Digital BW, The Print

From what I've seen, 2400 B&W prints lack advantages (other than ease)
over 2200 and newer cheaper Epsons assuming dedicated B&W inks and
classic 35mm-shooting roots/aspirations. 

Dots in 2200/MIS grays are seen primarily with loupes on highest
resolution versions of highest gloss papers, and not on the
silver-simulating semi-gloss papers that "art" photographers
increasingly use...certainly not on softer rag papers. I'll concede a
smidgen to pixel peepers, but not to people who most enjoy photographs
as images :-) 

I'll note obvious differences in aesthetic between digicam shooters
and film/scanner types, such as myself.  

I use a Nikon scanner @ 4000ppi, so my midsize (11X17)prints show
sharply resolved grain, reflecting the developer and film choice
(clearly with Acros and Rodinal, minimally with Acros and Emofin, not 
overtly grainy with Neopan 400 @ 1000). Ability to see grain, even
when very fine (as with Emofin/Acros), was an important print goal for
many in wet darkroom practice, an evidence of fine enlarging...though
there were some among us who pretended their 35's were 4X5, which is
another story. 

Black-Only does typically make dots more obvious...it's a crude/happy
approach that can nonetheless look wonderful in smaller (e.g. 6X9)
prints...it helps especially with soft (focus) original images printed
small.  

IMO IMO IMO IMO, probably not relevant to digicam users.

 John Kelly

Hello John,

I'm not sure what the point of your post was, but I have to question
some of your statements.


>From what I've seen, 2400 B&W prints... 

Do you mean ABW prints with the K3 inks?  


>...lack advantages (other than ease) over 2200 and newer cheaper 
>Epsons assuming dedicated B&W inks...

What sort of advantages are you referring to?  

I've used the 2200 and the 2400 and in my experience any advantages or
disadvantages of either machine over the other would depend on the
workflow and skill of the user.  I don't think it's possible to make a
blanket statement that one printer or ink set or combination thereof
is better than another.


>...and classic 35mm-shooting roots/aspirations. 

Why would this make any difference in the print quality, all other
things being equal?


 
>Dots in 2200/MIS grays are seen primarily with loupes on highest
>resolution versions of highest gloss papers, and not on the
>silver-simulating semi-gloss papers that "art" photographers
>increasingly use...certainly not on softer rag papers. 

The same thing could be said of 2400/ABW/K3 prints.  A loupe is needed
to see those dots as well.  I'm not sure what the point is here.  Is
this more a comment on paper types?


>Black-Only does typically make dots more obvious...it's a 
>crude/happy approach that can nonetheless look wonderful in 
>smaller (e.g. 6X9) prints...

Actually, BO prints look better as print size increases because the
typical viewing distance is greater and the graininess is less
obvious.  BO dots are not like film grain, they don't get bigger as
the print size increases.


>...it helps especially with soft (focus) original images printed
>small.  

In my experience BO printing will not make a soft focus image look
sharper (any more than any other printing technique).  A small print
can lessen the obviousness of a soft focus image, but BO doesn't
disguise it any more than any other printing technique.


>I'll note obvious differences in aesthetic between digicam shooters
>and film/scanner types, such as myself.  
>...probably not relevant to digicam users.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here.  In my own experience
I've done digital BW printing with scanned negs (35mm, 645, 6x6, 6x7,
4x5) and with digicams (1/8, 2/3 and APS-C sensors), and have not
found that my approach to printing needs to be changed depending on
the image source (my PS techniques, perhaps, but not the printer). 
Can you explain the connection between this and your 2200 vs 2400
statement?  I'm trying to understand what you're trying to say.


Regards,
Clayton


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

Clayton, that you and I disagree on this and that, and that you aren't
really in the doubt you suggest is OK...it's  healthy. 

The centerpiece of your response does clash with my way of doing
things... I'm of the school that chooses tools, materials and
techniques according to desired results. 

I'd thought previously that we agreed that BO dots suggested
"sharpness" in smaller prints, much like film grain, effectively 
vanishing in larger prints. That vanishing are "better" than obvious
is entirely subjective, just as choice of grainy film/chem was often
preferable to fine grain film/chem. 

It was great when you reported happily that your new printer surpassed
 your old printer (don't recall the adjective you used), but its 
worthwhile to remember that for many "better" has mostly to do with
the image itself. These are just ways of seeing and expressing things,
not to worry.

We all know that pigments with far smaller particle size, producing
much blacker blacks and smoother grays, will be arriving in short
order for old machines and new: workflow-disruptive nirvana in less
than a year, and not just pigments like those offered today in beta.
Todays neo-photo papers will be forgotten by 2008, new ones will kill
them. 

Will far blacker blacks make today's carbon black prints inferior? I
think not, because for many photography and printmaking will remain
ways to realize images.  





--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Clayton Jones"
<cj@...> wrote:

>
> Hello John,
> 
> I'm not sure what the point of your post was, but I have to question
> some of your statements.
> 
> 
> >From what I've seen, 2400 B&W prints... 
> 
> Do you mean ABW prints with the K3 inks?  
> 
> 
> >...lack advantages (other than ease) over 2200 and newer cheaper 
> >Epsons assuming dedicated B&W inks...
> 
> What sort of advantages are you referring to?  
> 
> I've used the 2200 and the 2400 and in my experience any advantages or
> disadvantages of either machine over the other would depend on the
> workflow and skill of the user.  I don't think it's possible to make a
> blanket statement that one printer or ink set or combination thereof
> is better than another.
> 
> 
> >...and classic 35mm-shooting roots/aspirations. 
> 
> Why would this make any difference in the print quality, all other
> things being equal?
> 
> 
>  
> >Dots in 2200/MIS grays are seen primarily with loupes on highest
> >resolution versions of highest gloss papers, and not on the
> >silver-simulating semi-gloss papers that "art" photographers
> >increasingly use...certainly not on softer rag papers. 
> 
> The same thing could be said of 2400/ABW/K3 prints.  A loupe is needed
> to see those dots as well.  I'm not sure what the point is here.  Is
> this more a comment on paper types?
> 
> 
> >Black-Only does typically make dots more obvious...it's a 
> >crude/happy approach that can nonetheless look wonderful in 
> >smaller (e.g. 6X9) prints...
> 
> Actually, BO prints look better as print size increases because the
> typical viewing distance is greater and the graininess is less
> obvious.  BO dots are not like film grain, they don't get bigger as
> the print size increases.
> 
> 
> >...it helps especially with soft (focus) original images printed
> >small.  
> 
> In my experience BO printing will not make a soft focus image look
> sharper (any more than any other printing technique).  A small print
> can lessen the obviousness of a soft focus image, but BO doesn't
> disguise it any more than any other printing technique.
> 
> 
> >I'll note obvious differences in aesthetic between digicam shooters
> >and film/scanner types, such as myself.  
> >...probably not relevant to digicam users.
> 
> I'm not sure what you're trying to say here.  In my own experience
> I've done digital BW printing with scanned negs (35mm, 645, 6x6, 6x7,
> 4x5) and with digicams (1/8, 2/3 and APS-C sensors), and have not
> found that my approach to printing needs to be changed depending on
> the image source (my PS techniques, perhaps, but not the printer). 
> Can you explain the connection between this and your 2200 vs 2400
> statement?  I'm trying to understand what you're trying to say.
> 
> 
> Regards,
> Clayton
> 
> 
> Info on black and white digital printing at    
> http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm
>