Digital BW, The Print

danielstaver wrote:

 >That's what output with black + light black looks like. The print
 >quality itself is excellent, but the tone is very brown. Everybody
 >assumes that the light black is neutral, but that is not so. It's a
 >little silly actually, if Epson had made both the blacks completely
 >neutral and included this printing mode directly in the driver there
 >would be a lot of happy 2200 owners out there getting great BW prints
 >right now.
 >
 >
 >
What a HUGE assumption....

For it to be "silly" EPSON would have to easily be able to make a true
neutral, non-metameric, "light-black", that is as archival as the
maate/photo blacks AND works on media that both the matte-black and
photo-black work on..(not to mention compatible with the other inks and
the printer)  Not a small order at all.   If it was, we'd have been
there long ago...

FWIW: to expect out of the boz, perfect B&W printing that satisfies
everyone in color tonalities, and is as archival as people want is
almost axiomatically a moving target.  Look at the wide variations of
what people term "neutral," "cold," and "warm"  alone for chrissakes..
Then move to the variety of media people want to print on..

Then there are the people who want to take a shot with their P/S color
digicam and print it out in B&W from the printer without using/learning
PhotoShop or something comparable.. {SMACK!}

The demands are what get silly..

No reasonably sane individual who has done serious chemical darkroom B&W
printing ever expected to be able to simply take a photo and without a
SIGNIFICANT learning curve translate that original image into a print.

But today, I am finding, quite annoyingly I might add, that many who
waited until sometime over the last 2-3 years to even learn Photoshop
want to be able to simply shift to digital without transition costs in
time and learning (we all know the monetary costs are there). For those
who complain about the fact that the skills etc. take time, well, so did
learning those skills originally.  Transitioning to digital may
"unfairly" take away some of the advantages and skill set knowledge you
developed over the years -- unfortunately, life isn't fair..  To those
people complaining about the investment (and we all know photogs guilty
of it),  I say "grow up."  Digital is in many ways a different paradigm
and you will either make the transition and learn to exploit the tools
or you won't.  Stop expecting the tools to do all the work for you, you
didn't expect that in a chemical darkroom workflow.

Are the tools perfect?  No.. We can get better and will get better, but
if you want simple shoot polaroid B&W peel apart the prints and be done
with it..

For those willing to invest the time, money, and intellect, there are
great tools already.

I'm in great agreement with Paul Roark when he has said, that the time
to move to digital printing of B&W is now, that the prints are on a par
with traditional images.. No matter WHAT you do, they won't BE
traditional images (except maybe Lambda images etc. and those aren't
likely to be found in many studios).  That's not a bad thing, anymore
than the fact that traditional photos aren't oil paintings either. Art
has a plethora of media to choose from - if you want oils use oils, if
you want digital prints move in that direction, if you want traditional
prints B&H still sells paper and chemistry..

In a sense, the subject line of this thread is ludicrous.. Who defines
"easy"?  Who defines "reliable"?  You, me, your husband, your wife, your
kids, your grandparents..?  Keep in mind also that making a "simple"
easy to use printer that gives results most consumers will accept may
well, in many respects, conflict with making a top-flight pro printer
(and the economics of scale within the tech biz weigh in strongly on
behalf of the consumer offerings).  It's already relatively easy to
create great images, and tools will make it easier, but this whole
obsession with tools is a bit much.  Step back, take a deep breath and
make some art instead of complaining that the tools don't perfectly
reflect your vision.  That's part of the beauty of art, that the tools
are NOT independent and perfect, that they influence and affect how you
present your vision how you bring it to life...

The subject line sounds like the oft heard "how long till we have
simple, cheap, reliable, easy-to-use, computers...?"  We basically do
already, we are light years ahead of where we were only a short time
ago.  At the same time, we are far from that benchmark in other ways.
  The reality remains that the easier the technology becomes, the broader
the base of the users putting it to use, that means we have more people
crowing for even easier solutions... It's a fool's errand..and the
question itself sounds like some mainstream consumer-oriented tripe from
John Dvorak.

Think of it this way.. Can you drive your car to the store and get
bread? Probably..  Can that same car, without you learning a lot of
automotive mechanics and doing a huge deal of customization win at Le
Mans?  Unlikely.. So, similarly, to produce everyday B&Ws or the
occasional portfolio print, we have out-of-the-box answers like the
2200.  If you want more, it will involve more work, but there are options..


As for the 2200, it wasn't designed with "BO" printing as a design
target.  The history of inkjet printing is evolutionary and  B&W prints
using multiple color inks are the norm (even when using RIPs).  If that
means a wider audience is happy with B&W from that printer EXPECT EPSON
to devote time and money on that, not on the small market segment
obsessed, like us, with the "perfect" B&W image.. Given the design
targets, the black inks have to fulfill more roles than just creating a
B&W image.
Keith



"Just some guy," and caretaker of the Multiverse's largest EPSON printer
User Community (highly recommended by Vogon Poets and MegaDodo
Publications), at:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EPSONx7x_Printers/

"For the rest of you out there, the secret is to bang the rocks together
guys"







</div>