Digital BW, The Print

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Nij" <nigel@n...> wrote:
> On the first point - maybe we have a problem of definition (like I 
can see
> banding from 12 / 18" that other people just can't see - perhaps 
because
> they are not photographers, or perfectionists??) So either my close-
up
> eye-sight is REALLY good, or, well, it's just non-perfectionists 
who refuse
> to see the bands!

Okay let's agree that "micro banding" is something you can see in the 
12 to 18" view range and that "sub micro banding" can only be seen 
with some sort of magnification.

> 
> So your post prompted me to take a look at some of my prints that I 
recently
> did for print samples... I had some rejects from the early few as 
the
> printer was settling post that cleaning I mentioned. I too had also 
cleaned
> the underside of the print-head with a 'sponge on a stick' from an 
AF
> printer-cleaning kit (someone else, Todd I think mentions the use 
of similar
> tools from Tandy), and I think this is what causes the drop out of 
ink, as
> the friction will pull ink out of the heads (or something).
> 
> Anyway... just took a look at my prints and I would classify the 
rejects I
> picked up first as being micro-banding and sub-micro banding - 
first one you
> could see from 12" no trouble, the next, you got a 'hint' of it but 
if you
> get any closer you can't see the detail any more.  Looking through 
a loupe,
> I saw banding in the first case, and again, a 'hint of banding' on 
the
> latter. The loupe made things harder in a way, as using Somerset 
Enh Velvet
> it's quite a fibrous paper so you actually see more detail in the 
paper
> surface at that magnification than you can in the banding. i.e. You 
havbe a
> vague sense of 'streakiness' but it's actually very difficult to 
put your
> finger on.
> 
> If it came down to it, I would probably be prepared to send out the
> 'sub-micro banded' prints as samples.
> 
> One of my 'selected' prints by the way, showed no banding, and I 
swear to
> you that even under a loupe, I wouldn't be able to tell which way 
the
> print-head had been moving - perhaps because dot-gain on this paper 
seems to
> be, well, more than some other papers.

From the prints I received in the first print exchange group of 10 
none of the Piezo prints had micro banding. Most had no sub-micro 
banding. One was absolutely perfect without a dot or line or anything 
in perfectly smooth tones. Mine and a couple of others had sub-micro 
banding in some areas of the print.

At any viewing distance all of the prints look wonderful. Only an 
idiot who would pull out a magnifying glass to look at perfectly fine 
prints would see a difference.

I forgot to add that the sub-micro banding usually only shows up in 
areas of smooth middle tones. If there is any texture to the image, 
even significant grain, the sub-micro banding is broken up and cannot 
be seen. Also paper texture breaks it up as well. Turner and German 
Etching are excellent in this regard.

> 
> And if anyone's wondering, I printed about 120 A4 sheets in two 
days - I
> wasn't rushing, at all... I believe I could have done more than 
double that
> if I'd been a little more concentrated. 99% of them were perfect 
once it got
> going. (getting going being the 10 or so sheets the day before)
> 
> Don't stop being a perfectionist!

I don't think it is an option but there definate are non-productive 
limits.

Martin
> 
(snip)