<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<PRE>Computer shows always seem to have an abundance of ink-jet refill vendors.</PRE>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
A search engine found these tidbits.
<P>at <A HREF="http://www.repeatotype.com/refills.html">http://www.repeatotype.com/refills.html</A>
<BR>-Repeat-O-Type now offers replacement cartridges
<BR> guaranteed to be 100% compatible with the original
<BR> equipment manufacturer's cartridges.
<P>I've not used these products, but this company seems to be pretty agressive
with its products...check this page out
<BR><A HREF="http://www.repeatotype.com/press/pr032498.html">http://www.repeatotype.com/press/pr032498.html</A>
<BR>-Supreme Court Declines to Hear Hewlett-Packard Appeal -
<BR> Repeat-O-Type Wins Patent Infringement Suit!
<P>They offer fade resistant black inks refills for most inkjet printers.
<P>later
<P>Darryl</HTML>
</x-html>From ???@??? Thu May 21 08:49:11 1998
Return-Path: <alt-photo-process-error@skyway.usask.ca>
Received: from skybat.usask.ca (skybat.usask.ca [128.233.1.27])
by mail3.netcom.com (8.8.5-r-beta/8.8.5/(NETCOM v1.02)) with SMTP id VAA21264;
Wed, 20 May 1998 21:07:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from process.sask.usask.ca by sask.usask.ca (PMDF V5.1-10 #27648)
id <01IX9SY0J0348Y5HQU@sask.usask.ca> (original mail from jseigel@panix.com)
; Wed, 20 May 1998 22:05:51 CST
Received: from panix2.panix.com by sask.usask.ca (PMDF V5.1-10 #27648)
with ESMTP id <01IX9SXZB7G68Y5V2T@sask.usask.ca> for
alt-photo-process-l-expand@process.sask.usask.ca; Wed,
20 May 1998 22:05:14 -0600 (CST)
Received: from localhost (jseigel@localhost)
by panix2.panix.com (8.8.5/8.8.8/PanixU1.4) with SMTP id AAA03031; Thu,
21 May 1998 00:05:10 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Thu, 21 May 1998 00:05:09 -0400 (EDT)
From: Judy Seigel <jseigel@panix.com>
Subject: gun at yr head (was Step wedges)
In-reply-to: <356385D4.F3D206A6@silver-bayou.com>
To: Dwight Shackelford <tshack@silver-bayou.com>
Cc: alt-photo-list <alt-photo-process-L@skyway.usask.ca>
Errors-to: jseigel@panix.com
Message-id: <Pine.SUN.3.94.980520232332.29538C-100000@panix2.panix.com>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Comments: "alt-photo-process mailing list"
X-UIDL: d70c76a6abe5ec9a0bf598daec575070
On Wed, 20 May 1998, Dwight Shackelford wrote:
> I remember some discussion here about a year ago about inexpensive step
> wedges. I'm looking at Bostick & Sullivan's page and the calibrated one costs
> $19 (uncalibrated $8). Is there still a less expensive alternative available?
>
> What is the practical difference between the two mentioned above? Could I
> produce something myself cheaper?
>
> Dwight
Look folks, I can't hold a gun at your head and FORCE you to get the first
free introductory issue of The World Journal of Post-Factory Photography,
but I promised not to be like Luis and just say "read my book." So I'll
quote a few items WITH the page numbers.
First, there's an entire 3-part article about use of the step wedge, for
making enlarged negatives, for matching the negative to the emulsion
paper/ combination, and for reading step prints so you don't have to make
test prints for each negative -- pages 33 to 41.
There are several clear and distinct (also good-looking) schematics of
step prints with explanations of exactly how to read them, examples of how
different types of exposures will display (page 35), a chart on how to use
your step print instead of a densitometer (page 39), plus scans of actual
step prints showing the kinds of fine readings you can get from them (page
40 and 41).
There are examples of the various styles and sizes of step wedges
throughout the article, (I mean the whole thing is a positive HYMN to the
step wedge) with a rundown on the types made by Stouffer and Kodak at
prices from $5.40 to $180, depending on size & whether or not calibrated
(page 39).
There is also the information (page 37) that "I use the Stouffer Company's
T2115," a description of its adorable nature and the fact that it "costs
$5.50 cents plus postage with a discount for bulk orders to schools (see
Sources)." In that, by the way, I made a careless mistake (the only one
in the issue, guaranteed) because the actual price is $5.40 each plus
shipping. I also point out that for our purposes, and the tolerances we
work at, calibrated wedges are totally beside the point (page 38).
But I advise against getting only one, which gets lonely and wanders off
just when you need it most. You can never, in fact have too many -- I
often use 26 at a time to test two variations of emulsion on 13 papers. In
effect, for just one exposure you get a heap of information. As for
producing one yourself, don't bother. As I say on page 34, "The
manufacturers of step guides have devised ways to go from film base to
D-max in equal steps, but we in the real world have not." I believe some
folks like David Fokos have devised ways to approximate equal density with
digital ramps, but I believe that is also the advanced class -- and
specific to digital negatives.
In case you're wondering, BTW, I do not own stock in Stouffers, they do
not give me a special price (tho I've ordered hundreds on school
stationery at the educational discount for classes), and Dwight
Shackleford is a real person, not a construct of my diabolical marketing
plan.
Finally,in section 9 of Post-Factory's four pages of Sources and Services,
"Photo Equipment and Supplies" (page 46), is Stouffer Graphic Arts Equip't
Co, 1801 Commerce Dr., South Bend, Ind, 46628, 219/234-5023, fax
219/232-7989 or www.stouffer.net. Here I do note the price correctly, at
$5.40 each, and add that Stouffer sells "other resolution guides, gray
scales, scanner scales, etc."
cheers, and thanks for asking, Dwight,
Judy