Digital BW, The Print

People may be having unreasonable expectations about BW printing, but
who created those expectations? I quote from Epson's UK web-site:

(http://www.epson.co.uk/product/printers/photo/styphoto2100/index.htm)

"Further enhancements include an additional light black cartridge as
standard. This improves gradations to both colour and black and white
images, widening the colour gamut to enhance greyscale and colour
tonal gradations. EPSON's `Gray Balancer' software is designed to
calibrate and customize the greyscales used in black and white photo
reproduction. It gives you the flexibility to adjust the application
of ink according to the conditions in which prints will be stored or
displayed. The results are perfectly balanced, smooth toned, vibrant
black and white photos."

Doesn't this sound like a printer that'll do great BW printing
straight out of the box? Most people aren't likely to translate this
marketing hype into the poorly balanced prints that'll either look
green in daylight or purple indoors. Or a utility that will waste
endless sheets of paper without getting you any closer to that
perfectly balanced, smooth toned, vibrant black and white photo.

Besides, ImagePrint and PowerRIP can do it, so it's not like it's
impossible either...

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Editor P.O.V.
Image Service" <editor@p...> wrote:
> 
> 
> 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>