Digital BW, The Print

Hello Bob,

I am using an Epson 2100 (European equivalent of 2200) 
For B&W I have found that I get ver nice rich blacks using Matte Black on EAM but I also found that it is almost impossible to achieve neutral blacks.
Even when you think you are there when viewing the same print under a different lightsource you will see a bluish or magenta shift.
(Caused by metamerism). Even colour images are quite sensitive to metamerism.
The black only option on the 2200 results in neutral blacks but it lacks density so that is not a good option.

I guess for real good B&W I need an extra printer and use something like Piezography BW which ads a number of black and grey shades on one print instead of using 7 colours like the 2200/2100.

Best regards,

Jo Brunenberg
http://www.jobrunenberg.com

_______________________________________________
Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com
The most personalized portal on the Web!


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

I second this. I've tried Clayton's BO workflow on my 1160 using the MIS
FS/FSN black (side info: the grays are Piezotone Selenium). This
workflow is a good compromise and one may produce decent prints (but
this is *highly dependant to the image's tonal distribution* - no good
for high key images for instance). Unfortunately the extreme detail loss
in the highlights was unacceptable to me - not mentioning many, *many*
dots and obvious dithering patterns. And once you put both BO and
Quadtone prints of the same image side by side... the BO one looks like
trash (the unsatisfactory results I got may be due to my fault/s
though). Anyway the method still holds value; being an alternative
workflow and having a different(!) look indeed.

Regards,
Loris.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jo Brunenberg [mailto:jobnl@...] 
> Sent: Friday, December 20, 2002 3:21 PM
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: RE: [Digital BW] Black Only (was Three Articles)
> 
> ...
> 
> I guess for real good B&W I need an extra printer and use 
> something like Piezography BW which ads a number of black and 
> grey shades on one print instead of using 7 colours like the 
> 2200/2100.
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Jo Brunenberg
> http://www.jobrunenberg.com

Hello Loris,

>I've tried Clayton's BO workflow on my 1160 using the MIS
>FS/FSN black.  Unfortunately the extreme detail loss
>in the highlights was unacceptable to me - not mentioning 
>many, *many* dots and obvious dithering patterns. And once you 
>put both BO and Quadtone prints of the same image side by side... 
>the BO one looks like trash (the unsatisfactory results I got 
>may be due to my fault/s though). Anyway the method still holds 
>value; being an alternative workflow and having a different(!) 
>look indeed.

I can appreciate your remarks, and share them to some degree.  I hope
my articles and enthusiasm for BO printing do not give the impression
that I am trying to convince everyone that BO is better or that people
should switch.  I'm only trying to raise awareness of it as an
alternative method because so many people have difficulty with the
full ink methods and get frustrated to the point of quitting.  It's
just too difficult right now, with too many confusing choices.  I look
forward to the day when we can _easily_ make perfect full ink prints
that are the color we want and don't fade or color shift.  

I am also grateful to Paul Roark and other cutting edge workers who
are laboring at this so all the rest of us can reap the benefits.  In
no way is my promotion of BO printing meant to be a repudiation of all
the hard work they are doing.  I hope it is not giving that
impression.

As for whether BO printing is acceptable, I see it as analogous to
some people being satisfied with 35mm quality while others are
satisfied with nothing less than 4x5.  You are correct in that the
subject matter makes a big difference.  I have held BO and FI versions
side by side and had trouble telling them apart, while others are
obviously different.  Alan Huntly recently sent me an 8x10 BO print
from an 8x10 negative and it just blew my socks off.  It was gorgeous.
Incredible rendering of fine detail.  Almost makes me want to get
back into large format.  Almost <g>.  I'm mainly a 6x7 guy.

Anyway, the wide variety of methods and tastes is part of what makes
photography such an exciting and rewarding art form.

Best Regards,
Clayton

Hello Clayton,

----- Original Message -----
From: <cj@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, December 21, 2002 10:38 AM
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Black Only (was Three Articles)


> I can appreciate your remarks, and share them to some degree.  I hope
> my articles and enthusiasm for BO printing do not give the impression
> that I am trying to convince everyone that BO is better or that people
> should switch.  I'm only trying to raise awareness of it as an

I didn't think that way... I was just making subjective statements.

> alternative method because so many people have difficulty with the
> full ink methods and get frustrated to the point of quitting.  It's
> just too difficult right now, with too many confusing choices.  I look
> forward to the day when we can _easily_ make perfect full ink prints
> that are the color we want and don't fade or color shift.

Me too... You're not alone :)

> I am also grateful to Paul Roark and other cutting edge workers who
> are laboring at this so all the rest of us can reap the benefits.  In
> no way is my promotion of BO printing meant to be a repudiation of all
> the hard work they are doing.  I hope it is not giving that
> impression.

I didn't think that way too. Perhaps my overly strong statement (looks like
trash) made you feel that way. I should correct it by saying "I'll always
vote for a 'trash looking' photograph that has a message, tells the viewer
something or leads him/her to think, awake feelings deep inside... instead
of a 'perfect looking, technical nirvana but shallow, spiritless trash'.
Quality is a thing, but not everything...

> Incredible rendering of fine detail.  Almost makes me want to get
> back into large format.  Almost <g>.  I'm mainly a 6x7 guy.

I was shocked when had my first prints from a  $95 valued (incl. CLA)
Yashica 124G (with some fungus marks remaining between the rear elements),
they were far superior than my aspherical, apochromatic $450 -  $600 valued
modern 35mm zooms (Minolta 24-105D, 100-300D).

> Anyway, the wide variety of methods and tastes is part of what makes
> photography such an exciting and rewarding art form.

Fully agree...

Best regards,
Loris.

Hello Loris,

> I didn't think that way... I was just making subjective statements.
> Me too... You're not alone :)
> I didn't think that way ...
>"I'll always vote for a 'trash looking' photograph that has a
message, 

Understood, thanks.


> I was shocked when had my first prints from a  $95 valued 
>(incl. CLA) Yashica 124G (with some fungus marks remaining 
>between the rear elements), they were far superior than my 
>aspherical, apochromatic $450 -  $600 valued modern 35mm zooms 
>(Minolta 24-105D, 100-300D).

The 124G is a _great_ camera.  I still have mine and use it now and
then.  Sometimes a TLR just fits the bill.  It can be remarkably
effective in street shooting.  Did you ever hear the story of the guy
who put a large lens shade on the focus knob so it looked like it was
pointing 90 deg. the other way?  He pointed the knob to his front,
looked up that way a few times as he focused, but was actually
shooting to his right. <GGG>

Regards, - cj




Regards, - cj