Digital BW, The Print

Mike,

Answers below your questions....

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Brubaker family <brubaker_family@...> wrote:
>
> For forum readers, I am embarrassed to note that my listing of the photographer's name and web site in my original post were not correct. Â He is Richard Bickle, and the web site is richardbicklephotography.com.
> Jon,
> Thank you for your reply.
> It is very interesting to learn about these technical details of the Iris process. I am inferring from your description that the Unitone and Digital Platinum were dye inks? 

Yes correct.

> Otherwise it doesn't seem that the continuous tone output of the layering of the dots would work, ie. the continuous tone effect requires the translucency of dye inks and would not be possible with pigment inks. 

No. I've layered pigment ink on other pigment inks with wonderful transluscent effect. Pigment today is so small that it does not behave like an opaque material as much as it does as a dense material.

> Other than the anecdotal data on the print you have had on your wall for 19 years, is there any data on the longevity of the Unitone prints similar to the current data on pigment inks? 

The original Unitone prints were made from ConeTech WGFA (Wide Gamut Fine Art) inks which WIR tested in 1994 at more than 24 years, which was greater than Cibachrome. I know that 24 does not seem like a long time - but color chemical photography is not very long lived. Cibachrome gave a 200 year warranty for marketing. The real results are shorter.  But, WIR did not test Unitone - only color patches for the WGFA inks that were used to make Unitone. I do not think WIR had yet created a test target for monochrome back then.


> (Maybe you could send a Unitone print to Mark Ardenberg for his testing?)

I could possibly make a Unitone Print for Mark using the American Inkjet Pinnacle Gold inks. I no longer make IRIS inks.

> If the prints I saw used the Unitone inks, then it sounds like that process contributes to the perceived lack of grain that even the 30 X 40 prints show.  I infer that an alternate process, particularly pigment inks, would show more grain? I am sure that each step of Ron and his printer's process is maximized to minimize the perceived grain.

Piezography prints do not show dots, unless you mean film grain?  Grain is a function of scanning. Unitone would show grain if grain was present. But, IRIS is only 300dpi, sometimes only 150dpi if the 2x replication option is used. So a high resolution scan to make a 30x40 at 150ppi might not resolve grain. Most printers printed at 150ppi as hard as that is to believe. The perceived resolution at 150ppi is about 1000ppi in comparative printer systems.  

> It also sounds like the paper used for these prints is probably a non-inkjet coated paper?

Jamie uses Somerset Velvet for as long as I knew. Somerset Velvet for IRIS is uncoated.

> Would it be technically possible to produce a Unitone-like effect with the Epson dye inks overlaying each other rather than being dithered? That would be interesting to see.

The Ashes and Snow prints I produced for Gregory Colbert have inks that overlay each other. Without going into detail about how I produced the exhibitions, the process did involve layering of ink.  However, have you not seen a Piezography print before? There is no visible dot even with a loupe.  You should join in on the R1800 / R1900 beta for the new Piezography concept if you haven't seen Piezography printing before. I posted for volunteers a few days ago and there are still a few slots open.

> If you have seen any samples of Tyler's best B&W pigment ink prints, how would you compare the Unitone prints to them?

Tyler could take an impact printer, experiment with it for a few weeks, and then knock out masterpieces... so I won't compare with him and his use of the Piezography system.

I can tell you that PiezographyBW compared with Unitone. And that DigitalPlatinum compared to Piezography K7.

Jon Cone
Piezography


> I look forward to your replies.
> Mike Brubaker

snipped