Digital BW, The Print

Clayton-

I can give you some feedback, of sorts, on the matte capabilities of 
the 2400.  While I am aware that you may dismiss it for the lack of 
hard figures, I am a very experienced traditional BW printer, having 
worked in BW lab work since 1965.  I believe that I have a good eye 
for a BW image and what makes a print work.

The 2400 that I have been using for the past month or so is producing 
astonishing results over a wide range of prints of negatives with 
which I am familiar.  I am using EEM for proof and Epson VFA for 
final prints, both with the Epson inks (MK).  Although they do not 
look like gelatin DW glossy-matte dried prints, they are comparable 
in every way, and almost certainly better than what could ever have 
been produced with a wet process on matte papers.  One can nitpick 
*any* print to death, but all said and done, this is a remarkable 
process "out of the box."

I realize that this is not a forum about photography, but "the 
print," but ultimately the only real problem in photography is the 
photograph.  The print merely serves the photograph and if the 
photograph is of no interest the quality of the print is entirely 
moot.  So, what I am suggesting is some perspective on these issues 
and a reluctance to dismiss as neophytes and amateurs all those who 
don't see what you see. To this long-trained eye, the Epson 2400 is a 
remarkable achievement and will be a significant contribution to the 
work of many serious, perceptive photographers.

To put my comments on the print issue in some perspective, I have 
always found Ansel Adams a photographic bore who wrote a couple of 
useful, if not entirely original, technical books.  Give me a Lee 
Friedlander, Robert Frank or Cartier-Bresson print any day of the 
week.  So, I suppose that puts our objectives in somewhat different 
camps.

With good wishes and thanks for your contributions,

Walt



   



 


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Clayton Jones" 
<cj@c...> wrote:
> Hello Tony,
> 
> >That was one of the more interesting posts I've read in awhile, 
> >on a topic of particular interest to me at the moment.  In my 
> >studio, I have a Epson 4000 as my main printer for B&W.  I'm 
> >using the standard Epson UC inkset with Eboni Black instead of 
> >the Epson MK and using QTR or BO.  I was thinking of adding the 
> >2400 as sort of "test bed" to see if I wanted to upgrade the 4000 
> >to the 4800.  Think I'll wait for some more reviews of the K3 
> >inkset.  
> 
> At $850 that's an expensive test bed - maybe I saved you a lot of
> money <g>.  It's always tough knowing what to do when a brand new
> system comes out.  It seems worse in this case because all the
> reviewers, and even the early users, are going on about how great 
the
> glossy prints are, and many don't even mention MK/matte prints.  I
> have yet to see a really thorough review or user report on 
MK/matte.  
> 
> 
> 
> >My only problem with BO is that I frequently get 
> >microbanding that I haven't figured out how to get rid of.
> 
> It seems to vary from one printer to another.  I have a Carl 
Schofield
> 4000 BO print that's one of the finest I've ever seen and has no
> dither banding.  From that I thought that all 4000s would be that 
way,
> but learned later it wasn't so.  I cured it on my 2200 with a head
> alignment at a supposedly less than optimal setting, but it worked. 
> The tiny amount that is there requires a loupe to see it.  
> 
> Regards,
> Clayton
> 
> 
> Info on black and white digital printing at    
> http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm