Digital BW, The Print

I'm an amateur, a hobbyist. I have a long background of amateur photo 
processing/printing using wet chemicals. Although I've done a little 
digital ink-jet BW printing in the past, I'm just beginning to get serious 
about it. My printer is an Epson R1800 - not the choice of the serious BW 
printers here, I know - but that's what I have to work with. Monitor 
calibrated. Custom printer profiles. Converting to BW from RAW files using 
Adobe Camera Raw and the Channels technique in PS CS2.

Like everyone else, I would like the best range of BW tonalities I can get, 
using my equipment. Eventually I will no doubt move on (or up?) to QTRIP, 
but for now I'll continue with the ACR-Channels method, which seems to 
produce acceptable results.

I've followed the threads about various papers. So far, I've only tried 
digital BW prints on Epson Enhanced Matte (EEM) and Epson Premium Glossy 
Photo Paper (PGPP). These aren't discussed, when folks write comparisons of 
various BW papers - so I wonder - can someone give me an idea of their 
relative Dmax? Of course I'm familiar with the paper colors and the tint of 
the resulting prints using the 1800.

I also have a small supply of Epson Premium Luster. Would that be an 
appropriate paper to use for BW prints? What are its strengths and weaknesses?

I see mention here of a paper called Epson Ultra Smooth, which I don't see 
on the Epson site. Where is it obtained? Or is it available only in sizes 
which wouldn't be appropriate for an amateur? I've come to really like a 
matter surface, but I know well that glossy and semi-gloss papers have a 
greater potential Dmax or color gamut. "Pearl" surface papers are okay, but 
I'd love to find something smoother than matte but less glaring than PGPP.

Next and final question today - what would people here suggest as a "next 
paper" for me to try in BW prints?

Thanks - Bill Hansen

Hi Bill --

That's the 50 dollar question. I'm in the same boat as you regarding which
excellent paper to try next. I like the Epson Ultra Smooth Fine Art paper,
which you can get in 13 x 19. I believe you can find it it at Inkjetart --
http://www.inkjetart.com/pro/ultrasmooth.html. The Velvet Fine Art is also
nice.

Hahnemuhle PhotoRag is also well regarded, and has a nice feel for a matte
paper. Entrada and Condor are beautiful as well. I would recommend that you
get a box of HPR to compare with what you're currently using. You can also
order sample packs from shadesofpaper.com, moab, hawkmountain and inkjetart
to see how the paper looks and compares to others, before getting too
involved in buying a box of this and that. There are just too many darn nice
papers, and not enough ink!!

Most folks use the EEM as a proofing paper, as it has a pretty good dmax and
mimics the look of the more expensive papers.

If you haven't read it already, Clayton's Paper Chase article will give you
lots of ideas. http://www.cjcom.net/articles/digiprn5.htm

I've printed a couple of long panoramas on the Premium Lustre -- they came
out very rich in the blacks and I liked the look of the paper overall. Did
these on a 2200 with the roll Lustre. Have also printed these on the 7800
using EEM, and for these images, the Lustre looks a lot nicer. For me, it's
more of a hassle to keep swapping the ink carts, and costly, too, on the
large format machines. But the look of the satin/lustre paper can be very
beneficial to black and white images. I'm planning to do some testing along
those lines after I finish this month's production runs.

Jim Parker

On 1/31/06 2:32 PM, "DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com"
<DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

> Message: 7       
>    Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2006 10:31:31 -0500
>    From: wgh2005 <wgh2005@...>
> Subject: Paper choices
> 
> I'm an amateur, a hobbyist. I have a long background of amateur photo
> processing/printing using wet chemicals. Although I've done a little
> digital ink-jet BW printing in the past, I'm just beginning to get serious
> about it. My printer is an Epson R1800 - not the choice of the serious BW
> printers here, I know - but that's what I have to work with. Monitor
> calibrated. Custom printer profiles. Converting to BW from RAW files using
> Adobe Camera Raw and the Channels technique in PS CS2.
> 
> Like everyone else, I would like the best range of BW tonalities I can get,
> using my equipment. Eventually I will no doubt move on (or up?) to QTRIP,
> but for now I'll continue with the ACR-Channels method, which seems to
> produce acceptable results.
> 
> I've followed the threads about various papers. So far, I've only tried
> digital BW prints on Epson Enhanced Matte (EEM) and Epson Premium Glossy
> Photo Paper (PGPP). These aren't discussed, when folks write comparisons of
> various BW papers - so I wonder - can someone give me an idea of their
> relative Dmax? Of course I'm familiar with the paper colors and the tint of
> the resulting prints using the 1800.
> 
> I also have a small supply of Epson Premium Luster. Would that be an
> appropriate paper to use for BW prints? What are its strengths and weaknesses?
> 
> I see mention here of a paper called Epson Ultra Smooth, which I don't see
> on the Epson site. Where is it obtained? Or is it available only in sizes
> which wouldn't be appropriate for an amateur? I've come to really like a
> matter surface, but I know well that glossy and semi-gloss papers have a
> greater potential Dmax or color gamut. "Pearl" surface papers are okay, but
> I'd love to find something smoother than matte but less glaring than PGPP.
> 
> Next and final question today - what would people here suggest as a "next
> paper" for me to try in BW prints?
> 
> Thanks - Bill Hansen

Hi James;

There are several people on this list using the R1800, myself 
included. It is capable of extremely fine results, especially if 
you're lucky enough to get one that doesn't microband in one or more 
channels. 
The up-side to this printer is of course the simultaneous matte & 
gloss capabilty. When you get around to trying QTR, I suggest you 
exchange the gloss cart for a  light black, and work out some 2k 
curves. You can get some  fine,smooth prints that way, and not 
having to swap carts is great.
> My printer is an Epson R1800 - not the choice of the serious BW 
> printers here, I know - but that's what I have to work with. 
Monitor 
> calibrated. Custom printer profiles.

So going this route you can get fairly good results on any paper 
you're willing to get/do a profile for.

> I've followed the threads about various papers. So far, I've only 
tried 
> digital BW prints on Epson Enhanced Matte (EEM) and Epson Premium 
Glossy 
> Photo Paper (PGPP). 

Many folks who are using high-gloss papers use the Kirkland (Costco) 
or Pictorico, at the other end of the price scale. Many printers 
have decided they simply don't like the plasticiness of the RC 
papers, don't like the reflections, the flimsiness of some, and 
simply like the look and panache of the cotton papers better and are 
willing to settle for the lower dmax. Some of us (myself included) 
are still searching for the 'holy grail' the paper that looks and 
feels like our favorite FB halide paper, and has as good a dmax or 
better.

> can someone give me an idea of their 
> relative Dmax? 
EEM with matte inks gets about 1.67-1.69 at best. PGPP needs photo- 
black ink ofcourse, but will probably hit 2.3-2.4
> 
> I also have a small supply of Epson Premium Luster. Would that be 
an 
> appropriate paper to use for BW prints? What are its strengths and 
weaknesses?

Premium luster is used quite a bit-it gets a good dmax but the down 
side is that pearly texture and the blinding whiteness that most of 
the RC luster/semi-gloss papers have. The smoothest readily 
available is Epson Premium semi-matte, which has no noticeable 
texture and a soft gloss. Up until recentlu it was available in 24"-
plus rolls, but the Exim-Vaios site now offers it in a variety of 
sheet sizes. Here's the URL:
http://www.eximvaios.com/catalog/default.php?cPath=2_252_382

 
> I'd love to find something smoother than matte but less glaring 
than PGPP.
> 
Recently I posted some early impressions about a new satin paper by 
Sihl called Iridium. It looks very promising, and is to-date the 
closest I've seen to matching a FB halide print. Dmax is around 2.3, 
the surface texture is almost smooth but not too machine-looking, 
its a bit warmer and less white than most RC papers, and has been 
confirmed to be acid-free for both paper and backing. The down side? 

It is available in rolls only, and comes of the roll with a 
persistent curl that takes some work to smooth out enough to feed 
through a desktop printer. I'm hoping that if there is enough 
interest one of the distributors like EXim-Vaios will pick it up and 
offer it in sheets. In the meantime I guess I'll get to perfect my 
reverse rolling technique...

Steve Karafyllakis

I am wondering how to troubleshoot microbanding in the R1800.  I have 3 
MK carts ready to go into the printer but am not sure which channels to 
put them in and was wondering how you figure out which channels are the 
smoothest.  I don't need simultaneous color prints- I just want high 
quality B&W right now.

I do have QTR.

Thanks for any tips,
Roger

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Steven 
Karafyllakis" <stevekphoto@...> wrote:

>
> Hi James;
> 
> There are several people on this list using the R1800, myself 
> included. It is capable of extremely fine results, especially if 
> you're lucky enough to get one that doesn't microband in one or more 
> channels. 
> The up-side to this printer is of course the simultaneous matte & 
> gloss capabilty. When you get around to trying QTR, I suggest you 
> exchange the gloss cart for a  light black, and work out some 2k 
> curves. You can get some  fine,smooth prints that way, and not 
> having to swap carts is great.

Hello Roger,

I had the same issue a while back. I found that my Y, M, R and B
channels where much more smooth than the others. Used YMB and no more
banding. Never since.

What I did to test is make one singe curve for each channel, printed a
21-step wedge with each channel with MK in it. Let dry and selected
the 3 best.

I now simply modify the 3MK curves to take into account the new positions.

Contact me off list so I can email you my single QIDF curves for you
to test.

Denis

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Roger"
<rsmith02@...> wrote:

>
> I am wondering how to troubleshoot microbanding in the R1800.  I have 3 
> MK carts ready to go into the printer but am not sure which channels to 
> put them in and was wondering how you figure out which channels are the 
> smoothest.  I don't need simultaneous color prints- I just want high 
> quality B&W right now.
> 
> I do have QTR.
> 
> Thanks for any tips,
> Roger
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Steven 
> Karafyllakis" <stevekphoto@> wrote:
> >
> > Hi James;
> > 
> > There are several people on this list using the R1800, myself 
> > included. It is capable of extremely fine results, especially if 
> > you're lucky enough to get one that doesn't microband in one or more 
> > channels. 
> > The up-side to this printer is of course the simultaneous matte & 
> > gloss capabilty. When you get around to trying QTR, I suggest you 
> > exchange the gloss cart for a  light black, and work out some 2k 
> > curves. You can get some  fine,smooth prints that way, and not 
> > having to swap carts is great.
>

Hi Roger;

The method suggested by Dennis is probably best since it gives you a 
bigger sample to look at. You can also make a calibration print 
in 'Calibration mode' that's faster, but gives you a very narrow 
scale to judge. Try to keep one K channel, either the PK or the MK, 
as they may be set up to deliver the heaviest inkload and therefore 
the best dmax.

Rgeards;


Steve Karafyllakis

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Roger" 
<rsmith02@...> wrote:
>
> I am wondering how to troubleshoot microbanding in the R1800.  I 
have 3 
> MK carts ready to go into the printer but am not sure which 
channels to 
> put them in and was wondering how you figure out which channels are 
the 
> smoothest.  I don't need simultaneous color prints- I just want 
high 
> quality B&W right now.
> 
> I do have QTR.
> 
> Thanks for any tips,
> Roger
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Steven 
> Karafyllakis" <stevekphoto@> wrote:
> >
> > Hi James;
> > 
> > There are several people on this list using the R1800, myself 
> > included. It is capable of extremely fine results, especially if 
> > you're lucky enough to get one that doesn't microband in one or 
more 

> > channels. 
> > The up-side to this printer is of course the simultaneous matte & 
> > gloss capabilty. When you get around to trying QTR, I suggest you 
> > exchange the gloss cart for a  light black, and work out some 2k 
> > curves. You can get some  fine,smooth prints that way, and not 
> > having to swap carts is great.
>

Or perhaps a modified version of the ink separation in which the
"narrow scale" is stretched out just for the purpose of determining
the best channels?

By the way, I've been following the 3MK approach with great interest
but haven't got the time to experiment. How smooth are the lighter
regions when 3MK is employed? Paul R. may have said something about
this that I missed.

As as aside, the new MIS gadgets for refilling OEM cartridges really
helped me bring my long hibernated R1800 back to life. I thought the
yellow channel was hopelessly clogged in this printer until now.

Thanks,
--nick

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Steven
Karafyllakis" <stevekphoto@...> wrote:

>
> Hi Roger;
> 
> The method suggested by Dennis is probably best since it gives you a 
> bigger sample to look at. You can also make a calibration print 
> in 'Calibration mode' that's faster, but gives you a very narrow 
> scale to judge...
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Roger" 
> <rsmith02@> wrote:
> >
> > I am wondering how to troubleshoot microbanding in the R1800....

>... How smooth are the lighter regions when 3MK is employed? 

I have a 1600 dpi scan of the 5% patch linked off of 
http://www.paulroark.com/BW-Info/R1800.htm

See http://www.paulroark.com/BW-Info/R1800-Image-Structure.pdf 

Paul  
www.PaulRoark.com

Thanks, Paul, for the excellent info. I was thinking maybe 3-MK would
only reduce graininess in darker tones but obviously this is not true.
Great news indeed.

Also I read your previous postings on doing 3-MK on glossy media ...
how tough is it to get decent coverage of GLOP on the Eboni? I'm
afraid more of my work will be done on glossy media than matte so this
is also very important to me.

Thanks so much for your work on 3-MK,
--nick

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

>
> >... How smooth are the lighter regions when 3MK is employed? 
> 
> I have a 1600 dpi scan of the 5% patch linked off of 
> http://www.paulroark.com/BW-Info/R1800.htm
> 
> See http://www.paulroark.com/BW-Info/R1800-Image-Structure.pdf 
> 
> Paul  
> www.PaulRoark.com
>

>... I read your previous postings on doing 3-MK on glossy media ...
> how tough is it to get decent coverage of GLOP on the Eboni? 

When one uses glop mixing with Eboni in the first pass and then a 
fairly heavy second coat it can make a very nice looking print.  It's 
not all that hard, but a 2-pass workflow is something that I think 
most will probably not want to mess with.  If you use a PK with the 
Eboni, it makes getting a sufficient gloss on the deep blacks much 
easier.

I stopped work on it for a variety of reasons.  One factor was that I 
had some fouling of my rollers.  I'm not sure if this happened all at 
once when I waited overnight for the second coat as opposed to 
quickly drying with a hair drier and making the second pass sooner.  
The one that sat overnight clearly had come off, in part on the 
rollers.

I also found that the MP-PK made a better dmax, but it also is more 
prone to clogging.  I found that also on the 1400.  It's not worth 
the very minor dmax increase.  Use MIS K4-PK.  Then mixing it with 
some Eboni allows a more consistent gloss as one approaches 100% 
black.

I stopped my experiments before I'd completely finished developing 
it.  So, only experienced printers who are comfortable fine tuning 
their own profiles and workflows should try glossy printing with the 
3-MK + glop + PK approach.

Paul   
www.PaulRoark.com

I know that I can easily remove gloss differential with GLOP applied
by an HVLP sprayer. I'll definitely have to pursue this until I find a
solution. Thanks again for the info.

--nick

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

>...
> I stopped my experiments before I'd completely finished developing 
> it.  So, only experienced printers who are comfortable fine tuning 
> their own profiles and workflows should try glossy printing with the 
> 3-MK + glop + PK approach.
> 
> Paul   
> www.PaulRoark.com
>

>...I can easily remove gloss differential with GLOP applied
> by an HVLP sprayer. I'll definitely have to pursue this 
> until I find a solution. 

If I'm going to put an image behind glass, I use matte papper.  Where I 
might want a high end glossy is where it'll be shown without glass.  In 
that case, I use Premier Art Print Shield.  I think it makes a better 
coating than the Glop, which does not dry as hard.  I find the glop 
overcoat scratches rather easily.

Paul  
www.PaulRoark.com

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "pr_roark"
<pr_roark@...> wrote:
> ...  Where I might want a high end glossy is
> where it'll be shown without glass. In that
> case, I use Premier Art Print Shield.  I think
> it makes a better coating than the Glop, which
> does not dry as hard.  I find the glop overcoat
> scratches rather easily. 

For some reason I kept thinking it's so tough to cover darker areas of
Eboni with almost any type of coating where GLOP may serve better as a
precoat for such as PrintShield. I remember I had to spray PrintShield
on pretty wet as Eboni absorbs so much of it. Maybe this is not such a
problem if PK is also used.

I'll have to play around with this to find out for myself.

Thanks,
--nick

>... it's so tough to cover darker areas of
> Eboni with almost any type of coating ...

True.

> ... GLOP may serve better as a precoat for such as PrintShield. ...

Yes, maybe we're on the same page here.  I use glop in the initial 
print to help nail down Eboni and reduce the extent of gloss 
differential.  It definitely makes it easier to get a good Print 
Shield coating.

I think the addition of PK at the very end helps substantially also.  
The best results I got had both PK and Eboni firing at 100%.  I think 
if you were able to taper off the glop as the PK came in, you might 
be able to get a reasonably even gloss as you go into the deep 
shadows and then to 100%.  When I've done this, the subsequent Print 
Shield coating is much easier.  It'll take some playing around with 
the mix to get it right.  I have some things posted on this for both 
the 1400 and 1800.

Paul   
www.PaulRoark.com

I went back and read up on your previous posts and your website and it
makes a lot of sense now. What you've done so far will be a good start
for me.

Thanks so much,
--nick

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@...m, "pr_roark"
<pr_roark@...> wrote:

> I think the addition of PK at the very end helps
> substantially also. The best results I got had
> both PK and Eboni firing at 100%. I think if you
> were able to taper off the glop as the PK came
> in, you might be able to get a reasonably even
> gloss as you go into the deep shadows and then
> to 100%. When I've done this, the subsequent
> Print Shield coating is much easier. It'll take
> some playing around with the mix to get it
> right. I have some things posted on this for
> both the 1400 and 1800.