Digital BW, The Print

Hell no, it is a pissy, rainy day here anyway - and, I understand. 
When newstand magazines such as B&W and Lenswork are routinely 
hitting 2.0, it makes me wonder what I am doing accepting the 1.6 - 
1.7 range. The last 2 weeks, I have not done much in my spare time 
than putz around with NanoChromes. At this time I have given up the 
idea that they may be a panacea to all our woes (desires?). 
But.....the last hope is to use the NanoChrome K with more 
traditional inks in the LK, LLK, LLLK (sorry, I had to do that 
because I am working on a Quad set right now). If you push the K far 
enough into the shadows, the cool tone of the ink becomes rather moot.

Regards.

Shilesh

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Steven 
Karafyllakis" <steve@s...> wrote:
>
> Sorry Shilesh, didn't mean to pop your bubble. I had an interesting 
> weekend last week: I took part in an outdoor art fair, little white 
> tent and all. I had both inkjets and FB prints under glass on the 
> walls, and inkjets only in flip-racks on the side. 
> 
> The most common question the entire weekend is 'what's a carbon-
> pigment inkjet print?' Good opportunity to educate a lot of people.
> 
> Many also expressed surprise and amazement at how good the inkjets 
> looked, on the wall next to some of my best FB prints. But there 
> were a few-(not many mind you) that immediately said 'yea, they're 
> good, but I can still see the difference'. That says to me  we (or 
> at least I) still have that 10% to go, though we are so much closer 
> than a couple years ago.
> And yes, you can make the argument that it is it's own medium and 
> should be accepted on its own terms, but face it-in most ways, for 
> most uses, digital printing isn't really going to be a parallel 
> technology. It is a replacement, and I for one don't want to have 
to 
> make any excuses or feel like we have given up anything in quality 
> for the sake of convenience or whatever. So pardon me if I keep 
> pushing till we get there! (dirty job... etc.,etc.)
> 
> Steve
> 
> 
>  --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Shilesh 
Jani" 
> <shileshjani@b...> wrote:
> >
> > Steve,
> > 
> > Thanks a lot - you've just ruined the "feel-good" I was having!
> > 
> > How's it going? Haven't seen you in a print exchange in a while. 
> > Would love to see more of the Florida Swampland and the Greek 
> Isles. 
> > 
> > Shilesh
> > 
> > --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Steven 
> > Karafyllakis" <steve@s...> wrote:
> > >
> > > Matte paper might well be reflectionless held in your hand, 
with 
> no 
> > > glass-but if you put a silver gel print, a semi-matte inkjet 
> print 
> > > and a matte inkjet print under glass and hang them on the wall, 
> > they 
> > > all become equally reflective, since you are now looking at the 
> > > reflections of the glass. The factors that do not get equalized 
> are 
> > > the more important ones-the tonal range and dmax of the FB 
> print, 
> > > the better dmax and shadow detail retention of the semi-matte 
> > > inkjet. So I for one (since we seem to be conducting another 
> > > impromptu poll) am not ready to write of the FB look and 
> > advantages. 
> > > I've said it before, I'll say it again: I want it all.
> > > 
> > >  my 2c worth
> > > 
> > > Steven Karafyllakis
> > > 
> > > --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Shilesh 
> Jani" 
> > > <shileshjani@b...> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hear, hear. Now let us (Epson, or anyone else for that matter)
> > find 
> > > a 
> > > > the K ink which gives us Dmax in the 2 range on matte papers.
> > > > 
> > > > --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Clayton 
> > > Jones" 
> > > > <cj@c...> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Paul,
> > > > > 
> > > > > >...they may have a paper that comes close to the fabled 
> silver 
> > > > print, 
> > > > > >but after getting used to matte papers, I'm not sure I 
want 
> to 
> > > go 
> > > > > >back to the silver print look for display prints.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Exactly my sentiments, and "fabled" is a good word.  I held 
> on 
> > > to 
> > > > that
> > > > > standard in my mind for a long time, but last summer I 
> searched
> > > > > through a box of old fiber base silver prints (mostly on 
> > Oriental
> > > > > Seagull, Ilford MGFB and Galerie) looking for something and 
> was 
> > > > struck
> > > > > by how distracting and annoying the glare and reflections 
> > were.  
> > > I'd
> > > > > forgotten how bad it was and realized how much I've come to 
> > love 
> > > the
> > > > > completely reflectionless carbon ink prints.  
> > > > > 
> > > > > I think that was the final step in completely leaving 
behind 
> > the 
> > > > last
> > > > > traces of desire to recreate the look of emulsion prints of 
> any 
> > > > sort.
> > > > > I believe I have now, even subconsciously, fully accepted 
and
> > > > > embraced the fact that we are working with a different 
> medium.  
> > > > > 
> > > > > Regards,
> > > > > Clayton
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > Info on black and white digital printing at    
> > > > > http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>