Digital BW, The Print

I did some experimenting last night and found that in order to match 
my monitor I needed to use Gamma 1.8 (maybe even 1.5) when printing BO 
and Gamma 2.2 when printing full ink.  The Gamma settings are the ones 
in the Advanced options on the printer properties (R220).  All the 
prints were made on EEM so there isn't anything in the paper that 
would have made a difference. 

Is this something that is common or does it mean something that I'm 
not aware of?

Thanks!!  Brian

http://www.brianchapmanphotography.com

Hello Brian,

>I did some experimenting last night and found that in order to match 
>my monitor I needed to use Gamma 1.8 (maybe even 1.5) when printing BO 
>and Gamma 2.2 when printing full ink.  The Gamma settings are the ones 
>in the Advanced options on the printer properties (R220).  All the 
>prints were made on EEM so there isn't anything in the paper that 
>would have made a difference. 
> 
>Is this something that is common or does it mean something that I'm 
>not aware of?

It's not an easy answer because what printer gamma setting works best
depends on what image profile is used.  There's a sort of push-pull
relationship between them.  Obviously this is what works for whatever
workflow you're using right now.  But if you were to begin using a
different default profile in color settings (which would affect how
the grayscale file is initially created), there might a different
result on the printer side.  So you can't make a blanket statement
about it.  There are too many workflow variables.  You just need to
find the combination that you like the best.

I'm using an R200 with R2-N right now, and am finding that I can use
the same settings I use for BO.  These are described in an article at
the link below.  I'm doing some experiments and will be writing an
article about it soon.

Regards,
Clayton


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

Thanks for the info!  My goal is to get some consistency across my 
prints/workflow - and you're right on about 'too many workflow 
variables'!!  Assuming that I follow your instructions/settings 
exactly then there shouldn't be a significant difference between BO 
and full ink when using Gamma 2.2, correct?     

As for my initial issue, the one potential (and potentially 
significant as you mentioned below) issue is that I may or may not 
have converted the image to grayscale prior to printing - and 
therefore the image could have been using Adobe 1998 instead of DG20 
which may have made a difference between the two ink settings (BO & 
full ink). 

Thanks again for the great articles and I definately look forward to 
any you publish in the future!!

Brian

http://www.brianchapmanphotography.com

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Clayton Jones" 
<cj@...> wrote:
>
> Hello Brian,
> 
> >I did some experimenting last night and found that in order to 
match 
> >my monitor I needed to use Gamma 1.8 (maybe even 1.5) when 
printing BO 
> >and Gamma 2.2 when printing full ink.  The Gamma settings are the 
ones 
> >in the Advanced options on the printer properties (R220).  All 
the 
> >prints were made on EEM so there isn't anything in the paper that 
> >would have made a difference. 
> > 
> >Is this something that is common or does it mean something that 
I'm 
> >not aware of?
> 
> It's not an easy answer because what printer gamma setting works 
best
> depends on what image profile is used.  There's a sort of push-pull
> relationship between them.  Obviously this is what works for 
whatever
> workflow you're using right now.  But if you were to begin using a
> different default profile in color settings (which would affect how
> the grayscale file is initially created), there might a different
> result on the printer side.  So you can't make a blanket statement
> about it.  There are too many workflow variables.  You just need to
> find the combination that you like the best.
> 
> I'm using an R200 with R2-N right now, and am finding that I can 
use
> the same settings I use for BO.  These are described in an article 
at

> the link below.  I'm doing some experiments and will be writing an
> article about it soon.
> 
> Regards,
> Clayton
> 
> 
> Info on black and white digital printing at    
> http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm
>

Hello Brian,

>Thanks for the info!  My goal is to get some consistency across my 
>prints/workflow - and you're right on about 'too many workflow 
>variables'!!  Assuming that I follow your instructions/settings 
>exactly then there shouldn't be a significant difference between BO 
>and full ink when using Gamma 2.2, correct?     

Well, possibly not, because that wouldn't be following the
instructions exactly.  The article recommends using DG20 for the
default gray space setting and image profile, printer profile set to
Same As Source (or No Color Management in CS2), and printer gamma 1.8.
 With those settings I can go between BO and full ink printing. 
That's the combination I've found that gives me the most versatility
and good WYSIWYG.  It isn't carved in stone - you can use anything you
want and make it work, but there are trade-offs for everything.  The
above combination is just a sort of sweet spot that I find most
convenient and hassle free.



>As for my initial issue, the one potential (and potentially 
>significant as you mentioned below) issue is that I may or may not 
>have converted the image to grayscale prior to printing - and 
>therefore the image could have been using Adobe 1998 instead of DG20 
>which may have made a difference between the two ink settings (BO & 
>full ink). 

Quite possibly.  I do everything in grayscale.  I did lots of
experiments in the early days and found no advantage to staying in RGB
mode, with files three times as big.  With a color digicam image I
manipulate the RGB channels during conversion to BW, but once that's
done I convert to grayscale.

BTW, an important part of this workflow is having the gray space in
Color Settings set to DG20.  Having it at GG2.2 and later assigning
the image profile to DG20 won't do the job.  The gray space setting is
what determines the actual image pixel values at the time of grayscale
conversion (or importing a scanned neg).  Assigning a different
profile later merely changes how it's displayed on screen - it won't
change the image or the print.  In order to do that the profile must
be Converted.  But if you convert after you have worked on the image
it will change everything you've done (it will look the same on screen
but will change the image and the print).  So it's best to have it go
to the profile you want right at the beginning, whether scanning a neg
or using a color digicam file.  

Regards,
Clayton


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

Thanks Clayton - I think the neurons might actually be starting to 
fire. :)  ...finally.

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Clayton Jones" 
<cj@...> wrote:
>
> Hello Brian,
> 
> >Thanks for the info!  My goal is to get some consistency across 
my 
> >prints/workflow - and you're right on about 'too many workflow 
> >variables'!!  Assuming that I follow your instructions/settings 
> >exactly then there shouldn't be a significant difference between 
BO 
> >and full ink when using Gamma 2.2, correct?     
> 
> Well, possibly not, because that wouldn't be following the
> instructions exactly.  The article recommends using DG20 for the
> default gray space setting and image profile, printer profile set 
to
> Same As Source (or No Color Management in CS2), and printer gamma 
1.8.
>  With those settings I can go between BO and full ink printing. 
> That's the combination I've found that gives me the most 
versatility
> and good WYSIWYG.  It isn't carved in stone - you can use anything 
you
> want and make it work, but there are trade-offs for everything.  
The
> above combination is just a sort of sweet spot that I find most
> convenient and hassle free.
> 
> 
> 
> >As for my initial issue, the one potential (and potentially 
> >significant as you mentioned below) issue is that I may or may 
not 
> >have converted the image to grayscale prior to printing - and 
> >therefore the image could have been using Adobe 1998 instead of 
DG20 
> >which may have made a difference between the two ink settings (BO 
& 
> >full ink). 
> 
> Quite possibly.  I do everything in grayscale.  I did lots of
> experiments in the early days and found no advantage to staying in 
RGB
> mode, with files three times as big.  With a color digicam image I
> manipulate the RGB channels during conversion to BW, but once 
that's
> done I convert to grayscale.
> 
> BTW, an important part of this workflow is having the gray space in
> Color Settings set to DG20.  Having it at GG2.2 and later assigning
> the image profile to DG20 won't do the job.  The gray space 
setting is
> what determines the actual image pixel values at the time of 
grayscale
> conversion (or importing a scanned neg).  Assigning a different
> profile later merely changes how it's displayed on screen - it 
won't
> change the image or the print.  In order to do that the profile 
must
> be Converted.  But if you convert after you have worked on the 
image
> it will change everything you've done (it will look the same on 
screen
> but will change the image and the print).  So it's best to have it 
go
> to the profile you want right at the beginning, whether scanning a 
neg

> or using a color digicam file.  
> 
> Regards,
> Clayton
> 
> 
> Info on black and white digital printing at    
> http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm
>

Hey Clayton,

As it turns out, when I configured my settings exactly as you 
describe I still felt there was a difference between the BO and full 
ink methods, however, when I finally printed a step wedge, it turns 
out that they look almost identical! 

This is the test image - in hindsight I probably should have used 
something else without a huge dark area...
http://www.flickr.com/photos/brianechapman/132207963/

So because there really isn't a difference I must be perceiving one 
for some reason.  One possibility is that because the blacks are 
more intense in the BO prints that it contributes to an overall 
darker feeling when a large part of the image is dark.  The other is 
that the transitions are different between the dark and darker areas 
using BO vs full ink - the neutral full ink method looks gray 
compared to the BO method at the same density so it may 
appear "darker" when it really isn't.  

I'd be interested in hearing if people have found that certain types 
of images don't work well with BO printing...?  Anyway, I hope this 
is interesting/helpful to someone...it is to me :)

Thanks, Brian

http://www.brianchapmanphotography.com

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Brian Chapman" 
<brianechapman@...> wrote:
>in
> Thanks Clayton - I think the neurons might actually be starting to 
> fire. :)  ...finally.
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Clayton 
Jones" 
> <cj@> wrote:
> >
> > Hello Brian,
> > 
> > >Thanks for the info!  My goal is to get some consistency across 
> my 
> > >prints/workflow - and you're right on about 'too many workflow 
> > >variables'!!  Assuming that I follow your instructions/settings 
> > >exactly then there shouldn't be a significant difference 
between 
> BO 
> > >and full ink when using Gamma 2.2, correct?     
> > 
> > Well, possibly not, because that wouldn't be following the
> > instructions exactly.  The article recommends using DG20 for the
> > default gray space setting and image profile, printer profile 
set 
> to
> > Same As Source (or No Color Management in CS2), and printer 
gamma 
> 1.8.
> >  With those settings I can go between BO and full ink printing. 
> > That's the combination I've found that gives me the most 
> versatility
> > and good WYSIWYG.  It isn't carved in stone - you can use 
anything 
> you
> > want and make it work, but there are trade-offs for everything.  
> The
> > above combination is just a sort of sweet spot that I find most
> > convenient and hassle free.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > >As for my initial issue, the one potential (and potentially 
> > >significant as you mentioned below) issue is that I may or may 
> not 
> > >have converted the image to grayscale prior to printing - and 
> > >therefore the image could have been using Adobe 1998 instead of 
> DG20 
> > >which may have made a difference between the two ink settings 
(BO 
> & 
> > >full ink). 
> > 
> > Quite possibly.  I do everything in grayscale.  I did lots of
> > experiments in the early days and found no advantage to staying 
in 
> RGB
> > mode, with files three times as big.  With a color digicam image 
I
> > manipulate the RGB channels during conversion to BW, but once 
> that's
> > done I convert to grayscale.
> > 
> > BTW, an important part of this workflow is having the gray space 
in
> > Color Settings set to DG20.  Having it at GG2.2 and later 
assigning
> > the image profile to DG20 won't do the job.  The gray space 
> setting is
> > what determines the actual image pixel values at the time of 
> grayscale
> > conversion (or importing a scanned neg).  Assigning a different
> > profile later merely changes how it's displayed on screen - it 
> won't
> > change the image or the print.  In order to do that the profile 
> must
> > be Converted.  But if you convert after you have worked on the 
> image
> > it will change everything you've done (it will look the same on 
> screen
> > but will change the image and the print).  So it's best to have 
it 
> go
> > to the profile you want right at the beginning, whether scanning 
a 

> neg
> > or using a color digicam file.  
> > 
> > Regards,
> > Clayton
> > 
> > 
> > Info on black and white digital printing at    
> > http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm
> >
>

Hi Brian,

I use BO for most of my images but that is because my palette is quite dark AND high 
contrast. For images that have small-step midtone gradations between pure black and 
white I find QTR handles those better. BO's "dot" pattern will be more noticable if you have 
large expanses of lighter tones, which turns some people off, though it doesn't bother me. 
Still, in my images which as I said are very dark, I don't really deal with that issue much. 
With the MIS Eboni ink and BO I feel like I could fall into the shadows, whereas with QTR 
there's just a teeny bit less depth to my eye, but still enough for me to notice.

It's all extremely individual, I think. Step wedges and all the other measurements are very 
helpful, but the bottom line is whether your eye likes the results, no matter what the 
method or the popularity/preference of alternate methods by others. It's great to have 
choices, and it's great to have a forum where you can explore and learn from others' often 
more extensive experience. I know I have. Good luck with BO printing!

Sarah



--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Brian Chapman" 
<brianechapman@...> wrote:

>
> Hey Clayton,
> 
> As it turns out, when I configured my settings exactly as you 
> describe I still felt there was a difference between the BO and full 
> ink methods, however, when I finally printed a step wedge, it turns 
> out that they look almost identical! 
> 
> This is the test image - in hindsight I probably should have used 
> something else without a huge dark area...
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/brianechapman/132207963/
> 
> So because there really isn't a difference I must be perceiving one 
> for some reason.  One possibility is that because the blacks are 
> more intense in the BO prints that it contributes to an overall 
> darker feeling when a large part of the image is dark.  The other is 
> that the transitions are different between the dark and darker areas 
> using BO vs full ink - the neutral full ink method looks gray 
> compared to the BO method at the same density so it may 
> appear "darker" when it really isn't.  
> 
> I'd be interested in hearing if people have found that certain types 
> of images don't work well with BO printing...?  Anyway, I hope this 
> is interesting/helpful to someone...it is to me :)
> 
> Thanks, Brian
> 
> http://www.brianchapmanphotography.com
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Brian Chapman" 
> <brianechapman@> wrote:
> >in
> > Thanks Clayton - I think the neurons might actually be starting to 
> > fire. :)  ...finally.
> > 
> > --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Clayton 
> Jones" 
> > <cj@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hello Brian,
> > > 
> > > >Thanks for the info!  My goal is to get some consistency across 
> > my 
> > > >prints/workflow - and you're right on about 'too many workflow 
> > > >variables'!!  Assuming that I follow your instructions/settings 
> > > >exactly then there shouldn't be a significant difference 
> between 
> > BO 
> > > >and full ink when using Gamma 2.2, correct?     
> > > 
> > > Well, possibly not, because that wouldn't be following the
> > > instructions exactly.  The article recommends using DG20 for the
> > > default gray space setting and image profile, printer profile 
> set 
> > to
> > > Same As Source (or No Color Management in CS2), and printer 
> gamma 
> > 1.8.
> > >  With those settings I can go between BO and full ink printing. 
> > > That's the combination I've found that gives me the most 
> > versatility
> > > and good WYSIWYG.  It isn't carved in stone - you can use 
> anything 
> > you
> > > want and make it work, but there are trade-offs for everything.  
> > The
> > > above combination is just a sort of sweet spot that I find most
> > > convenient and hassle free.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > >As for my initial issue, the one potential (and potentially 
> > > >significant as you mentioned below) issue is that I may or may 
> > not 
> > > >have converted the image to grayscale prior to printing - and 
> > > >therefore the image could have been using Adobe 1998 instead of 
> > DG20 
> > > >which may have made a difference between the two ink settings 
> (BO 
> > & 
> > > >full ink). 
> > > 
> > > Quite possibly.  I do everything in grayscale.  I did lots of
> > > experiments in the early days and found no advantage to staying 
> in 
> > RGB
> > > mode, with files three times as big.  With a color digicam image 
> I
> > > manipulate the RGB channels during conversion to BW, but once 
> > that's
> > > done I convert to grayscale.
> > > 
> > > BTW, an important part of this workflow is having the gray space 
> in
> > > Color Settings set to DG20.  Having it at GG2.2 and later 
> assigning
> > > the image profile to DG20 won't do the job.  The gray space 
> > setting is
> > > what determines the actual image pixel values at the time of 
> > grayscale
> > > conversion (or importing a scanned neg).  Assigning a different
> > > profile later merely changes how it's displayed on screen - it 
> > won't
> > > change the image or the print.  In order to do that the profile 
> > must
> > > be Converted.  But if you convert after you have worked on the 
> > image
> > > it will change everything you've done (it will look the same on 
> > screen
> > > but will change the image and the print).  So it's best to have 
> it 
> > go
> > > to the profile you want right at the beginning, whether scanning 
> a 
> > neg
> > > or using a color digicam file.  
> > > 
> > > Regards,
> > > Clayton
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Info on black and white digital printing at    
> > > http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm
> > >
> >
>

Hello Brian,

>So because there really isn't a difference I must be perceiving one 
>for some reason.  One possibility is that because the blacks are 
>more intense in the BO prints that it contributes to an overall 
>darker feeling when a large part of the image is dark.  The other is 
>that the transitions are different between the dark and darker areas 
>using BO vs full ink - the neutral full ink method looks gray 
>compared to the BO method at the same density so it may 
>appear "darker" when it really isn't.  

Yes, there can be differences in both contrast and density because of
the very different way the inks are laid down, and the degree of
difference varies among different images.  Sometimes it requires an
adjustment curve to make one match the other.  

 
>I'd be interested in hearing if people have found that certain types 
>of images don't work well with BO printing...?  

Absolutely.  This is a given with BO printing.  Looks great with some,
 weak with others.  And it's hard to predict by looking at it on
screen.  I've been surprised many times.

Regards,
Clayton


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

Thanks Sarah!

I really like the look of BO - partly because of it's warmth (I am 
currently using only the neutral set of R2 inks) and partly because 
I like the intensity of the blacks.  For the most part I'm not 
bothered by the dots either, in fact I've been most impressed with 
some of the lighter images!  Like Clayton mentioned, there are 
definately surprises!  

Brian
http://www.brianchapmanphotography.com

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "sagaface" 
<sagaface@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Brian,
> 
> I use BO for most of my images but that is because my palette is 
quite dark AND high 
> contrast. For images that have small-step midtone gradations 
between pure black and 
> white I find QTR handles those better. BO's "dot" pattern will be 
more noticable if you have 
> large expanses of lighter tones, which turns some people off, 
though it doesn't bother me. 
> Still, in my images which as I said are very dark, I don't really 
deal with that issue much. 
> With the MIS Eboni ink and BO I feel like I could fall into the 
shadows, whereas with QTR 
> there's just a teeny bit less depth to my eye, but still enough 
for me to notice.
> 
> It's all extremely individual, I think. Step wedges and all the 
other measurements are very 
> helpful, but the bottom line is whether your eye likes the 
results, no matter what the 
> method or the popularity/preference of alternate methods by 
others. It's great to have 
> choices, and it's great to have a forum where you can explore and 
learn from others' often 
> more extensive experience. I know I have. Good luck with BO 
printing!
> 
> Sarah
> 
> 
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Brian 
Chapman" 
> <brianechapman@> wrote:
> >
> > Hey Clayton,
> > 
> > As it turns out, when I configured my settings exactly as you 
> > describe I still felt there was a difference between the BO and 
full 
> > ink methods, however, when I finally printed a step wedge, it 
turns 
> > out that they look almost identical! 
> > 
> > This is the test image - in hindsight I probably should have 
used 
> > something else without a huge dark area...
> > http://www.flickr.com/photos/brianechapman/132207963/
> > 
> > So because there really isn't a difference I must be perceiving 
one 
> > for some reason.  One possibility is that because the blacks are 
> > more intense in the BO prints that it contributes to an overall 
> > darker feeling when a large part of the image is dark.  The 
other is 
> > that the transitions are different between the dark and darker 
areas 
> > using BO vs full ink - the neutral full ink method looks gray 
> > compared to the BO method at the same density so it may 
> > appear "darker" when it really isn't.  
> > 
> > I'd be interested in hearing if people have found that certain 
types 
> > of images don't work well with BO printing...?  Anyway, I hope 
this 
> > is interesting/helpful to someone...it is to me :)
> > 
> > Thanks, Brian
> > 
> > http://www.brianchapmanphotography.com
> > 
> > --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Brian 
Chapman" 
> > <brianechapman@> wrote:
> > >in
> > > Thanks Clayton - I think the neurons might actually be 
starting to 
> > > fire. :)  ...finally.
> > > 
> > > --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Clayton 
> > Jones" 
> > > <cj@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hello Brian,
> > > > 
> > > > >Thanks for the info!  My goal is to get some consistency 
across 
> > > my 
> > > > >prints/workflow - and you're right on about 'too many 
workflow 
> > > > >variables'!!  Assuming that I follow your 
instructions/settings 
> > > > >exactly then there shouldn't be a significant difference 
> > between 
> > > BO 
> > > > >and full ink when using Gamma 2.2, correct?     
> > > > 
> > > > Well, possibly not, because that wouldn't be following the
> > > > instructions exactly.  The article recommends using DG20 for 
the
> > > > default gray space setting and image profile, printer 
profile 
> > set 
> > > to
> > > > Same As Source (or No Color Management in CS2), and printer 
> > gamma 
> > > 1.8.
> > > >  With those settings I can go between BO and full ink 
printing. 
> > > > That's the combination I've found that gives me the most 
> > > versatility
> > > > and good WYSIWYG.  It isn't carved in stone - you can use 
> > anything 
> > > you
> > > > want and make it work, but there are trade-offs for 
everything.  
> > > The
> > > > above combination is just a sort of sweet spot that I find 
most
> > > > convenient and hassle free.
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > >As for my initial issue, the one potential (and potentially 
> > > > >significant as you mentioned below) issue is that I may or 
may 
> > > not 
> > > > >have converted the image to grayscale prior to printing - 
and 
> > > > >therefore the image could have been using Adobe 1998 
instead of 
> > > DG20 
> > > > >which may have made a difference between the two ink 
settings 
> > (BO 
> > > & 
> > > > >full ink). 
> > > > 
> > > > Quite possibly.  I do everything in grayscale.  I did lots of
> > > > experiments in the early days and found no advantage to 
staying 
> > in 
> > > RGB
> > > > mode, with files three times as big.  With a color digicam 
image 
> > I
> > > > manipulate the RGB channels during conversion to BW, but 
once 
> > > that's
> > > > done I convert to grayscale.
> > > > 
> > > > BTW, an important part of this workflow is having the gray 
space 
> > in
> > > > Color Settings set to DG20.  Having it at GG2.2 and later 
> > assigning
> > > > the image profile to DG20 won't do the job.  The gray space 
> > > setting is
> > > > what determines the actual image pixel values at the time of 
> > > grayscale
> > > > conversion (or importing a scanned neg).  Assigning a 
different
> > > > profile later merely changes how it's displayed on screen - 
it 
> > > won't
> > > > change the image or the print.  In order to do that the 
profile 
> > > must
> > > > be Converted.  But if you convert after you have worked on 
the 
> > > image
> > > > it will change everything you've done (it will look the same 
on 
> > > screen
> > > > but will change the image and the print).  So it's best to 
have 
> > it 
> > > go
> > > > to the profile you want right at the beginning, whether 
scanning 

> > a 
> > > neg
> > > > or using a color digicam file.  
> > > > 
> > > > Regards,
> > > > Clayton
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Info on black and white digital printing at    
> > > > http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm
> > > >
> > >
> >
>