Digital BW, The Print

I keep experimenting with B/W inkjet printing, and althought
they look good upfront, once I pull out one of my good silver-gel
print from my archive... the epson MIS on EEM falls flat.

Easy - yes - convenient- yes, but unfortuantly, I dont think
I can live with the final product.

any one with a good argument to change my mind?

jten

Sounds like your mind is made up.  But before you jump take a look at some
output from the new K3 inks on Epson Premium Luster...

> From: jonnytenz <jonnytenz@...>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Fri, 03 Jun 2005 21:18:29 -0000
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: [Digital BW] dont think inkjet prints do the trick
> 
> 
> I keep experimenting with B/W inkjet printing, and althought
> they look good upfront, once I pull out one of my good silver-gel
> print from my archive... the epson MIS on EEM falls flat.
> 
> Easy - yes - convenient- yes, but unfortuantly, I dont think
> I can live with the final product.
> 
> any one with a good argument to change my mind?
> 
> jten

I'm not sure why anyone would try to change you mind.  This is all subjective in the end.  If you're not happy with inkjet prints, keep up the darkroom work.  But, I can tell you I've seen some excellent prints from a member of this forum held up beside Mr. Adams prints, and they looked very, very good, even in that company.  But, each to his own.
 
Tom Baker

jonnytenz <jonnytenz@...> wrote:

I keep experimenting with B/W inkjet printing, and althought
they look good upfront, once I pull out one of my good silver-gel
print from my archive... the epson MIS on EEM falls flat.

Easy - yes - convenient- yes, but unfortuantly, I dont think
I can live with the final product.

any one with a good argument to change my mind?

jten 





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








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

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "jonnytenz" 
<jonnytenz@y...> wrote:
> 
> I keep experimenting with B/W inkjet printing, and althought
> they look good upfront, once I pull out one of my good silver-gel
> print from my archive... the epson MIS on EEM falls flat.
> 

I think you are right- an inkjet print isn't the same thing as a fine 
silver print. To me they are more like an incredibly excellent 
reproduction of a photograph-like the best photo gravure from the 
masters of the past.
As far as digital snaps go-files printed on a Noritsu type machine 
look more like photos than snaps printed on an epson.
Color definitely is better on a good ink printer better than any r 
print-c print- etc.
Jack

"Subjective" is the name of this game: everybody has valid
individualistic responses (though markets for prints have more
predictability and pattern).

I like big. The most physically beautiful photographs I've ever seen
were recent digitally enlarged (DeVere I think) Ektacolor murals (in
which the interpolation from 6X6 somehow wasn't noticable), digitally
printed Epson murals (in which the interpolation from 6X7 Fuji 7
aerial photos were obvious and part of the beauty...Adriel Helsey's
work), and Avedon's many B&W murals, optically enlarged from 8X10
negatives. 

I don't think it's typical for midsized prints (eg 16X20,20X30)to
rival good inkjet...again only subjective.  

Motivations for any 11X14 etc are mysteries to me, especially now that
big prints are so easy and cheap... I don't really have opinions about
silver in little prints. My ambivalence undoubtedly comes from the
fact that I've never appreciated a photos as precious objects, rather
than as displays of captured/created images.

Djon




--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "jnhugo"
<jacknadelle@h...> wrote:

> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "jonnytenz" 
> <jonnytenz@y...> wrote:
> > 
> > I keep experimenting with B/W inkjet printing, and althought
> > they look good upfront, once I pull out one of my good silver-gel
> > print from my archive... the epson MIS on EEM falls flat.
> > 
> 
> I think you are right- an inkjet print isn't the same thing as a fine 
> silver print. To me they are more like an incredibly excellent 
> reproduction of a photograph-like the best photo gravure from the 
> masters of the past.
> As far as digital snaps go-files printed on a Noritsu type machine 
> look more like photos than snaps printed on an epson.
> Color definitely is better on a good ink printer better than any r 
> print-c print- etc.
> Jack

I can understand how you feel. Am myself in the process of testing what 
my future position will be. Since you seem to be a few steps further in 
your research, may I suggest a possible next step, which I will 
eventually try too: how about digital negatives contact printed on good 
old baryte paper? I know that several photographers have done that and 
are quite pleased with the results. For making the negatives, look at 
the classic Dan Burkholder or the newer Mark Nelson workflows.

Louis


jonnytenz wrote:

> I keep experimenting with B/W inkjet printing, and althought
> they look good upfront, once I pull out one of my good silver-gel
> print from my archive... the epson MIS on EEM falls flat.
> 
> Easy - yes - convenient- yes, but unfortuantly, I dont think
> I can live with the final product.
> 
> any one with a good argument to change my mind?
> 
> jten   
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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 \ufffdGroup Topic, Rules and Guidelines\ufffd 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 \ufffdOWNER\ufffd AND \ufffdMODERATORS\ufffd 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  \ufffdOWNER\ufffd AND \ufffdMODERATORS\ufffd 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
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
>

On 6/4/05 2:46 AM, "Louis de Stoutz" <loudest@...> typed:

> I can understand how you feel. Am myself in the process of testing what
> my future position will be. Since you seem to be a few steps further in
> your research, may I suggest a possible next step, which I will
> eventually try too: how about digital negatives contact printed on good
> old baryte paper? I know that several photographers have done that and
> are quite pleased with the results. For making the negatives, look at
> the classic Dan Burkholder or the newer Mark Nelson workflows.
> 
> Louis
> 
> 
> jonnytenz wrote:
>> I keep experimenting with B/W inkjet printing, and althought
>> they look good upfront, once I pull out one of my good silver-gel
>> print from my archive... the epson MIS on EEM falls flat.
>> 
>> Easy - yes - convenient- yes, but unfortuantly, I dont think
>> I can live with the final product.
>> 
>> any one with a good argument to change my mind?
>> 
>> jten   
>> 
>> 
MY thoughts are these:
When you say the " Epson MIS on EEM falls flat." I believe the keyword may
be "flat".
As we've been talking about paper surface can get in the way a lot and
determine how we experience the image.
And the paper itself has a feel to it as in tactile involving the thickness
of the paper. The typical inkjet is flimsy compared to the typical fiber
darkroom print.
So if you have one of those portfolio books with the plastic pages put the
same image in them. One from the darkroom the other from the inkjet room.
On facing sides. So you can see both in a glass. Ones on the left the others
on the right. 
Both same size of course.

I think an 8.5x11 print has a funny connotation and as Marshall McCluen used
to say the medium is the message.
An 8.5x11 is a letter.
A letter is not a print.
Not than an 8x10 does not have even worse connotations as in:
"Send over two 8x10 Glossys honey and make sure you've got them signed!"
They feel like second rate promo shots in a way.
A "Glossy".
Level the playing field and have them both either 8x10 or 11x14.
And behind plastic or behind glass to take away the surface aspects and
aspects of the "photoness" as in "photo unit" of the physical print if you
catch my drift.
And be the same image from the same neg.
When I look at mine this way often the inkjet wins. Just as often. Depends
on how well I did in the darkroom or in the inkjet room.
An inkjet print will make me want to go back into the darkroom and take
another stab in the darkroom with a neg. When I do it's worth it.

Also keep in mind the time you've spend perfecting your darkroom craft,
years to decades perhaps - to the time you've spent perfecting your inkjet
craft, days to weeks perhaps.
You hate to make a split second decision based on apples and oranges in a
slew of variables which should be apples and apples..
I see people doing this all the time.


Mark Rabiner
Photography
Portland Oregon
http://rabinergroup.com/

Amen.
Very well said Mark.

Regards
Duane


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Mark Rabiner
<mark@r...> wrote:

> Also keep in mind the time you've spend perfecting your darkroom craft,
> years to decades perhaps - to the time you've spent perfecting your
inkjet
> craft, days to weeks perhaps.
> You hate to make a split second decision based on apples and oranges
in a

> slew of variables which should be apples and apples..
> I see people doing this all the time.
> 
> 
> Mark Rabiner
> Photography
> Portland Oregon
> http://rabinergroup.com/

> > I keep experimenting with B/W inkjet printing, and althought
> > they look good upfront, once I pull out one of my good silver-gel
> > print from my archive... the epson MIS on EEM falls flat.
> > 
> 
> I think you are right- an inkjet print isn't the same thing as a fine 
> silver print. To me they are more like an incredibly excellent 
> reproduction of a photograph-like the best photo gravure from the 
> masters of the past.
> As far as digital snaps go-files printed on a Noritsu type machine 
> look more like photos than snaps printed on an epson.
> Color definitely is better on a good ink printer better than any r 
> print-c print- etc.
> Jack

Unfortunately, from what I observed, most people come to B&W digital
printing with the wrong attitude, they think it is a technology meant
to copy or clone traditional silver printing, which it is not. Also
unfortunate is the fact that most efforts are put in the same
direction, how to make a digital print look like what it is not, a
silver print. And I must say, some have been very successful, though
on the wrong track.
There is a paradox, most people acknowledge the fact that an image
from a scanned negative (grain structure is different) or one taken
with a digital camera (shadow detail, sharpness, grain structure,
etc.) looks different then what one would get from a negative enlarged
with an enlarger, still they expect the prints to look the same with
the ones coming from a process involving an enlarger and chemical
processing.
Besides, the best paper (IMHO) for digital printing is Hahnemuhle
photo rag which has a texture and feel and color with no equivalent in
silver printing papers that I know unless you make you own.
What I'm trying to say is, use each technique for its strongest
points, take into consideration the specifics of a technique and use
them to your advantage. The B&W print 'look' that we all know and like
and are nostalgic for, has its power and its magic because over time
we learned how to take advantage of that technique, not by trying to
copy another.


Andu

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "- andu -"
<px3n120x@y...> wrote:

Although I would ad a few more papers to your list, I agree
wholeheartedly. This process stands on it's own, does not imitate
another, and has unique qualities a talented printer learns to exploit.
Tyler

> Unfortunately, from what I observed, most people come to B&W digital
> printing with the wrong attitude, they think it is a technology meant
> to copy or clone traditional silver printing, which it is not. Also
> unfortunate is the fact that most efforts are put in the same
> direction, how to make a digital print look like what it is not, a
> silver print. And I must say, some have been very successful, though
> on the wrong track.
> There is a paradox, most people acknowledge the fact that an image
> from a scanned negative (grain structure is different) or one taken
> with a digital camera (shadow detail, sharpness, grain structure,
> etc.) looks different then what one would get from a negative enlarged
> with an enlarger, still they expect the prints to look the same with
> the ones coming from a process involving an enlarger and chemical
> processing.
> Besides, the best paper (IMHO) for digital printing is Hahnemuhle
> photo rag which has a texture and feel and color with no equivalent in
> silver printing papers that I know unless you make you own.
> What I'm trying to say is, use each technique for its strongest
> points, take into consideration the specifics of a technique and use
> them to your advantage. The B&W print 'look' that we all know and like
> and are nostalgic for, has its power and its magic because over time
> we learned how to take advantage of that technique, not by trying to
> copy another.
> 
> 
> Andu

I agree wholeheartedly but with one caveat:

Until the end result truly steps out of the shadow (and bigotry) of its
predecessor it will remain judged by the best that its predecessor can
deliver.

I don't think this will really happen until the traditional guys look at a
digital print and agree, by their traditional standards, "that's pretty damn
good".  The advantages that digital has in the realm of image management and
editing means digital dwarfs the traditional domain in this respect.  The
choice of textures and finishes in the matte domain has already been
enormously expanded.  However, the allure of a "good" black takes the gloss
of this achievement (excuse the pun).  But we get closer every day. The K3
inks are a massive leap forward.

> From: Tyler Boley <tyler@...>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Sun, 05 Jun 2005 01:44:09 -0000
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: [Digital BW] Re: dont think inkjet prints do the trick
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "- andu -"
> <px3n120x@y...> wrote:
> 
> Although I would ad a few more papers to your list, I agree
> wholeheartedly. This process stands on it's own, does not imitate
> another, and has unique qualities a talented printer learns to exploit.
> Tyler
> 
> 
>> Unfortunately, from what I observed, most people come to B&W digital
>> printing with the wrong attitude, they think it is a technology meant
>> to copy or clone traditional silver printing, which it is not. Also
>> unfortunate is the fact that most efforts are put in the same
>> direction, how to make a digital print look like what it is not, a
>> silver print. And I must say, some have been very successful, though
>> on the wrong track.
>> There is a paradox, most people acknowledge the fact that an image
>> from a scanned negative (grain structure is different) or one taken
>> with a digital camera (shadow detail, sharpness, grain structure,
>> etc.) looks different then what one would get from a negative enlarged
>> with an enlarger, still they expect the prints to look the same with
>> the ones coming from a process involving an enlarger and chemical
>> processing.
>> Besides, the best paper (IMHO) for digital printing is Hahnemuhle
>> photo rag which has a texture and feel and color with no equivalent in
>> silver printing papers that I know unless you make you own.
>> What I'm trying to say is, use each technique for its strongest
>> points, take into consideration the specifics of a technique and use
>> them to your advantage. The B&W print 'look' that we all know and like
>> and are nostalgic for, has its power and its magic because over time
>> we learned how to take advantage of that technique, not by trying to
>> copy another.
>> 
>> 
>> Andu

In the past I always wished for better paper choices in silver
gelatine. There were good papers for gloss but I never could find much
pleasure in the majority of matt and textured papers available. The
native color casts of most of them just didn't suit my own tastes. 

That is what drew me to the pigmented inkjet print. The variety of
rich surfaces is terrific and very pleasing to me. Not to mention the
fact that I can sit in an easy chair in a comfortable and lighted room
and work the magic myself without muss or mess. There have been some
papers that do a fair job of emulating the gelatine gloss papers but
they don't necessarily have the longevity qualifications most look for
or are difficult to work with, take a year to dry, require coating etc
etc. Till recently, if I needed anything over 13x19, I simply made a
proof and sent it off with the file for Fuji Cristal on a Lightjet.

Today the ordinary Sally/Joe can even mix her/his own special blends
of pigments, print it on virtually anything compared to the darkroom
days and still have it look photographic in detail and tonal
transitions. How hard is that to take?

Regards
Duane

> Unfortunately, from what I observed, most people come to B&W digital
> printing with the wrong attitude, they think it is a technology meant
> to copy or clone traditional silver printing, which it is not. Also
> unfortunate is the fact that most efforts are put in the same
> direction, how to make a digital print look like what it is not, a
> silver print. And I must say, some have been very successful, though
> on the wrong track.
> There is a paradox, most people acknowledge the fact that an image
> from a scanned negative (grain structure is different) or one taken
> with a digital camera (shadow detail, sharpness, grain structure,
> etc.) looks different then what one would get from a negative enlarged
> with an enlarger, still they expect the prints to look the same with
> the ones coming from a process involving an enlarger and chemical
> processing.
> Besides, the best paper (IMHO) for digital printing is Hahnemuhle
> photo rag which has a texture and feel and color with no equivalent in
> silver printing papers that I know unless you make you own.
> What I'm trying to say is, use each technique for its strongest
> points, take into consideration the specifics of a technique and use
> them to your advantage. The B&W print 'look' that we all know and like
> and are nostalgic for, has its power and its magic because over time
> we learned how to take advantage of that technique, not by trying to
> copy another.
> 
> 
> Andu

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Steve Kale
<stevekale@b...> wrote:
> I agree wholeheartedly but with one caveat:
> 
> Until the end result truly steps out of the shadow (and bigotry) of its
> predecessor it will remain judged by the best that its predecessor can
> deliver.

The end result did step out of the shadow for many. I wouldn't bother
giving advice or opinion unless it's backed by experience. Trouble is,
imitation is so ingrained in the culture that I think at times it is
confused with creativity.
In art there is no such thing as 'traditional standards', standards
evolve as art evolves, as techniques evolve.
The fact that a lot of current 'art' photography is still measured
against and imitates Adams despite the fact that he represents only
one step in photography among may others, important as may be, tells a
different story then 'traditional standards'. In what other form of
art can one talk of 'traditional standards'?
 
> 
> I don't think this will really happen until the traditional guys
look at a
> digital print and agree, by their traditional standards, "that's
pretty damn
> good".  The advantages that digital has in the realm of image
management and
> editing means digital dwarfs the traditional domain in this respect.
 The
> choice of textures and finishes in the matte domain has already been
> enormously expanded.  However, the allure of a "good" black takes
the gloss
> of this achievement (excuse the pun).  But we get closer every day.
The K3
> inks are a massive leap forward.
> 


So you think the secret is in the ink.

Andu

I think it requires great printers, great ink and great paper.  I think we
have the first already.  On the ink front, "photo" just took a massive leap
forward.  Matte black ink still has a ways to go.  We already have some
great papers but there is much to be learned in the areas of flaking on
matte papers, texture and feel on photo papers etc else people wouldn't be
barking so loudly.  I hear there are inks in development that can already
produce in excess of 2.0 on matte paper (eg HPR) with longevity to rival
anything we have today.  I hope they find their way to market very soon...

> From: - andu - <px3n120x@...>

> 
> 
> So you think the secret is in the ink.
> 
> Andu
>

Steve,

> I think it requires great printers, great ink and great paper.  I
think we
> have the first already.  

given the differences between existing matt papers, when used with the
same inks, I wonder if it is really the surface-coating-ink
combination that is key, rather than one of these in isolation.  The
surface has to be locally smooth enough, and the ink settle in just
the right way (depth distribution) to balance absorption and
scattering of light (you'll have seen the other thread attempting to
explore that issue, in a somewhat round-about fashion). The "photo"
ink problem is much easier to solve. 

I hear there are inks in development that can
already
> produce in excess of 2.0 on matte paper (eg HPR) with longevity to
rival
> anything we have today.  I hope they find their way to market very
soon...

Do you have a reference for the "inks in development"? It sounds
fascinating as 2.0 on (true) matt would be almost miraculous, and very
worth having.

But then, I find it easy to forget that densities around 1.8 and above
tend to jump out when comparing prints, but can fade into
insignificance when viewed in isolation. Tonal curve is much more
important than dmax of 2.0 vs. 1.8 (say) and digital allows all the
flexibility one could want to get that right (or wrong).  Some of my
matt inkjet prints look terrible, some look OK  (compared to my best
oriental-seagull/forte/record-rapide prints from yesteryear, and some
of my few glossy inkjet prints) - I'm not convinced that new "matt"
ink would be a panacea, perhaps a help though.

> 
> Besides, the best paper (IMHO) for digital printing is Hahnamühle photo rag
> which has a texture and feel and color with no equivalent in silver printing
> papers that I know unless you make you own. What I'm trying to say is, use
> each technique for its strongest points, take into consideration the specifics
> of a technique and use them to your advantage. The B&W print 'look' that we
> all know and like and are nostalgic for, has its power and its magic because
> over time we learned how to take advantage of that technique, not by trying to
> copy another.
> 
> 
> Andu
> 
When I was studying art in school in my 20's I was surprised to find out
that watercolor paper costs quite a bit more than darkroom paper. "What a
rip-off" I thought I¹ll stick to my darkroom and throw my water colors away
as soon as that section was over.

But of course there was this Platinum & Palladium printing option where you
can apply your mind bogglingly expensive rare earth solution to this
amazingly expensive pure paper. And hope they don't have a solar eclipse or
Gum Bicromate, cheap stuff, to that paper and all the others.
Didn¹t get into that stuff much.

Now we¹ve got inkjet. And I think early on inkjet papers didn¹t just
approach the quality of darkroom papers they exceeded it. Easily and
quickly. As paper making is an old art and inkjet paper is more like regular
paper paper than darkroom paper. It¹s not like they have to learn how to
make it in the dark!:)

But we think inkjet is lagging because it has not mimicked that wonderful
dry down glossy we get with darkroom papers. Well it isn't going to mimic
what we see when we look at a darkroom print with a loupe either.

I say when someone says ³looks like an inkjet² we take it as a compliment
not the insult it may have been intended to be. Perhaps an inkjet should
look like an inkjet and not a darkroom print. As it¹s not.

I just found out this Epson Velvet paper I¹ve just gravitated to is 100%
cotton. Just like the mat board I spend so much money on when I have a show
or otherwise sell a print.

Kind of didn¹t occur to me that why am I using matt board which is better
than the paper itself? Shouldn't my darkroom paper be as good a materials as
the mat board I stick it to?
I notice lots of this ³paper² (what ever that means) is ³cellulous².  Sounds
like a left handed compliment to me.

I think the majority of photographic print making forms are mat.

Albumen Ambrotypes Argyrotypes Bromoils
Carbon/carbro Chrysotypes Collodion / wetplate Cyanotypes Ferrotypes Copper
Photogravure Gelatin silverprints Gumbichromates Gumoils Kallitypes
Lithographs Lithprints Liquidemulsion Platinum & Palladium Polaroid image
transfers Polaroid emulsion lifts Polymergravure Saltprints Satistaprints
Temperaprints Tin types Vandykes Ziatypes (Dandy Warhol's!?!)
Some of these I have no clue.

So why can't we be matt? :)




Mark Rabiner Photography Portland Oregon http://rabinergroup.com/

> From: kenstrain2000 <kenstrain2000@...>
  
> 
> given the differences between existing matt papers, when used with the
> same inks, I wonder if it is really the surface-coating-ink
> combination that is key, rather than one of these in isolation.  The
> surface has to be locally smooth enough, and the ink settle in just
> the right way (depth distribution) to balance absorption and
> scattering of light (you'll have seen the other thread attempting to
> explore that issue, in a somewhat round-about fashion). The "photo"
> ink problem is much easier to solve.

From what I understand the ink and paper work together meaning that one
ideally designs substrates/coatings and inks together.



> 
> Do you have a reference for the "inks in development"?

Just rumblings on the grapevine  ;-)  It's not worth anything until you can
buy it on the shelves and print with it.  Fingers crossed.


> 
> But then, I find it easy to forget that densities around 1.8 and above
> tend to jump out when comparing prints, but can fade into
> insignificance when viewed in isolation. Tonal curve is much more
> important than dmax of 2.0 vs. 1.8 (say) and digital allows all the
> flexibility one could want to get that right (or wrong).  Some of my
> matt inkjet prints look terrible, some look OK  (compared to my best
> oriental-seagull/forte/record-rapide prints from yesteryear, and some
> of my few glossy inkjet prints) - I'm not convinced that new "matt"
> ink would be a panacea, perhaps a help though.


Well the final image still needs to be good and printed well.  But a broader
dynamic range for matte paper would be a big equalizer.

Steve

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Steve Kale
<stevekale@b...> wrote:

High dmax has never been one of the attributes of matte surface art,
when strictly compared to glossy photo prints. "Beautiful" blacks, on
the other hand, are and have been. We are currently surpassing
platinum print dmax, one of the most beautiful photographic print
processes by some standards. Some of these things are subjective, and
a very old timer might say silver never rose to the level of platinum.
Frederick Evans stopped printing when platinum paper was no longer
available, claiming it was not possible to print to his satisfaction
with newer materials (read silver).
Stop looking at numbers and open your eyes and experience the prints
for what they are.
Many extraordinary artists (some of them darkroom masters) can see the
beauty of these prints and are in full acceptance of them if it makes
their particular imagery sing.
If your imagery comes alive best on traditional silver paper prints,
by all means stay in the darkroom.
I for one am not looking for an equalizer, for me these are already
better for many images, and have been for some time.

Tyler
www.custom-digital.com

...
> > oriental-seagull/forte/record-rapide prints from yesteryear, and some
> >...- I'm not convinced that new "matt"
> > ink would be a panacea, perhaps a help though.
> 
> 
> Well the final image still needs to be good and printed well.  But a
broader

> dynamic range for matte paper would be a big equalizer.
> 
> Steve

Very well said Tyler.

Regards
Duane


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Tyler Boley"
<tyler@t...> wrote:

> High dmax has never been one of the attributes of matte surface art,
> when strictly compared to glossy photo prints. "Beautiful" blacks, on
> the other hand, are and have been. We are currently surpassing
> platinum print dmax, one of the most beautiful photographic print
> processes by some standards. Some of these things are subjective, and
> a very old timer might say silver never rose to the level of platinum.
> Frederick Evans stopped printing when platinum paper was no longer
> available, claiming it was not possible to print to his satisfaction
> with newer materials (read silver).
> Stop looking at numbers and open your eyes and experience the prints
> for what they are.
> Many extraordinary artists (some of them darkroom masters) can see the
> beauty of these prints and are in full acceptance of them if it makes
> their particular imagery sing.
> If your imagery comes alive best on traditional silver paper prints,
> by all means stay in the darkroom.
> I for one am not looking for an equalizer, for me these are already
> better for many images, and have been for some time.
> 
> Tyler
> www.custom-digital.com
>

I print to both matte and photo paper.  I have not done any traditional
silver prints and so don't judge my output with respect to that process.  I
do, however, find it interesting to learn more about what many people seem
to obsess over and to hopefully come to my own opinion as to the relative
strengths of where we are today in digital printing.  To date I have been
disappointed by digital "photo" paper prints.  I am very impressed with the
K3 inks.  For many prints - notably many colour prints - I prefer matte
papers such as Permajet Alpha and HPR.  For B&W that deep beautiful black
becomes much more important.  Matte and "photo" paper prints are very
different and each has its qualities for a particular image.  If you prefer,
I would like to SEE (forget about the numbers) a deeper black and greater
dynamic range in B&W matte prints.  Whether that's a NUMBER of 2.0 or 2.2 I
don't know.  It's certainly more than where we are today with 1.7.  Having
now printed a few images on both matte paper and on photo paper with the K3
inks the photo prints currently have a very good lead.  This was not the
case with the UC inks and all their bronzing and gloss differential issues.
Matte output has not really advanced with K3 - photo has in a big way.  To
someone saying that "inkjet prints don't do the trick" I would say make sure
you've seen the best that digital can do before you throw the process out
the window rather than learn it.

> From: Tyler Boley <tyler@...>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Sun, 05 Jun 2005 18:40:09 -0000
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: [Digital BW] Re: dont think inkjet prints do the trick
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Steve Kale
> <stevekale@b...> wrote:
> 
> High dmax has never been one of the attributes of matte surface art,
> when strictly compared to glossy photo prints. "Beautiful" blacks, on
> the other hand, are and have been. We are currently surpassing
> platinum print dmax, one of the most beautiful photographic print
> processes by some standards. Some of these things are subjective, and
> a very old timer might say silver never rose to the level of platinum.
> Frederick Evans stopped printing when platinum paper was no longer
> available, claiming it was not possible to print to his satisfaction
> with newer materials (read silver).
> Stop looking at numbers and open your eyes and experience the prints
> for what they are.
> Many extraordinary artists (some of them darkroom masters) can see the
> beauty of these prints and are in full acceptance of them if it makes
> their particular imagery sing.
> If your imagery comes alive best on traditional silver paper prints,
> by all means stay in the darkroom.
> I for one am not looking for an equalizer, for me these are already
> better for many images, and have been for some time.
> 
> Tyler
> www.custom-digital.com
>

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Steve Kale
<stevekale@b...> wrote:

> ...I
> do, however, find it interesting to learn more about what many
people seem
> to obsess over...

Steve, between you and me, the opinion of the "many" is not very
useful to us <G>.
Tyler

There's also this question: Is the image more important or is the
densitometry? 

Who is more able to honestly evaluate the aesthetic merit of a
photograph...a reasonably sensitive and well-informed casual viewer or
the darkroom/technology focused photographer?  

It's easy to convince oneself that one's darkroom mastery equals
visual merit, but it's not easy to convince other people...weak
imagery almost entirely explains the "lonely quest" affectation that's
so hackneyed among artist and writers...and photographers.

The earlier nude, for example: Is there anybody here who could not
have photographed her beautifully with out of date Kodacolor, printed
by the worst minilab? :-)

Djon


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Tyler Boley"
<tyler@t...> wrote:

> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Steve Kale
> <stevekale@b...> wrote:
> 
> High dmax has never been one of the attributes of matte surface art,
> when strictly compared to glossy photo prints. "Beautiful" blacks, on
> the other hand, are and have been. We are currently surpassing
> platinum print dmax, one of the most beautiful photographic print
> processes by some standards. Some of these things are subjective, and
> a very old timer might say silver never rose to the level of platinum.

By the way, that's a beautiful nude. I don't mean to sound
confrontational, and I'm certainly not critical, because really I'm
envious. However it makes my point: The image is strong primarily
because she's beautiful, naked, and young. Large format, deepest
blacks: I suspect these are irrelevant to the image. :-)

Djon

Hello Tyler,

>High dmax has never been one of the attributes of matte surface 
>art..."Beautiful" blacks, on the other hand, are and have been. 
>We are currently surpassing platinum print dmax, one of the most 
>beautiful photographic print processes...a very old timer might 
>say silver never rose to the level of platinum.

>Many extraordinary artists (some of them darkroom masters) can 
>see the beauty of these prints and are in full acceptance of 
>them if it makes their particular imagery sing.

>I for one am not looking for an equalizer, for me these are 
>already better for many images, and have been for some time.

Beautiful!  Thank you, could not have been said better.  I'm adding
this to my archive of important writing on the subject.

Regards,
Clayton


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