Digital BW, The Print

Tyler was good enough to share the original file with which he made the
images at http://tylerboley.com/info/RGB_Quad.jpg   I was mostly curious how
my latest approach compared with those considered the best.  So, I printed
the file with the 2200 "5K+cm" approach now in that printer. I also printed
the image with the 2400 in various configurations, and the 220 with the 3D
inkset.  Tyler has agreed to allow me to post these images, for what they
are worth - which needs to be carefully qualified, below.

 

I don't have a drum scanner, so the best I could do was scan with my Epson
1600 dpi flatbed and reduce the image resolutions to 1000 dpi to match the
dpi of the images Tyler posted.  The flatbed scanner is, obviously, not as
sharp as a drum.  There is probably no way to totally equalize the results,
but an unsharp mask at about 100%, 0.7 pixels, and 0 threshold helps.  I
have not done that sharpening with the image that is posted.  So, those
interested will need to save the images and pull them into Photoshop.  Note
also that the 2400 & driver may be different than the 9800.  Additionally, I
obviously did not try to accurately profile all the images to match them.
All the 2400 images are at default settings.

 

Nonetheless, for what it's worth, the images I scanned are at
http://home1.gte.net/res09aij/Comparisons.jpg   

 

When I initially did a visual comparison of a different file, I felt the
shadow detail was the main difference between the K3 and quad images.  While
scans can show the color dots, I still think that in actual viewing
circumstances the shadow detail differences are what might be seen.  Whether
a good profile can also take care of these is another issue that I am not
addressing here.

 

My mostly in jest suggestion in the post below was based, in part, on the
fact that if a 1600 dpi scanner has trouble seeing major differences, we may
be debating differences that have little impact on the visual quality of
real world prints.  

 

The latest LensWork magazine (Nov-Dec 2006) has an Editorial by Brooks
Jensen, "The Tsunami on the Doorstep" that seems apropos.  It has to do with
what he sees as a paradigm change and the huge volume of work now being
produced, largely due to the new digital tools.  The "Old Paradigm: Making a
photograph is technically difficult and time consuming. Good ones are rare.
The ability/talent to make a fine art photograph is a rare skill won after
long training. ."  New Paradigm:  Making a photograph is technically easy
(well at least easier) and can be reproduced at will. ."  Of course there is
more to the editorial, and the magazine, perhaps even more so than usual, is
full of inspiring images - well worth buying.

 

(For information on the open source approaches I'm starting to use, see
http://home1.gte.net/res09aij/4K+.pdf )

 

Paul

www.PaulRoark.com <http://www.paulroark.com/>  

 

 

 

 

  _____  

From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Paul
Roark
Sent: Saturday, November 18, 2006 8:36 AM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [Digital BW] K3 vs. quad (Was Follow-up ...)

 

Greg wrote:

>Changing the name, sorry nothing more to add.

Maybe a better title would have been, "How many angels can dance on the head
of a pin."

C. David wrote: 

> ... viewing distance is a whole different matter. 

> I haven't had much complaint about the highlights for 

> some time now (except in terms of hue control), its the shadow 

> detail I've been most interested in!

Shadow detail was the only area I saw where visible differences existed
between the best rip output I have and my 2400 output. And there a good
profile would probably make the difference.

I was also surprised at how little difference there was between RGB and ABW
mode print quality. It almost looks like Epson added the ABW mode more to
facilitate easy user control than to improve print quality.

Bill Schaub, editor of Shutterbug, noted in the latest issue: "The idea
that quality prints could only be made by a small set of darkroom workers or
those who could afford custom labs is now finished."

My conclusion is that it's the human behind the machine, not the printer or
rip itself that is going to make the visible differences. 

I've been using a rip lately, but I do so because it allows me to control
the printer better, not because it is inherently better.

Paul

www.PaulRoark.com <http://www.paulroar <http://www.paulroark.com/> k.com/> 

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

 



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