Digital BW, The Print

I just found out about this group so I thought I'd post this here.  Thanks for any help.

I just got back a Epson 9600 13"x13" b&w print of a Nikon 8000 scanned negative and all I can say is I am thoroughly unimpressed.  It was printed on a 9600 with epson paper (I forget the exact paper at the moment) and Ultrachrome inks (photo black).  The operator had my darkroom print to go by so he can see how everything should look.

WRT to the sharpness the print... that isn't too bad.  It was a good scan of a very sharp image.  The sharpness holds even when viewing close... still not as sharp as the darkroom print, but close.  Looking at the eyes the print is fine, but detail gets lost in things like hair.  

The big problem is the resolution.  If you are looking at the print from arms length or further then the resolution holds its own when compared to the darkroom print.  But anything closer and it gets bad.  I don't see any "lines" on the print, but I can see the little dots quite clearly.  I've seen this in both color and B&W prints.  Tiny details get lost that are clearly there in the traditional print.

Now, on to the color and tone... well, the image I gave was a straight B&W print with black blacks and white whites and a good range of tones in between.  The print I got back looked very brown... like and extreme sepia toning had been done to it.  The lab said that was close as he could come to the B&W print I gave him as his "target."

I've seen comments on how these printers produce better results than a darkroom print and I don't see how that can be possible.  I can understand how that opinion can be made if the difference were very slight, but from what I'm looking at we aren't even in the same ball park, not even the same league... it isn't even the same sport! 

So, is this what can be expected or did I get a VERY bad print?  Like I said... it holds its own (baring the color and tone) from arms length away and further.  But, I don't see how people can say they are getting prints that equal darkroom prints.  I can see how another operator may be able get the color and tones better, but I don't see how the resolution and sharpness can get any better.  And, if this is as good as it gets how can people like Greg Gorman be using this printer for their gallery shows (color and B&W)?

Jeff

http://www.jeffsingerphotography.com

On Friday, January 31, 2003, at 08:54  PM, jsinger986 
<jsinger986@...> wrote:

> I just got back a Epson 9600 13"x13" b&w print of a Nikon 8000 scanned 
> negative and all I can say is I am thoroughly unimpressed.
> So, is this what can be expected or did I get a VERY bad print?

Jeff,

I own and use a 7600, but I think my comments will apply nonetheless.

I cannot see what you can see, but from your post it sounds like you 
got a bad print.

You said it was printed with UltraChrome ink with Photo Black? Was it 
printed on a matte paper or a gloss/semigloss/luster paper? Was it a 
color print or a BW print (given this group, I'm guessing BW).

It sounds like the operator who produced your print has no idea how to 
do proper paper tuning or sound color management. Or, because of the 
'dots' and the 'sepia brown tone' it is possible that the printer 
operator used the standard Epson driver and set it to "Black Only" 
printing, which would produce exactly the kind of print you describe.

I can tell you first hand it is possible to get EXCEPTIONAL results 
from the 7600/9600 using UltraChrome ink. I use Matte Black ink and 
print to fine art matte media, and I'm quite happy. But it doesn't come 
for free, with the Epson printer driver, right out of the box. It took 
me the better part of a month and a half of really working with the 
printer, the driver, my media selections, struggling with issues with 
the present version of alternate printing software (ImagePrint RIP on 
OS X), several color management profiling gyrations, lots of test 
prints and comparisons, but in the end it was effort well spent, and 
the results are excellent by any measure. Printing with ImagePrint to 
the 7600/9600 w/UltraChrome ink affords the use of their "Grayscale" 
profiles, which yield incredibly neutral grayscale prints, and this RIP 
also affords much better ink control than the standard Epson printer 
driver, such that color management for color prints is MUCH more well 
behaved.

Sounds like you should have someone as picky as myself do your printing 
work for you... and no, that's not a shameless pitch for work, it's 
just that getting good results from these machines takes some extra 
care and effort.

/eddie

Thanks for the reply.

The printer operator did use the "black only" setting.  He said that all the prints he tried any other way came out with a green caste.  He showed me the non "black only" print and it was green, but I didn't examine it closely so I'm not sure about the dots and loss of detail.

Basically I was doing this test to see if I should purchase the Epson 2200.  I'm in photography school right now and have access to a darkroom.  But, at the end of school I won't have a darkroom so I'm hoping to get equal quality out of a good scanner and 2200.  This test discouraged me to say the least.

I'm also not sure that any of the local pro labs will have done a lot of research or fine tuning their 9600's  for B&W.  So i don't think I'll be able to do much better locally.  I want to know that the results are possible with the 2200.  Once I get the equipment I'll fine tune it to the most anal of possibilities!

I was really hoping the 2200 would be the answer because I'd like to be able to print color and B&W on the same printer.  I'm really interested in Piezography, but that would require two printers.  Right now I shoot 95% b&w so b&w quality is very important to me.  But, color is something that I will be doing down the road.

Jeff


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Eddie Gilbert <lists@e...> wrote:

> 
> On Friday, January 31, 2003, at 08:54  PM, jsinger986 
> <jsinger986@y...> wrote:
> 
> > I just got back a Epson 9600 13"x13" b&w print of a Nikon 8000 scanned 
> > negative and all I can say is I am thoroughly unimpressed.
> > So, is this what can be expected or did I get a VERY bad print?
> 
> Jeff,
> 
> I own and use a 7600, but I think my comments will apply nonetheless.
> 
> I cannot see what you can see, but from your post it sounds like you 
> got a bad print.
> 
> You said it was printed with UltraChrome ink with Photo Black? Was it 
> printed on a matte paper or a gloss/semigloss/luster paper? Was it a 
> color print or a BW print (given this group, I'm guessing BW).
> 
> It sounds like the operator who produced your print has no idea how to 
> do proper paper tuning or sound color management. Or, because of the 
> 'dots' and the 'sepia brown tone' it is possible that the printer 
> operator used the standard Epson driver and set it to "Black Only" 
> printing, which would produce exactly the kind of print you describe.
> 
> I can tell you first hand it is possible to get EXCEPTIONAL results 
> from the 7600/9600 using UltraChrome ink. I use Matte Black ink and 
> print to fine art matte media, and I'm quite happy. But it doesn't come 
> for free, with the Epson printer driver, right out of the box. It took 
> me the better part of a month and a half of really working with the 
> printer, the driver, my media selections, struggling with issues with 
> the present version of alternate printing software (ImagePrint RIP on 
> OS X), several color management profiling gyrations, lots of test 
> prints and comparisons, but in the end it was effort well spent, and 
> the results are excellent by any measure. Printing with ImagePrint to 
> the 7600/9600 w/UltraChrome ink affords the use of their "Grayscale" 
> profiles, which yield incredibly neutral grayscale prints, and this RIP 
> also affords much better ink control than the standard Epson printer 
> driver, such that color management for color prints is MUCH more well 
> behaved.
> 
> Sounds like you should have someone as picky as myself do your printing 
> work for you... and no, that's not a shameless pitch for work, it's 
> just that getting good results from these machines takes some extra 
> care and effort.
> 
> /eddie

On Friday, January 31, 2003, at 10:47  PM, jsinger986 
<jsinger986@...> wrote:

> The printer operator did use the "black only" setting.  He said that 
> all the prints he tried any other way came out with a green caste.  He 
> showed me the non "black only" print and it was green, but I didn't 
> examine it closely so I'm not sure about the dots and loss of detail.

It is well recognized that the standard Epson driver behavior is so 
non-linear that neutral gray BW images using that driver are nearly 
impossible, even using excellent color management profiling and 
application techniques.

> I was really hoping the 2200 would be the answer because I'd like to 
> be able to print color and B&W on the same printer.  I'm really 
> interested in Piezography, but that would require two printers.  Right 
> now I shoot 95% b&w so b&w quality is very important to me.  But, 
> color is something that I will be doing down the road.
>

The 2200 should serve you very well, but you should splurge and buy the 
ImagePrint RIP to go with it. I did not when I first bought my 7600, 
and after a full complete round of tuning and custom color management 
profiling and testing and cursing, I bought the "other half" of my 
printer and re-did all that work, and I'm now very happy. Even if you 
don't want to invest in your own profiling solutions, the 
Colorbyte-provided profiles (for the 7600, at least) are surprisingly 
usable for color work, so if they do as well on the 2200 profiles and 
if the 2200 is as consistent as the 7600 appears to be, you may be good 
to go. Be forewarned, however, that custom color management always pays 
big dividends in the long run (and quite often in the immediate startup 
process).

But most importantly, the ImagePrint RIP uses special grayscale 
profiles with a special grayscale "mode" of controlling the ink, and 
the results are great. I had actually replaced my 1270 with dual 1280's 
-- one dedicated to Epson dye-based color ink for color printing, and 
another dedicated to Peizography BW for grayscale printing. The Peizo 
print quality was good enough, but the DMax fade factor really bothered 
me, as did the recommended practice of monitor-to-print "calibration". 
With the ultrachrome inks and the ImagePrint RIP, I can now do it all 
with a single machine again, with even better results (I prefer the 
more dead-neutral black of the ImagePrint grayscale mode over the very 
warm tone of the Peizo prints, but this is purely personal preference). 
The quality of the tonal range and transitions definitely varies from 
paper type to paper type, and you still have to do a convoluted 
monitor-to-print "calibration" process for decent "soft preview" 
capability, but the results are really very, very good.

 From what I understand, the 2200 should exhibit similar excellent 
quality, if treated with similar respect.

/eddie

Hi Jeff,

> Basically I was doing this test to see if I should purchase the Epson 
> 2200.

I've read the epson 2200 has a different driver than the 7600/9600. I 
believe that is why the Atkinson profiles are not effective with it. 
It's a different ballgame but gives very lovely prints when you get to 
know it. Cool neutral when all inks are used, very little metamerism, 
no green here unless I print to Epson watercolor paper. There is a move 
to greater metamerism when you have long midtones, the more contrast 
the image has, the more neutral I find the print.

Black only has proven very lovely for soft focus images, or a more 
painterly approach on arches paper etc. Also on German Etching. The 
dots to my eyes are so random with the proper tonal manipulations make 
it appear as a sweet grain, rather than an ink jet dot. Very different 
than the results from previous epsons.

You need a new test I figure.  While I prefer Piezo Carbon Sepia now 
for the warm tones and transitions, the 2200 will fill the needs for 
many things, including cooler toned black and white work using all 
inks, no dots... ;)

>
> I'm also not sure that any of the local pro labs will have done a lot 
> of research or fine tuning their 9600's  for B&W.  So i don't think 
> I'll be able to do much better locally.  I want to know that the 
> results are possible with the 2200.  Once I get the equipment I'll 
> fine tune it to the most anal of possibilities!

The best way to test, is to do it yourself, otherwise you are at the 
mercy of unknown operators, and as you say, unknown quality control... 
on top of that of course, you can read all the posts you wish, but 
bottom line, you are you're best judge for your own images of course.

Carolyn

Hi Jeff,

> WRT to the sharpness the print... that isn't too bad.  It was a good scan of a very sharp image.  The sharpness holds even when viewing close... still not as sharp as the darkroom print, but close.  Looking at the eyes the print is fine, but detail gets lost in things like hair.

What resolution did he scan the negative at?
> 
> The big problem is the resolution.  If you are looking at the print from arms length or further then the resolution holds its own when compared to the darkroom print.  But anything closer and it gets bad.  I don't see any "lines" on the print, but I can see the little dots quite clearly.  I've seen this in both color and B&W prints.  Tiny details get lost that are clearly there in the traditional print.

> Now, on to the color and tone... well, the image I gave was a straight B&W print with black blacks and white whites and a good range of tones in between.  The print I got back looked very brown... like and extreme sepia toning had been done to it.  The lab said that was close as he could come to the B&W print I gave him as his "target."

He doesn't know how to use his equipment, OR he is set up for glossy
paper, and you got a matte print. or vice versa. Very neutral black and
white prints can be had from epson printers, but you have to work hard
to get them the first time. 

> I've seen comments on how these printers produce better results than a darkroom print and I don't see how that can be possible.  I can understand how that opinion can be made if the difference were very slight, but from what I'm looking at we aren't even in the same ball park, not even the same league... it isn't even the same sport!
> 
> So, is this what can be expected or did I get a VERY bad print?

You got a bad print.

Any tone of black and white is possible with third party inksets like
MIS VM inks.

Obviously you didn't get the best scan you could have. A GOOD inkjet
print is better in all respects than a darkroom print!

Jerry

  Like I said... it holds its own (baring the color and tone) from arms
length away and further.  But, I don't see how people can say they are
getting prints that equal darkroom prints.  I can see how another
operator may be able get the color and tones better, but I don't see how
the resolution and sharpness can get any better.  And, if this is as
good as it gets how can people like Greg Gorman be using this printer
for their gallery shows (color and B&W)?
>