Digital BW, The Print

Could someone post a link to the image.

Thank you,

Paul Glombick



--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "David 
Whistance" <david.whistance@...> wrote:
>
> 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]
>