Digital BW, The Print

Edward Weston's prints, seemingly always contacts, were superior in
every respect to Ansel Adams' enlargements in my experience. And few
darkroom photographers have made 

In that context, it would be interesting to compare enlargements to
Tyler's contacts and inkjets: I'm pretty sure the inkjets would 
out-resolve the enlarged print in every case. My own testing suggests
prints from MCRX condenser enlarger with superb Rodenstock enlarging
lens is far inferior to routine scan/inkjet in most respects.

Think whether you'd prefer a mural from an enlarger or from an inkjet
printer. I've seen a lot of both and do have a preference.

Would reasons for that preference extend to common very small prints,
such as 11X14? I think it does. 

Comparison of inkjet to contact is interesting and very worthwhile in
the abstract (thank you Tyler), but it would be more worthwhile to 
those of us with more visual and less theoretic concerns to compare
inkjet to enlargement: few photographers have ever done letter-size,
much less 16X20 contacts :-)



--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "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.
> 
> 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.
>  
> As a bonus we are also given the same image area scanned to the same
> size from a contact print of the original neg. Despite the
> shortcomings of the silver print, it still looks more "organic" than
> anything from an inkjet. Scattered grains of silver form a more
> pleasing structure than dithered dots. Of course, all this is at a
> microscopic level and it wouldn't surprise me if many readers find the
> whole thing irrelevant .
> 
> Yet, it is fascinating to see what actual prints look like under
> magnification. As Tyler points out, we don't actually see this level
> of detail when we look at a print but it sure influences our
> perception of the image - even if we can't pinpoint the reason.
> 
> So.... draw your own conclusions!
> 
> http://tinyurl.com/47efo9
> 
> 
> Antonis
>