Digital BW, The Print

I accidentally posted the following on the wide format forum (they all look the same don't they!) and got a predictably cynical bunch of smart a$$ replies but here goes:

I use a 7880 as a daily workhorse and for colour stuff.

But for special and personal BW work I still use an old 1800 with 3mk plus
various dilutions. The very best prints I have ever made I did using just the
3mk (no dilutions) on Hahn PR Pearl with a light overcoat of Hahn spray to fix
the Eboni to this PK paper.

The result is supeb; slightly warm, gentle lustre, 2.3 dmax, no digital
artifacts whatsoever. The slight grain introduced by the lack of dilutions
really works to gently sharpen portraits and seems on this paper to somehow add
real depth. It totally removes the digital look (I use a 5d). Paul, you must
have tried this combo as there are already curves for it in QTR which work
superbly. I am very grateful to you for 3mk and its subsequent incarnations.

I recently shot some portraits of elderly customers at our local village pub. I
have printed them this way and in my view these prints are the best I have ever
done.

We are everywhere.

Mark
http://www.stillrivereditions.com

On Feb 22, 2011, at 7:04 PM, hp9180profile wrote:

> I accidentally posted the following on the wide format forum (they all look the same don't they!) and got a predictably cynical bunch of smart a$$ replies but here goes:

Indeed we are. Standing around looking at our next print ; )  and the next
one after that, and...

 

Eric Neilsen

Eric Neilsen Photography

4101 Commerce Street, Suite 9

Dallas, TX 75226

 

www.ericneilsenphotography.com

skype me with ejprinter

www.ericneilsenphotography.com/forum1

Let's Talk Photography

 

  _____  

From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Mark
Savoia
Sent: Tuesday, February 22, 2011 6:56 PM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Your Best Print

 

  

We are everywhere.

Mark
http://www.stillrivereditions.com

On Feb 22, 2011, at 7:04 PM, hp9180profile wrote:

> I accidentally posted the following on the wide format forum (they all
look the same don't they!) and got a predictably cynical bunch of smart a$$
replies but here goes:





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Congratulations. I can imagine what you mean about grain with the 3mk approach. I occasionally print 1MK only prints for just such reasons, although on matte papers.

Can I encourage you to joing a print exchange so we can see your results?

http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBW-PrintExchanges/

Regards.

Shilesh

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "hp9180profile" <owens@...> wrote:

>
> I accidentally posted the following on the wide format forum (they all look the same don't they!) and got a predictably cynical bunch of smart a$$ replies but here goes:
> 
> I use a 7880 as a daily workhorse and for colour stuff.
> 
> But for special and personal BW work I still use an old 1800 with 3mk plus
> various dilutions. The very best prints I have ever made I did using just the
> 3mk (no dilutions) on Hahn PR Pearl with a light overcoat of Hahn spray to fix
> the Eboni to this PK paper.
> 
> The result is supeb; slightly warm, gentle lustre, 2.3 dmax, no digital
> artifacts whatsoever. The slight grain introduced by the lack of dilutions
> really works to gently sharpen portraits and seems on this paper to somehow add
> real depth. It totally removes the digital look (I use a 5d). Paul, you must
> have tried this combo as there are already curves for it in QTR which work
> superbly. I am very grateful to you for 3mk and its subsequent incarnations.
> 
> I recently shot some portraits of elderly customers at our local village pub. I
> have printed them this way and in my view these prints are the best I have ever
> done.
>

In technical terms, digital prints keep getting better over time. But the best print, for it's point in history, that I recall making was at Photokina, five years ago. Full frame sensors were still fairly new (and even newer in unextended camera bodies; meaning the Canon 5D), high bit raw processing was fairly recent as well, as were good, non-chalky art paper coatings. HP was demoing the first, not yet released, Z series printers at that show. They loaned me one for our booth. I loaded a 36" roll of the latest version of Moab Entrada, built a custom profile (our tools for B&W profiling were new at that show as well) and printed a B&W 5D image that was about three feet wide and five feet high. I left it hanging from the printer, at the corner of the booth, and watched it stop traffic all week. Loat count of the number of people who asked if it was for sale (or thought that I might just print a copy for them for free...)

I haven't had quite that level of "shock and awe" response to a print, before or since. It was a great image, but it really was the cumulative effect of all the recent improvements in technology across the board that resulted in the impact. 

C. D. Tobie
Global Product Technology Mngr.
Imaging Color Management
Datacolor.com
CDTobie@datacolor.com

My best print......

It has been a while.  About twenty-five years.  I had picked up a 135mm Carl Zeiss Tessar I wanted to try.  I mounted it on a Toyo Field lens board, loaded up some FP4 and went out to a local park.  I shot maybe six different images, returned, and processed the film in HC110.  I printed these negatives on Seagull or PAL paper, processed in Fred Picker's paper developer.  One of those images, "Falls, Oglebay", is the best print I ever made.

The composition was very good, and the print, it glows!  I never measured the Dmax, but the contrast range is fantastic.  The image jumps out at the viewer.  I have scanned that same negative several times, trying to reproduce the same effect, and have come close.  Tried several digital printing techniques. But no ringer.  I get good looking prints, but no magic.

I have never been able to reproduce the quality of that image with my PhaseOne, or D3x.  I recently watched "The Impassioned Eye".  A documentary about Henri Cartier-Bresson.  He talks about losing the eye.  The eye for design.  He is shown printing in his darkroom.  Watching the magic of him manipulating a print during exposure, and then watching that image come up in the tray, has made me nostalgic for the old wet print process. 

I think I paid $35 for that lens.  Sold it for $50.  I am sorry I sold it.  I am thinking of cleaning out my darkroom so it can be used again!

Ben

Can you print me one for free?    :   )

James Irelan




On Feb 23, 2011, at 6:01 AM, Cdtobie wrote:

In technical terms, digital prints keep getting better over time. But the best print, for it's point in history, that I recall making was at Photokina, five years ago. Full frame sensors were still fairly new (and even newer in unextended camera bodies; meaning the Canon 5D), high bit raw processing was fairly recent as well, as were good, non-chalky art paper coatings. HP was demoing the first, not yet released, Z series printers at that show. They loaned me one for our booth. I loaded a 36" roll of the latest version of Moab Entrada, built a custom profile (our tools for B&W profiling were new at that show as well) and printed a B&W 5D image that was about three feet wide and five feet high. I left it hanging from the printer, at the corner of the booth, and watched it stop traffic all week. Loat count of the number of people who asked if it was for sale (or thought that I might just print a copy for them for free...)

I haven't had quite that level of "shock and awe" response to a print, before or since. It was a great image, but it really was the cumulative effect of all the recent improvements in technology across the board that resulted in the impact. 



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

A Mistake That Was For the Best
I use HPR on a 7800  (K3 ink). I always use the paper setting  "archival 
matte paper". This time I forgot and left the setting on Enhanced  matte and 
the results  are sharper, with deeper blacks  and more  defined mid tones.
               Arlene
_arlenelove3@..._ (mailto:arlenelove3@...) 
_www.arlenelove.com_ (http://www.arlenelove.com) 

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]