Digital BW, The Print

Hello Bob,

>The slightly veiled highlights are there for a reason...
>You only see that the highlights are "slightly veiled" as you
>describe it, if you leave the white surround on the print. If 
>you trim that off or cover it with a matte, then that wonderful
>adaptive thing - the eye - "lifts the veil" and 
>sees it as white. 

Understood, thanks, a good explanation.  I have always lumped it
together under the broad explanation that even the white areas of the
print have "something" on the paper that prevents any uncoated paper
white to show through.  The effect of course varies with different ink
systems.

>Not so good I suppose for those who spend all their time measuring 
>blacks and whites with spectros 

That's definitely not me.  For me it comes from being spoiled by 3+
years of printing mostly BO.  Once you get used to its exceptional
luminance, caused by uncoated paper white showing, it's hard to accept
the veiled look.

>Not sure what you mean by "subtle color in the blacks". Unless 
>you use BO, all/most blacks are going to show "subtle color" 
>aren't they? They usually achieve neutral, cool, or warm blacks 
>by adding subtle colors, either in the black ink or from another cart. 

Yes, exactly.  Again (sorry to sound like a broken record), once you
get used to BO's un-colored black, you become sensitive to (and in my
case, unsatisfied with) the added color in other systems, either way
it's done.  I'm also convinced that Eboni BO prints will outlast toned
prints in the fade dept.  Every print I've had on my windowsill that
has colors in it has shown signs of fading, in various degrees and
time periods, but not the Eboni BO one. For these reasons I consider
Eboni BO to be superior except for the pesky graininess.  That's why
seeing the 4800 BO print gave me such hope for the 2400.  Whether from
the smaller dots or dither pattern or however, that was the smoothest
BO print I've seen and it preserved the luminance.  I'm really
disappointed that the 2400 doesn't have it.  I was all poised to get one.

I know many don't like BO, but many of us do and are willing to put up
with the graininess in order to have the other advantages.  There has
been plenty of validation for this. Over the past few years there have
been numerous reports of unbiased viewers preferring BO over full ink
prints when shown identical images printed both ways.  They don't
understand the technicalities, but just say it "looks better".  I've
shown BO prints to people for 3+ years now, including some experienced
darkroom people, and never once has anyone made a negative comment
about being dotty or grainy or whatever.  They always get positive
responses.

I'm becoming convinced that the ultimate compromise lies in a RIP/2K
system.  Both Carl Schofield and Steve Karafyllakis are experimenting
with QTR/2K using Eboni and a mixed LK and getting extremely smooth
results that preserves the luminance.  The stickler is the LK has to
have some cool toner mix of some sort.  Carl is using a mix right now
that has excellent luminance and isn't real obvious in coloration. 
I've also been trying it - the challenge is finding the right LK mix
that will work ok on different papers.  To me the ultimate would be to
find a way to dilute Eboni for the LK and avoid the toners.  Paul R.
has given me a couple of ideas for that, haven't tried them yet.  The
fat lady hasn't sung yet <g>.

Regards,
Clayton


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