Digital BW, The Print

Here's the deal.  I like good side light in my portraits from windows
or softboxes. A nice modeling and tonal range into a nice shadow.  I
tend to bump the contrast to get a nice black, no always a darker
black (they only get so black) but maybe more black if that makes sense.

Sometimes on the transition from flesh to black it gets jagged
looking, ugly and sort of solarized.  It is very hard to describe and
even if I could post the image here it wouldn't look like it does in
print.

I've seen it with D2H and D70 files.  I upsize them in CS a little at
a time to 12x18 ( I rarely see this in a 6x9). I had been set to
Bicubic. It has been suggested I use Bicubic Smoother instead.  

I've had it much less so with scanned TX or XP2. I scan with a Minolta
5400 and my files are much larger than what I get out of camera so
upsizing isn't needed.

I have been BO printing for over a year. 2200, Ebony and EEM or PR.  I
thought that maybe I was asking alot of one ink to make a smooth
transition so I got UT7.  Same, different, I don't know.  I get get
either ink set to do the same thing.

So I get an image I like on screen, make a print and decide to give it
a little more snap.  I might tweek the brightness/contrast a bit and
make another print and then I may get this jagged look it I went too
far.  I've most likely already done some levels adjustment before the
first print already.

It clearly looks as if I've put down too much ink.  Is this a dot gain
issue?  I'm at 20%.  

Would Genuine Fractels be better for up-sizing my D70 files than CS?

Or am I just asking for too much.  Again it is hard to describe what
I'm getting.

I could e-mail a sample portrait and describe where the problems lie
but you won't see it in a jpeg. Gotta be on paper.

Any ideas welcome.

Neil

Hello Neil,

>I have been BO printing for over a year. 2200, Ebony and EEM 
>or PR.  I thought that maybe I was asking alot of one ink to 
>make a smooth transition so I got UT7.  Same, different, I 
>don't know.  I get get either ink set to do the same thing.

I do those linds of portraits and BO makes the ransitions ok, it's not
that.  In general this sort of thing is caused by too rapid
transitions, such as a curve that's too steep.



>I've seen it with D2H and D70 files.  I upsize them in CS a 
>little at a time...

Does the problem appear in prints from the non-resized files?

Regards,
Clayton


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

Hello Neil;

Gives us some more info:

What does your histogram look like? Is it combed?

Do you shoot in raw and convert to 16 bit tiff, 8-bit tiff, JPEG;

When you do your density/contrast tweaks and uprezzing are you in 8-
bit or 16?

As for Genuine Fractals, I've never been too impressed with it, 
though some people love it. I especially detest proprietary file 
formats-you must have GF installed to use the files you create with 
it.  Do you have Qimage? It does an excellent job of upsampling and 
sharpenning, and a lot more besides. You can use it in conjunction 
with QTR with the 'print to file' technique, or with UT-7 it works 
just like Photoshop.

Seve Karafyllakis

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "neilsphoto" 
<neilsphoto@y...> wrote:
> Here's the deal.  I like good side light in my portraits from 
windows
> or softboxes. A nice modeling and tonal range into a nice shadow.  
I
> tend to bump the contrast to get a nice black, no always a darker
> black (they only get so black) but maybe more black if that makes 
sense.
> 
> Sometimes on the transition from flesh to black it gets jagged
> looking, ugly and sort of solarized.  It is very hard to describe 
and
> even if I could post the image here it wouldn't look like it does 
in
> print.
> 
> I've seen it with D2H and D70 files.  I upsize them in CS a little 
at
> a time to 12x18 ( I rarely see this in a 6x9). I had been set to
> Bicubic. It has been suggested I use Bicubic Smoother instead.  
> 
> I've had it much less so with scanned TX or XP2. I scan with a 
Minolta
> 5400 and my files are much larger than what I get out of camera so
> upsizing isn't needed.
> 
> I have been BO printing for over a year. 2200, Ebony and EEM or 
PR.  I
> thought that maybe I was asking alot of one ink to make a smooth
> transition so I got UT7.  Same, different, I don't know.  I get get
> either ink set to do the same thing.
> 
> So I get an image I like on screen, make a print and decide to 
give it
> a little more snap.  I might tweek the brightness/contrast a bit 
and
> make another print and then I may get this jagged look it I went 
too
> far.  I've most likely already done some levels adjustment before 
the
> first print already.
> 
> It clearly looks as if I've put down too much ink.  Is this a dot 
gain
> issue?  I'm at 20%.  
> 
> Would Genuine Fractels be better for up-sizing my D70 files than 
CS?
> 
> Or am I just asking for too much.  Again it is hard to describe 
what
> I'm getting.
> 
> I could e-mail a sample portrait and describe where the problems 
lie

> but you won't see it in a jpeg. Gotta be on paper.
> 
> Any ideas welcome.
> 
> Neil

Well if it does appear it is harder to see.  Tonight I'm going to make
some 6x9s from D70 files and push it till it is obvious.  Then I'll
make a curve that pulls a little black at a time and see if I get the
look I like.  It does seem like I'm making it go to black too fast and
then you get all that ink that suddenly looks very one dimensional.

I general with scans anyway I push the curve up a little from the
middle and that is about it for curves.  I just open things up a bit,
but then I go back and add contrast to the more open image.  I scan
for an open and kind of lowish contrast starting point.

Now with the D70 RAW files I'm starting new.  I'm adding some punch in
Nikon Capture with levels on the RAW file and then going to CS to
finish and print.  I do think that 6x9s from the D70 don't show this
jagged look as much as larger prints I've upsized.  But then again
I've now made the offending area larger and it may be that it is just
plain easier to see.  That and I have my nose in it 'cause I want to
see how all the other details hold up.  Other than the jagged shadows
the eyes and eye lashes and pores in the skin and hair etc is very
very good.

I'll work on it and try some minus black curves.

Neil

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Steven
Karafyllakis" <steve@s...> wrote:
> Hello Neil;
> 
> Gives us some more info:
> 
> What does your histogram look like? Is it combed?
> 
Uh I don't know.  I'd have to look.  What does it mean if it is combed?

> Do you shoot in raw and convert to 16 bit tiff, 8-bit tiff, JPEG;
> 

I'm shooting RAW and everything (levels, contrast, upsize etc) is 16
bit.  I never take it out of that to 8 bit.  I generally save as TIFF.


Neil

'Combing' represents gaps in the tonal range. It's unlikely that's 
the problem if you shoot raw>tiff and stay in 16-bit unless you do 
some really extreme repeated tonal changes. Most of the time combing 
doesn't show, but if you have a short hard tonal shift at the bottom 
end of the scale it seems to show there first, and/or agravate an 
existing problem.

Steve Karafyllakis

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "neilsphoto" 
<neilsphoto@y...> wrote:
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Steven
> Karafyllakis" <steve@s...> wrote:
> > Hello Neil;
> > 
> > Gives us some more info:
> > 
> > What does your histogram look like? Is it combed?
> > 
> Uh I don't know.  I'd have to look.  What does it mean if it is 
combed?
> 
> > Do you shoot in raw and convert to 16 bit tiff, 8-bit tiff, JPEG;
> > 
> 
> I'm shooting RAW and everything (levels, contrast, upsize etc) is 
16
> bit.  I never take it out of that to 8 bit.  I generally save as 
TIFF.

> 
> 
> Neil