Digital BW, The Print

Thanks, Paul, for welcoming me and for the very interesting 
information.  I also checked out your website (which I'd actually 
visited a few days ago, in fact), enjoyed your images for a while, 
then ended up at the MIS website checking out the good deal of 
information there also.  Let's say I'm just starting to learn just 
how much I have to learn.

I find your work with the Ultra Tone inkset very interesting, 
including the prospect of printing with an ink based purely on carbon 
black pigment.  As someone who's quite familiar with pigments used in 
artist's colors, and as someone who is used to using only pure and 
accurately-identified pigments, I find the whole pigment ink 
situation a bit disconcerting.  I'm used to knowing how long a color 
will last simply because there are ASTM lightfastness ratings for all 
pigments.  In the world of pigmented inkjet inks, the individual 
pigments are never identified, leaving you at the mercy of (usually 
exaggerated) lightfastness claims.  Printing with an identified 
pigment is less disconcerting to me, not to mention that carbon black 
is about as simple, lightfast, and stable as pigments get.  And, of 
course, there is also the fact that this approach excludes cyan, 
magenta, and yellows that consist of pigments that haven't been 
identified (to me) and may, for all I know, not be nearly as durable 
as the black they are mixing with.

Anyway, I didn't mean to ramble, but this is one of my personal 
reactions to my new involvement in inkjet printing.  I look at 
pigmented inks as artist's materials, and I'm simply not used to 
buying artist's materials with unidentified contents and a vague 
assurance of 'trust me, it'll last'.  As you know, I'm new to all 
this, but I have to admit that the concept of using CMYK to print B&W 
hasn't sat too well with me since I started to learn about the Epsons 
and the Ultrachromes.  These are just my knee-jerk reactions, 
though.  I'm sure many people are getting great results with the 
Ultrachromes, and I'm far from having reached an ultimate (or any)
decision about my own choices.  I'm just describing initial 
reactions, that's all.

Also, the concept of using curves and avoiding a RIP is very 
appealing, though, of course, I'd have to try the approach out myself 
to see how it suits me.  But, since I've become fairly adept at PS, 
even the concept of experimenting with new media and coming up with 
some of my own curves doesn't seem terribly intimidating.  Also, I 
like the concept expressed on your website about B&W always being 
accessible and affordable and your wanting to keep it that way.  I 
wholeheartedly agree.

So, obviously, I make no claims about my ultimate choices for inks, 
workflow, media, etc., but this has definitely given me a lot to 
think about.  Also, it's capsized my notions of what printer I'll be 
purchasing, since it's starting to seems more likely that I'll 
dedicate a printer to B&W.  Up until about a week ago, I was only 
concentrating on color, so 7-color Epson printers were my main 
focus.  Now that I'm considering specialized B&W inksets, and now 
that dedicating a printer just to B&W seems appealing, I have no idea 
where I stand, particularly if I still want to do a fair amount of 
color printing too.  I had been thinking about getting a 7600, but I 
can hardly afford to buy one for color and one for B&W, plus it's not 
like the Ultra Tones have a 7-cartridge solution anyway.

Maybe I'll pick up a 1280 and dedicate just to B&W and use it for all 
my initial experiments and learning and then just go from there.  In 
comparison to the costs of photo gear, computers, software, and even 
inks, a cost of under $400 for a great printer to learn on is 
rediculously affordable.  Plus, only having to mess with 2 cartridges 
is convneient and seems to be a great match to the Ultra Tone 
approach.  One question, though.  Wasn't the 1280 orignally a dye ink 
printer?  Are there any potential problems to using pigmented inks in 
this printer?  I read on your website that you are working on a 1280 
plus Ultra Tone setup, so I assume there must not be a problem, but I 
just thought I'd ask.

Anyway, sorry for rambling, but this is all new, and it's all just 
starting to sink in.  Like I said, who knows where I'll end up.  
Actually, that only makes things more interesting.

Thanks again,

Mike Botelho



--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Roark" 
<paul.roark@v...> wrote:
> Mike,
> 
> Welcome.
> 
> >...
> >... upcoming Epson 4000, .. I've read that it's supposed
> >to acheive a DMax of 2.1 on glossy media and
> >1.69 on matte media.  ...
> 
> That's about normal for most of the more expensive, modern Epson 
printers.
> A 0.1 dmax difference is well within what you could get from a 
single
> printer from time to time.  In comparing dmax's the densitometers, 
paper
> selection and batch, shade of the paper under the paper you're 
reading all
> would affect the readings.  As such, comparisons with what others 
have
> measured might be misleading unless all the variables are held 
constant.
> 
> I think, realistically, the big differences are between matte and 
RC/glossy
> papers, and between the pure pigment and the hybrid pigment-dye 
inks.  RC
> papers get a better dmax.  More dye means higher dmax -- and more 
fading and
> warm shifting.
> 
> The Epson Matte black is about as deep a pure pigment matte black 
as there
> is, with MIS Eboni and PiezoTone Museum right there with it.  
(Actually,
> about 0.1 - 0.2 behind on average, but the cooler tone of the 
Eboni/museum
> make them look darker, in my opinion.)  They are all very 
lightfast.  The
> hybrid blacks are not in the same league if stability matters to 
you, but
> the dmax's can be impressive.
> 
> In comparing the visual differences between various papers, I think 
the
> densitometer readings can be misleading.  The glossy papers give 
very high
> dmax readings, but the reflections in the real world often 
eliminate this
> advantage.  A 1.65 matte inkjet print can look better than a 2+ 
glossy
> pigmented print.  Under glass, if you are at 1.6 or above with the 
inkjet, I
> doubt anyone is going to see any difference between the good silver 
print
> and a matte inkjet print.  I hang them together and they look very 
similar.
> Of course, if you use dye on an RC paper you're really looking at a
> potentially huge dmax, but as the dmax gets higher, the eye's 
ability to
> distinguish those shades decreases.  Above 2.0 with an RC paper or 
1.65 with
> a matte paper and the visual differences are not that great, in my 
opinion.
> 
> I think you'll be pleasantly surprised by how good the matte papers 
look
> with today's good pure pigment black.  It's a different look when 
not under
> glass, but as an old silver printer, I've actually come to prefer 
the matte
> look.  I really dislike the RC glossy look, and the semi-gloss or 
pearl
> papers just don't make it either, in my view.  All the RC papers 
I've tried
> have "bronzing" or other surface defects that are not very 
appealing.
> 
> Digital B&W is great fun and the technology is definitely ready for 
prime
> time.  It will, of course, get better, but where we're at now is 
very
> satisfying even for former darkroom printers.
> 
> Enjoy your journey.
> 
> Paul
> http://www.PaulRoark.com