Digital BW, The Print

Hi!

I follow this list a bit even though I am a "color" landscape 
photographer (I print on an Epson 10K ARC).  However, I have a 
lot of 4X5 B&W negatives from a previous life that I would now 
like to print digitally.   At this time I am interested in printing on 
semi-gloss or gloss papers to get a look that is as close to the 
finest B&W prints I have seen in the past.  Paul Caponigro's work 
is sort of my gold standard in these matters - very deep blacks, 
incredible luminosity and awesome gradation in midtones.  

So, what ink/paper/lf-printer combination would I probably find 
most satisfying?  I know a lot of you print on rag and other fineart 
papers, but for now I am after that "photograph" look.  Also image  
permanence is important - so most dye inks, i would guess, 
wouldn't be suitable. 

My color prints are on Epson Premium Luster and unless you 
use a loupe they are often unrecognizable as coming from a 
digital workflow (though I think they outshine most Ilfochromes I 
have seen - except Christopher Burkett's work). I would like to 
achieve the same thing with my B&Ws, which (if I am successful) 
will probably provoke me to photograph in B&W again.  Many 
thanks for helping a neophyte!

Tom Andrews
http://www.wildlandart.com

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "pleistocenehome" 
<tandrews@b...> wrote:
At this time I am interested in printing on 
> semi-gloss or gloss papers to get a look that is as close to the 
> finest B&W prints I have seen in the past. 

Tom,

With all due respect, you're going down a dangerous road, trying 
to make an apple an orange. You might get close on some of the 
images, but I also think it's important to respect that an apple is 
an apple, and an orange is an orange. 

They're two different animals, and to try to merge them into one 
is only a road to disappointment. (And to me, the disappointment 
is that a silver print will *never* be an inkjet print! How about 
*that* for a little jab?)

Given that, I'd play around with Epson Premium Gloss, or that 
Pictorico Film stuff, or maybe John Nollendorfs inks with that 
Ilford glossy paper that he sells.

MT

Tom,

do some research on these lists and I think you'll find that the "toned silver 
print on fiber glossy paper" standard has become irrelevant for digital prints. I 
mean, in the sense that if that's what you're after, just go in the darkroom and 
make them! But if it's the tonality, color and dmax you are after, yes, there is a 
digital solution, but it's not a substitute for these darkroom prints. So, you have 
to accept what's available as a "look" first, and then see if that suits your 
images. 

To make the best digital bw, you currently have to mix and match products 
from various sources: An Epson 7xxxx or 9xxxx (pre 7600 / 9600), a printer 
driver such as ImagePrint by Colorbyte, 3 gray inks from InkjetMall (Piezotone 
Selenium or Warm Tone) and a black from MIS (from the FS inkset), probably 
a Hahnemuhle paper  (Mediastreet has good prices) or whatever remains of 
Brightcube papers (such as Eclipse) or Epson's new Velvet. 

After you've arrived at a look you like, consider coating these prints with an 
acrylic polymer that will protect them as well as deepen the blacks. It's the 
only way to approximate that glossy-air-dried "deep" black of the darkroom 
prints. This may or may not  be something you need, however, based on the 
surface of the paper you use and whether they will be framed under glass or 
not.

And, did I mention, hours of frustration and lots of ink down the drain to test all 
this? Some, like Mike Kravit, have taken the hybrid route, making digital negs 
and then platinum prints. I guess one could also make silver prints that way. 
You keep the best of digital but print on a medium that has proven stability 
and acceptance in the museum world. It will be a while for digital prints to get 
there considering the current ink technology.

Pick your poison, then!....  <G>


Antonis




 
I would like to 

> achieve the same thing with my B&Ws, which (if I am successful) 
> will probably provoke me to photograph in B&W again.  Many 
> thanks for helping a neophyte!
> 
> Tom Andrews
> http://www.wildlandart.com

Hi Mark,

Thanks!  You are of course right.  My color prints have a different 
"look" than traditional color photography prints.  For the most 
part, good prints from a digital printer look better in my 
estimation.  So I expect some similar differences with B&W.   
Just as I prefer the semi-gloss "quasi-photographic" look in 
color prints, I would like to start aiming for the something similar 
in B&W.  I've been in love with B&W photographs for over 35 
years (color for almost as long) and probably don't want to get 
over it.  Going back into the chemical darkroom is not an option.  
I am firmly hooked on my computer darkroom.  

Tom Andrews
http://www.wildlandart.com


Mark Tucker wrote:
 
> With all due respect, you're going down a dangerous road, 
trying 
> to make an apple an orange. You might get close on some of 
the 
> images, but I also think it's important to respect that an apple 
is 
> an apple, and an orange is an orange. 
> 
> They're two different animals, and to try to merge them into one 
> is only a road to disappointment. (And to me, the 
disappointment 
> is that a silver print will *never* be an inkjet print! How about 
> *that* for a little jab?)
> 
> Given that, I'd play around with Epson Premium Gloss, or that 
> Pictorico Film stuff, or maybe John Nollendorfs inks with that 
> Ilford glossy paper that he sells.
> 
> MT

> At this time I am interested in printing on 
> > semi-gloss or gloss papers to get a look that is as close to 
the 

> > finest B&W prints I have seen in the past. 
> 
> Tom,

Tom-

Everyone who has replied is a much better photographer than I am, but 
there is one tradeoffs you might be willing to make that will get you 
closer to the darkroom print look....if you are willing to give up a 
bit of longevity (probably to the equal of many wet print estimates), 
you could print with dye inks and get beautiful glossy and semi-
glossy prints that can really be stunning.

This is heresy, I know, but nothing matches the look of an inkjet 
glossy print...I use pigment ink on matte papers for about 75% of 
what I do, but when I just have to have a high contrast, high gloss 
print, I use Lyson Small Gamut inks on a variety of glossy papers and 
love it. I don't have the testing ability of Paul (and probably the 
happier for it in this case <g>) but I've displayed these prints in 
various lights (under glass) and have yet to have a fading or shift 
issue...I probably will over time, so with all the controversy, I 
wouldn't promise anyone they are archival, but the Lyson site states 
that some paper combos will give a 25-35 year life...not too bad...I 
think that is more than Kodak states for most of their processes.

Anyhow...there is an alternative if you are willing to go to the dark 
side of less longevity...

Cheers,

Tom O'Connell


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "pleistocenehome" 
<tandrews@b...> wrote:
> Hi!
> 
> I follow this list a bit even though I am a "color" landscape 
> photographer (I print on an Epson 10K ARC).  However, I have a 
> lot of 4X5 B&W negatives from a previous life that I would now 
> like to print digitally.   At this time I am interested in printing 
on 
> semi-gloss or gloss papers to get a look that is as close to the 
> finest B&W prints I have seen in the past.  Paul Caponigro's work 
> is sort of my gold standard in these matters - very deep blacks, 
> incredible luminosity and awesome gradation in midtones.  
> 
> So, what ink/paper/lf-printer combination would I probably find 
> most satisfying?  I know a lot of you print on rag and other 
fineart 

> papers, but for now I am after that "photograph" look.  Also image  
> permanence is important - so most dye inks, i would guess, 
> wouldn't be suitable. 
> 
> My color prints are on Epson Premium Luster and unless you 
> use a loupe they are often unrecognizable as coming from a 
> digital workflow (though I think they outshine most Ilfochromes I 
> have seen - except Christopher Burkett's work). I would like to 
> achieve the same thing with my B&Ws, which (if I am successful) 
> will probably provoke me to photograph in B&W again.  Many 
> thanks for helping a neophyte!
> 
> Tom Andrews
> http://www.wildlandart.com

From: "Tom O'Connell" <TomOC@...>

> This is heresy, I know, but nothing matches the look of an inkjet
> glossy print...

Maybe for smaller prints, but for 13x19 inch prints I find the 
reflections from glossy prints disturbing, particularly when framed 
under glass. I thinks that large prints on Photo Rag paper have a depth 
and beauty of their own, and look a lot better than glossy prints of 
this size.

--Mitch