Digital BW, The Print

"Antonis" <antonisphoto@...> wrote:

> I just read a very interesting article that Tyler Boley 
> has published on his site. Using highly magnified areas 
> of actual prints he demonstrates the importance of 
> multiple shades of gray inks (and variable dot size) 
> to produce the highest possible resolution in a B&W
> print.
> ...

I, too, was impressed by Tyler's comparison.  His conclusions and 
images are consistent with mine.  I, frankly, have 4 printers running 
with versions of Eboni or Carbon-6 (with 3MK = K8 in the 1800).  I'm 
sold on the basic K6+ approach for my work. 

> Specifically the comparison is between the ABW Epson driver and 2
> RIPs, (the high end StudioPrint and the more affordable and ever
> popular QTR). The RIPs control 2 quad tone Piezography inksets (from
> Jon Cone), each of a different hue , loaded together on a 9600.

We can get essentially the same results with RGB curves in an ICC 
(made with QTR's Create ICC-RGB) and the Epson driver, when used with 
a K6 type inkset, if the dilutions are put in positions that 
facilitate this.  That is, I think the number and dilutions of inks 
is the main difference, not the driver.  The Epson driver-ICC 
approach gives us a "color managed" workflow and direct printing from 
Photoshop in Windows, which makes a nice workflow, particularly for 
Windows users.

>...  the silver print, ... looks more "organic" than
> anything from an inkjet. 

Recall that the silver print was a contact print.  I wonder what an 
enlargement with that extra lens in the image path would look like.  
I moved to digital from silver printing to take advantage of what the 
computer and image editors could do in terms of improving the image.  
For me, while I can measure but rarely see the advantages of a direct 
film to silver print, the advantages of computer/Photoshop tools, 
among other factors, far outweigh the silver print advantages.  
Perhaps what the contact silver print shows -- but the drum scanned 
negative shows even more -- is that there is still room for 
improvement.  I still see more in my negatives than I see on the 
paper, but the digital processing got me closer to matching the 
negative than I was able to achieve with only an enlarger.


> ... draw your own conclusions!
> 
> http://tinyurl.com/47efo9

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com