Digital BW, The Print

Clayton-

Essentially new to digital BW printing a few months ago (and therefor 
without preconceptions about materials), I tested 12 or 14 papers on 
the 2400 (something like $800 in paper, forget the ink).  To my eye, 
the VFA was the consistent standout and has been producing excellent 
K3 results.  I use the EEM for proofing because it is much cheaper 
and the density and contrast very closely match VFA (though, oddly 
given the apparent color and surface of the two papers, the VFA is a 
little brighter and crisper).  As a photographic print, the EEM 
prints look just awful, unusable to my eye.  The 2400/EEM combination 
is leaden, dense and has a slight magenta cast to it that is very 
ugly.  The deep blacks are also mottled and thin.  If this 
were "digital BW," I would find the medium useless.  By comparison, 
the VFA prints are lively, translucent and deep at the same time, 
neutral and very beautiful.  So, I feel lucky to have stumbled on 
this combination and the limitation to a single paper is not 
problematic for my work.  I hope Epson doesn't discontinue it.

Incidentally, I am now using both papers with their respective 
selections in the Epson driver main page, both with neutral settings 
except that I select "light" rather than "darker" in the Fine 
Adjustments menu.  The light setting provides uncompressed shadows 
and, to my eye, a very linear tonal scale that closely matches the 
(very linear) screen image with no Soft Proof.  The workspace is 
simply 2.2.    

Walt

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Clayton Jones" 
<cj@c...> wrote:
> Hello All,
> 
> Lot of water under the bridge so far, will try to summarize...
> 
> * QTR-BO results have been good in that I have replicated the 
contrast
> and density ok, but even the best of the dither patterns is not as
> smooth as the 2200.  So QTR-BO over all is just fair.  It works ok 
for
> some images, but is not anywhere near the fine results of the 2200.
> Very disappointing.  I'm glad I bought the R200, it's close to the
> 2200 in BO quality (the only thing I've seen that beats the 2200 for
> BO is the 4000).
> 
> * ABW mode...not much new to report.  Most attempts to match an 
Eboni
> BO tone are futile dances all around the target.  Like a ring-
around,
> with as little as a 1 point coordinate change the print looks more
> pinkish/greenish/yellowish/blueish...take your pick...than the pure 
BO
> tone.  Very frustrating.   However, there is a glimmer of hope.  On
> VFA with the VFA paper setting, the 0h/0v point produces a very nice
> slightly warm tone that doesn't look colorized.  Also have found 
that
> a setting of -2h/0v gives a very pleasing neutral tone on Condor 
BW. 
> So I know it's possible.  It's amazing how sensitive this process is
> to the slightest change.
> 
> * QTR-2K experiments - am now experimenting with MK/LK + LC/LM for
> toning and have proof of concept (will put more comments about this 
in
> another thread).  I think this is going to work, but lots more to be
> done.  Early results are consistant with earlier 2K experiments with
> MIS mixed inks, in that luminance and dmax are a tiny bit less than 
BO
> but significantly better than K3 and other full ink sets (however K3
> has surprised me with its excellent luminance on some papers,
> particularly VFA; Please also note that I did NOT say that K3 has 
poor
> dmax, just that 2K is a bit better).  Smoothness also fits right
> between the two: much smoother than BO but retains a tiny bit of the
> "edge" that looks so nice.  Looking at the same image on 2K and K3
> prints side by side (EEM), the 2K version has better dmax, better
> luminance (the K3 print looks dull in comparison), and a nicer sense
> of "presence".  Another advantage of this 2k approach is that it
> contains no yellow.   All of this has been with MK, I'm looking
> forward to getting some Eboni in here.  I think this is going to be 
a
> winner.
> 
> Regards,
> Clayton
> 
> 
> Info on black and white digital printing at    
> http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm