Digital BW, The Print

I'll be curious to know how your mixed bag of inks works out.  Are  
you intending to use the Nanochrome black with the Epson K3 light  
blacks?

Carl

On Jan 22, 2006, at 8:22 PM, Shilesh Jani wrote:

> Hell no, it is a pissy, rainy day here anyway - and, I understand.
> When newstand magazines such as B&W and Lenswork are routinely
> hitting 2.0, it makes me wonder what I am doing accepting the 1.6 -
> 1.7 range. The last 2 weeks, I have not done much in my spare time
> than putz around with NanoChromes. At this time I have given up the
> idea that they may be a panacea to all our woes (desires?).
> But.....the last hope is to use the NanoChrome K with more
> traditional inks in the LK, LLK, LLLK (sorry, I had to do that
> because I am working on a Quad set right now). If you push the K far
> enough into the shadows, the cool tone of the ink becomes rather moot.
>
> Regards.
>
> Shilesh
>
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Steven
> Karafyllakis" <steve@s...> wrote:
>>
>> Sorry Shilesh, didn't mean to pop your bubble. I had an interesting
>> weekend last week: I took part in an outdoor art fair, little white
>> tent and all. I had both inkjets and FB prints under glass on the
>> walls, and inkjets only in flip-racks on the side.
>>
>> The most common question the entire weekend is 'what's a carbon-
>> pigment inkjet print?' Good opportunity to educate a lot of people.
>>
>> Many also expressed surprise and amazement at how good the inkjets
>> looked, on the wall next to some of my best FB prints. But there
>> were a few-(not many mind you) that immediately said 'yea, they're
>> good, but I can still see the difference'. That says to me  we (or
>> at least I) still have that 10% to go, though we are so much closer
>> than a couple years ago.
>> And yes, you can make the argument that it is it's own medium and
>> should be accepted on its own terms, but face it-in most ways, for
>> most uses, digital printing isn't really going to be a parallel
>> technology. It is a replacement, and I for one don't want to have
> to
>> make any excuses or feel like we have given up anything in quality
>> for the sake of convenience or whatever. So pardon me if I keep
>> pushing till we get there! (dirty job... etc.,etc.)
>>
>> Steve
>>
>>
>>  --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Shilesh
> Jani"
>> <shileshjani@b...> wrote:
>>>
>>> Steve,
>>>
>>> Thanks a lot - you've just ruined the "feel-good" I was having!
>>>
>>> How's it going? Haven't seen you in a print exchange in a while.
>>> Would love to see more of the Florida Swampland and the Greek
>> Isles.
>>>
>>> Shilesh
>>>
>>> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Steven
>>> Karafyllakis" <steve@s...> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Matte paper might well be reflectionless held in your hand,
> with
>> no
>>>> glass-but if you put a silver gel print, a semi-matte inkjet
>> print
>>>> and a matte inkjet print under glass and hang them on the wall,
>>> they
>>>> all become equally reflective, since you are now looking at the
>>>> reflections of the glass. The factors that do not get equalized
>> are
>>>> the more important ones-the tonal range and dmax of the FB
>> print,
>>>> the better dmax and shadow detail retention of the semi-matte
>>>> inkjet. So I for one (since we seem to be conducting another
>>>> impromptu poll) am not ready to write of the FB look and
>>> advantages.
>>>> I've said it before, I'll say it again: I want it all.
>>>>
>>>>  my 2c worth
>>>>
>>>> Steven Karafyllakis
>>>>
>>>> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Shilesh
>> Jani"
>>>> <shileshjani@b...> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hear, hear. Now let us (Epson, or anyone else for that matter)
>>> find
>>>> a
>>>>> the K ink which gives us Dmax in the 2 range on matte papers.
>>>>>
>>>>> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Clayton
>>>> Jones"
>>>>> <cj@c...> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Paul,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ...they may have a paper that comes close to the fabled
>> silver
>>>>> print,
>>>>>>> but after getting used to matte papers, I'm not sure I
> want
>> to
>>>> go
>>>>>>> back to the silver print look for display prints.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Exactly my sentiments, and "fabled" is a good word.  I held
>> on
>>>> to
>>>>> that
>>>>>> standard in my mind for a long time, but last summer I
>> searched
>>>>>> through a box of old fiber base silver prints (mostly on
>>> Oriental
>>>>>> Seagull, Ilford MGFB and Galerie) looking for something and
>> was
>>>>> struck
>>>>>> by how distracting and annoying the glare and reflections
>>> were.
>>>> I'd
>>>>>> forgotten how bad it was and realized how much I've come to
>>> love
>>>> the
>>>>>> completely reflectionless carbon ink prints.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think that was the final step in completely leaving
> behind
>>> the
>>>>> last
>>>>>> traces of desire to recreate the look of emulsion prints of
>> any
>>>>> sort.
>>>>>> I believe I have now, even subconsciously, fully accepted
> and
>>>>>> embraced the fact that we are working with a different
>> medium.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>> Clayton
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Info on black and white digital printing at
>>>>>> http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>