Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital Cameras (Point and Shoot) > Panasonic / Leica

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Mar 30, 2005, 8:04 AM   #1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 828
Default

As you'll see from the subject line, I'm really entering my second childhood...

The original was taken with the FZ20, cropped and colour corrected in PS plus a bit of USM.

It was then printed on the Epson R310 Photo (fitted with a cheap Chinese CIS system and using the cheap Chinese ink supplied with it.)

I left the print dry for a few hours, then scanned it back into PS with the Epson 4990 Photo scanner, using the scanner's 'auto' Twain setting.

It needed a small bit of colour correction (I feel I might have overdone it just a tad) and a tiny bit of USM.

I think it came out quite well -- your opinions may differ (comments apppreciated!)

Attached Images
 
Idle is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Mar 30, 2005, 8:13 AM   #2
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 828
Default

This is the scan of the R310 Photo print.
Attached Images
 
Idle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 30, 2005, 12:01 PM   #3
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Indian Rocks Beach, FL
Posts: 4,036
Default

Quote:
This is the scan of the R310 Photo print.
Then what is the first one? I'm guessing the second one is unaltered from the FZ20 image. I think I like her face a little better on the second one.

If you have a photo you printed with the original Epson ink and paper that you can print from the same file, you can get an idea of where you have to go with a profile for the new ink. I have no idea what the two images are comparing, but you need a photo from the original Epson ink printed directly from a file with no adjustments to make a reasonable comparison. The results look good for an unknown ink source. Do they claim the ink is pigmented?

I've avoided Epsons because of the chip reprogramming. I know it can be done, but you just put ink in Canons and HPs. Canon printers even directly measure the ink and give an accurate low ink warning after you refill. If your CIS holds up and works well for a reasonable price I might consider switching to Epson's R1800. Unfortunately they didn't extend the 128 inch panorama (with certain applications in XP) from the R300, but 44 inches is a lot better than 24. Please keep us apprised how your CIS is holding up. And the name and particulars would be helpful for finding a US source.

I am still using my Canon S9000 because if I dual boot to Win98 there was a glitch in the original driver that let you print banners at photo quality on photo paper. Canon has closed the loophole and as far as I know there isn't a consumer Canon printer on the market that will print over 24 inches in width. I have it on fairly good authority that Canon could easily change the firmware to print panoramas, but have no intention of doing so until they produce panorama or roll paper. They make most of their profits overcharging for ink and paper and don't want you changing brands. This is a valid concern on their part because I have switched almost exclusively to Red River paper so that my panoramas are on the same paper as my other photos.

I'm guessing you have negatives and/or slides to scan. If not, that scanner is overkill. It is probably the best consumer flatbed available. I'm considering getting one to convert my large film and slide collection. I have a dedicated film scanner, but it takes only one film strip at a time. It isn't practical for scanning large numbers of negatives and slides. If I wanted a large print I could use the dedicated film scanner.

slipe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 30, 2005, 8:01 PM   #4
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 828
Default

Quote:
Then what is the first one? I'm guessing the second one is unaltered from the FZ20 image. I think I like her face a little better on the second one
Actually, the top picture is a crop from the original FZ image -- the second is a flatbed scan of an inkjet print of the crop, and if you look hard at the second one you'll see noise in the fence -- very likely from the extra USM.

Strangely, the noise doesn't appear in prints, only on-screen -- which I'd class as a 'good thing'.

I do scan a few neg's and slides -- not as many in these digital days -- and the 4990 IS probably overkill, but then it replaces a now seldom used Polaroid 4000 film scanner and a GT8500 flatbed (both SCSI) which between them brought somewhat more than enough to pay for it, so really I'm gaining a bit of space and removing some cable clutter.

I don't know how you'd get on fitting a CIS to the R1800 Photo -- looking at the one I have in the R310, there could be serious problems keeping the longer tubes from jamming between head and casing.

I didn't use the supplier's tube routing instructions for the R310, either -- studied the setup carefully and found a better (and easier) method, so I still have all the brackets and double-sided tape unused, and didn't have to take the cover off the cartridge holder.

Re the ink, I didn't even open the original OEM cartridges so can't say how the output compares, but so far I've found it surprisingly easy to match printed output quite closely to the original scene, which is really what it's all about.

Comparing it to the local high street film lab's results, I think they look better.

Like you, I'm very interested to see how the CIS holds up -- never fitted one before.

I also modified the drain tube to feed the waste ink from head cleans outside the printer, so if it ever declares the waste pads full I don't have to replace them, just reset the counter.
Idle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 30, 2005, 8:17 PM   #5
Senior Member
 
boyzo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,544
Default

Idle wrote:
Quote:
Quote:
Then what is the first one? I'm guessing the second one is unaltered from the FZ20 image. I think I like her face a little better on the second one
Actually, the top picture is a crop from the original FZ image -- the second is a flatbed scan of an inkjet print of the crop, and if you look hard at the second one you'll see noise in the fence -- very likely from the extra USM.

Strangely, the noise doesn't appear in prints, only on-screen -- which I'd class as a 'good thing'.

I do scan a few neg's and slides -- not as many in these digital days -- and the 4990 IS probably overkill, but then it replaces a now seldom used Polaroid 4000 film scanner and a GT8500 flatbed (both SCSI) which between them brought somewhat more than enough to pay for it, so really I'm gaining a bit of space and removing some cable clutter.

I don't know how you'd get on fitting a CIS to the R1800 Photo -- looking at the one I have in the R310, there could be serious problems keeping the longer tubes from jamming between head and casing.

I didn't use the supplier's tube routing instructions for the R310, either -- studied the setup carefully and found a better (and easier) method, so I still have all the brackets and double-sided tape unused, and didn't have to take the cover off the cartridge holder.

Re the ink, I didn't even open the original OEM cartridges so can't say how the output compares, but so far I've found it surprisingly easy to match printed output quite closely to the original scene, which is really what it's all about.

Comparing it to the local high street film lab's results, I think they look better.

Like you, I'm very interested to see how the CIS holds up -- never fitted one before.

I also modified the drain tube to feed the waste ink from head cleans outside the printer, so if it ever declares the waste pads full I don't have to replace them, just reset the counter.
Great thread Idle.
The scanned print is very good compared to original just a bit lacking in omph,the printer is doing a fine job nice printers epson.
boyzo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 30, 2005, 8:33 PM   #6
Senior Member
 
nooner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,452
Default

I'm not sure what you're trying to show. If you had to tweak the scan of the print, it means either the scanner was off or the printer was off from the original. It still shows some color cast and looks different than the orignal. 2cents.
nooner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 30, 2005, 9:53 PM   #7
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 828
Default

Reason I had to 'tweak' is that I ran everything at default -- haven't even tried to calibrate the scanner yet, nor the printer settings.

I seem to find that pix lose a bit in the process of reducing them to post on-line.

Probably I'm just wasting everyone's time?
Idle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 31, 2005, 10:19 AM   #8
tb1
Member
 
tb1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 54
Default

Interesting thread, Idle. Since you've asked for comments I'll bite. In addition to the color cast previously mentioned and the out of focus subject, I'm seeing quite a bit of grain across the printed image. This includes not only fence but also across the subject's face and eyes. I don't think this is related to downsizing for posting - unless this is an blow-up of a tiny crop. Looks like a large dot pitch almost like it was printed on regular paper in a lower quality draft mode? (If this dot pitch is only seen post scan check the resolution (dpi) of the scanner mode you selected.) I don't have an Epson but I bet if you dig around in the printer properties and experiment with photo papers (some work better with pigment vs dye inks etc) your prints will improve. I'd also recommend checking out the OEM ink and paper while calibrating printer and scanner output. Color profiling from image to monitor to printer to scanner is a tweaky process, but well worth it in the long run - less wasted ink, photo paper and time. Don't know what software you are printing from but I highly recommend Qimage (http://www.ddisoftware.com/qimage/ ) it will take care of color profiling, resizing and sharpening for print.

Have fun with your new stuff-very nice gear that should be capable of superb output!
tb1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 31, 2005, 10:26 PM   #9
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 828
Default

Thanks for the comments -- looks like I've a bit to learn about scanning prints (which of course I wouldn't need to do with my own original inkjet output-- this was just a test to see how it would work.)

Since it was made in my own backyard, I took the print out and compared it to the original scene (minus the main subject, of course -- my grand-niece visited Easter Saturday) and the colour fidelity and sharpness was better than I would have accepted from the local film processor had I shot it on the old Nikon, so obviously anything you see wrong I've introduced in processing.

I've since had a quick look at the options available on the 4990 scanner and been suitably impressed (appalled?) by the amount of learning I'll have to do...

Aslo, to Slipe, if you read this -- there are several options for coping with the current chipped cartridges.

If money is no object, you can keep replacing the OEM items
(circa $120 a set here -- half the price of the R310 printer --, and they only hold a few cents worth of ink (about 10ml -- 60 millilitres in the whole set of 6)), you can buy after-market carts, you can fit a CIS system, you can buy a chip resetter and refill the OEM carts, you can have them professionally refilled and reset, you can purchase refillable cartridges and use your own choice of ink, and you can even buy the auto-resetting chips and fit them (fiddly, but it can be done) to the OEM cartridges.

I daresay there are teams of engineers (and lawyers...) looking for ways to circumvent all this, but for the moment that's how it stands.
Idle is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 6:27 AM.