So, Dan. . . ? Was: Inkjet (2200) digital neg banding

Dan,

Okay, help me out here. I'm a bit slow, as you know. I'm lost somewhere
between light, pixels, and dorsal orientation.

I take it that transmission densities have to do with properties allowing
relative amounts of light to pass through the relative densities of a given
negative. . . ? Whereas, I would guess, reflective densities have to do
with the reproduction of a given image as reflected by a light source onto
some other strata. . . ?

Or some such. . . . I dunno. As I said, I'm a bit slow, and not
well-trained in any aspects of physics. (I mean, I sort of get Gravity, but
only when I'm standing or sitting for a *very* long time while waiting for
my wife to finish trying on clothes so we can finally go eat, you know?)
;~>

Anyway, how could *banding* be an effect of transmission or reflective
densities vis-a-vis a (still somewhat cumbersome) inkjet printer. . . ?
It's sort of like my Cajun friend (a relative, actually) asked about the
Thermos Bottle: "It keep hot hot and cold cold. . . .How do it know?"

I can remember 4 or more years ago (or 5 or 6, I've lost count) being highly
frustrated by the insufferable banding coming out of a 3300 (it was
right-side-up, by the way, not belly-up--I looked) on both negative and
positive prints (both transmission and reflective densities, yes. . . ?) I
finally concluded, and faithfully reported to this very list, that the
printer was profoundly emotionally disturbed. No amount of medication or
therapy helped, though God knows I exhausted every resource at my disposal.
I suspect it was suffering from Borderline Printer Disorder--very difficult
to manage, and impossible to cure. But I digress. . . .

So, how could a printer distinguish what it prints between ink and not ink.
. . ? Well, no, wait--That's what a printer does, right? --ink and not ink.
But I mean, how does it distinguish the opposites of ink and not ink and go
banding. . . ?

 I'm not arguing here, you understand. I have no doubt you're right. I
could understand if any given printer just said, "Okay, I'll do your
positives day in and day out with style and grace--but I WILL NOT do your
negatives anymore, Mr. You-Want-Everything."

;~>

I always thought banding had to do with something out of sync-- software,
hardware, or humanware. I dunno. . . Like I said, I don't get physics.

(Dan will forgive me for this, I trust. He's forgiven far worse. And I
really want to know the answer.)

Best to all. See you.

-John
_____________________
John Campbell
PhotoGecko Studios Austin
www.photogecko.com

----- Original Message -----
From: "Dan Burkholder" <fdanb@aol.com>
To: <alt-photo-process-l@skyway.usask.ca>
Sent: 12/03/2005 5:56 PM
Subject: Re: Inkjet (2200) digital neg banding

> Hey Clyde,
>
> If it hasn't been suggested already, can you output one of your files on
> another 2200? That should tell you quickly if your printer has gone
> belly-up. Over the years I've had several printers "wear-out" as
> negative-makers while they still produced fine prints. It's just a more
> demanding task when dealing with transmission densities as opposed to
> reflective densities.
>
> Good luck!
>
> Dan
>
> --
> www.DanBurkholder.com
> www.TinyTutorials.com
>
>
>
Received on Mon Dec 5 02:48:29 2005