«

For those of you, like me, who are not getting the b/w print results from
the Epson 2200 you would like, Epson puts out their Grey Balancer program,
available only outside the U.S.( I have no idea why).

I found it available for download on their Russian site. The program and the
full documentation are in English. Its the larger of the 2 visible Grey
Balancer downloads.(approx. 6.5 mb) You will need a Kodak grey stepwedge to
use it properly.

The direct link to the download page is given below:

http://support.epson.ru/driver_list....s=35&x=27&y=10

It works for me.

Jay Klein

On Sun, 4 Jan 2004 12:18:21 -0500, "Jay Klein" <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>For those of you, like me, who are not getting the b/w print results from
>the Epson 2200 you would like, Epson puts out their Grey Balancer program,
>available only outside the U.S.( I have no idea why).
>
>I found it available for download on their Russian site. The program and the
>full documentation are in English. Its the larger of the 2 visible Grey
>Balancer downloads.(approx. 6.5 mb) You will need a Kodak grey stepwedge to
>use it properly.
>
>The direct link to the download page is given below:
>
>http://support.epson.ru/driver_list....s=35&x=27&y=10
>
>It works for me.
>
>Jay Klein
>
The other alternative is to buy inks that do the job rather than Epson
inks, like Permajet or Lyson.

--

Hecate
(E-Mail Removed)
veni, vidi, reliqui

On Mon, 05 Jan 2004 01:27:14 +0000, Hecate <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On Sun, 4 Jan 2004 12:18:21 -0500, "Jay Klein" <(E-Mail Removed)>
>wrote:
>
>>For those of you, like me, who are not getting the b/w print results from
>>the Epson 2200 you would like, Epson puts out their Grey Balancer program,
>>available only outside the U.S.( I have no idea why).
>>
>>I found it available for download on their Russian site. The program and the
>>full documentation are in English. Its the larger of the 2 visible Grey
>>Balancer downloads.(approx. 6.5 mb) You will need a Kodak grey stepwedge to
>>use it properly.
>>
>>The direct link to the download page is given below:
>>
>>http://support.epson.ru/driver_list....s=35&x=27&y=10
>>
>>It works for me.
>>
>>Jay Klein
>>
>The other alternative is to buy inks that do the job rather than Epson
>inks, like Permajet or Lyson.
>
> --
>
>Hecate
>(E-Mail Removed)
>veni, vidi, reliqui
....and still another alternative is to print at 2880 DPI with black
ink only, according to a recent article in Shutterbug. See the
following for details:
http://www.shutterbug.net/test_reports/1102sb_epson/

It is interesting to examine the B&W test print provided by Epson with
the 2200 (matte black example). At first glance (under magnification)
this appears to consist only of black dots, but there may also be
amounts of yellow--has anyone looked at this closely?

On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 21:15:14 GMT, Bobs <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:


>...and still another alternative is to print at 2880 DPI with black
>ink only, according to a recent article in Shutterbug. See the
>following for details:
>http://www.shutterbug.net/test_reports/1102sb_epson/
>
>It is interesting to examine the B&W test print provided by Epson with
>the 2200 (matte black example). At first glance (under magnification)
>this appears to consist only of black dots, but there may also be
>amounts of yellow--has anyone looked at this closely?

I still don't think you'll get anything approaching the quality you do
with multiple black inks.

--

Hecate
(E-Mail Removed)
veni, vidi, reliqui

On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 01:53:56 +0000, Hecate <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 21:15:14 GMT, Bobs <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>
>>...and still another alternative is to print at 2880 DPI with black
>>ink only, according to a recent article in Shutterbug. See the
>>following for details:
>>http://www.shutterbug.net/test_reports/1102sb_epson/
>>
>>It is interesting to examine the B&W test print provided by Epson with
>>the 2200 (matte black example). At first glance (under magnification)
>>this appears to consist only of black dots, but there may also be
>>amounts of yellow--has anyone looked at this closely?
>
>I still don't think you'll get anything approaching the quality you do
>with multiple black inks.
>
> --
>
>Hecate
>(E-Mail Removed)
>veni, vidi, reliqui

Well, one test is worth 1000 opinions. It can't be argued that
multiple black/grey inks can do a smoother job when seen under
magnification--but at normal or even close viewing distances I fail to
see a significant difference, and gradation remains excellent.

A lot of the problem associated with 35mm was not simply graininess,
but contrast irregularities created by Callier Effect (mostly in the
enlarging process), leading to the often-referred-to "35 look." The
greasy-smooth gray tones that were characteristic of large format B&W
and contact printing are not hard to achieve with digital, however.

On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 19:19:03 GMT, Bobs <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 01:53:56 +0000, Hecate <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 21:15:14 GMT, Bobs <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>...and still another alternative is to print at 2880 DPI with black
>>>ink only, according to a recent article in Shutterbug. See the
>>>following for details:
>>>http://www.shutterbug.net/test_reports/1102sb_epson/
>>>
>>>It is interesting to examine the B&W test print provided by Epson with
>>>the 2200 (matte black example). At first glance (under magnification)
>>>this appears to consist only of black dots, but there may also be
>>>amounts of yellow--has anyone looked at this closely?
>>
>>I still don't think you'll get anything approaching the quality you do
>>with multiple black inks.
>>
>> --
>>
>>Hecate
>>(E-Mail Removed)
>>veni, vidi, reliqui
>
>Well, one test is worth 1000 opinions. It can't be argued that
>multiple black/grey inks can do a smoother job when seen under
>magnification--but at normal or even close viewing distances I fail to
>see a significant difference, and gradation remains excellent.

It depends what you want from the print...

>A lot of the problem associated with 35mm was not simply graininess,
>but contrast irregularities created by Callier Effect (mostly in the
>enlarging process), leading to the often-referred-to "35 look." The
>greasy-smooth gray tones that were characteristic of large format B&W
>and contact printing are not hard to achieve with digital, however.

and whilst I agree with what you say here, I want graininess and for
that digital just doesn't do it. If I tell you that Tri-X is, was and
will remain my favourite B&W film you'll understand why I loathe
the smooth look most of the time (when I want it I use C41 B&W) - for
me, the grain structure of B&W film, used correctly, enhances the
image.

--

Hecate
(E-Mail Removed)
veni, vidi, reliqui

in article (E-Mail Removed), Hecate at
(E-Mail Removed) wrote on 1/11/04 5:41 PM:

> On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 19:19:03 GMT, Bobs <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 01:53:56 +0000, Hecate <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 21:15:14 GMT, Bobs <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> ...and still another alternative is to print at 2880 DPI with black
>>>> ink only, according to a recent article in Shutterbug. See the
>>>> following for details:
>>>> http://www.shutterbug.net/test_reports/1102sb_epson/
>>>>
>>>> It is interesting to examine the B&W test print provided by Epson with
>>>> the 2200 (matte black example). At first glance (under magnification)
>>>> this appears to consist only of black dots, but there may also be
>>>> amounts of yellow--has anyone looked at this closely?
>>>
>>> I still don't think you'll get anything approaching the quality you do
>>> with multiple black inks.
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> Hecate
>>> (E-Mail Removed)
>>> veni, vidi, reliqui
>>
>> Well, one test is worth 1000 opinions. It can't be argued that
>> multiple black/grey inks can do a smoother job when seen under
>> magnification--but at normal or even close viewing distances I fail to
>> see a significant difference, and gradation remains excellent.
>
> It depends what you want from the print...
>
>> A lot of the problem associated with 35mm was not simply graininess,
>> but contrast irregularities created by Callier Effect (mostly in the
>> enlarging process), leading to the often-referred-to "35 look." The
>> greasy-smooth gray tones that were characteristic of large format B&W
>> and contact printing are not hard to achieve with digital, however.
>
> and whilst I agree with what you say here, I want graininess and for
> that digital just doesn't do it. If I tell you that Tri-X is, was and
> will remain my favourite B&W film you'll understand why I loathe
> the smooth look most of the time (when I want it I use C41 B&W) - for
> me, the grain structure of B&W film, used correctly, enhances the
> image.
---
Yeah - that ...

What I like is Tri-X at 1000 processed in "hot" HC110 -
and then possibly
an ice then boiling acid stop and rinse to crack the emulsion.
Ye "ol" reticulation.

So far - they can't beat film.

MSD

On Mon, 12 Jan 2004 01:41:19 +0000, Hecate <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 19:19:03 GMT, Bobs <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 01:53:56 +0000, Hecate <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 21:15:14 GMT, Bobs <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>...and still another alternative is to print at 2880 DPI with black
>>>>ink only, according to a recent article in Shutterbug. See the
>>>>following for details:
>>>>http://www.shutterbug.net/test_reports/1102sb_epson/
>>>>
>>>>It is interesting to examine the B&W test print provided by Epson with
>>>>the 2200 (matte black example). At first glance (under magnification)
>>>>this appears to consist only of black dots, but there may also be
>>>>amounts of yellow--has anyone looked at this closely?
>>>
>>>I still don't think you'll get anything approaching the quality you do
>>>with multiple black inks.
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>>Hecate
>>>(E-Mail Removed)
>>>veni, vidi, reliqui
>>
>>Well, one test is worth 1000 opinions. It can't be argued that
>>multiple black/grey inks can do a smoother job when seen under
>>magnification--but at normal or even close viewing distances I fail to
>>see a significant difference, and gradation remains excellent.
>
>It depends what you want from the print...
>
>>A lot of the problem associated with 35mm was not simply graininess,
>>but contrast irregularities created by Callier Effect (mostly in the
>>enlarging process), leading to the often-referred-to "35 look." The
>>greasy-smooth gray tones that were characteristic of large format B&W
>>and contact printing are not hard to achieve with digital, however.
>
>and whilst I agree with what you say here, I want graininess and for
>that digital just doesn't do it. If I tell you that Tri-X is, was and
>will remain my favourite B&W film you'll understand why I loathe
>the smooth look most of the time (when I want it I use C41 B&W) - for
>me, the grain structure of B&W film, used correctly, enhances the
>image.
>
>Hecate
>(E-Mail Removed)
>veni, vidi, reliqui

I like grain too, but I also want to be able to emulate 8X10 contact
prints now and then. Just yesterday I did up a B&W portrait (male) in
which I used the blue channel only to exaggerate skin tone and
grittiness. Talk about true grit, this is it...but I don't think he's
going to appreciate it all that much...who knows? Good stuff for the
portfolio in any case. Have you tried any of the various "grain"
filters?

On Mon, 12 Jan 2004 23:43:08 GMT, Bobs <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:


>>and whilst I agree with what you say here, I want graininess and for
>>that digital just doesn't do it. If I tell you that Tri-X is, was and
>>will remain my favourite B&W film you'll understand why I loathe
>>the smooth look most of the time (when I want it I use C41 B&W) - for
>>me, the grain structure of B&W film, used correctly, enhances the
>>image.
>>
>>Hecate
>>(E-Mail Removed)
>>veni, vidi, reliqui
>
>I like grain too, but I also want to be able to emulate 8X10 contact
>prints now and then. Just yesterday I did up a B&W portrait (male) in
>which I used the blue channel only to exaggerate skin tone and
>grittiness. Talk about true grit, this is it...but I don't think he's
>going to appreciate it all that much...who knows? Good stuff for the
>portfolio in any case. Have you tried any of the various "grain"
>filters?

Yep. I have. And until someone comes out with a Tri-X filter I'll
still be using film. I've seen nothing to match it and I can't find
any grain filters that will do it. As you know, grain is *very*
different from the noise you get with uprated digital. it has a
structure all it's own and each structure is peculiar to a particular
film type. I'm sure there must be people who swear by Neopan who would
say the same thing.

--

Hecate
(E-Mail Removed)
veni, vidi, reliqui

In my opinion you can get ANY grain effect you wish with PS if you have a
full knowledge of Layers. No PS filter will produce anything worthwhile by
just clicking on it.

"Hecate" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> On Mon, 12 Jan 2004 23:43:08 GMT, Bobs <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>
> >>and whilst I agree with what you say here, I want graininess and for
> >>that digital just doesn't do it. If I tell you that Tri-X is, was and
> >>will remain my favourite B&W film you'll understand why I loathe
> >>the smooth look most of the time (when I want it I use C41 B&W) - for
> >>me, the grain structure of B&W film, used correctly, enhances the
> >>image.
> >>
> >>Hecate
> >>(E-Mail Removed)
> >>veni, vidi, reliqui
> >
> >I like grain too, but I also want to be able to emulate 8X10 contact
> >prints now and then. Just yesterday I did up a B&W portrait (male) in
> >which I used the blue channel only to exaggerate skin tone and
> >grittiness. Talk about true grit, this is it...but I don't think he's
> >going to appreciate it all that much...who knows? Good stuff for the
> >portfolio in any case. Have you tried any of the various "grain"
> >filters?
>
> Yep. I have. And until someone comes out with a Tri-X filter I'll
> still be using film. I've seen nothing to match it and I can't find
> any grain filters that will do it. As you know, grain is *very*
> different from the noise you get with uprated digital. it has a
> structure all it's own and each structure is peculiar to a particular
> film type. I'm sure there must be people who swear by Neopan who would
> say the same thing.
>
> --
>
> Hecate
> (E-Mail Removed)
> veni, vidi, reliqui