Hello Walt,
Thanks for your thoughtful reply. I share your opinions on many
things you said, but on a few things I feel like my words have been
misunderstood, so let me try to clarify a couple of things.
First, my remarks about the two groups were in no way meant to imply
that one is superior or better than another. I was just trying to
point out what I see happening. It is a fact that in the darkroom
days there were people who were perfectly happy using RC paper and
others for whom RC was unacceptable (regardless of what genre of
photography they did). Those in the 2nd group were not superior, they
just had different needs, desires and expectations. People in both
groups I'm sure spanned the entire spectrum of knowledge, experience
and talent.
Over the past 6 months or so there has been a lot of attention drawn
to the newest glossy papers and the great dmax they were getting with
PKN, various sprays, etc. Some people were raving about it, and
others were saying things like "well I don't like glossy, this won't
do for me", and some others said things like "well, I like the dmax so
maybe I can live with this paper if I reduce the shiny look with a
matte spray", and so on. It was during this time that it first
occurred to me how the two groups had been lumped together with a
shared need in the digital world, but the difference was beginning to
show - some were happy with this new technology and other's weren't.
I was not the first to remark about it in this forum. A few months
ago either Tyler Boley or Ernst Dinkla (I can't remember which) said
something about it. I remember it distinctly because it echoed
exactly what I had been thinking. As time went on the difference
became even more clear, as some people expressed sentiments to the
effect that their ship had come in for BW printing, that the
technology had finally gotten to the point that they had what they had
been wanting all this time, while others, including myself, were still
unsatisfied.
As for my remarks about the 2400 quality, I have to go back a few
years. When I got into this the most popular RIP was IP (QTR didn't
exist). Even back then there were those who liked the results of
mixing in color ink dots and those who didn't, who stuck with the
grayscale inks of the time. Some people raved on and on about the
quality, and others didn't like it. Through print exchanges I saw
prints from just about every system in use at the time, and I
eventually found myself on the side of those who didn't like the color
ink approach. Since then everything has improved, but we still
haven't gotten away from the fact that when color inks are used for
toning, either through color dots on the paper or mixed in the inks,
those colors are discernable. Some people don't mind that, others
don't like it.
When the K3 printers arrived it was interesting to me that all the
reviewers and early user reports raved about the quality of the PK
glossy prints, while little was said about MK/matte. It began to leak
out in various remarks that K3 didn't offer much improvement for MK
(to which I now agree; as someone else already said, Epson has finally
gotten to where the 3pp folks have already been for some time). I
began to get the idea that K3 would be fine for the RC types but not
for the matte paper fine art crowd. I have seen glossy and matte K3
prints. They are very fine to a point, but they do not satisfy me.
The main thing for me is the coloration.
It has become clear to me over these years that people can get used to
and accept something they experience over and over. I've had people
send me prints they raved about which I didn't like, and particularly
in the area of coloration. I have received prints that were supposed
to look like selenium toned fiber, and all I saw was a bunch of ugly
pinkish magenta tint. In prints that were supposed to look like sepia
I saw yellowish-pinkish-orangey colors...didn't look at all like sepia
to me. In prints that some raved about as beautiful warm tone looked
like ugly dull hershey bar chocolate.
I got into BO printing for various reasons, and one of the results of
that is that I never got used to seeing color toned inks. I was able
to get a variety of tones from the different papers, and the tones
were pure. So my eyes have never gotten used to and accepted the
coloration. I don't like it, it looks fake to me. I'm looking at the
2400 MK print right now as I write this, and I can see hints of
yellow, magenta and cyan in different places in the ramp. I don't
want that in my prints.
Other issues are Dmax and luminance. Along with pure tones I've
gotten used to the excellent dmax that Eboni BO gives on matte papers,
and the extraordinary luminance. I have yet to see a print made with
a full ink set that matches it. Lots of prints can look great to the
eye by themselves. But put them next to something else and suddenly
things you didn't notice before become apparent. I was very impressed
with this 2400 print in the store. I had the same "Wow!" response
that others have reported. I looked at it with a loupe and saw a very
smooth ramp with no dither banding. Even the dmax looked good and the
highlights looked sparkly. On the way home I was thinking about
buying one.
Then I printed the same image with Eboni BO and suddenly, except for
the smoothness of course, the 2400 print looked anemic. It lacks the
dmax and the luminance, and the coloration is obvious. It just
doesn't do what I want.
I don't expect that all matte paper users will dislike the printer
(obviously you are one who likes it), but I suspect there will be many
for whom it doesn't make the grade, for one reason or another. I do
expect that a very large percentage of the glossy paper users will
like it.
But none of this is to imply superiority. I understand very well that
different people have different needs. However I can't prevent
someone from interpreting my words that way if they are so inclined.
Not much I can do about that except say what I'm saying.
As for photographic genres, I have a huge respect for AA and others of
the west coast school, particularly E. Weston and Imogen Cunningham.
I also love the works of Steiglitz and Laura Gilpin in the platinum
realm. In the street genre not only do I admire Bresson and
Friedlander, but also Boubat, Riboud, Kertesz, Lartigue, Levitt,
Lavenson, Erwitt and Sudek. These all have a place in my book
collection, and my books don't rot on the shelves. I regularly go
through and enjoy various ones as the mood strikes. So please don't
interpret from my remarks that I'm a fine art west coast elitist. And
nor do I associate non-zonie photography with RC prints. I once saw a
large Bresson exhibit, about 140 prints, all beautifully printed on
fiber paper. I don't have those kinds of associations in my
thinking.
And I also agree that if a photo is poor the best printing technique
can't save it.
Im happy that you love the 2400, and I don't think of you as inferior
in any way for it. I agree that it is a remarkable achievement and a
significant contribution. It is clearly the best out of the box BW
solution to date. But it simply doesn't meet my standards. I'm sorry
if that sounds like superiority, I don't mean it that way. I just
want better dmax, better luminance and pure tones. I don't know if
it's possible to say that without someone who is satisfied with the
printer feeling something.
Thanks again for the good feedback, and I hope this helps clarify my
remarks.
Regards,
Clayton
Info on black and white digital printing at
http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm