Digital BW, The Print

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Clayton Jones"
<cj@c...> wrote:
...
> For me the luminance of BO prints is it's most important quality.
> Even when I was printing at 1440 with an 870 the luminosity of the
> prints outweighed the graininess for me, and I grew to like the "Tri-X
> look" of the prints.  When I switched to 2880 on the 2200 I was
> extremely pleased at the improvement.  It's still a tiny bit grainy if
> you look for it, and most important, hasn't lost the crisp
> sharp-edged quality that gives it that classic Tri-X/HC-110 look.

I recall back when Nicholas Hartmann was first trying different ways
of printing to maintain proper grain structure in his inkjet prints.
He found the various quad methods inadequate and decided BO printing
was his best solution.
I recently had a small private show of quads here, originals ranging
from 35mm to 8x10 drum scans, several supplied Imacon scans, and
digicam files. The grain description was great. One photographer
walked up to a print he had never seen before and said, "that's 35mm
TriX, I'd know it anywhere", and he was correct. Perhaps the large
size of the prints helped, perhaps things have improved since Nicholas
Hartmann's tests, but I just thought I'd pass that on. I found proper
scanning and sharpening techniques were vital, and varied with image.
I don't mean to imply BO printing is not good or viable, and everyone
should use whatever procedures necessary to make personaly satifying
prints, but for those who are primarily concerned with grain
representation, perhaps things have improved and openned up a bit.
Tyler