Digital BW, The Print

I'm intrigued and baffled by the apparent tension
that develops over these printing methods. And, I
had a few thoughts I'd like to throw out there (mind
you, it's 3:00 AM and it's way past my bedtime, so
if you'd like, you're more than welcome to disregard
my ramblings).

Anyway, I am a painter by education as well as
vocation.  But, not the the type most are used to. I
paint photorealistically in B&W.  And, prior to getting
into painting, I was an avid draftsman, producing
photorealistic drawings with graphite (I had about
the fullest range of graphite densities available, in
different thicknesses from chubby graphite sticks to
mechanical pencils), charcoal, and a few other
monochromatic methods. And I was a bit of a hack
B&W photographers.

To me, each of these mediums have always had their
benefits as well as drawbacks.  For example, graphite
can be used to render some of the most refined and
delicate details, but falls short of producing the
blacks that can be accomplished with charcoal.  And,
charcoal, while it can be used to produce very refined
images, can be quite difficult and frustrating to work
with and is more a substance that you learn to work
in cooperation with than control.  Then you have
painting, that while it allows probably the greatest
ability to correct and adjust the image by means of
painting over an area to be changed, is a fluid medium
that does not lend itself to the type of fine lines
achievable with graphite or the gradations so easily
created with charcoal.  And last, there's photography,
which to me, while it renders the world in "optical
correctness" can often be the most difficult to use
as a means of communicating.

Now these were the sum of my repertoire until about
a year and a half ago, when I got into B&W digital
printing.  At first, I knew nothing at all about dedicated
B&W methods.  I simply hit the Black Ink only option
in the Epson driver for my 925.  The results were quite
horrendous in my opinion, compared to a photograph,
but were beautiful in their own right, and I grew to
appreciate them for what they were (If you think the
dots from the new machines are bad, I can send an
example print from the 925).  But soon I found that I
wanted to reproduce my paintings as accurately as
possible and felt that the BO option didn't quite cut
it.

I needed some means of reproducing the smooth
gradients and solid values in my paintings, which
at first led me to buy an Epson 2200 (I still hadn't
found out about dedicated processes), only to discover
that the B&W prints, while they were printed with two
inks were still "grainy" and overly warm for what I needed.
This then resulted in me purchasing an Epson 1280 and a
dedicated inkset.  The first print out of that machine
was nothing short of a disappointment, it just looked
so flat to me.  But once again, the images grew on me
till I grew to love them in their own right.  And, by the
way, my glossy B&W prints out of my 2200, while they
don't look like a gelatin silver print (and why should
they?), and have a "color" all their own, have their own
beauty as well.

I think the point is (in case you haven't inferred it yet) is
that each of these processes, graphite, charcoal, B&W
chemically processed prints, and whatever flavor of
inkjet you prefer all have their strengths and weaknesses
regardless of whether you have an oppinion one way or
the other.  That is the inherent nature of any artistic
medium.  You're representing "your world" as you see it
through a 2D surface that has been prepared by you to
express whatever it is you're seeking to express.  And,
what you've put on that surface ain't reality.  But it does
serve (dependent upon your level of skill) to effectively
communicate your particular spin on reality.

Well, I think that's just about enough of my diatribe. One
last note though, I still use all of these processes to one
extent or another and feel that not only have they all
served me artistically, but they have all increased my
understanding and awareness of the capabilities that
are so unique to B&W media of any kind and all have
their respective place in the artistic world.

So, on that note, Peace, Love, Happiness, Laughter,
Silliness, Random Acts of Kindness and the occasional
Smile to everyone.

Eric
www.ericashworth.net

Hello Eric,

Thanks very much for your post.  Being a frustrated drawer your
remarks about graphite and charcoal were of particular interest.  I
also visited your web site and am extremely impressed with your work.

 
>I think the point is...that each of these processes...all have 
>their strengths and weaknesses regardless of whether you have an 
>opinion one way or the other.  That is the inherent nature of 
>any artistic medium.  

Thank you, couldn't be more well said.


>I'm intrigued and baffled by the apparent tension
>that develops over these printing methods. 

As am I.  It has been a long uphill battle to have BO be accepted
as simply one of many options.  However, in spite of the obstacles it
has been largly successful and the climate is much more accepting now
than it was a few years ago.  


>So, on that note, Peace, Love, Happiness, Laughter,
>Silliness, Random Acts of Kindness and the occasional
>Smile to everyone.

Thank you, and I'll look forward to visiting your web site again from
time to time.  I have it bookmarked. 

Regards,
Clayton


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

Thanks for your post, Chris, with which I agree wholeheartedly.  
While I have been doing photography (b&w) since my teens and am now 
a "senior", I am self taught.  I have, on the other hand, studied 
drawing and painting quite seriously for many years.  Two of my 
teachers were trained in European academies and so I worked hard at 
learning to use the pencil to achieve strong lines and subtle 
shadings/values.  (In photography, I have used large format [4x5] to 
try to get subtle mid-tone values).  Ironically, though, for some 
reason (not enough control?) I only recently began to seriously work 
with charcoal and am now in love with the beauty of its darks. I have 
done some monochromatic paintings (in sepia tones) but not in b&w - 
your technique intrigues me. . .But back to your original point, 
having a diverse selection of materials with which to work is reason 
to rejoice, as is having various printing methods available in 
photography.  And if you read this, Clayton, thanks for your writings 
on BO and your ratings of papers.  Best, Edward            --- In 
DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "brigsby707" 
<brigsby707@c...> wrote:

> I'm intrigued and baffled by the apparent tension
> that develops over these printing methods. And, I
> had a few thoughts I'd like to throw out there (mind
> you, it's 3:00 AM and it's way past my bedtime, so
> if you'd like, you're more than welcome to disregard
> my ramblings).
> 
> Anyway, I am a painter by education as well as
> vocation.  But, not the the type most are used to. I
> paint photorealistically in B&W.  And, prior to getting
> into painting, I was an avid draftsman, producing
> photorealistic drawings with graphite (I had about
> the fullest range of graphite densities available, in
> different thicknesses from chubby graphite sticks to
> mechanical pencils), charcoal, and a few other
> monochromatic methods. And I was a bit of a hack
> B&W photographers.
> 
> To me, each of these mediums have always had their
> benefits as well as drawbacks.  For example, graphite
> can be used to render some of the most refined and
> delicate details, but falls short of producing the
> blacks that can be accomplished with charcoal.  And,
> charcoal, while it can be used to produce very refined
> images, can be quite difficult and frustrating to work
> with and is more a substance that you learn to work
> in cooperation with than control.  Then you have
> painting, that while it allows probably the greatest
> ability to correct and adjust the image by means of
> painting over an area to be changed, is a fluid medium
> that does not lend itself to the type of fine lines
> achievable with graphite or the gradations so easily
> created with charcoal.  And last, there's photography,
> which to me, while it renders the world in "optical
> correctness" can often be the most difficult to use
> as a means of communicating.
> 
> Now these were the sum of my repertoire until about
> a year and a half ago, when I got into B&W digital
> printing.  At first, I knew nothing at all about dedicated
> B&W methods.  I simply hit the Black Ink only option
> in the Epson driver for my 925.  The results were quite
> horrendous in my opinion, compared to a photograph,
> but were beautiful in their own right, and I grew to
> appreciate them for what they were (If you think the
> dots from the new machines are bad, I can send an
> example print from the 925).  But soon I found that I
> wanted to reproduce my paintings as accurately as
> possible and felt that the BO option didn't quite cut
> it.
> 
> I needed some means of reproducing the smooth
> gradients and solid values in my paintings, which
> at first led me to buy an Epson 2200 (I still hadn't
> found out about dedicated processes), only to discover
> that the B&W prints, while they were printed with two
> inks were still "grainy" and overly warm for what I needed.
> This then resulted in me purchasing an Epson 1280 and a
> dedicated inkset.  The first print out of that machine
> was nothing short of a disappointment, it just looked
> so flat to me.  But once again, the images grew on me
> till I grew to love them in their own right.  And, by the
> way, my glossy B&W prints out of my 2200, while they
> don't look like a gelatin silver print (and why should
> they?), and have a "color" all their own, have their own
> beauty as well.
> 
> I think the point is (in case you haven't inferred it yet) is
> that each of these processes, graphite, charcoal, B&W
> chemically processed prints, and whatever flavor of
> inkjet you prefer all have their strengths and weaknesses
> regardless of whether you have an oppinion one way or
> the other.  That is the inherent nature of any artistic
> medium.  You're representing "your world" as you see it
> through a 2D surface that has been prepared by you to
> express whatever it is you're seeking to express.  And,
> what you've put on that surface ain't reality.  But it does
> serve (dependent upon your level of skill) to effectively
> communicate your particular spin on reality.
> 
> Well, I think that's just about enough of my diatribe. One
> last note though, I still use all of these processes to one
> extent or another and feel that not only have they all
> served me artistically, but they have all increased my
> understanding and awareness of the capabilities that
> are so unique to B&W media of any kind and all have
> their respective place in the artistic world.
> 
> So, on that note, Peace, Love, Happiness, Laughter,
> Silliness, Random Acts of Kindness and the occasional
> Smile to everyone.
> 
> Eric
> www.ericashworth.net

Excellent points all, Eric.

I have to laugh at times over all this. Not all that long ago there
were conversations over 3 grays being sufficient for a full continuous
tone prints even on some older machines (not the 3000-that took 4 to
make it). Then there were hextones, though most were using 2 positions
for toning. Then came the 21/2200-x600 machines and we were back
suddenly to only 2 grays. Now it's 3 again with the K3 options and
,goodness, there is much anticipation over 7 grays from Cone.
Presumeably those making prints for sale and display during all this
time aren't going to tell their old customers that they received
horrible prints so they will replace them all with 'good' work.

Frankly, I'm tickled to death with all of the advances But .. I still
like BO for some images and on some papers. I make 3 gray prints at
times even on the 3000, at other times 4. I use more occasionaly on
hex ink machines. I make tints. I even 'horrors' use full color and
break every rule of this group. Freaquently.

I also am greatfull for Clayton, Paul, Roy and others efforts in
keeping the art moving here. They have all made life much easier for
me and all of us.

Don't give up on QTR though. It is a wonderfull tool and can do all of
the B&W methods above quite easily and extremely well. If you don't
like too many grays because the look doesn't suit you, just use fewer
until you do like it. 

Regards.
Duane




--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "brigsby707"
<brigsby707@c...> wrote:

> 
> I think the point is (in case you haven't inferred it yet) is
> that each of these processes, graphite, charcoal, B&W
> chemically processed prints, and whatever flavor of
> inkjet you prefer all have their strengths and weaknesses
> regardless of whether you have an oppinion one way or
> the other.  That is the inherent nature of any artistic
> medium.  You're representing "your world" as you see it
> through a 2D surface that has been prepared by you to
> express whatever it is you're seeking to express.  And,
> what you've put on that surface ain't reality.  But it does
> serve (dependent upon your level of skill) to effectively
> communicate your particular spin on reality.
> 
> Well, I think that's just about enough of my diatribe. One
> last note though, I still use all of these processes to one
> extent or another and feel that not only have they all
> served me artistically, but they have all increased my
> understanding and awareness of the capabilities that
> are so unique to B&W media of any kind and all have
> their respective place in the artistic world.
> 
> So, on that note, Peace, Love, Happiness, Laughter,
> Silliness, Random Acts of Kindness and the occasional
> Smile to everyone.
> 
> Eric
> www.ericashworth.net