Digital BW, The Print

Hello All,

A few months ago I got an 8mp digicam and I now have a few images
working their way up through the system to fine print status.

Over the weekend I was looking at a bunch of prints and I suddenly
realized that the prints from digicam images had smoother high zone
areas  (such as skys and clouds) than the ones from scanned Tri-X
negs.  This is typically the kind of area where BO prints look grainy.
 Even though the grain can't actually be seen in the print, I'm
guessing that the coarseness is the result of the driver trying to
print the grain.

The digicam pics are grainless, and I'm seeing smoother high zone
areas in those prints than I'm used to seeing.  I'm going to start
paying more attention to this, and am wondering if there are any other
BO users out there who have both film and digi images who can verify
this...

Many thanks.


Regards,
Clayton


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

Are you shooting the digital camera as though you have slide film when you
judge exposure? I do, by setting the display to warn when highlights that
are out of range. This is very different than I would expose most BW (or
color) negative films. I think the result is more highlight detail and
smoother total areas in the brightest regions. Since BO printing has fewer
values between black and paper white than "quadtone" printing, I would think
that the difference would be more noticeable.

Wendel

> 
> Hello All,
> 
> A few months ago I got an 8mp digicam and I now have a few images
> working their way up through the system to fine print status.
> 
> Over the weekend I was looking at a bunch of prints and I suddenly
> realized that the prints from digicam images had smoother high zone
> areas  (such as skys and clouds) than the ones from scanned Tri-X
> negs.  This is typically the kind of area where BO prints look grainy.
>  Even though the grain can't actually be seen in the print, I'm
> guessing that the coarseness is the result of the driver trying to
> print the grain.
> 
> The digicam pics are grainless, and I'm seeing smoother high zone
> areas in those prints than I'm used to seeing.  I'm going to start
> paying more attention to this, and am wondering if there are any other
> BO users out there who have both film and digi images who can verify
> this...
> 
> Many thanks.
> 
> 
> Regards,
> Clayton

Hello Wendel,

>Are you shooting the digital camera as though you have slide film 
>when you judge exposure? 

Maybe, but I don't think of it in terms of certain kinds of film, I
just expose to get the best histogram.   I'm a long-time zonie/spot
meter user and I think in terms of putting scene values where I want
them.  With the digicam the histogram has replaced the spot meter. 
Different tool, same results.  Whether I'm emulating some kind of film
doesn't enter my thinking.  Anyway, my question has nothing to do with
an exposure problem.  The images are well exposed and I'm getting what
I want.


>Since BO printing has fewer values between black and paper white 
>than "quadtone" printing

Wendel, this is an old myth that has long since been dispelled.  The
finest degree of division we have to work with is the 256 value RGB
system, and BO printing is perfectly capable of rendering all of these
tones.  I can move a point on a curve by 1 RGB unit and can see a
difference in the print, it is that sensitive.  If you print the
enhanced step wedge you'll see the same smooth ramp as any other
system.  It will appear grainy in the midtones, as if it was from
Tri-X compared to T-Max 100, but there aren't any abrupt jumps because
it can't render the gradations.  If the viewing distance is such that
the graininess isn't apparent, it will be indistinguishable from the
others.  There are 256 values from black to white.  BO printing
doesn't change that.

What I'm finding in my digital images is that smooth upper zone areas
are being printed without the typical grainy look that I assumed was
part of the territory for BO.  If my idea is correct about the driver
responding to the film grain, even though the print is too small to
see the grain, then this is going to open up a whole new zone of
perception for BO printing.

A year ago I was lamenting that digital capture didn't give the Tri-X
look that I was so used to after so many years of using it.  That
hasn't changed, but now that I have a decent camera and am beginning
to do serious work with it, I'm finding I can get very pleasing
results.  It doesn't look like Tri-X, but I like what I'm getting, and
I'm just barely scratching the surface.  This definitely has my
attention.  

I received an email from someone this morning who verified this.  He
said, 

"I too have found that my BO prints from my 6 MP digital camera 
are smooth, almost grainless in comparison to my Medium format
scans, and not just in the higher tonal ranges"

I think I'm getting excited <g>.


Regards,
Clayton


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

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Clayton Jones"
<cj@c...> wrote:
snip...
> >Since BO printing has fewer values between black and paper white 
> >than "quadtone" printing
> 
> Wendel, this is an old myth that has long since been dispelled.

Clayton, I would definitely take issue with this statement. But I've
entered into this dialogue so many times in the past I don't really
want to get into it again. I would go farther and say that methods
other than quads can do it too.

However, that BO printing can render a scale workable and reproducable
down to increments of 256 is a valid statement based on your
experience, and that it is "enough" is supportable as well.
In other words, it probably doesn't matter.
Tyler

Hello Tyler,

>However, that BO printing can render a scale workable and 
>reproducable down to increments of 256 is a valid statement 
>based on your experience, and that it is "enough" is supportable 
>as well.  In other words, it probably doesn't matter.

Thanks for the clarification.  I can appreciate (and do not doubt,
coming from you) that on some theoretical level there are limitations.
I have just gotten impatient with the theorists who claim or imply
that BO printing should not be considered a viable technique, when the
practical reality is that it can produce beautiful prints that
unbiased viewers sometimes prefer over quadtones (I'm referring to the
tests reported here where viewers were shown identical sets of
quadtone and BO prints and asked to select the ones they liked best). 

You are, in my experience, the first person who understands the
theoretical side who has been willing to acknowledge the practical
reality, and I appreciate that very much.  

All I am trying to do, in my replies to statements like Wendel's, is
to keep BO printing from sliding back into the pariah status it once
suffered under.  BO printing offers some attributes which may or may
not appeal to the user, like any other system.   Its viability is
evidenced by the fact that it is the preferred method of many people.

What has me excited about this digital capture thing is that it
appears to reduce by several orders of magnitude one of the two
drawbacks of BO printing. If this holds true, it has huge
implications for BO's viability for BW photographers using digital
cameras.

Every system has its strengths and weaknesses, and BO printing
deserves its rightful place in the line up.  That's all I have ever
pushed for.  Perhaps someday there will be a system that has BO's pros
without its cons.  I would certainly welcome it.

Thanks very much.

Regards,
Clayton


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

Clayton, I agree wholeheartedly. Hope I don't appear to be denigrating
BO printing, it has probably made the largest leaps in quality in the
last few years, benefiting very directly from Epson's product
improvements.
One more reason I agree with you...
...I've seen a few of your BO prints <G>.
I think it's rightful place is assured.
Tyler


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

> Hello Tyler,
> 
> >However, that BO printing can render a scale workable and 
> >reproducable down to increments of 256 is a valid statement 
> >based on your experience, and that it is "enough" is supportable 
> >as well.  In other words, it probably doesn't matter.
> 
> Thanks for the clarification.  I can appreciate (and do not doubt,
> coming from you) that on some theoretical level there are limitations.
> I have just gotten impatient with the theorists who claim or imply
> that BO printing should not be considered a viable technique, when the
> practical reality is that it can produce beautiful prints that
> unbiased viewers sometimes prefer over quadtones (I'm referring to the
> tests reported here where viewers were shown identical sets of
> quadtone and BO prints and asked to select the ones they liked best). 
> 
> You are, in my experience, the first person who understands the
> theoretical side who has been willing to acknowledge the practical
> reality, and I appreciate that very much.  
> 
> All I am trying to do, in my replies to statements like Wendel's, is
> to keep BO printing from sliding back into the pariah status it once
> suffered under.  BO printing offers some attributes which may or may
> not appeal to the user, like any other system.   Its viability is
> evidenced by the fact that it is the preferred method of many people.
> 
> What has me excited about this digital capture thing is that it
> appears to reduce by several orders of magnitude one of the two
> drawbacks of BO printing. If this holds true, it has huge
> implications for BO's viability for BW photographers using digital
> cameras.
> 
> Every system has its strengths and weaknesses, and BO printing
> deserves its rightful place in the line up.  That's all I have ever
> pushed for.  Perhaps someday there will be a system that has BO's pros
> without its cons.  I would certainly welcome it.
> 
> Thanks very much.
> 
> Regards,
> Clayton
> 
> 
> Info on black and white digital printing at    
> http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm

First of all my comment was not offered or intended as an assessment or
evaluation of BO printing. In fact it was a second and minor point. Since
most of the "BO" emails in the past "seemed" so hostile, I usually just
skipped over the "BO" postings. Of all the folks on this list I am the last
to be concerned with or care about how anyone makes a print, except that I
may get new ideas. 

I apologize to all BO printers that due to my neglect of BO subject lines I
was unaware that this issue was previously dismissed as false. As halftone
prints, I assumed (obviously incorrectly) that any one color print would not
have the subtlety of a duotone, tritone or quadtone print. I will search the
archives for the explanation.

Wendel

>Clayton Wrote:
> 
> All I am trying to do, in my replies to statements like Wendel's, is
> to keep BO printing from sliding back into the pariah status it once
> suffered under.  BO printing offers some attributes which may or may
> not appeal to the user, like any other system.   Its viability is
> evidenced by the fact that it is the preferred method of many people.

This is an idea I've been wondering about, but since I don't do BO
printing or use QTR here, or the printers/inks you guys are using, I
wouldn't have the need or opportunity to try it.
This assumes you have a printer with a K and a Light K ink of some
kind, and QTR.

Most of the systems with 2 K inks are doing a transition of some kind
from the light K to the K, then depending on inkset possibly adding
other inks for tint.
For a BO approach, why not try running the two Ks in parallel instead
of series? This would require a special driver like QTR, OPM, or a
RIP, and no doubt need linearization or a gamma correction curve since
it would print dark.
But the possible benefits are that since there are no very light K
inks are present you would still get the kind of loose dither you like
that lets some paper white through, but it would also be a more
complex, random, and possibly more photographic dither since it would
still be running both K inks all the way up the scale.
Just an idea.
Tyler

A couple of comments in this exchange reminded me of a feature (thus-
far unused by me) of a plug-in called Power Retouche Pro 
5.6:    "Black/white studio", which among other things, allows one to 
emulate characteristics of various films such as Tmax and TriX.  I 
bought the plug-in for other features, and it seems to be very good 
at what it does.  Hope this was not too far off topic.

eric perkins





--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Clayton Jones" 
<cj@c...> wrote:
> Hello Wendel,
> 
> >Are you shooting the digital camera as though you have slide film 
> >when you judge exposure? 
> 
> Maybe, but I don't think of it in terms of certain kinds of film, I
> just expose to get the best histogram.   I'm a long-time zonie/spot
> meter user and I think in terms of putting scene values where I want
> them.  With the digicam the histogram has replaced the spot meter. 
> Different tool, same results.  Whether I'm emulating some kind of 
film
> doesn't enter my thinking.  Anyway, my question has nothing to do 
with
> an exposure problem.  The images are well exposed and I'm getting 
what
> I want.
> 
> 
> >Since BO printing has fewer values between black and paper white 
> >than "quadtone" printing
> 
> Wendel, this is an old myth that has long since been dispelled.  The
> finest degree of division we have to work with is the 256 value RGB
> system, and BO printing is perfectly capable of rendering all of 
these
> tones.  I can move a point on a curve by 1 RGB unit and can see a
> difference in the print, it is that sensitive.  If you print the
> enhanced step wedge you'll see the same smooth ramp as any other
> system.  It will appear grainy in the midtones, as if it was from
> Tri-X compared to T-Max 100, but there aren't any abrupt jumps 
because
> it can't render the gradations.  If the viewing distance is such 
that
> the graininess isn't apparent, it will be indistinguishable from the
> others.  There are 256 values from black to white.  BO printing
> doesn't change that.
> 
> What I'm finding in my digital images is that smooth upper zone 
areas
> are being printed without the typical grainy look that I assumed was
> part of the territory for BO.  If my idea is correct about the 
driver
> responding to the film grain, even though the print is too small to
> see the grain, then this is going to open up a whole new zone of
> perception for BO printing.
> 
> A year ago I was lamenting that digital capture didn't give the Tri-
X
> look that I was so used to after so many years of using it.  That
> hasn't changed, but now that I have a decent camera and am beginning
> to do serious work with it, I'm finding I can get very pleasing
> results.  It doesn't look like Tri-X, but I like what I'm getting, 
and

> I'm just barely scratching the surface.  This definitely has my
> attention.  
> 
> I received an email from someone this morning who verified this.  He
> said, 
> 
> "I too have found that my BO prints from my 6 MP digital camera 
> are smooth, almost grainless in comparison to my Medium format
> scans, and not just in the higher tonal ranges"
> 
> I think I'm getting excited <g>.
> 
> 
> Regards,
> Clayton
> 
> 
> Info on black and white digital printing at    
> http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm

Hello Wendel,

>First of all my comment was not offered or intended as an 
>assessment or evaluation of BO printing. 

Understood, and it is probably I who owe you the apology.  I probably
overreacted, but there is a reason.  You may not know, but starting
about two years ago a year-long battle began in which I struggled to
get BO accepted as a viable technique, and unfortunately your
statement was nearly verbatim the sort of thing that people used to
say when ridiculing someone who said they liked it.  It really was
that bad.  Any positive mention of BO brought down a shower of abuse
from the religious anti-BO police.  So it was sort of like the
proverbial waving a red flag in front of a bull.  Sorry you were the
recipient of that legacy.

As it turned out I wasn't alone.  Quite a few people were using BO but
were afraid to admit it in public.  After I began speaking up for it
they began to emerge and add their support.  It gradually gained
acceptance, the naysayers faded away, and it now enjoys a thriving and
growing community of users.  

BO's poor reputation seems to have sprung from the days of large dot
lower res printers.  But since the newer printers with 2880 and 4pl
variable dots it's a very different BO world, and it keeps getting
better.  The new 4000 has smaller dots and a better dither pattern
which reduces dither banding and produces smoother tones.  And now
this thing about digital capture may add a new facet to the technique.


>Since most of the "BO" emails in the past "seemed" so hostile, 

I'm not sure what time frame you're referring to, but fortunately the
hostility has faded into the past and BO is enjoying an upsurge
of popularity.  


>I was unaware that this issue was previously dismissed as false. 

As Tyler pointed out, it may not be false as a purely technical
statement.  However, for someone to use it to imply that BO can't
possibly produce beautiful and subtle prints is simply ignoring
reality.  I think the important thing is to understand the
distinction.


>I assumed (obviously incorrectly) that any one color print would 
>not have the subtlety of a duotone, tritone or quadtone print. I 
>will search the archives for the explanation.

Your assumption is probably correct.  It probably doesn't have the
subtlty of a multi ink print.  But that doesn't mean BO prints can't
be beautiful and subtle.  This is one of the things that was so
frustrating during "the wars", the tendency to reduce the debate to
pure black and white terms (sorry, couldn't resist <g>).  Accepting
that BO prints can be beautiful doesn't mean the theory is wrong. 
There's just a point where reality takes over and theory has to take a
back seat (or however you want to say it).  Theoretically bees can't
fly.  Only problem is they do.

The fact is that BO prints can be gorgeous and are capable of
rendering exquisitely subtle detail.  Anyone with a good Epson printer
with some black ink can try it for themselves and see.  Some people
like it, some don't, same as any other system.

I hope this helps to clarify the issue.

Regards,
Clayton


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

Hello Tyler,

>Clayton, I agree wholeheartedly. Hope I don't appear to be 
>denigrating BO printing, it has probably made the largest 
>leaps in quality in the last few years, benefiting very directly 
>from Epson's product improvements.

Thanks, I understand.  


>One more reason I agree with you...
>...I've seen a few of your BO prints <G>.
>I think it's rightful place is assured.

Coming from you that's a real complinent.  Thanks very much.

Regards,
Clayton


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

Hello Tyler,

>This is an idea I've been wondering about
> 
>For a BO approach...
>This would require a special driver like QTR...
>and no doubt need linearization or a gamma correction curve...
>you would still get the kind of loose dither you like that 
>lets some paper white through...
>Just an idea.

Sounds like a great idea, but I'm not the one to try it.  I don't have
a RIP and am just not inclined to tinker with the technical stuff. 
Perhaps someone who is inclined in that way will pick up the ball...


Regards,
Clayton


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

Having played with played with black only ages ago with both an 1160 and
1270 I was interested to see how and if things had changed after reading all
the reports of the new approach, I thought I'd try it out again after
reading Claytons article.

Using a 2200 I ran one print using the black only approach, one using
Imageprint greyscale (which is basically the black and lt back inks) and one
a toned RGB print (my method of choice - using the toning in an adjustment
layer, which gives you a full range of how much tone to apply). The print
happened to be a forest scene with some sky, but also birch trees with very
light bark.

The RGB/toned print was the best, with a full range of subtle detail in the
"white" birch bark (and the sky) and hardly any noticeable dots, even with a
loupe. Next best was the greyscale - still lots of detail, but slightly
noticeable dots under the loupe. Last was black only -  significant lost of
detail in the bark ad the sky, big (relatively) areas of paper white with a
few sparse dots in it.

While you could obviously see the differences with a loupe, the difference
was also clearly noticeable with the RGB/toned and BO prints side by side at
a normal viewing distance.

Now, maybe the difference was that these were prints from 8x10 scans - with
a full range of tonal changes to be obtained - if you were working from a
scan from 35mm or a digital files, possibly that detail wouldn't be there to
lose in the first place?

I can see it is certainly one way to get started with semi-decent B&W prints
from something like the 2200 - my intention isn't to put it down. But
certainly what I print, it has limitations.

(BTW - the scan was of Tri-X 320 - the toned rgb print gave me what I
consider to be a "Tri-X looking" print. The BO print gave me one with
dots....

Another way of getting started on an Epson 2200 for B&W without fiddling
with different inks or buying a (fairly) expensive RIP, would be using some
form of greyscale toning and a good third profile for your paper that gives
more linearized results than the Epson profiles ( though their new ones seem
pretty good). The lenscraft profiles - especially the low gamut ones seem
especially suited for this, although the paper range is limited.

Paul Butzi just put up a nice bit of info, and aside from making your own,
there are tons of free toning options out there - curves and actions.
http://www.butzi.net/articles/toning.htm

tim a

Tim, 

One thing you did not mention in your comparison was luminesce or what
I call "snap".  I have no doubt that non-BO prints have better subtle
tonality and from such a better rendition of smoother detail in
"dotty" areas of the print.  Having used an 1160 with quadtones I can
see what a less dotty prints looks like.  However along with that more
subtle tonality I found came a loss of vibrance or snap to the image. 
When getting out the loupes and/or when looked at with a purely
technical eye I have no doubt you are correct: less dots, more
detailed tonal changes.  From a more "working" standpoint of which
print has a more vibrant look (granted, IMO) I find that BO prints,
when viewed from across the room, or framed under glass and from a
typical viewing distance, have better attractiveness and are more
attention-getting.  My unscientific experience in showing
non-photographers prints side by side or in general confirms this as
well.  It's been said that contrast or perceived contrast can have a
stronger effect on the human eye than resolution.  That comparison,
while somewhat analogous, might be relevant here too.  And of course
in the end what's "best" will vary from subject matter to subject
matter and also from photographer to photographer.

Would be interesting to see flatbed scans of the prints you are comparing.

Richard

well, I certainly am no expert on prints, but I have tried many of the 
systems, and have gotten them to work, sometimes that took a long time 
for me, but whatever. I think that Black-only is great for certain 
kinds of gritty looking images. I also think that if you're gonna go 
that way, you might as well just use the epson stock ink and print on 
colorlife paper. They say it will last 27 years. The contrast with that 
combo is really "wow". I have tried using eboni on rag, and I still 
think that the type of image that works good with black-only is better 
on colorife (pearl/semigloss) than it is on rag. If the image works 
better on rag, then you are probably better off using UT2 or something, 
because if you dont need the Big Contrast,  on fine art papers, the UT2 
is much more professional looking. But BO on colorlife really Pops the 
eyeballs. (even up close). BO on rag looks not that good up close. On 
colorlife, Quadblacks are kind of milky or hazy or something that takes 
the pop out it.   I am going to go back to using stock inks in my 1200, 
and keep the UT2 in my 1280, and do BO on the 1200/colorlife for the 
images that are best for that. The UT2 inks are better than lyson 
quadblacks by the way, (and a billion times better than small 
gamuts.....) sorry for rambling....just an novice point of view really.
On Aug 3, 2004, at 10:30 AM, Richard Sintchak wrote:

> Tim,
>
>  One thing you did not mention in your comparison was luminesce or what
>  I call "snap".� I have no doubt that non-BO prints have better subtle
>  tonality and from such a better rendition of smoother detail in
>  "dotty" areas of the print.� Having used an 1160 with quadtones I can
>  see what a less dotty prints looks like.� However along with that more
>  subtle tonality I found came a loss of vibrance or snap to the image.
>  When getting out the loupes and/or when looked at with a purely
>  technical eye I have no doubt you are correct: less dots, more
>  detailed tonal changes.� From a more "working" standpoint of which
>  print has a more vibrant look (granted, IMO) I find that BO prints,
>  when viewed from across the room, or framed under glass and from a
>  typical viewing distance, have better attractiveness and are more
>  attention-getting.� My unscientific experience in showing
>  non-photographers prints side by side or in general confirms this as
>  well.� It's been said that contrast or perceived contrast can have a
>  stronger effect on the human eye than resolution.� That comparison,
>  while somewhat analogous, might be relevant here too.� And of course
>  in the end what's "best" will vary from subject matter to subject
>  matter and also from photographer to photographer.
>
>  Would be interesting to see flatbed scans of the prints you are 
> comparing.
>
>  Richard
>
>
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other 
> resources as they are often being updated.
>
> 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:
>  - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to 
> keep them short.
>  - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or 
> flames. Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from 
> the membership without notice.
>  - Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital 
> B&W printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be 
> removed from the membership.
>  - By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and 
> guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group 
> Owner and Moderators. See �Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines� in the 
> Files section:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/
>
>  BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE 
> PRINT YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE �OWNER� 
> AND �MODERATORS� OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE 
> LIABLE TO YOU FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, 
> CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, 
> DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS, GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE 
> LOSSES (EVEN IF THE� �OWNER� AND �MODERATORS� OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT 
> YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), 
> RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, 
> THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR ALTERATION OF 
> YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD 
> PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER 
> MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
>
> ADVERTISEMENT
> <lrec_companion_043004.gif>
> <l.gif>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
> 	� 	To visit your group on the web, go to:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/
> �
> 	� 	 To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> �
> 	� 	 Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of 
> Service.
>
>  

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

On Tue, 3 Aug 2004 12:52:47 -0700, Douglas Meeuwsen <lipshurt@...> wrote:
> well, I certainly am no expert on prints, but I have tried many of the
> systems, and have gotten them to work, sometimes that took a long time
> for me, but whatever. I think that Black-only is great for certain
> kinds of gritty looking images. 

Whoa!  With all due respect Douglas, if that's your opinion you
certainly need to work on your BO technique and workflow.  I print
images that would be far from considered "gritty" and they just sing
using my 2200 with Eboni black ink on Photo Rag, William Turner,
Eclipse Satine, or even EEM.

> I also think that if you're gonna go
> that way, you might as well just use the epson stock ink and print on
> colorlife paper. 

Not for me.  Epson pigment black is way too brown and and Epson dye
black too green, plus the ramp of tones with those inks on colorlife
is too steep and abrupt.

> If the image works
> better on rag, then you are probably better off using UT2 or something,
> because if you dont need the Big Contrast,  on fine art papers, the UT2
> is much more professional looking. 

I'd like some clarification on what you exactly mean by that,
"professional looking".  Have you seen a good BO print before on
heavyweight cotton paper?


> BO on rag looks not that good up close. 

Why does it matter what it looks like close-up?  I'm not a scientist
with my prints.  I like to view them and share them not dissect them.


Richard

well, I guess maybe I have not seen a great BO print on cotton paper, 
but I have seen what BO looks like on my cotton papers, and it looks 
great. The contrast is better by a bit than UT2 inks in my 1280, but 
also, if you put them side by side, the UT2 looks more professional in 
the sense that it is smoother, creamier, deeper front to back. With BO, 
I get a sense that the images are either two dimensional/flat, 
super-imposed on each other like a paper-doll house. Kind of like a 
cardboard cut-out of an image in front of a painted background. With 
UT2's a tree looks more rounded front to back. The dots dont bother me 
one bit. As far as me needing to work on my printing technique, you are 
probably right, and since I have the summer basically off (my day job 
teacher, night job trumpet player) I have plenty of time to spend on it 
right now. As I said, my observations are from a novice point of view, 
but that might be valuable to some people who check out this group. 
Hope I did not offend anyone......Cheers as they say, DM
On Aug 3, 2004, at 3:05 PM, Richard Sintchak wrote:

>
>  I'd like some clarification on what you exactly mean by that,
>  "professional looking".  Have you seen a good BO print before on
>  heavyweight cotton paper?
>
>


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

Hello Tim,

>The RGB/toned print was the best, with a full range of subtle 
>detail in the "white" birch bark (and the sky)...Next best was 
>the greyscale - still lots of detail, but slightly noticeable 
>dots...Last was black only - significant lost of detail in the 
>bark and the sky...
>While you could obviously see the differences with a loupe, the 
>difference was also clearly noticeable with the RGB/toned and BO 
>prints side by side at a normal viewing distance.

This seems like an accurate and fair description of the differences in
the three techniques, and I would not disagree.  I would only add that
from my experience, the degree to which a BO print is noticeable at
normal viewing distance varies from one image to another.  I have just
framed an 11x14 BO print from a 6x6 Tri-X neg (has a large smooth
middle-gray background) and have it sitting next to the framed
original silver print, and have examined them up close in good light.
 Other than a warmer tone, the two are nearly indistiguishable.  
Someone would have to be primed in advance and know what to look for
to percieve any difference.

In spite of any shortcomings, BO printing has enough positive
attributes that many photographers use it.  Richard was correct about
unbiased viewers often choosing BO prints over others.  There have
been several reports in the forum of such instances.  It's just a
matter of different strokes....  As I keep experimenting and learning
I find out more things about it, as I'll relate below.
 


>Now, maybe the difference was that these were prints from 8x10 
>scans - with a full range of tonal changes to be obtained - if you 
>were working from a scan from 35mm or a digital files, possibly that 
>detail wouldn't be there to lose in the first place?

Quite possible, but I'm not certain.  Until recently all of my prints
were from scanned negs, including 35mm, 645, 6x7 and 4x5.  Generally
all the advantages of large negs we saw in the darkroom carry over to
digi prints, but the degree of BO graininess doesn't always follow
that - sometimes it defies any logical explanation.  I'm beginning to
think it's more related to the size of the grain in the film, as might
vary with different developers, etc.  Two things happened recently
that point to this.

I printed a scan of a 4x5 neg that had been reticulated (fixer too
cold), and even on a small print (4x5, essentially a contact print)
where the grain/retic was too small to see, the sky looked coarser
than on many of my other prints, even larger ones from smaller negs. 
I'm thinking that maybe the driver perceives the film grain and
attempts to print it, even though it's too small to see, and the
result is the coarseness.  Reinforcing this, at about the same time I
also printed an 8mp digicam image that has a large smooth background
(piece of canvas, about Zone VIII) that is perfectly smooth and
requires a loupe to tell it is BO.  The image has much less
resolution than the 4x5 scan, but has no grain.

None of this changes what you're seeing in your print of course, but
only points out that it's not a simple black and white issue <pun
intended>.

Most of my shooting from now on with be with the digicam, so I intend
to continue experimenting and will report if I find anything
significant.  

Regards,
Clayton


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