Digital BW, The Print

Hello David,

>I have been doing BO printing for the past 3 years using an Epson 
>2200...Most of my images have been captured with my Canon 20D.  
>While the quality of my images on the screen appear to be pretty 
>descent, the prints that I obtain are not entirely smooth.  I 
>always thought that the reason for this was due to the limitations 
>BO printing.
> 
>Recently I downloaded images from the U.S. Library of Congress. 
>The BO prints that I have obtained from these files (1936 images 
>captured on large format film and scanned) is absolutely amazing...
>...what are the physical attributes of those large format files 
>that are making my BO prints look so great?

The size.  In general the more real estate you have in the image
source, the better the print will be.  I get better prints from 4x5
scans than from 35mm scans (even at higher resolution, because the
grain is more sharply defined).  Even in prints as small as 5x7 there
is a certain clarity and presence in the print from a 4x5 neg, which
at that size is close to a contact print.  This comes through just as
clearly with ink printing as it does in emulsion prints.  Digital
capture doesn't change this fundamental reality, even though there is
no film grain.  As good as 8mp digicams are today, there's a
difference between it and a 4x5 or bigger scan.


>Am I better off changing my image capture approach to medium format 
>or large format film? 

Yes, no, and "it depends" <g>.  If you want the large format look
badly enough, then you'll have to go to large format shooting (or
maybe get the new $30,000 39mp P45 back and a camera to hold it if you
can afford it and want to stay digital).  I don't know what you're
using, but perhaps it's possible that your 20d images can be improved
(better lenses?).


>The bottom line is that I have proven that BO is very capable - it 
>simply requires extremely high quality files.

BO can be an unpredictable beastie.  Given a particular image size and
source, some prints look great and others look terrible, and it's not
always the usual smooth midtone areas that cause it.  I've had some
that defy the usual rules of thumb.  I've had images that in BO and K3
prints were indistinguishable without a loupe, and others that are
obvious from several feet away.  I've found that I can't predict
whether an image will look good in BO by just viewing it on screen. 
You just have to try a print and see.


>Or should I simply move to a full ink system like Piezo or the 2400? 
>My guess is that using a full ink system can overcompensate for the 
>less than ideal digital files.

Having done BO for four years and now using a 2400 as well, I can say
that there are pros and cons to both.  In general a smoother print
will qualify as "better" to most viewers, but there are images that,
to me, look better in BO (for the usual litany of reasons).  But the
key phrase in your question is "less than ideal digital files".   If a
file is truly less than what you consider ideal, then no printing
technique can make it ideal.  You can't make a silk purse out of a
sow's ear.

One way to find out with relatively little investment is to put UT7 in
your 2200 and make a set of BO/UT7 print pairs of your best images and
compare them.  This will help answer both questions: whether full ink
printing makes a big enough difference to satisfy, and/or whether a
hardware change is called for.


Regards,
Clayton


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