Digital BW, The Print

Hello Treadwinkle,

>Can I just print an b&w image and NOT be a mathmetician?

Yes, and I'll tell how below, but first...

MIS - MIS Associates, Inc., the company which makes what many believe
to be the best black inks.

CFS - "Continuous Flow System", description used by one of the makers
of ink supply hardware.

RIP - Raster Image Processor, basically a computer program, or an
algorithm used by a program, which does image processing.

DMAX - How dark the black is on a print or negative.  

CIS means "Continuous Ink System" (or Supply) - another descriptive
phrase used by another brand.


>I just want to give the actors I'm shooting a good quality print. 
I'm 
> so close to going back to film, I don't want to have to spend
months 
> researching curves, profiles, algorhythms, getting a degree in 
> algebra... I just want to select the paper from the Piezo driver
and 
> go.

I feel your pain (to quote a famous person <grin>).


> Is this possible?  Help me!!! :-)

Yes, it is possible.  I'm doing it and I'll share my dirty little
secret.  But first let me warn you that what I'm about to say is
blasphemy and sacrilige.  But, at the risk of being tarred and
feathered, here it is:

              Print in "Black Only" mode

Now if I have stirred anyone's heart or liver please hear me out
before you crank up the flame throwers.  I am not advocating this as
the final word, but as a temporary landing zone until things get
sorted out.

First, some background.  My B&W work is a passionate hobby and not a
profession (I'm a computer programmer by trade).  My father was a
photographer (I still have his old enlarger), I got my first camera at
age 8 (B&W 127 film in a Brownie), and am now 56.   I am a Zonie and
have been doing fine B&W work for quite a few years (primarily TRI-X
and HC-110), have had gallery shows and have sold prints, have read
the books and have even taught some classes on it.  So I know what a
good print looks like.

Treadwinkle, like you and many others, I decided this past year to
move out of the wet darkroom.  I don't want to stand for hours and
breathe fumes any more.  I saw what the new printers were capable of
and decided the time was right.  But I soon found myself in the same
quagmire many others have experienced, and spent uncountable hours on
curves, workflows, inks, papers, ad infinitum, and all, for the most
part, in great frustration.  I just couldn't find anything that would
work easily and consistently and just let me concentrate on the
photographs.  It was always a battle.

One weekend I spent 14 hours on a substitution curve and got a really
beautiful print.  I thought I'd finally made it.  Then I discovered
the curve wouldn't work on another negative.  Another 4-5 hours
tweaking the curve produced another beautiful print.  But, again, the
curve was for that negative only.  It didn't take long for me to
decide this approach wouldn't do.  

However, I had learned a lot, lurked in various forums (including this
one), pestered Bob at MIS with questions, talked with other digital
printers, visited Mike Kravit in Boca Raton, read articles and web
sites, and along the way heard whisperings in the back channels about
black-only printing, as if nobody wanted to admit they were doing it.
So in frustration one day I tried it, and WOW!  Beautiful prints, no
muss, no fuss, no curves, no workflows.  Complete WYSIWYG out of
Photoshop.  Digital Bliss.

Now, the biggest complaint about BO printing, from what I gather, is
that the highlights have distinguishable ink dots (this is why the
parting blessing in the recent Jon Cone post was "May your highlights
be dotless" or something like that).  Actually, if you examine a
full-ink (FI) print's highlights with a loupe (even Jon Cone's sample
print) you'll see separate ink dots.  The difference is the white
space between the dots is filled with clear ink fluid, and the dots
are fainter, as if they have blended into the fluid.  In the BO print
there is only bare paper between the dots, so they appear more crisp
and more easily visible.

In spite of this, however, I have found the BO prints to be very
acceptable.  If they aren't examined with a loupe, the viewers, in my
experience, don't perceive anything substandard about them.  I have
found the results to be stunning, and have shown prints to other
experienced photographers without saying anything about BO printing,
and have received nothing but praise.  They are sharp, crisp, and have
excellent tonal gradation.  Also, because bare paper shows between the
highlight dots, there is a luminous quality to the BO prints which I
generally like better than the FI prints.  The weakest appearance I
find to be in large areas of detail-less near-white, such as cloudless
skies, where the dots are far apart and can become apparent to the
naked eye if examined closely.  But at ordinary viewing distances it
isn't an issue.

I have found some other advantages of BO printing which I believe are
of equal or greater importance than ease of use.  I'm referring to the
ongoing issues of archival permanence, fading and color shifting.  Let
me preface these next remarks by saying that I use the good MIS black
which is in their best ink sets.  This is the ink which Paul Roark has
shown to be the most fade resistant (Paul, a great big thanks for your
dedication and hard work which we are all benefitting from).

The problem seems to be that these prints will fade and shift color to
some degree when exposed to light.  They seem to do it a certain
amount and then settle down.  What I've discovered is that these
effects are _greatly_ reduced with BO printing.  In fact, there is
almost no color shifting at all, and only a slight bit of fading.  I
have done real torture tests by placing prints for days out in direct
south Florida summer sun.  It doesn't take long to see what's going
on.

So the bottom line for me is:

1) WYSIWYG printing without curves and workflow hassles.  Just do the
work in PS and send it to the printer.

2) Negligible color shifting

3) Minimal fading

4) Because of 2) and 3) I am more comfortable giving or selling a BO
print to someone than a FI print.


I have the two successful FI prints mentioned above hanging in my
house, and they have settled down into an ugly "Hershey bar chocolate"
color.  Placed next to BO versions which have held the original color
it is no contest, BO wins.

Here are some specifics in my technique:

1) I use the Epson driver

2) Paper - I use EAM for proofing and Photo Rag for final prints.  I
find the fading is a bit more on PR than EAM, but the tonal results
are essentially the same, so if it looks good on EAM it will look good
on PR.

3) The gamma setting is 2.2

4) The paper setting is "Matt Paper-Heavyweight"



I have been following closely all the developments in ink and paper
technology and related issues as reported here in this forum (Wilhelm,
other test methods, what "archival" means, the ink wars, coatings,
etc, etc, etc).  I concur with the general agreement that the 
technology is still emerging and that we are simply not "there" yet. 
I fully expect that some day we will be printing archivally with full
ink sets with complete ease, and these hassles will be a thing of the
past.  Until that time, however, I will continue BO printing without
hassles, with beautiful prints that fade and color shift less than the
full ink ones.  I can concentrate on the work and continue to develop
my PhotoShop skills, without frustration and muttering naughty words.
 I simply don't have the time or inclination to do PhD level work just
to make a print. 

Here is a true story I think is important: A few weeks ago someone
posted an urgent plea for help in this forum.  He was a high school
photography teacher who had moved his students into digital techniques
and was getting ready to begin a B&W session.  He was having the usual
troubles and had gotten nowhere.  He had to face his students in a few
days and was desperate.  He was asking essentially the same question:
Isn't there an easy way to do this so I can just make pictures?

After a couple of days he had received only two or three replies, with
the usual queries as to what kind of ink and printer he was using and
the usual recommendations to try this or that curve or workflow. 
Fortunately he included his phone number in his post, so I called him
and told him about BO printing.  He seemed relieved and said he'd try
it.  Here emailed later to say it was working fine and was very
appreciative of the help.

Now, I am not advocating that everyone should do BO printing.  If we
all did then no one would be pushing the envelope and the technology
would grind to a halt.  So, blessings to all of those who have the
fortitude to push the technology.  But there are lots of folks like
me, Treadwinkle and the school teacher who can't go that route.  This
technology needs to get to the point where people can go buy a
printer, some archival ink and paper and it works, just as you can go
buy an enlarger, some developer and paper and it works.  It will be
photographic and PhotoShop skills which will separate the sheep from
the goats.  Until we get there I think BO printing is a legitimate
alternative.

I would love to see a good realistic discussion of BO printing and to
hear from others who are doing it.  I know it is not the best result
possible (visually at least), but for its hassle free ease of use and
fade/color resistant properties I think it is a valid approach given
the current state of the technology.

Best Regards,
Clayton