Digital BW, The Print

Ah yes. If your images are primarily of stone or other nicely textured things, this method should work VERY well. It sure makes a nicely
Toned print.  The image I tried it on had a lot of smooth sky and water in it, (I wanted to see how bad it looked on smooth areas), and THIS
was not acceptable. But the stone looked great, because of the added sharpness/texture. I will try it on a grainy negative, If I can find
one. I never really used grainy film.

Jerry

Also, I haven't tried the 2880 position yet, as I never use glossy film, and don't think it would work well on matte.





Martin Wesley wrote:

> Jerry,
>
> Nick's was on Heavy Weight Matte and I did mine on EAM. Both Nick's
> image and my image contain a lot of stone, stucco, brick, etc.
> surfaces. In the "Custom" settings of the Epson driver I used a 1440
> dpi printer setting and picked "Matte Paper - Heavy Weight" Printed
> on the Epson 1280. I don't see any banding or window screen. A hint
> of artifacts in a small patch of sky but only if I magnify.
>
> I think this is a very image dependent method and, at a guess, there
> needs to be little or no bunching of tones at either end of the
> histogram.
>
> Martin
>
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., Jerry Olson
> <jerryolson@r...> wrote:
> > What paper, Martin?
> >
> > On the Epson matte, the little artifacts/banding/screendoor
> patterns, etc were not good looking. It didn't look at all like a
> nice even film
> > grain. Maybe on a different paper it would look entirely different.
> Also, I didn't use grainy 35mm film, so it looks as though the prints
> > would never look like Nick's. Sometime I'll try this with a grainy
> 35mm neg. Might be pleasantly surprised!
> >
> > Jerry
>
>
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/