Digital BW, The Print

Hi Paul and David and others...

Hatch Shack just materialized online :-)

I see a typical level of online change (I'm looking at a good 19"
Samsung monitor). 

The online image does show the color fairly, and something about the
tonality, it doesn't begin to show the infinitely fine detail that IMO
accounts for most of the strength of the print. 

By contrast, my own online images seem reasonable reflections of their
prints (eg a rotting window analogous to David's, shot three decades
ago with a Planar on 6X7)...virtually all of my detail is easy to see
online, but David's higher order of detail and better printing skill
isn't, and probably can't be, fairly represented online. 

Some online images look BETTER than their corresponding prints,
happily eliminating technical or aesthetic shortcomings that are
evident on paper...the monitor can contribute luminosity...but that's
not a tribute to our prints. 



--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "David Whistance"
<david.whistance@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Paul, I'm sorry I should probably have replied to John via
private mail.
> I've put the image on the Yahoo DigitalBW-PrintExchanges group site
in 3rd
> Qtr Images.  Its called Hatch Shack Window - I'm nothing if not
imaginative
> with my titles!
> 
> David
>   -----Original Message-----
>   From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of
pglombick
>   Sent: 29 October 2007 12:48
>   To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
>   Subject: Re: [Digital BW] 2200 death and non-OEM
> 
> 
>   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]
>   >
> 
> 
> 
>   
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>