Digital BW, The Print

Ruhrfoto/Bernd L. wrote:

> I agree that visible dots are by no means 
>an  appropriate criterion to distinguish between a good and a 
>bad picture,  - but couldn't they be a criterion to distinguish 
>between a good and a bad digital device? 
>  
>

AN important distinction Bernd...

A device that allows one dotless imaging gives one more freedom thanone 
that provides a comparable image in every other respect, but that 
remains dotty.

Accordingly then, BO printing with a 2200 IS a step backwards when 
compared to other approaches.. From this side it really seems like the 
life raft for those clinging to the hope of a printer NOW  that does 
great archival color imagery AND can do great neutral non-metameric B&W 
images..  We just aren't at that point yet.. For now, and probably for a 
good while, you still will get better B&W with a dedicated printer and 
one of the B&W quadset ink options and workflows.

Analogize this to traditional B&W prints.  Can they be made from Color 
negatives? Yes...  Are you likely to get better B&W prints from B&W 
negatives than color negatives, assuming all other facts are equal?  
Yes...  If you need to use only one film type for negatives, will B&W 
prints made from color negatives suffice?  That's an individually 
subjective issue...  It doesn't, however, mean that B&W negatives don't 
allow one to make inherently superior B&W prints than do color 
negatives, all other things being equal.

That does not imply that some may honestly find it 
aesthetically/artistically pleasing.

 

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