Once I settle on my next round of inks, I'm going to give that a
try. I'm out of the black only so I'm going to get a full set, but
will try your method. Hmmm... sometimes the simplest things...
:-) Many thanks for spending so much time helping a stranger. :-)
Treadwinkle
--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Clayton Jones" <cj@c...>
wrote:
> Hello Treadwinkle,
>
> >Can I just print an b&w image and NOT be a mathmetician?
>
> Yes, and I'll tell how below, but first...
>
> MIS - MIS Associates, Inc., the company which makes what many
believe
> to be the best black inks.
>
> CFS - "Continuous Flow System", description used by one of the
makers
> of ink supply hardware.
>
> RIP - Raster Image Processor, basically a computer program, or an
> algorithm used by a program, which does image processing.
>
> DMAX - How dark the black is on a print or negative.
>
> CIS means "Continuous Ink System" (or Supply) - another descriptive
> phrase used by another brand.
>
>
> >I just want to give the actors I'm shooting a good quality print.
> I'm
> > so close to going back to film, I don't want to have to spend
> months
> > researching curves, profiles, algorhythms, getting a degree in
> > algebra... I just want to select the paper from the Piezo driver
> and
> > go.
>
> I feel your pain (to quote a famous person <grin>).
>
>
> > Is this possible? Help me!!! :-)
>
> Yes, it is possible. I'm doing it and I'll share my dirty little
> secret. But first let me warn you that what I'm about to say is
> blasphemy and sacrilige. But, at the risk of being tarred and
> feathered, here it is:
>
> Print in "Black Only" mode
>
> Now if I have stirred anyone's heart or liver please hear me out
> before you crank up the flame throwers. I am not advocating this as
> the final word, but as a temporary landing zone until things get
> sorted out.
>
> First, some background. My B&W work is a passionate hobby and not a
> profession (I'm a computer programmer by trade). My father was a
> photographer (I still have his old enlarger), I got my first camera
at
> age 8 (B&W 127 film in a Brownie), and am now 56. I am a Zonie and
> have been doing fine B&W work for quite a few years (primarily TRI-X
> and HC-110), have had gallery shows and have sold prints, have read
> the books and have even taught some classes on it. So I know what a
> good print looks like.
>
> Treadwinkle, like you and many others, I decided this past year to
> move out of the wet darkroom. I don't want to stand for hours and
> breathe fumes any more. I saw what the new printers were capable of
> and decided the time was right. But I soon found myself in the same
> quagmire many others have experienced, and spent uncountable hours
on
> curves, workflows, inks, papers, ad infinitum, and all, for the most
> part, in great frustration. I just couldn't find anything that
would
> work easily and consistently and just let me concentrate on the
> photographs. It was always a battle.
>
> One weekend I spent 14 hours on a substitution curve and got a
really
> beautiful print. I thought I'd finally made it. Then I discovered
> the curve wouldn't work on another negative. Another 4-5 hours
> tweaking the curve produced another beautiful print. But, again,
the
> curve was for that negative only. It didn't take long for me to
> decide this approach wouldn't do.
>
> However, I had learned a lot, lurked in various forums (including
this
> one), pestered Bob at MIS with questions, talked with other digital
> printers, visited Mike Kravit in Boca Raton, read articles and web
> sites, and along the way heard whisperings in the back channels
about
> black-only printing, as if nobody wanted to admit they were doing
it.
> So in frustration one day I tried it, and WOW! Beautiful prints, no
> muss, no fuss, no curves, no workflows. Complete WYSIWYG out of
> Photoshop. Digital Bliss.
>
> Now, the biggest complaint about BO printing, from what I gather, is
> that the highlights have distinguishable ink dots (this is why the
> parting blessing in the recent Jon Cone post was "May your
highlights
> be dotless" or something like that). Actually, if you examine a
> full-ink (FI) print's highlights with a loupe (even Jon Cone's
sample
> print) you'll see separate ink dots. The difference is the white
> space between the dots is filled with clear ink fluid, and the dots
> are fainter, as if they have blended into the fluid. In the BO
print
> there is only bare paper between the dots, so they appear more crisp
> and more easily visible.
>
> In spite of this, however, I have found the BO prints to be very
> acceptable. If they aren't examined with a loupe, the viewers, in
my
> experience, don't perceive anything substandard about them. I have
> found the results to be stunning, and have shown prints to other
> experienced photographers without saying anything about BO printing,
> and have received nothing but praise. They are sharp, crisp, and
have
> excellent tonal gradation. Also, because bare paper shows between
the
> highlight dots, there is a luminous quality to the BO prints which I
> generally like better than the FI prints. The weakest appearance I
> find to be in large areas of detail-less near-white, such as
cloudless
> skies, where the dots are far apart and can become apparent to the
> naked eye if examined closely. But at ordinary viewing distances it
> isn't an issue.
>
> I have found some other advantages of BO printing which I believe
are
> of equal or greater importance than ease of use. I'm referring to
the
> ongoing issues of archival permanence, fading and color shifting.
Let
> me preface these next remarks by saying that I use the good MIS
black
> which is in their best ink sets. This is the ink which Paul Roark
has
> shown to be the most fade resistant (Paul, a great big thanks for
your
> dedication and hard work which we are all benefitting from).
>
> The problem seems to be that these prints will fade and shift color
to
> some degree when exposed to light. They seem to do it a certain
> amount and then settle down. What I've discovered is that these
> effects are _greatly_ reduced with BO printing. In fact, there is
> almost no color shifting at all, and only a slight bit of fading. I
> have done real torture tests by placing prints for days out in
direct
> south Florida summer sun. It doesn't take long to see what's going
> on.
>
> So the bottom line for me is:
>
> 1) WYSIWYG printing without curves and workflow hassles. Just do
the
> work in PS and send it to the printer.
>
> 2) Negligible color shifting
>
> 3) Minimal fading
>
> 4) Because of 2) and 3) I am more comfortable giving or selling a BO
> print to someone than a FI print.
>
>
> I have the two successful FI prints mentioned above hanging in my
> house, and they have settled down into an ugly "Hershey bar
chocolate"
> color. Placed next to BO versions which have held the original
color
> it is no contest, BO wins.
>
> Here are some specifics in my technique:
>
> 1) I use the Epson driver
>
> 2) Paper - I use EAM for proofing and Photo Rag for final prints. I
> find the fading is a bit more on PR than EAM, but the tonal results
> are essentially the same, so if it looks good on EAM it will look
good
> on PR.
>
> 3) The gamma setting is 2.2
>
> 4) The paper setting is "Matt Paper-Heavyweight"
>
>
>
> I have been following closely all the developments in ink and paper
> technology and related issues as reported here in this forum
(Wilhelm,
> other test methods, what "archival" means, the ink wars, coatings,
> etc, etc, etc). I concur with the general agreement that the
> technology is still emerging and that we are simply not "there"
yet.
> I fully expect that some day we will be printing archivally with
full
> ink sets with complete ease, and these hassles will be a thing of
the
> past. Until that time, however, I will continue BO printing without
> hassles, with beautiful prints that fade and color shift less than
the
> full ink ones. I can concentrate on the work and continue to
develop
> my PhotoShop skills, without frustration and muttering naughty
words.
> I simply don't have the time or inclination to do PhD level work
just
> to make a print.
>
> Here is a true story I think is important: A few weeks ago someone
> posted an urgent plea for help in this forum. He was a high school
> photography teacher who had moved his students into digital
techniques
> and was getting ready to begin a B&W session. He was having the
usual
> troubles and had gotten nowhere. He had to face his students in a
few
> days and was desperate. He was asking essentially the same
question:
> Isn't there an easy way to do this so I can just make pictures?
>
> After a couple of days he had received only two or three replies,
with
> the usual queries as to what kind of ink and printer he was using
and
> the usual recommendations to try this or that curve or workflow.
> Fortunately he included his phone number in his post, so I called
him
> and told him about BO printing. He seemed relieved and said he'd
try
> it. Here emailed later to say it was working fine and was very
> appreciative of the help.
>
> Now, I am not advocating that everyone should do BO printing. If we
> all did then no one would be pushing the envelope and the technology
> would grind to a halt. So, blessings to all of those who have the
> fortitude to push the technology. But there are lots of folks like
> me, Treadwinkle and the school teacher who can't go that route.
This
> technology needs to get to the point where people can go buy a
> printer, some archival ink and paper and it works, just as you can
go
> buy an enlarger, some developer and paper and it works. It will be
> photographic and PhotoShop skills which will separate the sheep from
> the goats. Until we get there I think BO printing is a legitimate
> alternative.
>
> I would love to see a good realistic discussion of BO printing and
to
> hear from others who are doing it. I know it is not the best result
> possible (visually at least), but for its hassle free ease of use
and
Show quoted textHide quoted text
> fade/color resistant properties I think it is a valid approach given
> the current state of the technology.
>
> Best Regards,
> Clayton