Digital BW, The Print

Hello Bill ,

Thank for the good report.  This has triggered some thoughts and
questions, I'm wondering if you can clarify it for me.  

You didn't actually say this, but the underlying tone of your remarks
seemed like there was an element of pleasant surprise, as if you were
seeing something this good for the first time.  I still have the K7
and ABW samples you sent me over a year ago so I know you have
already been comparing K7/K3 for a long time (and I have always
assumed you are using a calibrated/profiled/RIP workflow).  I have
always thought of you as one of the really good and knowledgeable
printers in this forum, yet if I read your remarks correctly you are
seeing something extraordinary in that print.  This would seem to
imply that it is something beyond your own normally very high quality
results.  John Dean's response conveyed a similar idea, that Tyler's
prints stand out above even those of other good printers, all using
similar technology:

"When we had those black and white prints laid out in NY to 
judge ink/driver differences, I guess about 6 of the guys 
printed the same image using Studio Print and Piezotone 
quads or Cone K7 inks. They all looked good and quite smooth, 
but the phrase I used at that time to describe Tylers three 
prints was - Three Dimensional...That comes in part from a 
great rip and the knowledge to use it effectively..."


One of my questions is whether the quality of that print is something
that is unattainable by most even very knowledgeable printers using
the best tools and workflows, that Tyler posesses some rare knowledge
and skill beyond the tools that shows up in his prints (and we're
talking technical here, not photographic eye, etc).  

Other questions: Is Tyler's RIP (Studio Print?) better than other
RIPs?  Is it more expensive?  More difficult to use?  Can someone
using QTR or IJC or IP, other things being equal, not expect to get
that kind of result?  (In all my experiments with QTR I never got
results that were worth the extra work.  There was always something
that was unacceptable to me.  The 2400 has its own set of
shortcomings, but my K3 prints look much better than anything I ever
got with QTR/2200 with a variety of curves, inks and techniques).

Does Tyler's print set an example that is unattainable by most, even
with good tools?  Can you get equally good results?  Have you seen
anyone else's prints that are that good?  Is that kind of result only
attainable, even from Tyler, with large format negs?  Do you think
there would be as much difference if the source image was from a 35mm
neg?  IOW, are Tyler's tools/techniques the other side of the large
format coin?  Would it be good advice to a 35mm user to just stick
with the K3 driver because there's not enough data in the image?

Another question, Tyler's final remark seems to point to the inks,
specifically more grays, as being the defining factor:

"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."


Your final remark seems to be at odds with that:

"One last note of clarification. The big difference between 
these two prints is the calibrated/profiled Rip printing 
workflow, not the inks."


In my thinking all these things are interrelated but the dots aren't
all connected.  I'm trying to make sense of it all.  Can you shed some
light and give some perspective to all this?  Thanks very much.


Regards,
Clayton


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