Digital BW, The Print

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Paul Roark" 
<paul.roark@v...> wrote:
> Bob,
> 
> For great B&W digital prints, use the "quad" inksets and a system 
that is
> being used by others with success, so that you'll have some support 
from
> successful users.  On this forum most use either the Piezo driver 
(Photoshop
> plug-in) with Piezo or MIS FS inks, or the MIS VM (variable-
tone/mix) inks.
> Only certain printer models are supported by these systems, so be 
sure you
> have a printer that is supported.
> 
> I always recommend people start with Epson Archival Matte for a 
paper.  It's
> cheap and very good.  There are many other papers that print 
similarly, with
> no need for other profiles.  Somerset Enhanced does require a 
different
> profile, however.
> 
> One advantage of the Piezo system is its paper profiles.  The big 
advantage
> of the MIS VM system is control of print tone.
> 
> I think once you learn how to use either of the approaches noted 
above, the
> prints will be every bit as good as the wet darkroom prints, with 
the
> surface differences (flat for pigmented inkjet v. more of a luster 
for
> air-dried, glossy, fiber-based silver prints) being the most 
obvious visual
> differences.  Even these disappear if the print is framed under 
glass.  Of
> course, the inkjet papers give you lots of choice with respect to 
texture
> that are not available in the wet darkroom.
> 
> I frankly think the inkjet prints are often (if not usually) 
superior to
> silver prints due to the shoulder-less highlights that inkjets 
have.  This
> gives a brilliance to highlights that only bleaching can achieve 
with the
> silver prints.
> 
> Good luck.
> 
> Paul
> http://www.PaulRoark.com
> 
> _____________________________________
> 
> 
> I've recently scrapped my wet darkroom since my Photoshop skills are
> lightyears ahead of my darkroom skills, but my prints so far have
> been far from pleasing. Up till now the only things I've printed
> digitally have been "digital art" images, which have (or so I always
> thought) been fine. Trying to get a print of a "photograph" seems to
> be much more difficult than I thought it would be. I use an Epson
> Stylus Photo 1200 w/MIS archival color CFS. My paper of choice is
> Epson Heavyweight Matte. With Epson inks my b&w prints came out
> somewhat posterized, and deep shadow areas were splotchy and ugly.
> Now that I've switched over to the MIS ink the results have gone 
from
> bad to worse. One particular image, hard side lighting and 
contrasty,
> prints horribly posterized. I bought a pack of Somerset Photo
> Enhanced Velvet to try out and the tests have been ugly as sin.
> 
> I've seen posts by various people in various places about getting
> wonderful results with their 1200's and even EX's, which tells me
> that I must be doing something dreadfully wrong somewhere. I had
> limited success, with Epson inks, with bumping the black point about
> 25% in each color channel with curves...less splotching in the
> shadows but the prints were flat. It doesn't seem to work quite as
> well with the MIS inks. My photos are mainly portraits and nudes 
shot
> in a studio.
> 
> Can anyone help a guy out and give me some advice, or even just a
> starting point? All I really want is a smooth tonal range in my
> photos. I thought I knew what I was doing but I see now that isn't
> the case.
> 
> Bob

Bob! I would sell the 1200 and by a 1290 with piezo driver and cone 
inks. No problems forever  and outstanding prints. Regards, - Bernhard