Epson Grey Balance Program

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

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

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?

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

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.

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

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

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?

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

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

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

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