Digital BW, The Print

Carl,

In a few days, as soon as my replacement 2400 arrives, I will be 
loading Nanochrome K (as the black ink), the Epson MK (as the 
darkest gray), followed by LK, LLK.

My thought is to restrict the Nanochrome K to the very dark end of 
the scale so its's color does not impact the overall print.

IAH, I am just playing around.

Regards.

Shilesh

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Carl Schofield 
<scho@m...> wrote:
>
> 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
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
>