Digital BW, The Print

Hi Clayton:

Any reason why you recommend UT7?  I was actually thinking of trying 
the K7 kit from Piezo?

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