Digital BW, The Print

I need to correct a statement I made about Paul's work. In message
#81389 I said Paul's results were "the same" as mine. Not only do we
not have the same printers, materials, and workflows, but our
resulting outputs were not the same. What was in my brain and what I
should have said is what Paul referred to in message #81079, where a
similar comparison test he made resulted in similar quality
differences between the 2 output systems.
Sorry Paul and thanks for your work looking into these issues.

Greg, sorry but I'd prefer not to share my whole image file with the
internet. As Devo said, "It's a Beautiful World", but there is the
slightest chance someone could take advantage, inconceivable I know...
Tyler


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Roark"
<paul.roark@...> wrote:
>
> 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]
>