Digital BW, The Print

Hello John,

I'm not sure what the point of your post was, but I have to question
some of your statements.


>From what I've seen, 2400 B&W prints... 

Do you mean ABW prints with the K3 inks?  


>...lack advantages (other than ease) over 2200 and newer cheaper 
>Epsons assuming dedicated B&W inks...

What sort of advantages are you referring to?  

I've used the 2200 and the 2400 and in my experience any advantages or
disadvantages of either machine over the other would depend on the
workflow and skill of the user.  I don't think it's possible to make a
blanket statement that one printer or ink set or combination thereof
is better than another.


>...and classic 35mm-shooting roots/aspirations. 

Why would this make any difference in the print quality, all other
things being equal?


 
>Dots in 2200/MIS grays are seen primarily with loupes on highest
>resolution versions of highest gloss papers, and not on the
>silver-simulating semi-gloss papers that "art" photographers
>increasingly use...certainly not on softer rag papers. 

The same thing could be said of 2400/ABW/K3 prints.  A loupe is needed
to see those dots as well.  I'm not sure what the point is here.  Is
this more a comment on paper types?


>Black-Only does typically make dots more obvious...it's a 
>crude/happy approach that can nonetheless look wonderful in 
>smaller (e.g. 6X9) prints...

Actually, BO prints look better as print size increases because the
typical viewing distance is greater and the graininess is less
obvious.  BO dots are not like film grain, they don't get bigger as
the print size increases.


>...it helps especially with soft (focus) original images printed
>small.  

In my experience BO printing will not make a soft focus image look
sharper (any more than any other printing technique).  A small print
can lessen the obviousness of a soft focus image, but BO doesn't
disguise it any more than any other printing technique.


>I'll note obvious differences in aesthetic between digicam shooters
>and film/scanner types, such as myself.  
>...probably not relevant to digicam users.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here.  In my own experience
I've done digital BW printing with scanned negs (35mm, 645, 6x6, 6x7,
4x5) and with digicams (1/8, 2/3 and APS-C sensors), and have not
found that my approach to printing needs to be changed depending on
the image source (my PS techniques, perhaps, but not the printer). 
Can you explain the connection between this and your 2200 vs 2400
statement?  I'm trying to understand what you're trying to say.


Regards,
Clayton


Info on black and white digital printing at    
http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm