Digital BW, The Print

First off, this is the first time I've posted here, so hello to 
everyone.  I'm just, finally, making the switch from film to digital, 
and an unexpected by-product of this shift is that I'm rediscovering 
my love of B&W in the digital domain.  This certainly seems to be a 
great group for me to check out, and I assure you all that I'll be 
doing a number of searches through the archives to pick up tips, so 
I'll attempt to avoid asking at least some of the questions that have 
been asked numerous times before.  Nonetheless, there's one question 
on my mind at the moment, and I thought I'd throw it out.

I've been reading the news about the upcoming Epson 4000, and I've 
read that it's supposed to acheive a DMax of 2.1 on glossy media and 
1.69 on matte media.  Though I'm no expert on this subject yet, I've 
read that the 2200/7600/9600, with the Ultrachromes, acheive a DMax 
of 2.0 on glossy media and 1.69 on matte.  Obviously, this suggests a 
higher DMax on glossy for the 4000.  And, considering that my 
upcoming foray into digital B&W will involve a search for the best 
DMax, I find this interesting.  (Though I don't know how a printer 
using the same inks/media is supposed to acheive a higher DMax on 
glossy media... maybe by mixing some Matte Black in with the Photo 
Black, since both inks will be available at once?)

Obviously, I don't expect anyone to predict for me if the 4000 is 
going to do better in this regard than the 2200/7600/9600, but I was 
wondering if I could get a little input on the results people are 
getting with the Ultrachromes or with inks they've substituted for 
the Ultrachromes.  I've read about the MIS inks and the Lyson inks, 
for example, and I'm trying to get a handle on what options provide 
the highest DMax and how those options compare with results I'm used 
to from the traditional, wet darkroom (though it's been a while since 
my B&W days).

What I really need to do, I'm sure, is attempt to find opportunities 
to actually look at people's work that uses different inks and 
media.  But, inasmuch as my decision to go digital is only a few 
weeks old, and considering that my renewed focus on B&W is only a few 
days old, I really find myself in need of some pointers in the right 
direction.  Like I said, really great DMax is going to be a big focus 
of mine.  Which I'm sure is not uncommon.  But, anyway, I'm just 
wondering if you folks are satisfied with the DMax you're getting 
right now and what combination of inks & media have given the best 
results for superior DMax.

I'm reluctant to admit my ignorance, but, though I used to get good 
results in the darkroom, and though I used zone system techniques in 
some of my B&W work, I don't really relate very well to DMax 
figures.  I'm afraid to say that I don't really know how figures of 
1.69 or 2.0 or 2.1 compare to the results I was getting, so they're 
really just abstract figures until I associate them with something 
visual.  Even if I did once know DMax values for the blacks in some 
of my old B&W prints, I'm afraid that knowledge has erroded over the 
years.

Anyway, sorry for rambling, and thanks for your patience.  I'm pretty 
excited about my 'rediscovery' of B&W, so I'm sure you'll see me here 
more, and I really must find the time to make my way through much of 
the group's archives.

Regards,

Mike

Mike,

Welcome.

>...
>... upcoming Epson 4000, .. I've read that it's supposed
>to acheive a DMax of 2.1 on glossy media and
>1.69 on matte media.  ...

That's about normal for most of the more expensive, modern Epson printers.
A 0.1 dmax difference is well within what you could get from a single
printer from time to time.  In comparing dmax's the densitometers, paper
selection and batch, shade of the paper under the paper you're reading all
would affect the readings.  As such, comparisons with what others have
measured might be misleading unless all the variables are held constant.

I think, realistically, the big differences are between matte and RC/glossy
papers, and between the pure pigment and the hybrid pigment-dye inks.  RC
papers get a better dmax.  More dye means higher dmax -- and more fading and
warm shifting.

The Epson Matte black is about as deep a pure pigment matte black as there
is, with MIS Eboni and PiezoTone Museum right there with it.  (Actually,
about 0.1 - 0.2 behind on average, but the cooler tone of the Eboni/museum
make them look darker, in my opinion.)  They are all very lightfast.  The
hybrid blacks are not in the same league if stability matters to you, but
the dmax's can be impressive.

In comparing the visual differences between various papers, I think the
densitometer readings can be misleading.  The glossy papers give very high
dmax readings, but the reflections in the real world often eliminate this
advantage.  A 1.65 matte inkjet print can look better than a 2+ glossy
pigmented print.  Under glass, if you are at 1.6 or above with the inkjet, I
doubt anyone is going to see any difference between the good silver print
and a matte inkjet print.  I hang them together and they look very similar.
Of course, if you use dye on an RC paper you're really looking at a
potentially huge dmax, but as the dmax gets higher, the eye's ability to
distinguish those shades decreases.  Above 2.0 with an RC paper or 1.65 with
a matte paper and the visual differences are not that great, in my opinion.

I think you'll be pleasantly surprised by how good the matte papers look
with today's good pure pigment black.  It's a different look when not under
glass, but as an old silver printer, I've actually come to prefer the matte
look.  I really dislike the RC glossy look, and the semi-gloss or pearl
papers just don't make it either, in my view.  All the RC papers I've tried
have "bronzing" or other surface defects that are not very appealing.

Digital B&W is great fun and the technology is definitely ready for prime
time.  It will, of course, get better, but where we're at now is very
satisfying even for former darkroom printers.

Enjoy your journey.

Paul
http://www.PaulRoark.com

Mike  -
 
From the various 'specs' it appears that the 'best' ink/paper DMax today is not as dense as the best silver/developer DMax.  It seems to me, however, that this comparison is not really valid except in a statistical sense.  From a personal point of view, I am beginning to realize that we really are working in a different medium.  It's still photography I guess, if the initial image is achieved with the help of a lens of some type.  Today, we still strive to make our output look like traditional silver prints.  In the not to distant future we will have the technology to achieve that.  But, the digital processes, even when you begin with a 'photographic' image, has much more potential for creativity than any previous photographic process.  It seems to me that we are not involved in evolution, but revolution.
 
But, this is a revolution mostly in the technical sense.  The 'traditional' b&w images won't cease to have value.  The great b&w images were great because they were art.  The new great b&w images will be great for the same reason, not because of the process with which they are done.  I believe, however, that we will begin to see more and more b&w art images that go where b&w has not been able to go before.  The digital processes allow us to control tonality in ways that we never dreamed possible. 
 
Also, through Paul's efforts (and a few others) the technology to achieve truly creative b&w imagery will be available to many more people than the darkroom of yesteryear could hold.   This is going to make for a great creative dialog. 
 
This is an exciting time for anyone with an interest in creative imagery.  Look around at your local galleries and club groups.  You'll already see some great new images 
 
So, jump in.  This is really great fun.
 
Tom Baker
 
 
Paul Roark <paul.roark@...> wrote:
Mike,

Welcome.

>...
>... upcoming Epson 4000, .. I've read that it's supposed
>to acheive a DMax of 2.1 on glossy media and
>1.69 on matte media.  ...

That's about normal for most of the more expensive, modern Epson printers.
A 0.1 dmax difference is well within what you could get from a single
printer from time to time.  In comparing dmax's the densitometers, paper
selection and batch, shade of the paper under the paper you're reading all
would affect the readings.  As such, comparisons with what others have
measured might be misleading unless all the variables are held constant.

I think, realistically, the big differences are between matte and RC/glossy
papers, and between the pure pigment and the hybrid pigment-dye inks.  RC
papers get a better dmax.  More dye means higher dmax -- and more fading and
warm shifting.

The Epson Matte black is about as deep a pure pigment matte black as there
is, with MIS Eboni and PiezoTone Museum right there with it.  (Actually,
about 0.1 - 0.2 behind on average, but the cooler tone of the Eboni/museum
make them look darker, in my opinion.)  They are all very lightfast.  The
hybrid blacks are not in the same league if stability matters to you, but
the dmax's can be impressive.

In comparing the visual differences between various papers, I think the
densitometer readings can be misleading.  The glossy papers give very high
dmax readings, but the reflections in the real world often eliminate this
advantage.  A 1.65 matte inkjet print can look better than a 2+ glossy
pigmented print.  Under glass, if you are at 1.6 or above with the inkjet, I
doubt anyone is going to see any difference between the good silver print
and a matte inkjet print.  I hang them together and they look very similar.
Of course, if you use dye on an RC paper you're really looking at a
potentially huge dmax, but as the dmax gets higher, the eye's ability to
distinguish those shades decreases.  Above 2.0 with an RC paper or 1.65 with
a matte paper and the visual differences are not that great, in my opinion.

I think you'll be pleasantly surprised by how good the matte papers look
with today's good pure pigment black.  It's a different look when not under
glass, but as an old silver printer, I've actually come to prefer the matte
look.  I really dislike the RC glossy look, and the semi-gloss or pearl
papers just don't make it either, in my view.  All the RC papers I've tried
have "bronzing" or other surface defects that are not very appealing.

Digital B&W is great fun and the technology is definitely ready for prime
time.  It will, of course, get better, but where we're at now is very
satisfying even for former darkroom printers.

Enjoy your journey.

Paul
http://www.PaulRoark.com




Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT

Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint

If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same page.

Please follow these basic guidelines:
- Include your full name with your message.
- Include the address of your website, if you have one.
- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep them short.
- As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames
- Complete your Yahoo profile.
- Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various resources on the homepage. 




Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. 



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

Hi Mike

I¹m also new to the digital world and am very ignorant to things here.
I am also looking for the best B&W printer and thought that we could do this
search together and see what we can come up with.
I posted a similar notice asking those who have had experience to give me
feedback as to what printer to use or buy, and what inks.
I need help in this area and so far have not gotten any direct answer.
Let me know your feedback and I will let you know mine.
Best Regards..........Brad.
 


On 10/22/03 9:37 AM, "Mike" <mfractl@...> wrote:

> 
> First off, this is the first time I've posted here, so hello to
> everyone.  I'm just, finally, making the switch from film to digital,
> and an unexpected by-product of this shift is that I'm rediscovering
> my love of B&W in the digital domain.  This certainly seems to be a
> great group for me to check out, and I assure you all that I'll be
> doing a number of searches through the archives to pick up tips, so
> I'll attempt to avoid asking at least some of the questions that have
> been asked numerous times before.  Nonetheless, there's one question
> on my mind at the moment, and I thought I'd throw it out.
> 
> I've been reading the news about the upcoming Epson 4000, and I've
> read that it's supposed to acheive a DMax of 2.1 on glossy media and
> 1.69 on matte media.  Though I'm no expert on this subject yet, I've
> read that the 2200/7600/9600, with the Ultrachromes, acheive a DMax
> of 2.0 on glossy media and 1.69 on matte.  Obviously, this suggests a
> higher DMax on glossy for the 4000.  And, considering that my
> upcoming foray into digital B&W will involve a search for the best
> DMax, I find this interesting.  (Though I don't know how a printer
> using the same inks/media is supposed to acheive a higher DMax on
> glossy media... maybe by mixing some Matte Black in with the Photo
> Black, since both inks will be available at once?)
> 
> Obviously, I don't expect anyone to predict for me if the 4000 is
> going to do better in this regard than the 2200/7600/9600, but I was
> wondering if I could get a little input on the results people are
> getting with the Ultrachromes or with inks they've substituted for
> the Ultrachromes.  I've read about the MIS inks and the Lyson inks,
> for example, and I'm trying to get a handle on what options provide
> the highest DMax and how those options compare with results I'm used
> to from the traditional, wet darkroom (though it's been a while since
> my B&W days).
> 
> What I really need to do, I'm sure, is attempt to find opportunities
> to actually look at people's work that uses different inks and
> media.  But, inasmuch as my decision to go digital is only a few
> weeks old, and considering that my renewed focus on B&W is only a few
> days old, I really find myself in need of some pointers in the right
> direction.  Like I said, really great DMax is going to be a big focus
> of mine.  Which I'm sure is not uncommon.  But, anyway, I'm just
> wondering if you folks are satisfied with the DMax you're getting
> right now and what combination of inks & media have given the best
> results for superior DMax.
> 
> I'm reluctant to admit my ignorance, but, though I used to get good
> results in the darkroom, and though I used zone system techniques in
> some of my B&W work, I don't really relate very well to DMax
> figures.  I'm afraid to say that I don't really know how figures of
> 1.69 or 2.0 or 2.1 compare to the results I was getting, so they're
> really just abstract figures until I associate them with something
> visual.  Even if I did once know DMax values for the blacks in some
> of my old B&W prints, I'm afraid that knowledge has erroded over the
> years.
> 
> Anyway, sorry for rambling, and thanks for your patience.  I'm pretty
> excited about my 'rediscovery' of B&W, so I'm sure you'll see me here
> more, and I really must find the time to make my way through much of
> the group's archives.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Mike
> 
> 
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
>  
>  ADVERTISEMENT
>  
> <http://rd.yahoo.com/M=194081.4074964.5287182.1261774/D=egroupweb/S=1705019182
> :HM/A=1706996/R=0/SIG=11p5b9ris/*http://www.ediets.com/start.cfm?code=30509&me
> dia=atkins>  
> 
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and other
> resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
> 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> 
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to
> unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same
> page.
> 
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
> them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
> resources on the homepage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
> <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .




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

Mike

I just got this email whit this info.  It is the most simple direct answer I
have so far.
Regards.......




Bill's comments are only partially true.  While I agree that the 1280
with dye inks cannot match the 2200 for color work, I would suggest that
when used with either Piezography BW and PiezoTone inks, or with any of
the various MIS b/w inksets, such as the UltraTones, the 1280 is a
terrific printer.  In fact, I suspect that the 1280 is the current b/w
printer of choice among desktop models.  I have both, using the 2200
strictly for my color work, and the 1280/Piezography setup for my b/w
printing.






On 10/22/03 9:37 AM, "Mike" <mfractl@hotmail.com> wrote:

> 
> First off, this is the first time I've posted here, so hello to
> everyone.  I'm just, finally, making the switch from film to digital,
> and an unexpected by-product of this shift is that I'm rediscovering
> my love of B&W in the digital domain.  This certainly seems to be a
> great group for me to check out, and I assure you all that I'll be
> doing a number of searches through the archives to pick up tips, so
> I'll attempt to avoid asking at least some of the questions that have
> been asked numerous times before.  Nonetheless, there's one question
> on my mind at the moment, and I thought I'd throw it out.
> 
> I've been reading the news about the upcoming Epson 4000, and I've
> read that it's supposed to acheive a DMax of 2.1 on glossy media and
> 1.69 on matte media.  Though I'm no expert on this subject yet, I've
> read that the 2200/7600/9600, with the Ultrachromes, acheive a DMax
> of 2.0 on glossy media and 1.69 on matte.  Obviously, this suggests a
> higher DMax on glossy for the 4000.  And, considering that my
> upcoming foray into digital B&W will involve a search for the best
> DMax, I find this interesting.  (Though I don't know how a printer
> using the same inks/media is supposed to acheive a higher DMax on
> glossy media... maybe by mixing some Matte Black in with the Photo
> Black, since both inks will be available at once?)
> 
> Obviously, I don't expect anyone to predict for me if the 4000 is
> going to do better in this regard than the 2200/7600/9600, but I was
> wondering if I could get a little input on the results people are
> getting with the Ultrachromes or with inks they've substituted for
> the Ultrachromes.  I've read about the MIS inks and the Lyson inks,
> for example, and I'm trying to get a handle on what options provide
> the highest DMax and how those options compare with results I'm used
> to from the traditional, wet darkroom (though it's been a while since
> my B&W days).
> 
> What I really need to do, I'm sure, is attempt to find opportunities
> to actually look at people's work that uses different inks and
> media.  But, inasmuch as my decision to go digital is only a few
> weeks old, and considering that my renewed focus on B&W is only a few
> days old, I really find myself in need of some pointers in the right
> direction.  Like I said, really great DMax is going to be a big focus
> of mine.  Which I'm sure is not uncommon.  But, anyway, I'm just
> wondering if you folks are satisfied with the DMax you're getting
> right now and what combination of inks & media have given the best
> results for superior DMax.
> 
> I'm reluctant to admit my ignorance, but, though I used to get good
> results in the darkroom, and though I used zone system techniques in
> some of my B&W work, I don't really relate very well to DMax
> figures.  I'm afraid to say that I don't really know how figures of
> 1.69 or 2.0 or 2.1 compare to the results I was getting, so they're
> really just abstract figures until I associate them with something
> visual.  Even if I did once know DMax values for the blacks in some
> of my old B&W prints, I'm afraid that knowledge has erroded over the
> years.
> 
> Anyway, sorry for rambling, and thanks for your patience.  I'm pretty
> excited about my 'rediscovery' of B&W, so I'm sure you'll see me here
> more, and I really must find the time to make my way through much of
> the group's archives.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Mike
> 
> 
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
>  
>  ADVERTISEMENT
>  
> <http://rd.yahoo.com/M=194081.4074964.5287182.1261774/D=egroupweb/S=1705019182
> :HM/A=1706996/R=0/SIG=11p5b9ris/*http://www.ediets.com/start.cfm?code=30509&me
> dia=atkins>  
> 
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and other
> resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
> 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> 
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to
> unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same
> page.
> 
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
> them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
> resources on the homepage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
> <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .




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

Mike/Brad  -
 
Unfortunately, there really isn't one 'direct', correct answer.  There are several ways to approach this.  It's sort of like deciding to build your own super race car from scratch, or buying a track ready one off the shelf.  You can, however, sort thru all of the opinions you'll get here, pick out the ones that seem closest to your own opioions/needs.  
 
Give it a little time and thought, and you'll actually get some really good info here.

Brad Mol <bradmol99@...> wrote:
Hi Mike

I�m also new to the digital world and am very ignorant to things here.
I am also looking for the best B&W printer and thought that we could do this
search together and see what we can come up with.
I posted a similar notice asking those who have had experience to give me
feedback as to what printer to use or buy, and what inks.
I need help in this area and so far have not gotten any direct answer.
Let me know your feedback and I will let you know mine.
Best Regards..........Brad.



On 10/22/03 9:37 AM, "Mike" <mfractl@...> wrote:

> 
> First off, this is the first time I've posted here, so hello to
> everyone.  I'm just, finally, making the switch from film to digital,
> and an unexpected by-product of this shift is that I'm rediscovering
> my love of B&W in the digital domain.  This certainly seems to be a
> great group for me to check out, and I assure you all that I'll be
> doing a number of searches through the archives to pick up tips, so
> I'll attempt to avoid asking at least some of the questions that have
> been asked numerous times before.  Nonetheless, there's one question
> on my mind at the moment, and I thought I'd throw it out.
> 
> I've been reading the news about the upcoming Epson 4000, and I've
> read that it's supposed to acheive a DMax of 2.1 on glossy media and
> 1.69 on matte media.  Though I'm no expert on this subject yet, I've
> read that the 2200/7600/9600, with the Ultrachromes, acheive a DMax
> of 2.0 on glossy media and 1.69 on matte.  Obviously, this suggests a
> higher DMax on glossy for the 4000.  And, considering that my
> upcoming foray into digital B&W will involve a search for the best
> DMax, I find this interesting.  (Though I don't know how a printer
> using the same inks/media is supposed to acheive a higher DMax on
> glossy media... maybe by mixing some Matte Black in with the Photo
> Black, since both inks will be available at once?)
> 
> Obviously, I don't expect anyone to predict for me if the 4000 is
> going to do better in this regard than the 2200/7600/9600, but I was
> wondering if I could get a little input on the results people are
> getting with the Ultrachromes or with inks they've substituted for
> the Ultrachromes.  I've read about the MIS inks and the Lyson inks,
> for example, and I'm trying to get a handle on what options provide
> the highest DMax and how those options compare with results I'm used
> to from the traditional, wet darkroom (though it's been a while since
> my B&W days).
> 
> What I really need to do, I'm sure, is attempt to find opportunities
> to actually look at people's work that uses different inks and
> media.  But, inasmuch as my decision to go digital is only a few
> weeks old, and considering that my renewed focus on B&W is only a few
> days old, I really find myself in need of some pointers in the right
> direction.  Like I said, really great DMax is going to be a big focus
> of mine.  Which I'm sure is not uncommon.  But, anyway, I'm just
> wondering if you folks are satisfied with the DMax you're getting
> right now and what combination of inks & media have given the best
> results for superior DMax.
> 
> I'm reluctant to admit my ignorance, but, though I used to get good
> results in the darkroom, and though I used zone system techniques in
> some of my B&W work, I don't really relate very well to DMax
> figures.  I'm afraid to say that I don't really know how figures of
> 1.69 or 2.0 or 2.1 compare to the results I was getting, so they're
> really just abstract figures until I associate them with something
> visual.  Even if I did once know DMax values for the blacks in some
> of my old B&W prints, I'm afraid that knowledge has erroded over the
> years.
> 
> Anyway, sorry for rambling, and thanks for your patience.  I'm pretty
> excited about my 'rediscovery' of B&W, so I'm sure you'll see me here
> more, and I really must find the time to make my way through much of
> the group's archives.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Mike
> 
> 
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
>  
>  ADVERTISEMENT
>  
> <http://rd.yahoo.com/M=194081.4074964.5287182.1261774/D=egroupweb/S=1705019182
> :HM/A=1706996/R=0/SIG=11p5b9ris/*http://www.ediets.com/start.cfm?code=30509&me
> dia=atkins>  
> 
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and other
> resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
> 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> 
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to
> unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same
> page.
> 
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
> them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
> resources on the homepage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
> <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .




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


Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT

Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint

If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same page.

Please follow these basic guidelines:
- Include your full name with your message.
- Include the address of your website, if you have one.
- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep them short.
- As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames
- Complete your Yahoo profile.
- Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various resources on the homepage. 




Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. 


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

Mike,

Just to give you a reference point I did some Dmax testing on silver fiber
paper in 1992. I used a 4x5, 21-step Stouffer step wedge negative to make
8x10 enlargements on Kodak Elite #2, Ilford Gallerie #2, #3 & VC, Zone VI
VC, and Oriental VC. Some were selenium toned and some were not. All were
air dried. At the time I measured the density across the steps using a
MacBeth densitometer and I have rechecked the measurements recently with a
X-Rite 811 Densitometer.

Without selenium toning the silver prints have a Dmax of 1.9 to 2.0 and with
selenium toning the Dmax is 2.1 to 2.3. Above 2.0 the difference is very,
very slight and above 2.1 I cannot visually see a difference myself. I would
suspect that glossy RC silver paper would be a bit higher.

With inkjet printing you can get to the 1.9 - 2.0 range but only with dye
containing inks on RC paper. The results are great but you have to like RC
papers and be willing to accept the limited print life of the dyes. The
other alternative is to use carbon pigment inks on matte papers which will
give you Dmax values in the 1.5 to 1.7 range. This is probably comparable to
what you would get with matte silver fiber prints and a stronger Dmax than
you get from platinum/palladium prints.

My best advice is to approach inkjet B&W printing as a new medium and don't
try to compare it to silver printing. They are both great but different and
each has its own look. Like Paul I have come to really like the quality of
the inkjet prints on quality matte paper.

If you want silver fiber prints from digital files this can be done by
making a digitally produced contact negative for use in the darkroom. The
examples I have are indistinguishable from traditional silver fiber
enlargements. Unfortunately you will not find much info on these techniques
on this forum but if you are interested in making contact negs check out:

http://www.danburkholder.com/

There are laser printers that print digital images directly to RC color
paper or silver fiber paper. Unfortunately the silver fiber version is only
available in Europe and the equipment is intended for a service bureau or
photo lab with prices in 6 figures. You can also have your digital files
output on a film recorder to produce a negative to use in an enlarger. Going
digital does not necessarily mean going with inkjet but it is the most
popular path due to the affordability of the equipment.

Martin Wesley
http://www.carolyn.cc/Guests/MartinWesley/pages/MW_01.html
http://www.borderless-photos.de/guests.html

 
* -----Original Message-----
* From: Mike [mailto:mfractl@...] 
* Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2003 7:37 PM
* To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
* Subject: [Digital BW] First post here, DMax question
* 
* 
* 
* First off, this is the first time I've posted here, so hello to 
* everyone.  I'm just, finally, making the switch from film to digital, 
* and an unexpected by-product of this shift is that I'm rediscovering 
* my love of B&W in the digital domain.  This certainly seems to be a 
* great group for me to check out, and I assure you all that I'll be 
* doing a number of searches through the archives to pick up tips, so 
* I'll attempt to avoid asking at least some of the questions that have 
* been asked numerous times before.  Nonetheless, there's one question 
* on my mind at the moment, and I thought I'd throw it out.
* 
* I've been reading the news about the upcoming Epson 4000, and I've 
* read that it's supposed to acheive a DMax of 2.1 on glossy media and 
* 1.69 on matte media.  Though I'm no expert on this subject yet, I've 
* read that the 2200/7600/9600, with the Ultrachromes, acheive a DMax 
* of 2.0 on glossy media and 1.69 on matte.  Obviously, this suggests a 
* higher DMax on glossy for the 4000.  And, considering that my 
* upcoming foray into digital B&W will involve a search for the best 
* DMax, I find this interesting.  (Though I don't know how a printer 
* using the same inks/media is supposed to acheive a higher DMax on 
* glossy media... maybe by mixing some Matte Black in with the Photo 
* Black, since both inks will be available at once?)
* 
(snip earlier)

Hi Tom

Is there some way of accessing some older info or messages on this or do we
just drift in and out of the messages looking for the topic.?
Regards.......


On 10/22/03 12:18 PM, "Tom Baker" <tbaker1328@...> wrote:

> Mike/Brad  -
> 
> Unfortunately, there really isn't one 'direct', correct answer.  There are
> several ways to approach this.  It's sort of like deciding to build your own
> super race car from scratch, or buying a track ready one off the shelf.  You
> can, however, sort thru all of the opinions you'll get here, pick out the ones
> that seem closest to your own opioions/needs.
> 
> Give it a little time and thought, and you'll actually get some really good
> info here.
> 
> Brad Mol <bradmol99@...> wrote:
> Hi Mike
> 
> I¹m also new to the digital world and am very ignorant to things here.
> I am also looking for the best B&W printer and thought that we could do this
> search together and see what we can come up with.
> I posted a similar notice asking those who have had experience to give me
> feedback as to what printer to use or buy, and what inks.
> I need help in this area and so far have not gotten any direct answer.
> Let me know your feedback and I will let you know mine.
> Best Regards..........Brad.
> 
> 
> 
> On 10/22/03 9:37 AM, "Mike" <mfractl@...> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> First off, this is the first time I've posted here, so hello to
>> everyone.  I'm just, finally, making the switch from film to digital,
>> and an unexpected by-product of this shift is that I'm rediscovering
>> my love of B&W in the digital domain.  This certainly seems to be a
>> great group for me to check out, and I assure you all that I'll be
>> doing a number of searches through the archives to pick up tips, so
>> I'll attempt to avoid asking at least some of the questions that have
>> been asked numerous times before.  Nonetheless, there's one question
>> on my mind at the moment, and I thought I'd throw it out.
>> 
>> I've been reading the news about the upcoming Epson 4000, and I've
>> read that it's supposed to acheive a DMax of 2.1 on glossy media and
>> 1.69 on matte media.  Though I'm no expert on this subject yet, I've
>> read that the 2200/7600/9600, with the Ultrachromes, acheive a DMax
>> of 2.0 on glossy media and 1.69 on matte.  Obviously, this suggests a
>> higher DMax on glossy for the 4000.  And, considering that my
>> upcoming foray into digital B&W will involve a search for the best
>> DMax, I find this interesting.  (Though I don't know how a printer
>> using the same inks/media is supposed to acheive a higher DMax on
>> glossy media... maybe by mixing some Matte Black in with the Photo
>> Black, since both inks will be available at once?)
>> 
>> Obviously, I don't expect anyone to predict for me if the 4000 is
>> going to do better in this regard than the 2200/7600/9600, but I was
>> wondering if I could get a little input on the results people are
>> getting with the Ultrachromes or with inks they've substituted for
>> the Ultrachromes.  I've read about the MIS inks and the Lyson inks,
>> for example, and I'm trying to get a handle on what options provide
>> the highest DMax and how those options compare with results I'm used
>> to from the traditional, wet darkroom (though it's been a while since
>> my B&W days).
>> 
>> What I really need to do, I'm sure, is attempt to find opportunities
>> to actually look at people's work that uses different inks and
>> media.  But, inasmuch as my decision to go digital is only a few
>> weeks old, and considering that my renewed focus on B&W is only a few
>> days old, I really find myself in need of some pointers in the right
>> direction.  Like I said, really great DMax is going to be a big focus
>> of mine.  Which I'm sure is not uncommon.  But, anyway, I'm just
>> wondering if you folks are satisfied with the DMax you're getting
>> right now and what combination of inks & media have given the best
>> results for superior DMax.
>> 
>> I'm reluctant to admit my ignorance, but, though I used to get good
>> results in the darkroom, and though I used zone system techniques in
>> some of my B&W work, I don't really relate very well to DMax
>> figures.  I'm afraid to say that I don't really know how figures of
>> 1.69 or 2.0 or 2.1 compare to the results I was getting, so they're
>> really just abstract figures until I associate them with something
>> visual.  Even if I did once know DMax values for the blacks in some
>> of my old B&W prints, I'm afraid that knowledge has erroded over the
>> years.
>> 
>> Anyway, sorry for rambling, and thanks for your patience.  I'm pretty
>> excited about my 'rediscovery' of B&W, so I'm sure you'll see me here
>> more, and I really must find the time to make my way through much of
>> the group's archives.
>> 
>> Regards,
>> 
>> Mike
>> 
>> 
>> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
>>  
>>  ADVERTISEMENT
>>  
>> 
<http://rd.yahoo.com/M=194081.4074964.5287182.1261774/D=egroupweb/S=170501918>>
2
>> 
:HM/A=1706996/R=0/SIG=11p5b9ris/*http://www.ediets.com/start.cfm?code=30509&m>>
e

>> dia=atkins>  
>> 
>> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and
>> other
>> resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
>> 
>> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>> 
>> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to
>> unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same
>> page.
>> 
>> Please follow these basic guidelines:
>> - Include your full name with your message.
>> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
>> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
>> them short.
>> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
>> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames
>> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
>> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
>> resources on the homepage.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
>> <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> 
> 
> Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT
> 
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and other
> resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
> 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> 
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to
> unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same
> page.
> 
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
> them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
> resources on the homepage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> 
> 
> 
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and other
> resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
> 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> 
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to
> unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same
> page.
> 
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
> them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
> resources on the homepage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>

Here are four good articles on digital B+W...
http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm

Tom

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Mike" <mfractl@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2003 8:37 PM
Subject: [Digital BW] First post here, DMax question


> 
> First off, this is the first time I've posted here, so hello to 
> everyone.  I'm just, finally, making the switch from film to digital, 
> and an unexpected by-product of this shift is that I'm rediscovering 
> my love of B&W in the digital domain. 



---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.528 / Virus Database: 324 - Release Date: 10/16/2003

I've never accessed the archives, so I can't say.  Perhaps someone else can give direction.
 
 
Tom Baker

Brad Mol <bradmol99@...> wrote:
Hi Tom

Is there some way of accessing some older info or messages on this or do we
just drift in and out of the messages looking for the topic.?
Regards.......


On 10/22/03 12:18 PM, "Tom Baker" <tbaker1328@...> wrote:

> Mike/Brad  -
> 
> Unfortunately, there really isn't one 'direct', correct answer.  There are
> several ways to approach this.  It's sort of like deciding to build your own
> super race car from scratch, or buying a track ready one off the shelf.  You
> can, however, sort thru all of the opinions you'll get here, pick out the ones
> that seem closest to your own opioions/needs.
> 
> Give it a little time and thought, and you'll actually get some really good
> info here.
> 
> Brad Mol <bradmol99@...> wrote:
> Hi Mike
> 
> I�m also new to the digital world and am very ignorant to things here.
> I am also looking for the best B&W printer and thought that we could do this
> search together and see what we can come up with.
> I posted a similar notice asking those who have had experience to give me
> feedback as to what printer to use or buy, and what inks.
> I need help in this area and so far have not gotten any direct answer.
> Let me know your feedback and I will let you know mine.
> Best Regards..........Brad.
> 
> 
> 
> On 10/22/03 9:37 AM, "Mike" <mfractl@...> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> First off, this is the first time I've posted here, so hello to
>> everyone.  I'm just, finally, making the switch from film to digital,
>> and an unexpected by-product of this shift is that I'm rediscovering
>> my love of B&W in the digital domain.  This certainly seems to be a
>> great group for me to check out, and I assure you all that I'll be
>> doing a number of searches through the archives to pick up tips, so
>> I'll attempt to avoid asking at least some of the questions that have
>> been asked numerous times before.  Nonetheless, there's one question
>> on my mind at the moment, and I thought I'd throw it out.
>> 
>> I've been reading the news about the upcoming Epson 4000, and I've
>> read that it's supposed to acheive a DMax of 2.1 on glossy media and
>> 1.69 on matte media.  Though I'm no expert on this subject yet, I've
>> read that the 2200/7600/9600, with the Ultrachromes, acheive a DMax
>> of 2.0 on glossy media and 1.69 on matte.  Obviously, this suggests a
>> higher DMax on glossy for the 4000.  And, considering that my
>> upcoming foray into digital B&W will involve a search for the best
>> DMax, I find this interesting.  (Though I don't know how a printer
>> using the same inks/media is supposed to acheive a higher DMax on
>> glossy media... maybe by mixing some Matte Black in with the Photo
>> Black, since both inks will be available at once?)
>> 
>> Obviously, I don't expect anyone to predict for me if the 4000 is
>> going to do better in this regard than the 2200/7600/9600, but I was
>> wondering if I could get a little input on the results people are
>> getting with the Ultrachromes or with inks they've substituted for
>> the Ultrachromes.  I've read about the MIS inks and the Lyson inks,
>> for example, and I'm trying to get a handle on what options provide
>> the highest DMax and how those options compare with results I'm used
>> to from the traditional, wet darkroom (though it's been a while since
>> my B&W days).
>> 
>> What I really need to do, I'm sure, is attempt to find opportunities
>> to actually look at people's work that uses different inks and
>> media.  But, inasmuch as my decision to go digital is only a few
>> weeks old, and considering that my renewed focus on B&W is only a few
>> days old, I really find myself in need of some pointers in the right
>> direction.  Like I said, really great DMax is going to be a big focus
>> of mine.  Which I'm sure is not uncommon.  But, anyway, I'm just
>> wondering if you folks are satisfied with the DMax you're getting
>> right now and what combination of inks & media have given the best
>> results for superior DMax.
>> 
>> I'm reluctant to admit my ignorance, but, though I used to get good
>> results in the darkroom, and though I used zone system techniques in
>> some of my B&W work, I don't really relate very well to DMax
>> figures.  I'm afraid to say that I don't really know how figures of
>> 1.69 or 2.0 or 2.1 compare to the results I was getting, so they're
>> really just abstract figures until I associate them with something
>> visual.  Even if I did once know DMax values for the blacks in some
>> of my old B&W prints, I'm afraid that knowledge has erroded over the
>> years.
>> 
>> Anyway, sorry for rambling, and thanks for your patience.  I'm pretty
>> excited about my 'rediscovery' of B&W, so I'm sure you'll see me here
>> more, and I really must find the time to make my way through much of
>> the group's archives.
>> 
>> Regards,
>> 
>> Mike
>> 
>> 
>> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
>>  
>>  ADVERTISEMENT
>>  
>> 
<http://rd.yahoo.com/M=194081.4074964.5287182.1261774/D=egroupweb/S=170501918>>
2
>> 
:HM/A=1706996/R=0/SIG=11p5b9ris/*http://www.ediets.com/start.cfm?code=30509&m>>
e
>> dia=atkins>  
>> 
>> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and
>> other
>> resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
>> 
>> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>> 
>> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to
>> unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same
>> page.
>> 
>> Please follow these basic guidelines:
>> - Include your full name with your message.
>> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
>> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
>> them short.
>> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
>> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames
>> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
>> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
>> resources on the homepage.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
>> <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> 
> 
> Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT
> 
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and other
> resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
> 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> 
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to
> unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same
> page.
> 
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
> them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
> resources on the homepage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> 
> 
> 
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and other
> resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
> 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> 
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to
> unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same
> page.
> 
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
> them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
> resources on the homepage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> 


Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT

Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint

If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same page.

Please follow these basic guidelines:
- Include your full name with your message.
- Include the address of your website, if you have one.
- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep them short.
- As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames
- Complete your Yahoo profile.
- Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various resources on the homepage. 




Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. 


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

> Message: 8
> Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2003 13:21:12 +0700
> From: Brad Mol <bradmol99@...>
> Subject: Re: First post here, DMax question
> 
> Hi Tom
> 
> Is there some way of accessing some older info or messages on this or do we
> just drift in and out of the messages looking for the topic.?
> Regards.......

Hi Brad,

As with most lists, this one has a great archive of messages--this group's
archive is available from the group home page.

Jon

Thanks, Paul, for welcoming me and for the very interesting 
information.  I also checked out your website (which I'd actually 
visited a few days ago, in fact), enjoyed your images for a while, 
then ended up at the MIS website checking out the good deal of 
information there also.  Let's say I'm just starting to learn just 
how much I have to learn.

I find your work with the Ultra Tone inkset very interesting, 
including the prospect of printing with an ink based purely on carbon 
black pigment.  As someone who's quite familiar with pigments used in 
artist's colors, and as someone who is used to using only pure and 
accurately-identified pigments, I find the whole pigment ink 
situation a bit disconcerting.  I'm used to knowing how long a color 
will last simply because there are ASTM lightfastness ratings for all 
pigments.  In the world of pigmented inkjet inks, the individual 
pigments are never identified, leaving you at the mercy of (usually 
exaggerated) lightfastness claims.  Printing with an identified 
pigment is less disconcerting to me, not to mention that carbon black 
is about as simple, lightfast, and stable as pigments get.  And, of 
course, there is also the fact that this approach excludes cyan, 
magenta, and yellows that consist of pigments that haven't been 
identified (to me) and may, for all I know, not be nearly as durable 
as the black they are mixing with.

Anyway, I didn't mean to ramble, but this is one of my personal 
reactions to my new involvement in inkjet printing.  I look at 
pigmented inks as artist's materials, and I'm simply not used to 
buying artist's materials with unidentified contents and a vague 
assurance of 'trust me, it'll last'.  As you know, I'm new to all 
this, but I have to admit that the concept of using CMYK to print B&W 
hasn't sat too well with me since I started to learn about the Epsons 
and the Ultrachromes.  These are just my knee-jerk reactions, 
though.  I'm sure many people are getting great results with the 
Ultrachromes, and I'm far from having reached an ultimate (or any)
decision about my own choices.  I'm just describing initial 
reactions, that's all.

Also, the concept of using curves and avoiding a RIP is very 
appealing, though, of course, I'd have to try the approach out myself 
to see how it suits me.  But, since I've become fairly adept at PS, 
even the concept of experimenting with new media and coming up with 
some of my own curves doesn't seem terribly intimidating.  Also, I 
like the concept expressed on your website about B&W always being 
accessible and affordable and your wanting to keep it that way.  I 
wholeheartedly agree.

So, obviously, I make no claims about my ultimate choices for inks, 
workflow, media, etc., but this has definitely given me a lot to 
think about.  Also, it's capsized my notions of what printer I'll be 
purchasing, since it's starting to seems more likely that I'll 
dedicate a printer to B&W.  Up until about a week ago, I was only 
concentrating on color, so 7-color Epson printers were my main 
focus.  Now that I'm considering specialized B&W inksets, and now 
that dedicating a printer just to B&W seems appealing, I have no idea 
where I stand, particularly if I still want to do a fair amount of 
color printing too.  I had been thinking about getting a 7600, but I 
can hardly afford to buy one for color and one for B&W, plus it's not 
like the Ultra Tones have a 7-cartridge solution anyway.

Maybe I'll pick up a 1280 and dedicate just to B&W and use it for all 
my initial experiments and learning and then just go from there.  In 
comparison to the costs of photo gear, computers, software, and even 
inks, a cost of under $400 for a great printer to learn on is 
rediculously affordable.  Plus, only having to mess with 2 cartridges 
is convneient and seems to be a great match to the Ultra Tone 
approach.  One question, though.  Wasn't the 1280 orignally a dye ink 
printer?  Are there any potential problems to using pigmented inks in 
this printer?  I read on your website that you are working on a 1280 
plus Ultra Tone setup, so I assume there must not be a problem, but I 
just thought I'd ask.

Anyway, sorry for rambling, but this is all new, and it's all just 
starting to sink in.  Like I said, who knows where I'll end up.  
Actually, that only makes things more interesting.

Thanks again,

Mike Botelho



--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Roark" 
<paul.roark@v...> wrote:
> Mike,
> 
> Welcome.
> 
> >...
> >... upcoming Epson 4000, .. I've read that it's supposed
> >to acheive a DMax of 2.1 on glossy media and
> >1.69 on matte media.  ...
> 
> That's about normal for most of the more expensive, modern Epson 
printers.
> A 0.1 dmax difference is well within what you could get from a 
single
> printer from time to time.  In comparing dmax's the densitometers, 
paper
> selection and batch, shade of the paper under the paper you're 
reading all
> would affect the readings.  As such, comparisons with what others 
have
> measured might be misleading unless all the variables are held 
constant.
> 
> I think, realistically, the big differences are between matte and 
RC/glossy
> papers, and between the pure pigment and the hybrid pigment-dye 
inks.  RC
> papers get a better dmax.  More dye means higher dmax -- and more 
fading and
> warm shifting.
> 
> The Epson Matte black is about as deep a pure pigment matte black 
as there
> is, with MIS Eboni and PiezoTone Museum right there with it.  
(Actually,
> about 0.1 - 0.2 behind on average, but the cooler tone of the 
Eboni/museum
> make them look darker, in my opinion.)  They are all very 
lightfast.  The
> hybrid blacks are not in the same league if stability matters to 
you, but
> the dmax's can be impressive.
> 
> In comparing the visual differences between various papers, I think 
the
> densitometer readings can be misleading.  The glossy papers give 
very high
> dmax readings, but the reflections in the real world often 
eliminate this
> advantage.  A 1.65 matte inkjet print can look better than a 2+ 
glossy
> pigmented print.  Under glass, if you are at 1.6 or above with the 
inkjet, I
> doubt anyone is going to see any difference between the good silver 
print
> and a matte inkjet print.  I hang them together and they look very 
similar.
> Of course, if you use dye on an RC paper you're really looking at a
> potentially huge dmax, but as the dmax gets higher, the eye's 
ability to
> distinguish those shades decreases.  Above 2.0 with an RC paper or 
1.65 with
> a matte paper and the visual differences are not that great, in my 
opinion.
> 
> I think you'll be pleasantly surprised by how good the matte papers 
look
> with today's good pure pigment black.  It's a different look when 
not under
> glass, but as an old silver printer, I've actually come to prefer 
the matte
> look.  I really dislike the RC glossy look, and the semi-gloss or 
pearl
> papers just don't make it either, in my view.  All the RC papers 
I've tried
> have "bronzing" or other surface defects that are not very 
appealing.
> 
> Digital B&W is great fun and the technology is definitely ready for 
prime
> time.  It will, of course, get better, but where we're at now is 
very

> satisfying even for former darkroom printers.
> 
> Enjoy your journey.
> 
> Paul
> http://www.PaulRoark.com

Thanks for the input, Tom.  Although I've been concerned about 
attaining DMax comparable to what I've gotten out of wet darkroom 
work, I'm nonetheless very open minded about digital B&W being a new 
medium with new possibilities.  In fact, I 'rediscovered' B&W while 
experimenting with color images in PS.  One day, for the hell of it, 
I converted some images to B&W and used adjustment layers to alter 
the colors of the original image and thus alter the tonality of the 
B&W derivation.  This was the beginning of my realization of what you 
spoke of, that we now have access to means of manipulating tonalities 
that are more extensive than we ever dreamed would be possible.  It's 
all pretty exciting.  Realistically, there really isn't much 
limitation at all in attaining almost any result you visualize.  It's 
kind of ironic.  I became fluent in PS because it was a means of 
accomplishing dramatic effects in color, yet it ultimately led me 
back to B&W with the promise of allowing me to accomplish subtle 
manipulations I had never thought possible.

Seems like it all will be great fun.

Mike


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Tom Baker 
<tbaker1328@s...> wrote:
> Mike  -
>  
> From the various 'specs' it appears that the 'best' ink/paper DMax 
today is not as dense as the best silver/developer DMax.  It seems to 
me, however, that this comparison is not really valid except in a 
statistical sense.  From a personal point of view, I am beginning to 
realize that we really are working in a different medium.  It's still 
photography I guess, if the initial image is achieved with the help 
of a lens of some type.  Today, we still strive to make our output 
look like traditional silver prints.  In the not to distant future we 
will have the technology to achieve that.  But, the digital 
processes, even when you begin with a 'photographic' image, has much 
more potential for creativity than any previous photographic 
process.  It seems to me that we are not involved in evolution, but 
revolution.
>  
> But, this is a revolution mostly in the technical sense.  
The 'traditional' b&w images won't cease to have value.  The great 
b&w images were great because they were art.  The new great b&w 
images will be great for the same reason, not because of the process 
with which they are done.  I believe, however, that we will begin to 
see more and more b&w art images that go where b&w has not been able 
to go before.  The digital processes allow us to control tonality in 
ways that we never dreamed possible. 
>  
> Also, through Paul's efforts (and a few others) the technology to 
achieve truly creative b&w imagery will be available to many more 
people than the darkroom of yesteryear could hold.   This is going to 
make for a great creative dialog. 
>  
> This is an exciting time for anyone with an interest in creative 
imagery.  Look around at your local galleries and club groups.  
You'll already see some great new images 
>  
> So, jump in.  This is really great fun.
>  
> Tom Baker
>  
>  
> Paul Roark <paul.roark@v...> wrote:
> Mike,
> 
> Welcome.
> 
> >...
> >... upcoming Epson 4000, .. I've read that it's supposed
> >to acheive a DMax of 2.1 on glossy media and
> >1.69 on matte media.  ...
> 
> That's about normal for most of the more expensive, modern Epson 
printers.
> A 0.1 dmax difference is well within what you could get from a 
single
> printer from time to time.  In comparing dmax's the densitometers, 
paper
> selection and batch, shade of the paper under the paper you're 
reading all
> would affect the readings.  As such, comparisons with what others 
have
> measured might be misleading unless all the variables are held 
constant.
> 
> I think, realistically, the big differences are between matte and 
RC/glossy
> papers, and between the pure pigment and the hybrid pigment-dye 
inks.  RC
> papers get a better dmax.  More dye means higher dmax -- and more 
fading and
> warm shifting.
> 
> The Epson Matte black is about as deep a pure pigment matte black 
as there
> is, with MIS Eboni and PiezoTone Museum right there with it.  
(Actually,
> about 0.1 - 0.2 behind on average, but the cooler tone of the 
Eboni/museum
> make them look darker, in my opinion.)  They are all very 
lightfast.  The
> hybrid blacks are not in the same league if stability matters to 
you, but
> the dmax's can be impressive.
> 
> In comparing the visual differences between various papers, I think 
the
> densitometer readings can be misleading.  The glossy papers give 
very high
> dmax readings, but the reflections in the real world often 
eliminate this
> advantage.  A 1.65 matte inkjet print can look better than a 2+ 
glossy
> pigmented print.  Under glass, if you are at 1.6 or above with the 
inkjet, I
> doubt anyone is going to see any difference between the good silver 
print
> and a matte inkjet print.  I hang them together and they look very 
similar.
> Of course, if you use dye on an RC paper you're really looking at a
> potentially huge dmax, but as the dmax gets higher, the eye's 
ability to
> distinguish those shades decreases.  Above 2.0 with an RC paper or 
1.65 with
> a matte paper and the visual differences are not that great, in my 
opinion.
> 
> I think you'll be pleasantly surprised by how good the matte papers 
look
> with today's good pure pigment black.  It's a different look when 
not under
> glass, but as an old silver printer, I've actually come to prefer 
the matte
> look.  I really dislike the RC glossy look, and the semi-gloss or 
pearl
> papers just don't make it either, in my view.  All the RC papers 
I've tried
> have "bronzing" or other surface defects that are not very 
appealing.
> 
> Digital B&W is great fun and the technology is definitely ready for 
prime
> time.  It will, of course, get better, but where we're at now is 
very
> satisfying even for former darkroom printers.
> 
> Enjoy your journey.
> 
> Paul
> http://www.PaulRoark.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT
> 
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, 
Polls and other resources as they are often being updated. The page 
is at:
> 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> 
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you 
wish to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by 
visiting this same page.
> 
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages 
to keep them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject 
header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or 
flames
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the 
various resources on the homepage. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of 
Service. 

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

Thanks for the great information, Martin.  It really helps to give me 
an idea where I'll stand in relation to wet darkroom work.  Overall, 
I'm beginning to get the impression that I'll be quite satisfied by 
inkjet printing as long as I'm willing to accept it as its own 
medium.  Of course, only looking at prints and doing my own 
experimentation will tell (neither of which I've done yet), but I 
mainly just wanted to get a sense of where B&W inkjet printing was at 
before making the commitment myself.  I had given some thought to the 
other options you outlined, but quickly realized that inkjet printing 
would be just the workflow I'd dreamed of, so long as I was 
comfortable with the results.  I think it's safe to say that I've 
received enough assurances and am ready to commit.

Thanks again,

Mike


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Martin Wesley" 
<mwesley250@e...> wrote:
> Mike,
> 
> Just to give you a reference point I did some Dmax testing on 
silver fiber
> paper in 1992. I used a 4x5, 21-step Stouffer step wedge negative 
to make
> 8x10 enlargements on Kodak Elite #2, Ilford Gallerie #2, #3 & VC, 
Zone VI
> VC, and Oriental VC. Some were selenium toned and some were not. 
All were
> air dried. At the time I measured the density across the steps 
using a
> MacBeth densitometer and I have rechecked the measurements recently 
with a
> X-Rite 811 Densitometer.
> 
> Without selenium toning the silver prints have a Dmax of 1.9 to 2.0 
and with
> selenium toning the Dmax is 2.1 to 2.3. Above 2.0 the difference is 
very,
> very slight and above 2.1 I cannot visually see a difference 
myself. I would
> suspect that glossy RC silver paper would be a bit higher.
> 
> With inkjet printing you can get to the 1.9 - 2.0 range but only 
with dye
> containing inks on RC paper. The results are great but you have to 
like RC
> papers and be willing to accept the limited print life of the dyes. 
The
> other alternative is to use carbon pigment inks on matte papers 
which will
> give you Dmax values in the 1.5 to 1.7 range. This is probably 
comparable to
> what you would get with matte silver fiber prints and a stronger 
Dmax than
> you get from platinum/palladium prints.
> 
> My best advice is to approach inkjet B&W printing as a new medium 
and don't
> try to compare it to silver printing. They are both great but 
different and
> each has its own look. Like Paul I have come to really like the 
quality of
> the inkjet prints on quality matte paper.
> 
> If you want silver fiber prints from digital files this can be done 
by
> making a digitally produced contact negative for use in the 
darkroom. The
> examples I have are indistinguishable from traditional silver fiber
> enlargements. Unfortunately you will not find much info on these 
techniques
> on this forum but if you are interested in making contact negs 
check out:
> 
> http://www.danburkholder.com/
> 
> There are laser printers that print digital images directly to RC 
color
> paper or silver fiber paper. Unfortunately the silver fiber version 
is only
> available in Europe and the equipment is intended for a service 
bureau or
> photo lab with prices in 6 figures. You can also have your digital 
files
> output on a film recorder to produce a negative to use in an 
enlarger. Going
> digital does not necessarily mean going with inkjet but it is the 
most
> popular path due to the affordability of the equipment.
> 
> Martin Wesley
> http://www.carolyn.cc/Guests/MartinWesley/pages/MW_01.html
> http://www.borderless-photos.de/guests.html
> 
>  
> * -----Original Message-----
> * From: Mike [mailto:mfractl@h...] 
> * Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2003 7:37 PM
> * To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> * Subject: [Digital BW] First post here, DMax question
> * 
> * 
> * 
> * First off, this is the first time I've posted here, so hello to 
> * everyone.  I'm just, finally, making the switch from film to 
digital, 
> * and an unexpected by-product of this shift is that I'm 
rediscovering 
> * my love of B&W in the digital domain.  This certainly seems to be 
a 
> * great group for me to check out, and I assure you all that I'll 
be 
> * doing a number of searches through the archives to pick up tips, 
so 
> * I'll attempt to avoid asking at least some of the questions that 
have 
> * been asked numerous times before.  Nonetheless, there's one 
question 
> * on my mind at the moment, and I thought I'd throw it out.
> * 
> * I've been reading the news about the upcoming Epson 4000, and 
I've 
> * read that it's supposed to acheive a DMax of 2.1 on glossy media 
and 
> * 1.69 on matte media.  Though I'm no expert on this subject yet, 
I've 
> * read that the 2200/7600/9600, with the Ultrachromes, acheive a 
DMax 
> * of 2.0 on glossy media and 1.69 on matte.  Obviously, this 
suggests a 
> * higher DMax on glossy for the 4000.  And, considering that my 
> * upcoming foray into digital B&W will involve a search for the 
best 
> * DMax, I find this interesting.  (Though I don't know how a 
printer 
> * using the same inks/media is supposed to acheive a higher DMax on 
> * glossy media... maybe by mixing some Matte Black in with the 
Photo 

> * Black, since both inks will be available at once?)
> * 
> (snip earlier)

Hi Brad,

As you can tell, I'm really doing lots of my thinking out loud and 
doing all of my conversing in public, so you definitely have access 
to any replies I've received.  Beyond that, I'm pretty much checking 
out people's websites, checking out links, doing searches on the 
subject, browsing the archives, etc.  If you are still reading this 
thread, you'll see that I'm considering a 1280 and Ultra Tone inks to 
start my experiments, but this is so new to me I can't guarantee what 
I'll ultimately end up doing.  Plus, literally everyone else here has 
a more informed opinion than I do at this point, so I suggest you 
just stay tuned, do lots of homework, and ask questions once you know 
enough to ask good ones.  At least that's my plan.

Good luck (to both of us)!

Mike


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Brad Mol 
<bradmol99@y...> wrote:
> Hi Mike
> 
> I¹m also new to the digital world and am very ignorant to things 
here.
> I am also looking for the best B&W printer and thought that we 
could do this
> search together and see what we can come up with.
> I posted a similar notice asking those who have had experience to 
give me
> feedback as to what printer to use or buy, and what inks.
> I need help in this area and so far have not gotten any direct 
answer.
> Let me know your feedback and I will let you know mine.
> Best Regards..........Brad.
>  
> 
> 
> On 10/22/03 9:37 AM, "Mike" <mfractl@h...> wrote:
> 
> > 
> > First off, this is the first time I've posted here, so hello to
> > everyone.  I'm just, finally, making the switch from film to 
digital,
> > and an unexpected by-product of this shift is that I'm 
rediscovering
> > my love of B&W in the digital domain.  This certainly seems to be 
a
> > great group for me to check out, and I assure you all that I'll be
> > doing a number of searches through the archives to pick up tips, 
so
> > I'll attempt to avoid asking at least some of the questions that 
have
> > been asked numerous times before.  Nonetheless, there's one 
question
> > on my mind at the moment, and I thought I'd throw it out.
> > 
> > I've been reading the news about the upcoming Epson 4000, and I've
> > read that it's supposed to acheive a DMax of 2.1 on glossy media 
and
> > 1.69 on matte media.  Though I'm no expert on this subject yet, 
I've
> > read that the 2200/7600/9600, with the Ultrachromes, acheive a 
DMax
> > of 2.0 on glossy media and 1.69 on matte.  Obviously, this 
suggests a
> > higher DMax on glossy for the 4000.  And, considering that my
> > upcoming foray into digital B&W will involve a search for the best
> > DMax, I find this interesting.  (Though I don't know how a printer
> > using the same inks/media is supposed to acheive a higher DMax on
> > glossy media... maybe by mixing some Matte Black in with the Photo
> > Black, since both inks will be available at once?)
> > 
> > Obviously, I don't expect anyone to predict for me if the 4000 is
> > going to do better in this regard than the 2200/7600/9600, but I 
was
> > wondering if I could get a little input on the results people are
> > getting with the Ultrachromes or with inks they've substituted for
> > the Ultrachromes.  I've read about the MIS inks and the Lyson 
inks,
> > for example, and I'm trying to get a handle on what options 
provide
> > the highest DMax and how those options compare with results I'm 
used
> > to from the traditional, wet darkroom (though it's been a while 
since
> > my B&W days).
> > 
> > What I really need to do, I'm sure, is attempt to find 
opportunities
> > to actually look at people's work that uses different inks and
> > media.  But, inasmuch as my decision to go digital is only a few
> > weeks old, and considering that my renewed focus on B&W is only a 
few
> > days old, I really find myself in need of some pointers in the 
right
> > direction.  Like I said, really great DMax is going to be a big 
focus
> > of mine.  Which I'm sure is not uncommon.  But, anyway, I'm just
> > wondering if you folks are satisfied with the DMax you're getting
> > right now and what combination of inks & media have given the best
> > results for superior DMax.
> > 
> > I'm reluctant to admit my ignorance, but, though I used to get 
good
> > results in the darkroom, and though I used zone system techniques 
in
> > some of my B&W work, I don't really relate very well to DMax
> > figures.  I'm afraid to say that I don't really know how figures 
of
> > 1.69 or 2.0 or 2.1 compare to the results I was getting, so 
they're
> > really just abstract figures until I associate them with something
> > visual.  Even if I did once know DMax values for the blacks in 
some
> > of my old B&W prints, I'm afraid that knowledge has erroded over 
the
> > years.
> > 
> > Anyway, sorry for rambling, and thanks for your patience.  I'm 
pretty
> > excited about my 'rediscovery' of B&W, so I'm sure you'll see me 
here
> > more, and I really must find the time to make my way through much 
of
> > the group's archives.
> > 
> > Regards,
> > 
> > Mike
> > 
> > 
> > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> >  
> >  ADVERTISEMENT
> >  
> > 
<http://rd.yahoo.com/M=194081.4074964.5287182.1261774/D=egroupweb/S=17
05019182
> > :HM/A=1706996/R=0/SIG=11p5b9ris/*http://www.ediets.com/start.cfm?
code=30509&me
> > dia=atkins>  
> > 
> > Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, 
Polls and other
> > resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
> > 
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> > 
> > If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you 
wish to
> > unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting 
this same
> > page.
> > 
> > Please follow these basic guidelines:
> > - Include your full name with your message.
> > - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> > - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier 
messages to keep
> > them short.
> > - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject 
header.
> > - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or 
flames
> > - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> > - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the 
various
> > resources on the homepage.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of 
Service

> > <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Thanks very much for the links.  I read all the available 
information, plus followed the available links.  I'm in full 
absorbtion mode right now, so any and all info is appreciated.  The 
whole BO approach was new to me (most of this is).  Don't know if it 
would be the look I'm searching for, but I definitely want to be 
aware of all the options.  I only regret that I'm investigating 
information about subtle B&W tonalities that don't really translate 
to web based images.  I really must find a way to see some of these 
various types of work in person.

Thanks again,

Mike


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Colorado Light" 
<coloradolight@w...> wrote:
> Here are four good articles on digital B+W...
> http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm
> 
> Tom
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Mike" <mfractl@h...>
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2003 8:37 PM
> Subject: [Digital BW] First post here, DMax question
> 
> 
> > 
> > First off, this is the first time I've posted here, so hello to 
> > everyone.  I'm just, finally, making the switch from film to 
digital, 
> > and an unexpected by-product of this shift is that I'm 
rediscovering 

> > my love of B&W in the digital domain. 
> 
> 
> 
> ---
> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.528 / Virus Database: 324 - Release Date: 10/16/2003

On 10/22 23:32, Mike Botelho wrote:
> subject, browsing the archives, etc.  If you are still reading this 
> thread, you'll see that I'm considering a 1280 and Ultra Tone inks to 
> start my experiments, but this is so new to me I can't guarantee what 

Funny, I'm on the same track.  I'm on the fork in the road...should I
get an epson 1280 and UT inks or should I get a NOva vertical
processor for 16x20's and set up my darkroon the bathroom? 

What's stopping me is that I would probably need a new computah that I
can't afford.

-- 
Eric
Eric's PAW page:  <http://www.maquiling.org/paw>
PAW main page:  <http://www.jeffery-nola.com/links.html>

>...should I get an epson 1280 and UT inks
>or should I get a Nova vertical
>processor for 16x20's and set up my darkroon the bathroom?

>What's stopping me is that I would probably need a
>new computah that I can't afford.

I was curious about what those cost.  (I have an 8x10 version.)  At B&H the
Nova 3-slot vertical 16x20 processor is $1050.

That's about what I'll probably soon spend on a new computer box.

When one considers the relative complexity of the products, the price
comparison is rather amazing.

(I don't mean this as a criticism of the Nova dip-tank at all. It's a
clever, but very simple device.)

(For the non-darkroom folks, the Nova vertical processor is, essentially, 3
vertical slots, instead of trays, where the chemicals are put.  One dips the
exposed paper in one slot after another.  It saves a lot of space in the
darkroom.  The lower surface-to-air exposure also helps slow down oxidation.
These units are not complex, automated or mechanized processors.  They are,
in effect, just plastic, vertical darkroom trays.  Nova is a sister company
to Permajet which distributes MIS products in Europe and has an excellent
new cotton paper that will be sold in January.  Jobo is the US distributor
for most of Nova/Permajet's products.)

Paul
http://www.PaulRoark.com

Hi Eric,

I have been reading with interest all the posts regarding your odyssey into
the digital B&W print realm. Being a long-time darkroom worker (30+ years)
and a relatively short-time digital worker (~4 years) for whatever reason I
feel a need to "weigh in" on this topic.

For myself, I was sort of "forced" into the light room. About 4 years ago we
made a cross-country move and, even though we had house shopped with a wet
darkroom setup in mind, the house just didn't seem to have any leftover
space after we moved in. I had come from a custom designed (by yours truly)
22x24 foot studio/darkroom...set up in a bathroom just wasn't going to cut
it! <g>

Somehow...I don't really even remember how--I think it was an early digital
print of Ron Harris's that I bought--I got the idea to try working
digitally. I bought a Mac. Never had an Apple, myself, though I had used
Macs many years ago at work. But, the Apple platform with Colorsync color
management was really the only option at the time. Yes...I planned on doing
some color, too. At the time, IMO (and many others) Windoze just wasn't
there, yet, for proper color management. Anyway, I bought a G4 Mac (a
Cube...the wrong one since it's not upgradeable or expandable), a flatbed
scanner because I shoot mostly large format (up to 8x10)--the wrong scanner
because the 1680 came out about 3 months later and it's a much better
unit--I own one, now, and an Epson 1160 printer. At least I got the printer
right! I'll spare you the trials-n-tribulations of all the workflows and
inksets I've used over the years; especially my experience with the early
PiezoBW plug-in and the original Piezo inkset.

More to the point...I absolutely love B&W silver prints...I've produced a
few quite nice quadtone images...I've spent a TON of money on digital
imaging; exponentially more than I ever spent on wet darkroom hardware! And,
I own a 30 inch deep by 8 foot wide stainless steel sink with temp control
unit, water filters, etc.! If you head down the digital road, be prepared. I
always tell friends who seek my advice that digital imaging is a very
slippery slope...you never seem to be done spending money...there's always
something...software upgrades, hardware upgrades, etc. I've mentioned to my
wife on more than one occasion that my 30 year old Beseler MX enlarger can
still make a print; and I haven't spend a dime on it since my original
purchase. Hmm, where will all our current digital hardware be in 30 years?

Is digital imaging fun? YES! Can you produce prints as lovely as any B&W wet
darkroom print? IMO, yes! Just look at the work of Paul Roark, Ron Harris,
and many others on this list. There have been several occasions where I've
felt that I just couldn't produce the image I wanted if not for the tools
available on the desktop. Will I set up my wet darkroom, again, some day?
I've still got my Beseler MX and my Leitz V35...got no plans to sell 'em
either. I really think one could enjoy both....

Join the quest. But, proceed cautiously with eyes wide shut! ;>)

Regards,
Alan Huntley

----- Original Message ----- 

From: "Eric Maquiling" <eric@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2003 4:38 PM
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: First post here, DMax question


> On 10/22 23:32, Mike Botelho wrote:
> > subject, browsing the archives, etc.  If you are still reading this
> > thread, you'll see that I'm considering a 1280 and Ultra Tone inks to
> > start my experiments, but this is so new to me I can't guarantee what
>
> Funny, I'm on the same track.  I'm on the fork in the road...should I
> get an epson 1280 and UT inks or should I get a NOva vertical
> processor for 16x20's and set up my darkroon the bathroom?
>
> What's stopping me is that I would probably need a new computah that I
> can't afford.
>
> -- 
> Eric
> Eric's PAW page:  <http://www.maquiling.org/paw>
> PAW main page:  <http://www.jeffery-nola.com/links.html>

Hi Mike

I am getting all the messages.
I must say there is a lot of info.
I already own the 1280.  I have to get some type of ink set but am not sure
which ones to go for  yet.
Any suggestions which ones you are going for?
Let me know what you go with.
Also, any types of paper.
I have some Epson matt paper which I now understand is better than gloss.
Have you found any other papers to use?
Best Regards.......Brad.

 

On 10/23/03 6:32 AM, "Mike Botelho" <mfractl@...> wrote:

> 
> Hi Brad,
> 
> As you can tell, I'm really doing lots of my thinking out loud and
> doing all of my conversing in public, so you definitely have access
> to any replies I've received.  Beyond that, I'm pretty much checking
> out people's websites, checking out links, doing searches on the
> subject, browsing the archives, etc.  If you are still reading this
> thread, you'll see that I'm considering a 1280 and Ultra Tone inks to
> start my experiments, but this is so new to me I can't guarantee what
> I'll ultimately end up doing.  Plus, literally everyone else here has
> a more informed opinion than I do at this point, so I suggest you
> just stay tuned, do lots of homework, and ask questions once you know
> enough to ask good ones.  At least that's my plan.
> 
> Good luck (to both of us)!
> 
> Mike
> 
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Brad Mol
> <bradmol99@y...> wrote:
>> > Hi Mike
>> > 
>> > I¹m also new to the digital world and am very ignorant to things
> here.
>> > I am also looking for the best B&W printer and thought that we
> could do this
>> > search together and see what we can come up with.
>> > I posted a similar notice asking those who have had experience to
> give me
>> > feedback as to what printer to use or buy, and what inks.
>> > I need help in this area and so far have not gotten any direct
> answer.
>> > Let me know your feedback and I will let you know mine.
>> > Best Regards..........Brad.
>> >  
>> > 
>> > 
>> > On 10/22/03 9:37 AM, "Mike" <mfractl@h...> wrote:
>> > 
>>> > > 
>>> > > First off, this is the first time I've posted here, so hello to
>>> > > everyone.  I'm just, finally, making the switch from film to
> digital,
>>> > > and an unexpected by-product of this shift is that I'm
> rediscovering
>>> > > my love of B&W in the digital domain.  This certainly seems to be
> a
>>> > > great group for me to check out, and I assure you all that I'll be
>>> > > doing a number of searches through the archives to pick up tips,
> so
>>> > > I'll attempt to avoid asking at least some of the questions that
> have
>>> > > been asked numerous times before.  Nonetheless, there's one
> question
>>> > > on my mind at the moment, and I thought I'd throw it out.
>>> > > 
>>> > > I've been reading the news about the upcoming Epson 4000, and I've
>>> > > read that it's supposed to acheive a DMax of 2.1 on glossy media
> and
>>> > > 1.69 on matte media.  Though I'm no expert on this subject yet,
> I've
>>> > > read that the 2200/7600/9600, with the Ultrachromes, acheive a
> DMax
>>> > > of 2.0 on glossy media and 1.69 on matte.  Obviously, this
> suggests a
>>> > > higher DMax on glossy for the 4000.  And, considering that my
>>> > > upcoming foray into digital B&W will involve a search for the best
>>> > > DMax, I find this interesting.  (Though I don't know how a printer
>>> > > using the same inks/media is supposed to acheive a higher DMax on
>>> > > glossy media... maybe by mixing some Matte Black in with the Photo
>>> > > Black, since both inks will be available at once?)
>>> > > 
>>> > > Obviously, I don't expect anyone to predict for me if the 4000 is
>>> > > going to do better in this regard than the 2200/7600/9600, but I
> was
>>> > > wondering if I could get a little input on the results people are
>>> > > getting with the Ultrachromes or with inks they've substituted for
>>> > > the Ultrachromes.  I've read about the MIS inks and the Lyson
> inks,
>>> > > for example, and I'm trying to get a handle on what options
> provide
>>> > > the highest DMax and how those options compare with results I'm
> used
>>> > > to from the traditional, wet darkroom (though it's been a while
> since
>>> > > my B&W days).
>>> > > 
>>> > > What I really need to do, I'm sure, is attempt to find
> opportunities
>>> > > to actually look at people's work that uses different inks and
>>> > > media.  But, inasmuch as my decision to go digital is only a few
>>> > > weeks old, and considering that my renewed focus on B&W is only a
> few
>>> > > days old, I really find myself in need of some pointers in the
> right
>>> > > direction.  Like I said, really great DMax is going to be a big
> focus
>>> > > of mine.  Which I'm sure is not uncommon.  But, anyway, I'm just
>>> > > wondering if you folks are satisfied with the DMax you're getting
>>> > > right now and what combination of inks & media have given the best
>>> > > results for superior DMax.
>>> > > 
>>> > > I'm reluctant to admit my ignorance, but, though I used to get
> good
>>> > > results in the darkroom, and though I used zone system techniques
> in
>>> > > some of my B&W work, I don't really relate very well to DMax
>>> > > figures.  I'm afraid to say that I don't really know how figures
> of
>>> > > 1.69 or 2.0 or 2.1 compare to the results I was getting, so
> they're
>>> > > really just abstract figures until I associate them with something
>>> > > visual.  Even if I did once know DMax values for the blacks in
> some
>>> > > of my old B&W prints, I'm afraid that knowledge has erroded over
> the
>>> > > years.
>>> > > 
>>> > > Anyway, sorry for rambling, and thanks for your patience.  I'm
> pretty
>>> > > excited about my 'rediscovery' of B&W, so I'm sure you'll see me
> here
>>> > > more, and I really must find the time to make my way through much
> of
>>> > > the group's archives.
>>> > > 
>>> > > Regards,
>>> > > 
>>> > > Mike
>>> > > 
>>> > > 
>>> > > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
>>> > >  
>>> > >  ADVERTISEMENT
>>> > >  
>>> > > 
> <http://rd.yahoo.com/M=194081.4074964.5287182.1261774/D=egroupweb/S=17
> 05019182
>>> > > :HM/A=1706996/R=0/SIG=11p5b9ris/*http://www.ediets.com/start.cfm?
> code=30509&me
>>> > > dia=atkins>
>>> > > 
>>> > > Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks,
> Polls and other
>>> > > resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
>>> > > 
>>> > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>>> > > 
>>> > > If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you
> wish to
>>> > > unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting
> this same
>>> > > page.
>>> > > 
>>> > > Please follow these basic guidelines:
>>> > > - Include your full name with your message.
>>> > > - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
>>> > > - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier
> messages to keep
>>> > > them short.
>>> > > - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject
> header.
>>> > > - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or
> flames
>>> > > - Complete your Yahoo profile.
>>> > > - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the
> various
>>> > > resources on the homepage.
>>> > > 
>>> > > 
>>> > > 
>>> > > 
>>> > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> Service
>>> > > <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .
>> > 
>> > 
>> > 
>> > 
>> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> 
> 
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
>  
>  ADVERTISEMENT
>  
> <http://rd.yahoo.com/M=194081.4074964.5287182.1261774/D=egroupweb/S=1705019182
> :HM/A=1706996/R=0/SIG=11p5b9ris/*http://www.ediets.com/start.cfm?code=30509&me
> dia=atkins>  
> 
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and other
> resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
> 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> 
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to
> unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same
> page.
> 
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
> them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
> resources on the homepage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
> <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .




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

Hi Brad,

I found these helpful.  You might also:

http://home.att.net/~rwharris/DarkroomTechniquesNovDec.pdf

http://home.att.net/~rwharris/Printers.html

For my current thoughts on inks and printers, please check out my 
latest post, my 2nd.  Again, I stress the fact that I've been reading 
up on B&W printing for all of 2 days now.  Please consider everyone 
else here more informed than me.

As far a papers go, I haven't gotten too far there yet, and I realize 
that I'm probably going to have to try to get some samples or small 
quantities in order to decide for myself.  I know I'll want to print 
on a cotton-based paper, though.  Photo Rag & Museo seem like options 
I'd like to try, though I doubt they're the cheapest (but I don't 
intend to scrimp, and intend to go with as archival an ink/paper 
combination as possible).

Mike



--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Brad Mol 
<bradmol99@y...> wrote:
> Hi Mike
> 
> I am getting all the messages.
> I must say there is a lot of info.
> I already own the 1280.  I have to get some type of ink set but am 
not sure
> which ones to go for  yet.
> Any suggestions which ones you are going for?
> Let me know what you go with.
> Also, any types of paper.
> I have some Epson matt paper which I now understand is better than 
gloss.
> Have you found any other papers to use?
> Best Regards.......Brad.
> 
>  
> 
> On 10/23/03 6:32 AM, "Mike Botelho" <mfractl@h...> wrote:
> 
> > 
> > Hi Brad,
> > 
> > As you can tell, I'm really doing lots of my thinking out loud and
> > doing all of my conversing in public, so you definitely have 
access
> > to any replies I've received.  Beyond that, I'm pretty much 
checking
> > out people's websites, checking out links, doing searches on the
> > subject, browsing the archives, etc.  If you are still reading 
this
> > thread, you'll see that I'm considering a 1280 and Ultra Tone 
inks to
> > start my experiments, but this is so new to me I can't guarantee 
what
> > I'll ultimately end up doing.  Plus, literally everyone else here 
has
> > a more informed opinion than I do at this point, so I suggest you
> > just stay tuned, do lots of homework, and ask questions once you 
know
> > enough to ask good ones.  At least that's my plan.
> > 
> > Good luck (to both of us)!
> > 
> > Mike
> > 
> > 
> > --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Brad Mol
> > <bradmol99@y...> wrote:
> >> > Hi Mike
> >> > 
> >> > I¹m also new to the digital world and am very ignorant to 
things
> > here.
> >> > I am also looking for the best B&W printer and thought that we
> > could do this
> >> > search together and see what we can come up with.
> >> > I posted a similar notice asking those who have had experience 
to
> > give me
> >> > feedback as to what printer to use or buy, and what inks.
> >> > I need help in this area and so far have not gotten any direct
> > answer.
> >> > Let me know your feedback and I will let you know mine.
> >> > Best Regards..........Brad.
> >> >  
> >> > 
> >> > 
> >> > On 10/22/03 9:37 AM, "Mike" <mfractl@h...> wrote:
> >> > 
> >>> > > 
> >>> > > First off, this is the first time I've posted here, so 
hello to
> >>> > > everyone.  I'm just, finally, making the switch from film to
> > digital,
> >>> > > and an unexpected by-product of this shift is that I'm
> > rediscovering
> >>> > > my love of B&W in the digital domain.  This certainly seems 
to be
> > a
> >>> > > great group for me to check out, and I assure you all that 
I'll be
> >>> > > doing a number of searches through the archives to pick up 
tips,
> > so
> >>> > > I'll attempt to avoid asking at least some of the questions 
that
> > have
> >>> > > been asked numerous times before.  Nonetheless, there's one
> > question
> >>> > > on my mind at the moment, and I thought I'd throw it out.
> >>> > > 
> >>> > > I've been reading the news about the upcoming Epson 4000, 
and I've
> >>> > > read that it's supposed to acheive a DMax of 2.1 on glossy 
media
> > and
> >>> > > 1.69 on matte media.  Though I'm no expert on this subject 
yet,
> > I've
> >>> > > read that the 2200/7600/9600, with the Ultrachromes, 
acheive a
> > DMax
> >>> > > of 2.0 on glossy media and 1.69 on matte.  Obviously, this
> > suggests a
> >>> > > higher DMax on glossy for the 4000.  And, considering that 
my
> >>> > > upcoming foray into digital B&W will involve a search for 
the best
> >>> > > DMax, I find this interesting.  (Though I don't know how a 
printer
> >>> > > using the same inks/media is supposed to acheive a higher 
DMax on
> >>> > > glossy media... maybe by mixing some Matte Black in with 
the Photo
> >>> > > Black, since both inks will be available at once?)
> >>> > > 
> >>> > > Obviously, I don't expect anyone to predict for me if the 
4000 is
> >>> > > going to do better in this regard than the 2200/7600/9600, 
but I
> > was
> >>> > > wondering if I could get a little input on the results 
people are
> >>> > > getting with the Ultrachromes or with inks they've 
substituted for
> >>> > > the Ultrachromes.  I've read about the MIS inks and the 
Lyson
> > inks,
> >>> > > for example, and I'm trying to get a handle on what options
> > provide
> >>> > > the highest DMax and how those options compare with results 
I'm
> > used
> >>> > > to from the traditional, wet darkroom (though it's been a 
while
> > since
> >>> > > my B&W days).
> >>> > > 
> >>> > > What I really need to do, I'm sure, is attempt to find
> > opportunities
> >>> > > to actually look at people's work that uses different inks 
and
> >>> > > media.  But, inasmuch as my decision to go digital is only 
a few
> >>> > > weeks old, and considering that my renewed focus on B&W is 
only a
> > few
> >>> > > days old, I really find myself in need of some pointers in 
the
> > right
> >>> > > direction.  Like I said, really great DMax is going to be a 
big
> > focus
> >>> > > of mine.  Which I'm sure is not uncommon.  But, anyway, I'm 
just
> >>> > > wondering if you folks are satisfied with the DMax you're 
getting
> >>> > > right now and what combination of inks & media have given 
the best
> >>> > > results for superior DMax.
> >>> > > 
> >>> > > I'm reluctant to admit my ignorance, but, though I used to 
get
> > good
> >>> > > results in the darkroom, and though I used zone system 
techniques
> > in
> >>> > > some of my B&W work, I don't really relate very well to DMax
> >>> > > figures.  I'm afraid to say that I don't really know how 
figures
> > of
> >>> > > 1.69 or 2.0 or 2.1 compare to the results I was getting, so
> > they're
> >>> > > really just abstract figures until I associate them with 
something
> >>> > > visual.  Even if I did once know DMax values for the blacks 
in
> > some
> >>> > > of my old B&W prints, I'm afraid that knowledge has erroded 
over
> > the
> >>> > > years.
> >>> > > 
> >>> > > Anyway, sorry for rambling, and thanks for your patience.  
I'm
> > pretty
> >>> > > excited about my 'rediscovery' of B&W, so I'm sure you'll 
see me
> > here
> >>> > > more, and I really must find the time to make my way 
through much
> > of
> >>> > > the group's archives.
> >>> > > 
> >>> > > Regards,
> >>> > > 
> >>> > > Mike
> >>> > > 
> >>> > > 
> >>> > > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> >>> > >  
> >>> > >  ADVERTISEMENT
> >>> > >  
> >>> > > 
> > 
<http://rd.yahoo.com/M=194081.4074964.5287182.1261774/D=egroupweb/S=17
> > 05019182
> >>> > 
> :HM/A=1706996/R=0/SIG=11p5b9ris/*http://www.ediets.com/start.cfm?
> > code=30509&me
> >>> > > dia=atkins>
> >>> > > 
> >>> > > Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, 
Bookmarks,
> > Polls and other
> >>> > > resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
> >>> > > 
> >>> > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> >>> > > 
> >>> > > If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or 
you
> > wish to
> >>> > > unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by 
visiting
> > this same
> >>> > > page.
> >>> > > 
> >>> > > Please follow these basic guidelines:
> >>> > > - Include your full name with your message.
> >>> > > - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> >>> > > - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier
> > messages to keep
> >>> > > them short.
> >>> > > - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the 
subject
> > header.
> >>> > > - Good manners are required at all time. No personal 
attacks or
> > flames
> >>> > > - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> >>> > > - Before posting a question, search the message archives 
and the
> > various
> >>> > > resources on the homepage.
> >>> > > 
> >>> > > 
> >>> > > 
> >>> > > 
> >>> > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> > Service
> >>> > > <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .
> >> > 
> >> > 
> >> > 
> >> > 
> >> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > 
> > 
> > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> >  
> >  ADVERTISEMENT
> >  
> > 
<http://rd.yahoo.com/M=194081.4074964.5287182.1261774/D=egroupweb/S=17
05019182
> > :HM/A=1706996/R=0/SIG=11p5b9ris/*http://www.ediets.com/start.cfm?
code=30509&me
> > dia=atkins>  
> > 
> > Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, 
Polls and other
> > resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
> > 
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> > 
> > If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you 
wish to
> > unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting 
this same
> > page.
> > 
> > Please follow these basic guidelines:
> > - Include your full name with your message.
> > - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> > - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier 
messages to keep
> > them short.
> > - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject 
header.
> > - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or 
flames
> > - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> > - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the 
various
> > resources on the homepage.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of 
Service

> > <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Thanks Mike

I checked out those sites and it was good reading.
I am learning a lot.
Do you think I am better with a 1280 dedicated to B&W or go with a 2200
dedicated to B&W?
Money is not a consideration.  Just good prints.
Which ink set do you think would be best for yourself?
Regards.....Brad.



On 10/23/03 10:15 AM, "Mike Botelho" <mfractl@...> wrote:

> 
> Hi Brad,
> 
> I found these helpful.  You might also:
> 
> http://home.att.net/~rwharris/DarkroomTechniquesNovDec.pdf
> 
> http://home.att.net/~rwharris/Printers.html
> 
> For my current thoughts on inks and printers, please check out my
> latest post, my 2nd.  Again, I stress the fact that I've been reading
> up on B&W printing for all of 2 days now.  Please consider everyone
> else here more informed than me.
> 
> As far a papers go, I haven't gotten too far there yet, and I realize
> that I'm probably going to have to try to get some samples or small
> quantities in order to decide for myself.  I know I'll want to print
> on a cotton-based paper, though.  Photo Rag & Museo seem like options
> I'd like to try, though I doubt they're the cheapest (but I don't
> intend to scrimp, and intend to go with as archival an ink/paper
> combination as possible).
> 
> Mike
> 
> 
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Brad Mol
> <bradmol99@y...> wrote:
>> > Hi Mike
>> > 
>> > I am getting all the messages.
>> > I must say there is a lot of info.
>> > I already own the 1280.  I have to get some type of ink set but am
> not sure
>> > which ones to go for  yet.
>> > Any suggestions which ones you are going for?
>> > Let me know what you go with.
>> > Also, any types of paper.
>> > I have some Epson matt paper which I now understand is better than
> gloss.
>> > Have you found any other papers to use?
>> > Best Regards.......Brad.
>> > 
>> >  
>> > 
>> > On 10/23/03 6:32 AM, "Mike Botelho" <mfractl@h...> wrote:
>> > 
>>> > > 
>>> > > Hi Brad,
>>> > > 
>>> > > As you can tell, I'm really doing lots of my thinking out loud and
>>> > > doing all of my conversing in public, so you definitely have
> access
>>> > > to any replies I've received.  Beyond that, I'm pretty much
> checking
>>> > > out people's websites, checking out links, doing searches on the
>>> > > subject, browsing the archives, etc.  If you are still reading
> this
>>> > > thread, you'll see that I'm considering a 1280 and Ultra Tone
> inks to
>>> > > start my experiments, but this is so new to me I can't guarantee
> what
>>> > > I'll ultimately end up doing.  Plus, literally everyone else here
> has
>>> > > a more informed opinion than I do at this point, so I suggest you
>>> > > just stay tuned, do lots of homework, and ask questions once you
> know
>>> > > enough to ask good ones.  At least that's my plan.
>>> > > 
>>> > > Good luck (to both of us)!
>>> > > 
>>> > > Mike
>>> > > 
>>> > > 
>>> > > --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Brad Mol
>>> > > <bradmol99@y...> wrote:
>>>>> > >> > Hi Mike
>>>>> > >> > 
>>>>> > >> > I¹m also new to the digital world and am very ignorant to
> things
>>> > > here.
>>>>> > >> > I am also looking for the best B&W printer and thought that we
>>> > > could do this
>>>>> > >> > search together and see what we can come up with.
>>>>> > >> > I posted a similar notice asking those who have had experience
> to
>>> > > give me
>>>>> > >> > feedback as to what printer to use or buy, and what inks.
>>>>> > >> > I need help in this area and so far have not gotten any direct
>>> > > answer.
>>>>> > >> > Let me know your feedback and I will let you know mine.
>>>>> > >> > Best Regards..........Brad.
>>>>> > >> >  
>>>>> > >> > 
>>>>> > >> > 
>>>>> > >> > On 10/22/03 9:37 AM, "Mike" <mfractl@h...> wrote:
>>>>> > >> > 
>>>>>>> > >>> > > 
>>>>>>> > >>> > > First off, this is the first time I've posted here, so
> hello to
>>>>>>> > >>> > > everyone.  I'm just, finally, making the switch from film to
>>> > > digital,
>>>>>>> > >>> > > and an unexpected by-product of this shift is that I'm
>>> > > rediscovering
>>>>>>> > >>> > > my love of B&W in the digital domain.  This certainly seems
> to be
>>> > > a
>>>>>>> > >>> > > great group for me to check out, and I assure you all that
> I'll be
>>>>>>> > >>> > > doing a number of searches through the archives to pick up
> tips,
>>> > > so
>>>>>>> > >>> > > I'll attempt to avoid asking at least some of the questions
> that
>>> > > have
>>>>>>> > >>> > > been asked numerous times before.  Nonetheless, there's one
>>> > > question
>>>>>>> > >>> > > on my mind at the moment, and I thought I'd throw it out.
>>>>>>> > >>> > > 
>>>>>>> > >>> > > I've been reading the news about the upcoming Epson 4000,
> and I've
>>>>>>> > >>> > > read that it's supposed to acheive a DMax of 2.1 on glossy
> media
>>> > > and
>>>>>>> > >>> > > 1.69 on matte media.  Though I'm no expert on this subject
> yet,
>>> > > I've
>>>>>>> > >>> > > read that the 2200/7600/9600, with the Ultrachromes,
> acheive a
>>> > > DMax
>>>>>>> > >>> > > of 2.0 on glossy media and 1.69 on matte.  Obviously, this
>>> > > suggests a
>>>>>>> > >>> > > higher DMax on glossy for the 4000.  And, considering that
> my
>>>>>>> > >>> > > upcoming foray into digital B&W will involve a search for
> the best
>>>>>>> > >>> > > DMax, I find this interesting.  (Though I don't know how a
> printer
>>>>>>> > >>> > > using the same inks/media is supposed to acheive a higher
> DMax on
>>>>>>> > >>> > > glossy media... maybe by mixing some Matte Black in with
> the Photo
>>>>>>> > >>> > > Black, since both inks will be available at once?)
>>>>>>> > >>> > > 
>>>>>>> > >>> > > Obviously, I don't expect anyone to predict for me if the
> 4000 is
>>>>>>> > >>> > > going to do better in this regard than the 2200/7600/9600,
> but I
>>> > > was
>>>>>>> > >>> > > wondering if I could get a little input on the results
> people are
>>>>>>> > >>> > > getting with the Ultrachromes or with inks they've
> substituted for
>>>>>>> > >>> > > the Ultrachromes.  I've read about the MIS inks and the
> Lyson
>>> > > inks,
>>>>>>> > >>> > > for example, and I'm trying to get a handle on what options
>>> > > provide
>>>>>>> > >>> > > the highest DMax and how those options compare with results
> I'm
>>> > > used
>>>>>>> > >>> > > to from the traditional, wet darkroom (though it's been a
> while
>>> > > since
>>>>>>> > >>> > > my B&W days).
>>>>>>> > >>> > > 
>>>>>>> > >>> > > What I really need to do, I'm sure, is attempt to find
>>> > > opportunities
>>>>>>> > >>> > > to actually look at people's work that uses different inks
> and
>>>>>>> > >>> > > media.  But, inasmuch as my decision to go digital is only
> a few
>>>>>>> > >>> > > weeks old, and considering that my renewed focus on B&W is
> only a
>>> > > few
>>>>>>> > >>> > > days old, I really find myself in need of some pointers in
> the
>>> > > right
>>>>>>> > >>> > > direction.  Like I said, really great DMax is going to be a
> big
>>> > > focus
>>>>>>> > >>> > > of mine.  Which I'm sure is not uncommon.  But, anyway, I'm
> just
>>>>>>> > >>> > > wondering if you folks are satisfied with the DMax you're
> getting
>>>>>>> > >>> > > right now and what combination of inks & media have given
> the best
>>>>>>> > >>> > > results for superior DMax.
>>>>>>> > >>> > > 
>>>>>>> > >>> > > I'm reluctant to admit my ignorance, but, though I used to
> get
>>> > > good
>>>>>>> > >>> > > results in the darkroom, and though I used zone system
> techniques
>>> > > in
>>>>>>> > >>> > > some of my B&W work, I don't really relate very well to DMax
>>>>>>> > >>> > > figures.  I'm afraid to say that I don't really know how
> figures
>>> > > of
>>>>>>> > >>> > > 1.69 or 2.0 or 2.1 compare to the results I was getting, so
>>> > > they're
>>>>>>> > >>> > > really just abstract figures until I associate them with
> something
>>>>>>> > >>> > > visual.  Even if I did once know DMax values for the blacks
> in
>>> > > some
>>>>>>> > >>> > > of my old B&W prints, I'm afraid that knowledge has erroded
> over
>>> > > the
>>>>>>> > >>> > > years.
>>>>>>> > >>> > > 
>>>>>>> > >>> > > Anyway, sorry for rambling, and thanks for your patience.
> I'm
>>> > > pretty
>>>>>>> > >>> > > excited about my 'rediscovery' of B&W, so I'm sure you'll
> see me
>>> > > here
>>>>>>> > >>> > > more, and I really must find the time to make my way
> through much
>>> > > of
>>>>>>> > >>> > > the group's archives.
>>>>>>> > >>> > > 
>>>>>>> > >>> > > Regards,
>>>>>>> > >>> > > 
>>>>>>> > >>> > > Mike
>>>>>>> > >>> > > 
>>>>>>> > >>> > > 
>>>>>>> > >>> > > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
>>>>>>> > >>> > >  
>>>>>>> > >>> > >  ADVERTISEMENT
>>>>>>> > >>> > >  
>>>>>>> > >>> > > 
>>> > > 
> <http://rd.yahoo.com/M=194081.4074964.5287182.1261774/D=egroupweb/S=17
>>> > > 05019182
>>>>>> > >>> > 
>> > :HM/A=1706996/R=0/SIG=11p5b9ris/*http://www.ediets.com/start.cfm?
>>> > > code=30509&me
>>>>>>> > >>> > > dia=atkins>
>>>>>>> > >>> > > 
>>>>>>> > >>> > > Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files,
> Bookmarks,
>>> > > Polls and other
>>>>>>> > >>> > > resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
>>>>>>> > >>> > > 
>>>>>>> > >>> > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>>>>>>> > >>> > > 
>>>>>>> > >>> > > If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or
> you
>>> > > wish to
>>>>>>> > >>> > > unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by
> visiting
>>> > > this same
>>>>>>> > >>> > > page.
>>>>>>> > >>> > > 
>>>>>>> > >>> > > Please follow these basic guidelines:
>>>>>>> > >>> > > - Include your full name with your message.
>>>>>>> > >>> > > - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
>>>>>>> > >>> > > - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier
>>> > > messages to keep
>>>>>>> > >>> > > them short.
>>>>>>> > >>> > > - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the
> subject
>>> > > header.
>>>>>>> > >>> > > - Good manners are required at all time. No personal
> attacks or
>>> > > flames
>>>>>>> > >>> > > - Complete your Yahoo profile.
>>>>>>> > >>> > > - Before posting a question, search the message archives
> and the
>>> > > various
>>>>>>> > >>> > > resources on the homepage.
>>>>>>> > >>> > > 
>>>>>>> > >>> > > 
>>>>>>> > >>> > > 
>>>>>>> > >>> > > 
>>>>>>> > >>> > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
>>> > > Service
>>>>>>> > >>> > > <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .
>>>>> > >> > 
>>>>> > >> > 
>>>>> > >> > 
>>>>> > >> > 
>>>>> > >> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>>> > > 
>>> > > 
>>> > > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
>>> > >  
>>> > >  ADVERTISEMENT
>>> > >  
>>> > > 
> <http://rd.yahoo.com/M=194081.4074964.5287182.1261774/D=egroupweb/S=17
> 05019182
>>> > > :HM/A=1706996/R=0/SIG=11p5b9ris/*http://www.ediets.com/start.cfm?
> code=30509&me
>>> > > dia=atkins>
>>> > > 
>>> > > Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks,
> Polls and other
>>> > > resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
>>> > > 
>>> > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>>> > > 
>>> > > If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you
> wish to
>>> > > unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting
> this same
>>> > > page.
>>> > > 
>>> > > Please follow these basic guidelines:
>>> > > - Include your full name with your message.
>>> > > - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
>>> > > - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier
> messages to keep
>>> > > them short.
>>> > > - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject
> header.
>>> > > - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or
> flames
>>> > > - Complete your Yahoo profile.
>>> > > - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the
> various
>>> > > resources on the homepage.
>>> > > 
>>> > > 
>>> > > 
>>> > > 
>>> > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> Service
>>> > > <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .
>> > 
>> > 
>> > 
>> > 
>> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> 
> 
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
>  
>  ADVERTISEMENT
>  
> <http://rd.yahoo.com/M=194081.4074964.5287182.1261774/D=egroupweb/S=1705019182
> :HM/A=1732161/R=0/SIG=11p5b9ris/*http://www.ediets.com/start.cfm?code=30509&me
> dia=atkins>  
> 
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and other
> resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
> 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> 
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to
> unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same
> page.
> 
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
> them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
> resources on the homepage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
> <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .




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

Mike,

To your last point, definitely go with the 1280 and the MIS Inks, 
you will be very pleased.  I use the MIS inks on the 1280 (and CIS) 
and print using the Piezography software.  I also use a 1270 and MIS 
variable tone inks using various curves, though I do not personally 
get quite as good results and have spent a lot of time tweak my 
curves.  The 1280 renders wonderful greys no matter how you go about 
it.  Best of luck, with the support of this group, you have an 
amazing resource at your finger tips.

Regards,

James Sims
www.jamessims.com
www.lightroomphotography.com

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Mike Botelho" 
<mfractl@h...> wrote:
> Thanks, Paul, for welcoming me and for the very interesting 
> information.  I also checked out your website (which I'd actually 
> visited a few days ago, in fact), enjoyed your images for a while, 
> then ended up at the MIS website checking out the good deal of 
> information there also.  Let's say I'm just starting to learn just 
> how much I have to learn.
> 
> I find your work with the Ultra Tone inkset very interesting, 
> including the prospect of printing with an ink based purely on 
carbon 
> black pigment.  As someone who's quite familiar with pigments used 
in 
> artist's colors, and as someone who is used to using only pure and 
> accurately-identified pigments, I find the whole pigment ink 
> situation a bit disconcerting.  I'm used to knowing how long a 
color 
> will last simply because there are ASTM lightfastness ratings for 
all 
> pigments.  In the world of pigmented inkjet inks, the individual 
> pigments are never identified, leaving you at the mercy of 
(usually 
> exaggerated) lightfastness claims.  Printing with an identified 
> pigment is less disconcerting to me, not to mention that carbon 
black 
> is about as simple, lightfast, and stable as pigments get.  And, 
of 
> course, there is also the fact that this approach excludes cyan, 
> magenta, and yellows that consist of pigments that haven't been 
> identified (to me) and may, for all I know, not be nearly as 
durable 
> as the black they are mixing with.
> 
> Anyway, I didn't mean to ramble, but this is one of my personal 
> reactions to my new involvement in inkjet printing.  I look at 
> pigmented inks as artist's materials, and I'm simply not used to 
> buying artist's materials with unidentified contents and a vague 
> assurance of 'trust me, it'll last'.  As you know, I'm new to all 
> this, but I have to admit that the concept of using CMYK to print 
B&W 
> hasn't sat too well with me since I started to learn about the 
Epsons 
> and the Ultrachromes.  These are just my knee-jerk reactions, 
> though.  I'm sure many people are getting great results with the 
> Ultrachromes, and I'm far from having reached an ultimate (or any)
> decision about my own choices.  I'm just describing initial 
> reactions, that's all.
> 
> Also, the concept of using curves and avoiding a RIP is very 
> appealing, though, of course, I'd have to try the approach out 
myself 
> to see how it suits me.  But, since I've become fairly adept at 
PS, 
> even the concept of experimenting with new media and coming up 
with 
> some of my own curves doesn't seem terribly intimidating.  Also, I 
> like the concept expressed on your website about B&W always being 
> accessible and affordable and your wanting to keep it that way.  I 
> wholeheartedly agree.
> 
> So, obviously, I make no claims about my ultimate choices for 
inks, 
> workflow, media, etc., but this has definitely given me a lot to 
> think about.  Also, it's capsized my notions of what printer I'll 
be 
> purchasing, since it's starting to seems more likely that I'll 
> dedicate a printer to B&W.  Up until about a week ago, I was only 
> concentrating on color, so 7-color Epson printers were my main 
> focus.  Now that I'm considering specialized B&W inksets, and now 
> that dedicating a printer just to B&W seems appealing, I have no 
idea 
> where I stand, particularly if I still want to do a fair amount of 
> color printing too.  I had been thinking about getting a 7600, but 
I 
> can hardly afford to buy one for color and one for B&W, plus it's 
not 
> like the Ultra Tones have a 7-cartridge solution anyway.
> 
> Maybe I'll pick up a 1280 and dedicate just to B&W and use it for 
all 
> my initial experiments and learning and then just go from there.  
In 
> comparison to the costs of photo gear, computers, software, and 
even 
> inks, a cost of under $400 for a great printer to learn on is 
> rediculously affordable.  Plus, only having to mess with 2 
cartridges 
> is convneient and seems to be a great match to the Ultra Tone 
> approach.  One question, though.  Wasn't the 1280 orignally a dye 
ink 
> printer?  Are there any potential problems to using pigmented inks 
in 
> this printer?  I read on your website that you are working on a 
1280 
> plus Ultra Tone setup, so I assume there must not be a problem, 
but I 

> just thought I'd ask.
> 
> Anyway, sorry for rambling, but this is all new, and it's all just 
> starting to sink in.  Like I said, who knows where I'll end up.  
> Actually, that only makes things more interesting.
> 
> Thanks again,
> 
> Mike Botelho

Mike,


>...
>Wasn't the 1280 orignally a dye ink printer?

Yes.  Epson does not use pigments in it.

> Are there any potential problems to using pigmented inks in
>this printer?

It seems to work fine with pigments.  The pigment particle sizes are very
small even compared to the inkjet orifices.  Epson often does use the same
machine for both.  The 7000 was a dye printer; the 7500 used pigments.  Both
are said to be mechanically the same machine.  The 7500 apparently uses a
more robust cleaning cycle, but any other differences in the firmware or
software are uncertain.

Paul
http://www.PaulRoark.com

Thanks for your reply.  Actually I've seen a diagram that illustrates 
the size of a pigment particle vs a nozzle orifice, so I know what 
you mean.  But, since some poeple do seem worried about clogging, I 
thought I'd ask.  Though I suspect that clogging is attributable to 
other things.

Mike


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Roark" 
<paul.roark@v...> wrote:
> Mike,
> 
> 
> >...
> >Wasn't the 1280 orignally a dye ink printer?
> 
> Yes.  Epson does not use pigments in it.
> 
> > Are there any potential problems to using pigmented inks in
> >this printer?
> 
> It seems to work fine with pigments.  The pigment particle sizes 
are very
> small even compared to the inkjet orifices.  Epson often does use 
the same
> machine for both.  The 7000 was a dye printer; the 7500 used 
pigments.  Both
> are said to be mechanically the same machine.  The 7500 apparently 
uses a
> more robust cleaning cycle, but any other differences in the 
firmware or

> software are uncertain.
> 
> Paul
> http://www.PaulRoark.com

At 11:22 PM 10/22/03 +0000, you wrote:

>Thanks for the great information, Martin.  It really helps to give me
>an idea where I'll stand in relation to wet darkroom work.  Overall,
>I'm beginning to get the impression that I'll be quite satisfied by
>inkjet printing as long as I'm willing to accept it as its own
>medium.  Of course, only looking at prints and doing my own
>experimentation will tell (neither of which I've done yet), but I
>mainly just wanted to get a sense of where B&W inkjet printing was at
>before making the commitment myself.  I had given some thought to the
>other options you outlined, but quickly realized that inkjet printing
>would be just the workflow I'd dreamed of, so long as I was
>comfortable with the results.  I think it's safe to say that I've
>received enough assurances and am ready to commit.
>
>Thanks again,
>
>Mike


Mike,

I stayed completely away from the dark room for over two years doing only 
piezo ink jet prints - delighted with the whole thing, excepting the 
technical frustrations. This week I was cleaning out the dark room and saw 
that I had quite a lot of Multigrade paper that was going to waste.  I took 
three 35mm pano negs I'd been working with piezo into the dark, smelly 
chamber and banged out three prints.  They were easy images to print - and 
they look marvelous!  Dry mounted and examined next to the same size 
piezo's on EAM, on the whole, I prefer them.  These particular images look 
qualitatively better to me when evaluated as expressions of the 
photographic idea, objects of craft, etc.  -  I don't have a densitometer. 
Under glass you have to get closer and squint harder to see - if you can - 
those qualitative differences. For some the holy grail is the look of a 
selenium-toned silver print on air-dried, glossy paper. I think that the 
silver print can't be replicated - but why should it be?  I'm showing both 
sets of prints to some master silver printers to get their judgments this 
weekend. Their skepticism with digital output has eased considerably over 
the past few years - that is, they have agreed that the prints look "OK, 
but..."  :-)

For me the digital working environment greatly increases productivity and 
satisfaction without reducing craft quality - it's just a different medium. 
It will continue to get better as the materials and equipment become more 
predictable.

AZ




Build a Lookaround!
The Lookaround Book, 2nd ed.
NOW SHIPPING
http://www.panoramacamera.us

But the blacks certainly don't match up to darkroom quality.

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "James Sims" <james@n...> 
wrote:

> Mike,
> 
> To your last point, definitely go with the 1280 and the MIS Inks, 
> you will be very pleased.  I use the MIS inks on the 1280 (and CIS) 
> and print using the Piezography software.  I also use a 1270 and MIS 
> variable tone inks using various curves, though I do not personally 
> get quite as good results and have spent a lot of time tweak my 
> curves.  The 1280 renders wonderful greys no matter how you go about 
> it.  Best of luck, with the support of this group, you have an 
> amazing resource at your finger tips.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> James Sims
> www.jamessims.com
> www.lightroomphotography.com
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Mike Botelho" 
> <mfractl@h...> wrote:
> > Thanks, Paul, for welcoming me and for the very interesting 
> > information.  I also checked out your website (which I'd actually 
> > visited a few days ago, in fact), enjoyed your images for a while, 
> > then ended up at the MIS website checking out the good deal of 
> > information there also.  Let's say I'm just starting to learn just 
> > how much I have to learn.
> > 
> > I find your work with the Ultra Tone inkset very interesting, 
> > including the prospect of printing with an ink based purely on 
> carbon 
> > black pigment.  As someone who's quite familiar with pigments used 
> in 
> > artist's colors, and as someone who is used to using only pure and 
> > accurately-identified pigments, I find the whole pigment ink 
> > situation a bit disconcerting.  I'm used to knowing how long a 
> color 
> > will last simply because there are ASTM lightfastness ratings for 
> all 
> > pigments.  In the world of pigmented inkjet inks, the individual 
> > pigments are never identified, leaving you at the mercy of 
> (usually 
> > exaggerated) lightfastness claims.  Printing with an identified 
> > pigment is less disconcerting to me, not to mention that carbon 
> black 
> > is about as simple, lightfast, and stable as pigments get.  And, 
> of 
> > course, there is also the fact that this approach excludes cyan, 
> > magenta, and yellows that consist of pigments that haven't been 
> > identified (to me) and may, for all I know, not be nearly as 
> durable 
> > as the black they are mixing with.
> > 
> > Anyway, I didn't mean to ramble, but this is one of my personal 
> > reactions to my new involvement in inkjet printing.  I look at 
> > pigmented inks as artist's materials, and I'm simply not used to 
> > buying artist's materials with unidentified contents and a vague 
> > assurance of 'trust me, it'll last'.  As you know, I'm new to all 
> > this, but I have to admit that the concept of using CMYK to print 
> B&W 
> > hasn't sat too well with me since I started to learn about the 
> Epsons 
> > and the Ultrachromes.  These are just my knee-jerk reactions, 
> > though.  I'm sure many people are getting great results with the 
> > Ultrachromes, and I'm far from having reached an ultimate (or any)
> > decision about my own choices.  I'm just describing initial 
> > reactions, that's all.
> > 
> > Also, the concept of using curves and avoiding a RIP is very 
> > appealing, though, of course, I'd have to try the approach out 
> myself 
> > to see how it suits me.  But, since I've become fairly adept at 
> PS, 
> > even the concept of experimenting with new media and coming up 
> with 
> > some of my own curves doesn't seem terribly intimidating.  Also, I 
> > like the concept expressed on your website about B&W always being 
> > accessible and affordable and your wanting to keep it that way.  I 
> > wholeheartedly agree.
> > 
> > So, obviously, I make no claims about my ultimate choices for 
> inks, 
> > workflow, media, etc., but this has definitely given me a lot to 
> > think about.  Also, it's capsized my notions of what printer I'll 
> be 
> > purchasing, since it's starting to seems more likely that I'll 
> > dedicate a printer to B&W.  Up until about a week ago, I was only 
> > concentrating on color, so 7-color Epson printers were my main 
> > focus.  Now that I'm considering specialized B&W inksets, and now 
> > that dedicating a printer just to B&W seems appealing, I have no 
> idea 
> > where I stand, particularly if I still want to do a fair amount of 
> > color printing too.  I had been thinking about getting a 7600, but 
> I 
> > can hardly afford to buy one for color and one for B&W, plus it's 
> not 
> > like the Ultra Tones have a 7-cartridge solution anyway.
> > 
> > Maybe I'll pick up a 1280 and dedicate just to B&W and use it for 
> all 
> > my initial experiments and learning and then just go from there.  
> In 
> > comparison to the costs of photo gear, computers, software, and 
> even 
> > inks, a cost of under $400 for a great printer to learn on is 
> > rediculously affordable.  Plus, only having to mess with 2 
> cartridges 
> > is convneient and seems to be a great match to the Ultra Tone 
> > approach.  One question, though.  Wasn't the 1280 orignally a dye 
> ink 
> > printer?  Are there any potential problems to using pigmented inks 
> in 
> > this printer?  I read on your website that you are working on a 
> 1280 
> > plus Ultra Tone setup, so I assume there must not be a problem, 
> but I 
> > just thought I'd ask.
> > 
> > Anyway, sorry for rambling, but this is all new, and it's all just 
> > starting to sink in.  Like I said, who knows where I'll end up.  
> > Actually, that only makes things more interesting.
> > 
> > Thanks again,
> > 
> > Mike Botelho

Bill,

I don't think anyone here would disagree with your comment that 
carbon pigment inks on matte paper will not produce as intense a 
black as the black on a GSP.... is there another point or are you 
merely stating the obvious?

If you were making another point, I would love to here it.

Sincerely,

James Sims
www.jamessims.com

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Bill" 
<gebilwil@n...> wrote:
> But the blacks certainly don't match up to darkroom quality.
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "James Sims" 
<james@n...> 
> wrote:
> > Mike,
> > 
> > To your last point, definitely go with the 1280 and the MIS Inks, 
> > you will be very pleased.  I use the MIS inks on the 1280 (and 
CIS) 
> > and print using the Piezography software.  I also use a 1270 and 
MIS 
> > variable tone inks using various curves, though I do not 
personally 
> > get quite as good results and have spent a lot of time tweak my 
> > curves.  The 1280 renders wonderful greys no matter how you go 
about 
> > it.  Best of luck, with the support of this group, you have an 
> > amazing resource at your finger tips.
> > 
> > Regards,
> > 
> > James Sims
> > www.jamessims.com
> > www.lightroomphotography.com
> > 
> > --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Mike 
Botelho" 
> > <mfractl@h...> wrote:
> > > Thanks, Paul, for welcoming me and for the very interesting 
> > > information.  I also checked out your website (which I'd 
actually 
> > > visited a few days ago, in fact), enjoyed your images for a 
while, 
> > > then ended up at the MIS website checking out the good deal of 
> > > information there also.  Let's say I'm just starting to learn 
just 
> > > how much I have to learn.
> > > 
> > > I find your work with the Ultra Tone inkset very interesting, 
> > > including the prospect of printing with an ink based purely on 
> > carbon 
> > > black pigment.  As someone who's quite familiar with pigments 
used 
> > in 
> > > artist's colors, and as someone who is used to using only pure 
and 
> > > accurately-identified pigments, I find the whole pigment ink 
> > > situation a bit disconcerting.  I'm used to knowing how long a 
> > color 
> > > will last simply because there are ASTM lightfastness ratings 
for 
> > all 
> > > pigments.  In the world of pigmented inkjet inks, the 
individual 
> > > pigments are never identified, leaving you at the mercy of 
> > (usually 
> > > exaggerated) lightfastness claims.  Printing with an identified 
> > > pigment is less disconcerting to me, not to mention that carbon 
> > black 
> > > is about as simple, lightfast, and stable as pigments get.  
And, 
> > of 
> > > course, there is also the fact that this approach excludes 
cyan, 
> > > magenta, and yellows that consist of pigments that haven't been 
> > > identified (to me) and may, for all I know, not be nearly as 
> > durable 
> > > as the black they are mixing with.
> > > 
> > > Anyway, I didn't mean to ramble, but this is one of my personal 
> > > reactions to my new involvement in inkjet printing.  I look at 
> > > pigmented inks as artist's materials, and I'm simply not used 
to 
> > > buying artist's materials with unidentified contents and a 
vague 
> > > assurance of 'trust me, it'll last'.  As you know, I'm new to 
all 
> > > this, but I have to admit that the concept of using CMYK to 
print 
> > B&W 
> > > hasn't sat too well with me since I started to learn about the 
> > Epsons 
> > > and the Ultrachromes.  These are just my knee-jerk reactions, 
> > > though.  I'm sure many people are getting great results with 
the 
> > > Ultrachromes, and I'm far from having reached an ultimate (or 
any)
> > > decision about my own choices.  I'm just describing initial 
> > > reactions, that's all.
> > > 
> > > Also, the concept of using curves and avoiding a RIP is very 
> > > appealing, though, of course, I'd have to try the approach out 
> > myself 
> > > to see how it suits me.  But, since I've become fairly adept at 
> > PS, 
> > > even the concept of experimenting with new media and coming up 
> > with 
> > > some of my own curves doesn't seem terribly intimidating.  
Also, I 
> > > like the concept expressed on your website about B&W always 
being 
> > > accessible and affordable and your wanting to keep it that 
way.  I 
> > > wholeheartedly agree.
> > > 
> > > So, obviously, I make no claims about my ultimate choices for 
> > inks, 
> > > workflow, media, etc., but this has definitely given me a lot 
to 
> > > think about.  Also, it's capsized my notions of what printer 
I'll 
> > be 
> > > purchasing, since it's starting to seems more likely that I'll 
> > > dedicate a printer to B&W.  Up until about a week ago, I was 
only 
> > > concentrating on color, so 7-color Epson printers were my main 
> > > focus.  Now that I'm considering specialized B&W inksets, and 
now 
> > > that dedicating a printer just to B&W seems appealing, I have 
no 
> > idea 
> > > where I stand, particularly if I still want to do a fair amount 
of 
> > > color printing too.  I had been thinking about getting a 7600, 
but 
> > I 
> > > can hardly afford to buy one for color and one for B&W, plus 
it's 
> > not 
> > > like the Ultra Tones have a 7-cartridge solution anyway.
> > > 
> > > Maybe I'll pick up a 1280 and dedicate just to B&W and use it 
for 
> > all 
> > > my initial experiments and learning and then just go from 
there.  
> > In 
> > > comparison to the costs of photo gear, computers, software, and 
> > even 
> > > inks, a cost of under $400 for a great printer to learn on is 
> > > rediculously affordable.  Plus, only having to mess with 2 
> > cartridges 
> > > is convneient and seems to be a great match to the Ultra Tone 
> > > approach.  One question, though.  Wasn't the 1280 orignally a 
dye 
> > ink 
> > > printer?  Are there any potential problems to using pigmented 
inks 
> > in 
> > > this printer?  I read on your website that you are working on a 
> > 1280 
> > > plus Ultra Tone setup, so I assume there must not be a problem, 
> > but I 
> > > just thought I'd ask.
> > > 
> > > Anyway, sorry for rambling, but this is all new, and it's all 
just 
> > > starting to sink in.  Like I said, who knows where I'll end 
up.  

> > > Actually, that only makes things more interesting.
> > > 
> > > Thanks again,
> > > 
> > > Mike Botelho