Digital BW, The Print

I didn't actually dismiss it... I just said that may work for some 
images, just not the ones I have tried.  But if you are weighing your 
printer choices based on it, you probably want to know about the 
percieved limitations up front... for instance, if you thinking about 
an epson 2200 and don't have the budget for an expensive RIP and find 
that many people don't see BO prints as "photographic" and you can't 
live with the epson driver's metamorism you made the wrong choice in 
a printer.  If you already have a printer great, go ahead and try it 
and see if it works for you.  It's utlimately up to you and what you 
percieve as most important in a b&w print.  I haven't seen your 
photos and they may look really good, the tests I did looked "pretty 
good," just not up to my quadtones... I put more importance on subtle 
tones than sharpness.  A BO 2200 print is probably sharper than a 
1160 quadtone...

not trying to slam anyone's work... just didn't work for me.

mark

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Clayton Jones" 
<cj@c...> wrote:
> Hello Mark,
> 
> >No, I'll say it with respect to 2200 output.  It isn't 
> >"photographic."  It may work with some images, but it will read 
> >more like a photographic etching than a photograph.  My eyes 
aren't 
> >that good anymore (after turning 40), but I can clearly see the 
dots.
> 
> I don't disagree.  BO prints have a distinct look and as I said in 
my
> post, I have no problem if someone doesn't like it.  I just don't 
like
> seeing it dismissed as an unworthy technique.  It would be like a
> platinum practitioner dismissing silver as being unworthy.  You have
> made it clear that you think inkjet prints should not be dismissed 
as
> unworthy by wet process people, so all I ask is the same respect for
> the Black Only method, and if someone here says they want to try it,
> please don't discourage them from doing so.  Let them decide for
> themselves if they like it - after all, it involves no committment 
and
> no extra expense.  It's simply one of many available choices, and 
has
> its pros and cons as they all do.
> 
> As for it's appearance, in my own experience in showing BO prints to
> people, even experienced photographers and darkroom people who
> examined them with keen interest, not once did anyone mention or ask
> about the dots.  All I got was expressions of awe and wonder about 
the
> sharpness, clarity, and beauty, and that was my 870 prints at 1440. 
> My new 2880dpi prints are even better.  I also agree with you
> about prints under glass, and would echo your own words with a
> slight modification:
> 
> "Behind glass a good Black Only print is very hard to spot... unless
> you are specifically looking for the difference and frankly, that
> means you are not actually looking at the *photograph*."
> 
> 
> Regards,
> Clayton
> 
> 
> Info on black and white digital printing at    
> http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm