Digital BW, The Print

Hey--

I'm really knocked out by the quality of the discussion here, and I 
wanted to thank Clayton, particularly, and all others for their 
responses to my post of last night.

So, I have some other thoughts and observations on the 2400, BW 
printing and print evaluation.

Over the past month I have printed on the 2400 30 or 40 negatives I 
am familiar with and compared them to gelatin prints of the same 
negatives made 20-40 years ago.  The 2400 prints *are* different.  
Part of this is the scanning of the negatives and 
the "Photoshopping," both of which which introduce a number of tonal 
scale differences.  The comparison of matte prints to matte-dried 
glossy prints also makes a difference because the surface gives a 
different impression.

So, here are my thoughts on the issue from someone who has looked at 
and evaluated thousands of traditional (wet process) prints:

1.  I don't actually *see* color problems in the 2400 prints.  I 
should add that I am so critical of color issues (though never a 
color printer) that I have my optician obtain a special "pilot gray" 
dye (specified by the U.S. Air Force) to tint my sunglass lenses to 
avoid color casts.  These look like BW prints to me.

2.  As Paul suggests, I am bothered by the *idea* of color inks in 
the print.  I am also bothered by the possibility that the color 
components will affect the stability of the print, though I have no 
idea if this is the case.

3.  I am, for the first time in my printing career only evaluating 
prints under controlled luminance:  400-500 LUX.  I do find the 2400 
prints more variable in appearance (depending on luminance, without 
regard to viewing temperature) than traditional prints.  The 
variation is not about color, but about density and apparent 
contrast.  Why this is the case I do not know.  Variance in viewing 
illumination can "wash out" the print or make it murky to an extent 
that I do not find with traditional prints.

4.  The #3 issue (above) is my biggest concern about these prints.  
My response, to date, has been to keep the prints on the dark side 
because I'd almost always prefer a dark print to a "weak" one. 

5.  On the whole, I find the 2400 prints preferable to the best 
traditional prints from the same negatives.  I find the 2400 prints 
more elegant in tonality, richer, more tonally complex and more 
immediate.  They look more like life than like photographs compared 
to the traditional prints.  I can now see--horrors!--that the way 
silver was embedded in gelatin gave a certain "veiled," remote, 
abstract quality to traditional prints that the inkjet prints do not 
have.  These 2400 prints have the "immediacy" of an etching or ink 
drawing that traditional prints seem to lack.  This veiling was my 
immediate objection to RC papers, which I never used (though they 
weren't bad for contacts!) because they badly exacerbated the veiling.

6.  Number 5 raises the question of adjusting to a slightly different 
medium in viewing "photographs."  In thinking about this adjustment 
it has finally occurred to me that silver gelatin prints were not the 
product of an ideal medium but of the technology available to the 
time.  And we had a long time to get used to that.  (Comparably, 
acrylic paints never looked like oil paint, but were different.  
People got used to that too, though I can remember the similar 
arguments when they were first introduced.)

7.  I find the D-max issue, so much discussed, a relatively minor 
issue with the 2400.  The blacks are extremely deep (almost lush) and 
except in direct comparison with a "standard" glossy black swatch are 
plenty deep enough.  The 2400 matte blacks seem to me well within a 
range that allows the tonal scale of the print itself to visually 
establish a very convincing black point.  And, as I said last night, 
these blacks are at least as good as *anyting* we did on wet-process 
matte papers, almost certainly better.  If I actually measured 2400 
matte blacks against a glossy print (of any type) I might be 
disappointed, but in looking at them I am not at all.  

8.  Finally, many, many of the observations I've made here seem 
almost moot once the print is under glass.  The differences don't 
disappear, but I'd say 60 or 70 or 80 percent of them do.  This 
leaves some very tiny differences, often, I think, differences much 
smaller than the optical, color and clarity problems introduced by 
any framing glass I've seen.  For me, glass veils a print and makes 
in difficult to see.  The only thing worse than framing glass in anti-
reflective framing glass.  That's life, as is the huge range of 
illumination under which prints are actually viewed.  What we really 
need in an optically correct, $500 piece of glass for our prints. 

So, I'm not sure what to make of the whole issue but thought I'd 
throw in my most recent four cents (I think 2+2 still equals four but 
I'm not sure of that either).  Any thoughts on this mess much 
appreciated.

Walt

Your comments about the 2400 seem to expand on and corroborate those
who've had the 2400 for a awhile.  I'm curious if you had any previous
experience with the UT inks or some other deducated b&w system, and
could draw some comparions.

Robert Ades

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "wwodets"
<odets@c...> wrote:

> Hey--
> 
> I'm really knocked out by the quality of the discussion here, and I 
> wanted to thank Clayton, particularly, and all others for their 
> responses to my post of last night.
> 
> So, I have some other thoughts and observations on the 2400, BW 
> printing and print evaluation.
> 
> Over the past month I have printed on the 2400 30 or 40 negatives I 
> am familiar with and compared them to gelatin prints of the same 
> negatives made 20-40 years ago.  The 2400 prints *are* different.  
> Part of this is the scanning of the negatives and 
> the "Photoshopping," both of which which introduce a number of tonal 
> scale differences.  The comparison of matte prints to matte-dried 
> glossy prints also makes a difference because the surface gives a 
> different impression.
> 
> So, here are my thoughts on the issue from someone who has looked at 
> and evaluated thousands of traditional (wet process) prints:
> 
> 1.  I don't actually *see* color problems in the 2400 prints.  I 
> should add that I am so critical of color issues (though never a 
> color printer) that I have my optician obtain a special "pilot gray" 
> dye (specified by the U.S. Air Force) to tint my sunglass lenses to 
> avoid color casts.  These look like BW prints to me.
> 
> 2.  As Paul suggests, I am bothered by the *idea* of color inks in 
> the print.  I am also bothered by the possibility that the color 
> components will affect the stability of the print, though I have no 
> idea if this is the case.
> 
> 3.  I am, for the first time in my printing career only evaluating 
> prints under controlled luminance:  400-500 LUX.  I do find the 2400 
> prints more variable in appearance (depending on luminance, without 
> regard to viewing temperature) than traditional prints.  The 
> variation is not about color, but about density and apparent 
> contrast.  Why this is the case I do not know.  Variance in viewing 
> illumination can "wash out" the print or make it murky to an extent 
> that I do not find with traditional prints.
> 
> 4.  The #3 issue (above) is my biggest concern about these prints.  
> My response, to date, has been to keep the prints on the dark side 
> because I'd almost always prefer a dark print to a "weak" one. 
> 
> 5.  On the whole, I find the 2400 prints preferable to the best 
> traditional prints from the same negatives.  I find the 2400 prints 
> more elegant in tonality, richer, more tonally complex and more 
> immediate.  They look more like life than like photographs compared 
> to the traditional prints.  I can now see--horrors!--that the way 
> silver was embedded in gelatin gave a certain "veiled," remote, 
> abstract quality to traditional prints that the inkjet prints do not 
> have.  These 2400 prints have the "immediacy" of an etching or ink 
> drawing that traditional prints seem to lack.  This veiling was my 
> immediate objection to RC papers, which I never used (though they 
> weren't bad for contacts!) because they badly exacerbated the veiling.
> 
> 6.  Number 5 raises the question of adjusting to a slightly different 
> medium in viewing "photographs."  In thinking about this adjustment 
> it has finally occurred to me that silver gelatin prints were not the 
> product of an ideal medium but of the technology available to the 
> time.  And we had a long time to get used to that.  (Comparably, 
> acrylic paints never looked like oil paint, but were different.  
> People got used to that too, though I can remember the similar 
> arguments when they were first introduced.)
> 
> 7.  I find the D-max issue, so much discussed, a relatively minor 
> issue with the 2400.  The blacks are extremely deep (almost lush) and 
> except in direct comparison with a "standard" glossy black swatch are 
> plenty deep enough.  The 2400 matte blacks seem to me well within a 
> range that allows the tonal scale of the print itself to visually 
> establish a very convincing black point.  And, as I said last night, 
> these blacks are at least as good as *anyting* we did on wet-process 
> matte papers, almost certainly better.  If I actually measured 2400 
> matte blacks against a glossy print (of any type) I might be 
> disappointed, but in looking at them I am not at all.  
> 
> 8.  Finally, many, many of the observations I've made here seem 
> almost moot once the print is under glass.  The differences don't 
> disappear, but I'd say 60 or 70 or 80 percent of them do.  This 
> leaves some very tiny differences, often, I think, differences much 
> smaller than the optical, color and clarity problems introduced by 
> any framing glass I've seen.  For me, glass veils a print and makes 
> in difficult to see.  The only thing worse than framing glass in anti-
> reflective framing glass.  That's life, as is the huge range of 
> illumination under which prints are actually viewed.  What we really 
> need in an optically correct, $500 piece of glass for our prints. 
> 
> So, I'm not sure what to make of the whole issue but thought I'd 
> throw in my most recent four cents (I think 2+2 still equals four but 
> I'm not sure of that either).  Any thoughts on this mess much 
> appreciated.
> 
> Walt

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "wwodets" 
<odets@c...> wrote:
> Hey--
> 
> I'm really knocked out by the quality of the discussion here, and 
I 
> wanted to thank Clayton, particularly, and all others for their 
> responses to my post of last night.
> 
> So, I have some other thoughts and observations on the 2400, BW 
> printing and print evaluation.


Hey Walt, what a great set of comments and thoughtful observations. 
Just last night I critically compared R2400 prints on EPSG paper (I 
like glossier surfaces) to my darkroom silver gelatin prints and 
invited over a friend who is the head of a photography dept. at a 
local art school and is also an internationally exhibited fine art 
photographer. He has a very good eye and knows all the issues. We 
looked at the prints in halogen, regular incandescent, and daylight 
lighting and talked about our reactions.

First of all there was no metamerism, bronzing of any significance, 
or neutrality issues. I use the ABW portion of the Epson driver and 
am not using a RIP. I had "toned" my prints at 2vertical/2horizontal 
and really could have gone to 3/3 to get away from the really cold 
neutral point Epson sets.

Our main discussion revolved around the "look" of these prints. The 
R2400 prints all looked fabulous and were much better rendered than 
the darkroom prints (even though I am known as a good printer 
trained by Sexton). The more precise control of Photoshop made for 
better dodging and burning as well as contrast and "exposure" 
control. This was very evident and in general we like the R2400 
prints better and yes they do have a different look. I just would 
describe it as better. I think I realized that in general the silver 
prints were so much more affected by the toe and shoulder of the 
variable contrast paper and the digital prints just seemed more open 
and less compressed especially in the deep shadows and bright 
highlights.

On my chosen Epson Premium Semigloss paper the dMax was easily equal 
to my selenium toned prints and very attractive and lush. The 
only "hangup" was our pre-trained aversion to things "RC". When 
handling the paper, it had that plastic feel, but the image was 
still lovely. When drymounted and over matted and the mat was 
handled, the difference was virtually nil. We discussed how in the 
color printing world until just recently, all color printing was 
done on "photo" papers and we had no complaints. We also realized 
that we are the victims of our previous dislike of RC B&W papers 
because of their early poor quality and lack of longevity etc.

So our conclusion was that if it is the image that is important, the 
R2400 prints looked better. Handling a bare print felt "different" 
than fiber paper, but did not affect the image and when matted up 
for official display or presentation, the difference was essentially 
none. For me, the use of the EPSG, gives me the dMax that I like, 
but others may like the mat paper aesthetic more. But I think the 
point here is that the R2400 prints, at least in my hands, look 
great.

I must admit I am going through a bit of angst now, as I think I am 
making the transition out of my darkroom, since I think I am 
surpassing my results there. Just some thoughts on this new printer 
and output that I think is looking fantastic.

Cheers, Scott

Robert,

I'm afraid this is my only real experience with BW digital printing.  
I have seen several of the Jon Cone prints produced by others and I 
found them quite good.  I also briefly used an Epson 2000P with the 
Epson driver in BO mode and they were, how shall I say, crude.

One other issue I didn't mention in my last post is 
tonal "transitions" in the prints.  I sometimes wonder if I am seeing 
the "crossovers" from one black ink to the other.  This is so subtle 
that I cannot reliably see it, but occassionally I think I perceive 
something like this in lighter midtones.  It is certainly not 
something that disturbs the quality of the prints and it seems 
possible to me that the veiling of the gelatin prints simply hides 
this. 

Walt

Walt 


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Robert" 
<la_native@h...> wrote:
> Your comments about the 2400 seem to expand on and corroborate those
> who've had the 2400 for a awhile.  I'm curious if you had any 
previous
> experience with the UT inks or some other deducated b&w system, and
> could draw some comparions.
> 
> Robert Ades
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "wwodets"
> <odets@c...> wrote:
> > Hey--
> > 
> > I'm really knocked out by the quality of the discussion here, and 
I 
> > wanted to thank Clayton, particularly, and all others for their 
> > responses to my post of last night.
> > 
> > So, I have some other thoughts and observations on the 2400, BW 
> > printing and print evaluation.
> > 
> > Over the past month I have printed on the 2400 30 or 40 negatives 
I 
> > am familiar with and compared them to gelatin prints of the same 
> > negatives made 20-40 years ago.  The 2400 prints *are* 
different.  
> > Part of this is the scanning of the negatives and 
> > the "Photoshopping," both of which which introduce a number of 
tonal 
> > scale differences.  The comparison of matte prints to matte-dried 
> > glossy prints also makes a difference because the surface gives a 
> > different impression.
> > 
> > So, here are my thoughts on the issue from someone who has looked 
at 
> > and evaluated thousands of traditional (wet process) prints:
> > 
> > 1.  I don't actually *see* color problems in the 2400 prints.  I 
> > should add that I am so critical of color issues (though never a 
> > color printer) that I have my optician obtain a special "pilot 
gray" 
> > dye (specified by the U.S. Air Force) to tint my sunglass lenses 
to 
> > avoid color casts.  These look like BW prints to me.
> > 
> > 2.  As Paul suggests, I am bothered by the *idea* of color inks 
in 
> > the print.  I am also bothered by the possibility that the color 
> > components will affect the stability of the print, though I have 
no 
> > idea if this is the case.
> > 
> > 3.  I am, for the first time in my printing career only 
evaluating 
> > prints under controlled luminance:  400-500 LUX.  I do find the 
2400 
> > prints more variable in appearance (depending on luminance, 
without 
> > regard to viewing temperature) than traditional prints.  The 
> > variation is not about color, but about density and apparent 
> > contrast.  Why this is the case I do not know.  Variance in 
viewing 
> > illumination can "wash out" the print or make it murky to an 
extent 
> > that I do not find with traditional prints.
> > 
> > 4.  The #3 issue (above) is my biggest concern about these 
prints.  
> > My response, to date, has been to keep the prints on the dark 
side 
> > because I'd almost always prefer a dark print to a "weak" one. 
> > 
> > 5.  On the whole, I find the 2400 prints preferable to the best 
> > traditional prints from the same negatives.  I find the 2400 
prints 
> > more elegant in tonality, richer, more tonally complex and more 
> > immediate.  They look more like life than like photographs 
compared 
> > to the traditional prints.  I can now see--horrors!--that the way 
> > silver was embedded in gelatin gave a certain "veiled," remote, 
> > abstract quality to traditional prints that the inkjet prints do 
not 
> > have.  These 2400 prints have the "immediacy" of an etching or 
ink 
> > drawing that traditional prints seem to lack.  This veiling was 
my 
> > immediate objection to RC papers, which I never used (though they 
> > weren't bad for contacts!) because they badly exacerbated the 
veiling.
> > 
> > 6.  Number 5 raises the question of adjusting to a slightly 
different 
> > medium in viewing "photographs."  In thinking about this 
adjustment 
> > it has finally occurred to me that silver gelatin prints were not 
the 
> > product of an ideal medium but of the technology available to the 
> > time.  And we had a long time to get used to that.  (Comparably, 
> > acrylic paints never looked like oil paint, but were different.  
> > People got used to that too, though I can remember the similar 
> > arguments when they were first introduced.)
> > 
> > 7.  I find the D-max issue, so much discussed, a relatively minor 
> > issue with the 2400.  The blacks are extremely deep (almost lush) 
and 
> > except in direct comparison with a "standard" glossy black swatch 
are 
> > plenty deep enough.  The 2400 matte blacks seem to me well within 
a 
> > range that allows the tonal scale of the print itself to visually 
> > establish a very convincing black point.  And, as I said last 
night, 
> > these blacks are at least as good as *anyting* we did on wet-
process 
> > matte papers, almost certainly better.  If I actually measured 
2400 
> > matte blacks against a glossy print (of any type) I might be 
> > disappointed, but in looking at them I am not at all.  
> > 
> > 8.  Finally, many, many of the observations I've made here seem 
> > almost moot once the print is under glass.  The differences don't 
> > disappear, but I'd say 60 or 70 or 80 percent of them do.  This 
> > leaves some very tiny differences, often, I think, differences 
much 
> > smaller than the optical, color and clarity problems introduced 
by 
> > any framing glass I've seen.  For me, glass veils a print and 
makes 
> > in difficult to see.  The only thing worse than framing glass in 
anti-
> > reflective framing glass.  That's life, as is the huge range of 
> > illumination under which prints are actually viewed.  What we 
really 
> > need in an optically correct, $500 piece of glass for our prints. 
> > 
> > So, I'm not sure what to make of the whole issue but thought I'd 
> > throw in my most recent four cents (I think 2+2 still equals four 
but 

> > I'm not sure of that either).  Any thoughts on this mess much 
> > appreciated.
> > 
> > Walt

Walt, Robert,

This is an incredibly good discussion.  THANKS!

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "wwodets"
<odets@c...> wrote:

> Robert,
> 
> I'm afraid this is my only real experience with BW digital printing.  
> I have seen several of the Jon Cone prints produced by others and I 
> found them quite good.  I also briefly used an Epson 2000P with the 
> Epson driver in BO mode and they were, how shall I say, crude.
> 
> One other issue I didn't mention in my last post is 
> tonal "transitions" in the prints.  I sometimes wonder if I am seeing 
> the "crossovers" from one black ink to the other.  This is so subtle 
> that I cannot reliably see it, but occassionally I think I perceive 
> something like this in lighter midtones.  It is certainly not 
> something that disturbs the quality of the prints and it seems 
> possible to me that the veiling of the gelatin prints simply hides 
> this. 
> 
> Walt
> 
> Walt 
> 
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Robert" 
> <la_native@h...> wrote:
> > Your comments about the 2400 seem to expand on and corroborate those
> > who've had the 2400 for a awhile.  I'm curious if you had any 
> previous
> > experience with the UT inks or some other deducated b&w system, and
> > could draw some comparions.
> > 
> > Robert Ades
> > 
> > --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "wwodets"
> > <odets@c...> wrote:
> > > Hey--
> > > 
> > > I'm really knocked out by the quality of the discussion here, and 
> I 
> > > wanted to thank Clayton, particularly, and all others for their 
> > > responses to my post of last night.
> > > 
> > > So, I have some other thoughts and observations on the 2400, BW 
> > > printing and print evaluation.
> > > 
> > > Over the past month I have printed on the 2400 30 or 40 negatives 
> I 
> > > am familiar with and compared them to gelatin prints of the same 
> > > negatives made 20-40 years ago.  The 2400 prints *are* 
> different.  
> > > Part of this is the scanning of the negatives and 
> > > the "Photoshopping," both of which which introduce a number of 
> tonal 
> > > scale differences.  The comparison of matte prints to matte-dried 
> > > glossy prints also makes a difference because the surface gives a 
> > > different impression.
> > > 
> > > So, here are my thoughts on the issue from someone who has looked 
> at 
> > > and evaluated thousands of traditional (wet process) prints:
> > > 
> > > 1.  I don't actually *see* color problems in the 2400 prints.  I 
> > > should add that I am so critical of color issues (though never a 
> > > color printer) that I have my optician obtain a special "pilot 
> gray" 
> > > dye (specified by the U.S. Air Force) to tint my sunglass lenses 
> to 
> > > avoid color casts.  These look like BW prints to me.
> > > 
> > > 2.  As Paul suggests, I am bothered by the *idea* of color inks 
> in 
> > > the print.  I am also bothered by the possibility that the color 
> > > components will affect the stability of the print, though I have 
> no 
> > > idea if this is the case.
> > > 
> > > 3.  I am, for the first time in my printing career only 
> evaluating 
> > > prints under controlled luminance:  400-500 LUX.  I do find the 
> 2400 
> > > prints more variable in appearance (depending on luminance, 
> without 
> > > regard to viewing temperature) than traditional prints.  The 
> > > variation is not about color, but about density and apparent 
> > > contrast.  Why this is the case I do not know.  Variance in 
> viewing 
> > > illumination can "wash out" the print or make it murky to an 
> extent 
> > > that I do not find with traditional prints.
> > > 
> > > 4.  The #3 issue (above) is my biggest concern about these 
> prints.  
> > > My response, to date, has been to keep the prints on the dark 
> side 
> > > because I'd almost always prefer a dark print to a "weak" one. 
> > > 
> > > 5.  On the whole, I find the 2400 prints preferable to the best 
> > > traditional prints from the same negatives.  I find the 2400 
> prints 
> > > more elegant in tonality, richer, more tonally complex and more 
> > > immediate.  They look more like life than like photographs 
> compared 
> > > to the traditional prints.  I can now see--horrors!--that the way 
> > > silver was embedded in gelatin gave a certain "veiled," remote, 
> > > abstract quality to traditional prints that the inkjet prints do 
> not 
> > > have.  These 2400 prints have the "immediacy" of an etching or 
> ink 
> > > drawing that traditional prints seem to lack.  This veiling was 
> my 
> > > immediate objection to RC papers, which I never used (though they 
> > > weren't bad for contacts!) because they badly exacerbated the 
> veiling.
> > > 
> > > 6.  Number 5 raises the question of adjusting to a slightly 
> different 
> > > medium in viewing "photographs."  In thinking about this 
> adjustment 
> > > it has finally occurred to me that silver gelatin prints were not 
> the 
> > > product of an ideal medium but of the technology available to the 
> > > time.  And we had a long time to get used to that.  (Comparably, 
> > > acrylic paints never looked like oil paint, but were different.  
> > > People got used to that too, though I can remember the similar 
> > > arguments when they were first introduced.)
> > > 
> > > 7.  I find the D-max issue, so much discussed, a relatively minor 
> > > issue with the 2400.  The blacks are extremely deep (almost lush) 
> and 
> > > except in direct comparison with a "standard" glossy black swatch 
> are 
> > > plenty deep enough.  The 2400 matte blacks seem to me well within 
> a 
> > > range that allows the tonal scale of the print itself to visually 
> > > establish a very convincing black point.  And, as I said last 
> night, 
> > > these blacks are at least as good as *anyting* we did on wet-
> process 
> > > matte papers, almost certainly better.  If I actually measured 
> 2400 
> > > matte blacks against a glossy print (of any type) I might be 
> > > disappointed, but in looking at them I am not at all.  
> > > 
> > > 8.  Finally, many, many of the observations I've made here seem 
> > > almost moot once the print is under glass.  The differences don't 
> > > disappear, but I'd say 60 or 70 or 80 percent of them do.  This 
> > > leaves some very tiny differences, often, I think, differences 
> much 
> > > smaller than the optical, color and clarity problems introduced 
> by 
> > > any framing glass I've seen.  For me, glass veils a print and 
> makes 
> > > in difficult to see.  The only thing worse than framing glass in 
> anti-
> > > reflective framing glass.  That's life, as is the huge range of 
> > > illumination under which prints are actually viewed.  What we 
> really 
> > > need in an optically correct, $500 piece of glass for our prints. 
> > > 
> > > So, I'm not sure what to make of the whole issue but thought I'd 
> > > throw in my most recent four cents (I think 2+2 still equals four 
> but 
> > > I'm not sure of that either).  Any thoughts on this mess much 
> > > appreciated.
> > > 
> > > Walt

Scott-

Thanks for those observations.  It occurs to me that you, I and some 
othes are using wet printing as the standard, while many here are 
comparing only digital processes.

Just a few observations.  I find that the midtones too are more open 
in the 2400 prints.  Also that with traditional RC papers, the 
coating was over the image.  With the digital process, the image is 
on top of the coating.  So I can see that the physical aesthetic is 
the issue and this might make me have a look at the semigloss papers, 
which I had not even considered.  I too has a severe aversion for the 
early RC papers.

Do you find viewing illumination levels critical as I earlier 
mentioned.  This might well be the matte process I am using now that 
I think of it.

As for angst about getting out of the darkroom, I couldn't get out 
fast enough!

Thanks,
Walt

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Scott Jones" 
<peanutdogs@h...> wrote:
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "wwodets" 
> <odets@c...> wrote:
> > Hey--
> > 
> > I'm really knocked out by the quality of the discussion here, and 
> I 
> > wanted to thank Clayton, particularly, and all others for their 
> > responses to my post of last night.
> > 
> > So, I have some other thoughts and observations on the 2400, BW 
> > printing and print evaluation.
> 
> 
> Hey Walt, what a great set of comments and thoughtful observations. 
> Just last night I critically compared R2400 prints on EPSG paper (I 
> like glossier surfaces) to my darkroom silver gelatin prints and 
> invited over a friend who is the head of a photography dept. at a 
> local art school and is also an internationally exhibited fine art 
> photographer. He has a very good eye and knows all the issues. We 
> looked at the prints in halogen, regular incandescent, and daylight 
> lighting and talked about our reactions.
> 
> First of all there was no metamerism, bronzing of any significance, 
> or neutrality issues. I use the ABW portion of the Epson driver and 
> am not using a RIP. I had "toned" my prints at 
2vertical/2horizontal 
> and really could have gone to 3/3 to get away from the really cold 
> neutral point Epson sets.
> 
> Our main discussion revolved around the "look" of these prints. The 
> R2400 prints all looked fabulous and were much better rendered than 
> the darkroom prints (even though I am known as a good printer 
> trained by Sexton). The more precise control of Photoshop made for 
> better dodging and burning as well as contrast and "exposure" 
> control. This was very evident and in general we like the R2400 
> prints better and yes they do have a different look. I just would 
> describe it as better. I think I realized that in general the 
silver 
> prints were so much more affected by the toe and shoulder of the 
> variable contrast paper and the digital prints just seemed more 
open 
> and less compressed especially in the deep shadows and bright 
> highlights.
> 
> On my chosen Epson Premium Semigloss paper the dMax was easily 
equal 
> to my selenium toned prints and very attractive and lush. The 
> only "hangup" was our pre-trained aversion to things "RC". When 
> handling the paper, it had that plastic feel, but the image was 
> still lovely. When drymounted and over matted and the mat was 
> handled, the difference was virtually nil. We discussed how in the 
> color printing world until just recently, all color printing was 
> done on "photo" papers and we had no complaints. We also realized 
> that we are the victims of our previous dislike of RC B&W papers 
> because of their early poor quality and lack of longevity etc.
> 
> So our conclusion was that if it is the image that is important, 
the 
> R2400 prints looked better. Handling a bare print felt "different" 
> than fiber paper, but did not affect the image and when matted up 
> for official display or presentation, the difference was 
essentially 

> none. For me, the use of the EPSG, gives me the dMax that I like, 
> but others may like the mat paper aesthetic more. But I think the 
> point here is that the R2400 prints, at least in my hands, look 
> great.
> 
> I must admit I am going through a bit of angst now, as I think I am 
> making the transition out of my darkroom, since I think I am 
> surpassing my results there. Just some thoughts on this new printer 
> and output that I think is looking fantastic.
> 
> Cheers, Scott

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "wwodets" 
<odets@c...> wrote:
> Scott-
> 
> Thanks for those observations.  It occurs to me that you, I and 
some 
> othes are using wet printing as the standard, while many here are 
> comparing only digital processes.
> 
> Just a few observations.  I find that the midtones too are more 
open 
> in the 2400 prints.  Also that with traditional RC papers, the 
> coating was over the image.  With the digital process, the image 
is 
> on top of the coating.  So I can see that the physical aesthetic 
is 
> the issue and this might make me have a look at the semigloss 
papers, 
> which I had not even considered.  I too has a severe aversion for 
the 
> early RC papers.
> 
> Do you find viewing illumination levels critical as I earlier 
> mentioned.  This might well be the matte process I am using now 
that 
> I think of it.
> 
> As for angst about getting out of the darkroom, I couldn't get out 
> fast enough!
> 
> Thanks,
> Walt
> 

Thanks again Walt. I did NOT see any differences with different 
lighting schemes and levels. I (and many of us here) would be very 
interested in your thoughts if you tried some Epson Premium 
Semigloss and do another analysis. I find its surface to have a very 
nice sheen (like ADFBG) with just the slightest of sparkle (not 
nearly as bad as the Luster)and only seen at very high angle viewing.

I am beginning to think that our natural aversion to the idea of an 
RC type paper is a little silly. As you note, in the darkroom RC was 
really not a very high quality product, but these RC-ish papers for 
inkjet printing seem fine to me, if I can just throw away an old 
prejudice and wow, do I get some beautiful deep blacks.

Interested in trying some EPSG for us????

Scott

Scott-

I'll try some--next time my MK gets low (which will probably be in 
about five minutes).  Seriously, I've spent $600 or so on ink sorting 
out this printer.  Fortunately or unfortunately, I have an "art 
photo" store right across the street from my house and they handle 
all the Epson materials (plus Hannemuhle, Legion, etc.).  I don't 
know that my observations will be anything but a personal take 
though.  

While I agree with your feelings on the RC issue, people are still 
influenced by the "hand" of the paper when holding an unframed 
print.  I don't know how important that is or should be.  Some very 
experienced BW photo collectors from Hawaii recently looked at some 
of my prints and couldn't stop talking about the beauty of the prints 
and the wonderful feel of the paper.  These were all 2400 prints on 
Velvet Fine Art and they bought several.  They were much less taken 
with the gelatin prints which, by comparison, feel skimpy.  The VFA 
is lush.  Like the RC issue, "100% cotton rag" is a problem, because 
I think there are now a lot of cellulose papers that are probably 
more stable and provide a better printing surface for the inks.  
Feelings die hard, even among those who are very experienced and 
knowledgable.

I'll make a post with impressions when I've had time to try the 
Premium Semigloss.

Walt  

> 
> Thanks again Walt. I did NOT see any differences with different 
> lighting schemes and levels. I (and many of us here) would be very 
> interested in your thoughts if you tried some Epson Premium 
> Semigloss and do another analysis. I find its surface to have a 
very 
> nice sheen (like ADFBG) with just the slightest of sparkle (not 
> nearly as bad as the Luster)and only seen at very high angle 
viewing.
> 
> I am beginning to think that our natural aversion to the idea of an 
> RC type paper is a little silly. As you note, in the darkroom RC 
was 

> really not a very high quality product, but these RC-ish papers for 
> inkjet printing seem fine to me, if I can just throw away an old 
> prejudice and wow, do I get some beautiful deep blacks.
> 
> Interested in trying some EPSG for us????
> 
> Scott

You know, it is kind of interesting to me that, after
much discussion to the contrary, it turns out that
Epson EEM actually has great archival properties. (See
the Wilhelm Research Website for details).

If the data at that website is correct (and why not to
believe since this seems to be the final voice on such
matters) then all of the other wonderful qualities of
EEM are truly available for us to sell our fine art
prints, eg brightness, luminance etc. And finally,
given the price of EEM, this has to be one of the
truly great papers out there.

I have spent inordinate time (as have most of you
judging from the threads in this forum) trying to find
a paper that meets EEM's characteristics and with
superior archival qualities. Are we overlooking the
obvious.........that EEM is our saviour all along?

What am I missing?

woody spedden

--- wwodets <odets@...> wrote:


---------------------------------
Scott-

I'll try some--next time my MK gets low (which will
probably be in 
about five minutes).  Seriously, I've spent $600 or so
on ink sorting 
out this printer.  Fortunately or unfortunately, I
have an "art 
photo" store right across the street from my house and
they handle 
all the Epson materials (plus Hannemuhle, Legion,
etc.).  I don't 
know that my observations will be anything but a
personal take 
though.  

While I agree with your feelings on the RC issue,
people are still 
influenced by the "hand" of the paper when holding an
unframed 
print.  I don't know how important that is or should
be.  Some very 
experienced BW photo collectors from Hawaii recently
looked at some 
of my prints and couldn't stop talking about the
beauty of the prints 
and the wonderful feel of the paper.  These were all
2400 prints on 
Velvet Fine Art and they bought several.  They were
much less taken 
with the gelatin prints which, by comparison, feel
skimpy.  The VFA 
is lush.  Like the RC issue, "100% cotton rag" is a
problem, because 
I think there are now a lot of cellulose papers that
are probably 
more stable and provide a better printing surface for
the inks.  
Feelings die hard, even among those who are very
experienced and 
knowledgable.

I'll make a post with impressions when I've had time
to try the 
Premium Semigloss.

Walt  

> 
> Thanks again Walt. I did NOT see any differences
with different 
> lighting schemes and levels. I (and many of us here)
would be very 
> interested in your thoughts if you tried some Epson
Premium 
> Semigloss and do another analysis. I find its
surface to have a 
very 
> nice sheen (like ADFBG) with just the slightest of
sparkle (not 
> nearly as bad as the Luster)and only seen at very
high angle 
viewing.
> 
> I am beginning to think that our natural aversion to
the idea of an 
> RC type paper is a little silly. As you note, in the
darkroom RC 
was 
> really not a very high quality product, but these
RC-ish papers for 
> inkjet printing seem fine to me, if I can just throw
away an old 
> prejudice and wow, do I get some beautiful deep
blacks.
> 
> Interested in trying some EPSG for us????
> 
> Scott




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.


      

      SPONSORED LINKS  
                                               
Digital photography technique                         
          Digital photography                         
          Digital photography software                
                                              
Photography school                                   
Professional digital photography                      
             Stock photography                        
                            
    
---------------------------------
  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

  
    Visit your group "DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint" on
the web.
   
    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.

  
---------------------------------

Hello woody,

>You know, it is kind of interesting to me that, after
>much discussion to the contrary, it turns out that
>Epson EEM actually has great archival properties. (See
>the Wilhelm Research Website for details).
> 
>If the data at that website is correct (and why not to
>believe since this seems to be the final voice on such
>matters) then all of the other wonderful qualities of
>EEM are truly available for us to sell our fine art
>prints, eg brightness, luminance etc. And finally,
>given the price of EEM, this has to be one of the
>truly great papers out there.

If you tack a piece on your wall and watch it go yellow over a few
weeks you may change your opinion.  I'm not sure what Mr. Wilhelm is
measuring, but ask any experienced user and you'll hear about it
yellowing.  Maybe he's just measuring whether the ink fades or
something.  It used to be called EAM (Epson Archival Matte) and Epson
changed the name and removed the "Archival" part after they got fussed
at about it.  IMO it would be a big big big mistake to sell anyone a
print on this paper and call it archival.  Please be careful and do
the homework.


>I have spent inordinate time (as have most of you
>judging from the threads in this forum) trying to find
>a paper that meets EEM's characteristics and with
>superior archival qualities. Are we overlooking the
>obvious.........that EEM is our saviour all along?
>What am I missing?

Photo Rag, Dourian Art and Kayenta all have very similar contrast
curves to EEM.  I often print on them with no adjustment after working
up a proof on EEM.  PR and Dourien (nearly identical) are close to
EEM's color, medium warm.  Kayenta is cold tone.  Innova's Fiba is
also similar in tone and contrast to EEM, but it prints darker so some
lightening will be needed to match the EEM proof.  But the end result
is excellent.  There are really a LOT of good papers out there.

I have just uploaded a revised Great Paper Chase article (been working
on it for several weeks).  It now lists 24 papers with their color,
ink tone and dmax attributes, plus other observations.  This might be
helpful in finding something new to try.

Regards,
Clayton


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

"Photo Rag, Dourian Art and Kayenta all have very similar contrast
curves to EEM. I often print on them with no adjustment after working
up a proof on EEM. PR and Dourien (nearly identical) are close to
EEM's color, medium warm. Kayenta is cold tone. Innova's Fiba is
also similar in tone and contrast to EEM, but it prints darker so some
lightening will be needed to match the EEM proof. But the end result
is excellent. There are really a LOT of good papers out there."

That Red River Dourian Art sounds interesting.

How would you describe it's "scruf" resistance?

I'm looking for a matte paper to print books with.

Thanks,

Scott

Clayton

Thanks so much for taking the time to educate me.

One of the reasons for me posting my message was to
get reaction from users much more experienced than I.
It worked! as evidenced by your kind reply.

Again my many thanks
woody

--- Clayton Jones <cj@...> wrote:


---------------------------------
Hello woody,

>You know, it is kind of interesting to me that, after
>much discussion to the contrary, it turns out that
>Epson EEM actually has great archival properties.
(See
>the Wilhelm Research Website for details).
> 
>If the data at that website is correct (and why not
to
>believe since this seems to be the final voice on
such
>matters) then all of the other wonderful qualities of
>EEM are truly available for us to sell our fine art
>prints, eg brightness, luminance etc. And finally,
>given the price of EEM, this has to be one of the
>truly great papers out there.

If you tack a piece on your wall and watch it go
yellow over a few
weeks you may change your opinion.  I'm not sure what
Mr. Wilhelm is
measuring, but ask any experienced user and you'll
hear about it
yellowing.  Maybe he's just measuring whether the ink
fades or
something.  It used to be called EAM (Epson Archival
Matte) and Epson
changed the name and removed the "Archival" part after
they got fussed
at about it.  IMO it would be a big big big mistake to
sell anyone a
print on this paper and call it archival.  Please be
careful and do
the homework.


>I have spent inordinate time (as have most of you
>judging from the threads in this forum) trying to
find
>a paper that meets EEM's characteristics and with
>superior archival qualities. Are we overlooking the
>obvious.........that EEM is our saviour all along?
>What am I missing?

Photo Rag, Dourian Art and Kayenta all have very
similar contrast
curves to EEM.  I often print on them with no
adjustment after working
up a proof on EEM.  PR and Dourien (nearly identical)
are close to
EEM's color, medium warm.  Kayenta is cold tone. 
Innova's Fiba is
also similar in tone and contrast to EEM, but it
prints darker so some
lightening will be needed to match the EEM proof.  But
the end result
is excellent.  There are really a LOT of good papers
out there.

I have just uploaded a revised Great Paper Chase
article (been working
on it for several weeks).  It now lists 24 papers with
their color,
ink tone and dmax attributes, plus other observations.
 This might be
helpful in finding something new to try.

Regards,
Clayton


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





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

  
    Visit your group "DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint" on
the web.
   
    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.

  
---------------------------------