Digital BW, The Print

Hello Wendel,

>First of all my comment was not offered or intended as an 
>assessment or evaluation of BO printing. 

Understood, and it is probably I who owe you the apology.  I probably
overreacted, but there is a reason.  You may not know, but starting
about two years ago a year-long battle began in which I struggled to
get BO accepted as a viable technique, and unfortunately your
statement was nearly verbatim the sort of thing that people used to
say when ridiculing someone who said they liked it.  It really was
that bad.  Any positive mention of BO brought down a shower of abuse
from the religious anti-BO police.  So it was sort of like the
proverbial waving a red flag in front of a bull.  Sorry you were the
recipient of that legacy.

As it turned out I wasn't alone.  Quite a few people were using BO but
were afraid to admit it in public.  After I began speaking up for it
they began to emerge and add their support.  It gradually gained
acceptance, the naysayers faded away, and it now enjoys a thriving and
growing community of users.  

BO's poor reputation seems to have sprung from the days of large dot
lower res printers.  But since the newer printers with 2880 and 4pl
variable dots it's a very different BO world, and it keeps getting
better.  The new 4000 has smaller dots and a better dither pattern
which reduces dither banding and produces smoother tones.  And now
this thing about digital capture may add a new facet to the technique.


>Since most of the "BO" emails in the past "seemed" so hostile, 

I'm not sure what time frame you're referring to, but fortunately the
hostility has faded into the past and BO is enjoying an upsurge
of popularity.  


>I was unaware that this issue was previously dismissed as false. 

As Tyler pointed out, it may not be false as a purely technical
statement.  However, for someone to use it to imply that BO can't
possibly produce beautiful and subtle prints is simply ignoring
reality.  I think the important thing is to understand the
distinction.


>I assumed (obviously incorrectly) that any one color print would 
>not have the subtlety of a duotone, tritone or quadtone print. I 
>will search the archives for the explanation.

Your assumption is probably correct.  It probably doesn't have the
subtlty of a multi ink print.  But that doesn't mean BO prints can't
be beautiful and subtle.  This is one of the things that was so
frustrating during "the wars", the tendency to reduce the debate to
pure black and white terms (sorry, couldn't resist <g>).  Accepting
that BO prints can be beautiful doesn't mean the theory is wrong. 
There's just a point where reality takes over and theory has to take a
back seat (or however you want to say it).  Theoretically bees can't
fly.  Only problem is they do.

The fact is that BO prints can be gorgeous and are capable of
rendering exquisitely subtle detail.  Anyone with a good Epson printer
with some black ink can try it for themselves and see.  Some people
like it, some don't, same as any other system.

I hope this helps to clarify the issue.

Regards,
Clayton


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