[alt-photo] Re: Epson 3880 and Snow Leopard

Tue Apr 13 13:24:33 GMT 2010

Thanks for the lengthy answer Jeremy. Will read later tonight after grantwriting all day.

I am really feeling since it was on both printers that it is an issue with the driver and SL and CS4.

I will not know until I get a WIndows/Photoshop computer, which is what I plan to do next week (borrow, not buy). I know that my 2400 worked fine on windows, not on SL, as can be shown on my website with the same file side by side--a Word file.

I have tried at least 6 different workarounds with the Luminous workaround--selecting ProPhoto instead of 1998 etc. and none work. Two more last night at 11 PM.

Very discouraging, but, hey, maybe something good will come along short of buying a laptop just for my printer and the list will benefit!
Chris

Christina Z. Anderson
christinaZanderson.com

On Apr 12, 2010, at 10:44 PM, Jeremy Moore wrote:

> The inkset of the 2400 is, I believe, incredibly similar to that of the 7800
> I use for printing. My printer prints "normal" CDRPs. I am not on Snow
> Leopard or I would run a test for you. I think if you are having the exact
> same problems with the 2400 and 3880 that is enough circumstantial evidence
> to rule out the inkset of the 3880 as the source of the problem. Is it
> possible that Epson changed how or which setting accomplish tasks what tasks
> with the new driver? Have you rechecked all of the sub-menus to see if there
> is something checked on/off that maybe should or shouldn't be? (They often
> add new default "features" which screw up what we're trying to do with )
> Have you printed any photographs--not digital negatives--with the printer?
> If so, how did they look?
> 
> A good test might be to shoot a jpg of a scene with a good range of bright
> colors and tones with your digi-camera. Download this jpg to the computer,
> open it up with an internet browser and print it on your 3880 using the
> default Epson settings--I'm talking go 'idiot mode' on this. These printers
> are all consumer models, which usually means the software is targeted at the
> lowest common denominator technician. If the photograph comes out looking
> "pastel" like the CDRP then your printer may be faulty. If the result is a
> photograph with normal looking colors then we add a new variable: print the
> jpg again via Photoshop and immediately print it (i.e. absolutely no
> editing), still using the default settings. Bad and we've found the problem:
> Photoshop. Good and you do your normal process for working with a photograph
> for digital negatives--do everything before you do the stuff that converts
> it from positive complete, ready image to a digital negative (i.e.
> inverting, flipping, process-based adjustment curve, etc)--and print with
> the default Epson driver settings. Bad and you know it's something you're
> doing in photoshop as part of how you process photographs and you can break
> that down step-by-step to test, but no reason to test it all at once. Then
> again, you could also jump straight to printing the photograph using your
> regular process on the images and the Epson default suggestions--that's why
> I asked about the regular printed photographs. I think this is a good
> experimental model for anyone having problems with digital negatives when
> they think a repeatable problem might be anything but user error in
> work-flow. I find that the technical level of those printing in digital
> negatives and frequenting this list are above the lowest common denominator
> and many of our problems are caused by struggling to use software not
> designed with our needs in mind.
> 
> When one makes digital negatives using the Epson printer driver and we're
> forced to update driver and/or we change operating systems we have to test
> out and try a whole new host of workarounds to use software to print
> something it wasn't designed to do. Printing digital negatives with the
> Epson printer driver is an endless cycle of hacks to forceThis is due to
> Epson only giving us partial access to what we need as digital negative
> printers: precise control over how much ink is deposited on the page. I
> believe this in and of itself is a great argument for printing with QTR. QTR
> was not designed to print digital negatives specifically, but its design
> more closely matches our needs. It was designed from the ground up to give
> the printer (you, not the machine) full control of each individual ink. Due
> to this you always have more control to directly address your problem with
> by using the precision at your disposal to linearize your inkset. This won't
> affect the quality of the prints at all as long as you stay within the
> printer's acceptable gamut, but you're not reliant on someone else to fix
> your problem so you don't have to wait for a fix to be found. If you put in
> the work to learn how to properly use QTR you can linearize your inkset to
> fix software issues outside of your control and get back to printing
> photographs again--the whole point here. QTR is still at fault, though as it
> is designed for a very savvy computer technician--no fooling, big learning
> curve here for the techno-feeble. Ike Eisenlord has graciously provided a
> Photoshop script to the community at HybridPhoto that automates quite a bit
> of this process. The problem here, though, is that you are then back to
> having something else mediate your direct control of your most fundamental
> need: precise control over how much ink is deposited. Then again, if Ike's
> script works for you then let it automate the process and spend the time you
> would have spent learning QTR making prints instead--the whole point here!
> The benefit with QTR is you always have the option to get under the hood, so
> to speak, and modify the nitty, gritty to make the software work for you--as
> opposed to the mysterious 'black box' your data is chugged through with the
> Epson driver--I would think this is a sentiment many in the alt community
> could embrace. This is analogous to a part of what I enjoy about working in
> alt.
> 
> So Alan, in answer to your question--"Must I stay with QTR?"--no, but you
> should =)
> 
> -jeremy-
> 
> On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 10:31 PM, Christina Anderson <zphoto at montana.net>wrote:
> 
>> Eric,
>> the pastel tonal palette is what is printed in gum below it.  It held back
>> NO light.  Usually on the color palette I get strips of white to black
>> varying on each row according to the color.  As you can see, no variation in
>> tonality.  No holding back enough UV light at all. So yes, the "print" aka
>> gumprint is "dark".
>> 
>> I can say that this easter egg phenomenon happened on the 2400 and the 3880
>> with Snow Leopard and CS4.
>> 
>> So it goes...
>> Chris
>> 
>> Christina Z. Anderson
>> christinaZanderson.com
>> 
> _______________________________________________
> Alt-photo-process-list | http://altphotolist.org/listinfo