I've loved fine photographic prints ever since I started visiting the
George Eastman House as a child. From the mid-1960's through the mid-1980's I worked intensively in my home darkroom, mastering the art of making fine black and white prints. But as career and family demands grew, finding time to set up chemicals, print, then clean up became increasingly difficult. Though I did little darkroom work between 1985 and 1998, I never gave up the
idea of working in the darkroom. Now, thanks to digital technology, I'm back making beautiful prints, and I'm delighted.
In this tutorial I share my techniques for making fine museum quality prints, both color and black and white, starting with negatives, slides, or digital camera images. This page tells you what you need and how to get started. The tutorial is outlined below in
Learning the craft-- a roadmap. The total investment, apart from the computer, can be under $1000 (all prices in US dollars).
. | Correct monitor calibration | | is vital for viewing and making fine prints. Two key parameters, Black level (often labeled Brightness) and Contrast, are set on the monitor. A third, Gamma, is set in the video card lookup table (LUT). Contrast is normally set to maximum. Color temperature should be set to 6500K or lower-- 6500K looks best on most CRTs. It can be set on the monitor (preferably) or with the video card/color management software, but not both. Color quality should be set to 24 or 32 bits. The room should be dimly lit; no direct light should shine on the screen. Gray images should look subjectively gray to your eye. For flat screen (LCD) monitors, Screen resolution (right-click on the wallpaper, Properties, Settings) should be set to the monitor's native resolution. Gamma defines the curve that relates the pixel levels in your computer to the luminance (brightness) of your monitor and prints, using the equation, Luminance = (pixel level/255)gamma + black level You can estimate gamma from the pattern on the left side of the chart on the right by viewing it from a distance and observing where the average luminance across the pattern is constant. Gamma should be set to 1.8 for older Macintosh systems (2.2 seems to be the current standard) or 2.2 for Windows systems and the Internet sRGB color space using techniques in Monitor calibration: Setting gamma. Gamma is extremely sensitive to viewing angle in most Laptop LCD screens. This chart is only for monitors; it doesn't work on printed media. You can set your monitor's Black level using the mostly black pattern on the right of the chart. This pattern contains two dark gray vertical bars which increase in luminance with increasing gamma. (If you can't see them, your black level is way low.) The left bar should be just above the threshold of visibility opposite your chosen gamma-- it should be invisible where gamma is lower by about 0.3. The right bar should be distinctly visible, but still very dark. Black level interacts with gamma; you may have to go back and forth two or three times. The pattern provides a good indicator of display quality. Cheap LCDs can't achieve a constant neutral gray appearance. But good flat screen displays can be excellent, and prices are dropping. For more detail and a larger chart, see Monitor calibration: Gamma and black level. | | |  |
| I encourage you to load this chart on your computer and check it occasionally. I'll be happy to grant permission to reproduce it on your website if you e-mail me, give me credit and a link to this page. |
Key questions about the digital darkroom
Why a digital darkroom?
| First of all, you don't need an actual darkroom. You can set it up anywhere you can set up your computer. All you need is space for a printer and, if you're still using film, a film scanner. There are no toxic chemicals to mix, set up, or clean up. You don't need to set aside large blocks of time to feel productive. Color and tonal adjustments, dodging, and burning are simple and precise. The image on a well-calibrated monitor closely resembles the print; there is little delay between exposure and evaluation. I'm sometimes tempted to go back to black and white darkroom printing, which doesn't have the frustrating complexities of color. A well made selenium-toned silver print is archival and still hard to beat. But the Epson 2200 printer comes close, and digital offers superior control. And printers keep getting better. |  |
How good a print can you make from 35mm?
 This is best answered with an example. The image of aspen trees on the Pitkin Creek trail near Vail, Colorado (above) contains nearly an entire 35mm frame (24x36mm). It was taken with the Canon "New" F-1 camera, the outstanding 35mm f/2.8 TS (Tilt-Shift) lens stopped down to f/8 or f/11 and tilted slightly, a lightweight Manfrotto tripod, and Kodacolor Gold 100 film, which is sharper than you might expect. The original was scanned on an HP Photosmart S20 at 2400 pixels per inch (ppi), for a total resolution is 3328x2184 pixels (defined below), and sharpened with unsharp mask. The above image has been reduced by a factor of 8 to 416x273 pixels. The images on the left and below (from near the center and left of the frame) contain 416x273 unreduced pixels (1 screen pixel = 1 image pixel). These images span 1/8 of the total image lengthwise; each contains 1/64 the total image area. If the entire image were reproduced at a typical monitor resolution of 80 pixels/inch (30x magnification), it would cover 28x42 inches, more than twice my printer's maximum 13x19 inch print size. A3 (11.7x16.5 inch) prints of this image are extremely sharp-- beautiful and satisfying. Prints from 2400 dpi scans are about as sharp as the best enlarger (conventional darkroom) prints; prints from properly sharpened 4000 dpi scans are sharper: See Understanding image sharpness, Part 2 and CanoScan FS4000US.
I compare digital cameras with 35mm film elsewhere. The brief summary: the overall image quality of 6 megapixel digital SLRs equals 35mm (nearly as sharp, but grainless). 8 megapixel DSLRs do better.
|
Why scan your own film?
| Legend has it that the best scans are made at photo shops on drum scanners, which have slightly higher Dmax than desktop CCD scanners (see scanner specifications). But drum scans are expensive; they are advantageous only for large format film and the occasional slide with important detail in the darkest areas. In most instances you can do as well if you have a decent film scanner and know how to use it. Photo.net's scanning forum is well worth checking out. |  |
Why make your own prints?
- Control - You get exactly what you want. This tutorial will teach you how.
- Convenience - You don't have to take film to a shop, then return to pick it up, then make more trips for enlargements.
- Cost - Individual prints from your own printer cost less that prints done outside, either digital or silver-based. Large volume printing is cheaper if you send it out, but you'll get the best results with digital files you've edited.
- Quality - The current generation of consumer printers can make outstanding, artistically expressive prints up to 13x19 inches. Colors can be extremely accurate, especially if you use a color-managed workflow.
Learning the craft-- a study guide
Learning the craft of digital photographic printmaking can be daunting to a novice. This roadmap is intended to help guide you. Consider it a mini site map. A full
Site map is also available.
Equipment. Your first concern will probably be equipment, summarized below in What you'll need. More detail can be found in the following pages.
|
- Scanners (devices for digitizing film) explains scanner specifications and describes the different types. Includes a list of film and flatbed scanners. A separate page, Scanning, describes how to use them.
- Digital cameras describes the key features that affect image quality. Has a table of some of the better models and links to sites with detailed information and reviews.
- Photo printers describes high quality inkjet photo printers, particularly the Epson Ultrachrome series (the Stylus Photo 2200, etc.).
- Canon EOS-10D Digital SLR This outstanding 6.3 megapixel Digital SLR will be of particular interest to those of you shopping for a high quality digital camera.
- Canon FS4000US 4000 dpi 35mm film scanner is an excellent choice for scanning 35mm film. Nikon and Minolta also make excellent scanners.
- Epson 2450 and 3200 flatbed scanners and their successors (the 4870) are excellent for medium format and 4x5. The resolution isn't quite up to snuff for 35mm, but it keeps improving incrementally.
|
Basic concepts. You will need to be familiar with the concepts of light, color, and digital imaging. Like much of this site, these pages go into considerable technical depth. Don't worry if you don't grasp everything at first; you can always return.
|
- Light & color introduces the basic concepts of additive and subtractive colors as well as the HSV and HSL color models used for image editing.
- Pixels, images, and file formats introduces the fundamental concepts of digital images, how their size and resolution is specified, and how they are stored.
- Photographic technique covers photographic vision, cameras, lenses, tripods, bags, film, filters, and panoramic photography. It also has a section on travel.
- A simplified zone system explains how to expose film to capture maximum information. (It's less relevant to digital cameras, where histograms are used to determine exposure.)
|
Setup and calibration. Once you have the basic equipment-- digital camera and/or scanner, computer, and image editing software, you will need to set it up and calibrate it.
|
- Monitor calibration is a critical step. Don't skip it!
- Printer calibration explains how to get your prints to match the images on your calibrated monitor, without and with ICC color management.
|
Image editing is one the heart making fine prints, and it's probably the one that requires the biggest learning curve, apart from color management. As you'll soon see I'm not a fan of Photoshop.
|
- Picture Window Pro is a powerful program that's much less expensive than Photoshop, and easier to learn and use. I describe it briefly below.
- Basic image editing illustrates the basics of image editing, using PW Pro as an example.
- Image editing with Picture Window Pro introduces PW Pro and illustrates a number of techniques, including making masks, contrast masking, and "hand-coloring" B&W images.
|
Going deeper. Once you've covered the basics you may want to explore these pages.
|
- Black & White, matting and framing presents workflows for producing excellent Black & White prints with color inkjet printers. Includes techniques for matting and framing prints.
- Tonal quality and dynamic range in digital cameras explains how to achieve ultimate tonal quality and access the hidden dynamic range from images captured with digital cameras.
- Papers and inks describes specialized ink sets (mostly for B&W) and fine art papers. You should start out with inks and papers recommended by the printer manufacturer. But you may eventually want to look further...
- Color Management isn't necessary for beginners. You can make very fine prints without it. But if you want to print on third-party fine art papers, refine the match between your monitor and printer, or send out image files to be printed, you'll need it. It involves a significant learning curve.
- Understanding image sharpness and MTF is a series of articles that cover a number of image quality-related topics, including sharpness in lenses, film, scanners, and digital cameras, as well as testing lenses, depth of field, and grain.
|
Background reading.
|
| |
What you'll need
Computer
I use a PC. Although the Mac has traditionally dominated graphic arts applications, today's PC is every bit as capable. Any recentPC is fast enough for most image editing, but you'll need extra memory and storage.
Darron Spohn's photo.net article (with responses) is worth checking out.
- Processor speed: I was getting by with a 350 MHz Pentium II, which was a little slow for manipulating 45 MB 48-bit color files (from 35mm film with a 2400 dpi scanner). Then my older son went to India and gave me his 933 MHz machine. The extra speed is a big help for 4000 dpi scans (over 100 MB with 48-bit precision). Most computers today are fast enough for the highest resolution 35mm scans. But if you scan medium format film in 48 bit color with a high resolution scanner, you'll need a very fast processor (3 GHz if possible) and tons of memory-- 2 GB or more. I strongly recommend scanning in 48-bit color or 16-bit B&W for maximum quality.
- RAM (random access memory): 256 MB of RAM memory is the minimum for a 2400 dpi 35mm scanner or 6 megapixel digital camera. Anything less will seriously slow you down. I recommend at least 512 MB; 1 GB if possible. Memory is cheap; there's no excuse to skimp on it. Get two gigabytes if you're scanning medium format at high resolution.
- Video card: Anything over 8 MB is sufficient; 16+ MB is pretty standard these days. The extra memory speeds up switching between windows. The minimum RAM is your screen resolution x 3 bytes. Example: 1280x1024x3 = 3.9 MB. Today's high performance video cards offer speed for gaming-- they go far beyond the needs of image editing. The video card should have a color lookup table (LUT). Almost all current video cards have them.
- Storage: Get a big hard drive; they're cheap. 80 Gigabytes is not excessive. More is better. Digital camera users should check out the section on Additional storage devices.
- CD or DVD writer: You'll need one when you start filling your hard drive. Ordinary writable CD's may degrade after a few years. Mitsui Gold Standard CD-R's are the longest-lived CD-R's currently available. They cost more, of course, but they're still relatively cheap. Inkjetart.com is an excellent source.
DVD writers are now are competitive with CD writers. You'll need one if you have a digital SLR-- you'll fill hard drives much faster than you can imagine. There are two formats: DVD+RW and DVD-RW. If you blink you might not notice the difference, but they're not entirely compatible; the choice can be confusing. But it may not make a big difference since they both work and dual format drives are now widely available. This article from cdfreaks.com sheds some light on the issue. DVD+RW seems to have a slight edge. Chris Kwasneski sent me the following. (I'm still somewhat confused.)
+ is considered more technically advanced because it can potentially mark areas as bad and not use them again. - has supposedly implemented something similar in software. + is also said to be more resistant to errors while writing the disk, but the difference may be small. - has the ability to emboss a disk making it harder (though not impossible) to copy-- a useful feature if your going to distribute work. It also has a greater compatibility with older DVD players. Speed is another consideration. + has plans to release an 8x drive, with 12x not to far off. - is still working on 8x (a few months away).There is a difference if you plan to leave disks open after writing (i.e., writing, using them, then writing again). On -RW, the first time you leave it open after writing a session/track (or any data), 32-96MB is lost to track ending info. Every succeeding track loses another 6-18MB. With +RW you lose only 2MB per session/track.
The market seems to be split at about 50/50. Dual format drives are common and only about $60 more. + is being pushed by big players like Dell, Sony, and HP-Compaq, which is shipping + as their standard, with Dell likely to follow. That means a huge number of installed +drives, which I believe will tip the scales. The only saving grace of the - format is that DVD-RAM (apparently dead on PC) has recently chosen to also support DVD-RW. DVD-RAM is the biggest format in the consumer market (VCR, TV top devices), though even that is divided. As for me, I have 2 DVD+RW drives at home and one at work.
- USB: Your computer will need a USB (universal serial bus) port, built in to most computers sold since 1998. You can buy PCI USB cards-- better for expansion than hubs, which some devices may not like. USB 2.0 is much faster; most new peripherals take advantage of the speed.
- Monitor: Get the best monitor you can afford.
- CRTs have largely been replaced by LCDs, which (by late 2007) cost no more than CRTs. 19 inch monitors are fine and not very expensive. 21 and 22 inch monitors are nice if you can afford one. 17 inch monitors are adequate if you're on a tight budget. Before buying a monitor, check reviews in ZDnet and other sources. Make sure you have a modern monitor that allows you to set the color temperature to 6500K. Darron Spohn prefers aperture grill monitors over shadow mask monitors-- they're slightly sharper, but not necessarily superior. I've heard good reports about monitors from Sony, Hitachi, Viewsonic, LaCie and Eizo, but remember that most manufacturers offer a range of models and product lines with differing quality. MonitorWorld.com and Andrew Rodney have useful information.
- Laptop LCD screens are poorly suited for critical image editing because gamma (contrast) is extremely sensitive to viewing angle. Some new ones are slightly better, but still not great.
- Flat screen LCD monitors now have sufficient viewing angles-- 150 degrees or more, horizontal and vertical-- for image editing. They are sharper and brighter than CRTs (too bright for some tastes) and have higher contrast ratios. Most LCDs have a color gamut close to CRTs; some are significantly better. The key specs are size, resolution (pixels), and color gamut. A significant spec that's often omitted is the bit depth of the lookup table (LUT). 8-bits (16.7 million colors) is standard, but some high-end monitors have 10 or 12 bits, which results in smoother tonal response. This page describes the different flat screen types. Avoid TN panels: they have only 6 bits of tonal resolution (18 bits total): not enough for high quality imaging work.
Size: For good results the monitor should be at least 19 inches (diagonal) with 1280x1024 pixels resolution. 17-inch 1024x768 monitors will do in a pinch, but 19-inch monitors have dropped in price to the point where they don't cost much more. Larger is, of course, better. 20-inch 1600x1200 monitors cost more but they're still relatively affordable. 24-inch+ 1920x1200 monitors are very appealing because you can have several applications visible on the screen. For best results your computer's video card should be set to the the native resolution of the monitor.
Color gamut (the range of reproducable colors) is measured as a volume (ΔE2) in L*a*b* color space. Color spaces are described in Color management: Implementation part 1. Color gamut can be calculated from ICC profiles (often found on manufacturer's websites) using Gamutvision. In manufacturer's data sheets, it is often expressed as a fraction or percentage of one of three color spaces: sRGB, Adobe RGB, or NTSC. sRGB, which is based on the phosphors of standard CRTs, has a limited gamut, ΔE2 = 833,000. Adobe and NTSC have larger gamuts, ΔE2 = 1,209,000 and 1,300,000, respectively— 45% and 56% larger than sRGB. These numbers can be confusing, for example, "The Dell UltraSharp 2407WFP-HC features a 92% color gamut versus the 72% color gamut found on typical LCD monitors." NTSC is often used as the reference, but evidently not by Dell. When its monitor profile was downloaded (it's in the zip file that contains the driver) and analyzed by Gamutvision, ΔE2 was 824,000, 99% of sRGB.
Reviews: The best way to start shopping is to read reviews. I've found some good ones on CNET, MacWorld, Trusted Reviews, PCMAG, Xbit Labs, and ZDNet. Several budget models from HP, Dell, and Samsung get good reviews. As I write this I'm shopping for an LCD monitor, leaning towards a large 1920x1200 monitor (this resolution is supported by my Laptop). Models from Dell (2407WFP-HC) and HP (w2408) offer good value and decent (near-sRGB) color gamut, but the NEC MultiSync® LCD2690WUXI-BK is really appealing (and around $900 USD more): it has a bit depth of 12 and a much larger color space— close to Adobe RGB— confirmed by a Gamutvision analysis of the downloaded profile.
You can do a quick, rough evaluation of flat screen monitors by viewing the gamma calibration pattern at the top of this page. It should be uniformly neutral (it is on good CRTs), and it shouldn't change with viewing angle. - Wide-gamut LCD monitors are considerably more expensive than standard LCDs, but have gamuts that cover the Adobe RGB (1998) color space, which is a popular working color space for making high quality prints. The Samsung XL20 uses a backlight LED light source to achieve its gamut. Impressive specs! Comes with a Huey calibrator. See the reviews by Xbit Labs | Trusted Reviews.
- Surge protection: I didn't take it seriously until I lost my BIOS and 933 MHz Pentium chip at the same time; the cheapie protector didn't do its job. (I realized it was a surge when two halogen bulbs burnt out shortly thereafter. And the guys at the local shop told me they'd been deluged with repairs. 2+2+2.) Profit-mad power companies no longer provide the same quality of service they did in the good ol' days of regulation-- I've gotten the word from a disgruntled insider. You needa protector with a UL 1440 let-through rating of at least 330V maximum. Surge protectors contain devices called MOVs that conduct current when the voltage exceeds the let-through level. Since an MOV can sacrifice itself in a large surge, your protector should have an indicator lamp. Ars Technica has a nice guide. Even better: get an uninterruptible power supply (UPS) from suppliers like APC. Prices have dropped; they're often on sale at CompUSA.
Film scanner
| A scanner is a device that converts images-- negatives, slides or prints-- to digital format, i.e., pixels. To make prints digitally from film originals you'll need to have them scanned. If you have a stock of existing film images I strongly recommend that you purchase a scanner. Although shops can make scans, you can usually obtain the finest quality, and you can certainly save money in the long run, with your own scanner. You don't need a scanner for images made on a digital camera. There are several types of scanner, and several formats within each type. |
| | Scan your entire collection? I've received several inquiries from people who want to scan their entire collection of slides and negatives, sometimes numbering in the thousands. Alas, I can't recommend this. Scanning, editing (which can usually be put off), and transferring files to CD is simply too time-consuming. You have to clean each slide or strip, put it in the scanner, wait for the scan, etc.My recommendation: Scan only your best. Select carefully. It will take enough of your time. | | |
- Dedicated film scanners. Usually the best choice for scanning film. Their CCD sensors which have improved in the last few years; they now challenge drum scanners. High quality 35mm models start around $300. Medium format models are quite expensive: $2,000 for the excellent Nikon 9000 ED.
- Flatbed scanners, primarily designed scan reflected images (prints), but several models have transparency units (TPUs) that allow them to scan film. The consumer models tend to be less sharp than dedicated film scanners with equivalent dpi ratings, but good enough to produce excellent results with medium format and 4x5. The reason is that the lens has to cover a very wide field, usually 8.5 inches. Prime examples are the Epson 3200, Epson 4870,and Canon 9950F.
- Drum scanners, a special type of dedicated film scanner that wraps the film around the drum and uses a highly sensitive (and expensive) photomultiplier sensor. Beyond the means of most consumers. May produce superior results with slides that have critical detail in very dense areas, but standard CCD scanners have improved to the point where the advantages are rarely worth the expense. Very sharp because their lenses only need to cover a small field. Sharper than flatbeds for large format film, but the difference is noticeable only for giant enlargements.
Digital camera
When I started this page, film had the edge over digital. Digital cameras were
advancing so rapidly that they would become obsolete in six months. This is no longer the case. Progress has slowed. Digital SLR cameras are superior to their 35mm counterparts, and they no longer become obsolete overnight. There are two major digital camera categories.
- Digital Single Lens Rreflex cameras (DSLRs), which have large image sensors (over 22 mm diagonal) with 5+ megapixels. Camera bodies typically resemble 35mm SLRs and take standard SLR lenses. Many have "APS-C" size sensors, which have about 65% the linear dimensions of full-frame (24x36 mm) 35mm sensors, resulting in a focal length "multiplication factor," around 1.6x, i.e., a 100 mm lens is equivalent to 160 mm in a full-frame camera. Examples include the Canon EOS-20D and Nikon D100. Ultrawide lenses are now available for these small sensors. Overall image quality exceeds 35mm film for the 8+ megapixel models. The few models withfull-frame (24 x36 mm) sensors have performance comparable to medium format film. The Digital cameras page has a more detailed description. Performance is analyzed in gory detail in Digital cameras vs. film, and there a Table of models (with resolution measurements) on the Imatest site.
- Compact/consumer models, which have small image sensors, 11 mm diagonal or less (<= 1/16 the area of full frame 35mm). There are several subcategorizes: entry-level (2-3 megapixels in 2003), ultra-compact, and sophisticated Prosumer models such as the 5 megapixel Sony DSC-717, Nikon Coolpix 5700, Olympus E20 and Minolta DiMAGE 7i. The small pixel size in these cameras, typically 3.4 µm square, results in more noise and less exposure (dynamic) range than the Digital SLRs above. And with tiny sensors, total image detail is limited by lens diffraction. But image quality can still be quite impressive; these cameras can make outstanding 8x11 inch prints and the 5+ megapixel models can make excellent A3 (11.7x16.5 inch) prints.
Here are the basic pros and cons of digital cameras. - Pro. Image quality can outstanding, even with many compact point-and-shoot digitals. No grain; Very low noise (grain's digital counterpart), especially for the DSLRs and compacts at low ISO speeds. Full frame digital SLRs surpass 35mm in resolution: image quality approaches medium format. Digital SLRs with smaller (APS-C) sensors and 8+ megapixels now have image quality better than 35mm. DSLR exposure (dynamic) ranges are comparable to negative film when the image is processed properly. Compact models (with 3 or more megapixels) can make outstanding 8x11 inch prints, and many (especially the 5+ megapixel models) can make decent 13x19 inch prints. You don't have to pay for film and developing. No trips to the camera shop. You can get instant feedback (remember Polaroid?)-- incredibly valuable, both technically and aesthetically. You can transfer images directly to your computer without scanning— a big time saver— and you can easily share images over the internet. No problem with airport x-rays.
- Con. Digital cameras are more expensive than comparable film cameras, but the gap has become tiny as of late 2007. If you shoot much film you'll recover your investment quickly. Full-frame digital SLRs remain very expensive, but models with smaller sensors have been dropping in price and many have outstanding image quality. Shutter lag (the time delay between pressing the shutter and making the exposure) can be a problem with compact digitals— as long as 1 second. It is not a problem with DSLRs. The tendency to burn out highlights can be a problem, but many recent models have "shoulders" in their response curves that minimize this tendency. In-camera histogram displays and exposure compensation can also help. Workflow can be confusing for consumers who aren't computer-savvy (many are comfortable dropping film off and picking it up at camera shops).
As time passes, the pros grow and the cons shrink. In my (not too) humble opinion, the only reasons to buy a film camera in 2007 are (1) you're uncomfortable with computers, (2) you don't use much film, hence you won't recoup your investment, and (3) you've enrolled in a college photography class that requires a film camera. Many colleges are extremely backward.. .
Image editing software
Here's where I'm biased. I use an image editing program gives me all the control I could ever ask for-- a truly great piece of software; a real joy to work with. But it's not well known. It's
Picture Window Pro from Digital Light & Color, a labor of love for its creator, Jonathan Sachs, who authored one of the landmark programs of personal computing,
Lotus 1-2-3. Why do I love this program so much when most of the world uses Photoshop?
- Power - It does everything a straight photographer could want and more, with elegance and precision.
- Full support for ICC color management
- Full support for 48-bit color depth images (16-bit B&W). 48-bit color images, acquired from my scanners through the TWAIN interface, can be edited repeatedly with less loss of detail than conventional 24-bit color files; they can also be used with high-gamut color spaces. Photoshop Version 7 has limited support for 48/16-bit color depth.
- Outstanding masking capabilities for adjusting portions of an image, including creating masks based on image properties.
- A wide array of geometrical transformations, including resizing, cropping, rotation, warping, perspective correction (equivalent to lens tilt), lens distortion (barrel and pincushion) correction, and lateral chromatic aberration (color fringing) correction.
- Support - It has excellent tutorials and online support (and I've also written some tutorials).
- Convenience - It's easier to learn and use than Photoshop. And very powerful. I'm still amazed by its features.
- Price - It's a bargain: $89.95 for the Pro version-- much less than Photoshop.
- New version 3.5 (released September 2003) has a powerful advanced sharpening transformation and a stack transformation that allows digital camera images to be combined-- a great way of increasing dynamic range.
If you haven't mastered Photoshop and you don't need its extensive graphic arts capabilities, you should consider Picture Window Pro. A
photo.net forum discussion is well worth a look. I use Picture Window in my introduction to
Image editing, and I've written a set of in-depth tutorials on
Image editing with Picture Window Pro. There's no need for another Photoshop tutorial-- there are already dozens on the Web. I can't resist this quote by
John C. Dvorak (February 21, 2001) (
alternate URL ), who continues to use Photoshop for its graphics capabilities.
"Photoshop is probably one of the most problematic programs ever devised. Only a person who uses it everyday can come close to mastering it. Once, I was at Adobe's corporate headquarters and wanted to learn a trick, so I had one of the company hotshots show me. He must have shown me 10 different ways of doing the same thing. When I got home, I could recall none. ... Books like Monroy's are only for professionals, although Monroy and the publishers would probably not agree. In fact, there is no such thing as a Photoshop book for beginners because Photoshop has no natural point at which the uninitiated can begin. Learning Photoshop by reading would be like learning how to drive a Formula One car from a book."
I occasionally talk to people who have tried digital printing but prefer the old-fashioned chemical darkroom. They have one thing in common: they've struggled with Photoshop.
. | Why you need a 48-bit color/16-bit B&W image editor The image on the right of bristlecone pines on the Arapahoe Glacier trail is one of my favorites. But it doesn't look very promising straight out of the Canon FS4000US scanner (top right). The reason is that the sky is extremely bright, and the scanner software sets the brightness levels to maintain detail in the brightest and darkest parts of the image. As a result, most of the tonal range is occupied by the sky-- foreground tones are dark and compressed. (April 2002. The original scan came out quite a bit better with the latest version of Canon's FilmGet software, 1.0.3.) The image is edited (middle right) using the mask (bottom right) to adjust the foreground and sky separately. Foreground tones are brought up to the desired brightness and color. In a 24-bit (8 bits = 256 levels per channel) color file, grayscale levels-- tonal detail-- would have been lost in the dark compressed foreground; the adjusted image would have had a roughness to its colors. For example, levels 78, 79 and 80 might all be transformed to level 167. This doesn't happen to every level, but it must happen to some levels. There is no loss of scan detail in a 48-bit (16 bits = 65536 levels per channel) color file. It maintains its tonal detail when it's adjusted. Once these adjustments are complete the file may be saved as 24-bit color or 8 bit B&W without loss of quality. Many editors can't work in 48-bit precision, for example Photoshop LE, the "lite" version supplied with many scanners, and Photoshop Elements. Two that can are Photoshop (the full version, 6.0+) and Picture Window Pro (my favorite). Inkjetart.com has a particularly nice three part article illustrating the advantages of 48-bit editing. Color Management guru Bruce Fraser has excellent articles on the advantages of 48-bit editing and on Photoshop's 48-bit limitations. | | |
Additional software
Even though the image editor enables you to do most of what you need to transform a raw image into a work of art, some additional programs may come in handy. I haven't tested all of these, but all come with glowing recommendations from friends. - Neat Image A remarkable program for reducing noise and grain. You "train" it on a textureless area of an image. I describe it in detail in my page on Grain.
- Focus Magic A program that corrects for camera shake and misfocus without the increased noise and grain that comes with standard sharpening and Unsharp Mask (USM). Very intriguing-- its algorithms may be as sophisticated as Neat Image. I haven't tried it yet.
Printer
Several printer technologies are available-- laser, inkjet and dye sublimation. Inkjet printers, particularly those with six or more ink colors, lead the pack for photographic image quality. Printers have come a long way since I started digital darkroom work in 1998. There are two major types of inkjet printer.
- Dye-based Dyes are chemicals that come dissolved, usually in water. Dye-based inks are less expensive than pigment inks and tend to have larger color gamuts, but they are less lightfast and chemically stable. Early dye-based inkjet prints faded very rapidly-- in months, but newer dye-based inks have much better lightfastness-- 25 years or more when displayed under glass. Dyes can interact chemically with coatings on papers-- you should always make sure a paper is compatible with your inks. Most dye-based inkjet prints are susceptible to rapid, unpredictable chemical fading caused by oxidation from air pollution-- the notorious red shift in Epson and Canon prints. It tends to be worst in standard glossy or semigloss papers. Swellable polymer papers such as Epson ColorLife (semigloss surface) or Ilford Galerie Classic (gloss and pearl surfaces) last much longer.
- Pigment-based Pigments are tiny particles that come suspended in the solvent-- they aren't dissolved. Pigment inks tend to be more expensive than dye inks, but they are much more lightfast and chemically stable. Lifetimes are estimated at 80 to 200 or more years. Early pigment inks had poorer color gamuts than dye inks (in part because pigments tend to be more opaque than dyes), but recent pigment inks are competitive. Early pigment inks also tended to clog printer nozzles, but newer pigment inks are much improved. Epson is currently the only supplier of pigment-based inkjet printers, but several independent ink manufacturers supply pigment inks. Because pure pigment inks have a difficult time achieving high Dmax (deep blacks), dyes are often added to pigmented inksets. Fortunately, black dyes tend to be more stable than colored dyes.
 | . | To learn more about printers, particularly the Epson 1270, 1280/1290 and 2100/2200, go to Printers. This page contains tips on using printers and links. Specialized inks and fine art papers for Epson printers are listed in Papers and inks. | |
Some of the top printers today are - Epson Stylus Pro 2200 The printer I use. 13 inches wide. "Ultrachrome" pigmented inks feature long print life (75-100 years), excellent color gamut, and excellent B&W performance. $650. I would love the 17 inch wide 4000 or 24 inch wide 7600, both of which use the same ink technology, but they're much more expensive. The Epson R800, 8½ inches wide, due in January 2004, also uses Ultrachrome inks.
- Epson 1280/1290 13 inches wide. Good choice for tighter budgets: less expensive, shorter print life (about 25 years) and not quite as good for B&W. 8½ inch models are available.
- Canon S9000 Wide body (up to 13x19 inch) 6-ink dye-based printer with 25 year estimated life. Very fast. Replaceable (but expensive) print head. It apparently doesn't print longer than 19 inches-- so it won't do for large panoramic images. Michael Reichmann was favorably impressed. Steves-Digicams gave it a rave review. DP-now.com has a lengthy review in which they express a few reservations. Is being replaced by the i9100, but it's still available at an attractive price. The i9100 makes borderless 13x19 prints. (I prefer borders for protection against edge damage.) Steve's Digicams has a detailed review.
- Hewlett-Packard Photosmart 7980 8-ink printer includes two shades of gray in addition to black. Excellent for B&W printing-- superior to all other dye-based printers. Longer print life than Epson or Canon dye-based printers. Photo-i and Steve's Digicams have excellent detailed reviews.
Images and text copyright © 2000-2009 by Norman Koren.
Norman Koren lives in Boulder, Colorado, founded Imatest LLC in 2004, previously worked on magnetic recording technology. He has been involved with photography since 1964.
0 comments:
Post a Comment