Inkjet better than wet prints yet?

[Drew Wiley]

Indeed, though it looks way more inland to me. Rocks don't look right for the Snake Range
in Idaho. Could be a Colorado Front Range. But frankly, I get disoriented any time land is
flat. Almost had a panic attack getting off a plane in Dallas, getting to my hotel room about twelve stories up and looking out at .... well, nothing! I literally got claustrophobic
at the ... whatever weren't there surrounding me. No trees, no mtns. ... no nothin' in sight
except one ostentatious Tower of Babel after another. My gosh, no wonder folks in that
part of the world deny global warming exists - their world isn't even round!

[bob carnie]

Thomas

Make a layer.. go to edit drop down to Transform.. open rotate and play with the cubes on the corners to straighten out - save

or make a layer.. go to edit drop to Transform.. open warp and play with the points to straighten out- save

maybe it would work for you , maybe it will not,, I think Drew is playing with my head on this one.

If you are new to PS you are in for a lot of fun with dodging, burning, contrast and density... try to attack it like a darkroom print and you will be ok.

Remember one needs to neutralize the colour first before doing much work and you can destroy and image with bad sharpening.


Bob

Suppose that it's not an optical illusion. The immediate landform drops off into a deep canyon which the rises up on the far side containing the range. But the idea of a horizontal landform sounds enticing. By "tilt(ing) the easel a bit" I assume you mean rotating it somewhat to the left on the baseboard but I can't see how that would work. Anyway this is a transparency and I'm limited to printing it digitally so I'll have to check into "transform."

I'm new to digital printing and learning as I go. Yesterday I taught myself how to spot in PS and thought the next thing to learn would be to dodge and burn in PS. Transform? I think I'll check into that before I committ to a larger print for this image.

Thomas

[bob carnie]

Lots of lakes in Ontario... we keep them all level so the water does not fall out the ends.

Indeed, though it looks way more inland to me. Rocks don't look right for the Snake Range
in Idaho. Could be a Colorado Front Range. But frankly, I get disoriented any time land is
flat. Almost had a panic attack getting off a plane in Dallas, getting to my hotel room about twelve stories up and looking out at .... well, nothing! I literally got claustrophobic
at the ... whatever weren't there surrounding me. No trees, no mtns. ... no nothin' in sight
except one ostentatious Tower of Babel after another. My gosh, no wonder folks in that
part of the world deny global warming exists - their world isn't even round!

[tgtaylor]

Thomas

Make a layer.. go to edit drop down to Transform.. open rotate and play with the cubes on the corners to straighten out - save

or make a layer.. go to edit drop to Transform.. open warp and play with the points to straighten out- save

maybe it would work for you , maybe it will not,, I think Drew is playing with my head on this one.

If you are new to PS you are in for a lot of fun with dodging, burning, contrast and density... try to attack it like a darkroom print and you will be ok.

Remember one needs to neutralize the colour first before doing much work and you can destroy and image with bad sharpening.


Bob

Thanks Bob! Actually I approach it like I would a C-41 print by first getting the exposure (density) right and then adjusting the colors if necessary and sharping the image is the last step. This particular image only required adjusting the brightness to match the slide and it sharpened up nicely notwithstanding that it wasn't fluid mounted, which I don't have - only the Epson holders that came with the scanner - and have the transparancy mounted in a 6x7 cardboard mount. I'm trying to learn PS as I go and by need. After I printed the above another slide needs to be dodged to match the transparancy and thaty's where I'm at presently with PS.

Thomas

[Vaughn]

???!!! I'm not even going to try to figure that one out.Thomas

If this refers to my post, it is in reference to the inability of an image on a computer screen to say anything about actual print quality...it is like trying to determine the quality of Scotch from the photos of the bottles.

vaughn

[bob carnie]

making a layer

and using the blending tools,,, multiply, screen and soft light in combination with your brush tool at different opacity's will be your friend.

Thanks Bob! Actually I approach it like I would a C-41 print by first getting the exposure (density) right and then adjusting the colors if necessary and sharping the image is the last step. This particular image only required adjusting the brightness to match the slide and it sharpened up nicely notwithstanding that it wasn't fluid mounted, which I don't have - only the Epson holders that came with the scanner - and have the transparancy mounted in a 6x7 cardboard mount. I'm trying to learn PS as I go and by need. After I printed the above another slide needs to be dodged to match the transparancy and thaty's where I'm at presently with PS.

Thomas

[tgtaylor]

Thanks again, Bob!

With regard to the land forms one runs across out west, here is a quote from The Exploring Expedition to the Rocky Mountains by John Fremont that I was reading this morning:

"We seem now to be passing along the base of a plateau of the Black Hills, in which the formation consists of marls, some of them white and laminated; the country to the left rising suddenly, and falling off gradually and uniformly to the right. In five or six miles of a northeasterly course, we struck a high ridge,...The magnetic direction of the ridge is northwest and southeast...Along our route the country had seemed to increase constantly in elevation..." Quoted from Fremont's notes for 13 July, 1842 on page 33.

Vaughn: I was referring to Drew's post but you and others had posted while I was typing.

Thomas

[paulr]

[QUOTE=Drew Wiley;870944The original materials are basically worthless. [/QUOTE]

Yes, and the work has been selling for millions for decades. That's my point.

At any rate, I see some people in this thread dismissing ink printing because it's cheap, and now you're doing the same because it's overpriced.

Here's the perspective of someone who actually does it: the materials are very expensive, but the overall cost of printing is somewhat lower than with traditional printing because there's less waste. You can get 90% of the way to your final print through soft proofing, so you don't use as many materials. That's a big part of the appeal for me.

But everybody knows about inks and printers and the paper that goes with them.

Please don't use schoolyard rhetoric like "everyone knows ...." If you actually know something, then you'll have evidence you can share. If you don't have evidence, then you don't know anything.

It's true that Epson and Canon mark up their inks a lot, because it subsidizes their printers. But even ink-only makers like John Cone have to charge a lot, because the stuff is expensive to develop and manufacture. I don't think Cone is a rich guy.

R&D on the popular stuff has probably been recovered way back.

R&D on the good stuff is relentles and ongoing.

Gelatin and silver are traditionally what made paper expensive

If you think there's more than 5 cents worth of silver and gelatin in a sheet of 16x20 paper, you've been misled by industry mystique. The quantities are infinitesimal. Talk to anyone who recovers silver from their fix. In a year when I went through 20 boxes of 11x14 Fortezo, I recovered less than 1/2 oz of very impure silver. This is using steel ion replacement, which is well over 90% efficient. The commercial lab where I worked used a 99.99% efficient process and recovered less than an ounce a month.

I'll let you price gelatin at the supermarket. Keep in mind that photo emulsion measures in the thousands of an inch.

Here's one reason inkjet paper costs more: the paper is better. Most of the fine art inkjet papers are heavy, 100% cotton rag stock. You don't know what the paper base is on silver papers, because the manufacturers aren't talking about it. If you look at a company like Hahnemuhle, their inkjet papers are expensive, but so are their watercolor and oil paint papers.

I just hope the painters who use these materials are having more interesting conversations than this one.

[Drew Wiley]

Were you born yesterday, Paul....? Maybe compared to a premier old-school process like
dye transfer or even now Ciba, color inkjet might be expensive, but at any high level of quality it certainly can't compete with any RA4 paper like Crystal Archive for cost effectiveness unless one is a pretty rotten lab technician. But I won't waste my time with
you arguing about the cost of silver and coating papers - take that up with the manufacturers themselves if you want to give them a good belly laugh.

[Drew Wiley]

Ooops, obviously meant to say "inexpensive" there in the comparison. Anyway, you've got
nothing but marketing hype in terms of the long-term compatability of those papers you're paying a premium for and the actual ink used.