Digital BW, The Print

Robert,

I'm afraid this is my only real experience with BW digital printing.  
I have seen several of the Jon Cone prints produced by others and I 
found them quite good.  I also briefly used an Epson 2000P with the 
Epson driver in BO mode and they were, how shall I say, crude.

One other issue I didn't mention in my last post is 
tonal "transitions" in the prints.  I sometimes wonder if I am seeing 
the "crossovers" from one black ink to the other.  This is so subtle 
that I cannot reliably see it, but occassionally I think I perceive 
something like this in lighter midtones.  It is certainly not 
something that disturbs the quality of the prints and it seems 
possible to me that the veiling of the gelatin prints simply hides 
this. 

Walt

Walt 


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Robert" 
<la_native@h...> wrote:
> Your comments about the 2400 seem to expand on and corroborate those
> who've had the 2400 for a awhile.  I'm curious if you had any 
previous
> experience with the UT inks or some other deducated b&w system, and
> could draw some comparions.
> 
> Robert Ades
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "wwodets"
> <odets@c...> wrote:
> > 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