Digital BW, The Print

"baecht1" <dbaecht@...> wrote:

> I'm used to silver based and carbon prints. What I want to 
> try is BO prints and gray scale, to see if I can be happy with them.

The fact that you were involved with carbon prints suggests you're a bit of a purist or otherwise interested in more than just making an acceptable print.


> ... I am being forced into digital output ...

I think once you are comfortable with Photoshop, you'll never want to go back to not having those tools available to you.  

> either as digital negs or prints.

It took me quite a while to want to give up the silver print.  I used many different digital internegative processes, but now I would not go that direction unless the physical process of the print was a key component of my final product.  I found, shall we say, negatives to all the negatives.  If, for example, you use a 2200 to make a digital negative, the microbanding that might come from that output and the limits of its resolution will to transfered to your final print.  

The ability to efficiently make a print, view it, throw it away, and make another one that takes care of the problems I saw in the earlier one is really important if the image is paramount.

I might add that the images evolve with almost each print.  The thought of contact printing a number of exact copies from a master negative removes one of the main paths by which we make better images. 

> I have a real good Epson 2200, I have cs3, I ordered UT7 today 
> and empty cartridges.

I'd consider that inkset as good only for exploring the possibilities.  Even though I designed it, I would not use it today.  The sepia is mostly fast fading color ink.  The 2200 will probably microband with UT7 unless you have a very good sample.  But, the variable tone aspect and the ability to easily print on glossy paper allow you to see what type of output -- tone and paper type -- best suits your style.

With respect to matte v. glossy, be sure to view them in the manner you'll usually do so.  That is, if you display under glass, compare them under glass -- and in the lighting where they'll be displayed.  You might well find that the matte paper has a better black than the glossy paper.  It's really all about reflections and the nature of your lighting.  I use glossy paper only for my brochures.  

To me, not only is matte paper king for what I do, but I'm even moving to Arches Hot Press (uncoated) watercolor paper as a main paper for some types of prints.  It even allows me to wash out the inkjet byproducts like the glycols and glycerol, if I want to.  The loose, excess carbon also washes off, leaving a print that may be the most physically durable that I've experienced.  It can even be re-washed.  It's a potentially very exciting medium.

The UT7 curves-profiles that I made were pre-QTR-Create-ICC.  Today you can take those curves and put them into an ICC and linearize most new papers as well as make your Epsond driver based workflow "color managed."  See http://www.paulroark.com/BW-Info/Embedding_Photoshop_Curves_in_ICCs.pdf


> I have two questions. 
> I know monitor calibration is a must with color, is it 
> just as crucial with Black and White. I have looked at 
> the Spyder monitor stuff, but, I just don't know, opinions please.

I use the ColorVision monitor calibration system and the spectro for reading 21-step B&W test strips.  It's definitely worth the investment, if only for the spectro.  

I think getting the monitor's and printer's outputs coordinated in terms of relative densities is very important.  This can be done a number of ways.  I do not bother with soft proofing of the subtle color tones of B&W prints.  The QTR Create-ICC approach noted above is a great way to "color manage" a B&W workflow if you're using an epson driver workflow.  I personally use adjustment curves to convert my Gray Gamma 2.2 workspace images into QTR's linear space for printing.  There are lots of options here.


> I'll be working from scanned 4x5 negs that I have silver and 
> carbon prints to compare plus I'll use images from a digital camera.

If you're accustomed to 4x5, I hope you have a very good digital camera.  I'd say anything less than 20 MP will be a problem.  I'm an old medium format shooter and so far have been happy with the 21 MP Canon, but it's the least I'd probably be happy with, and the retrofocus wide angles are a problem.  There are very few that cut it, but there are some that you can find if you really study the MTF curves carefully.  The new Canon 24 TS-E LII is on my wish list.  The 90 TS (or 85 1.8) and 35 f/2 (at F8-11 and within the 8x10 crop) are the main lenses I use.  Most of my old -- even L -- lenses are not up to the sensor or the medium format standards I'm accustomed to. 

With respect to printing with the 2200, I used mine to print 100% carbon pigment ("Carbon-6," the home-brew version of Eboni-6) prints on mostly Premier Art Smooth Bright White paper for neutral prints and lots of other matte papers for other tones up to medium warm.  I used a cheap SuperJetUSA CIS and had no problems.  I pulled the plug on that system after 9 months to do some other experiments with the printer, but the system worked fine and made very good prints.  

With CISs you do have to keep an eye on the ink levels relative to the print head. The tops of the ink should be a bit above the head. CISs will back flow if it's low and run right through if too high.  The 7800's back flow valves and air pressure system are, I hope, going to be a big plus in my setting that printer up for carbon printing. 

As an old carbon printer, the attributes of carbon pigment inkjet printing may appeal to you.

Good luck with the transition.  I'd never go back.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com 
http://www.paulroark.com/BW-Info/