Digital BW, The Print

After reading all the posts,no better then giving BO a fair comparison to
quad. So I got a good image and printed it side by side using MIS FS Neutral
on a single sheet of EAM paper( Epson 980). BO was according to Clayton's
recommendation found in his webpage. Result?

No big surprise. The quad is absolutely smooth,no dots anywhere,perfect
gradations. The BO is coarser, shows the dots that can be seen from a foot
away,MAINLY if you're looking for it,and seeing them side by side. Is it
bad? No,it\ufffds different. Clayton calling it "digital Tri-X" seems fair,it
really resembles it. I wouldn't use it for a rich,detailed landscape,but
would find it acceptable for street photography,for example. Just like I
would use Tmax 100 or Provia 100 for the first,and could use (though I
dont't like the grain!) Tri-X for the second.
In conclusion: Can you get prints as smooth with BO as you can with quads?
No way. Are they unacceptable? No,if you know what they look like and live
with the difference...

Best

Andr\ufffd Vallejo
http://andrevallejo.net


Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2003 04:04:20 -0000

   From: "Clayton Jones" <cj@...>
Subject: Re: Myth: was Any New 2200 BW for PC's?

Hello Peter,

> Just do the math.  At 2880x1440 DPI (the maximum for the 2200), the
> printer can produce 4147200 dots/in^2.   If you are rendering an
> image at 300 PPI each pixel in the original image gets only enough
> real estate on the paper for 46 printer dots.   Since each dot of
> black ink can only be black or ~black, that's not NEARLY enough to
> represent a full tonal range!

Sorry, that's just theory.  I _know_, from real experience, that I can
print both high and low contrast images with the BO technique and get
beautifully rendered prints that match the digital images accurately.
It's a fact I can demonstrate.