Digital BW, The Print

Greetings,

I have been monitoring this forum for nearly ten months now.  I made a posting or two 
some months back and received some really useful feedback.  Beside that, some of the 
work of leading contributors here has proved indespensible to my getting this far down 
the digital road to a better traditional emulsion print.

My problem is essentially a printer driver issue.  I am using an Epson Ultrachrome Pro 
Stylus 7600 with the MIS Eboni inkset.  Unknowingly, the driver I have been using all along 
is the "Gimp" driver that came with my OSX operating system.  For all it offers, it offers no 
means of definitively turning off "color management" ---which is apparently essential to 
producing consistantly good digital negatives.  I have to say, this work flow has produced 
scores and scores of really pleasing 'BO" prints for me.  I am scanning primarily 4X5 
negatives with an Imacon 646 Flextight and the latitude for correction and adjustment is 
phenomenal and inspiring ---I packed up my enlarger weeks ago, hopefully, for good.

I have monitored and participated in several forums over the last several months: PDN, 
APUG, Azo Forum, etc.  Im convinced if there is any group that can help me with this it is 
this group.  The printer is so fundamental to the "Inkjet" print, after the camara work (the 
universal equalizer, after the eye, in all photography) it appears to be the primary tool for 
final output.  And furthermore, this group constitutes perhaps the most active and 
energetic gathering of image makers I have found.  If the expertise to resolve this problem 
is not here, I don't know where to expect to find it.

So, the problem is, in rendering a digital negative (as per Mark Nelson's PDN system) the 
first objective is to get enough ink on the substrate (in my case Pictorico OHP for printing 
on Azo Grade 3) to achieve paper white at standard exposure.  I cannot get there.  Some 
people have indicated that the MIS inkset inherently does not provide enough density.  You 
guys know this inkset.  With the Gimp driver I was able to increase CMY levels to 4 and 
achieve a density that was sufficient to produce an excellent white (with no evident 
inclusion of black ink)---but that was with color management.  Now with the Epson driver 
designed for this printer, color management off, even with the "Ink Density" slider cranked 
to 50 ---no white ---maybe "80% grey".   So, admitting that I am not yet so computer 
savy, it seems there must be a way to achieve increased ink density in a controlled fashion 
without subjecting oneself to the seemingly arbitrary decisions of a mysterious "color 
management" software protocol.  Are there other drivers available out there that provide a 
better alternative to the Gimp or the Standard Epson drivers for this purpose?  Any means 
known to any of you for getting more ink down on the substrate?   

Have others in this forum used digital negatives to produce images by traditional wet 
processes?  I know it runs contrary to the general trajectory of the group ---but it is an 
obvious and irresistable extention of the digital opportunity, and in this context, the 
printer, and one's control of it, become of paramont importance.  

I really appreciate any feedback or guidance anyone can offer.

Thanks,

Nathan Jones
Salt Lake City

Nathan,

I'm not an expert in inkjet negatives, but a few comments might be helpful.

> 
> My problem is essentially a printer driver issue.  I am using an Epson
> Ultrachrome Pro
> Stylus 7600 with the MIS Eboni inkset.

Which inkset?  You don't want to use Eboni on a glossy substrate.


>  ... the "Gimp" driver that came with my OSX operating system.  For all it
> offers, it offers no
> means of definitively turning off "color management" ---which is
> apparently essential to
> producing consistantly good digital negatives.

Assuming it is the same as "Color Controls" in the Epson driver, the "color"
densities will be lighter than with "No Color Adjustment" checked.   With
the Epson driver there is no difference in the black dmax between "Color
Controls" and "No Color Adjustment."

>  ---I packed up my enlarger weeks ago, hopefully, for good.

When I did that, my interest in digital internegatives took a nose dive.

> 
> So, the problem is, in rendering a digital negative (as per Mark Nelson's
> PDN system) the
> first objective is to get enough ink on the substrate (in my case
> Pictorico OHP for printing
> on Azo Grade 3) to achieve paper white at standard exposure.

I found tiny scratches hard to avoid on the OHP substrate.  The white film
can also be used for an internegative if UV light is not needed.  (The white
is opaque to UV light.)  The white film is said to act like a diffusion
enlarger and help eliminate the problems with the small scratches.



> Are there other drivers available out there that provide a
> better alternative to the Gimp or the Standard Epson drivers for this
> purpose?  Any means
> known to any of you for getting more ink down on the substrate?

I assume either QTR or IJC support the 7000.  With those you can crank up
the ink limits until ink is literally running off the substrate.

Good luck.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Roark"
<paul.roark@v...> wrote:
> Nathan,
> 
> I'm not an expert in inkjet negatives, but a few comments might be
helpful.
> 
> > 
> > My problem is essentially a printer driver issue.  I am using an Epson
> > Ultrachrome Pro
> > Stylus 7600 with the MIS Eboni inkset.
> 
> Which inkset?  You don't want to use Eboni on a glossy substrate.

Why not? We routinely use Matte black. It makes the negatives more
fragile, but it's the only way to achieve sufficient density for some
processes.

Ciao!

Joe

Thanks Paul,

I have downloaded QTR.  I've just started to read through the literature.  Page and Print 
Setup look familiar (looks similar to the Gimp driver).  There are controls for ink density, 
good.  There is an option for Glossy Photo Paper, good.  I can select 2880 dpi 
resolution---these are all things I lost with the standard Epson printer driver.  However, 
there is not an option for "no color management".  Many on this forum are using this RIP.  
Is there a way to discard "color management" and retain the other controls provided by 
QTR?

I have received alot of information from various forums.  Its looking like I may have to do 
what Joe said: mix in a little black with my green to get the density I need for Azo ---or 
live with variables of "color management".  The black seems to hold to the OHP substrate, 
judging from the vairous palettes I have printed (which all have dense black borders and 
backgrounds).

Thanks again for the assistance,

Nathan Jones

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "chiron1961" <NTJSLC@a...> 
wrote:
> Thanks Paul,
> 
> I have downloaded QTR.  I've just started to read through the literature.  Page and Print 
> Setup look familiar (looks similar to the Gimp driver).  There are controls for ink density, 
> good.  There is an option for Glossy Photo Paper, good.  I can select 2880 dpi 
> resolution---these are all things I lost with the standard Epson printer driver.  However, 
> there is not an option for "no color management".  Many on this forum are using this 
RIP.  
> Is there a way to discard "color management" and retain the other controls provided by 
> QTR?
> 
> I have received alot of information from various forums.  Its looking like I may have to 
do 
> what Joe said: mix in a little black with my green to get the density I need for Azo ---or 
> live with variables of "color management".  The black seems to hold to the OHP 
substrate, 
> judging from the vairous palettes I have printed (which all have dense black borders and 
> backgrounds).
> 
> Thanks again for the assistance,
> 
> Nathan Jones

QTR doesn't have any color management built into it, (nor does the gimp driver).
All the color management (if any is being used) would be done in Photoshop.

QTR uses the low level part of gimp-print but the controls are vastly different.  You
can control the 7600 inks pretty much how ever you want.  You can probably use or
at least start with the standard UltraChrome profiles.

Roy

Thanks Roy.  I recognize your name.  These are real answers right from the source.  Keep 
up the good work ---along with so many others on this forum.  I'll be back again if, or 
rather when, I get into trouble. -Nathan Jones

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "chiron1961" 
<NTJSLC@a...> wrote:
> Thanks Roy.  I recognize your name.  These are real answers right 
from the source.  Keep 
> up the good work ---along with so many others on this forum.  I'll 
be back again if, or 
> rather when, I get into trouble. -Nathan Jones

I too have been following your discussion.  I am a 4x5 
photographer who is excited about the whole digital thing (cameras, 
scanners, inkjets and digital negatives for masking or contact 
printing.)

I have followed the PDN closely thinking that when I purchase an 
inkjet (most likely a 2400) I would like to experiment with a lot of 
different b&w processes including contact printing digital 
negatives. So my question is:  Even though you are having problems, 
do you think the PDN process is worthwhile?  Do your results, to 
date, show that this process will produce high quality silver (as I 
recall, AZO is not silver based) gelatin, AZO, et al wet processed 
prints?

I will close with the following story.  Several months ago I was in 
RI visiting an old friend who has an extensive print collection. 
(Callahan, Weston, Sommer you name it...).  He showed me his new 
prints which included work from Smith and Chamlee.  The next day I 
returned to Rochester, NY where I now live, to find out that Kodak 
discontinued B&W papers!

Thanks in advance for your answer.

Al

Hello Al,

>I am a 4x5 photographer who is excited about the whole digital 
>thing (cameras, scanners, inkjets and digital negatives for 
>masking or contact printing.)

I began switching about 4 years ago, beginning with digital printing.
It's just amazing how much more control we have over the results.  I
have a 4x5 neg with some uneven development (experimenting with a new
development tank) and reticulation (fixer too cold).  But it is one of
my better images so I kept trying to use it.  It is probably the most
difficult neg I've ever used, and I never did get a fully satisfactory
enlarger print from it.  But then I scanned it and was able to
overcome its various problem in PS and now I'm getting the best prints
ever from it.  I would never go back to the darkroom.  I've sold
almost all my darkroom stuff.


>I will close with the following story.  Several months ago I was 
>in RI visiting an old friend who has an extensive print 
>collection. (Callahan, Weston, Sommer you name it...).  He showed 
>me his new prints which included work from Smith and Chamlee.  
>The next day I returned to Rochester, NY where I now live, to find 
>out that Kodak discontinued B&W papers!

Wow, nothing like getting inflated then deflated <g>.  Seems like the
handwriting is on the wall, but film and chemicals will likely remain
available.  I switched to digital capture just over a year ago, but I
make mostly small prints so don't need 4x5 any more. If you make large
prints and/or like working with the 4x5 I'd say stick with it and scan
negs for as long as you can.  My scanned 4x5 negs are making
incredibly good inkjet prints.  There is so much to learn about the
printing side (and using PS) that it will keep you fully occupied for
quite awhile.  If you switch to digital capture at the same time it
will put a double whammy on you.  At some point if/when you get ready
to switch to digi capture the cameras will have evolved and choices
will be better than they are now.  Good luck, have fun.

Regards,
Clayton


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

Greetings Al,

First off, I think that Clayton, as usual, has given some very sound advice.  I can confirm 
that my 4X5 negatives are making incredible (to me) "Black Only Eboni" prints 20" X 25" 
---I could never get to this scale using an enlarger without the images falling apart on 
me.  And the opportunity for adjustment and correction in Photoshop is gratifying to say 
the least (it is a kind of enlightenment).  The inkjet print certainly stands on its own.

Regarding The Great Yellow Father turning his back on black and white ---I think this will 
further open the doors to smaller entities stepping in to fill the gaps.  ---In some ways it 
appears that a more promising and less homogeneous landscape lies ahead for the 
traditional print.  They say there are four to five years of remaining Azo stock, and there 
are strong murmurings that an alternative manufacturer of an Azo equivalent is at hand.  
Azo is a different animal, and perhaps not the easiest to have taken on first with the PDN 
system ---becuase really I am now addressing two new variables at the same time.  I am 
still very early in the process, calibrating and re-calibrating, trying lots of different things, 
different tools for mixing in a limited amount of black ink, a RIP, elements of Dan 
Burkholder's approach, different ink settings.  I do not yet have a satisfactory negative or 
print on Azo in hand.  I wish I could say that I do.  ---Some very promising elements, but I 
have not yet successfully integrated them.  Other reputable photographer's have reported 
solid success with inkjet negatives on silver, but I have not seen these prints in person. My 
standards are pretty high and the digital realm is still very new to me ---only months.  
The printer you have your eye on shows great promise by most all reports.  

I can confirm that I have seen Platinum/Palladium prints produced with digital negatives 
that more than qualify as excellent by traditional standards ---and alternative (or 
"traditional") contact printing, as you know, is really where the digital negative shows its 
promise.

(I am starting to feel guilty here because the content of this discussion doesn't really fit 
the forum directly ---hopefully people will recognize that it does so indirectly.  Photoshop 
and the printer are fundamental tools in both realms.  I hope photographers will resist 
total segregation.)  

So with that, I'll say it: don't stop working with that 4X5.  Which ever direction you end up 
going, it will pay off.

In the meantime, I'll post you when I can consistantly and systematically produce that 
quality of inkjet negative and print that I am pursuing on Azo. 

Until then, keep your eye on the horizon,

Nathan Jones