Digital BW, The Print

Clayton-
 
 I think some of this is better addressed by Tyler, especially anything related to how the two prints were produced, or what his intentions were. About all I can add is the difference in the two prints Tyler sent me is easily noticable by eye. It's not microscopic.
 
 There is most definately a direct relationship between the quality of input data and output data. If I make two scans, one from a good 35mm film original, another from large format, I'd expect to see more image forming data from the larger piece of film. Larger film is capable of capturing more data, should contain more data, and if the scan is made properly, the image file should have more image forming data to work with. I should be able to see this in Photoshop. If I'm careful in Photoshop I should have more imaging forming data to send to my inkjet printer.
 
 The thing is, a properly calibrated/profiled rip printing workflow will present more of this imaging forming data in the print compared to using any OEM printing workflow. The final quality of that print is effected by many variables, and that is what we're trying to control. The OEM print driver is a black box. You can fiddle with the dials and switches, but you have precious little control over the important variables. For example, every OEM print driver I've ever worked with lays down more ink than is necessary. Sometimes a lot more. A professional rip provides control over each ink channel. It also allows the ink density across all channels to be linearized. With a printer in this calibrated state, you can then author an accurate print profile. The result? You can actually see in the print more of the image forming data that exists in the file. You have a "better" print, regardless of the ink set you've used to make that print (dye or pigment, OEM or third-party, color or quad).
 
 As in the wet darkroom, if I desire to make grainless, larger, sharper prints with more image forming data (shadow and highlight detail) with better internal contrast, a larger piece of film (and better shooting/processing technique) is a good idea. Inkjet printing does not alter this equation in any meaningful way (although Photoshop extends by several magnitudes the level of control I can exercise over the image...so I have that going for me. That's nice.). If I want "contact print" quality from a 35mm film original in the wet darkroom, I'm going to print it small (or make people view it from across the street). Ditto in the digital darkroom.
 
 K2 Press does consulting and training in our area for individual photographers, businesses, and institutions that need help with color management or to solve printing issues. Photographers often hire us to author custom print profiles that are typically used with their OEM print drivers. These custom profiles always result in better prints from the OEM print driver (and improve soft proofing in Photoshop). These profiles, a step in the right direction and very useful, still cannot exploit the full potential of the printer, however. The OEM printing path won't allow it. Nonetheless, there are lots of photographers that will be happy on the OEM path, especially if they can improve their prints with accurate print profiles. They just don't have the time, inclination, or need to push the process further. I think this is Tobie's point, or one of them, and I completely agree with it.
 
 Or, said another way: I'd rather experience a beautifully seen image adequately printed than a poorly seen one beautifully printed. I value highly those exceptional times when I see a beautiful seen image printed beautifully, a realized image. I value craftsmanship, and understand it's pursuit as a means of self exploration and growth, but it is the handmaiden of vision and inspiration.
 
 
 Bill Kennedy
 K2 Press
 Author of "The Photographer's Guide to the Digital Darkroom"
 
 ps- yes, "Tyler-like" prints can be made from 35mm negatives. One just has to make good decisions. And, Edward Weston said he could make good prints on "a door matt".
 
 
 
 
    
 -----Original Message-----
 From: cj@...
 To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
 Sent: Fri, 17 Nov 2006 2:34 PM
 Subject: [Digital BW] Re: Follow-up to Tyler's slithering from the cave
 
     Bill,
 
 Thanks for the reply, it cleared up some of the questions. However
 there are still some unconnected dots, so let me try again, maybe I
 can ask it better (I'm not trying to give you a hard time, but just
 want to resolve this question).
 
 >The defining factor, in my opinion, is the decision about what 
 >level of control the photographer makes...
 >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. 
 
 You have clarified that your central point is about control, but it
 did not really address my question about how your point differs from
 or relates to Tyler's post. Tyler's main emphasis was on the
 rendering of fine detail which he attributed to the number of grays
 and the RGB driver's lack of ability to distribute the dots well
 enough. He used the analogy of a contact print to describe the
 difference he was seeing, and this is what led my thinking to the film
 format question.
 
 Even in a relatively crude BO print there is a huge difference in
 prints from 4x5 and 35mm negs. It is pretty much just as we were used
 to seeing in darkroom prints - nothing has changed in that regard. I
 see the same difference in my K3 prints, and my conclusion is that
 regardless of what printing system is used, image size is always a
 major factor. 
 
 Tyler's example blowups show what happens on a pretty microscopic
 level. There is a large amount of fine detail in that tiny piece of
 print, which he said was 6.5x9 from a 5x7 neg - very little
 magnification and essentially a contact print. Seems to me that if
 the big difference is the ability to render detail at that level, with
 a small image source requiring a large degree of magnification there
 may not be much detail at that level to be rendered. This was the
 essence of my question whether Tyler-like (or contact print-like)
 results are closely tied to using large format images.
 
 Your reply: "...the main difference between a workflow using large
 format film originals, versus 35mm, is aesthetic" did not seem to
 address this. Isn't the aesthetic part of it directly a result of the
 technical realities? 
 
 This brings me back to your emphasis on control. Seems like you are
 attributing the difference in those prints to something different than
 what Tyler is saying. The issue of control seems to me more the realm
 of getting open shadows, desired contrast, transitions between zones,
 tone distribution, etc.
 
 The reason I'm digging at this is I'm trying to get a handle on some
 slippery concepts that will help people who are just getting started.
 If the difference in Tyler's examples can be expected when using a
 5x7 camera, what difference can be expected for someone using 35mm or
 645? Seems to me it ought to be correspondingly smaller, control
 issues aside. Would you agree?
 
 In the film world we could make some definitive statements: If you
 want contact print quality you have to use a large format camera. 
 Every format down from there has it's corresponding compromise in the
 print. Seems to me that the same rule applies here. Is it fair to
 suggest that Tyler-like prints can be made from 35mm negs?
 
 I'm not contesting what Tyler said nor what you said, but am just
 trying to sort out what seems like overlapping and confusing ideas. I
 pretty regularly get emails from people who are confused and/or
 discouraged by what they read in this forum. I'm constantly learning
 like everyone else and am always trying to clarify, sort out and
 understand the various issues. Thanks very much.
 
 Regards,
 Clayton
 
 Info on black and white digital printing at 
 http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm
 
      
________________________________________________________________________
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]