Digital BW, The Print

John

Yes, you're right, that image was printed with OEM inks, albeit with the
Epson driver rather than QTR.  I think that if I had used QTR it would have
brought out the detail even more.

I agree wholeheartedly that it looks better when printed more neutrally,
indeed when I was tidying up recently and came across my copy of the print
by chance I was rather shocked that I had sent it out like that!  It just
shows the problems of printing and proofing even B&W images in the evenings
under uncorrected lights - I really must make myself a decent viewing area.

My decision to go for this particular printer/ink combination was sadly a
pragmatic rather than artistic one.  As you may have gathered from the
comments with my exchange images I have been running several smaller Epson
printers with non OEM inksets, all driven by QTR, to try to decide which I
preferred.  Unfortunately the inksets all have different
strengths/weaknesses.  As a result I have tended to chop and change between
printers (and therefore inksets) depending upon the needs of each image,
choosing the Cone K7 inks (in an R800) for images where smooth graduations
and a long tonal scale are needed and the MIS UT-R2/UT-3D (in an R220) for
images needing maximum dmax (from Eboni) and a split tone.  I find both to
be a considerable improvement for printing B&W over the OEM K2 inks.  With
the K3 inks I think they are still both better but the difference is less
and only the Cone K7 inks seem to give substantial benefits, especially with
images that need their particular properties.

In an ideal world I would have printed this particular image with the MIS
inkset (and a much more subtle split tone!), however my R220 has been
playing up recently - the paper feed is not taking up properly - and
repeated attempts to cure it failed.  Similarly the R800 has been plagued
with paper feed problems since it was new.  At the last minute I therefore
resorted to my much more reliable SP 4000 - which has the added benefit of
printing much faster than any of its smaller siblings.  Its only downside
for this purpose is that, being the mainstay of my wife's portrait/wedding
business, it is loaded with the OEM K2 inks!  If I had my way I'd run
several 4000's with various Cone K7 set's, perhaps with an Eboni cartridge
filling the spare slot for max dmax, however my wife would probably object
to both the cost and the space taken up!

You are right that this image doesn't rely on its tonality for its impact
and wouldn't be one that I would choose to show the Cone inks to their best.
It does however look good with the Split Tone K7's.  I'll try to put an
image in a later exchange that shows off the strengths of the Cone inks more
effectively.  I doubt though whether I'm a good enough photographer/printer
to get the very best out of them!

As far as clogging is concerned I suspect it is very much down to local
humidity levels rather than inksets.  I have never suffered any serious
clogs with any of my inksets but I think that is more a reflection of the
climate here on the Isle of Wight than any particular properties of the inks
themselves.

David

PS Sorry if I have rambled on for too long!

  -----Original Message-----
  From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of djon43
  Sent: 27 October 2007 23:34
  To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
  Subject: Re: [Digital BW] 2200 death and non-OEM


  David, I've just studied your most recent exchange contribution,
  "Hatch Shack Window" which you shot with a Super Angulon 58
  (reportedly Jehovah's favorite lens) on 4X5, printed Epson 4000 with
  OEM and Epson driver.

  It is, as I commented elsewhere, an exquisite image...shocking in
  fact. Amazing.

  I'll guess that your selection of that driver and ink was intended to
  produce the strong color (a brown duotone).

  You noted that something about this print was decided on the basis of
  speed, but you didn't say what that was. What was it?

  I immediately thought that I'd prefer it (personal taste) more neutral
  rather than duotone...easily rendered with QT... I believe it would
  have been equally powerful.

  This print actually encourages my point (in praise of OEM and QTR).

  Perhaps with Cone it'd be even better, but I suspect few would see
  that readily...it's obvious that you're a close observer...what do you
  think?

  Am I looking at a print that isn't the best example of your point (in
  favor of Cone)? I hope to see something you think better, one of these
  days!

  This print doesn't rely on tonality, it's constructed IMO almost
  entirely of fine detail...the wood grain and details make it, nearly
  by themselves. Areas of smooth tonal gradation seem irrelevant.

  I hope you'll respond to what I hope have been constructive and
  accurate observations. And I especially hope to see more of your work!

  John Kelly

  --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "David Whistance"
  <david.whistance@...> wrote:
  >
  > John
  >
  > Although it is indeed very good I don't think that QTR with OEM inks
  comes
  > anywhere near the Cone K7 inks in terms of tonal graduation or
  smoothness
  > both of which are more important to me than outright Dmax.
  >
  > David Whistance
  >
  > -----Original Message-----
  > From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
  > [mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of
  john kelly
  > Sent: 27 October 2007 14:45
  > To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
  > Subject: [Digital BW] 2200 death and non-OEM
  >
  >
  > One lesson we might draw from the years of weeping
  > here about clogged 2200 is to avoid 3rd party ink in
  > 2200.
  >
  > Easily 90% of the tears involve 3rd party inks.
  >
  > (someone happy with non-OEM usually jumps in to blame
  > users rather than ink, but I generously attribute
  > their reports of success to luck).
  >
  > Another observation is that reports of clogging seem
  > to be increasing. Perhaps more people are using 3rd
  > party inks, or perhaps 2200's are dying of old age.
  >
  > Having seen lots of examples of MIS/Piezo/OEM, QTR
  > with OEM looks as good as alternatives anyway. MIS and
  > Piezotone may produce faintly measurably better blacks
  > on some papers, but OEM still reportedly does better
  > on others, and the papers are changing.
  >
  > Some measurement reports seem dubious, some measuring
  > folks seem constantly to be changing papers ( their
  > love may be tinkering more than photography, and this
  > is a printing Group, not a photo group after all).
  >
  > My own reluctant decision is to give my mortally
  > clogged non-OEM 2200 a viking funeral and to continue
  > to love my OEM 2200 until something better than 2400
  > comes along (it sounds like 1800 is an Edsel).
  >
  >
  >
  >
  >
  >
  > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
  >



  


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]