Digital BW, The Print

I was always interested in this subject. Done some tests,and never really
saw a difference. Then I recently read a post from Dan Margulis in another
group I participate,who says it really makes very little difference,if any.
He certainly knows more about it then anyone of us,so I just gave up caring
about it... It's more a theoretical issue than a practical one.
[ ],Andr\ufffd




Message: 1
   Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 22:31:44 -0500
   From: "Michael Kravit" <michael.kravit@...>
Subject: Banding and Over working the image

Recently I was asked to print a limited edition portfolio for a local
photographer.  I was given 18 images saved to CD and supposedly ready for
printing. No muss no fuss.  As I began to print these equisite images, I
began to notice that the prints had very subtle banding in the midtones and
less dense shadow areas. A quick check of the histogram revealed the
infamous "Fingers of Death". A quick nozzle check revealed that I had no
clogs and the patterns were fine. Since I switched to MIS FS inks, I have
rarely had any clogging of my Epson 7k.

I asked the photographer if he worked his images in 16 bit mode. He replied
"sure I always convert to 16 bit after all the work is done and I am ready
to save the file". Jeez, another favor gone bad. Without going into detail I
took the negatives and re-scanned them on my drum. I made selections on 8
bit file copies and inserted them into the 16 bit file. I made all curves
and level adjustments in 16 bit mode and never once converted to 8 bit until
the image was finished and I was ready to print.

The final images are free of all artifacts and any banding whatsoever.

The key here is to develop techniques to allow for all manipulations to be
done in 16 bit mode. Working in 8 bit mode results is too much data being
thrown away.  Especially those new to B/W digital printing and working with
Photoshop, learn good working habits and techniques. Your results will speak
for themselves.

Mike