[Chris Moody]

January 25, 2015 at 8:33 pm

Of course you can still have the best of both worlds and send your scanned, prepared file off to the likes of Metro Imaging to have it printed on traditional silver based fibre paper. I’ve never tried this though so have no idea of what the results are like.

[Chris Moody]

January 23, 2015 at 9:09 pm

Mark wrote:

Interesting Chris. What sort of steps have you taken with QuadTone etc… to get these results?

It’s been a while but as far as I remember I didn’t do a whole lot with the actual image. I scanned it flat on the V700 and saved as a 16 bit Grayscale tiff. I made some minor adjustments in photoshop and printed it using the neutral options in Quadtone RIP on Canson Premium Photosatin paper which has a pretty neutral base white. It’s a very nice paper and a recommend it. The surface texture is very fine lustre finish and I think it suits black and white particularly well. It was recommended to me by Tony from Rightbrain here in Cork a few years ago. It is available from a supplier in Dublin.

Martin wrote:

Thats very interesting. Would love to pick our brains. Have been totally frustrated with the R3000 trying to get decent prints out of it. Using calibrated monitor, proper paper profiles and fibre papers. The results have been totally hit and miss…

There are lots of reasons why it might not be working for you but I do know that the R3000 should be able to deliver the goods if used correctly. This is how I would go about it.

Scan your negative flat without adjustment or correction.

Assuming you are using a decent monitor. Profile it using the manual options: Gamma 2.2 6500K whitepoint and and luminence of around 120. It’s important that you keep your working environment consistent and block out window light. Your editing room should be comfortably lit – I use a 5000K flourescent bulb relected off a white ceiling.

Make your adjustments in photoshop.

Make a print using the Advanced Black and White options in the Epson Driver. The results are very good.

You could also use the Quadtone RIP software which supports the R3000.

Don’t expect your print to match your monitor exactly. If you want to compare screen to print then an affordable option is 4700K Solux Clip on light.

The best advice of all is to read ‘Real World Color Management’ by Bruce Fraser and understand what’s going on under the hood.

It’s been a while since I did any Colour Management work so some of my advice may be outdated. Apologies in advance.

[Chris Moody]

January 19, 2015 at 8:44 pm

Since you ask:

I first stepped into a darkroom in 1984 as a schoolboy. I have also worked professionally in the photographic processing business, handling colour neg (C-41) and traditional black and white film. I have printed colour (RA-4) on the Fuji Frontier and by hand using a Durst Enlarger. I have printed black and white, mostly as a hobby for many years using both graded and multigrade papers and many different enlargers from a cheapo Krokus up to the top of the range Leitz.

More recently I have worked as a colour management consultant to photographers and have created colour profiles for many Epson printer from your R3000 (which is quite capable of producing excellent black and white using Epson’s own driver) right up to the Epson 9800.

A year or two ago, out off interest, I scanned a 5×4 negative on an Epson V700 and printed it on my Epson 3800, using Canson Photo Satin paper and Quad Tone Rip.

I took the same negative into a darkroom and printed a similar sized print onto (if I remember correctly) grade 2 fibre based paper using a De Vere Enlarger.

Tonally the results were almost identical. Framed behind glass you’d have been hard pressed to tell which was which.

[Chris Moody]

January 16, 2015 at 8:03 pm

I love my film cameras and thoroughly enjoy processing a roll of film. But my love of analogue ends there. The traditional methods cannot hope to achieve what is possible with a good scan, a good knowledge of photoshop and a decent printer. Particularly when it comes to making a black and white print.

However, I do miss the smell and peaceful solitude of a darkroom where time doesn’t seem to matter – there is nothing romantic about an inkjet printer.

[Chris Moody]

February 27, 2014 at 11:01 pm

I could come up with all kinds of ways of trying to deal with this but this is the easiest way (in my opinion) that will probably work. Instead of bouncing the light directly over your subjects, try turning the bounce head to fire up into the corner of a room behind you, so that the walls and ceiling act like a giant brolly. This will help spread out and diffuse the lighting. It will look a bit flat and not very exciting but it may sort out your immediate problem. Then read up on the inverse square law.

[Chris Moody]

May 14, 2013 at 11:08 pm

Having done more than a little work in the area of colour management I would suggest that unless you are prepared to read up and understand the subject fully then you should always work in the sRGB colour space. Your life will be easier, you won’t get nasty surprises and you will sleep well at night. Also, unless you have calibrated your monitor properly, there is no point in worrying about colour spaces.

I’m not trying to be patronising.

[Chris Moody]

January 28, 2013 at 10:18 pm

Just using the ground glass on its own can result in a pretty dim image, more so if you are using a slower lens or/and a wide lens. The fresnel gives a brighter image and makes it easier to focus. As for my fancy spring back – it takes a regular fidelity elite film holder and works exactly the same way as the real deal. Sits at the focal plane for focus and is forced back when you insert the film holder and then holds it flush against the camera body.

[Chris Moody]

January 28, 2013 at 3:31 pm

If it’s any help, here are a few pics of a 5×4 spring back I made myself out of pine from the local diy. The “springs” are elastic hair ties from Boots. It works well and keeps the holder firmly against the camera without light leaks.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/69845218N00/8423120443″ onclick=”window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.flickr.com/photos/69845218N00/8424209230″ onclick=”window.open(this.href);return false;

[Chris Moody]

January 28, 2013 at 2:50 pm

This guy makes ground glass screens for just about any size camera. I ordered one from him and just used one of those plastic reading magnifiers as a fresnel. Works great, and super cheap.

http://stores.ebay.com/Steve-Hopfs-Ground-Glass-Store” onclick=”window.open(this.href);return false;

[Chris Moody]

December 5, 2012 at 12:54 am

As far as I am aware Bulldog are not selling the kit at the moment, I had been looking at the site myself only a few days ago and the option to buy is not activated.

As an aside, I recently came across Harman Direct Positive paper which is a BW positive paper that you can expose in-camera and develop in standard BW chemistry. It looks a bit contrasty from samples I have seen and a very low sensitivity of 3 ASA but it does result in a unique, one off print (mirror image). I have ordered a pack of 5×4 Fibre Base myself to try out in my own 5×4 camera.

Of all the samples I have seen on flickr, this guy seems to have achieved the best results so far.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/bracanadezdic/sets/72157630774510318/” onclick=”window.open(this.href);return false;

[Chris Moody]

August 31, 2012 at 6:36 pm

I too own an M3 with a small issue so I am interested in how you get on, please keep us posted.

[Chris Moody]

July 14, 2012 at 12:20 am

My guess is that it’s uneven development in a rotary tank. Looks too uniform to be a light leak anyway.

[Chris Moody]

June 30, 2012 at 6:30 pm

Your picture is quite small so it’s difficult to tell but there is something similar called a Deville Print Washer. I have no idea how it works but thats what a quick google turned up.

[Chris Moody]

June 26, 2012 at 10:09 pm

The darkroom experience is great. It smells interesting, looks mysterious and printing in one can be very relaxing (assuming its a hobby).

Having started shooting and processing bw film again after a long time away from using it, I briefly considered setting up a darkroom (again) but decided to do a few tests first.

I made a few prints from 5×4 bw negatives using a De Vere Enlarger on Multigrade paper and compared them with a prints made on an Epson 3800 from a scan made from the same negs on the Epson V700 scanner, I found it very difficult to find any real difference in sharpness or tonality. I made a few more prints but came away from it convinced that I was better of shooting on negative and printing on the inkjet.

It’s amazing what you can pull from a bw negative in Photoshop.

Having said that, it was an easy decision, given that I already owned the scanner, Adobe Photoshop and the printer.

[Chris Moody]

January 27, 2012 at 12:42 pm

If you already have Photoshop, you really don’t need to add lightroom, in my humble opinion, to speed up an editing workflow. If you shoot RAW and have an adequately powered PC or MAC, you can do all your image selections in Bridge, open in camera RAW and make quick adjustments to exposure, white balance etc. You can also do quick blemish fixes and if you have CS5, local area adjustments without having to open each file individually (which takes a lot of time).

I have edited many thousands of images and designed many storybook albums using just Photoshop. You just need to spend a little time getting to know how it works.

You can also edit Jpegs in Adobe Camera RAW, this works very well too if your jpegs are decent enough to start with.