Epson Grey Balance Program

Discussion in 'Photoshop' started by Jay Klein, Jan 4, 2004.

  1. Jay Klein

    Jay Klein Guest

    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.asp?product=275&uos=35&x=27&y=10

    It works for me.

    Jay Klein
     
    Jay Klein, Jan 4, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Jay Klein

    Hecate Guest

    On Sun, 4 Jan 2004 12:18:21 -0500, "Jay Klein" <>
    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.asp?product=275&uos=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

    veni, vidi, reliqui
     
    Hecate, Jan 5, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Jay Klein

    Bobs Guest

    On Mon, 05 Jan 2004 01:27:14 +0000, Hecate <> wrote:

    >On Sun, 4 Jan 2004 12:18:21 -0500, "Jay Klein" <>
    >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.asp?product=275&uos=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
    >
    >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?
     
    Bobs, Jan 10, 2004
    #3
  4. Jay Klein

    Hecate Guest

    On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 21:15:14 GMT, Bobs <> 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

    veni, vidi, reliqui
     
    Hecate, Jan 11, 2004
    #4
  5. Jay Klein

    Bobs Guest

    On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 01:53:56 +0000, Hecate <> wrote:

    >On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 21:15:14 GMT, Bobs <> 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
    >
    >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.
     
    Bobs, Jan 11, 2004
    #5
  6. Jay Klein

    Hecate Guest

    On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 19:19:03 GMT, Bobs <> wrote:

    >On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 01:53:56 +0000, Hecate <> wrote:
    >
    >>On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 21:15:14 GMT, Bobs <> 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
    >>
    >>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

    veni, vidi, reliqui
     
    Hecate, Jan 12, 2004
    #6
  7. Jay Klein

    WharfRat Guest

    in article , Hecate at
    wrote on 1/11/04 5:41 PM:

    > On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 19:19:03 GMT, Bobs <> wrote:
    >
    >> On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 01:53:56 +0000, Hecate <> wrote:
    >>
    >>> On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 21:15:14 GMT, Bobs <> 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
    >>>
    >>> 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
     
    WharfRat, Jan 12, 2004
    #7
  8. Jay Klein

    Bobs Guest

    On Mon, 12 Jan 2004 01:41:19 +0000, Hecate <> wrote:

    >On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 19:19:03 GMT, Bobs <> wrote:
    >
    >>On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 01:53:56 +0000, Hecate <> wrote:
    >>
    >>>On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 21:15:14 GMT, Bobs <> 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
    >>>
    >>>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
    >
    >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?
     
    Bobs, Jan 12, 2004
    #8
  9. Jay Klein

    Hecate Guest

    On Mon, 12 Jan 2004 23:43:08 GMT, Bobs <> 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
    >>
    >>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

    veni, vidi, reliqui
     
    Hecate, Jan 13, 2004
    #9
  10. Jay Klein

    Freemale Guest

    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" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Mon, 12 Jan 2004 23:43:08 GMT, Bobs <> 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
    > >>
    > >>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
    >
    > veni, vidi, reliqui
     
    Freemale, Jan 15, 2004
    #10
  11. Jay Klein

    Hecate Guest

    On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 02:14:46 -0000, "Freemale"
    <> wrote:

    >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.
    >

    In your opinion....

    Doesn't change my mind and doesn't change the fact that in, say, 20
    years time, people will still be using B&W film. It's a totally
    different market to general use. The fine art market isn't interested
    in something produced on a computer per se, except as computer art.

    --

    Hecate

    veni, vidi, reliqui
     
    Hecate, Jan 16, 2004
    #11
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Dr. J. Smith

    CMYK grey vs. RGB grey

    Dr. J. Smith, Nov 8, 2003, in forum: Photoshop
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    2,397
    belowme
    Nov 10, 2003
  2. Constant Dupuis

    Grey balance plug-in for Photoshop Win/Mac

    Constant Dupuis, Sep 11, 2003, in forum: Photoshop Tutorials
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    326
    Constant Dupuis
    Sep 18, 2003
  3. Jay Klein

    Epson 2200 Grey Balance Program

    Jay Klein, Jan 4, 2004, in forum: Photoshop Tutorials
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    558
    DJC737
    Jan 20, 2004
  4. Alan F Cross
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    246
    Robert E. Williams
    Feb 26, 2004
  5. Alan F Cross
    Replies:
    36
    Views:
    733
Loading...

Share This Page