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

John, you are one of the reasons I love being on this list. Grace

On Monday, December 5, 2005, at 03:47 AM, PhotoGecko wrote:

> 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 Tue Dec 6 13:11:26 2005