Digital BW, The Print

Hey--

I'm really knocked out by the quality of the discussion here, and I 
wanted to thank Clayton, particularly, and all others for their 
responses to my post of last night.

So, I have some other thoughts and observations on the 2400, BW 
printing and print evaluation.

Over the past month I have printed on the 2400 30 or 40 negatives I 
am familiar with and compared them to gelatin prints of the same 
negatives made 20-40 years ago.  The 2400 prints *are* different.  
Part of this is the scanning of the negatives and 
the "Photoshopping," both of which which introduce a number of tonal 
scale differences.  The comparison of matte prints to matte-dried 
glossy prints also makes a difference because the surface gives a 
different impression.

So, here are my thoughts on the issue from someone who has looked at 
and evaluated thousands of traditional (wet process) prints:

1.  I don't actually *see* color problems in the 2400 prints.  I 
should add that I am so critical of color issues (though never a 
color printer) that I have my optician obtain a special "pilot gray" 
dye (specified by the U.S. Air Force) to tint my sunglass lenses to 
avoid color casts.  These look like BW prints to me.

2.  As Paul suggests, I am bothered by the *idea* of color inks in 
the print.  I am also bothered by the possibility that the color 
components will affect the stability of the print, though I have no 
idea if this is the case.

3.  I am, for the first time in my printing career only evaluating 
prints under controlled luminance:  400-500 LUX.  I do find the 2400 
prints more variable in appearance (depending on luminance, without 
regard to viewing temperature) than traditional prints.  The 
variation is not about color, but about density and apparent 
contrast.  Why this is the case I do not know.  Variance in viewing 
illumination can "wash out" the print or make it murky to an extent 
that I do not find with traditional prints.

4.  The #3 issue (above) is my biggest concern about these prints.  
My response, to date, has been to keep the prints on the dark side 
because I'd almost always prefer a dark print to a "weak" one. 

5.  On the whole, I find the 2400 prints preferable to the best 
traditional prints from the same negatives.  I find the 2400 prints 
more elegant in tonality, richer, more tonally complex and more 
immediate.  They look more like life than like photographs compared 
to the traditional prints.  I can now see--horrors!--that the way 
silver was embedded in gelatin gave a certain "veiled," remote, 
abstract quality to traditional prints that the inkjet prints do not 
have.  These 2400 prints have the "immediacy" of an etching or ink 
drawing that traditional prints seem to lack.  This veiling was my 
immediate objection to RC papers, which I never used (though they 
weren't bad for contacts!) because they badly exacerbated the veiling.

6.  Number 5 raises the question of adjusting to a slightly different 
medium in viewing "photographs."  In thinking about this adjustment 
it has finally occurred to me that silver gelatin prints were not the 
product of an ideal medium but of the technology available to the 
time.  And we had a long time to get used to that.  (Comparably, 
acrylic paints never looked like oil paint, but were different.  
People got used to that too, though I can remember the similar 
arguments when they were first introduced.)

7.  I find the D-max issue, so much discussed, a relatively minor 
issue with the 2400.  The blacks are extremely deep (almost lush) and 
except in direct comparison with a "standard" glossy black swatch are 
plenty deep enough.  The 2400 matte blacks seem to me well within a 
range that allows the tonal scale of the print itself to visually 
establish a very convincing black point.  And, as I said last night, 
these blacks are at least as good as *anyting* we did on wet-process 
matte papers, almost certainly better.  If I actually measured 2400 
matte blacks against a glossy print (of any type) I might be 
disappointed, but in looking at them I am not at all.  

8.  Finally, many, many of the observations I've made here seem 
almost moot once the print is under glass.  The differences don't 
disappear, but I'd say 60 or 70 or 80 percent of them do.  This 
leaves some very tiny differences, often, I think, differences much 
smaller than the optical, color and clarity problems introduced by 
any framing glass I've seen.  For me, glass veils a print and makes 
in difficult to see.  The only thing worse than framing glass in anti-
reflective framing glass.  That's life, as is the huge range of 
illumination under which prints are actually viewed.  What we really 
need in an optically correct, $500 piece of glass for our prints. 

So, I'm not sure what to make of the whole issue but thought I'd 
throw in my most recent four cents (I think 2+2 still equals four but 
I'm not sure of that either).  Any thoughts on this mess much 
appreciated.

Walt