Digital BW, The Print

Recently I show some of my B&W prints using C86 and EZ inksets to some 
members of a traditional darkroom group. They said overall the tonal 
separation is good but too smooth and sharp. They also said without 
grains, one can tell that it's a digital printout.

Therefore my question to the senior members here; do you add grains and 
sharpen in the final picture before you print?

Thanks,
John

I love it.  The cheap C86 & EZ inks are obviously digital because they are
too smooth and sharp.

No, I do not add grain to my images.  A good scan will capture the original
film grain, and the digital system will print that as sharp as you'd like.
So, for large display prints, I still find Tmax 100 medium format film grain
to be a limiting factor.  I don't like it, but some do.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of John
> Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2005 7:31 AM
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [Digital BW] To add Grains or don't
> 
> Recently I show some of my B&W prints using C86 and EZ inksets to some
> members of a traditional darkroom group. They said overall the tonal
> separation is good but too smooth and sharp. They also said without
> grains, one can tell that it's a digital printout.
> 
> Therefore my question to the senior members here; do you add grains and
> sharpen in the final picture before you print?
> 
> Thanks,
> John
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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 Links
> 
> 
> 
> 
>

John wrote:

>Recently I show some of my B&W prints using C86 and EZ inksets to some 
>members of a traditional darkroom group. They said overall the tonal 
>separation is good but too smooth and sharp. They also said without 
>grains, one can tell that it's a digital printout.
>
>Therefore my question to the senior members here; do you add grains and 
>sharpen in the final picture before you print?
>
>Thanks,
>John
>  
>
I'm mainly a traditional darkroom worker, although recently I've had a 
lot of fun with a C86 and the MIS EZ inks. (So far, I like using Epson's 
Premium Semi-Matte best.) For me, the goal of digital printing is not to 
make the image look like a silver gelatin print, but rather to make the 
best print possible. With about one week of digital printing under my 
belt, I can make a sharper print with better local contrast digitally 
than I can in the darkroom, and we're talking 4x5 negatives enlarged to 
8x10. The silver gelatin prints have a slightly better surface look, and 
they're "smoother" in even-toned light areas, but that probably has to 
do with my sharpening technique.  Suppose that I find a inkjet paper 
with a better looking surface than air dried, glossy FB silver gelatin 
paper. I'd use that paper in an instant, assuming that the other 
characterisitics were acceptable.  I'd be careful showing any kind of 
prints to people in a camera club or darkroom group.  It's my experience 
that people try to show off by making as many critical comments as 
possible.  Make prints that you like, and let others do the same.

-Peter

To Paul and Peter, thanks for the assurance.

Peter: you are very right on the comment on people try to show off by 
making as many critical comments as possible.

Thanks
John

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Peter De Smidt 
<pdesmidt@T...> wrote:

> I'm mainly a traditional darkroom worker, although recently I've
>had a lot of fun with a C86 and the MIS EZ inks. (So far, I like 
>using Epson's Premium Semi-Matte best.) For me, the goal of digital 
>printing is not to make the image look like a silver gelatin print, 
>but rather to make the best print possible. With about one week of 
>digital printing under my belt, I can make a sharper print with 
>better local contrast digitally than I can in the darkroom, and 
>we're talking 4x5 negatives enlarged to 8x10. The silver gelatin 
>prints have a slightly better surface look, and they're "smoother" 
>in even-toned light areas, but that probably has to do with my 
>sharpening technique.  Suppose that I find a inkjet paper with a 
>better looking surface than air dried, glossy FB silver gelatin 
>paper. I'd use that paper in an instant, assuming that the other 
>characterisitics were acceptable.  I'd be careful showing any kind 
>of prints to people in a camera club or darkroom group.  It's my 
>experience that people try to show off by making as many critical 
>comments as possible.  Make prints that you like, and let others do 
>the same.
> 
> -Peter
>
--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Paul Roark wrote:

>
>I love it. The cheap C86 & EZ inks are obviously digital because 
>they are too smooth and sharp.
>
>No, I do not add grain to my images. A good scan will capture the 
>original film grain, and the digital system will print that as sharp 
>as you'd like. So, for large display prints, I still find Tmax 100 
>medium format film grain to be a limiting factor. I don't like it, 
>but some do.
>
>Paul
>www.PaulRoark.com

John wrote:

> Recently I show some of my B&W prints using C86 and EZ inksets to some
> members of a traditional darkroom group. They said overall the tonal
> separation is good but too smooth and sharp. They also said without
> grains, one can tell that it's a digital printout.
>
> Therefore my question to the senior members here; do you add grains and
> sharpen in the final picture before you print?
>
> Thanks,
> John
>
Let me see if I understand this. You showed people your prints, which 
were sharper and smoother than theirs. They then talked you into dumbing 
down your prints? What's that about? Why don't you talk them into making 
their prints as sharp and as smooth as yours?

To answer your specific question, no I do not add grain to any print. I 
do sharpen at final output size because inkjet printers do soften your 
output just a tad due to the way they lay down ink.
--
Bruce Watson

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, hogarth@s... wrote:
> Let me see if I understand this. You showed people your prints, which 
> were sharper and smoother than theirs. They then talked you into 
>dumbing down your prints? What's that about? Why don't you talk them 
>into making their prints as sharp and as smooth as yours?

IMO, obvious the sharp and smooth tonal of the print is the target.

> To answer your specific question, no I do not add grain to any print. 
>I do sharpen at final output size because inkjet printers do soften 
>your output just a tad due to the way they lay down ink.
> --
> Bruce Watson

I think it's my workflow the cause of it; I shoot digital, import to 
PS7, Noise Ninja to remove noise,  Photokit Sharpener to sharpen, 
adjust color's level/curves then convert to B&W using Greg Gorman Color 
to B&W Conversion Technique, resize/sharpen with Photokit Sharpener and 
finally print on Epson semi-gloss paper.

Thanks 
John

It sounds like you are doing fine, but it may be worth producing the same
print without the noise ninja step.  Based on the comparison comments, you
may take a critical look at tweaking the settings used with noise ninja.  I
found that I have been using progressively less noise reduction over time.
My initial results had minor but unnatural “digital” smoothing of details.
Critical critiques helped me identify what initially was not obvious to me,
but was so, to more experienced folks.

John

-----Original Message-----
From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of John
Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2005 2:28 PM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] To add Grains or don't

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, hogarth@s... wrote:
> Let me see if I understand this. You showed people your prints, which
> were sharper and smoother than theirs. They then talked you into
>dumbing down your prints? What's that about? Why don't you talk them
>into making their prints as sharp and as smooth as yours?

IMO, obvious the sharp and smooth tonal of the print is the target.

> To answer your specific question, no I do not add grain to any print.
>I do sharpen at final output size because inkjet printers do soften
>your output just a tad due to the way they lay down ink.
> --
> Bruce Watson

I think it's my workflow the cause of it; I shoot digital, import to
PS7, Noise Ninja to remove noise,  Photokit Sharpener to sharpen,
adjust color's level/curves then convert to B&W using Greg Gorman Color
to B&W Conversion Technique, resize/sharpen with Photokit Sharpener and
finally print on Epson semi-gloss paper.

Thanks
John




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

Peter,

> 
> I'm mainly a traditional darkroom worker, although recently I've had a
> lot of fun with a C86 and the MIS EZ inks. ...

> I can make a sharper print with better local contrast digitally
> than I can in the darkroom, and we're talking 4x5 negatives enlarged to
> 8x10.

Unsharp masking and the new "Smart Sharpen" in PS CS2 are amazing and are
also often overdone at first.  I have several prints that I really need to
re-do due to my early over-enthusiasm for the unsharp masking.

> The silver gelatin prints have a slightly better surface look,

Have you tried spraying the Premium Semimatte with PremierArt Print Shield?
To me, that takes care of what I think of as the major problems.  Also, dry
mounting them seems to add a bit of texture due to the underlying matte
board.  Both of these steps bring my display prints a bit closer to the
air-dried, glossy silver print look that I used to consider the nicest look.

> they're "smoother" in even-toned light areas, but that probably has to
> do with my sharpening technique.

If you find that the C86 EZ highlight smoothness is not up to what you'd
like and is due to ink dots, the UT2 and UT7 inksets have more dilute light
inks in their light ink carts and are thus smoother.  Also, for the
ultimate, one can put UT-FS-Y in the UT2 and UT7 yellow positions.  This
position is used by the sepia ink in the default arrangement.  I don't find
any visible difference with this very light ink for most papers, but there
are a few that do benefit from it if viewed very close up.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

I use Noise Ninja with the images from my 300d and then add back some 
grain with Grain Surgery. It has a Tri-X profile that I like a lot. It 
also allow you to adjust the strength of the grain individually for 
shadows, midtones and highlights and also let you control the size of 
the grain. I don't add a lot though, just enough to give the image some 
texture. I much prefer the look of the Tri-X profile in Grain Surgery to 
the original digital high iso noise which just looks ugly to me.

--
Daniel Staver
http://daniel.staver.no

John Moody wrote:

> It sounds like you are doing fine, but it may be worth producing the same
> print without the noise ninja step.  Based on the comparison comments, you
> may take a critical look at tweaking the settings used with noise ninja.  I
> found that I have been using progressively less noise reduction over time.
> My initial results had minor but unnatural \ufffddigital\ufffd smoothing of details.
> Critical critiques helped me identify what initially was not obvious to me,
> but was so, to more experienced folks.

Paul Roark wrote:

>
>>I can make a sharper print with better local contrast digitally
>>than I can in the darkroom, and we're talking 4x5 negatives enlarged to
>>8x10.
>>    
>>
>
>Unsharp masking and the new "Smart Sharpen" in PS CS2 are amazing and are
>also often overdone at first.  I have several prints that I really need to
>re-do due to my early over-enthusiasm for the unsharp masking.
>
>  
>
Paul's right, of course. At the moment I use JB's Smart Sharpen, and it 
does a pretty good job.  I'm going to have to learn, though, how to mask 
certain areas from the effect. Nonetheless, I still like the enhanced 
sharpness I'm getting at the moment, especially with my test image of a 
very weathered wooden building.

>>The silver gelatin prints have a slightly better surface look,
>>    
>>
>
>Have you tried spraying the Premium Semimatte with PremierArt Print Shield?
>To me, that takes care of what I think of as the major problems.  Also, dry
>mounting them seems to add a bit of texture due to the underlying matte
>board.  Both of these steps bring my display prints a bit closer to the
>air-dried, glossy silver print look that I used to consider the nicest look.
>  
>

Just this morning I tried Premier Art Shield for the first time. It 
helped with Kirkland quite a bit, although it's still a little too 
glossy for my tastes. The spray also made the Epson Semi-matte slightly 
glossier, which is unfortunate.

I have a question about the spray: How much do you press down on the 
button when you spray? I followed the directions on the bottle, and I 
just tried to "mist" the print. This involved not pressing down very 
hard on the button. I had a little problem, though, with the spray not 
being consistent when I did this.   Is it better to press down harder 
and move the can more quickly?

Once sprayed, the Kirkland and the ESM look very similar from frontal 
viewing, except that the Kirkland's highlights are a little hotter. The 
color is different as well.  I'm using the Photo Black, Neutral, 
Neutral, Warm cartridges, and the highlights print warm with both 
papers, but the Kirkland has significantly cooler shadows and midtones.

I haven't tried dry-mounting yet, but I will soon.

Thanks Paul,
Peter

John,

I shoot both film and digital. All film is scanned with a film scanner 
and then processed in Photoshop. A lot of the "look" you get in your 
prints depend on the Camera/sensor/lens/processing/paper/printer you're 
using/doing.

Recently at a show at NOMA I had folks standing in front of my prints 
and constantly asking me if they were digital or film - and some of 
those were the kind who said: "I can ALWAYS tell if a print is digital.

So, I amused myself and challenged them to tell me which was what - no 
one ever got it right - I had a good time...=*^)

Anyway - it's taken me the better part of 4 years to get the Digital 
"right". It is a constant learning - never ends..=*^)

Yes, I use pre sharpening, creative sharpening and output sharpening 
depending on what kind of sensor/ image/size print and what it is 
output to - kind of paper and printer.

For this I highly recommend Pixelgenius photokit sharpener - considered 
the best of it's kind:

http://www.pixelgenius.com/sharpener/

And, yes - for some images I do add grain - and some not - depends on 
the image. If I add grain I again use a pixelgenius product:

http://www.pixelgenius.com/photokit/index.html

Highly recommended

Christer


			Christer, AKA Christer Rosewell
			  http://www.ChristerArt.com
		  	   3.6 million visitors to date..


On May 17, 2005, at 11:29 AM, 
DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com wrote:

>    From: "John" <firewoodtech@...>
> Subject: To add Grains or don't
>
> Recently I show some of my B&W prints using C86 and EZ inksets to some
> members of a traditional darkroom group. They said overall the tonal
> separation is good but too smooth and sharp. They also said without
> grains, one can tell that it's a digital printout.
>
> Therefore my question to the senior members here; do you add grains and
> sharpen in the final picture before you print?
>
> Thanks,
> John

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

I definatley add grain from time to time---but only because I think 
the grain enhances some images.  I NEVER add grain simply to make 
someone think I shot it with film.  "Digital" is not a bad word.  

That said, I will second the PixelGenius products.  Worth every 
penny.

> 
> On May 17, 2005, at 11:29 AM, 
> DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com wrote:
> 
> >    From: "John" <firewoodtech@y...>
> > Subject: To add Grains or don't
> >
> > Recently I show some of my B&W prints using C86 and EZ inksets 
to some
> > members of a traditional darkroom group. They said overall the 
tonal
> > separation is good but too smooth and sharp. They also said 
without
> > grains, one can tell that it's a digital printout.
> >
> > Therefore my question to the senior members here; do you add 
grains and

> > sharpen in the final picture before you print?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > John
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]