Digital BW, The Print

Once I settle on my next round of inks, I'm going to give that a 
try.  I'm out of the black only so I'm going to get a full set, but 
will try your method.  Hmmm... sometimes the simplest things... 

:-)  Many thanks for spending so much time helping a stranger. :-)

Treadwinkle

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Clayton Jones" <cj@c...> 
wrote:
> 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