Digital BW, The Print

Hi Shilesh,

Perhaps you are too cerebral about all this. A little more than a year ago you contacted me to see samples of my process, you asked me for the spectral data rather than the printed examples themselves - and I obliged but felt that you should see your work in the process rather than see your image through a soft proof ICC. 

At the time I wrote "plotting Lab values is not the same as seeing the glow, the depth, the bits and pieces which separate systems from their spectral data."

Sometimes, in all of this interesting technology with all the bits (no pun intended), seeing is believing, rather than trying to sort it out in an intellectual manner. I don't think that you can ever resolve something aesthetic through reasoning.

However, the most important thing is that you're happy with the results you are producing. So, if you have doubts, if you think that they could be better, or if you think they are not as good as your analogue work was - then probably it isn't - and you should really look at the physical evidence of prints by comparison. I think looking at comparative prints is where eventually you will find the answers to whether your printing process is as strong as you want or as strong as you need.


I had offered to make you a print with my process online many moons ago when you asked for the spectral data. Perhaps you should try the MPS system directly. Here is the link again:

http://shopping.netsuite.com/s.nl/c.362672/sc.15/category.29284/.f

You upload your image after choosing the inks, paper, size - and we send you a print in a few days.

regards,

Jon


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "shileshjani" <janishilesh@...> wrote:
>
> OK Mark & Michael, what you write makes sense, in priciple at least. From a practical stand point, let us focus on what you write below about silver contact prints.
> 
> Tyler Boley published this quite a while back.
> 
> http://www.custom-digital.com/2008/09/bw-print-quality/
> 
> Looking at the last image where there is a direct comparison of ABW and K7, each printed at 2880 dpi, and contrasted to silver contact print. Frankly, if this level of viewing magnification is realistic, even K7 is abysmal compared to silver contact. I mean really bad. I can step 10 feet away from my monitor and discern difference (smoothness) between silver contact and the inkjet prints. At 10 feet, other then the color differences, I don't see any objective difference among the inkjet prints.
> 
> So, for a while I have been of the opinion (biased, no doubt) that if the very best (K7 for smmothness) inkjet is acceptable in comparison to a contact print, then ABW K3 is equally acceptable. So workflow choices can be made on considerations other than smoothness, where clearly K6/K7 reign (at least microscopically).
> 
> Shilesh
> 
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Mark" <mark@> wrote:
> >
> ...SNIP......
>  
> > Does the average viewer get so close to see the dot pattern noise generated by the latest inkjet printers? No, but to the very discerning viewer, there is still a tangible difference, sort of like looking at contact prints made in the darkroom versus optically enlarged prints. As enlargement factors go up, tonality and sharpness starts to break down into grain pattern noise at a specific viewing distance from the print, and the resolving power of the human eye then starts to exceed the resolved features in the image.
> >
>