Digital BW, The Print

Mark,

>I've been given strong hints that some customers really don't think 
>quadtone prints are equal to silver prints... 

>so I decided to experiment with contact prints made from paper negs 
>on my 1160 with MIS VM inks, Epson PQIJ paper ('cuz I had some) and 
>Roark curves. ...

RC-compatible UT inks on Pictorico transparency is a better bet.  Still, my
1160 just is not up to the job of making a good internegative.  1280 and an
RC compatible ink is what many seem to be satisfied with.  See Burkholder's
book, http://www.danburkholder.com/ .  I have not used an inkjet of
internegatives.  I found the Fujix Pictoghraphy (sp?) system made fine 8x10
internegatives for cheap -- if you have a service bureau close that has the
equipment.

>Anyone ever compare different inksets and different printers to see 
>which actually is best with respect to overall tonal rendition?  Is 
>there a different inkset/workflow that will give a better tonal 
>gradient?


The radical separation curves seem to accentuate printer, ink, paper, etc.
differentials.  So, there have been problems with making such systems work
across relatively cheap products that are not highly quality controlled.
You will note that both Cone and I have gone to relying on the Epson driver
to do as much of the work as possible.  There are a number of reasons for
this. 

>...and are those customers really right that quadtone isn't as good 
>as a traditional print?  ...

For some uses I could argue the other way.  For example, in dark storage for
archiving old photos I think carbon pigments on buffered cotton (preferably
with a fixative spray or in mylar) will outlast fiber prints.  But, the
silver print, "properly processed" (big issues here) is a wonderful medium.
I think we're really nipping at it's heals now, however.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com