Digital BW, The Print

I print on an Epson 3000 using Piezography inks.  I find that using 
Cone's Wells River gives me good blacks with a hint of detail - no 
blocking up.  I usually run "test" prints on Epson Heavyweight Matte 
and "final" prints on Wells River - works for me. The Epson paper 
tends to block up shadows for me as well but it's considerably less 
expensive than most watercolor paper.
Stan


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "dsmithhfx 
<dsmithhfx@y...>" <dsmithhfx@y...> wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I'm fairly new to black + white photo inkjet printing, and I'm 
> beginning to get 'good' (/better) results from most of my 
negatives 
> using the following settings on my 1270 loaded with the MIS dye-
based 
> color inks:
> 
> negatives scanned @ 3200 ppi, 16-bit grey (Vuescan)
> Mostly TX, some PX and HP5 (and even some ASA 1600 Kodak Recording 
> Film)
> 
> black only
> HWM paper
> 1440 dpi
> working space dot gain 20%
> printing @ dot gain 30%
> gamma 2.2
> color adjustment ON (but no adjustments made, i.e. brightness and 
> contrast both at "0")
> 
> After scanning I make Curve adjustments to the overall picture, 
and 
> to subselections based on an 8-bit duplicate for shadow, highlight 
> and mid-tones (sometimes mixtures), as well as to specific, 
manually-
> selected picture areas.
> 
> A few of the images print 'perfectly' but most have problems with 
> deep shadow detail: I can either print them with good shadow 
detail 
> up to about 95% black (leaving the picture kind of flat), or if I 
try 
> to go for a deep black, the deep shadows are 
> clogged/clipped/posterized, with very noticeable black patches in 
the 
> 95 -- 100% (roughly) black range.
> 
> I have tried a couple of workarounds including applying dithering 
to 
> the deep blacks, but although this is better than the black 
patches, 
> it still does not quite make for a smooth, natural-looking tonal 
> range. Printing at <30% dot gain aggravates the problem.
> 
> Thanks for any suggestions!