Digital BW, The Print

I've been reading this thread a bit. I think the "print as object" is really what we are all fascinated by. And the more varied ways we get there, the better. My focus has always been to make the most interesting print possible in whatever way possible. I went to digital because it was commercially viable and I liked the quality of matte ink prints that you just couldn't get in the darkroom. 

But if I needed to go back into the DR for a project because that is what the project called for, I wouldn't hesitate for a second. But (in my current imaginings for some recent work I'd do in the DR) I wouldn't just automatically  be printing with some default paper/dev combo. I would be using Dektol and most likely Berger paper. Or maybe Dektop and Ilf MG. That would be a specific decision that I would make along with the lens/light-source, etc.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that there is nothing wrong with ABW vs K7 vs Silver. The only thing wrong is if you are using that process because a: it's the easiest available process, b: you compromise some amount of your creative will to it, c: it's not because it does something for you that no other process can do.


On the technical side . . . .


I've used the following digital BW processes and I can personally rate them as such (taking out paper variables—etc).

K4 (SP3000) Great at its time. Better physical res for any BW dig print I had seen yet.
Double K4 (SP7000) Same as 3000 but seemed to have better physical resolution.
K6 (SP7000) (not as good as double K4 with the stuff I was printing. Too many dots.)
CMYK icc RIP 9600 (Spend 3000 dollars wasting paper and never got a great profile that could print as good as ABW or K4 or QTR.)
QTR K2 9600 (great. A bit less detail in shadows than K4 or K7)
K7 (SP9600) (Whoa!! The first time I could rival the quality of a larger than 20x24 silver print in resolution and shadow detail.)
K4Split (SP9600) (Split toning without metamerism! Yeah!)
K7 (SP4000) (Holy sh%t look at that detail!) === current small format printer.
QTR K3 (SP4800, SP4000) (Total flexibility in hue in all three tonal regions. Open-source. You can build an ICC linearization for it. Less shadow fidelity than K6/7 but maybe more than K4 single on the 9600)
QTR K7 (SP4000, SP9600) (I actually like Studioprint better. I cut my teeth on that system and I feel like it's more luminous. K7 feels too perfectly linearized. Too flat.)
ABW (11880, 3800, 4800) with Epson Ink (11880 rocks. The other printers show a lot of metamerism. It just doesn't fly in differing light sources for me. Compare them to silver prints and they lack spirit to me.)
ABW (4800) Cone Ink. (ech. Don't try. The driver can't be internally linearized.)
QTR (4800) Cone ink. (less metamerism than 3800 ABW in my opinion. QTR puts more K down than ABW. It rules ABW anyday in my book and gives you more toning options + internal linearization and won't f' up every time Apple updates their OS.)

I might of missed a few in there. Some 9800 stuff.. My brain is fuzzy. 

For me, it's never been all about longevity.  It's been about how shifty the inks are under different light sources. If my print only looks good under one light source, I feel like it's only 1/3 of a print. ABW (besides the x900s and the 11880 and maybe 3880) really doesn't have as good in-room color stability as QTRK3 or the HPZs and those printers still don't compare to even old K4s on the 9600 when it comes to just how adaptable they are as a BW object in a real-world gallery situation.

For those who like the adaptability of ABW, go with QTR. It's just better in my opinion because it gives you more options and a better looking print in XYZ room. QTR (in other-words) is actually "more ways" combined than ABW.

This is just my opinion after years of dealing with artists all of whom have their own wants and opinions.

all the best,
Walker