Digital BW, The Print

I have been using some of the great advise I got from the last 
question I asked about getting started (THANKS TO EVERYONE WHO 
ANSWERED) And I find that for my needs and budget that Picture Window 
Pro will do very nicely for my editing program (it only took me a few 
minute to get the whole basics of the interface and it does just what 
I'm looking for)

SO now a second question:

If I get an Epson Printer (which model not yet decided)and I decide 
to try black only printing will I run into any problems using Picture 
Window as my editing program?  If I try a third party Quad ink black 
printing any problems?

And a Third:

If I want a 13x19 size printer for Black & White only printing (not 
sure if Black only or Quad ink yet) is there any advantage of the 
2200 over one of the older models (1280) handling the same size 
paper? And which of the older models still available would be a good 
choice?

OK That's it for now. Back to redoing stuff with PWP boy is it fast 
on my machine compared to PS 5.0 LE almost as fast as Ifranview for 
some things.

Mark W

As a babe in the woods

hi, awahlster ,

you may nit be happy doing black only printing. You won't get the gradients you want 
from thist ype of printing. I'm using the VM Mix QuadTones, and having very good 
results (finally). I've done prints in both, and black only just doesn't do it for me.
As for what printers to get I have no advice for you on that one. I'm using a Epson 
Photo Stylus 1200 refurbished, and am happy with me prints. Although if you were to 
goto Epsons site, they don't even list for sale anymore. I guess it's outdated by 
technologys' standards.
Hope I could help.
-Dean
www.deanmbeattiephoto.com
Fine Art Black and White Photography

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "awahlster" 
<awahlster@a...> wrote:

> I have been using some of the great advise I got from the last 
> question I asked about getting started (THANKS TO EVERYONE WHO 
> ANSWERED) And I find that for my needs and budget that Picture Window 
> Pro will do very nicely for my editing program (it only took me a few 
> minute to get the whole basics of the interface and it does just what 
> I'm looking for)
> 
> SO now a second question:
> 
> If I get an Epson Printer (which model not yet decided)and I decide 
> to try black only printing will I run into any problems using Picture 
> Window as my editing program?  If I try a third party Quad ink black 
> printing any problems?
> 
> And a Third:
> 
> If I want a 13x19 size printer for Black & White only printing (not 
> sure if Black only or Quad ink yet) is there any advantage of the 
> 2200 over one of the older models (1280) handling the same size 
> paper? And which of the older models still available would be a good 
> choice?
> 
> OK That's it for now. Back to redoing stuff with PWP boy is it fast 
> on my machine compared to PS 5.0 LE almost as fast as Ifranview for 
> some things.
> 
> Mark W
> 
> As a babe in the woods

Mark,

Consider the 2000P for $200. I just posted curves using PictureWindows 
for driving that printer...... It Works.
It effectively makes it a quad tone printer : K  C  CMY  CLMLY,
and the 2000P is not too bad just printing greyscale in Color mode 
without my workflow.

OneOtherPlus for the 2000P :
 it is designed to be a PigmentPrinter - once you have the inks 
feeding, it works. It does Not Clog - even if left for several months 
unattended. May need a normal cleaning cycle or two, and you are good 
to go.......

Alex


> 
> If I get an Epson Printer (which model not yet decided)and I decide 
> to try black only printing will I run into any problems using 
Picture Window as my editing program?  If I try a third party Quad ink 
black 

> printing any problems?
> 
> And a Third:
> 
> If I want a 13x19 size printer for Black & White only printing (not 
> sure if Black only or Quad ink yet) 

> 
> Mark W
> 
> As a babe in the woods

PWP reads PhotoShop .acv (and older .amp) files so you should have 
no problem using partitioned workflow curves like those developed by 
Paul Roark for MIS inksets or any other workflows that use these PS 
curves formats.

To access the curves in PWP, use Transform|Color|upper OPT 
button|Load.

Jeff Randall

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "awahlster" 
<awahlster@a...> wrote:
> If I get an Epson Printer (which model not yet decided)and I 
decide 
> to try black only printing will I run into any problems using 
Picture 
> Window as my editing program?  If I try a third party Quad ink 
black 
> printing any problems?

> If I want a 13x19 size printer for Black & White only printing (not 
> sure if Black only or Quad ink yet) is there any advantage of the 
> 2200 over one of the older models (1280) handling the same size 
> paper? And which of the older models still available would be a 
good 
> choice?
> Mark W

Since you already have PWP, you can use Paul Roark's curves for the 
UT inkset. With an Epson 1280 ($360.00 new at www.amazon.com), the 
Ultra-Tone (UT)inkset from www.inksupply.com, Paul's free adjusment 
printing curves, some 100% cotton rag paper and you'll be making 
13x19" archival carbon pigment prints. You can't go wrong with this 
setup and it wont cost you much.

Cheers,
Andre

Hello Mark,

>If I get an Epson Printer (which model not yet decided)and I 
>decide to try black only printing...

The people who say bad things about Black Only printing, things such
as it has poor gradients, or rough tonal transitions, and so on, are
usually reporting their experience based on older printers.  After
their disparaging remarks they usually follow it by saying they are
using an 1160 or a 1200 or a 2000 or something like that.  These
printers have larger and non variable droplet size with coarser
resolution.

The newer printers that print at 2880 dpi with 4pl (or less) variable
droplet size (1280, 2200, etc) do a superb job with the BO technique.
 I used an 870 (4pl, variable, 1440dpi) for a long time and got very
good results, but a few months ago I began using a 2200 (4pl,
variable, 2880dpi), and the results from going to 2880 have improved
enormously.

These new prints are incredibly good (and with Eboni ink they are
stable as well).  The dots are so fine that you'd never know it was BO
if you weren't looking for it with a magnifier.  The tonal gradations
are smooth and subtle (the gritty look is gone), and the resolution is
as fine as the best of the other methods (I printed the Tech
Exchange print and compared it to the others in the review - it has
good clean resolution lines at 7.2 lp/mm both vertical and
horizontal).  

Before the outraged jump all over me and mis-quote me and accuse me of
saying things I didn't say, let me state clearly that I am not saying,
nor have I ever said, that BO prints are better than the really good
dotless methods that are out there.  All I am saying is that BO can
produce excellent and beautiful prints, with a minimum of fuss, bother
and expense, with the added advantages of 

1) being able to print color and BW on the same printer 

2) produces beautiful luminous prints because the paper surface is an
active part of the image (they don't have that opaque look that so
many of the other systems have)

3) _really_ good D-max (a few days ago I showed one of my new
prints to a friend who uses UT/Eboni inks in a 7500 with Roark curves;
When I asked him if the fact that it was BO stood out in any way he
said, "Only that I noticed you're getting better D-max than I am").

BO printing is a great way for someone to get started, especially when
they have no experience and don't know how to choose from among all
the options.  There is so much to learn and get adjusted to, and not
everyone is a techie freak with deep pockets.  Using BO lets people
get started with minimal frustration and expense without locking them
into a particular system.  It allows them to begin developing their
PhotoShop skills without the distractions of fussing with more complex
techniques.  Soon enough they will learn the ropes and if so inclined
will be moved to try one of the other systems.  They aren't doomed to
eternal dot hell by starting that way.

I don't have any problem when someone says they don't like the BO
results, but I do tend get energized when people say things that
simply aren't true.  Please, folks, if you haven't tried BO printing
with a modern printer, then please refrain from the negative remarks.
If someone expresses interest in BO it's probably because they have
arrived at that point after reading a lot of on-line material.  Don't
try to discourage them, just steer them to a printer with at least 4pl
variable droplets.

So, Mark, if you want to try BO printing, I recommend the 1280 or the
2200 because they can do 13x19 at 2880dpi and will give you excellent
results.  Eboni ink is also available for both.   


>...will I run into any problems using Picture 
>Window as my editing program?

I don't use PWP so I can't say for sure, but I think it wouldn't
matter.  With BO printing the image is handed over to the Epson
driver, so it seems like the editor is out of the picture (so to speak
<g>) at that point.



>is there any advantage of the 2200 over one of the older 
>models (1280) handling the same size paper? 

I saw some 2880dpi BO prints from a 1280 once and if my memory serves
well I think the prints from the 2200 have better resolution.  But
this is just an impression from memory, I'd have to see them side by
side to be certain.  Also, the 2200 has rear paper feed for thicker
stock.  New products are continually being made for the 2200, and at
least one of the software products (Septone) is only for the 2200. 
2200 carts have little or no sponge in them, which may make a
difference if you get into refilling them.  In addition, from remarks
in this Forum I gather that the 2200 may have fewer clogging problems
with the UT inks than the 1280, since it is designed for pigment inks
- can anyone else verify this?  


>And which of the older models still available would be a
>good choice?

I would not get anything older than a 1280.  It's a very versatile
printer and probably has more products made for it than any other
model.  Anything older will have non-variable droplets, possibly
larger droplets, and lower resolution (1440 or even 720).


Regards,
Clayton


Info on black and white digital printing at    
http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm

No, I'll say it with respect to 2200 output.  It 
isn't "photographic."  It may work with some images, but it will read 
more like a photographic etching than a photograph.  My eyes aren't 
that good anymore (after turning 40), but I can clearly see the dots.

Maybe some people like it and maybe I'd like it for other images, but 
not many people are going to mistake it for a photograph.  I just got 
back from an opening for a group show that included a MIS VM print of 
mine made on a 1160 and no one spotted it as an inkjet print, period, 
until I told them... even then they said they couldn't tell the 
difference.

If cost is no object, then get a 2200 and imageprint and you will 
have no problems, otherwise get something like the 1280 and put 
quadtones in it.

mark

...
> The people who say bad things about Black Only printing, things such
> as it has poor gradients, or rough tonal transitions, and so on, are
> usually reporting their experience based on older printers.  After
> their disparaging remarks they usually follow it by saying they are
> using an 1160 or a 1200 or a 2000 or something like that.  These
> printers have larger and non variable droplet size with coarser
> resolution.
...
> Before the outraged jump all over me and mis-quote me and accuse me 
of
> saying things I didn't say, let me state clearly that I am not 
saying,
> nor have I ever said, that BO prints are better than the really good
> dotless methods that are out there.  All I am saying is that BO can
> produce excellent and beautiful prints
...

Of course, the 2200 when driven by imageprint can make stellar b&w 
prints and color prints as well.  With the die based printers you 
have to run quadtones to get good b&w.

mark

...
> > is there any advantage of the 
> > 2200 over one of the older models (1280) handling the same size 
> > paper? 
...

At 07:42 AM 11/23/03 +0000, you wrote:
>No, I'll say it with respect to 2200 output.  It
>isn't "photographic."  It may work with some images, but it will read
>more like a photographic etching than a photograph.  My eyes aren't
>that good anymore (after turning 40), but I can clearly see the dots.

Mark,

I'm biased towards silver prints myself but I would  amend "isn't 
'photographic' " to read "it isn't a silver print."
Side by side differences stand out between most any (un-glazed) 
photographic media and it is usually clear to me which is a compromise 
choice.  Given an original contact print or a gravure ( by someone like 
Strand) - which would you pick?

AZ

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

Well, I doubt anyone is going to give me that choice between prints 
from Strand... so I'll just have to reply with respect to my own 
prints:)  I'm at the point where all I would say is the two prints 
are "different."  A perfectly executed traditional print will 
definitely be better than a quadtone print, BUT most people don't get 
perfectly executed traditional prints every time and then it is 
harder to say one is "better" than the other.  Sometimes a 
traditional print is significantly "easier" to produce than a digital 
print, so really, why should one have more value.  Behind glass a 
good quadtone print is very hard to spot... unless you are 
specifically looking for the difference and frankly, that means you 
are not actually looking at the *photograph*.

...
> Mark,
> 
> I'm biased towards silver prints myself but I would  amend "isn't 
> 'photographic' " to read "it isn't a silver print."
> Side by side differences stand out between most any (un-glazed) 
> photographic media and it is usually clear to me which is a 
compromise 
> choice.  Given an original contact print or a gravure ( by someone 
like 
> Strand) - which would you pick?
> 
> AZ
...

Hello Mark,

>No, I'll say it with respect to 2200 output.  It isn't 
>"photographic."  It may work with some images, but it will read 
>more like a photographic etching than a photograph.  My eyes aren't 
>that good anymore (after turning 40), but I can clearly see the dots.

I don't disagree.  BO prints have a distinct look and as I said in my
post, I have no problem if someone doesn't like it.  I just don't like
seeing it dismissed as an unworthy technique.  It would be like a
platinum practitioner dismissing silver as being unworthy.  You have
made it clear that you think inkjet prints should not be dismissed as
unworthy by wet process people, so all I ask is the same respect for
the Black Only method, and if someone here says they want to try it,
please don't discourage them from doing so.  Let them decide for
themselves if they like it - after all, it involves no committment and
no extra expense.  It's simply one of many available choices, and has
its pros and cons as they all do.

As for it's appearance, in my own experience in showing BO prints to
people, even experienced photographers and darkroom people who
examined them with keen interest, not once did anyone mention or ask
about the dots.  All I got was expressions of awe and wonder about the
sharpness, clarity, and beauty, and that was my 870 prints at 1440. 
My new 2880dpi prints are even better.  I also agree with you
about prints under glass, and would echo your own words with a
slight modification:

"Behind glass a good Black Only print is very hard to spot... unless
you are specifically looking for the difference and frankly, that
means you are not actually looking at the *photograph*."


Regards,
Clayton


Info on black and white digital printing at    
http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm

I didn't actually dismiss it... I just said that may work for some 
images, just not the ones I have tried.  But if you are weighing your 
printer choices based on it, you probably want to know about the 
percieved limitations up front... for instance, if you thinking about 
an epson 2200 and don't have the budget for an expensive RIP and find 
that many people don't see BO prints as "photographic" and you can't 
live with the epson driver's metamorism you made the wrong choice in 
a printer.  If you already have a printer great, go ahead and try it 
and see if it works for you.  It's utlimately up to you and what you 
percieve as most important in a b&w print.  I haven't seen your 
photos and they may look really good, the tests I did looked "pretty 
good," just not up to my quadtones... I put more importance on subtle 
tones than sharpness.  A BO 2200 print is probably sharper than a 
1160 quadtone...

not trying to slam anyone's work... just didn't work for me.

mark

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Clayton Jones" 
<cj@c...> wrote:
> Hello Mark,
> 
> >No, I'll say it with respect to 2200 output.  It isn't 
> >"photographic."  It may work with some images, but it will read 
> >more like a photographic etching than a photograph.  My eyes 
aren't 
> >that good anymore (after turning 40), but I can clearly see the 
dots.
> 
> I don't disagree.  BO prints have a distinct look and as I said in 
my
> post, I have no problem if someone doesn't like it.  I just don't 
like
> seeing it dismissed as an unworthy technique.  It would be like a
> platinum practitioner dismissing silver as being unworthy.  You have
> made it clear that you think inkjet prints should not be dismissed 
as
> unworthy by wet process people, so all I ask is the same respect for
> the Black Only method, and if someone here says they want to try it,
> please don't discourage them from doing so.  Let them decide for
> themselves if they like it - after all, it involves no committment 
and
> no extra expense.  It's simply one of many available choices, and 
has
> its pros and cons as they all do.
> 
> As for it's appearance, in my own experience in showing BO prints to
> people, even experienced photographers and darkroom people who
> examined them with keen interest, not once did anyone mention or ask
> about the dots.  All I got was expressions of awe and wonder about 
the

> sharpness, clarity, and beauty, and that was my 870 prints at 1440. 
> My new 2880dpi prints are even better.  I also agree with you
> about prints under glass, and would echo your own words with a
> slight modification:
> 
> "Behind glass a good Black Only print is very hard to spot... unless
> you are specifically looking for the difference and frankly, that
> means you are not actually looking at the *photograph*."
> 
> 
> Regards,
> Clayton
> 
> 
> Info on black and white digital printing at    
> http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm

Hello Mark,

>if you thinking about an epson 2200 and don't have the budget for 
>an expensive RIP and find that many people don't see BO prints as 
>"photographic" and you can't live with the epson driver's metamorism 
>you made the wrong choice in a printer.  

Good point.


>I put more importance on subtle tones than sharpness.  A BO 2200 
>print is probably sharper than a 1160 quadtone...

True, there's more than sharpness that counts.  The reason I chose the
2200 over the 1280 is because of the Septone system.  For my taste, it
produces the best quality, truly dotless continuous tone
photographic-looking inkjet prints I've seen (with tone color and
contrast curve control).  If anything convinces me to move from BO it
will be that.  I'd rather stick with luminous BO than have those
opaque looking prints the other quad/hex systems produce (they just
look dull to me), and I don't want a RIP system that uses color inks
(I don't have confidence in their stability and they are dotty). 

Septones are truly dotless and don't have that opaque look, and the
ink is proving to be extremely stable (I have an on-going window sill
test, now at 87 days).  So I'm just in a wait-and-see mode for now to
see what early users say about it.  As for the BO sharpness, once I
got the 2200 I was blown away by the degree of difference in
resolution compared to the 870/1440 prints.  It was more than I
expected, having seen some 1280/2880 things.  So I'm delighted to have
even better BO prints.  I'll be real curious to see some from those
new C series Epsons with 1.5 pl droplets.


>not trying to slam anyone's work... just didn't work for me.

Understood.  My original post was because someone said they were
interested in trying it and someone else replied with a discouraging
remark to the effect that BO gives poor gradients, and then went on to
say he uses a 1200.  I just felt that it deserved a response to
clarify the issue.  I don't think anyone can get a good BO print from
a 1200.  That would be like someone saying "Don't bother trying Tmax
100 film because it gives poor results, and by the way, I use a
Diana".


Regards,
Clayton


Info on black and white digital printing at    
http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm

Oh boy! ...now we'll get someone defending the Diana as being the 
ultimate artistic photo device;)

mark

...
> That would be like someone saying "Don't bother trying Tmax
> 100 film because it gives poor results, and by the way, I use a
> Diana".
> 
> 
> Regards,
> Clayton
...

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Clayton Jones" 
<cj@c...> wrote:



I'd rather stick with luminous BO than have those
> opaque looking prints the other quad/hex systems produce (they just
> look dull to me...

I'm curious. Have you seen any prints from a 1280 using the UT inkset 
and Roark curves? In your "Analysis of the Technical Print Exchange" 
you examine the UT inkset using Roark curves on the 1160 and 2100 but 
not on the 1280. Any impressions about the 1280?

Chris Hargens

Mark - I second your motion that the Diana is the
ultimate artistic photo device!

And you should see it in quadtone - Viva La Diana!!!!

Don


--- Mark Hahn <markhahn2000@...> wrote:
> Oh boy! ...now we'll get someone defending the Diana
> as being the 
> ultimate artistic photo device;)
> 
> mark
> 
 ...
> > That would be like someone saying "Don't bother>
> trying Tmax
> > 100 film because it gives poor results, and by the
> way, I use a
> > Diana".
> > 
> > 
> > Regards,
> > Clayton
> ...
> 
> 


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree

At 06:35 AM 11/24/03 +0000, you wrote:
>Oh boy! ...now we'll get someone defending the Diana as being the
>ultimate artistic photo device;)
>
>mark
>
>...
> > That would be like someone saying "Don't bother trying Tmax
> > 100 film because it gives poor results, and by the way, I use a
> > Diana".
> >
> >
> > Regards,
> > Clayton
>...

You got it!  Diana with IR film printed BO on canvas - to die for!

AZ

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

Hello Chris,

>I'm curious. Have you seen any prints from a 1280 using the UT
>inkset >and Roark curves?  In your "Analysis of the Technical 
>Print Exchange" you examine the UT inkset using Roark curves 
>on the 1160 and 2100 but not on the 1280. 

Sorry, no.  Everything that was sent to me is in the review.


>Any impressions about the 1280?

I can't really say much because I never used one myself.  I initially
used an 870; the 2200 is my first 13" printer.  


Regards,
Clayton


Info on black and white digital printing at    
http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm

>You got it!  Diana with IR film printed BO on canvas - to die for!

ROFL!



Regards,
Clayton


Info on black and white digital printing at    
http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm

Chris: I have a 1280 and have done hextone prints with VM (loved them)
as well as FSN (loved them as well) and now have UT inks to refill my
CFS bottles when they run low. I do BO with all of them as well (loved
them too). 

I did print four identical prints by both hextone and BO. I gave the
four sets of two prints to an instructor who is a big time photo
exhibit curator and asked him to tell me which print he liked best of
each of the four pairs. He picked the Black Only print all four times.
He's a master wet darkroom printer but not that knowledgable in
digital printing. He just knows which he likes best. And in those
particular prints, he picked the BO as being the better of the two. 

I continue to believe BO is a viable option to quad or hex in some
images. Neither is "best" they're just slightly different. 

Bob Michaels

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Chris Hargens"
<chargens@s...> wrote:

> I'm curious. Have you seen any prints from a 1280 using the UT inkset 
> and Roark curves? In your "Analysis of the Technical Print Exchange" 
> you examine the UT inkset using Roark curves on the 1160 and 2100 but 
> not on the 1280. Any impressions about the 1280?
> 
> Chris Hargens

Hello Bob,

>He picked the Black Only print all four times.  He's a master wet
>darkroom printer but not that knowledgable in digital printing. 
>He just knows which he likes best. 

Interesting story.  Did he say anything about seeing dots?

Regards,
Clayton


Info on black and white digital printing at    
http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm

No comment about dots. He wasn't looking for them, which is the key as
you pointed out. He was simply expressing his views about which of the
pairs of prints "looked better".

Bob

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Clayton Jones"
<cj@c...> wrote:

> Hello Bob,
> 
> >He picked the Black Only print all four times.  He's a master wet
> >darkroom printer but not that knowledgable in digital printing. 
> >He just knows which he likes best. 
> 
> Interesting story.  Did he say anything about seeing dots?
> 
> Regards,
> Clayton
> 
> 
> Info on black and white digital printing at    
> http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Bob Michaels" 
<bob@b...> wrote:
> No comment about dots. He wasn't looking for them, which is the key 
as
> you pointed out. He was simply expressing his views about which of 
the
> pairs of prints "looked better".
> 
> Bob

I've tried BO printing today with an Epson 1160 and UT Eboni blacks. 
The first image used was a lakeshore. While I like the tones, the 
dots were too apparent, for my taste, in the sky and water. Made two 
other prints from different images and got just about the same 
results. It may work with an image without sky or water area.

Probably with an Epson 1280 or an 2200 at 2880 dpi things might 
different, but I can't say that I would recommend BO printing with an 
Epson 1160.

To end on a positive note, I visited Clayton's site and read (even 
printed) his BO printing workflow. There is lots to be learned there, 
especially about "back" and "front" end profiles. Things are now a 
lot clearer now. Thanks Clayton.

Cheers,
Andre

Hello Andre,

>I visited Clayton's site and read (even printed) his BO printing 
>workflow. There is lots to be learned there, especially about 
>"back" and "front" end profiles. Things are now a lot clearer now.
>Thanks Clayton.

You're welcome.  Glad it was helpful.


>I've tried BO printing today with an Epson 1160 and UT Eboni blacks. 
>The first image used was a lakeshore. While I like the tones, the 
>dots were too apparent, for my taste, in the sky and water. 
>Probably with an Epson 1280 or an 2200 at 2880 dpi things might 
>different, but I can't say that I would recommend BO printing 
>with an Epson 1160.

Yep, those pesky dots <g>.  I've seen several 1160 BO prints, some
really excellent, some quite gritty (perhaps some setting makes a
difference?).  I think it has 4pl droplets, and my impression from
examining with a loupe is that the droplets aren't variable, but I'm
not certain.  The good ones I've seen closely resemble my 870 prints.
 

There is a significant improvement in smoothness with the 2200.  I
have a 6x9 print with a featureless nearly white sky, printed with
870/1440 and 2200/2880.  At a viewing distance of about 12" the dots
can be seen in the former.  In the latter if you really strain you can
barely make them out.  Also, the resolution of fine detail is much
better.  In a forest pic with lots of branches and twigs, tiny
branches that were mere suggestions at 1440 are clearly defined at
2880.   Midtone areas that looked gritty are now smooth.  Another nice
thing is the speed.  The 2200 at 2880 is about the same speed as the
870 at 1440.   It's a major improvement in every respect.  I'm very
happy with it.

It seems clear to me that BO printing got its bad reputation back in
the early days with low res printers, which lots of people still use,
but with the modern printers it's a whole new ball game.

Regards,
Clayton


Info on black and white digital printing at    
http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm

when viewers get more savy about what they are looking at they get 
pickier about these things... same way an over-sharpened image looks 
way better to someone the first time they compare digital images... 

mark

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Bob Michaels" 
<bob@b...> wrote:
> No comment about dots. He wasn't looking for them, which is the key 
as
> you pointed out. He was simply expressing his views about which of 
the
> pairs of prints "looked better".
> 
> Bob
> 
...

Mark:
As I said, the man is a curator of some very significant photo
exhibitions, which have included a fair number of digitally printed
images. So I would consider him savy about good photos.  He already
knew I printed digitally. But all I told him was that they had been
printed by different methods, with no other infomation furnished. 

Simply this was one experts view of the overall comparative quality of
two sets of identical images, differing only in one set being hextone,
one Black Only. His opinions may have been different given other
subject matter. But it met my goal of an getting the opinion of an
expert yet unbiased person.

Of course, we each should do what we like best. Not what anyone else
thinks. 

Bob Michaels  
 --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Mark Hahn"
<markhahn2000@y...> wrote:

> when viewers get more savy about what they are looking at they get 
> pickier about these things... same way an over-sharpened image looks 
> way better to someone the first time they compare digital images... 
> 
> mark
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Bob Michaels" 
> <bob@b...> wrote:
> > No comment about dots. He wasn't looking for them, which is the key 
> as
> > you pointed out. He was simply expressing his views about which of 
> the
> > pairs of prints "looked better".
> > 
> > Bob
> > 
> ...