Digital BW, The Print

Yes exactly.  I don't think you will have long to wait.  Luckily we are not
all happy with the status quo.


> From: Steven Karafyllakis <steve@stevekphoto.com>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Sun, 12 Jun 2005 05:36:19 -0000
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: [Digital BW] RE: the black thing
> 
> I noticed this ‘black thing’ thread a bit late,  but just the same
> here’s my 2 cents worth:
> 
> 1) I agree that trying to get inkjets to imitate silver in
> general is a bit ‘iffy’ and to some extent raises the issue of
> remaining true to the integrity of the new medium. One could make an
> argument for letting it stand on its own at this point and using its
> strengths to best advantage.
> Having said that, however, I have to point out that pursuing the
> characteristics of silver has in no way been ‘peripheral’ or
> irrelevant, it has in fact driven the development of inkjet
> printing, and is continuing to do so.
> Think about it: we have pigment inks because the dyes didn’t hold up
> as well as color photos, not even Kodak’s.
> We have dither patterns and droplet sizes that print finer than a
> lot of the photographic output to date (small format at any rate),
> because the manufacturers perceived us as demanding ‘true
> photographic output’-whatever that means.
> The development of grayscale pigment printing happened in pursuit of
> the smoothness, neutrality and tonal range of silver prints.
> If Epson and early reports are to be believed, we are now getting
> pigments capable of better color with a longer lifespan than any
> photo process currently available.
> All of the above (and more) happened because the various parties
> involved were trying hard to equal or exceed the photographic
> standards of our day, in order to gain wider acceptance-and
> eventually replace chem. based photography. So like it or not,
> pursuing photographic standards and characteristics has been the
> engine driving this train. The process has blessed us with many
> improvements, and there are undoubtedly more to come. So is any one
> really ready to say ‘this is my stop, I’ll get of the train, thank
> you’ just because they’re tired of the ‘the black thing’ argument?
> 
> Personally I’d like to see a dmax of over 2.0 on matte papers. In
> the days before I knew better, and even afterwards once by mistake,
> I used dye black on a couple different cotton papers, and the
> density was just intense. If you think rag papers are incapable of
> better damx, try it sometime. It was quite a letdown to go back to
> Archival K and even Eboni, so I for one am not willing to settle for
> (IMO) a barely adequate 1.65 or whatever it is. I’ll live with it
> temporarily, but the first ink maker that bumps it up even a small
> but noticeable increment (with good lifespan of course) gets my
> nickel.
> 
> Shovel that coal & stoke that fire boys & girls, we still have some
> track left to explore.
> 
> Steven Karafyllakis
> 
> http://www.stevekphoto.com
>