Digital BW, The Print

Clayton- 
    >>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. 
 Sorry for that, Clayton, but no. It's a very good print, and it clearly demonstrates differences between the two printing workflows--which was my point--but there isn't any voodoo here. Its just what you can expect from a properly calibrated/profiled printing workflow.
  
  >>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... 
  I don't think so. I cannot speak for Tyler, but I think we're just seeing what can be accomplished if one is willing to do all the things necessary to control each important variable in the printing process. You simply cannot exercise the same level of control over the printing process with an OEM driver that is made possible by a carefully calibrated/profiled rip-driven workflow. 
 >>...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). 
 I think that fine craftsmanship is rare, and it does require knowledge and skill that extends far beyond the limitations of one's tools. Any individual can make this decision, limited only by circumstance and desire.
  
 
 >> 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? 
  When I was doing research for "The Photographer's Guide to the Digital Darkroom", I evaluated QTR, Bowhaus, ImagePrint, ColorBurst and StudioPrint. There are summaries of each applications strengths and weaknesses, and I'd refer you to that. At K2 Press, Scott and I are using ColorBurst to drive our 9800/UC machine, and Bowhaus to drive a 7600 loaded with Cone's Neutral and Sepia inks. In my opinion, both produce better prints--out of the box, with the supplied printing profiles--than any OEM print driver I've worked with including Epson's ABW. Like StudioPrint, both rip's provide access to the level of control we've been discussing in this thread. Scott (my studio partner) and I really like StudioPrint, but didn't want to deal with multiple platforms in the K2 Press studio (StudioPrint is PC only and we're running Apples). Personally, I think even the relatively more expensive Rips are a bargain if you decide that exercising that level of control is important. The software/hardware costs for calibration/profiling is much more.
  
  >>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? 
  No. They serve well as examples of an attainable goal. Yes. Yes. No. Properly implemented, the main difference between a workflow using large format film originals, versus 35mm, is aesthetic. No. I wouldn't correlate film format to any given printing workflow.
   
 >>Another question, Tyler's final remark seems to point to the inks,
 specifically more grays, as being the defining factor... Your final remark seems to be at odds with that... 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? 
 The defining factor, in my opinion, is the decision about what level of control the photographer makes. We're producing excellent prints using UC inks, both on the older 4000 and the 9800. But, remember, we're not using the OEM driver (at least, not for the majority of our work; we do a couple of print workflows that do use the OEM driver). You can make the case that "the level of control" is directly related to the inks you decide to print with. As I've said before, I see this as essentially an aesthetic issue and not a technical limitation. The most beautiful grayscale prints I've seen--coming our of our studio and by others--has been from dedicated grayscale ("quad") inksets. But, if I need to make a toned grayscale print that lies outside my grayscale inkset, I never hesitate to do so. It's not a technical question or issue, it's an aesthetic one. 
 One last point. There is absolutely NOTHING wrong with working on the OEM path! If a photographer can exercise the level of control they need, to produce the prints that satisfy them, the huge advantage of the OEM path is the fact that more time and energy can go into making, looking at, and evaluating images (as PRINTS, not just on the display!). Tobie's posts to this effect make a lot of sense to me. 
 
  Hope this helps. You know, it's also possible that Tyler just isn't human... 
 
  Bill Kennedy K2 Press Author of "The Photographer's Guide to the Digital Darkroom"
  
 
        
________________________________________________________________________
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]