Digital BW, The Print

A while ago someone mentioned a solution to this that involved printing a step wedge and 
then using something to spot prints with the undried ink.  The good thing about this 
technique is that it will work for both users of dedicated B&W inks and those printing B&W 
with colour inks (and printers of colour can use the same technique by printing a swatch 
of the image area they need to spot).  My question is on what material is the step wedge 
(or swatch) printed so that the ink mix is available and with what is it lifted and then 
placed on the image?  (I just tried printing to glossy paper with the ink saturation turned 
up but that didn't work.)  Is there some sort of plastic that will not absorb the ink so that it 
can be lifted off before drying?

Thanks

Steve

Steve Kale wrote:

>
> A while ago someone mentioned a solution to this that involved 
> printing a step wedge and
> then using something to spot prints with the undried ink.  The good 
> thing about this
> technique is that it will work for both users of dedicated B&W inks 
> and those printing B&W
> with colour inks (and printers of colour can use the same technique by 
> printing a swatch
> of the image area they need to spot).  My question is on what material 
> is the step wedge
> (or swatch) printed so that the ink mix is available and with what is 
> it lifted and then
> placed on the image?  (I just tried printing to glossy paper with the 
> ink saturation turned
> up but that didn't work.)  Is there some sort of plastic that will not 
> absorb the ink so that it
> can be lifted off before drying?
>
> Thanks
>
> Steve
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> **

I print the wedge to glossy paper such as Epson Glossy Photo and lift 
the ink with a moistened brush, much the same as using spotone on a 
conventional B&W print from the darkroom. The stepwedge can be used for 
some days even though it is "dry."

Roger

-- 
_______________________

Roger L Sopher
rlsopher@...
http://deCorrales.com
_______________________



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

This is an excellent tip. I always fumbled around trying to create a 
match but this is the best technique yet. But isn't it easier 
to "lasso" the areas that have specs and print them onto the glossy 
paper as your spotting palette? This way you will have an exact 
match, well almost.

--nick

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Roger L Sopher 
<rlsopher@c...> wrote:

> 
> I print the wedge to glossy paper such as Epson Glossy Photo and
> lift the ink with a moistened brush, much the same as using spotone 
> on a conventional B&W print from the darkroom. The stepwedge can be 
> used for some days even though it is "dry."
> 
> Roger

Nick H. Nugent wrote:

>
> This is an excellent tip. I always fumbled around trying to create a
> match but this is the best technique yet. But isn't it easier
> to "lasso" the areas that have specs and print them onto the glossy
> paper as your spotting palette? This way you will have an exact
> match, well almost.
>
> --nick
>
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Roger L Sopher
> <rlsopher@c...> wrote:
> >
>
>
>
What ever works for you... I think it is easier to print a small wedge and then simply compare it to the print that needs to be spotted. A second advantage is that if you have a fair number of prints to spot there is plenty of ink mix. More likely, though, is that I am an old codger and that is the way, sort of, I learned to use Spotone many years ago...

Roger

Nick H. Nugent wrote:
> 
> This is an excellent tip. I always fumbled around trying to create a 
> match but this is the best technique yet. But isn't it easier 
> to "lasso" the areas that have specs and print them onto the glossy 
> paper as your spotting palette? This way you will have an exact 
> match, well almost.
> 
> --nick

Have done that for spotting color prints and it doesn't work. 
The way the inkjet heads put down a color is different to mixing 
the same ink with a brush and applying it. It may work for quad 
inks but I think you better use the wedge as that gives you a 
wider range of greys to spot with.

Prefer the drawing pens filled with inkjet inks though.

Ernst

At 03:19 AM 12/16/2004, you wrote:
>Prefer the drawing pens filled with inkjet inks though.


Ernst, can you elaborate on this a bit?

Ernst

I am not sure I understand this:  what doesn't work?  What is the difference
between trying to match a step vs a direct patch measured from the problem
area (either lassoed or eye-dropped)?  (The reason why I am being persistent
is because the step approach doesn't work for colour images.)

Steve

> From: Ernst Dinkla <E.Dinkla@...>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2004 09:19:59 +0100
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Spotting Prints
> 
> 
> Nick H. Nugent wrote:
>> 
>> This is an excellent tip. I always fumbled around trying to create a
>> match but this is the best technique yet. But isn't it easier
>> to "lasso" the areas that have specs and print them onto the glossy
>> paper as your spotting palette? This way you will have an exact
>> match, well almost.
>> 
>> --nick
> 
> Have done that for spotting color prints and it doesn't work.
> The way the inkjet heads put down a color is different to mixing
> the same ink with a brush and applying it. It may work for quad
> inks but I think you better use the wedge as that gives you a
> wider range of greys to spot with.
> 
> Prefer the drawing pens filled with inkjet inks though.
> 
> Ernst
>

A moistened brush?  What type of brush?  Can you really pick up the ink for
several hours let alone days?

> From: Roger L Sopher <rlsopher@...>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2004 15:05:58 -0700
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Spotting Prints
> 
> 
> Steve Kale wrote:
> 
>> 
>> A while ago someone mentioned a solution to this that involved
>> printing a step wedge and
>> then using something to spot prints with the undried ink.  The good
>> thing about this
>> technique is that it will work for both users of dedicated B&W inks
>> and those printing B&W
>> with colour inks (and printers of colour can use the same technique by
>> printing a swatch
>> of the image area they need to spot).  My question is on what material
>> is the step wedge
>> (or swatch) printed so that the ink mix is available and with what is
>> it lifted and then
>> placed on the image?  (I just tried printing to glossy paper with the
>> ink saturation turned
>> up but that didn't work.)  Is there some sort of plastic that will not
>> absorb the ink so that it
>> can be lifted off before drying?
>> 
>> Thanks
>> 
>> Steve
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> **
> 
> I print the wedge to glossy paper such as Epson Glossy Photo and lift
> the ink with a moistened brush, much the same as using spotone on a
> conventional B&W print from the darkroom. The stepwedge can be used for
> some days even though it is "dry."
> 
> Roger
> 
> -- 
> _______________________
> 
> Roger L Sopher
> rlsopher@...
> http://deCorrales.com
> _______________________
> 
> 
>

Steve Kale wrote:

> A moistened brush?  What type of brush?  Can you really pick up the 
> ink for
> several hours let alone days?

A small watercolor brush that will come to a sharp point when moistened. 
The best brushes are probably Windsor-Newton red sable series 7 in sizes 
0 or 00.  You can get these from any good art store or on the web from 
Jerry's Artarama or the like. Don't use cheap brushes - they don't work 
well at all.

The technique is similar to that used for spotting conventional prints 
except the brush needs to be moistened to pick up the ink from the 
surface of the glossy paper. 

I've used this method with MIS VM inks and with Epson Ultrachromes with 
no problem. It only takes a minute amount of ink on the brush to do the job.

I have only used this method for B&W so I can't comment on color.

Roger

Funnily enough I just stepped out and bought two of those brushes.  What do
you clean them with?

> From: Roger L Sopher <rlsopher@...>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2004 08:35:27 -0700
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Spotting Prints
> 
> 
> Steve Kale wrote:
> 
>> A moistened brush?  What type of brush?  Can you really pick up the
>> ink for
>> several hours let alone days?
> 
> A small watercolor brush that will come to a sharp point when moistened.
> The best brushes are probably Windsor-Newton red sable series 7 in sizes
> 0 or 00.  You can get these from any good art store or on the web from
> Jerry's Artarama or the like. Don't use cheap brushes - they don't work
> well at all.
> 
> The technique is similar to that used for spotting conventional prints
> except the brush needs to be moistened to pick up the ink from the
> surface of the glossy paper.
> 
> I've used this method with MIS VM inks and with Epson Ultrachromes with
> no problem. It only takes a minute amount of ink on the brush to do the job.
> 
> I have only used this method for B&W so I can't comment on color.
> 
> Roger

Steve Kale wrote:

> Funnily enough I just stepped out and bought two of those brushes.  
> What do
> you clean them with?
>
>
Water - just rinse them until nothing more comes out of the hair. 

Roger

thanks

> From: Roger L Sopher <rlsopher@...>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2004 09:10:28 -0700
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Spotting Prints
> 
> 
> Steve Kale wrote:
> 
>> Funnily enough I just stepped out and bought two of those brushes.
>> What do
>> you clean them with?
>> 
>> 
> Water - just rinse them until nothing more comes out of the hair.
> 
> Roger
> 
>

Steve Kale wrote:
> Ernst
> 
> I am not sure I understand this:  what doesn't work?  What is the difference
> between trying to match a step vs a direct patch measured from the problem
> area (either lassoed or eye-dropped)?  (The reason why I am being persistent
> is because the step approach doesn't work for colour images.)
> 
> Steve
> 
> 
> 
> 
>>From: Ernst Dinkla <E.Dinkla@...>
>>Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
>>Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2004 09:19:59 +0100
>>To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
>>Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Spotting Prints
>>
>>
>>Nick H. Nugent wrote:
>>
>>>This is an excellent tip. I always fumbled around trying to create a
>>>match but this is the best technique yet. But isn't it easier
>>>to "lasso" the areas that have specs and print them onto the glossy
>>>paper as your spotting palette? This way you will have an exact
>>>match, well almost.
>>>
>>>--nick
>>
>>Have done that for spotting color prints and it doesn't work.
>>The way the inkjet heads put down a color is different to mixing
>>the same ink with a brush and applying it. It may work for quad
>>inks but I think you better use the wedge as that gives you a
>>wider range of greys to spot with.
>>
>>Prefer the drawing pens filled with inkjet inks though.
>>
>>Ernst

The way CMYK dots are laid down on the paper while printing (with 
as little bleed = dotgain as possible) is totally different to 
the way you retouche with a mix of the same ingredients. For 
example any printed color with a bit of black in it will become 
quite green when you use the same mix of ink in the brush, the 
black just bleeds into the mix in a sense.  I tried to spot a 
creme color with the same ink mix printed on PET and it just 
didn't work. My guess is that you will get that problem as well 
with quad inks but then there's just a shade shift, taking a 
lighter shade of the wedge will fix that. I don't see how you can 
do that as well with color work or you have to print a 
calibration style target to get all kinds of color shades as a 
palette for the brush. Maybe I have no painter skills :-)

I'm using Staedtler MarsMatic 700 0.25 ISO drawing pens filled 
with the cmYk inkjet inks for retouching. Stipple technique like 
in chromo-lithography. Suits me better.

Ernst

At 05:42 PM 12/16/2004, you wrote:

>I'm using Staedtler MarsMatic 700 0.25 ISO drawing pens filled
>with the cmYk inkjet inks for retouching. Stipple technique like
>in chromo-lithography. Suits me better.

This may be obvious to some, but I'm wondering what if any clogging 
problems you have with these pens. If they do tend toward clogging how to 
you prevent it? And how do you fill the pens?

Michael Poster wrote:
> At 05:42 PM 12/16/2004, you wrote:
> 
> 
>>I'm using Staedtler MarsMatic 700 0.25 ISO drawing pens filled
>>with the cmYk inkjet inks for retouching. Stipple technique like
>>in chromo-lithography. Suits me better.
> 
> 
> This may be obvious to some, but I'm wondering what if any clogging 
> problems you have with these pens. If they do tend toward clogging how to 
> you prevent it? And how do you fill the pens? 

That type of Staedtler Mars pens is the refillable kind, a small 
cylindrical cart in the pen filled from the Generations / MIS ink 
bottles. How to do that from small carts is a question I never 
though of.

Never had better pen inks than the inkjet ink type :-) Tap the 
pen (not the tip side of course) on the table before you put the 
cap back on, do the same if there's less flow. They never clogg, 
some papercoating can get in the tip while working but that is 
solved by the method mentioned. Staedtler Mars also makes pigment 
inkjet inks these days, they learned something from making pen 
inks I guess. The 700 series goes down to 0.13 ISO, I'm using the 
0.25 and 0.18.

http://www.staedtler-mars.com/

Ernst

Apologies that this isn't technical, inquisitive, or anything else. 
Just some random comments.

A colleague of mine asked me to photograph her dog.  I figured it would 
be a good learning experience (and I told her that was how I was 
approaching it), and agreed.  It wasn't a "studio" shoot so we were just 
in her backyard, and I shot with Tri-X exposed at 250 (black and white 
dog), using what is roughly an N-2 development time to make sure I 
didn't lose the highlights.

I scanned with my Nikon Coolscan IV ("only" 2900 dpi) with Vuescan, 
edited in 16bit mode in Photoshop, printed onto Ilford Galerie Smooth 
Pearl (that's what my colleage wanted, even with the caveats on 
longevity) with my 1280 with UT2 inks.  The print looked good with my 
5x7 proof, but I was worried about going all the way to 11x14 (requested 
size) from my "lowly" scanner.

The full-size print is AMAZING.  Tones are incredible, rich, deep blacks 
and detailed highlights.  No dots whatsoever, and the grain is actually 
really, really impressive, considering Tri-X isn't known for being low 
grain.  And it is razor sharp (of course, that's more lens than anything 
else).

Sorry for the lond lead-in but...my point is that this is one of the 
first times when I've done a workflow from shoot>develop>scan>edit>print 
from start to finish with a particular quality in mind, and absolutely 
achieved that goal with the tools available.  Of course, the inkset and 
curves and everything plays a large part in the process.

I am always telling people that digital b&w is different, but just as 
good.  I'm not sure I even need to say that anymore - anyone can see 
that the technology is _impressive_.  Wow.

anyway.  sorry if I'm wasting an offensive amount of bandwidth.
allan

-- 
Technical Projects Specialist
Academic Computing
Stanford University
v - (650) 996-0546
f - (650) 725-4685