Digital BW, The Print

Clayton,

> > images at http://tylerboley.com/info/RGB_Quad.jpg  

> > http://home1.gte.net/res09aij/Comparisons.jpg  

> Perhaps there is a difference in the 9800 driver.

Yes, I think that might be the case.

> I also see some fine detail in your Standard ABW 2400 shot 
> that is not present in any of your other examples.

Depending on what details one looks at microscopically, one or another image
will appear to be "better."  Different drivers or rips appear to throw out
different information or insert different artifacts.  (The apparent
vineyard-like structure in one of the images is, in fact, an artifact.)
None of the approaches is close to perfect if one compares them to the
original 1440 dpi original file.  For example, I've found that some drivers
throw out information in excess of 720 dpi.  

It's important to keep in mind that these are 0.8 inch high segments.  To
get a better comparison of what a print would look like upon close
inspection, have the monitor view at about 25% in Photoshop.  The bottom
line, in my opinion, is that there is no significant difference.

> The ABW 2400 shot seems to hold up well.

Yes, I think they all look fine in real prints.

> Is this a fair comparison to Tyler's 9800 shot, having been 
> done with different scanners?

My 1600 dpi Epson flatbed is not in the same league as a good drum scanner.
But, the Epson scanner is also so much better than our eyes, that the
differences are generally beyond what we can see.  To equalize the scans a
bit better, I recommend an unsharp mask of the flatbed scans with settings
about 100%, 0.7 pixel, and 0 threshold.  One can somewhat "calibrate" the
sharpening by getting the fine detail of my 2200 K5+cm shot equal to Tyler's
B&W workflow.  They are the closest in terms of ultimate quality.
Especially when this is done to offset the flatbed's softness, at reasonable
magnification -- way below a 100% view -- I think it can be a fair
comparison, though not perfect. 

While this has been an interesting exercise for those into the technical end
of printing, people should be choosing workflows and systems based on other
than microscopic inspections of prints made with files that are way beyond
what anyone actually uses.  

What I initially disliked most about the ABW mode was the color dots.  I'm
largely over that now and using a workflow that has them (but to a lesser
extent), and I think it's the most flexible system I've used.  However, I'll
also be fade testing it to be sure it's not compromising the longevity.  If
the longevity is there, I no longer care if there are microscopic dots if
the workflow gets me other features that are desirable.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com