Several weeks ago, I wrote a series of posts (starting here) about my new Epson 7900.....my review was not particularly glowing because of a number of difficulties I was having with the machine. I suspect that I may well have left people with the opinion that I was not pleased with the printer and that I was sorry that I had purchased it. In fact, I received several e-mails from folks who were considering buying one. I thought I should write one final post to 'clear the air' about the machine and my personal experience.
It is true that I was quite dissatisfied with the printer as it originally functioned. I fully documented that in my original series. What I would like to make clear is that once I had the printhead changed (by an extremely knowledgeable and easy to deal with technician) and turned off the automatic nozzle check the machine has functioned perfectly.
Specifically:
I have always had difficulty in the warmer months with ink clogs. While I still do get them on occasion, I can say that I am getting fewer of them than I did with my 7600 and they seem to clear easily with just a single cleaning from the front panel. My problem with persistent clogs with green ink has totally resolved.
Since keeping the platen gap setting at normal, I am no longer getting the "zebra striping" that I described in my first series of posts. Why opening the platen gap wider seems to make things worse is not at all clear to me.
The output is absolutely lovely.
I really enjoy making prints on papers using the photo black ink. I also find soft proofing with these papers much easier than with matte papers.
I should mention that it does seem 'easier' to get 'mild' head strikes on the 7900 as compared to the 7600. I have to make sure that the paper is as flat as possible. With sheets I will gently bend them as needed before printing to get them to lie flat, and with rolls I will gently curl them in the opposite direction around a tube (a home made D-Roller) prior to printing. This may be because with the 7600 I kept the palten gap set to 'wide', which seems to cause problems with my 7900 and the papers I am currently using.
At this point I am very pleased with the printer and very glad to have bought it. In fact, I am thinking about selling the 7600. Do I wish that I hadn't had all my initial difficulty which necessitated two visits from a tech and replacement of the printhead? Sure. But I don't think that one can extrapolate from this single printer that there is a generalized problem. When it comes to technology I guess there will always be the occasional device that comes off the assembly line a bit out of whack.
One thing though, in several years, when the technology has jumped forward yet again, it is going to be very difficult to upgrade if Epson makes this beast any bigger or heavier!
Jun 30, 2009
Epson 7900 - Epilogue
Jun 26, 2009
Unphotographable
Michael David Murphy doesn’t think so. In fact, he has his own website devoted to images that he experienced but did not have the opportunity to photograph. In his own words, his website called “Unphotographable” is a ‘catalog of exceptional mistakes. Photos never taken that weren't meant to be forgotten. Opportunities missed. Simple failures. Occasions when I wished I'd taken the picture, or not forgotten the camera, or had been brave enough to click the shutter.’
With his incredible descriptions the image can be clearly seen in our mind if not on paper. Perhaps the image is not lost.
Jun 21, 2009
High Pass Filtration
I usually don’t post information about Photoshop techniques simply because there is an entire universe of websites dedicated to Photoshop that are run by folks who are far more Photoshop savvy than I could ever hope to be. However, every so often I run across a technique that I find really interesting and so, on those occasions, a post about it seems reasonable. Such is the case with High Pass Filtration. Please don’t consider this to be the definitive ‘how to’ regarding this technique but, rather, a jumping off point to look into it in a more sophisticated manner if it seems of interest to you.
The reason I found High Pass filtration interesting is that while ‘surfing the net’ I have occasionally come across images that seem to have a somewhat ‘enhanced’ sense of reality that gives them a very three dimensional appearance. The effect seems somewhat similar to the HDR effect, but tuned down. When I have followed discussions about such images the photographer will often say, when asked, that the image in question was not processed with HDR software.
So, it whet my interest when I ran across a technique which, by description, seemed to be one way to generate this effect. It is done by using the
At any rate, here is a way to use this technique in order to see if it will achieve a desirable effect (plus I made my own little addition to what I read). Once the image you are considering using it on is complete, duplicate the image and flatten it, but don’t sharpen it yet. Now the image consists of only a background layer. Duplicate this background layer twice and click the icons to turn these duplicate layers off, making them invisible. Now click back on the background layer to make it active and go to the Photoshop filters and choose
Perhaps the effect is too much? That is why I added the second duplicate layer (which is not visible at this point) on top of the others at the start of the technique. Click on that layer to now make it active and click on the icon to make it visible. The image now appears as it did before starting. But turn down the opacity of this topmost layer to let the filtered look come through and see how you like it.
A few comments:
1) I have only played around with this technique a bit and found that there are some images that it truly enhances and others that it totally destroys.
2) If an image is found that would benefit from this technique, the entire process can obviously be performed within the original file by duplicating the entire image and placing the entire image on a new layer and working from there.
4) It really is difficult to duplicate this effect with curves....I tried.
3) With the image size being so small, and with the effect being toned down with the topmost layer blogs don't really lend themselves to really demonstrating the effect well…..so, if it sounds interesting, play around with it on your own images and see what you think. With that in mind I am posting one example. The only difference between these two images was the High Pass filtration step.
Pre High Pass FiltrationCopyright Howard Grill
Post High Pass FiltrationCopyright Howard Grill
Jun 17, 2009
IR
After planning for quite some time to have a camera converted to infrared, I finally got it done. I had my old Canon 1Ds converted for IR photography by LifePixel. They did a great job.
There are three IR filters that are offered by LifePixel: Standard Color IR, Enhanced Color IR, and Deep Black And White IR. Examples of the types of results that can be obtained with each of the three filters can be found on their sample image page. I personally do not enjoy the aesthetic of color IR, but do very much like the 'look' of black and white infrared imaging.....so I went with the Deep Black And White IR filter, which blocks most visible light. In addition, the camera's auto-focus is adjusted to the Canon 50mm f1.8 lens in the process.
So, I got the opportunity to take the camera out a few days ago. Of course, once an hour away from home, I discovered that I hadn't reattached the camera's "L Plate" used to mount it to my tripod. I had removed it prior to sending the camera in for conversion. I therefore had to experiment and play around with the camera hand-held. I wasn't trying to do 'serious' photography but, rather, just wanted to get a feel for what the results might look like.
Here is an example of what I am getting out of camera. The image was shot in RAW format with just a few quick adjustments in Lightroom to improve contrast.
WaterfallCopyright Howard Grill
Jun 12, 2009
Diffraction In Digital Imaging
In the past, it has often been said that the rules of photography are the same whether one shoots digitally or using film. Certainly this is true when it comes to the art of composition, but when it comes to capturing the image there are certain technical aspects that are not quite the same.
The first one that comes to mind is the so called ‘expose to the right’ issue. Most people doing serious digital capture and that are shooting in RAW format are familiar with this concept. In short, most of the data and, therefore, detail that the digital sensor can capture is ‘located’ in the ‘brightest’ stop or two of the image. Therefore, the image should optimally be exposed such that the histogram is pushed as far to the right as possible, without actually clipping. While the image is now overexposed by conventional standards (and therefore this method will not work acceptably well in jpeg format), by shifting the exposure downward in the RAW processor the correct degree of brightness can be achieved and more detail captured than if the exposure had been ‘correct’ by conventional standards.
But you already knew that. What is more interesting is material that I recently read in the magazine Photo Techniques (which is a small magazine in terms of page numbers, but one that is well worth subscribing to). In the Jan/Feb 2009 issue, I learned that there may be significant differences with current digital capture when it comes to diffraction effects and depth of field.
Without going into detail (for that I strongly recommend getting the issue), I would like to provide a quote to whet your interest. In the conclusion of the article by Lloyd Chambers entitled “Diffraction: Resolution Taxed To Its Limits” Mr. Chambers states:
“As megapixels increase, diffraction will become the dominant factor limiting image sharpness, unless and until improved optical designs allow near-diffraction-limited imaging at apertures such as f2, f2.8, and f4. Such lenses are feasible, but will be larger, heavier, and much more expensive than today’s optics. When depth of field is a priority, ‘tilt’ lenses should be used in order to evade the diffraction/depth of field conflict.
To paraphrase an old maxim: f8 and stop there. That simple rule will maintain optimal or near-optimal lens performance and image contrast resolution with today’s DSLRs, while offering reasonable depth of field for many subjects. Stopping down to f11 or f16 is warranted with some subjects, but the contrast compromise should be kept in mind.”
Interesting stuff….the idea that with today’s high quality sensors and optics, diffraction plays a role much sooner (in terms of stopping down to achieve greater depth of field) than when using film.
I put some of this information to use with results that surprised me. I have previously mentioned and shown extreme macro-images I have made from slabs of stone. Though these slabs are flat in the general sense, they are cut with a saw and thus in the ‘macro’ sense are not truly flat. In order to maximize depth of field at high magnification (>1:1) I had been shooting at f16 and f 22. I recently tried shooting at f8 and f11 instead and found that the results were, indeed, sharper. And in this case the depth of field was still adequate with enhanced apparent sharpness. I now shoot all these types of images at f8.
Obviously, when shooting landscapes or other scenes where there are near/far objects that one desires to be in focus, there will be trade offs between sharpness and depth of field. However, it is worth experimenting with one’s equipment, or at least taking shots at a variety of apertures since, in many instances, the improved sharpness will be more desirable than increased depth of field with sub-optimal sharpness throughout.
There are definitely some interesting things to ponder here!
Jun 8, 2009
Carrying A Camera
I have always had the desire to keep a camera with me all the time....to have one available for those unplanned shots that good fortune presents as well as to constantly 'keep in practice'. I even went so far as to purchase a smaller, but high quality, camera in the form of the Canon G10. I have found good use for that camera when I am going somewhere special without my primary purpose being photography. In those cases, I know ahead of time that I might want to take some photos. However, I have also found that I don't use it all that frequently when I just have it with me but hadn't planned on photographing.
It just seems as if I need to be in a certain mindset to specifically go out and make photographs. A mindset where I know that I am giving my entire attention over to the idea of composing and thinking about photos. This surprised me because when I am driving around, such as when I am coming home from work, I will try to compose photos of what I am seeing out of my window in my mind. However, either I don't have the time to stop or, more likely, the image that I see in my mind's eye is not attainable because it is not possible to stop and take it from that vantage point.
I know some folks can always carry a camera with them and use it....but it seems difficult for me. Perhaps I have to try to do so more frequently. In the meantime, I hope that practicing in my mind, as I often do, is effective. I happen to run across this quote, which is what made me think about this topic:
Minor White
At least I can take some comfort that Minor White thinks there is benefit to doing so!
Jun 4, 2009
Camera Motion Abstracts
Time to get back to showing some actual images! A few weeks ago, I went out with a friend to photograph in a park that I hadn't been to before. At one point, after having been out for a few hours, the lighting became a bit harsh, so I started experimenting with making abstracts by purposefully moving the tripod mounted camera in the vertical plane. This is the sort of thing that one has to do many times over in order to get something that looks 'right'. This is one of my favorites from the series that I took.
Copyright Howard Grill
Another person who has produced amazing work using this technique is William Neill. Find his e-book "Impressions Of Light" here. Beautiful images and well worth the price of $15.
