[alt-photo] Re: Densitometer vs Scanner

[Francesco Fragomeni]

Great! Glad it worked out!

-Francesco

On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 4:33 PM, Globe Trotteur
<unglobetrotteur at hotmail.com>wrote:

>
> just an update...Re calibrating my X-rite fixed all the weird values i was
> getting.I am good now.thanks for the advice..Pierre
>  > Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2012 11:39:13 -0700
> > From: fdfragomeni at gmail.com
> > To: alt-photo-process-list at lists.altphotolist.org
> > Subject: [alt-photo] Re: Densitometer vs Scanner
> >
> > Pierre,
> >
> > Looks like we have the same densitometer. Mine is an 810 as well (at
> least
> > I think it is as thats sounds familar and I googled it and it looks the
> > same as mine. I'm not home at the moment to check but I'm 99% sure thats
> > what it is). It isn't entirely unusual to see a very slight variance in
> > readings and as Kevin said, it could be due to slight fluctuations in
> > voltage. From what I understand, Kevin is also right in that the
> > densitometer is reading to the thrid place and rounding up in the value
> > that it displays. This makes it more precise in its readings. If you
> > haven't calibrated it recently you should definitely do that. If you
> don't
> > have the calibration step tablet and ceramic plate, X-Rite will send you
> a
> > set for a price. I can't remember but when I replaced mine I think it was
> > around $200.
> >
> > -Francesco
> >
> > On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 9:57 AM, Kevin Morris <kmorris at stouffer.net>
> wrote:
> >
> > > 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<
> 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<
> http://altphotolist.org/listinfo>
> > >> >
> > >> ______________________________**_________________
> > >> Alt-photo-process-list | http://altphotolist.org/**listinfo<
> http://altphotolist.org/listinfo>
> > >>
> > >
> > > ______________________________**_________________
> > > Alt-photo-process-list | http://altphotolist.org/**listinfo<
> http://altphotolist.org/listinfo>
> > > ______________________________**_________________
> > > Alt-photo-process-list | http://altphotolist.org/**listinfo<
> http://altphotolist.org/listinfo>
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Alt-photo-process-list | http://altphotolist.org/listinfo
>
> _______________________________________________
> Alt-photo-process-list | http://altphotolist.org/listinfo
>