Re: VDB

From: Michael Koch-Schulte ^lt;[email protected]>
Date: 10/13/05-12:20:52 PM Z
Message-id: <024501c5d022$d8b6c7d0$0100a8c0@TRASHO>

Actually myself and others on the list use this method (scanner as
densitometer) with great success. But you got me to flinch Don so I threw a
Stouffer R1215 on my 3200 just to double check. It's bang on almost every
square -- a couple were off by .01. So at worst a 6 per cent error and most
of the time right on the money or perhaps consistently inconsistent.

~m

----- Original Message -----
From: "Don Bryant" <dstevenbryant@mindspring.com>
To: <alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca>
Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2005 12:07 PM
Subject: RE: VDB

> Michael,
>
> >
> 1.5 is what I measure (after dry down) with Vuescan and a scanner (turn on
> the "Prefs|Enable Density Display" option, hold the control key and hover
> over a dark area of the print).
> >
>
> There's your problem. Vuescan in my experience doesn't give as reliable
> readings as a densitometer. I think if you measured your densities with a
> densitometer and compared them to what you are getting with Vuescan you
> would see some troubling inconsistencies.
>
> >
> For comparison I can easily get to 2.0 +/-
> when I check the density of a 100 per cent black square printed on Premium
> Glossy Photo Paper.
> >
>
> Again that figure sounds a bit off. I believe Paul Roark of mono digital
> printing fame reports something around 1.6 to maybe 1.7.
>
> >
> I usually get around 17 steps on my stouffer tablet with
> my VDB mix as well.
> >
>
> That contrast range sounds plausible but I've never seen that with 1 coat.
>
> Don Bryant
>
>
>
Received on Thu Oct 13 12:56:43 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 11/07/05-09:46:18 AM Z CST