Digital BW, The Print

Walt, Robert,

This is an incredibly good discussion.  THANKS!

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "wwodets"
<odets@c...> wrote:
> 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