Hi there, just wanted to introduce myself. My name is Xander and I run a full service printing studio in Chicago called www.printlab.com
I have been using color perfect for many years now, though I have fallen off steeply since I lost support for M1 computers. If I have a scanner that can produce linear scans, it is a really great option And I’m thrilled to see this community still thriving!
Intro from Chicago!
-
robyferrero
- ColorPerfect User
- Posts: 151
- Joined: Wed Aug 20, 2025 4:12 pm
- Location: Italia
Welcome, Xander!
As a good lab, I think printing with Piezography carbon pigments is an excellent choice.
You couldn't ask for anything better for digital black and white. Natural carbon itself has a hue that harks back to some ancient technique, and also reminds us of those oxidized colors used in darkroom chemistries.
In some ways, but especially for certain photographs, it's even better than neutral-toned carbon, which, if I'm not mistaken, is achieved by mixing cool and warm inks in precise doses.
As a good lab, I think printing with Piezography carbon pigments is an excellent choice.
You couldn't ask for anything better for digital black and white. Natural carbon itself has a hue that harks back to some ancient technique, and also reminds us of those oxidized colors used in darkroom chemistries.
In some ways, but especially for certain photographs, it's even better than neutral-toned carbon, which, if I'm not mistaken, is achieved by mixing cool and warm inks in precise doses.
-
C.Oldendorf
- Developer
- Posts: 167
- Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2022 10:31 am
- Contact:
Hi Xander,
a warm welcome from my side as well! I have to admit I’ve neglected the introduction threads a little in the past week — there’s been quite a lot going on with technical inquiries and bug tracking in the ColorPerfect 3 builds — but I’m glad to catch up now.
It’s good to see you here, especially since you’ve already had a chance to try a recent ColorPerfect 3 test build. I wonder whether you’ve had an opportunity yet to explore the new ColorNeg DC mode? That one is of particular interest to a number of users here, including some who work with Phase One IQ4-150 digital camera backs on dedicated repro rigs for color-negative film. When we first discussed this system years ago, negative digitization in that environment was in a miserable state — not because of anything ColorPerfect was lacking, but because of what Phase One and their affiliates were doing. That situation has not improved one bit on their side. The real potential for progress only comes now with ColorPerfect 3 DC, which at last provides a way to approach such material in a manner that does justice to it. My hope is that in the long run we can also get institutional users interested, because the gains in fidelity are not academic — they matter deeply for the record those institutions keep.
By way of anecdote: in the second half of the last decade I visited the Knoxville Museum of Art, which at the time had a small but very beautiful exhibition of Ansel Adams. The gallery was empty during the week, so we had the rare chance to spend time in peace with his prints. It was a reminder that true black must be there, that the tonal scale needs to breathe all the way up to the paper’s white, and that smoothness in the transitions is not negotiable. At the same show they also displayed some of his Smoky Mountains negatives as a digital screen presentation — and that part was, frankly, disastrous. The images had clearly been processed by flipping histograms and applying automatic contrast in a way that obliterated the intent. It only confirmed to me that with the right approach we can do far better.
I’m also very happy to have someone with deep expertise in printing processes here. My own focus has always been on getting the image right in the first place, not on refining the print itself. For that stage I’ve relied — and will continue to rely — on the expertise of people like you who can carry the work onto paper and walls in a way that does it justice.
Since you mentioned scanners earlier, let me also point you to FlexColor and NoScannerGamma. The short version is that the Hasselblad/Imacon chain carries with it certain built-in constraints — whether purely hardware or software induced is still not entirely clear, but the distortions are very real. FlexColor’s output is not truly linear, which makes life difficult with negatives. Over the years I often had to fall back on *FilmType SubType FilmGamma* as a salvage tool for individual 3F frames, sometimes with success, sometimes not. It is useful background to be aware of when commissioning Flextight work, and a reminder of why ColorPerfect’s own methods were designed in the first place.
a warm welcome from my side as well! I have to admit I’ve neglected the introduction threads a little in the past week — there’s been quite a lot going on with technical inquiries and bug tracking in the ColorPerfect 3 builds — but I’m glad to catch up now.
It’s good to see you here, especially since you’ve already had a chance to try a recent ColorPerfect 3 test build. I wonder whether you’ve had an opportunity yet to explore the new ColorNeg DC mode? That one is of particular interest to a number of users here, including some who work with Phase One IQ4-150 digital camera backs on dedicated repro rigs for color-negative film. When we first discussed this system years ago, negative digitization in that environment was in a miserable state — not because of anything ColorPerfect was lacking, but because of what Phase One and their affiliates were doing. That situation has not improved one bit on their side. The real potential for progress only comes now with ColorPerfect 3 DC, which at last provides a way to approach such material in a manner that does justice to it. My hope is that in the long run we can also get institutional users interested, because the gains in fidelity are not academic — they matter deeply for the record those institutions keep.
By way of anecdote: in the second half of the last decade I visited the Knoxville Museum of Art, which at the time had a small but very beautiful exhibition of Ansel Adams. The gallery was empty during the week, so we had the rare chance to spend time in peace with his prints. It was a reminder that true black must be there, that the tonal scale needs to breathe all the way up to the paper’s white, and that smoothness in the transitions is not negotiable. At the same show they also displayed some of his Smoky Mountains negatives as a digital screen presentation — and that part was, frankly, disastrous. The images had clearly been processed by flipping histograms and applying automatic contrast in a way that obliterated the intent. It only confirmed to me that with the right approach we can do far better.
I’m also very happy to have someone with deep expertise in printing processes here. My own focus has always been on getting the image right in the first place, not on refining the print itself. For that stage I’ve relied — and will continue to rely — on the expertise of people like you who can carry the work onto paper and walls in a way that does it justice.
Since you mentioned scanners earlier, let me also point you to FlexColor and NoScannerGamma. The short version is that the Hasselblad/Imacon chain carries with it certain built-in constraints — whether purely hardware or software induced is still not entirely clear, but the distortions are very real. FlexColor’s output is not truly linear, which makes life difficult with negatives. Over the years I often had to fall back on *FilmType SubType FilmGamma* as a salvage tool for individual 3F frames, sometimes with success, sometimes not. It is useful background to be aware of when commissioning Flextight work, and a reminder of why ColorPerfect’s own methods were designed in the first place.