[alt-photo] Re: Densitometer vs Scanner

[Globe Trotteur]

Ok, i will re calibrate and give it another try. Thanks for all the advice.PO
 > From: kmorris at stouffer.net
> To: alt-photo-process-list at lists.altphotolist.org
> Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2012 11:57:54 -0500
> Subject: [alt-photo] Re: Densitometer vs Scanner
> 
> I believe all the X-rite 810 models only read to two places. If you are 
> getting a reading of 1.20 and sometimes 1.19 or 1.21 your calibration step 
> wedge could actually be reading to the third place such as 1.206 and 
> rounding up to 1.21. The .01 shift could be attributed to slight voltage 
> variances. Our 810 is usually very stable but it will occasionally vary a 
> tiny amount. The X-Rite 310 that we use for most of our production is a bit 
> more finicky. There are days that it will need to be calibrated after every 
> sheet that is being density inspected.
> 
> It is our rule to always check the calibration of the densitometer before a 
> sheet of film is ever read.
> 
> Kevin Morris
> Stouffer Industries
> 
> -----Original Message----- 
> From: Globe Trotteur
> Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2012 11:42 AM
> To: alt-photo process-list
> Subject: [alt-photo] Re: Densitometer vs Scanner
> 
> 
> Well, when i sample a value with my densitometer, sometimes it gives me a 
> value of 1.2 and sometimes 1.19 or 1.21. Is that normal? I have the X-rite 
> 810. I need to recalibrate it too. have not dione that in a while.So if i 
> have 4 patches that i am sampling and they vary with 0.01, should I assume 
> that they have the same values? The scanner will assume that.Thanks.PO
> > Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2012 09:10:08 -0700
> > From: fdfragomeni at gmail.com
> > To: alt-photo-process-list at lists.altphotolist.org
> > Subject: [alt-photo] Re: Densitometer vs Scanner
> >
> > I have both my X-Rite densitometer (can't remember which model but it is
> > both reflection and transmission) and the densitometer (which is produced
> > my X-Rite as well) in my Epson V750Pro scanner and while the Epson is a
> > great piece of technology and I love it as a scannner, my X-Rite
> > densitometer is a precision machine designed for one specific purpose and 
> > I
> > carefully keep it calibrated. I trust my X-Rite densitometer far more then
> > I'd trust the densitometer in the scanner when it comes to the most
> > important things.
> >
> > If you have a trusted densitometer and you keep it calibrated I would
> > probably go with that one. The densitometer in the scanner is more then
> > capable and an excellent option for anyone who doens't already own a
> > trusted dedicated densitometer but it is just a different piece of
> > technology and is not a dedicated and maintained device (meaning you
> > actively keep it calibrated in the same way that you would with a 
> > dedicated
> > device). My $0.02, other's may have other opinions.
> >
> > -Francesco
> >
> > On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 8:33 AM, Globe Trotteur
> > <unglobetrotteur at hotmail.com>wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > While calibrating the new Ilford Art paper, i tried both with my
> > > densitometer and my scanner. Now my question is, which one is more
> > > accurate.My X-rite densitometer is showing different values for pure 
> > > white
> > > than the scanner does. It could be that the textured paper is affecting 
> > > the
> > > readings.Which method should I trust more?Thanks.Pierre-O
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Alt-photo-process-list | http://altphotolist.org/listinfo
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Alt-photo-process-list | http://altphotolist.org/listinfo
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Alt-photo-process-list | http://altphotolist.org/listinfo 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Alt-photo-process-list | http://altphotolist.org/listinfo