Digital BW, The Print

Tyler,
 
 As usual, I'm late getting into this thread but, because your post strikes a deep cord with me, I want to throw in a couple of comments and opinions.
 
 To my knowledge there is no canned printing solution that is capable of producing the best quality print from any given system--Epson, Canon, HP or otherwise. None of the OEM drivers, including the Epson ABW, is capable of fully exploiting the capability of a given printer/ink/paper combination. BowHaus, ImagePrint, QTR--won't do it, either. ImagePrint basically substitutes one "black box" for another. At least BowHaus and QTR open the box. 
 
 My point is: if one really wants to see what a given system is capable of, they have to control the basic variables that determine how the printer is applying ink to paper. This includes ink limiting, linearization, and accurately authored print profiles. This requires a LOT of time and money. And love. And a good sense of humor. And time. And money.
 
 More important, even if one can afford the software and hardware they still have to master a steep learning curve. When teaching I try to stress the idea that every photographer has to find their comfort level; the printing process that makes most sense to them. And that decision, in turn, will be reflected in their prints. If they can produce the print they need with the OEM driver and canned profiles (including ABW), terrific. Nothing wrong with that. If they cannot, they have to navigate the learning curve off the OEM path. This can take one down the rabbit hole pretty quickly, but that's the price of admission.
 
 At K2 Press, we're currently running a 9800 with the OEM K3 inkset, and a 7600 with Cone's Neutral and Sepia inks. We print through ColorBurst with the K3's, and use BowHaus to run the 7600. I think our approach is basically like yours, Tyler. The 7600 gives us a very beautiful dedicated grayscale printing solution. The 9800 allows us to print color, tinted grayscale, and PDN's for platinum/palladium printing and photogravuer.
 
 Each printer set-up has it's own character, strengths and weaknesses. I use both all the time, for our clients and my own work (but I have to say, for grayscale printing the Cone inks are my default standard). But, I also use an Epson C84 with Paul's EZ inks to make really good, useful, work prints.
 
 We're pretty excited about the new Canon and HP printers. And, who knows, the OEM results with one of these machines might be exactly what a given photographer wants or needs. Likewise, I think that tools like PrintFIX Pro are pretty exciting because they provide a relatively easy way for photographers to assume more control over the basic variables.
 
 Bill Kennedy
 K2 Press
 Author of "The Photographer's Guide to the Digital Darkroom", Allworth Press
 
 
    
 -----Original Message-----
 From: tyler@tylerboley.com
 To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
 Sent: Sat, 11 Nov 2006 8:17 PM
 Subject: [Digital BW] the times, they aren't a-changing
 
     There's been considerable talk about the enticing new printers from
 Epson's competitors, and various OEM solutions from these and the
 latest generation Epsons with regard to B&W printing capability. I
 can't possibly count the number of conversations I've had in the last
 6 months on and off line about this, the basic tone being- there's no
 advantage to monochromatic inksets and product developers for the
 masses finally have my fine print aesthetic best interests at heart.
 What has struck me as distinctly odd is that most people involved in
 staying current about high end B&W ink printing know better. That may
 be one reason why they don't take part in these discussions, they are
 irrelevant to them. For some strange reason I'm not that smart, I'm
 part of this community and chose to remain for now...
 I work with UCK3s every day, with a 9800, rgb driver, or RIP. I use it
 for color, and monochrome outside the gamut of the mono inksets here.
 I'm fully aware of what it can do, and can't. In fact, even for mono
 (strong sepia, for example) the epson driver is less adequate here, we
 make special ink setups and profiles for that in the RIP.
 Anyway, take a look here-
 
 http://tylerboley.com/info/RGB_Quad.jpg
 
 these are sections about .8" high, one from the 9800 UCK3 w/ RGB
 driver and custom profile on HPR, the other a straight quad on the
 9600, also HPR. Both at 1440, drum scanned at 2000 dpi and downsized
 to 1000dpi for posting here. 4000 dpi would have described the dots
 better and the difference would have been greater.
 The difference is obvious. Clearly there is photographic information
 in the file that the RGB driver operating normally is incapable of
 describing on paper. Not only resolution details, but levels of gray
 and tonal subtleties simply non-existent in one and not the other. To
 me, this constitutes "better". No question. That's what we want from
 output systems, accurate translation of data to the paper, subjective
 issues temporarily aside.
 I can't afford to constantly upgrade, I'm a very small business sole
 proprietor. So this is not even the current mono ink state of the art,
 I'm not touting that or even my setup. If this was a well done K7 or
 K6 (of any brand), particularly at 2880, the difference would be even
 more striking.
 Can you see the difference by eye, is this dishonest? You can see it,
 clearly, and my eyes are old. One looks like large format, the other
 medium or fine grain 35mm, these are about 6.5 x 9" prints from 5x7
 drum scanned neg. I've not shown any sky, grainy in one and cream in
 the other. But you shouldn't believe stuff like that, it's just words.
 If you think these differences are relevant to you, look into them
 yourself.
 
 Here 's what I'm NOT talking about-
 You should or should not care about this difference, be willing to pay
 for it, or that it will be relevant to your style or source data.
 That you should prefer any particular method. I rarely even mention my
 setup on list, I have no interest in talking anyone into anything.
 
 Here's what I AM talking about-
 From a purely technical standpoint, writing complex and nuanced
 monochrome data to paper, more grays and/or blacks than currently
 available from OEM solutions (at least the Epson K3s) are still
 better. Demonstrably and significantly. I've heard the HP dither is
 more random and photographic, but the Canon coarser, what those would
 do in this test remains to be seen.
 Slightly surprised we have to go back and demonstrate this again,
 actually. OK, slithering back into my cave... well, on the road actually.
 Tyler
 
      
________________________________________________________________________
Check out the new AOL.  Most comprehensive set of free safety and security tools, free access to millions of high-quality videos from across the web, free AOL Mail and more.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]