Digital BW, The Print

--- Michael Vendrell <mjvendrell2@...> wrote:

> Date: Sun, 5 Feb 2006 21:12:34 -0800 (PST)
> From: Michael Vendrell <mjvendrell2@...>
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: Epson 4800 vs. 2400
> question
> To: Michael Vendrell <mjvendrell2@...>
> 
> p.s. BO on the 2200 using either OEM MK (warmer) or
> Eboni (more neutral) onto uncoated Arches Watercolor
> paper (either hot press [smoother] or cold press
> [more
> texture]) produces a very pleasing platinum-like
> print
> suitable for some images that do not require high
> d-max or high sharpness.  This is truly carbon on
> cotton and can look wonderful for the right kind of
> image. 
> 
> Arches is sized with gelatin but is otherwise
> uncoated. The company has been around since 1492,
> has
> been makingthe paper more or less the same way since
> then, and Arches is more or less the standard for
> watercolorists.  I have also used it for gum
> bi-chromate printing and it works very well for that
> as well. It is inexpensive relative to coated papers
> and there are similar gelatin sized but otherwise
> uncoated papers  for even less. e.g. Here in St.
> Paul,MN the local art supply house "Wet Paint" sells
> a
> re-branded watercolor paper from the UK for a quite
> competitive price. N.B Watercolor paper sizes are
> non-standard for the US market and you would need a
> proper paper cutter if you wanted to cut these to
> standard US sizes such as 8.5" and 13" widths.)
> 
> Paul Roark also has some ICC profiles for printing
> on
> Arches with UT2 ink-sets in the R220 - I've been
> intending to give that approach a try in my R220 but
> haven't gotten around to it as yet.  If anyone else
> has tried that - I would be quite interested in
> their
> results.
> 
> This is one of the only areas in which I can add to
> what Clayton has so beautifully put togrther on his
> site - a true gem...
> 
> Michael Vendrell
> 
> --- Michael Vendrell <mjvendrell2@...> wrote:
> 
> > Ginny, I agree with Clayton.  Your questions are
> > good
> > ones that most of us either want to know or enjoy
> > reviewing and adding our $.02 worth...
> > Michael Vendrell, MD
> > 
> > --- Clayton Jones <cj@...> wrote:
> > 
> > > Hello Ginny,
> > > 
> > > >I must admit that the one or two BO good prints
> I
> > > got out of my 
> > > >1280 were, indeed, more pleasing to my eye than
> > > those made with 
> > > >my 1800.  They had a very open, warm toned,
> > > luminous look on 
> > > >Epson Enhanced Matte.
> > > 
> > > Yep.  In spite of its graininess, BO remains
> > popular
> > > with a lot of
> > > photographers.  Over the past few years there
> have
> > > been several
> > > reports of people showing pairs of identical
> > images
> > > printed with BO
> > > and full ink, to laypersons, who chose the BO
> one
> > > because "it looks
> > > better".  It has fine qualities, you just have
> to
> > > choose which images
> > > to use it with.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > >What printer would be most trouble-free
> (blockage
> > > wise) with BO if 
> > > >I wanted to print up to 11X14?
> > > 
> > > The 2200 is a really fine BO printer.  The only
> > > thing better (that I
> > > know of) is the 4000.  It has a more random
> dither
> > > pattern which
> > > results in slightly smoother tones.
> > > 
> > > BTW, I must disagree with the person who
> suggested
> > > to go do some
> > > research on your own - your questions are most
> > > welcome.  It's what
> > > this forum is all about, so ask all you want. 
> > There
> > > are lots of
> > > silent readers who I'm sure will be benefitting
> > from
> > > these
> > > discussions, so you are asking for them as well.
> 
> > > This forum is not
> > > just for the convenience of more experienced
> > users. 
> > > That's my .02 worth.
> > > 
> > > Regards,
> > > Clayton
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Info on black and white digital printing at    
> > > http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > 
> > 
> > __________________________________________________
> > Do You Yahoo!?
> > Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam
> > protection around 
> > http://mail.yahoo.com 
> > 
> 
> 
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam
> protection around 
> http://mail.yahoo.com 
> 


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com