Digital BW, The Print

Paul,

I have been experimenting with an ink set of several grey shades (MIS Eboni along with 
LK,LLK, LLLK) and 2 diluted toners ( LC & LM).  I am getting very nice results, but have 
longed for a more dimensional split tone.  While I am able to get a split tone...I always 
wonder if there is a better way.

My question is about the varied ways I might achieve this.  I note that Jon Cone is 
marketing his "Limited Edition", which implies that he is using a varied blended ink in all  
ink positions.  I cannot not buy into Cone's marketing schemes, but I definitely can buy 
into the concept of subtle split toning.  Great B&W prints do have a dimensional quality, 
whereas prints that have an all over tone can seem flat because the TONE can have an 
overriding influence.  

I am less interested in Archival than I am in great looking with reasonable stability...ie my 
lifetime.    A  wee bit of toner surely cannot have a big impact in 20 or 30 years... can it???  
You have mentioned MIS magenta as not so good...how bad is it?   My assumption is that a 
blended approach with MIS inks surely cannot be much worse than Epson's and Wilhelm's 
figures with B&W longevity.  Am I mistaken?

Here is how I am currently getting a split tone, but wonder if there is a better way...on the 
assumption that I am seeking my personal holy grail of custom inksets.   

1.  I have made multiple QTR profiles(warm, neutral, cool etc).  In making the QTR profiles, 
I have specified custom Photoshop curves for the toner to lay proportionally more toner in 
the shadows to compensate for the greater grey density in the shadows.   This helps get a 
better definition of tone throughout the tonal range without over doing the toning in the 
highlights.

2.  In QTR, I am then using the blending feature to be able to tone the shadows, midtones 
and highlights somewhat differently.  And yes, I am getting a subtle split tone. Quite nice 
actually.

Is there any advantage or disadvantage to doing a blended ink approach?  or can I achieve 
the same results with my above approach?   One more question.... why are you currently 
avoiding blended carbon with toner inks?    

It would seem to me that theoretically the more greys, the smoother the result...but surely 
there is a point where there is no gain...at least with the smoothness of some of these 
newer 1.5 dot printers.  

Thanks for all your contributions to this ongoing journey!!!

Phil Brouwer

Phil,


> I have been experimenting with an ink set of several 
> grey shades (MIS Eboni along with LK,LLK, LLLK) 
> and 2 diluted toners ( LC & LM).  
> I am getting very nice results, but have 
> longed for a more dimensional split tone.  
> While I am able to get a split tone...I always 
> wonder if there is a better way.

That's one of the tools in our quiver.  My more recent PDFs -- 
like http://www.paulroark.com/BW-Info/UT14.pdf --
contain graphical "pictures" that show the nature and extent of the 
split-tones that the various inks have.  Even monotone, 100% carbon 
inks have split tones that vary with what paper is used. 

 
> My question is about the varied ways I might achieve this.  


> I am less interested in Archival than I am in great looking with 
reasonable stability...
  
> You have mentioned MIS magenta as not so good...how bad is it?

Much better than a common dye.  It's not bad.

However, note that I use R800 blue in the toners, not MIS M, in my 
recent blended inkset like UT-14.  

You could probably dilute R800 Blue with the generic, home-brew, base 
such as what I use for Carbon-6.  
See http://www.paulroark.com/BW-Info/Ink-Mixing.pdf

>   My assumption is that a 
> blended approach with MIS inks surely cannot be much worse 
> than Epson's and Wilhelm's figures with B&W longevity. 

My MIS blends consistently beat the Epson OEM "ABW" mode test strips 
that were used as standard in my fade testing.  These are all good 
inks. 


> Here is how I am currently getting a split tone, 
> but wonder if there is a better way...

> I am seeking my personal holy grail of custom inksets.

And it may vary with time and be different for different uses and 
tastes.  It really is the personal journey that matters.
 
> 1.  I have made multiple QTR profiles(warm, neutral, cool etc). 
> In making the QTR profiles, 
> I have specified custom Photoshop curves for the toner 
> to lay proportionally more toner in 
> the shadows to compensate for the greater grey density 
> in the shadows.   

> This helps get a better definition of tone throughout 
> the tonal range without over doing the toning in the 
> highlights.

> 2.  In QTR, I am then using the blending feature to be 
> able to tone the shadows, midtones 
> and highlights somewhat differently.  And yes, 
> I am getting a subtle split tone. Quite nice actually.
 
> Is there any advantage or disadvantage to doing a 
> blended ink approach?  or can I achieve 
> the same results with my above approach? 

If you're asking the pros and cons of blended carbon + color inksets 
with separate carbon inks and light pure color toners like LC and LM, 
both have their place.

In large format printers I have had trouble with ink tone shifts due 
to ink separation with MIS blended inksets.  This only happens when a 
printer sides idle for more than a few days.  So, in larger format 
printers I do not recommend blended inksets for individual 
photographers who do not use their large printers on a regular basis.

Blended inksets generally do fine on desktop printers, both because 
the carts get lots of agitation when the printer is used, and the 
printers are more likely to be used regularly.  

Blended inks are smoother because the carbon tones down the high 
gamut colors.

Blended inksets may be easier to profile due to the very low gamut of 
the cool inks.  Also, one most of my variable-tone inksets we only 
vary the tone along a single axis, not that three dimensional RGB 
space.

Monotone inksets, including the carbon ones I now use, are the 
smoothest and easiest of the bunch.  They too can have split tones of 
different types. 

Knowing how to use spectros and compare the Lab A and B graphs of 
different inksets and split tones is the easiest and most accurate 
way I know to communicate and compare these things.

> ... why are you currently avoiding blended carbon with toner inks?

The 100% carbon inks I'm using are, in my view, the most archival, 
simplest, and cheapest there are.  And I like the way they look.  I 
like the purity of the medium.  I like the "color managed" workflow.  
I like the lack of glogs, color artifacts, concerns about color batch 
differentials.  I still prefer matte paper.  

"Carbon on cotton" has been the goal for a long time, and I'm very 
happily there (well, almost and not that there won't still bee some 
improvements in the future).

Paul  
www.PaulRoark.com