Digital BW, The Print

Thanks, Clayton, for your (as always) carefully considered thoughts. I've been struggling 
with the same lists of pros and cons, and impatiently waiting for more follow-up on this 
forum. Experimentation with the 3K method may have been limited to date because it 
requires a printer that can create 1.5 pL ink drops. Because the R1800 (and R800) have not 
been favored for B&W work (except by a few experienced printers), it is likely that relatively 
few forum participants have a suitable printer available. The new Epson 1400 uses 1.5 pL 
dots, and a lot more people will be trying the 3K/BO method when refillable carts become 
available for that printer.

For my part,  I'm ready to try a new direction now-either 3K/BO or Epson K3- but reluctant 
to buy a refurbished R1800. The experiences with refurbed R1800s reported by Paul were 
not good, and the earlier models, likely to be available as refurbs, had problems with 
banding. I also hesitate, without more of a track record on the K3 method, to buy a new 
R1800 when an additional $300 would buy a new 2400.  I haven't looked into the R800 yet 
because I need a 13-inch printer. Nevertheless, the R800 would be a less expensive way to 
give 3K/BO a try, and that may be what I do. 



-- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Clayton Jones" <cj@...> wrote:
>
> I've been in a funk lately, and it's all Paul Roark's fault.  But
> today while pulling weeds I finally found my way out.  Weed pulling,
> you see, is my therapy.  It's when I get away from my computer and
> existential challenges and focus intently on the nearly mindless
> physical task, and often I do my best thinking.  That was the case
> today when I finally emerged from a weeks long period of restless
> unease about archival BW printing with my 2400.
> 
> It all began a few weeks ago when Paul sent me some sample prints of a
> new printing method he had developed.  After several years of struggle
> and frustration, through various unsuccessful attempts with MIS ink
> blends, workflows, curves and profiles that kept failing and throwing
> me me semi-happily back to first base with Eboni-BO printing to lick
> my wounds and recoup for the next sortie, finally (and mercifully)
> emerging into the nirvana of K3 printing with my trusty 2400 wherein I
> had gotten comfortable in a life of happy, angst-free (and clog free)
> printing, Paul comes along and invents a new and better 3-channel
> method of Eboni-BO printing with the 1800, one that has all the
> advantages of BO and virtually eliminates it's one glaring major
> weakness.  
> 
> Suddenly we have a nearly perfect pure carbon archival fine print
> solution that completely eliminates all doubts and rationalisations
> regarding color inks in our prints, either mixed as dots on paper or
> blended in the inks as toners.  And that's where my problems began.
> 
> The K3/2400 system had finally given me what I only could dream about
> in the beginning: no fiddling with RIPs and profiles, RGB curves and
> clogs - just work up the image, dial in the tone, and send it off to
> the printer and get beautiful smooth gradations and first class dmax -
> no muss, no fuss.  Finally I could concentrate on the photography,
> make beautiful prints, and go about my business as a software
> developer to earn a living.  So just as I had gotten used to it all,
> along comes Paul with something better.  The nerve.
> 
> K3 ABW prints, beautiful as they are, contain some LC, LM and Y along
> with the blacks, and there's the rub.  Theoretically they someday will
> color shift as the color pigments fade at different rates than the
> carbon blacks.  That's been a fly in the K3 salve, which Paul's new
> 3MK brilliantly eliminates.  The prints are gorgeous, with all the
> punch, dmax and luminance that BO is famous for, but without the
> infamous graininess, disliked by many.  And they are pure carbon,
> which means virtually no fading or color shifting.  And they are low
> cost to boot.  Ah, but there is a price to be paid.
> 
> The problem for me is that it means buying another printer, using QTR,
> fiddling with curves, filling carts, resetting chips - all the things
> I was very happy to leave behind when the 2400 came along.  It's not
> that I'm lazy (I spend hours being a perfectionist working up the
> images), but I'm always extremely busy with various projects and
> activities and I'm just not inclined to be twiddling with all that
> technical stuff.  I just want to take pictures and make beautiful
> prints, thank you.  It is anathema for me to think about going back to
> all that...but those gorgeous BO prints, truly archival....DARN!  What
> to do...
> 
> So for weeks this background noise and debate has been floating around
> in my mind, and today I finally resolved it.  Here's what it boils
> down to for me:
> 
> 1) K3/ABW prints are quite stable and will take a long time to shift.
>  They are rated by Wilhelm as follows, depending on the paper:
> 
> - Framed under normal glass: 110 to >205 years
> - Framed under UV glass: 110 to >300 years
> - In dark album storage: > 200 years
> 
> 2) I have a snowball's chance in you know where to become a famous
> photographer who's prints are valuable and collected, etc.  So it's
> not likely that my prints will be still around and coveted 100 years
> from now.  I can think of two scenarios where a print might still
> exist and be appreciated in 2107: a) a family portrait is passed down
> through generations, and b) someone buys a print, likes it, displays
> it, eventually dies, and the print is either inherited or is purchased
> at an estate sale by someone who also likes, keeps and displays it,
> and so on.
> 
> 3) I figure that in 100 years or so if the print begins to shift, the
> technology will be such that it could be scanned and reproduced with
> perfect fidelity, much like we restore/reproduce old family photos
> today.  The important thing will be that the image continues to bring
> joy to it's owner(s) for another century, not whether it is original
> or vintage or whatever.
> 
> As tantalizing as 3MK is, I'm not willing to give up the advantages of
> K3 printing for it.  I also have confidence that Epson will continue
> to improve it's technology and that their inks will become even more
> lightfast.  Since I do sell prints, the printer is paying it's way, so
> the ink cost is not so much an issue.  And oh what a joy not to have
> clogs, occasional leaky poppet valves and bad chips. and the extra
> software layer.  And the prints are beautiful, on both matte and fiber
> glossy papers.  
> 
> I'm a happy 2400 camper.  Tomorrow I'm going to church, and then I'll
> come home and pull some more weeds.
> 
> Regards,
> Clayton
> 
> p.s. - for those who don't mind (or even like) using a RIP and
> refilling carts, etc, I highly recommend looking into Paul's new 3MK
> method.  IMO this is the most truly archival method of BW printing we
> now have available to us, and the prints have a unique and stunning
> beauty.
> 
> 
> Info on black and white digital printing at    
> http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm
>