Digital BW, The Print

I know full well that this posting flies in the teeth of the basis of
this B&W list, in that this list is about the fine aspects of self
printing. Whereas this posting is more in the realm of those who print
in color also and do so less frequently than a B & W fine artist
printer. However this group is by far the most intelligent and
communicative. And we have been limited and judicious in our postings
and with all this camera/lens talk going on now, at least this is a
posting about printing... 


Over the years it was the common norm to bring one's film to a
developer / printer. Black and White was more do-able in the garage or
basement, but color was challenging to the point of being practical
and cost effective to just drop off and pick up. 
Then digital scanning came into technical workability at home. And few
service bureaus or print locations had other than a high end esoteric
Iris type printer. Thus the cottage industry of at home color printing
on Epson printers etc. 
The 3rd party inks and papers industry flourished.
Now it may be that the printing services have come full circle and are
offering printing of digital files on a full gamut of printing devices
and the cost per print has come way down. Even Costco lets you
electronically send in your finished files and one only has to pick
them up. 
Likewise with service bureaus. Only the pick up.
The question / point is :
Has the cost purchasing and the trouble of maintaining ones own inkjet
printer, become actually less cost effective and more bother than
using dedicated print services (who have now fully adapted to digital
files) ?

One can now do all the digital dark rooming that one needs to in
Photoshop and present a finished file that should look quite as it
would on one's screen or own printer output. In the older days of
film, one was left at the mercy of the judgment dark rooming of the
developer / printer.

I have not done all the math, but particularly in major cities, where
the printers keep stocks of various art papers - (and have such
continuous use of their own printers that clogged nozzles is never a
grave concern) – 

Might it be sensible to give up the hassles and lifespan of ink jet
printers and return to the former model of having dedicated
professionals do the printing and just run down and pick up the prints
the next day or the same day ?

My spouse and I co-wrote this and will present it to groups of interest. 
We do very much welcome responses.

Jerry

jerry78008 wrote:

> I know full well that this posting flies in the teeth of the basis of
> this B&W list, in that this list is about the fine aspects of self
> printing. Whereas this posting is more in the realm of those who print
> in color also and do so less frequently than a B & W fine artist
> printer. However this group is by far the most intelligent and
> communicative. And we have been limited and judicious in our postings
> and with all this camera/lens talk going on now, at least this is a
> posting about printing...
>
>
> Over the years it was the common norm to bring one's film to a
> developer / printer. Black and White was more do-able in the garage or
> basement, but color was challenging to the point of being practical
> and cost effective to just drop off and pick up.
> Then digital scanning came into technical workability at home. And few
> service bureaus or print locations had other than a high end esoteric
> Iris type printer. Thus the cottage industry of at home color printing
> on Epson printers etc.
> The 3rd party inks and papers industry flourished.
> Now it may be that the printing services have come full circle and are
> offering printing of digital files on a full gamut of printing devices
> and the cost per print has come way down. Even Costco lets you
> electronically send in your finished files and one only has to pick
> them up.
> Likewise with service bureaus. Only the pick up.
> The question / point is :
> Has the cost purchasing and the trouble of maintaining ones own inkjet
> printer, become actually less cost effective and more bother than
> using dedicated print services (who have now fully adapted to digital
> files) ?
>
> One can now do all the digital dark rooming that one needs to in
> Photoshop and present a finished file that should look quite as it
> would on one's screen or own printer output. In the older days of
> film, one was left at the mercy of the judgment dark rooming of the
> developer / printer.
>
> I have not done all the math, but particularly in major cities, where
> the printers keep stocks of various art papers - (and have such
> continuous use of their own printers that clogged nozzles is never a
> grave concern) \ufffd
>
> Might it be sensible to give up the hassles and lifespan of ink jet
> printers and return to the former model of having dedicated
> professionals do the printing and just run down and pick up the prints
> the next day or the same day ?
>
> My spouse and I co-wrote this and will present it to groups of interest.
> We do very much welcome responses.
>
> Jerry
>
With all due respect, I think your premise is wrong. This isn't about 
money - it's about control. No one can print my work like I can. No one 
cares about my work like I do. When I print it myself, I get what I 
want, and I get it when I want it.

Besides, if you know what you are doing, and everyone learns eventually, 
the care and feeding of inkjet printers isn't that much of a hassle.
-- 
Bruce Watson

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, hogarth@s... wrote:
> jerry78008 wrote:
> 
> > I know full well that this posting flies in the teeth of the basis of
> > this B&W list, in that this list is about the fine aspects of self
> > printing. Whereas this posting is more in the realm of those who print
> > in color also and do so less frequently than a B & W fine artist
> > printer. However this group is by far the most intelligent and
> > communicative. And we have been limited and judicious in our postings
> > and with all this camera/lens talk going on now, at least this is a
> > posting about printing...
> >
> >
> > Over the years it was the common norm to bring one's film to a
> > developer / printer. Black and White was more do-able in the garage or
> > basement, but color was challenging to the point of being practical
> > and cost effective to just drop off and pick up.
> > Then digital scanning came into technical workability at home. And few
> > service bureaus or print locations had other than a high end esoteric
> > Iris type printer. Thus the cottage industry of at home color printing
> > on Epson printers etc.
> > The 3rd party inks and papers industry flourished.
> > Now it may be that the printing services have come full circle and are
> > offering printing of digital files on a full gamut of printing devices
> > and the cost per print has come way down. Even Costco lets you
> > electronically send in your finished files and one only has to pick
> > them up.
> > Likewise with service bureaus. Only the pick up.
> > The question / point is :
> > Has the cost purchasing and the trouble of maintaining ones own inkjet
> > printer, become actually less cost effective and more bother than
> > using dedicated print services (who have now fully adapted to digital
> > files) ?
> >
> > One can now do all the digital dark rooming that one needs to in
> > Photoshop and present a finished file that should look quite as it
> > would on one's screen or own printer output. In the older days of
> > film, one was left at the mercy of the judgment dark rooming of the
> > developer / printer.
> >
> > I have not done all the math, but particularly in major cities, where
> > the printers keep stocks of various art papers - (and have such
> > continuous use of their own printers that clogged nozzles is never a
> > grave concern) –
> >
> > Might it be sensible to give up the hassles and lifespan of ink jet
> > printers and return to the former model of having dedicated
> > professionals do the printing and just run down and pick up the prints
> > the next day or the same day ?
> >
> > My spouse and I co-wrote this and will present it to groups of
interest.
> > We do very much welcome responses.
> >
> > Jerry
> >
> With all due respect, I think your premise is wrong. This isn't about 
> money - it's about control. No one can print my work like I can. No one 
> cares about my work like I do. When I print it myself, I get what I 
> want, and I get it when I want it.
> 
> Besides, if you know what you are doing, and everyone learns
eventually, 
> the care and feeding of inkjet printers isn't that much of a hassle.
> -- 
> Bruce Watson

Thank you Bruce, this is a valid and intelligent response. I, the
spouse and I, have printed with some 9 iterations of Epson inkjet
printers.


Thank you Bruce, this is a valid and intelligent response. I, the
spouse and I, have printed with some 9 iterations of evolving Epson
inkjet printers.
I was coming to the conclusion that the capacities, at least in the
color printing world, and with the very significant fact that digital
files can be finalized in the designated color space (adobe RGB, SRGB,
etc.). Then what should come out the other end of a color print, in a
service bureau, should be so, so much more uniform and predictable
than 5 years ago, even, in the digital inkjet world.
Back in the days of color film printing, which I would not consider
doing myself, one could or would have to bring the print back for a
redo, but today the digital darkroom has given printers a pretty much
ready to go "do it this way" file, that would seem to be just needed
to be spit out by an Epson 9600 or Fuji Frontier or, which can't be
done at home, a "C" print on long used and accepted traditional
photographic paper. 
I am trying to see if firing up an Epson 2200, as yet unused and
returnable, is really worth it any more, particularly since I live in
a large city with pro printers all over the place competing for my
business. 
I am not asking anyone else to decide my life for me, but yours and
other responses are, indeed, valuable.
Please continue to any other responses.

> With all due respect, I think your premise is wrong. This isn't about 
> money - it's about control. No one can print my work like I can. No one 
> cares about my work like I do. When I print it myself, I get what I 
> want, and I get it when I want it.
> 
> Besides, if you know what you are doing, and everyone learns eventually, 
> the care and feeding of inkjet printers isn't that much of a hassle.
> -- 
> Bruce Watson


Couldn't have said it better myself.

Gary

www.pbase.com/garyallenbrown

I'm not sure what my opinion is worth, but I'd have to say that I  
agree with the quality control aspect.  There's nothing more  
aggravating than sending in a file, paying a modestly hefty price,  
only to get a print one day to five days later (that's the turnaround  
available to me in the area), and find that the sharpening is  
slightly off, or the deepest shadows have been clipped and so on due  
to "expected" tolerances.  I'd rather succeed or blow it on my own.

Also, financially speaking, the cheapest I can get a 23" x 34.5" BW  
print done (Piezography) in the area (Northern Bay Area, CA) is  
$110.  That's for a preflighted file.  Granted, I could possibly  
locate a printer who would do it for less outside of my area, but  
then would have to add the cost and waiting that comes with  
shipping.  So, Let's say I need to get 2 prints of each of 12 images,  
for two galleries, and go ahead and have my local printer do them for  
me, that comes to $2,640.  I have just purchased a used Epson 7600  
and after also ordering ink and paper I will still have spent  
$200-300 less than the cost of those prints.  And, in addition to  
being able to produce 24 prints on my own, according to my own  
standards, I will still have the printer, ink and paper, ie: the  
capability to produce more sans additional cost.  I also think this  
argument holds up for anyone who is going to be producing a large  
number of prints, even if the cost is considerably less than what's  
available to me.

So, combine the control/quality issue and the financial/production  
capability considerations and in my opinion, it seems home printing  
wins vs pro printers.

Regards,

Eric
www.ericashworth.net

jerry78008 wrote:

> Thank you Bruce, this is a valid and intelligent response. I, the
> spouse and I, have printed with some 9 iterations of evolving Epson
> inkjet printers.
> I was coming to the conclusion that the capacities, at least in the
> color printing world, and with the very significant fact that digital
> files can be finalized in the designated color space (adobe RGB, SRGB,
> etc.). Then what should come out the other end of a color print, in a
> service bureau, should be so, so much more uniform and predictable
> than 5 years ago, even, in the digital inkjet world.
> Back in the days of color film printing, which I would not consider
> doing myself, one could or would have to bring the print back for a
> redo, but today the digital darkroom has given printers a pretty much
> ready to go "do it this way" file, that would seem to be just needed
> to be spit out by an Epson 9600 or Fuji Frontier or, which can't be
> done at home, a "C" print on long used and accepted traditional
> photographic paper.
> I am trying to see if firing up an Epson 2200, as yet unused and
> returnable, is really worth it any more, particularly since I live in
> a large city with pro printers all over the place competing for my
> business.
> I am not asking anyone else to decide my life for me, but yours and
> other responses are, indeed, valuable.
> Please continue to any other responses.
>
Perhaps a compromise position will work for you. Use the 2200 for your 
proofing printer. That is, use it to get your image just the way you 
want it. Then take the file (and your proof) to a print-for-pay shop for 
that bigger print.

This is the best of both worlds. You don't have to buy and maintain (and 
find a place to put) something like an Epson 9600 (or a LightJet with an 
RA-4 processing line !), yet you still have control over the image and 
can manipulate it as you need to, and get test prints when you need them.
--
Bruce Watson

That is what I do for the occasional large print, except I send the files
without the proof.
I also proof 100% crops, as you can’t evaluate the sharpening, etc.
otherwise.  To try and make it clearer, if I’m planning on sending out a 360
dpi print that is 24x36, I do all the adjustments, sharpening etc. on that
file.  Then I crop a section that will fit on the 2200 and print it.  The
match to a 9600 print on HPR is very good.  Of course you need a good
profile for the paper and your 2200, which you would want in any case.

Best regards,
John Moody

-----Original Message-----
From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of
hogarth@...
Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2005 10:08 AM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Return to pro printers supplanting the need for
home printing ?

Perhaps a compromise position will work for you. Use the 2200 for your
proofing printer. That is, use it to get your image just the way you
want it. Then take the file (and your proof) to a print-for-pay shop for
that bigger print.

This is the best of both worlds. You don't have to buy and maintain (and
find a place to put) something like an Epson 9600 (or a LightJet with an
RA-4 processing line !), yet you still have control over the image and
can manipulate it as you need to, and get test prints when you need them.
--
Bruce Watson





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

On Aug 25, 2005, at 7:22 AM, John Moody wrote:

>  Of course you need a good profile for the paper and your 2200, which  
> you would want in any case.

Jerry,

John's point is well taken. If you're trying to "proof" with a 2200,  
then a reliable profile is essential. That said, you will still have to  
apply adjustments, subtle or otherwise, to the image before you output  
to the larger format. It sounds like you do mostly color(?) work and,  
though I have used a 2200 for going on three years to print smaller  
editions of my color work, sending the images out for printing on the  
Epson 7600/9600 has been an adventure. Image tweaks, which, depending  
on the tonal range and color gamut of the image, can be significant,  
are needed to make the output just as pleasing from the larger format  
printers as the 2200.

In short, I don't consider my 2200 to be a spot-on reliable proofing  
device for the larger format Epsons, but that stands to reason, as the  
7600/9600 printers have a vastly different internal design, and far  
less variation between individual printer output. Short of moving up to  
a 7600 (or now the 4800 as they are supposed to be a smaller version of  
the 7800/9800, i.e., same inkjet scheme, etc.), it's been the next best  
thing. A custom profile for your 2200 can get you closer to what you're  
looking for in reliability, but it will only narrow the differences  
(between the 2200 and larger format) rather than eliminate them  
entirely. YMMV.

In the end, it depends on largely on the quality of the profile  
(customized for your printer versus generalized for all 2200s?) and  
probably even more on what you need to see in the final output to feel  
satisfied. Personally, I have been far happier with an on-site printer  
(for the reasons stated by others elsewhere in this thread) than I was  
when every file went straight to a service bureau's Lightjet. In my  
book, control is everything when processing images digitally (or  
traditionally, for that matter).

Just for perspective, you might download the these 2200 profiles and  
compare them. Once you've loaded the profiles, open an image in your  
image editing software, do a flatten/Save As and then either view in  
proof colors (or "convert to profile" ) and look at the different  
profile interpretations. It's a real eye opener. Yahoo's message format  
may truncate the links, so you may have to copy and paste.

 From the Epson site (they are part of the driver download):
http://www.epson.com/cgi-bin/Store/support/supDetail.jsp? 
BV_UseBVCookie=yes&oid=14402&infoType=Overview

Bill Atkinson's 7600/9600 profiles made for Epson:
http://homepage.mac.com/WebObjects/FileSharing.woa/wa/default? 
user=billatkinson&fpath=Epson%209600%20Profiles&templatefn=FileSharing1. 
html

Nick Wheeler's epson 2200 profiles (for HPR, EEM and Epson Semi-matte):
http://lenscraft.com/profiles/wheeler/2200/

A bit long-winded, sorry. Hope this helps.

Mark

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

I can address this a bit since I print for others, and of course, myself.
There are no hard and fast reasons. There are and always have been
artists with no interest in printing, and never print their own work.
The other extreme is that mind set of the artist being the only one
capable of printing their own work, assuming they have that craft
down. I can understand both and personally lean toward the latter.
We had an open house here last year and handed off gobbs of info on
what it takes to do this stuff. Again, the reactions were varied. Some
went away with all that info and successfully got their own systems
and skills up and going. Others, after seeing everything involved,
were not the least bit interested and said they'd just as soon bring
everything to us, since so much effort here goes into keeping things
nailed every day.
Some people need bigger prints than they can do at home, some people
are not in a position to dedicate a printer to B&W, some people need a
printer set up with a special inkset on a special paper for a project,
etc.. Many reasons.

It's worth seeing what really goes on in a place like this. If you
have the oportunity to visit one, you should. Hopefully our guild will
have another free open house soon.
John Dean and others would have good points about al this as well.

Tyler
www.custom-digital.com

Bruce, Mark, Tyler, Gary, Hogarth, Eric, 
Thank you I have been pouring over your responses.

Several friends of mine live and do their printing in relatively
remote, rustic locations and would live nowhere else. One on the
Oregon coast and another in rural Pennsylvania. 
Perhaps I am a bit of an unusual case. These are just two of the
service bureaus that are with 10 minutes drive of me.

http://www.aandi.com/digital.html

http://imagexperts.com/index.asp?p=1867

In the earlier days of film, as recently as the 70's, 80's & 90's,
there was no way to present even a remote semblance of the concept of
pre digital darkroomed files, in the standardized color space, as is
possible today. And that is excluding the vagaries of developing of
the wet negatives, etc. It may be an over statement to say that color
spaces are without wiggle room today, but in the film days one could
almost assume that  that I am 

I have re-visited the above two locations, acquired samples of the
huge variety of canvas, linen, zillions of watercolor and fine art
papers, transparency production, etc.,  they have, felt the vibes, and
so on. 
I have been doing my own inkjet printing for so long that I had to
reacquaint myself, almost. And yes, I could or anyone else could do
this all on a one by one – walk my feet in the door basis and discern
and decide. But the beauty of on line interactions among aficionados,
as we have here, is the interchange of viewpoints, ideas, experiences,
etc. that would otherwise not be possible.

I learned film photography, many years ago, literally at the feet of
the then top names in European photojournalism. I learned digital
photography on-line at a much faster (relatively immediately) rate.
The point is that this interchange is of value and cognizance to me. 

Perhaps a holdover, but I considered that the 2200 and the7600 and
9600, etc. would be close enough, ink gamut and color wise, that my
digitally "completed" image would be fairly universal. I am learning
otherwise. 

I had recently considered that the evolution to recent has provided
for doing almost all of the prepping and darkroom work prior to the
delivery of the file for printing. At the above sites, the impression
is implied that one could do roughly that. I now see the broader view
and appreciate the responses. Thank you.
Jerry

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Mark Carstens
<mathdude5@c...> wrote:
> On Aug 25, 2005, at 7:22 AM, John Moody wrote:
> 
> >  Of course you need a good profile for the paper and your 2200,
which  
> > you would want in any case.
> 
> Jerry,
> 
> John's point is well taken. If you're trying to "proof" with a 2200,  
> then a reliable profile is essential. That said, you will still have
to  
> apply adjustments, subtle or otherwise, to the image before you output  
> to the larger format. It sounds like you do mostly color(?) work and,  
> though I have used a 2200 for going on three years to print smaller  
> editions of my color work, sending the images out for printing on the  
> Epson 7600/9600 has been an adventure. Image tweaks, which, depending  
> on the tonal range and color gamut of the image, can be significant,  
> are needed to make the output just as pleasing from the larger format  
> printers as the 2200.
> 
> In short, I don't consider my 2200 to be a spot-on reliable proofing  
> device for the larger format Epsons, but that stands to reason, as the  
> 7600/9600 printers have a vastly different internal design, and far  
> less variation between individual printer output. Short of moving up
to  
> a 7600 (or now the 4800 as they are supposed to be a smaller version
of  
> the 7800/9800, i.e., same inkjet scheme, etc.), it's been the next
best  
> thing. A custom profile for your 2200 can get you closer to what
you're  
> looking for in reliability, but it will only narrow the differences  
> (between the 2200 and larger format) rather than eliminate them  
> entirely. YMMV.
> 
> In the end, it depends on largely on the quality of the profile  
> (customized for your printer versus generalized for all 2200s?) and  
> probably even more on what you need to see in the final output to feel  
> satisfied. Personally, I have been far happier with an on-site printer  
> (for the reasons stated by others elsewhere in this thread) than I was  
> when every file went straight to a service bureau's Lightjet. In my  
> book, control is everything when processing images digitally (or  
> traditionally, for that matter).
> 
> Just for perspective, you might download the these 2200 profiles and  
> compare them. Once you've loaded the profiles, open an image in your  
> image editing software, do a flatten/Save As and then either view in  
> proof colors (or "convert to profile" ) and look at the different  
> profile interpretations. It's a real eye opener. Yahoo's message
format  
> may truncate the links, so you may have to copy and paste.
> 
>  From the Epson site (they are part of the driver download):
> http://www.epson.com/cgi-bin/Store/support/supDetail.jsp? 
> BV_UseBVCookie=yes&oid=14402&infoType=Overview
> 
> Bill Atkinson's 7600/9600 profiles made for Epson:
> http://homepage.mac.com/WebObjects/FileSharing.woa/wa/default? 
>
user=billatkinson&fpath=Epson%209600%20Profiles&templatefn=FileSharing1. 

> html
> 
> Nick Wheeler's epson 2200 profiles (for HPR, EEM and Epson Semi-matte):
> http://lenscraft.com/profiles/wheeler/2200/
> 
> A bit long-winded, sorry. Hope this helps.
> 
> Mark
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]