Digital BW, The Print

Using Lightroom for B&W, instead of QTR (has its own virtues, but
offers less control) or expensive/clogging B&W inksets, and using eyes
insted of electronic measuring devices, deserves more  exploration...

...by those whose game is photography rather than pixel-peeping.

Using an R800 I got specifically for exploration (before I buy a 3800
or HP or whatever): 

I've learned that 1.5 picolitre dots don't result in higher detail
resolution on matte paper than does my elderly 2200. Maybe there's an
advantage with fine semi-gloss, such as Moab Satine? 

Printing B&W images (neutral, split-toned, or toned) from Lightroom on
highest-gloss paper, OEM pigments do completely eliminate B&W
bronzing, metamerism, and gloss differential ...seemingly perfectly. 

Lightroom with OEM color inkset offers tremendous tonal control,
split-tone B&W control, and color-filtration-for-B&W (even more than
the R/G/Y filters of yesteryear, and you get an instant proof on your
monitor :-)  

Split toning is incredibly easy with Lightroom, and it does need color
pigments no matter what driver if you "want what you want".

Neither Piezo nor MIS inks can give you "want what you want" toning or
split-toning unless you also use color pigments...in other words, you
can't work entirely in carbon...and of course, you can't work on
glossy stock without a lot of hassle.

Lightroom appears to offer far MORE CONTROL in most respects for
straight photos (as opposed to graphic manipulations) than does
Photoshop, and it's infinitely more intuitive (sliders and immediate
on-screen evaluation). 

The only downside I've found so far is that dodging/burning (and
probably masking), and my Intuos 3 graphic pad in particular, want 
Photoshop...don't work directly in my version of Lightroom (don't know
about Lightroom 2)...so I still have to switch from Lightroom to PS,
then back to Lightroom to print from Lightroom.

Hard to believe, but Lightroom also offers superb documentation:
Martin Evening's "The Adobe Photoshop Lightroom Book." 

Since most of us have or will inevitably have Lightroom or equivalent,
it's important to learn its potential. 

My claims here are personal experience, early in personal
testing...I'm not sure I can beat all my QTR prints with Lightroom,
but I think I can equal most of them in most cases. 
 



--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "handyman856"
<avr@...> wrote:
>
> It seems there are a number of ways to get a BW image from color. I'm
> aware of most of them, and am not asking HOW to do it.
> 
> In Photoshop you can create a true grayscale image which drops all RGB
> channels and has only a 'gray' (luminance?) channel. In Lightroom, you
> can create a grayscale image, but it appears to retain the RGB
> channels. Other techniques also use the RGB channels as filters to
> create a BW image (Lots of controls in the color channels).
> 
> The question is: For =good= BW printwork, should the final image sent
> to the printer be a TRUE, single-channel grayscale image, with no RGB
> info? I like working in Lightroom, but I would need to take the image
> to PS to make it a singe-channel true (by my def) grayscale image. Is
> this worth doing? Or will the printer/QTR figure it out?
> 
> I'm setting up a Epson 1400/QTR/Piezo printer, and they indicate you
> should only print grayscale. So I'm looking for clear definition of
> grayscale. 
> 
> Clear (gray?) as mud??
> 
> =Alan R.
>