Digital BW, The Print

On Sat, 2004-03-13 at 11:34, karo wrote:

> Hi,
> I am a professional photographer and for a while now have I been looking into printing 
> black & white good quality digital black and white images. I read much material and I saw 
> many samples. Some of these samples I saw where done with Quadtone inksets and the 
> results were excellent. The problem is that excellent is not good enough for me. I saw 
> samples that were as good as prints on RC paper but I need higher quality than that. I do 
> not care about the cost but I must have a system that meets my demands. Some folks 
> were suggesting a system that involves a RIP and quadtone. What it today's VERY, VERY 
> BEST technology for digital black and white printing? I am not sure how many of you 
> actually saw an original Ansel Adams or Robert Mapplethorp print. This is the quality I 
> need to achieve. Thank you for your insights.
> Ken


The bottom line is, digital prints are not darkroom prints. If you need
darkroom prints, stay in the darkroom. That's a perfectly viable option,
and you should seriously consider it, IMHO.

Digital printing is a different medium. The papers are very different.
The inks don't really have a counterpart. Comparing digital prints to
darkroom prints is like comparing apples to walnuts. There really isn't
a lot of point to it, not that that stops people from doing it of
course.

The traditional darkroom has been fairly unchanging for many years now.
Digital printing on the other hand is still evolving at a tremendous
rate. This renders the concept of "best" technology" for digital
printing a moot point. Best is in the eye of the beholder anyway, and
what is best today is out of business tomorrow.

That said, in the eye of this beholder, the current "best technology" is
the StudioPrint RIP, an Epson x6xx printer, and Piezotone inks. This
system gives me excellent highlight detail, excellent shadow detail,
really smooth tonality, and precision control over contrast (both
overall and local). This system is restricted to matte surface papers
which results in a lower Dmax than you can get with a darkroom print.
Nonetheless, I find the results superior.

But YMMV. "You pays your money and takes your chances." 


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

>...Some of these samples I saw where done with Quadtone inksets and the 
>results were excellent. The problem is that excellent is not good enough
>for me....
>I am not sure how many of you actually saw an original Ansel Adams or
>Robert Mapplethorp print. This is the quality I need to achieve. ...

Yes, I've seen AA prints, and I'm quite sure he'd be doing digital now.

I did silver printing for years and will not go back to it.  Digital is
better in my view.
  
Sure, the silver print has some characteristics that are outstanding, but
what really distinguished AA and Mapplethorp prints, in my view, was the
artistic skill of the individuals.  I see digital B&W as still, primarily,
B&W photography.  A technically perfect print with either medium will be
boring and not look like much if the printer (person) is not very skilled.

Several years ago I concluded that my digital prints could hang side-by-side
with my silver prints (under glass).  Now I'm about to change that opinion.
The silver prints usually can no longer make the grade.

So, the skill of the printer is, in my view, the factor that I'd most worry
about.  I'd say it's time to start getting down that learning curve
regardless of whether you decide to use it now or not.

Paul Roark
www.PaulRoark.com

Hi,

> Digital printing is a different medium.

That is true....

> Comparing digital prints to
> darkroom prints is like comparing apples to walnuts.

...but that doesn't mean they can't be compared.  Some part of it is
certainly personal preference and skill level...but they certainly can be
compared on a cost level, time level, and quality level (such as density
range, sharpness, tonality etc.), pros, cons etc.

> There really isn't
> a lot of point to it, not that that stops people from doing it of
> course.

There certainly is a point to it, especially when someone is trying to
decide if they should switch from B&W chemical printing to B&W digital
printing.

I was talking with a professional photographer friend of mine today (we
owned a studio together some 10 years ago).  He is one of the better B&W
photographers in both his imagery and his darkroom techniques...and he has
tried to print digitally, but hasn't gotten very far (he doesn't like the
results).  He simply isn't doing it right (printing on a color printer, or
single ink printing), and isn't all that computer/technology savvy as far as
digital imaging goes.  I will bring him some Piezo prints tomorrow, and he
will in fact be making a comparison for him self.  He would very much like
to print digitally, and if he likes what he sees in my digital prints, I'll
be helping him get set-up to do so.

So how you can dismiss the two as being able to be compared, I simply don't
understand or agree with.

Regards,

Austin

>
>
> I was talking with a professional photographer friend of mine today (we
> owned a studio together some 10 years ago).  He is one of the better 
> B&W
> photographers in both his imagery and his darkroom techniques...and he 
> has
> tried to print digitally, but hasn't gotten very far (he doesn't like 
> the
> results).  He simply isn't doing it right (printing on a color 
> printer, or
> single ink printing), and isn't all that computer/technology savvy as 
> far as
> digital imaging goes.  I will bring him some Piezo prints tomorrow, 
> and he
> will in fact be making a comparison for him self.  He would very much 
> like
> to print digitally, and if he likes what he sees in my digital prints, 
> I'll
> be helping him get set-up to do so.

> Austin
>
>

Austin,

It will be interesting to hear from you what his reactions are.

There was a recent article in some new digital printing magazine that 
showed up in my mail, called Great Output.  The article listed a number 
of myths about digital printing, and the responses to them.  I think 
Harald Johnson was a participant, maybe even the writer of the article. 
  Hope I'm not misrepresenting him here.  Anyway, one of the main myths 
is that digital printing is easy, or easier than darkroom printing.  
Harald (I believe), points out that one of the things that makes 
digtial printing even more complex is the vast number of choices we 
must make in doing it.  The general public thinks that photography is 
easy to do because the manufacturers have provided us with tools with 
which it is indeed very easy to get an amazingly good snapshot.  Of 
course, we all know how much more there is to it to make a good 
photograph.  And there is a lot to learn about making good digital 
prints as well.  People at work often complain to me "you know, I 
printed this picture on my printer, and the colors were all wrong."  I 
just smile, shake my head, feel their pain, and think to myself "you 
have no idea."  :  )

James


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

Hi James,

> It will be interesting to hear from you what his reactions are.

He wanted to argue with me that there was no way those prints were printed
on an inkjet printer!  He's converted ;-)

> Anyway, one of the main myths
> is that digital printing is easy, or easier than darkroom printing.
> Harald (I believe), points out that one of the things that makes
> digtial printing even more complex is the vast number of choices we
> must make in doing it.

I actually disagree.  Digital printing *IS* easy, if you make it easy on
your self to do.  *IF* you get your exposure correct, *IF* you develop your
film "correctly", that gives you a basis for easier scanning.  Then, *IF*
you know how to set setpoints and tonal curves in the scanner driver, you
simply scan the film, and it should be a perfect scan, that you simply have
to print.  I, personally, don't even sharpen.  I *only* use PhotoShop to
output the print (resize it to the correct size with no resampling), and
very very very occasionally, do I spot.  It *really* is that simple if you
set your self up for it being that simple.

It's called system calibration, which takes a bit of time up front, and I
always did for  chemical printing, and doing it for digital printing pays
off even more with the time it saves me and the ease of use.

Regards,

Austin

On Monday, March 15, 2004, at 08:42 AM, Austin Franklin wrote:

> Hi James,
>
> > It will be interesting to hear from you what his reactions are.
>
> He wanted to argue with me that there was no way those prints were 
> printed
> on an inkjet printer!  He's converted ;-)

I had a feeling...
>
> > Anyway, one of the main myths
> > is that digital printing is easy, or easier than darkroom printing.
> > Harald (I believe), points out that one of the things that makes
> > digtial printing even more complex is the vast number of choices we
> > must make in doing it.
>
> I actually disagree.  Digital printing *IS* easy, if you make it easy 
> on
> your self to do.  *IF* you get your exposure correct, *IF* you develop 
> your
> film "correctly", that gives you a basis for easier scanning.  Then, 
> *IF*
> you know how to set setpoints and tonal curves in the scanner driver, 
> you
> simply scan the film, and it should be a perfect scan, that you simply 
> have
> to print.  I, personally, don't even sharpen.  I *only* use PhotoShop 
> to
> output the print (resize it to the correct size with no resampling), 
> and
> very very very occasionally, do I spot.  It *really* is that simple if 
> you
> set your self up for it being that simple.

Can't agree about the spotting, though... :  )
>
> It's called system calibration, which takes a bit of time up front, 
> and I
> always did for  chemical printing, and doing it for digital printing 
> pays
> off even more with the time it saves me and the ease of use.
>
> Regards,
>
> Austin

Of course, those are some of the choices one needs to make.  I think 
the author was referring less to the printing setup and more to the 
vast image editing options possible  in Photoshop.

James


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