Digital BW, The Print

Hello Steve,

Congrats on launching your new adventure.  I hope it goes well.

>Eboni ink from MIS for Epson 2200
>Epson 2200

I read all the replies to your post so far, and I both agree and
disagree with them regarding the 1280 vs 2200 BO print quality.

I agree in that in many cases 1280 prints look as good as the 2200,
but there are also cases where they don't look as good - it depends a
lot on the print and its size.  As far as BO goes I see two primary
differences in the printers: the 2200 resolution is 2880x1440 vs the
1280's 2880x720, and also the 2200 uses a different dither pattern.
These differences show up in three areas:

1) Tonal gradation in large smooth mid-tone areas - the 2200 dither
pattern is much tighter in these areas and it looks smoother.  It can
be noticeable if the print has significant smooth areas in those tonal
ranges.  It also seems to be more accurate in rendering film grain
when the print size and scan quality is enough to show it.  This may
make a significant difference with your 35mm Rodinal prints.

2) Dither banding - there is generally more of it with the 1280.  It's
usually not visible without a loupe, but on occasion if there is a
smooth area that happens to fall right on the zone where the banding
is most pronounced it can be noticeable without magnification and can
affect the overall appearance of the print.  I see much less of that
in 2200 prints.

3) Fine detail - resolution is resolution; 2880x720 and 2880x1440 are
not the same.  Very fine details are rendered with more exact
definition, clearly visible with a loupe.  Again, whether this
actually affects the general impression if the print depends a lot on
what's in the image and how big it is.  An image with a lot of tiny
but important detail can look significantly better over all.

It's true that these differences are subtle, but to deny that they
exist I think is mistaken.  Whether they are important enough to
affect a purchase decision is an individual matter.  With BO we are in
an uphill battle right out of the starting gate with the lack of
continuous tone blending, so it seems to me that, if we choose to work
in this technique, every little bit helps.  I have spent over two
years now dedicated to BO work and have seen many prints sent to me by
others as well as my own.  I love it and want to get the best possible
quality, so for me the difference is worth the extra cost.

In addition, over the past few weeks Paul Roark has been working with
a 2200 and finds the added ink controls are very useful with the UT
inks and certain papers.  He recently made some very positive comments
about this printer.  I plan to try the UT7 inks when they are
available and I may switch if I like the results.  Regardless of what
I do, I think these inks will be a major player in the future and, if
Paul's observations are corrct, the 2200 will be a more versatile
printer for using them.  

Another thing to consider if you stick with BO is the inks you use if
you want to do color prints.  With the 2200 you get the UC pigment
inks and their ability to print on glossy paper with Photo Black.

So I support you in your decision for the 2200 - I think it was a wise
one.

Regards,
Clayton


Info on black and white digital printing at    
http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm







and some people may not notice them,