Ibarionex Perello, during one of his recent Candid Frame interviews, said, almost offhandedly:
Brooks Jensen was talking to me....directly to me. Well, that's the way it sure felt anyway! I am referring to his recent 'Editor's Comments' in the current issue of LensWork. His thoughts were particularly apropos to me and, I suspect, to many other photographer/artists.
The basic premise of his essay was that perfectionism is at the root of the problem many photographers have with actually finishing a project and calling it complete. The project that is finished opens one's work up to critique and thereby the possibility that it is not 'perfect'. The incomplete project can, of course, still theoretically become perfect work by applying further effort. Ultimately, Mr. Jensen continues, we need to be able to distinguish between 'theoretically perfect and practically superb' if we are to break this cycle that leads us to procrastination. Not a procrastination borne of laziness, but borne of fear.
While he goes on to offer sources of motivation to complete projects, which are also quite helpful and insightful, I found that it was the portion of the essay which clearly defined the issue that really spoke to me. It could very well be a chapter from the classic book 'Art And Fear'.
For me, this essay was very important to read and think about (in fact, I reread it several times)....and just one more reason to subscribe to LensWork if you don't already do so.
Bill Jay, who I have written about several times on Motivation, passed away on May 13th. I never met or knew him, but absolutely loved to read his writing and look at his photographs of people. Most recently, I finished a wonderful out of print book of his that had been recommended to me entitled "Cyanide And Spirits". Many of the essays in that book can be found on his website, where he generously made all of his writings available to anyone who sought them out.
Brooks Jensen, the editor of Lenswork, is collecting anecdotes and statements from people that knew him and is going to be compiling them. I look forward to reading about Mr. Jay from those who knew him personally. The information regarding that can be found here. More information about Mr. Jay's life can be found on Mary Virginia Swanson's website here.
I am interrupting the blog to report that we now have a new family member.....an 8 week old kitten! It was adopted from a nearby shelter, having been raised by a foster family until it was big enough to move in with someone permanently. We don't quite have a name for her yet. She was named Nile by the family that was raising her, but I think we are going to rename her. I am voting for Cleo (as in Cleopatra, Queen of the Nile), but we will see what the kids decide.
It is unbelievable how small she is....reminded me of bringing my kids home from the hospital that first time. My oldest was holding the transport box ever so gently, carefully and flat while we were bringing her out to the car....I told him "well, now you sort of know what it was like the first time I brought you home in the car!".
Just a quick break from photography for the announcement...and yes, I know the picture is blurry. It was taken by my wife, via cell phone from the shelter.
I guess this is a bit of old news, but I still found it quite interesting and hadn't seen this blog/website before.
Chuck Westfall has been an executive with Canon for some time, both in the Consumer Imaging Group as well as with Canon USA’s Professional Products Marketing Division. Last November he agreed to field questions from folks like you and I. This blog has the questions asked as well as his repsonses. If you are a Canon user it makes interesting reading. Check it out here.
I recently had the opportunity to learn firsthand how difficult meaningful pixel peeping can be. A friend let me use his Canon 5D MKII and I was interested in finding out how the native file sharpness compared to my 1Ds MKII. So I decided to get out my tripod and take the same shots with the two cameras and see how the RAW files compared. I knew there would be some difficulty in comparing the two images based purely on the difference in the number of pixels (16 vs 21 MP), but what I hadn't considered is what other issues might effect the comparison.
I learned a lesson as to just how difficult it can be to make such comparisons in a meaningful way, as each time I looked at a pair of images on the computer screen I thought of another confounding variable that might be affecting the results. The exercise pointed out to me how careful one needs to be when reading comments and evaluations on various internet forums, where perhaps everyone does not take all these factors into consideration when making such comparisons.
What follows are some of the confounding variables that I was able to recognize:
1) Metering: As it turns out, the two cameras gave different exposures despite having no exposure compensation dialed in for either. I hadn't considered the fact that different exposures meant different appearances to the highlights and shadows. Thus, the photo need to be taken in manual mode with the exact same aperture and shutter speed and not simply taken on aperture priority.
2)White Balance: Yes, the color balance of the two cameras was somewhat different and this can lead to different amounts of apparent contrast which appears to make sharpness differ. To make a fair comparison I had to do a custom white balance for each.
3)Focus: By far the biggest issue of all is the factor of how well the camera is focused. I don't have the greatest eyes in the world. I was very surprised at how different (at 100% viewing on the computer) several different manual focus shots were in terms of sharpness (I was shooting at a distant object at 200mm focal length to try to 'stress' the camera's resolving power). Many images were similar but some demonstrated quite a difference in sharpness despite coming from the same camera with repeat manual focusing. So one would have to take several shots and pick the sharpest one for comparison.
What about auto-focus? Despite using the center focusing point I was surprised to see that on the 5D MKII the sharpest area was not what was directly focused on. There was a bit of front-focus. We are not talking about a lot here...perhaps a few inches and I was using a Canon 70-200 F2.8 IS at 200mm focal length and f2.8. So one could not compare sharpness across two images if the exact same point is not optimally in focus in each image.
Not ever having used Live View before I really hadn't thought it would be that useful to me. However, it turns out that it is an amazing manual focusing aid. With live view, one can magnify the image 10x on the LCD and manually focus, watching the sharpness change right on the screen....amazing. It really is the ultimate focusing aid.
So I used Live View manual focusing on the 5D MKII and auto-focus (which seemed more accurate than my manual focusing without Live View) on the 1Ds MKII. Is this 'fair'? What if the 1Ds MKII had Live View? Would manual focusing using Live View provide better results than auto-focus? I don't know, and it is a theoretic question that was unable to be answered.
4)RAW Processing: I soon learned that to be fair about the comparison one should not process the RAW file in any way in Camera RAW or Lightroom as this will alter apparent contrast and sharpness. Likewise, sharpening in the RAW processor needs to be disabled.
5)Different File Sizes: As I mentioned, I expected differences based on the 16 vs 21 MP count. I found myself wondering if the two images might be more directly compared by upsizing the 1Ds MKII or downsizing the 5D MKII images? But wait....that would require interpolation, which would affect apparent sharpness, potentially making the downsized image appear sharper or the upsized image appear less sharp.
So what was my conclusion? The two cameras seemed pretty comparable, but I was amazed that the 5D MKII images looked at least as sharp out of the camera as the 1Ds MKII images despite the larger number of pixels. In fact, as one might have expected, the amount of detail seen in the 5D MKII images was greater with no apparent loss of edge definition (definition might have even been a tad better) given the higher megapixel count.
However, that was not the major conclusion that I arrived at from this exercise. What struck home the most is how difficult it can be to make these types of comparisons in an accurate and meaningful way. So beware the next time someone you don't know says that camera x produces images that are more (or less) anything than camera y. At least ask how the comparison was made and whether these issues were taken into consideration. For all I know, I might well have forgotten something obvious in the way I made my comparison.....believe me, I didn't figure out these variables that could affect results all at once!
I love this quote, as it seems to get right to the 'zen-like' aspect of photographing:
If you have been following this series of posts, you know the problems that I have been having with my Epson 7900. This post serves as a finale (well, pretty much) to these issues and how they have been resolved.
First of all, the issue regarding what I described as 'black scuffing', but which has perhaps been more appropriately called 'zebra striping' by someone else with a similar problem, seems to have been resolved. That problem was solved by a fellow that goes by the pseudonym 'pivozone' on The Luminous Landscape forums. He had a similar problem which was solved by simply utilizing only the standard platen gap, not the wide or wider ones. I thought that I had tried every setting there was trying to get this issue sorted out...but apparently I hadn't. Since I use a wide platen gap with all my fine art papers on my 7600, I had assumed that the same would hold true with the 7900. I must have simply started with the wide platen gap and adjusted everything else, because, as pivozone suggested, setting the platen gap back to standard made the 'zebra striping' totally resolve! Problem fixed. Why it was occuring with the platen gap set to wide, which was also intermittently giving me 'ghost images', is unclear to me as well as to the Epson tech.
Second, in regards to the head clogs and frequent automatic cleanings, the autop nozzle check and cleaning is now turned to off and I will print nozzle checks intermittently myself from the front panel of the printer. The auto checks do seem 'quirky', to say the least, but my machine diagnostics checked out OK. I am still having problems with frequent nozzle clogs in the green color despite multiple cleanings. It does not appear to be a printhead issue as the affected nozzles tends to change. More likely than not it is related to some small air bubbles in the line which will resolve. The tech thought a power clean would likely remove them and I made a call to Epson HQ and they are being kind enough, given the problems with clogs I was having, to send me a set of ink carts at no charge which will more than allow me to do the power clean.
I consider the major problem (black scuffing or zebra striping) solved! I do have to say that the prints are really stunning and I can now print in black and white as well.
My next post will have nothing to do with the Epson 7900!
I hadn't really planned to write so many blog posts about my Epson 7900.....but then again, I also hadn't planned on having problems printing on third party media with it either. I do hope that anyone else who might be having this problem will be helped by reading about what is going on with my printer. "Aldberg", in response to this post from a few days ago also reports a fairly similar problem with his 9900, and he has gone through three of them thus far.
To briefly continue the story, I received a package from Epson with a new printhead and capping station as well as a sub-assembly board in the mail even though they hadn't mentioned that they were going to be sending me any parts. The Epson tech is coming from a fair distance away on Wednesday. I spoke with him on the phone and he seemed genuinely concerned. I was heartened by his comment that one should be able to print on any third party media with these printers...which is not the response I was getting from Epson Central.
I will report back on Wednesday as to what happens.
As I mentioned in my last post, one of the major problems I have been having with my new Epson 7900 has been what I described as 'scuffing' of the deep blacks on third party media. This consists of lighter, whitish, linear areas of lower ink density in the direction of printhead travel. Since I wrote that, I have come to realize that the problem exists when printing all solid colors in the Epson color driver as well as with black and white images using the ABW driver.
I contacted tech support and spoke with someone who seemed quite concerned about the issue. In fact, he requested that I send him sample prints demonstrating the problem as well as a few sheets of media for him to test. I did this, and, for consistency, also sent the actual files that I had printed from Photoshop for him to use. I will admit that it does appear that this problem does not seem to occur when I print on the Epson media that I have. It has, however, occured with every third party paper I have tried including Ilford Gold Fibre Silk, Harmon Gloss FB AL, Hahnemuhle Photo Rag Baryta, and Hahnemuhle Fine Art Baryta....all very popular media that have undergone extensive reviews on multiple websites with reportedly superb results.
I was contacted very promptly by the person I spoke with after he received the material I sent. In fact, he could easily see what the issue was on the samples that I sent, though it was not immediately apparent to him what the cause was. He did not think the problem was caused by head strikes. Now here is the part that I find disturbing. He was able to print the files that I sent on his Epson 7900 using the same media that I sent with NO evidence of scuffing at all. My immediate conclusion was that if the same paper and same file that is giving me a problem is coming out perfectly on his printer, then there must be a problem with mine....issue solved!
Needless to say, things are not so simple. He stated that this was his initial conclusion as well, but that he was told by the other agents he was conferring with that this was not the case. Their conclusion was that since the problem does not seem to occur with the two Epson papers I tried (Luster and Exhibition Fibre), that the problem must be in either the third party media or with the printer settings. He agreed with me that it wasn't the media, as it doesn't seem possible that I would have gotten four separate medias that were all defective. I had already tried changing the platen gap setting, the paper thickness setting, the high speed on/off setting, the drying time setting....in short, every setting there is, but to no avail. So I said 'fine, tell me the settings that you have your printer set to and I will set my printer to the same setting and we will see if that fixes it'....logical, right? Apparently not so!
I was told that each printer is different and that a specific setting on one printer might not yield the same effect on another (though I have always been told that the profesional printers are built to very tight tolerances). I told him that I didn't think he himself actually believed what he was telling me. There was a sort of silent aquiesence and hethen said that this is what the support staff he was working with felt was the case. They were going to send me various Epson media to see if the problem occured or could be reproduced by me on the various Epson papers. As an aside, he told me that his best guess would be to reduce the paper feed by about -2. I told him that on my 7600 I had printed on many different media and never had to change the paper feed. Nonetheless, I gave the change in paper feed a shot and, needless to say, it made no difference at all. If anything, the output looked even worse.
I understand, to some degree, where Epson is coming from in that they do not feel a need to support non-Epson papers. However, this professional grade printer is widely used to print on third party media and the media I have been using are extremely popular and certainly not obscure. If their printer could not consistently print on third party papers I doubt they would sell as many of them as they do. The fact that their printer does not cause the problem seems to indicate to me that mine does have a problem which they are not acknowledging.
However, all is not yet lost. When I discussed with the support tech that I have been having a recurrent problem with nozzle clogs despite multiple cleanings he did offer that this was not normal for a new machine and was an indication to have a service rep come out to the house. He did say that while the only objective problem that Epson would support is the nozzle clog issue at this point, if I asked the rep to do so they would be able to perform full diagnostics on the printer and make any repair required if something were to objectively test abnormal. However, they could not directly address the third party media issue despite the fact that they agreed that the prints I sent clearly demonstrated a problem.
We will see what happens when the rep comes out. I am hoping to have them come to check the machine early next week. The saga continues, but, to be honest, I am not really pleased with the way things seem to be shaping up......
I know that I mentioned in my last post that I was going to wait a bit before once again writing about the Epson 7900 printer I recently bought. However, I have run into a few glitches that I wanted to mention.
The first glitch seems fairly unusual and does not seem to have been reported previously. It involves black and white printing via the Epson Advanced Black & White Driver. Black and white printing, with the ability to easily change from matte to photo black ink without much waste, was one of the main reasons for my purchasing the printer.
However, I have run into a real problem. In areas of deep black I seem to be getting ‘scuffing’ of the ink resulting in relatively wide linear areas where the black ink is intermittently lighter in the direction of printhead travel. To be sure, they are not terrible in that you have to actually hold the print under a light at an angle to see them. However, as a professional and pricey printer, this should not occur. This problem has persisted despite opening the platen gap to its widest setting and increasing the paper thickness setting in the driver. It has also used up a great deal of my time as well as media etc, trying to make changes that might cure the problem. In trying to do so, I also have been getting head strikes and, in fact, I even wonder if the scuffing is, in reality, a gentle head strike.
I finally called Epson tech support today and have to say that I was very impressed with their handling of the situation (thus far). The person I spoke with did not try to explain it away or simply say to just use Epson paper. Since he had not heard of this problem before, the support person gave me the Epson Fed-Ex account number and asked me to send him sample prints that demonstrate the problem and will also accept a few sheets of the media I have been using to see if he can recreate the problem at his end. He spent a good deal of time with me on the phone and seemed genuinely concerned. Everywhere I look on the web, superb results have been obtained with the various media I have been working with and so I do wonder if there is a problem with the printer.
I also seem to have a problem which has been well reported on multiple internet printing forums. The issue involves the automatic nozzle check system. This is a system which automatically checks to see if the head needs to be cleaned and can be set to perform the check either before every print, intermittently, or never (turned off). There have been numerous reports of the printer performing very frequent cleanings that take 5 or 10 minutes to complete and wasting ink in the process.
I did mention this to the Epson tech and he said that the check did take 5 or 10 minutes, but that just because it says ‘cleaning’ on the LCD panel does not mean it is actually cleaning and using up ink. He said that the printer is actually slowly checking the ink two colors at a time by firing small amounts of ink which it electrically charges from the nozzles into a grid. It sounds like a feasible explanation. However, in thinking about it, I realized that even when I had the printer set to check the nozzles before every print it doesn’t seem to go through the ten minute cleaning cycle every time, which I would expect to occur if his was ‘the answer’. Sometimes the panel said it was doing the check and then went right to printing a few seconds later without doing what the panel says is a cleaning cycle. At any rate, I now have the automatic nozzle check option turned off.
So I have hit a very frustrating road block or two along the way here. I will report back as to what I am told after Epson has a chance to review the prints that I send them.
Addenda: Since I have written the above I have tried using the color driver to print color images with a large amount of pure black (flower against black background) and have found the exact same problem with third party papers despite a wide platen gap and thick media setting. I believe I see a trace of the issue with Epson papers as well. Will see how Epson responds.
I suspect this will be the last of my sequential posts about the new Epson 7900, with plans for scattered additional posts about it as I become more facile with using the machine.
The 7900 is up and running and I can make some general comments to start with.
1. Printing is definitely faster than with the 7600; the printhead is much larger
2. Printing is far quieter though one could not call the overall machine startup etc quiet (not that this is a significant consideration for me).
3. I love the automatic head alignment...fast and easy.
4. I like the new automated method of loading for cut sheets very much. You simply rest the sheet in the slot, where it is supported from below, and make sure the side of the sheet is at the alignment marker on the side and press a load button. No more worrying if the sheet is going in perfectly parallel to the printer.
5. While the new 'spindle free' loading of roll paper is also nice I do worry a bit about the locking mechanism of the roll holder as it does have a feel or sound to it like it could break after a good deal of use...we shall see.
But what about printing? In short, the prints are absolutely superb. To be sure, I have never used photo black or semigloss papers before, so it is difficult for me to make a comparison in that regard to the 7600, and I have not yet changed out to matte black. Nonetheless, the prints are really gorgeous.
One thing that I have noticed is that the 'canned' 7900 profiles are quite good, as are the profiles I have downloaded from third party paper manufacturers. It seems the paper and printer companies are getting serious about these. I can also say that it seems, at least to me, that it is far easier to softproof and make a really nice print on the semigloss type papers that use photo black ink than it is on the matte fine art printers. I presume that this is because of there being less compression of the dynamic range and increased reflectance form the surface of the paper.
There are now two issues to work out and which I will report back on in the future. The first is what papers to use for printing with photo black in both color and monochrome as well as learning to use the Advanced Black and White mode driver to make black and white prints. Lots of experimentation to follow!
I have had a million things to do lately, so I haven't managed to spend as much time with the 7900 as I would like to. In fact, I haven't printed anything just yet, but I have gotten it set up. I had originally planned to purchase the printer later this year but did so at this time to be sure to get the Epson $500 rebate which "ended" 3/31/09. Why is the word "ended" in quotes? As I suspected, though I don't see it on the Epson website at the moment, I have heard that the rebate period has been extended (I believe until May)! However, as I don't yet see that on their website there is a need for confirmation....I heard it on a printing newsgroup.
So, on to setup. My son had a few friends stop by and as soon as they stepped in the door I grabbed them to help me hoist the printer up on the stand. Though it wasn't quite clear to me from the pictures in the instruction book exactly how it would sit on the stand, it actually was quite easy to get it up, in, and sitting properly to be bolted to the stand. Once on the stand two things stand out: 1) it really is quite sleek and modern looking in design and 2) did I mention that this thing is HUGE!
The first step was to charge it with ink. This was really quite simple and is the first time the machine has actually been turned on. It takes a few minutes to charge and all the while it makes quite a number of different futuristic sounds. At one point I actually thought the phone in another room was ringing. It was only when I walked out of the room that I realized that the soft ringing sound was actually coming from the back of the printer.
One thing bears mentioning. The printer comes with 110 ml ink carts for priming and a good deal of ink is used in the process, as is a portion of the maintanance tank. Want to replace those 110 cc cartridges? Lets see, Shades of Paper doesn't have them, B&H doesn't have them, Adorama doesn't have them.....nobody has them. They all carry the 150, 350, and 700 ml carts, but no small 110's. Whats that you say, nobody has them because they aren't manufactured for sale! For heaven's sake, you would think Epson would at least give you regular ink carts....even the 150 ml ones, which are the smallest they regularly make.....with the printer. But no, they special manufacture 110 ml carts to ship with the printer to prime it. WHAT'S UP WITH THAT!!!! You buy a printer of this caliber and they short you on the ink that comes with it to get you to purchase more ink sooner than later!
Here is a little hint for Epson....anyone that buys a 7000 series printer is a) serious about digital imaging and b) going to be buying a lot of ink. The little bit extra ink sale you get by supplying less ink with the printer, while it earns you a few more bucks, doesn't exactly give the consumer a warm, fuzzy feeling. I think supplying 150 ml ink carts would be good public relations and remove the appearance that you are out to get the consumer as soon as the box is opened.
Yes, it probably is a trivial thing in the big picture, but it does make you feel like they went out of their way to get you, especially when you have to order that full set of 11 replacement ink carts at once. Yikes....it's like liquid gold.
Next, on to the driver installation. I didn't bother with the one on the enclosed CD as it was out of date. I downloaded the most recent printer driver and it identified the attached printer and installed without a hitch.
The next step was to check the firmware version and, noting that it was outdated, install the new version. While the driver installed seamlessly, the firmware update had a few little hitches. Perhaps hitches is too strong a word....a few quirks might be more accurate. Let me cut to the chase. Bizarre as it might seem, you MUST have paper loaded into the printer in order to do the firmware update. The first three times I tried, the software updater failed to communicate with the printer. It was only after I found a Word file that downloaded with the new firmware version (and installed into the same folder as the firmware file on the C drive without telling the operator that there was even such a file to explain the error statements) that I figured that out. It seems a bit counterintuitive, but that was the problem. Once the printer was loaded with paper, the firmware updater recognized and communicated with the printer and the firmware was successfully updated. Even upon finishing the update there was a quirk in that,though the printer panel stated that the update was complete, the software updater said the update was still ongoing until I tried to close it, at which point it said the update was complete.
One more little piece of information about this process that was also not intuitive. When checking the firmware version on the printer panel to ensure the update took place, I found that although the firmware version changed, it hadn't changed to the version number indicated by the firmware update file. The first several letters and numbers were the same, but the rest of the numbers were different. It was only after checking the same hidden Word file that I learned that the firmware version displayed on the printer panel was not supposed to be the same as the downloaded file number.....hmm, well then why make them so similar with the first several letters and numbers being exactly the same? Seems like a little common sense might have made it a bit more user friendly.
Nonetheless, despite the few little quirks I note above, the setup was reasonably quick and painless. The next step is to more carefully go through the manual and learn how to fine tune the settings for various paper types, do an auto head alignment, set the printer utility preferences and see how it prints!
As an aside, I am really looking forward to having those head alignments done in an automated fashion, as doing them manually on my 7600 really made me crazy. It used to take me 30 or 40 minutes and make me crazy looking at those patterns with a loupe and deciding which one looked best.
Let me first set the scene. We live in a very architecturally typical house for Western Pennsylvania. That is to say that it is 1) very old, 2) has three floors, with the third floor being relatively small, and 3) has a normal sized staircase to the second floor but an extremely narrow, winding staircase from the second to third floor. My wife and I have our study up on the third floor and that is where I have my computer and do my printing. That was the destination for the 7900.
So, after three days of trying to making sure it was delivered in a liftgate truck, and with the freight company stating that they knew nothing about that each time, I finally got it delivered. Why a liftgate truck? The printer is delivered on a wooden pallet with the shipping weight being over 320 pounds.
After the truck puts it on the sidewalk the next question to the driver is.....well, how do I get it into the house? Lets see, there are two small steps, a walkway, and then about eight or nine steps up to the front door. The truck delivery guy is supposed to just drop it and not move it up any steps. Luckily, there were two things working in my favor. First, this was his last delivery of the day so he wasn't in a huge rush and two, he was an extremely nice guy and willing to help. So we got my 16 year old son who is probably stronger than I am and the three of us, using a dolly and a bit of ingenuity, managed to get it into the front door. I probably would have freaked when I heard the underlying wooden pallet crack a bit had I known that there is no bottom to the box and that the printer, in Styrofoam protectors, sits directly on the pallet.
But it got in safely and after giving the driver a nice tip the unpacking began. After all the documentation, stand, inks, parts etc are removed you are left with the printer on the pallet with lots of Styrofoam protection. Despite knowing from the Epson website that the printer weight without the stand is about 190 pounds, those were just numbers to me, and it didn't sound all that heavy for multiple people to handle. I had anticipated it being about the size and weight of my 7600, which I got upstairs to the third floor with the help of only one other person back in 2004. The biggest probl;em with the 7600 wasn't its weight (though it was heavy enough), but, rather, the difficulty in manipulating it around a narrow, tight, winding staircase. We did it, but just barely.
Having removed the surrounding box, the shock set in! The 7900 makes the 7600 look like a toy. It is MASSIVE! I don't know how much the 7600 weighs but it has to be significantly less than the 7900. I immediately knew this was going to be a problem, and a big one!
I called my good friend (the same one as back in 2004, only then his 17 year old son and my 16 year old son weren't big enough to help) and he came over with his 17 year old son (one's age is driven home when it becomes apparent that your kids are stronger than you are). This was going to be a job for 4 people with my middle child, at 14, giving some directional guidance and assistance as well. Getting it to the second floor was going to be a piece of cake. Wrong! This 190 pounds is spread into a huge sized object which is heavier at one end and not all that easy to grasp (though there are areas designated for hand placement they are flat and smooth and not recessed with a grip). It was so difficult just getting it up to the second floor that it required a rest before the toughest part of the journey which was to come.
The path to the third floor was looking very tenuous and perhaps even a bit fraught with danger both for the printer as well as for us. First we tried getting it through the doorway horizontally, but because the stairs are actually to the left of the entrance there was no way to get it to the stairs that way....it was too long and the fit was too tight. Now, the printer obviously comes with no ink installed and with the printhead locked in place. I had asked tech support about turning it on end to carry it and they indicated it should be OK. So we had to flip it up on end and the four of us tried to get it up the stairs taking breaks every few minutes. This thing is extremely heavy and huge in size, making it difficult to maneuver in anything but a straight line. This was going to be a 'one stair at a time' journey.
Partway through I actually gave up and told my friends that there was simply no way in the world it was going to make it up and that it looked like I went a bit too far this time. I was prepared to leave it in our second floor bedroom and run an Ethernet cable down. My wife, who was watching this whole fiasco even agreed, as she thought there was bound to be an injury if we went any further. But my buddy and his son said they weren't prepared to quit just yet and lo and behold we made it around the tightest curve in the staircase with the printer on end with only one minor injury to my son's hand. With a final effort we made it up the remaining stairs and through the opening to the third floor (I had removed the door before we even started as it opens into and partially blocks the stairwell).
So there it sits on the floor of my study. I still have to build the stand and then get it lifted onto that. Needless to say, it took a few bumps and bruises on the way up but everything is locked down in it with no ink etc....so I am sure it will work just fine.
So, if one is thinking of purchasing one of these do be aware that it is quite different in size and weight from the 7600. As a matter of fact, the first thing my friend said when we finally put the 7900 down on the floor next to the 7600 (after glancing at the 7600 and then back at the 7900) was "That old one is just a baby compared to this one!" It really is a beast of a machine....however, it really is a beautiful sight to behold!
Over the last year or two, I have watched as various new papers have come out for black and white inkjet printing. I have really wanted to venture into black and white, but just never really liked the appearance on matte paper, though I do love the appearance of color prints on matte watercolor paper. In theory, I could change my 7600 printer over to photo black ink to use the new highly touted Baryta papers for black and white printing, but it is quite expensive as well as being a hassle to change over.
I have watched Epson printers morph from the 7600 to 7800 to 7880 and never really had a desire to upgrade, mainly because of the dual black ink issue. But now, with the advent of the new Epson 7900, changing the black inks is automatic and entails minimal wastage. Still, there is a small amount of ink thrown away when making the switch, but not very much....I believe it is 2-4 ml. One would think that since Epson totally revamped the head technology, they might have factored in separate nozzles for each of the two black inks so that no ink would be lost when switching, but then again they do sell ink...so not surprising. I understand it actually took a competitor's printer that makes such switches easily to motivate Epson to do so as well. But.....I digress.....
I decided to make the jump and ordered a 7900! I had been thinking about it for a while and, frankly, was not really ready to buy just yet. However, Epson has a $500 cash rebate on the machine if purchased before 3/31, so it didn't make sense to wait. I purchased it from Shades Of Paper, which is where I purchase all my media and ink and have been extremely impressed with their prices, superb and personal customer service, and rapid shipping. It should also be noted that the price listed on any of the printer vendor's websites (including Shades Of Paper) is not the real price. It is similar to buying a car. You have to get on the phone and talk to someone to get the real price. Sometimes you have to call more than once. Truth be told, when you include the $500 rebate, the final phone price, and the fact that the 7900 stand is included in the price of the printer I actually got the 7900 for less than I purchased my 7600 plus stand for back in 2004.
So, I am looking forward to experimenting with black and white printing as well as luster/semi-gloss color printing all with a wider color gamut, smaller droplets, improved dithering and at a faster speed. It had been my experience from back when I was printing with an Epson 870 that prints on luster papers matched the soft-proofing in Photoshop much better than matte papers did, and others have reported this as well. I am hoping that there might even be some time savings due to less required 'tweaking' of images with these papers. This is also quite important to me as I tend to be an incessant 'tweaker'.
The printer won't arrive until late next week and I plan on making some diary type posts about the machine, my impressions, and any problems that might occur. I can say right now that my first problem is going to be getting home for the delivery truck and hoping that I can get the delivery folks to take the machine through the front door of my home. My understanding is that with the packaging it weighs over 300 pounds. Then I have to try to get it up a narrow winding staircase. It can be carried up unpacked and off the stand, but it is still quite large, long, and heavy. Even in this 'naked' state I believe it weighs over 150 pounds. I managed, with some help, to get my 7600 up the staircase and this is just a bit bigger in dimension, so I am hoping it makes its way up 'with a little help from my friends' in an intact state as well.
I continue to be intrigues by the abstract patterns in Jasper rock samples. This one looked like an erupting volcano to me!
In Brooks Jensen's recent Lenswork podcast, which one can listen to here, he extols the virtues of using pdf format e-books to enable photographers to reach a wider audience, while avoiding the fiscal constraints that are associated with publishing a physical book. I was intrigued by this, though I wonder if the constraints are as strong as implied given the newer methods of self-publishing associated with print-on-demand services available from companies like Blurb.
Nonetheless, I found the idea interesting and tried to search around the internet a bit for information about designing and producing a pdf photography book. However, I found very little out there. Now, I know very little about using Adobe Acrobat and suspect that my inability to locate information on this subject may simply be that what is required is a good general book about how to use Acrobat, as opposed to special information on how to create pdf photography books.
So, I guess I am hoping that perhaps someone out there might be able to provide some good resource books or websites on the topic of how to use Acrobat to publish photographic e-books....or at least some place to start obtaining a bit of background knowledge. Anybody want to make suggestions????
Another image from my ongoing rock photography series. This one looked like part of the US coastline to me. Would you agree with it being the outline of the state of Florida???
Since my last post was about a new photography magazine, I thought I would keep to that subject for one more day. I hadn't been planning to do so, but I discovered the inaugural issue of a new magazine that I think holds real potential.
I read about a new magazine named Fotoblur that was associated with a 'photographic community', and the images are chosen for publication by that community. The first thing I did was give a big yawn......sounds just like JPG Magazine. But then I took a look at the preview of the print on demand magazine.......and I was extremely impressed! Impressed enough that I went ahead and ordered it, though I hadn't been planning to do so. I received it in the mail yesterday.....and was blown away. The images were really superb and the printing was terrific. In my opinion, this is a whole different genre than JPG, with the photographs being much more of a 'fine art' genre.
I have not yet checked out the community, but, as I said, am extremely impressed with the magazine. So much so that I intend to buy the next issue and see if the quality is maintained. The stated goal is for publication on a quarterly basis, and I do hope that they are successful. I would imagine that the print on demand, while it makes for a higher priced magazine for the consumer, probably insulates the publication from the type of financial problems that are apparently affecting JPG. Nonetheless, I think the quality justifies the $16.20 price tag.
Want to check out the magazine.....see here and just click on the 'Show Preview" button to view the whole issue. The community can be checked out here, with a much smaller preview of the magazine.
I am always on the lookout for interesting photography magazines, as there seem to be relatively few really good ones. B&W magazine is one that I find worthwhile and enjoy getting. Recently, the publishers of B&W introduced a new magazine entitled "Color". Being a subscriber to B&W, I took the them up on their invitation to also subscribe to Color and recently received the magazine's premier issue.
Overall, I am quite pleased with it, both in terms of the quality of the photographic reproductions and the image content. The issue had a diverse selection of well-known, as well as somewhat lesser known, color photographers as well as a nice cross-section of subjects including nature, street photography etc.
My opinion on what might have made it a bit better? The layout and presentation is exactly the same as B&W magazine. On the one hand, why mess with a formula that has done well....on the other hand, it might be nice to have had something a bit different or imaginative (along with the associated risk that it might not work well). In addition, I personally find the writing a bit bland. But, hey, given the relative dearth of good quality photography magazines available, why complain. After seeing the first issue, I am definitely glad that I subscribed.
