Digital BW, The Print

I have been doing BO printing for the past 3 years using an Epson 
2200.

Most of my images have been captured with my Canon 20D.  While the 
quality of my images on the screen appear to be pretty descent, the 
prints that I obtain are not entirely smooth.  I always thought that 
the reason for this was due to the limitations BO printing.

Recently I downloadrd images from the U.S. Library of Congress. 

Dorothy Lang's "Migrant Mother"
http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?pp/fsaall:@filreq(@field
(NUMBER+@band(fsa+8b29516))+@field(COLLID+fsa))

and

Walker Evans "General Store interior"
http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?pp/fsaall:@filreq(@field
(NUMBER+@band(fsa+8c52415))+@field(COLLID+fsa))

The BO prints that I have obtaines from these files (1936 images 
captured on large format film and scanned) is absolutely amazing.  
This leads me to believe that my BO prints are NOT suffering on 
account of BO, but moreso because of the quality of the files.

Is anyone doing digital capture and obtaining BO prints that rival BO 
prints from scanned images which were originally caputured on large 
format cameras? 

I don't believe that the 8 meg CMOS sensor is lacking in resolution 
since I am only printing 5x7's and 8x10's.

Am I better off changing my image capture approach to medium format 
or large format film? Or should I simply move to a full ink system 
like Piezo or the 2400?  My guess is that using a full ink system can 
overcompensate for the less than ideal digital files.

I realize that I am mixing two distinct issues.  The bottom line is 
that I have proven that BO is very capable - it simply requires 
extremely high quality files.  Since digital image capture still has 
limitations, I figured I could probably achieve  really smooth prints 
by changing the printing approach, not necessarily my image capture 
approach (Canon 20D).

On a slightly different topic, what are the physical attributes of 
those large format files that are making my BO prints look so great?

Thanks,
David




Each of these images were taken on large format cameras so the images 
are very rich

Are you shooting in RAW, and working in 16-bit mode?  What do you mean by
“not smooth”.

Best regards,
John Moody

-----Original Message-----
From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of David
Sinai
Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2006 11:50 PM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Digital BW] BO Prints: Digital Image Capture vs. Film

I have been doing BO printing for the past 3 years using an Epson
2200.

Most of my images have been captured with my Canon 20D.  While the
quality of my images on the screen appear to be pretty descent, the
prints that I obtain are not entirely smooth.


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

Isn't that the downside of BO printing?
Mark

On Mar 15, 2006, at 6:03 AM, John Moody wrote:

>  What do you mean by
> “not smooth”.
>
> Best regards,
> John Moody
>

>  the
> prints that I obtain are not entirely smooth.
>
>

If you want black only, and smooth as a baby's behind, try Piezo Tone
K7. Now that is one beautiful inkset. I've never used anything that
consistent in color across all the scale and so delicate in tonal
transitions - nice deep blacks and truely outstanding high values too.
This is the monochrome I wanted for 7 years but wasn't available. 

John




--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Mark Savoia
<mark@...> wrote:

>
> Isn't that the downside of BO printing?
> Mark
> 
> On Mar 15, 2006, at 6:03 AM, John Moody wrote:
> 
> >  What do you mean by
> > "not smooth".
> >
> > Best regards,
> > John Moody
> >
> 
> >  the
> > prints that I obtain are not entirely smooth.
> >
> >
>

David’s comment was comparing small BO prints from both his canon 20D and
FSA negative scan files.

Best regards,
John Moody

-----Original Message-----
From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of john dean
Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 8:28 AM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] BO Prints: Digital Image Capture vs. Film

If you want black only, and smooth as a baby's behind, try Piezo Tone
K7. Now that is one beautiful inkset. I've never used anything that
consistent in color across all the scale and so delicate in tonal
transitions - nice deep blacks and truely outstanding high values too.
This is the monochrome I wanted for 7 years but wasn't available.

John






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

> 
> Is anyone doing digital capture and obtaining BO prints that rival BO 
> prints from scanned images which were originally caputured on large 
> format cameras? 

"Smoothness" will always be limited by fixed printer dot size,
irrespective the film size or original file: Black Only makes fewer
dots, which inherently means less smoothness than multiple pigments
(eg with QTR): This is exaggerated by smaller print sizes. 

If you print at 3200dpi you'll get smaller dots than at lower dpi, so
you might try standardizing on that for more smoothness from Black Only.

Dot size remains the same at all enlargements, UNLIKE film grain, so
larger prints in Black Only inherently look smoother than smaller
prints: the same image detail (eg an eye) has more dots in a big print
than in a small print...Black Only loses detail in small prints, gains
detail in larger prints...unlike optical enlargement. 

In small(letter sized) prints in fine B&W print exchanges, 8MP digital
is more coarse with Black Only than with QTR...IMO. 

Also in print exchanges, Nikon D2 smoothness with QTR seems equal to
4000ppi 120 (I've not seen examples of Canon 1D)...coarseness isn't a
matter of digital Vs film, it's a matter of printing technique (QTR vs
BO) and quality of original digital file (eg D2 Vs D70). 

> 
> I don't believe that the 8 meg CMOS sensor is lacking in resolution 
> since I am only printing 5x7's and 8x10's.

Your Black Only looks rough specifically because you're making tiny
prints. If you printed medium sized (eg 11X17 plus) your images would
look a lot smoother. If smoothness is critical to you, you should try
QTR before throwing your baby out with the bath water.

> 
> Am I better off changing my image capture approach to medium format 
> or large format film? Or should I simply move to a full ink system 
> like Piezo or the 2400?  My guess is that using a full ink system can 
> overcompensate for the less than ideal digital files.

Black Only inherently looks coarse sometimes...it's not necessarily
your D70. My own 4000ppi Nikon scans of 35mm film hold greater detail
and look smoother when printed using QTR with Epson OEM pigments and
2200, than when using Black Only...same files.

  The bottom line is 
> that I have proven that BO is very capable - it simply requires 
> extremely high quality files.

Black Only is "capable" but is inherently LESS capable than QTR in
many situations. Nonetheless BO can be an appealing choice for the
same reason grainy film can. 

Prosumer digital B&W (D70/20D)has inherent disadvantages Vs film
scans, but it also has inherent advantages and offers its own nice
effects : notably, it can render scenes with a sharp, edgy, etched
look. IMO digital usually looks more film-smooth in color than it does
in B&W.

Whoops, I erred...I meant 2880dpi (which produces Epson 2200's finest
dot size)...I don't know if any printer does 3200dpi.

> 
> If you print at 3200dpi you'll get smaller dots than at lower dpi, so
> you might try standardizing on that for more smoothness from Black Only.
>

And the good news so far as I'm concerned is that K7 should be available 
for the 2400 shortly - according to Jon Cone.

Regards,

Peter Marshall
petermarshall@...     
_________________________________________________________________
My London Diary	              http://mylondondiary.co.uk/
London's Industrial Heritage: http://petermarshallphotos.co.uk/
The Buildings of London etc:  http://londonphotographs.co.uk/
and elsewhere......



john dean wrote:

> If you want black only, and smooth as a baby's behind, try Piezo Tone
> K7. Now that is one beautiful inkset. I've never used anything that
> consistent in color across all the scale and so delicate in tonal
> transitions - nice deep blacks and truely outstanding high values too.
> This is the monochrome I wanted for 7 years but wasn't available. 
>
> John
>
>
>
>
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Mark Savoia
> <mark@...> wrote:
>   
>> Isn't that the downside of BO printing?
>> Mark
>>
>> On Mar 15, 2006, at 6:03 AM, John Moody wrote:
>>
>>     
>>>  What do you mean by
>>> "not smooth".
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>> John Moody
>>>
>>>       
>>>  the
>>> prints that I obtain are not entirely smooth.
>>>
>>>
>>>       
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other resources as they are often being updated.
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same page.
>
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep them short.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames. Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the membership without notice.
> - Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be removed from the membership.
> - By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group Owner and Moderators. See \ufffdGroup Topic, Rules and Guidelines\ufffd in the Files section:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/
>
> BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE \ufffdOWNER\ufffd AND \ufffdMODERATORS\ufffd OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS, GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE  \ufffdOWNER\ufffd AND \ufffdMODERATORS\ufffd OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.
>  
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>  
>
>
>
>
>

David Sinai wrote about differences he has seen between small 
black-only prints he's made from his own 20D exposures and small 
black-only prints he's made from FSA scans of large-format film.

I happened to see David's post just before I saw Erwin Puts's recent 
article, at <http://www.imx.nl/photosite/comments/c023.html>, about 
how size matters, whether it is the size of film, 35mm vs. medium 
format, or the size of the digital sensor, 20D vs. 5D. For the film 
comparison, Erwin Puts relies on Crawley's 1993 article. For the 
sensor comparison, Puts does his own tests. He concludes that 
differences in size still matter, contrary to Phil Askey's 
comparitive conclusions near the end of his dpeview.com review of 
Nikon's D200.

I'm not sure how relevant Erwin Puts work is to David's conjectures 
about other possibilities, but I think it does give David another 
conjecture to consider, and one that might be easier to test.
--
Sam

Hello David,

>I have been doing BO printing for the past 3 years using an Epson 
>2200...Most of my images have been captured with my Canon 20D.  
>While the quality of my images on the screen appear to be pretty 
>descent, the prints that I obtain are not entirely smooth.  I 
>always thought that the reason for this was due to the limitations 
>BO printing.
> 
>Recently I downloaded images from the U.S. Library of Congress. 
>The BO prints that I have obtained from these files (1936 images 
>captured on large format film and scanned) is absolutely amazing...
>...what are the physical attributes of those large format files 
>that are making my BO prints look so great?

The size.  In general the more real estate you have in the image
source, the better the print will be.  I get better prints from 4x5
scans than from 35mm scans (even at higher resolution, because the
grain is more sharply defined).  Even in prints as small as 5x7 there
is a certain clarity and presence in the print from a 4x5 neg, which
at that size is close to a contact print.  This comes through just as
clearly with ink printing as it does in emulsion prints.  Digital
capture doesn't change this fundamental reality, even though there is
no film grain.  As good as 8mp digicams are today, there's a
difference between it and a 4x5 or bigger scan.


>Am I better off changing my image capture approach to medium format 
>or large format film? 

Yes, no, and "it depends" <g>.  If you want the large format look
badly enough, then you'll have to go to large format shooting (or
maybe get the new $30,000 39mp P45 back and a camera to hold it if you
can afford it and want to stay digital).  I don't know what you're
using, but perhaps it's possible that your 20d images can be improved
(better lenses?).


>The bottom line is that I have proven that BO is very capable - it 
>simply requires extremely high quality files.

BO can be an unpredictable beastie.  Given a particular image size and
source, some prints look great and others look terrible, and it's not
always the usual smooth midtone areas that cause it.  I've had some
that defy the usual rules of thumb.  I've had images that in BO and K3
prints were indistinguishable without a loupe, and others that are
obvious from several feet away.  I've found that I can't predict
whether an image will look good in BO by just viewing it on screen. 
You just have to try a print and see.


>Or should I simply move to a full ink system like Piezo or the 2400? 
>My guess is that using a full ink system can overcompensate for the 
>less than ideal digital files.

Having done BO for four years and now using a 2400 as well, I can say
that there are pros and cons to both.  In general a smoother print
will qualify as "better" to most viewers, but there are images that,
to me, look better in BO (for the usual litany of reasons).  But the
key phrase in your question is "less than ideal digital files".   If a
file is truly less than what you consider ideal, then no printing
technique can make it ideal.  You can't make a silk purse out of a
sow's ear.

One way to find out with relatively little investment is to put UT7 in
your 2200 and make a set of BO/UT7 print pairs of your best images and
compare them.  This will help answer both questions: whether full ink
printing makes a big enough difference to satisfy, and/or whether a
hardware change is called for.


Regards,
Clayton


Info on black and white digital printing at    
http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm

Hi Clayton:

Any reason why you recommend UT7?  I was actually thinking of trying 
the K7 kit from Piezo?

Thanks,
David
--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Clayton Jones" 
<cj@...> wrote:
>
> Hello David,
> 
> >I have been doing BO printing for the past 3 years using an Epson 
> >2200...Most of my images have been captured with my Canon 20D.  
> >While the quality of my images on the screen appear to be pretty 
> >descent, the prints that I obtain are not entirely smooth.  I 
> >always thought that the reason for this was due to the limitations 
> >BO printing.
> > 
> >Recently I downloaded images from the U.S. Library of Congress. 
> >The BO prints that I have obtained from these files (1936 images 
> >captured on large format film and scanned) is absolutely amazing...
> >...what are the physical attributes of those large format files 
> >that are making my BO prints look so great?
> 
> The size.  In general the more real estate you have in the image
> source, the better the print will be.  I get better prints from 4x5
> scans than from 35mm scans (even at higher resolution, because the
> grain is more sharply defined).  Even in prints as small as 5x7 
there
> is a certain clarity and presence in the print from a 4x5 neg, which
> at that size is close to a contact print.  This comes through just 
as
> clearly with ink printing as it does in emulsion prints.  Digital
> capture doesn't change this fundamental reality, even though there 
is
> no film grain.  As good as 8mp digicams are today, there's a
> difference between it and a 4x5 or bigger scan.
> 
> 
> >Am I better off changing my image capture approach to medium 
format 
> >or large format film? 
> 
> Yes, no, and "it depends" <g>.  If you want the large format look
> badly enough, then you'll have to go to large format shooting (or
> maybe get the new $30,000 39mp P45 back and a camera to hold it if 
you
> can afford it and want to stay digital).  I don't know what you're
> using, but perhaps it's possible that your 20d images can be 
improved
> (better lenses?).
> 
> 
> >The bottom line is that I have proven that BO is very capable - it 
> >simply requires extremely high quality files.
> 
> BO can be an unpredictable beastie.  Given a particular image size 
and
> source, some prints look great and others look terrible, and it's 
not
> always the usual smooth midtone areas that cause it.  I've had some
> that defy the usual rules of thumb.  I've had images that in BO and 
K3
> prints were indistinguishable without a loupe, and others that are
> obvious from several feet away.  I've found that I can't predict
> whether an image will look good in BO by just viewing it on screen. 
> You just have to try a print and see.
> 
> 
> >Or should I simply move to a full ink system like Piezo or the 
2400? 
> >My guess is that using a full ink system can overcompensate for 
the 
> >less than ideal digital files.
> 
> Having done BO for four years and now using a 2400 as well, I can 
say
> that there are pros and cons to both.  In general a smoother print
> will qualify as "better" to most viewers, but there are images that,
> to me, look better in BO (for the usual litany of reasons).  But the
> key phrase in your question is "less than ideal digital files".   
If a
> file is truly less than what you consider ideal, then no printing
> technique can make it ideal.  You can't make a silk purse out of a
> sow's ear.
> 
> One way to find out with relatively little investment is to put UT7 
in
> your 2200 and make a set of BO/UT7 print pairs of your best images 
and
> compare them.  This will help answer both questions: whether full 
ink

> printing makes a big enough difference to satisfy, and/or whether a
> hardware change is called for.
> 
> 
> Regards,
> Clayton
> 
> 
> Info on black and white digital printing at    
> http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm
>

Hello David,

>Any reason why you recommend UT7?  I was actually thinking of trying 
>the K7 kit from Piezo?

Only because with UT7 you're getting Eboni in the K slot, a known and
highly regarded ink for BO.  I have nothing against k7.  I haven't
used it but have seen some prints and they look excellent.  I have no
idea what sort of BO they would produce.   I didn't mean to slight
anything else.  

Regards,
Clayton


Info on black and white digital printing at    
http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm