Which Ilford paper were you using?
I had the same problem with the older Ilford papers, but the new Galerie
series of papers work very well with my 1270.
Bill KG4LOV
wowens1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
----- Original Message -----
From: "Chris Barker" <imagopus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: "Joel Wilcox" <jowilcox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Sunday, January 27, 2002 1:43 PM
Subject: Re: [OM] Printing Resolution?
> Thanks Joel for your opinion. I suppose that you have confirmed what
> I suspected - that it is at the limits of the printer in that
> particular area. In addition, as I mentioned to Giles in an off-List
> message, the glossy Ilford paper might have exacerbated the
> limitations of the shadow detail, because of either the scanner or
> the original negative.
>
> Another thing worth mentioning is that my monitor is set to a lower
> Gamma than normal Windows Gamma. I use a Mac (normal Gamma 1.8), but
> I have set the Gamma to 2.0 to be halfway between the 2 system
> standards. I think that what I have just written is correct, but I
> am willing to be put right if not.
>
> I was given a book called "Perfect Exposure" for Christmas; I hope to
> learn enough from that to make better exposures, ones that will have
> less testing shadows as John L was kind enough to confirm.
>
> Cheers
>
> Chris
>
> At 10:35 -0600 27/1/02, Joel Wilcox wrote:
> >At 06:28 AM 1/27/2002 +0000, you wrote:
> >>I should be grateful for some advice.
> >>
> >>I used the photo at
> >>http://www.threeshoes.co.uk/comment/Photo_Comment.html
> >>as the cover for a Christmas card recently and it gave me some
> >>problems. The shadow areas, particularly around the baby's head
> >>came out with a different reflectivity from the remainder of the
> >>photo. In addition, the print showed coloured grain around the
> >>baby's forehead (and in other areas).
> >
> >Chris,
> >In my system, this sort of image loses so much detail in the shadows
> >on my monitor that I can't be sure of what the printed image will
> >show, particularly in the shadows. (This is not a criticism of the
> >photo, but of my monitor, and perhaps all monitors.) The inkjet
> >print in my experience always shows a little more shadow detail than
> >the monitor, but it doesn't mean you will always like what you see.
> >It often requires pulling the curve a little to deepen the shadow to
> >get the right effect in the print. This is not what you want to
> >hear concerning this image, however, I think.
> >
> >If the shadowy skin textures are grainy with a lot of red, this
> >could also be scanner noise. This kind of noise will also be
> >exacerbated by sharpening.
> >
> >Another factor may be the crossing over from CMY ink to K (black) to
> >get the proper shadow tones. In effect, the Epson print algorithm
> >combine the three color inks to print darks until it starts to
> >incorporate black. The transition is incredibly cunning and
> >effective, but this kind of image may be right on the crossover
> >point.
> >
> >I don't think there is anything wrong with your printer or print
resolution.
> >
> >Joel W.
>
> --
> <|_:-)_|>
>
> C M I Barker
> Cambridgeshire, England.
>
> +44 (0)7092 251126
> mailto:imagopus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> ... a nascent photo library.
>
> < This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
> < For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
> < Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
>
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|