Lightjet vs Epson) discussion, and it's just difficult to discuss it here and incomplete without having fantastic prints samples to compare with our eyes.
Logged

MHMG
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 596


« Reply #22 on: January 01, 2011, 09:10:29 AM »
ReplyReply


When working with images that don't demand a large color gamut, a photographer that chooses a silver halide product based on these close examinations is doing so with a close relationship to reality and an understanding of the options.


I truly thought that was the point I was trying to make, and I certainly didn't mean to be condescending. Perhaps I expressed it poorly.
 
I think most of us participating in this thread know how to quantify obvious differences between inkjet and chromogenic color prints when addressing easy-to-spot differences like gloss differential or paper texture.  Where it gets tricky to quantify differences between the two is when a high gloss super sheen finish is being mimicked well by both processes say for example, in the growing popularity for front-facing bonding to acrylic panels. At that point it becomes more about color gamut requirements, production efficiencies, and technical hurdles that must be overcome to achieve the final sought after appearance of the finished piece.
« Last Edit: January 01, 2011, 02:55:52 PM by MHMG » Logged
tim wolcott
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 467


WWW
« Reply #23 on: January 01, 2011, 08:25:48 PM »
ReplyReply

Sorry Bradley I meant we as in the designers or inventors of the inkjet and or Evercolor that I was part of.  I should have clarified because its easier to invent or design something if its like what we used to use but better and you have more control.  Its still part of my complaint that the inkjet industry does not explain or title something like what we are used to seeing.  It crazy you have to convert or use a comparison to educate everyone.  When we invented the process, I was always fighting with the marketing department and the engineers about how best to show and design the process.  I guess I'm still fighting a little 20 years later.  In the beginning we were just trying to make the process so they didn't fade and then started adding papers or materials to achieve creative freedom and artistic creativity. 

I remember when dye based inkjet said pigment could not achieve bright colors and I said they were smoking something and proved to them we could achieve nearly anything with pigment.  But I could write a book on what we did and what they all said could not be done.  Every time we have proved the inkjet industry wrong.  We are at a point of small returns except for the coatings side that is still going to be the biggest growth.

But if someone wants to print with Lightjet or should I say chemically based papers, then get ready to be sued.  Because lawsuits are starting.  I was talking to Bill Atkinson a while back and we were comparing chemically based prints that were fading 10% in 3-7 years.  This is caused by the processors carrying over some chemical residue from bath to bath.  Tim
Logged
deanwork
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 689


« Reply #24 on: January 02, 2011, 10:57:55 PM »
ReplyReply

Law suits may be a bit of an exaggeration, but not too far off the mark.  I worked for a couple of years making Cibachromes and FCA C Prints for artists and I"ll tell you right now that we had to work extremely hard to keep those rollers and processor tanks clean of contamination. I know for a fact that 90% of the labs today or in the past do not keep their machines free of contamination that ends up in the water wash bath and even worse in the print dry area.

I think it is a big mistake to compare "silver halide" prints done in trays in a carefully managed darkroom to what goes on in nearly all commercial C print photolabs.

One of the first big contributions that Henry Wilhelm made as far as I"m concerned is to make people aware of the horrible situation in most black and white RC processors operating in the US. He found eventual staining happening all over the place from the lack of poor washing and contaminated drying of prints in automated processors. This is big deal with those processors and the washing cycle is extremely fast. He pretty much told people to completely stay away from rc black and white imaging if it was being done in an automated machine like almost all commercial establishments were doing it.

john



But if someone wants to print with Lightjet or should I say chemically based papers, then get ready to be sued.  Because lawsuits are starting.  I was talking to Bill Atkinson a while back and we were comparing chemically based prints that were fading 10% in 3-7 years.  This is caused by the processors carrying over some chemical residue from bath to bath.  Tim
[/quote]
Logged
williamsrx
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2


« Reply #25 on: January 05, 2011, 04:07:02 PM »
ReplyReply

I ran across this statement from the pricing details section of a major pro photolab:

"Prints are created with printers that expose light
sensitive paper that is then run through a chemical
process. These are real photographs, not inkjet
prints."

Hmmm.   So all these prints I'm making with my Canon 8100 and selling to portrait studios aren't "real" photographs?  The customers sure love them!

As other posters said, I think one can have a preference of one over another for certain situations, but to belittle the inkjet print nowadays is pretty bold (and inaccurate).

Needless to say, I will no longer use them for photobooks or greeting card templates, which was all I've used them for anyway.

Chris Williams
Boilerplate Imaging
Logged
enduser
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 265


« Reply #26 on: January 20, 2011, 07:25:46 PM »
ReplyReply

Seems to me that the "major Pro Photolab" have the wrong end of the definition of a photograph.  I've always believed that a photograph resides within the lense/receptor system that captured it.   As Wikipedia states  "A photograph is an image created by light falling on a light-sensitive surface".

Any subsequent presentations on paper, canvas or other reflective media are all prints, however achieved.  Pretty simple really; in fact Wikipedia goes on to say that the light-sensitive surfaces are usually a "photographic film or an electronic imager".
Logged
deanwork
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 689


« Reply #27 on: January 20, 2011, 07:58:33 PM »
ReplyReply

"I eagerly await new concepts and processes. I believe that the electronic image will be the next major advance. Such systems will have their own inherent and inescapable structural characteristics, and the artist and functional practitoner will again strive to comprehend and control them" (Ansel Adams, March 1981, "The Negative") Introduction, page xiii.
Logged
Ernst Dinkla
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2804


« Reply #28 on: January 21, 2011, 02:24:35 AM »
ReplyReply

With the announcement yesterday that Samsung acquired Liquavista you can expect any kind of electronic display system on the wall. CMYK reflective, with backlight and hybrids of the two or RGB with backlight. Will take another 5 years I expect, scaling up to that size will take some time. If it gives some comfort, inkjet printers will be needed to create the electrowetting displays. Not theones we use though.


met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst Dinkla

New: Spectral plots of +230 inkjet papers:
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
Logged
MHMG
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 596


« Reply #29 on: January 21, 2011, 09:51:49 AM »
ReplyReply

Seems to me that the "major Pro Photolab" have the wrong end of the definition of a photograph.  I've always believed that a photograph resides within the lense/receptor system that captured it.   As Wikipedia states  "A photograph is an image created by light falling on a light-sensitive surface".

Any subsequent presentations on paper, canvas or other reflective media are all prints, however achieved.  Pretty simple really; in fact Wikipedia goes on to say that the light-sensitive surfaces are usually a "photographic film or an electronic imager".

You are on the right track, but the Wikipedia definition is also far too broad, IMHO. By that definition, even a painting or drawing is also a photograph, ie. light falls on the retina of the human eye, the brain processes the signal, which in turn stimulates the artist's hand to move the brush or pencil, and thus record the scene. Eureka, a photograph is made Grin

I think a "real" photograph does rely on light sensitive receptor, whether film or electronic, but I believe that the image content has to be recorded in a single exposure (e.g., a short or long exposure time, but not interrupted). Multiple exposures, either in camera or by combining multiple images, may rely entirely on photographic processes, but the resulting image should then be classified, IMHO, as a photo illustration, not a true photograph. Henri Cartier-Bresson eloquently described a great photograph as "the decisive moment".  I believe that defines it perfectly. Inkjet prints can easily qualify, again, depending only on how the image content was originally recorded. Any efforts to further categorize photographs by method and process are simply defining subsets of the larger population of actual photographs.  Because a painter must look away from the scene and the canvas or paper periodically while creating his art, the act of painting or drawing constitutes "multiple exposures" on the retina thus is not a true photograph. Wikipedia needs a little updating, I guess.

Logged
Ernst Dinkla
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2804


« Reply #30 on: January 21, 2011, 10:43:10 AM »
ReplyReply


I think a "real" photograph does rely on light sensitive receptor, whether film or electronic, but I believe that the image content has to be recorded in a single exposure (e.g., a short or long exposure time, but not interrupted). Multiple exposures, either in camera or by combining multiple images, may rely entirely on photographic processes, but the resulting image should then be classified, IMHO, as a photo illustration, not a true photograph.


Let us test that one :-) : HDR bracketing photography? Time-lapse photography on a single photographic plate? Rotating (Cirkut) panorama camera? Several stereo camera models with more lenses but one shutter?


met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst Dinkla

New: Spectral plots of +230 inkjet papers:
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
Logged
MHMG
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 596


« Reply #31 on: January 21, 2011, 11:53:59 AM »
ReplyReply

Let us test that one :-) : HDR bracketing photography? Time-lapse photography on a single photographic plate? Rotating (Cirkut) panorama camera? Several stereo camera models with more lenses but one shutter?


met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst Dinkla

New: Spectral plots of +230 inkjet papers:
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm


Yup, HDR, photostitching, and other "photographic" methods that rely on multiple image sampling techniques are photo illustrations by my definition.  I'm not trying to disparage photographic illustration by any means.  Philippe Halsman's masterful portrait of Salvadore Dali, "Dali Atomicus" began as a straight-forward "real" photograph. The cats and water flying through the air were recorded as a single event, not comped into the scene after the fact.  However, once the image was published in Life magazine in its final form (i.e., wires retouched out, artwork added to the easel, etc), it became a photo illustration.  That a photo illustration can look absolutely like a "real" photograph should go without saying.  Likewise, cameras that use time-scanning shutters, etc., even the venerable focal plane shutter which traverses the film as a slit at faster shutter speeds, push hard up against my definition, but I give them a pass, because in spirit even if not perfectly by the physics, they more or less achieve a single, contiguous, and uninterrupted exposure. I suppose HDR, if performed electronically in the camera at "near instant" overlap would also get a free pass from me, but when I build HDR images from regularly spaced individual exposures, I regard the final result as a photo illustration.

As a further example, consider whether Ansel Adam's "Moonrise" would be regarded the same way if the final image had been created by a double exposure to position the moon within the scene.  It would then be a photo illustration by my definition, and while it would have the identical visual aesthetic and have been produced entirely by photographic methods, I doubt this image would have garnered the same admiration as it has today because we know it to be a true photograph of a "decisive moment" in time.

All that said, photographers, photography curators, and historians have been debating this "true photograph" subject for over a century. I harbor no illusions that everyone will agree with my definition  Smiley  Please feel free to define a "true" photograph yourself. It's not so easy, and some widely regarded photo techniques and processing methods will surely fall into a "gray" area.

cheers,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com
« Last Edit: January 21, 2011, 12:11:38 PM by MHMG » Logged
Ernst Dinkla
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2804


« Reply #32 on: January 21, 2011, 03:25:19 PM »
ReplyReply

 
Please feel free to define a "true" photograph yourself. It's not so easy, and some widely regarded photo techniques and processing methods will surely fall into a "gray" area.

cheers,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com


I once wrote a complete essay on what should be called original graphic art: lithography, intaglio, etc. Any reprographic step being in conflict with "original". Years later now and I have no intention to repeat that idle activity for photography, possibly the medium that I once tried to fence out of the graphic arts. After Duchamp, Man Ray, specifying art disciplines belongs to the past Yet I like the craftmanship shown within the disciplines. I think we can get along without the fences :-)


met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst Dinkla

New: Spectral plots of +230 inkjet papers:
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm




Logged
enduser
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 265


« Reply #33 on: January 22, 2011, 12:44:50 AM »
ReplyReply

I enjoy these forums most when we discuss all this background stuff.  My post was only intending to say that labs using pre-inkjet processes are handing their customers a "print", as are places handing customers an inkjet product.  Both are "prints", not one being a photograph and the other being something else.
Logged
deanwork
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 689


« Reply #34 on: January 22, 2011, 07:19:31 PM »
ReplyReply

What we're doing now isn't photography, it's better.
Logged
Pages: « 1 [2]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad