Digital BW, The Print

This post is for those on the list who were interested in the exchange ("the times, they aren't a-changing") that Tyler Boley kicked-off. If you want to read his original post, use this link:
 http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/message/81068





Tyler sent me two prints, roughly 6.5 x 9 inches on a coated matt fine art paper (looks like PhotoRag, but don't know for sure). Same file, printed at 1440 ppi; one was printed through the OEM driver, the other through Tyler's Rip set-up. The OEM print was made with UltraChrome K3 inks, the other with Tyler's quadtone inks. The prints are not annotated. I had no indication which print was made from which print workflow. Tyler simply asked me to look at them and render an opinion.
 
 I put both in my viewing booth. To my eyes, there really is no comparison between the two prints. One is smoother, looks sharper, and has better image detail. The overall impression is dramatically more three-dimensional. When I looked at the prints using a 4x lupe, the differences were even more dramatic. The OEM print fell apart. I passed my conclusion to Tyler and he confirmed that the better print was made with the quadtone/Rip workflow.
 
 I don't have a horse in this race. I'm a firm believer in choice (as I mentioned in one of my posts on this thread) and don't feel any need to push one approach above another. I subscribe to the notion of "appropriate" means and I personally believe in the innate value of craftsmanship. I love well seen, well made prints. I like this exercise because it's real world in every important dimension related to inkjet printing: a careful worker created and pushed the same image file through two printing workflows, each optimized to it's practical limit, and the results were judged by eye.
 
 In the spirit of full disclosure, I'd also mention that it didn't surprise me to learn that the better print was made with a dedicated grayscale inkset, processed through a calibrated and profiled Rip printing workflow. It confirms the results we've been getting at K2 Press. I have yet to see an OEM print driver out-perform a properly used professional Rip.
 
 One last note of clarification. The big difference between these two prints is the calibrated/profiled Rip printing workflow, not the inks. Apply the same workflow to UC2 or UC3 inks, and you'll get a demonstrably better print compared to using the OEM driver. The inks make an aesthetic difference.
 
 Bill Kennedy
 K2 Press
 Author of "The Photographer's Guide to the Digital Darkroom"
 
 
 
 
  
________________________________________________________________________
Check out the new AOL.  Most comprehensive set of free safety and security tools, free access to millions of high-quality videos from across the web, free AOL Mail and more.


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

Bill

 

Your seeing what I have had On My walls!!! Tyler Kudos :-) You�re the Man!!

 

cheers

 

Jim Doyle

 

Shades Of Paper

600 Deer Rd Unit 4

Cherry Hill NJ 08034

856-795-7780

www.shadesofpaper.com

 

 

   _____  

From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
BKPhoto@...
Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2006 2:18 PM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Digital BW] Follow-up to Tyler's slithering from the cave

 

This post is for those on the list who were interested in the exchange ("the
times, they aren't a-changing") that Tyler Boley kicked-off. If you want to
read his original post, use this link:
HYPERLINK
"http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/message/810
68"http://tech.-groups.yahoo.-com/group/-DigitalBlackandW-hiteThePrint/-mess
age/81068

Tyler sent me two prints, roughly 6.5 x 9 inches on a coated matt fine art
paper (looks like PhotoRag, but don't know for sure). Same file, printed at
1440 ppi; one was printed through the OEM driver, the other through Tyler's
Rip set-up. The OEM print was made with UltraChrome K3 inks, the other with
Tyler's quadtone inks. The prints are not annotated. I had no indication
which print was made from which print workflow. Tyler simply asked me to
look at them and render an opinion.

I put both in my viewing booth. To my eyes, there really is no comparison
between the two prints. One is smoother, looks sharper, and has better image
detail. The overall impression is dramatically more three-dimensional. When
I looked at the prints using a 4x lupe, the differences were even more
dramatic. The OEM print fell apart. I passed my conclusion to Tyler and he
confirmed that the better print was made with the quadtone/Rip workflow.

I don't have a horse in this race. I'm a firm believer in choice (as I
mentioned in one of my posts on this thread) and don't feel any need to push
one approach above another. I subscribe to the notion of "appropriate" means
and I personally believe in the innate value of craftsmanship. I love well
seen, well made prints. I like this exercise because it's real world in
every important dimension related to inkjet printing: a careful worker
created and pushed the same image file through two printing workflows, each
optimized to it's practical limit, and the results were judged by eye.

In the spirit of full disclosure, I'd also mention that it didn't surprise
me to learn that the better print was made with a dedicated grayscale
inkset, processed through a calibrated and profiled Rip printing workflow.
It confirms the results we've been getting at K2 Press. I have yet to see an
OEM print driver out-perform a properly used professional Rip.

One last note of clarification. The big difference between these two prints
is the calibrated/profiled Rip printing workflow, not the inks. Apply the
same workflow to UC2 or UC3 inks, and you'll get a demonstrably better print
compared to using the OEM driver. The inks make an aesthetic difference.

Bill Kennedy
K2 Press
Author of "The Photographer'-s Guide to the Digital Darkroom"





____________-_________-_________-_________-_________-_________-_
Check out the new AOL. Most comprehensive set of free safety and security
tools, free access to millions of high-quality videos from across the web,
free AOL Mail and more.

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

 


--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.14.6/535 - Release Date: 11/15/2006



-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.14.6/535 - Release Date: 11/15/2006
 


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

When we had those black and white prints laid out in NY to judge
ink/driver differences, I guess about 6 of the guys printed the same
image using Studio Print and Piezotone quads or Cone K7 inks. They all
looked good and quite smooth, but the phrase I used at that time to
describe Tylers three prints was - Three Dimensional. Sometimes I can
achieve that in my work and sometimes I can't. That is the only thing
I could think of as a description. That comes in part from a great rip
and the knowledge to use it effectively, a great inkset that has
proven itself in galleries all over the world, but the primary
ingredients to the results of those prints was talent and experience.
You can't buy that. Tyler reminds me of my old teacher Todd Walker. He
doesn't stop till he gets to the highest level he can get to. Who said
craftsmanship was dead.

John

Hello Bill ,

Thank for the good report.  This has triggered some thoughts and
questions, I'm wondering if you can clarify it for me.  

You didn't actually say this, but the underlying tone of your remarks
seemed like there was an element of pleasant surprise, as if you were
seeing something this good for the first time.  I still have the K7
and ABW samples you sent me over a year ago so I know you have
already been comparing K7/K3 for a long time (and I have always
assumed you are using a calibrated/profiled/RIP workflow).  I have
always thought of you as one of the really good and knowledgeable
printers in this forum, yet if I read your remarks correctly you are
seeing something extraordinary in that print.  This would seem to
imply that it is something beyond your own normally very high quality
results.  John Dean's response conveyed a similar idea, that Tyler's
prints stand out above even those of other good printers, all using
similar technology:

"When we had those black and white prints laid out in NY to 
judge ink/driver differences, I guess about 6 of the guys 
printed the same image using Studio Print and Piezotone 
quads or Cone K7 inks. They all looked good and quite smooth, 
but the phrase I used at that time to describe Tylers three 
prints was - Three Dimensional...That comes in part from a 
great rip and the knowledge to use it effectively..."


One of my questions is whether the quality of that print is something
that is unattainable by most even very knowledgeable printers using
the best tools and workflows, that Tyler posesses some rare knowledge
and skill beyond the tools that shows up in his prints (and we're
talking technical here, not photographic eye, etc).  

Other questions: Is Tyler's RIP (Studio Print?) better than other
RIPs?  Is it more expensive?  More difficult to use?  Can someone
using QTR or IJC or IP, other things being equal, not expect to get
that kind of result?  (In all my experiments with QTR I never got
results that were worth the extra work.  There was always something
that was unacceptable to me.  The 2400 has its own set of
shortcomings, but my K3 prints look much better than anything I ever
got with QTR/2200 with a variety of curves, inks and techniques).

Does Tyler's print set an example that is unattainable by most, even
with good tools?  Can you get equally good results?  Have you seen
anyone else's prints that are that good?  Is that kind of result only
attainable, even from Tyler, with large format negs?  Do you think
there would be as much difference if the source image was from a 35mm
neg?  IOW, are Tyler's tools/techniques the other side of the large
format coin?  Would it be good advice to a 35mm user to just stick
with the K3 driver because there's not enough data in the image?

Another question, Tyler's final remark seems to point to the inks,
specifically more grays, as being the defining factor:

"Here's what I AM talking about - From a purely technical 
standpoint, writing complex and nuanced monochrome data to 
paper, more grays and/or blacks than currently available 
from OEM solutions (at least the Epson K3s) are still better."


Your final remark seems to be at odds with that:

"One last note of clarification. The big difference between 
these two prints is the calibrated/profiled Rip printing 
workflow, not the inks."


In my thinking all these things are interrelated but the dots aren't
all connected.  I'm trying to make sense of it all.  Can you shed some
light and give some perspective to all this?  Thanks very much.


Regards,
Clayton


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

Clayton,

I hear what you're saying and I do understand what your saying.

You know I have the same archtop 1954 ES-175 Gibson guitar as Herb
Ellis the master jazz musician. I also have the same exact amp that he
uses. That doesn't mean that I can play that instrument on the level
that he can. Having the right tools is only the beginning and a small
part of it at that. The rest is a life time of experience, practice,
and hard work. Rips and inks will only get you so far.

John

Clayton,
Tyler has committed ridiculous amounts of time exploring the printing
process; inkjet relative to this forum, but plenty of wet as well.
Therefore, it’s natural that he may present a result that others wish to
emulate.
People like Tyler, Paul, Jon, Roy, and others experience the pleasure of
discovery, and offer their findings to the user community.  As such, it’s
expected that they will always be several steps down the road than the
users.  For those that enjoy the process, and can tolerate the tedium of it,
leaders e.g., Paul and Tyler, offer early information about directions they
are exploring, allowing the user community to join along if desired.  For
the patient and less adventuresome, they can order-up an MIS or Piezography
kit with full instructions, or send files to Custom Digital for printing.

Timing seems to be the root answer to your question.  We can get the same
technical result as their current best work, given time, money, and some
effort on our part.

BTW, being a lurker on the RIP support forums is a good way to learn about
RIPs, and judge which ones may fit your lifestyle; not a decision to make
quickly, IMO.

Best regards,
John Moody

-----Original Message-----
From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of Clayton
Jones
Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2006 10:28 PM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Digital BW] Re: Follow-up to Tyler's slithering from the cave

Hello Bill ,
<snip>
Other questions: Is Tyler's RIP (Studio Print?) better than other
RIPs? Is it more expensive? More difficult to use? Can someone
using QTR or IJC or IP, other things being equal, not expect to get
that kind of result?
<snip>
 Regards,
Clayton



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

I just want to know when do they sleep?
Mark

On Nov 17, 2006, at 6:47 AM, John Moody wrote:

> Tyler has committed ridiculous amounts of time exploring the printing
> process; inkjet relative to this forum, but plenty of wet as well.
> People like Tyler, Paul, Jon, Roy, and others experience the  
> pleasure of
> discovery, and offer their findings to the user community.



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

Clayton- 
    >>You didn't actually say this, but the underlying tone of your remarks
      seemed like there was an element of pleasant surprise, as if you were
 seeing something this good for the first time. 
 Sorry for that, Clayton, but no. It's a very good print, and it clearly demonstrates differences between the two printing workflows--which was my point--but there isn't any voodoo here. Its just what you can expect from a properly calibrated/profiled printing workflow.
  
  >>One of my questions is whether the quality of that print is something
 that is unattainable by most even very knowledgeable printers using
 the best tools and workflows... 
  I don't think so. I cannot speak for Tyler, but I think we're just seeing what can be accomplished if one is willing to do all the things necessary to control each important variable in the printing process. You simply cannot exercise the same level of control over the printing process with an OEM driver that is made possible by a carefully calibrated/profiled rip-driven workflow. 
 >>...Tyler posesses some rare knowledge and skill beyond the tools that shows up in his prints (and we're talking technical here, not photographic eye, etc). 
 I think that fine craftsmanship is rare, and it does require knowledge and skill that extends far beyond the limitations of one's tools. Any individual can make this decision, limited only by circumstance and desire.
  
 
 >> Other questions: Is Tyler's RIP (Studio Print?) better than other
 RIPs? Is it more expensive? More difficult to use? Can someone
 using QTR or IJC or IP, other things being equal, not expect to get
 that kind of result? 
  When I was doing research for "The Photographer's Guide to the Digital Darkroom", I evaluated QTR, Bowhaus, ImagePrint, ColorBurst and StudioPrint. There are summaries of each applications strengths and weaknesses, and I'd refer you to that. At K2 Press, Scott and I are using ColorBurst to drive our 9800/UC machine, and Bowhaus to drive a 7600 loaded with Cone's Neutral and Sepia inks. In my opinion, both produce better prints--out of the box, with the supplied printing profiles--than any OEM print driver I've worked with including Epson's ABW. Like StudioPrint, both rip's provide access to the level of control we've been discussing in this thread. Scott (my studio partner) and I really like StudioPrint, but didn't want to deal with multiple platforms in the K2 Press studio (StudioPrint is PC only and we're running Apples). Personally, I think even the relatively more expensive Rips are a bargain if you decide that exercising that level of control is important. The software/hardware costs for calibration/profiling is much more.
  
  >>Does Tyler's print set an example that is unattainable by most, even
 with good tools? Can you get equally good results? Have you seen
 anyone else's prints that are that good? Is that kind of result only
 attainable, even from Tyler, with large format negs? Do you think
 there would be as much difference if the source image was from a 35mm neg? IOW, are Tyler's tools/techniques the other side of the large
 format coin? Would it be good advice to a 35mm user to just stick
 with the K3 driver because there's not enough data in the image? 
  No. They serve well as examples of an attainable goal. Yes. Yes. No. Properly implemented, the main difference between a workflow using large format film originals, versus 35mm, is aesthetic. No. I wouldn't correlate film format to any given printing workflow.
   
 >>Another question, Tyler's final remark seems to point to the inks,
 specifically more grays, as being the defining factor... Your final remark seems to be at odds with that... In my thinking all these things are interrelated but the dots aren't all connected. I'm trying to make sense of it all. Can you shed some light and give some perspective to all this? 
 The defining factor, in my opinion, is the decision about what level of control the photographer makes. We're producing excellent prints using UC inks, both on the older 4000 and the 9800. But, remember, we're not using the OEM driver (at least, not for the majority of our work; we do a couple of print workflows that do use the OEM driver). You can make the case that "the level of control" is directly related to the inks you decide to print with. As I've said before, I see this as essentially an aesthetic issue and not a technical limitation. The most beautiful grayscale prints I've seen--coming our of our studio and by others--has been from dedicated grayscale ("quad") inksets. But, if I need to make a toned grayscale print that lies outside my grayscale inkset, I never hesitate to do so. It's not a technical question or issue, it's an aesthetic one. 
 One last point. There is absolutely NOTHING wrong with working on the OEM path! If a photographer can exercise the level of control they need, to produce the prints that satisfy them, the huge advantage of the OEM path is the fact that more time and energy can go into making, looking at, and evaluating images (as PRINTS, not just on the display!). Tobie's posts to this effect make a lot of sense to me. 
 
  Hope this helps. You know, it's also possible that Tyler just isn't human... 
 
  Bill Kennedy K2 Press Author of "The Photographer's Guide to the Digital Darkroom"
  
 
        
________________________________________________________________________
Check out the new AOL.  Most comprehensive set of free safety and security tools, free access to millions of high-quality videos from across the web, free AOL Mail and more.


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

Bill,

Thanks for the reply, it cleared up some of the questions.  However
there are still some unconnected dots, so let me try again, maybe I
can ask it better (I'm not trying to give you a hard time, but just
want to resolve this question).

>The defining factor, in my opinion, is the decision about what 
>level of control the photographer makes...
>You simply cannot exercise the same level of control over the
>printing process with an OEM driver that is made possible by a
>carefully calibrated/profiled rip-driven workflow. 

You have clarified that your central point is about control, but it
did not really address my question about how your point differs from
or relates to Tyler's post.  Tyler's main emphasis was on the
rendering of fine detail which he attributed to the number of grays
and the RGB driver's lack of ability to distribute the dots well
enough.  He used the analogy of a contact print to describe the
difference he was seeing, and this is what led my thinking to the film
format question.

Even in a relatively crude BO print there is a huge difference in
prints from 4x5 and 35mm negs.  It is pretty much just as we were used
to seeing in darkroom prints - nothing has changed in that regard.  I
see the same difference in my K3 prints, and my conclusion is that
regardless of what printing system is used, image size is always a
major factor.  

Tyler's example blowups show what happens on a pretty microscopic
level.  There is a large amount of fine detail in that tiny piece of
print, which he said was 6.5x9 from a 5x7 neg - very little
magnification and essentially a contact print.  Seems to me that if
the big difference is the ability to render detail at that level, with
a small image source requiring a large degree of magnification there
may not be much detail at that level to be rendered.  This was the
essence of my question whether Tyler-like (or contact print-like)
results are closely tied to using large format images.

Your reply: "...the main difference between a workflow using large
format film originals, versus 35mm, is aesthetic" did not seem to
address this.  Isn't the aesthetic part of it directly a result of the
technical realities?  

This brings me back to your emphasis on control.  Seems like you are
attributing the difference in those prints to something different than
what Tyler is saying.  The issue of control seems to me more the realm
of getting open shadows, desired contrast, transitions between zones,
tone distribution, etc.

The reason I'm digging at this is I'm trying to get a handle on some
slippery concepts that will help people who are just getting started.
If the difference in Tyler's examples can be expected when using a
5x7 camera, what difference can be expected for someone using 35mm or
645?  Seems to me it ought to be correspondingly smaller, control
issues aside.  Would you agree?

In the film world we could make some definitive statements: If you
want contact print quality you have to use a large format camera. 
Every format down from there has it's corresponding compromise in the
print.  Seems to me that the same rule applies here.  Is it fair to
suggest that Tyler-like prints can be made from 35mm negs?

I'm not contesting what Tyler said nor what you said, but am just
trying to sort out what seems like overlapping and confusing ideas.  I
pretty regularly get emails from people who are confused and/or
discouraged by what they read in this forum.  I'm constantly learning
like everyone else and am always trying to clarify, sort out and
understand the various issues.  Thanks very much.


Regards,
Clayton

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

Clayton-
 
 I think some of this is better addressed by Tyler, especially anything related to how the two prints were produced, or what his intentions were. About all I can add is the difference in the two prints Tyler sent me is easily noticable by eye. It's not microscopic.
 
 There is most definately a direct relationship between the quality of input data and output data. If I make two scans, one from a good 35mm film original, another from large format, I'd expect to see more image forming data from the larger piece of film. Larger film is capable of capturing more data, should contain more data, and if the scan is made properly, the image file should have more image forming data to work with. I should be able to see this in Photoshop. If I'm careful in Photoshop I should have more imaging forming data to send to my inkjet printer.
 
 The thing is, a properly calibrated/profiled rip printing workflow will present more of this imaging forming data in the print compared to using any OEM printing workflow. The final quality of that print is effected by many variables, and that is what we're trying to control. The OEM print driver is a black box. You can fiddle with the dials and switches, but you have precious little control over the important variables. For example, every OEM print driver I've ever worked with lays down more ink than is necessary. Sometimes a lot more. A professional rip provides control over each ink channel. It also allows the ink density across all channels to be linearized. With a printer in this calibrated state, you can then author an accurate print profile. The result? You can actually see in the print more of the image forming data that exists in the file. You have a "better" print, regardless of the ink set you've used to make that print (dye or pigment, OEM or third-party, color or quad).
 
 As in the wet darkroom, if I desire to make grainless, larger, sharper prints with more image forming data (shadow and highlight detail) with better internal contrast, a larger piece of film (and better shooting/processing technique) is a good idea. Inkjet printing does not alter this equation in any meaningful way (although Photoshop extends by several magnitudes the level of control I can exercise over the image...so I have that going for me. That's nice.). If I want "contact print" quality from a 35mm film original in the wet darkroom, I'm going to print it small (or make people view it from across the street). Ditto in the digital darkroom.
 
 K2 Press does consulting and training in our area for individual photographers, businesses, and institutions that need help with color management or to solve printing issues. Photographers often hire us to author custom print profiles that are typically used with their OEM print drivers. These custom profiles always result in better prints from the OEM print driver (and improve soft proofing in Photoshop). These profiles, a step in the right direction and very useful, still cannot exploit the full potential of the printer, however. The OEM printing path won't allow it. Nonetheless, there are lots of photographers that will be happy on the OEM path, especially if they can improve their prints with accurate print profiles. They just don't have the time, inclination, or need to push the process further. I think this is Tobie's point, or one of them, and I completely agree with it.
 
 Or, said another way: I'd rather experience a beautifully seen image adequately printed than a poorly seen one beautifully printed. I value highly those exceptional times when I see a beautiful seen image printed beautifully, a realized image. I value craftsmanship, and understand it's pursuit as a means of self exploration and growth, but it is the handmaiden of vision and inspiration.
 
 
 Bill Kennedy
 K2 Press
 Author of "The Photographer's Guide to the Digital Darkroom"
 
 ps- yes, "Tyler-like" prints can be made from 35mm negatives. One just has to make good decisions. And, Edward Weston said he could make good prints on "a door matt".

 -----Original Message-----
 From: cj@...
 To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
 Sent: Fri, 17 Nov 2006 2:34 PM
 Subject: [Digital BW] Re: Follow-up to Tyler's slithering from the cave
 
     Bill,
 
 Thanks for the reply, it cleared up some of the questions. However
 there are still some unconnected dots, so let me try again, maybe I
 can ask it better (I'm not trying to give you a hard time, but just
 want to resolve this question).
 
 >The defining factor, in my opinion, is the decision about what 
 >level of control the photographer makes...
 >You simply cannot exercise the same level of control over the
 >printing process with an OEM driver that is made possible by a
 >carefully calibrated/profiled rip-driven workflow. 
 
 You have clarified that your central point is about control, but it
 did not really address my question about how your point differs from
 or relates to Tyler's post. Tyler's main emphasis was on the
 rendering of fine detail which he attributed to the number of grays
 and the RGB driver's lack of ability to distribute the dots well
 enough. He used the analogy of a contact print to describe the
 difference he was seeing, and this is what led my thinking to the film
 format question.
 
 Even in a relatively crude BO print there is a huge difference in
 prints from 4x5 and 35mm negs. It is pretty much just as we were used
 to seeing in darkroom prints - nothing has changed in that regard. I
 see the same difference in my K3 prints, and my conclusion is that
 regardless of what printing system is used, image size is always a
 major factor. 
 
 Tyler's example blowups show what happens on a pretty microscopic
 level. There is a large amount of fine detail in that tiny piece of
 print, which he said was 6.5x9 from a 5x7 neg - very little
 magnification and essentially a contact print. Seems to me that if
 the big difference is the ability to render detail at that level, with
 a small image source requiring a large degree of magnification there
 may not be much detail at that level to be rendered. This was the
 essence of my question whether Tyler-like (or contact print-like)
 results are closely tied to using large format images.
 
 Your reply: "...the main difference between a workflow using large
 format film originals, versus 35mm, is aesthetic" did not seem to
 address this. Isn't the aesthetic part of it directly a result of the
 technical realities? 
 
 This brings me back to your emphasis on control. Seems like you are
 attributing the difference in those prints to something different than
 what Tyler is saying. The issue of control seems to me more the realm
 of getting open shadows, desired contrast, transitions between zones,
 tone distribution, etc.
 
 The reason I'm digging at this is I'm trying to get a handle on some
 slippery concepts that will help people who are just getting started.
 If the difference in Tyler's examples can be expected when using a
 5x7 camera, what difference can be expected for someone using 35mm or
 645? Seems to me it ought to be correspondingly smaller, control
 issues aside. Would you agree?
 
 In the film world we could make some definitive statements: If you
 want contact print quality you have to use a large format camera. 
 Every format down from there has it's corresponding compromise in the
 print. Seems to me that the same rule applies here. Is it fair to
 suggest that Tyler-like prints can be made from 35mm negs?
 
 I'm not contesting what Tyler said nor what you said, but am just
 trying to sort out what seems like overlapping and confusing ideas. I
 pretty regularly get emails from people who are confused and/or
 discouraged by what they read in this forum. I'm constantly learning
 like everyone else and am always trying to clarify, sort out and
 understand the various issues. Thanks very much.
 
 Regards,
 Clayton
 
 Info on black and white digital printing at 
 http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm
 
      
________________________________________________________________________
Check out the new AOL.  Most comprehensive set of free safety and security tools, free access to millions of high-quality videos from across the web, free AOL Mail and more.


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

wow, ok...
I'm not ignoring all this or hanging back wating for the perfectly worded reply or being 
mysterious.
I'm on the road, have spent as much time in the air as on the ground in the last 4 days, and 
am now amazed that this little Best Western in the mddle of Wyoming I just checked into has 
an internet connection.
I still think the vast majority of issues mentioned are addressed in the very first post I made, 
but will reply when I can to some of this, after a d**m long nap...
Don't mean to whine, but have to yap at someone, and find myself here!
Let's change the name of this thread... PLEASE!!!

Tyler

Bill,

Ok, I get the connection you are making.  It seemed like you and Tyler
were saying two different things.  Thanks much.

Regards,
Clayton

Changing the name, sorry nothing more to add.

Tyler,

>I still think the vast majority of issues mentioned are addressed in
>the very first post I made, 

Yes, but it takes some of us a while to sort it out.  This has been a
really interesting thread.  Lot's of good thoughtful stuff.


Regards,
Clayton


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

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.paulroark.com/>  

 

 



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

thanks Greg, that'll do I suppose, though I don't see them as squared off against each 
other frankly. But since that's what the posted jpegs were, it's accurate and I deserve it.
Anyway, I want to answer some questions but feel this thing is getting beat to death and 
not helping the way I thought it might. Anyway...

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Clayton Jones" <cj@...> wrote:

Clayton, I was not at the printoff, I did not see the other prints nor am aware of all the 
workflows represented. In my opinion the one thing that contributes to a 3 dimensional 
quality in monochrome is to work with subtle hue shifts throughout the scale, Many 
analogue methods have this as well, it has a long tradition. All of the B version prints I 
sent had different subtle splits and blends, none were one straight mono ink set. The A 
versions were. That experimentation (B verions) was what I wanted to get feedback on 
from that great gathering of people and it was intentional. Those processes are not 
identical to the jpeg I posted and I will say a bit more later about that. The jpeg was a 
straight quad with normal 3 grays + black, except there was an additional dark gray 
underprinting the K. It's a very skeletal K so that should have not effected the resolution 
differences observed.
It had some hue shift as a result of the ink set used, the seleniums, which are not identical 
in hue from top to bottom, and in fact a bit warm, mostly in the highlights.

snip...

> One of my questions is whether the quality of that print is something
> that is unattainable by most even very knowledgeable printers using
> the best tools and ...

I have seen resolution tests from the straight off the shelf K7 QTR outout that exceeds 
StudioPrint quad resolution. But since I can't post those, nor even use that setup, I'm very 
hesitant to bring this up. Even my posted example with proof seems to be questioned.
I have no tests from IJC, or QTR, from quads, to know if there is a significant difference 
from my setup.
I was sent a scan from and IJC setup output from my same file that was excellent and of 
similar character to my quad output. But you have no reason to believe me, just words 
again. I  have every reason to believe well used QTR or IJC setup with at least 4 partitions 
will do well also, this should be no suprise to anyone, it's one reason we use these mono 
inks and it's inherent in the process. Anyone with a good understanding of how dots are 
derived from the input info and put down on paper knows this. There shouldn't be any 
suprise about the comparison at all. You have opinions, and you have science, take your 
pick.
and again, this doesn't mean there aren't many apropriate way for people to print.

>... that Tyler posesses some rare knowledge

yes, I'm the 14th re-incarnation of Nostradamus, silly

> ...Can someone
> using QTR or IJC or IP, other things being equal, not expect to get
> that kind of result?

see above

>  (In all my experiments with QTR I never got
> results that were worth the extra work.  There was always something
> that was unacceptable to me.

OK, but with multiple K and grays?

>  ...Do you think
> there would be as much difference if the source image was from a 35mm
> neg?

You've pondered a few times, and I don't know. But my test was initially for my own 
purposes and the idea was to use source data with hopefully little or no image structure or 
character of it's own larger than the printer's ability.
The whole idea was to try and see the pure nature of the printing system's structure. 
Perhaps it would have been better to use a manufactured file, but I had this one handy and 
with little to no enlargement and at a native res I thought it would be apropriate.
As I said, the relevance of this to other people's source material or worlflows I did not 
judge. Years ago I sent you quad output from drum scanned 35mm triX and I don't believe 
you liked it. Wonderful by me, I'm happy you are using something rewarding to you.
When I mentioned contact prints I did not mean I necessarily want that look. I was refering 
to it as an output system, is closely represents the image structure given it, adding little to 
know image structure of it's own. 
...
> Another question, Tyler's final remark seems to point to the inks,
> specifically more grays, as being the defining factor:
...
> Your (Bill's) final remark seems to be at odds with that:

and Bill and I may have slightly different opinions about that, MAY. The higher detail 
resolved, the finer representation of levels, and the greater dot covereage is inherent in 
the nature of multple partitioned K/gray monochromatic printing. I think Bill had 
additional thoughts about what he was seeing, also valid and based on years of experience 
and a critical eye toward the fine print tradition. I apreciate him stepping out and posting 
his opinions here.
There are many wondeful ways to print, more very day. I was attempting to remind this 
community about the inherent capabilities of one aproach to ink usage that has been an 
important part of our world here for some time.
Tyler

Tyler Boley wrote:
> snip... The jpeg was a
> straight quad with normal 3 grays + black, except there was an additional dark gray 
> underprinting the K. It's a very skeletal K so that should have not effected the resolution 
> differences observed.

Could you elaborate on this "underprinting" please. I'm guessing that 
you have a second dark gray cartridge (the darkest gray?) which is sent 
the same information as the black but with a lower ink limit. What extra 
qualities do you see in the print? Is this a specific StudioPrint 
setting? I use qtr but I think something like this would be possible 
with that rip using the "copy curve from" facility.

Thanks
Howard

Tyler,

The only other thing I might want to see is how StudioPrint would
render that same file on the x800 printer. And maybe how it would
render that file with a different GCR in the profile from what you
probably use for your color work. Just curious to see if there is much
of a change to the way ABW printed.

And if you would like to see what other profile creation software may
or may not do for you, I'd be happy to make a few profiles (CMYK) for
you to test. I don't think this will be the answer to replacing the
quads, but it might be interesting. And if you prefer, we can take
this off list.

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]

Paul  -
   
  "...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. ..."
   
  Why would there be a difference in shadow detail between K3 and K4?  It seems that the difference would have to do with linerization/profile/driver since the inks that produce the shadow detail should be the same in both sets.
   
  Tom Baker



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

The 220 3D and the 2200 5K have a very similar look with the slice of 
the 220 possibly being the more pleasing (but I would really need to 
see the whole image to really judge).

Paul,
These were 1440 mode on matte paper?

Best regards,
John Moody

-----Original Message-----
From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of Paul Roark
Sent: Monday, November 20, 2006 1:30 PM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [Digital BW] K3 vs. quad (Was Follow-up ...)

Tyler was good enough to share the original file with which he made the
<snip>



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

Tom,

 

The initial comparison I was making where I saw the shadow detail
differences was between the 2400 K3 and the custom B&W inksets I have in the
220 (UT-3D) and 2200 (now 5K+cm).  So, there were different drivers.  The 3D
uses the 220 Epson driver but with curves, etc.  With the 2200, I use the
IJC rip.

 

The comparison you might be referring to was another one where I looked at
the 2200 workflow with and without the "LLLK" (a 1:2 dilution of LLK).
There the only difference was the super-light LLLK either being in the mix
or not.  Oddly what was barely noticeable at the closest viewing distances
(actually with a magnifying hood) was not smoothness but slightly better
detail in the one with the LLLK.  I think aside from this type of
unrealistic comparison, the use of that 7th spot for a yellow or other ink
might be more productive.  I suspect the use of yellow to control brightened
paper highlights and borders, not to mention making about any sepia tone one
would want, has substantial potential.  Some might also prefer to have Glop
or R800 Red in that spot.

 

Paul

www.PaulRoark.com <http://www.paulroark.com/>  

 

 

  _____  

From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Tom Baker
Sent: Monday, November 20, 2006 10:54 AM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [Digital BW] K3 vs. quad (Was Follow-up ...)

 

Paul -

"...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. ..."

Why would there be a difference in shadow detail between K3 and K4? It seems
that the difference would have to do with linerization/profile/driver since
the inks that produce the shadow detail should be the same in both sets.

Tom Baker

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

 



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

Yes, "Best Photo" was checked, High Speed was not checked.  The file itself
is a 1440 dpi file.

 

Paul

www.PaulRoark.com <http://www.paulroark.com/>  

 

 

  _____  

From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of John
Moody
Sent: Monday, November 20, 2006 2:41 PM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [Digital BW] K3 vs. quad (Was Follow-up ...)

 

Paul,
These were 1440 mode on matte paper?

Best regards,
John Moody

-----Original Message-----
From: DigitalBlackandWhit
<mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint%40yahoogroups.com>
eThePrint@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhit
<mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint%40yahoogroups.com>
eThePrint@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of Paul Roark
Sent: Monday, November 20, 2006 1:30 PM
To: DigitalBlackandWhit
<mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint%40yahoogroups.com>
eThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [Digital BW] K3 vs. quad (Was Follow-up ...)

Tyler was good enough to share the original file with which he made the
<snip>

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

 



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

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]
>

Hello Paul,

> images at http://tylerboley.com/info/RGB_Quad.jpg   

> http://home1.gte.net/res09aij/Comparisons.jpg   

Thanks for posting these.  FWIW I can see some finer detail resolution
in your Standard ABW 2400 than in Tyler's 9800 shot.  Perhaps there is
a difference in the 9800 driver.

I also see some fine detail in your Standard ABW 2400 shot that is not
present in any of your other examples.

In your shots, near the bottom there is a large white area shaped like
a boomerang.  The upper arm of that shape terminates in a point near
the left edge.  In the gray area just below the end of that arm, in
the Standard 2400 shot you can see two dark horizontal lines.  These
are not as clearly defined in the other shots.  Also compare that same
area on on Tyler's shots. 

The ABW 2400 shot seems to hold up well.  Is this a fair comparison to
Tyler's 9800 shot, having been done with different scanners?

Regards,
Clayton


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

Clayton,

> > images at http://tylerboley.com/info/RGB_Quad.jpg  

> > http://home1.gte.net/res09aij/Comparisons.jpg  

> Perhaps there is a difference in the 9800 driver.

Yes, I think that might be the case.

> I also see some fine detail in your Standard ABW 2400 shot 
> that is not present in any of your other examples.

Depending on what details one looks at microscopically, one or another image
will appear to be "better."  Different drivers or rips appear to throw out
different information or insert different artifacts.  (The apparent
vineyard-like structure in one of the images is, in fact, an artifact.)
None of the approaches is close to perfect if one compares them to the
original 1440 dpi original file.  For example, I've found that some drivers
throw out information in excess of 720 dpi.  

It's important to keep in mind that these are 0.8 inch high segments.  To
get a better comparison of what a print would look like upon close
inspection, have the monitor view at about 25% in Photoshop.  The bottom
line, in my opinion, is that there is no significant difference.

> The ABW 2400 shot seems to hold up well.

Yes, I think they all look fine in real prints.

> Is this a fair comparison to Tyler's 9800 shot, having been 
> done with different scanners?

My 1600 dpi Epson flatbed is not in the same league as a good drum scanner.
But, the Epson scanner is also so much better than our eyes, that the
differences are generally beyond what we can see.  To equalize the scans a
bit better, I recommend an unsharp mask of the flatbed scans with settings
about 100%, 0.7 pixel, and 0 threshold.  One can somewhat "calibrate" the
sharpening by getting the fine detail of my 2200 K5+cm shot equal to Tyler's
B&W workflow.  They are the closest in terms of ultimate quality.
Especially when this is done to offset the flatbed's softness, at reasonable
magnification -- way below a 100% view -- I think it can be a fair
comparison, though not perfect. 

While this has been an interesting exercise for those into the technical end
of printing, people should be choosing workflows and systems based on other
than microscopic inspections of prints made with files that are way beyond
what anyone actually uses.  

What I initially disliked most about the ABW mode was the color dots.  I'm
largely over that now and using a workflow that has them (but to a lesser
extent), and I think it's the most flexible system I've used.  However, I'll
also be fade testing it to be sure it's not compromising the longevity.  If
the longevity is there, I no longer care if there are microscopic dots if
the workflow gets me other features that are desirable.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

Anything less than 100% is throwing away image information.  A better method
would be to move 4X away from your monitor.

Best regards,
John Moody

-----Original Message-----
From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of Paul Roark
Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2006 11:37 AM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [Digital BW] K3 vs. quad (Was Follow-up ...)

Clayton,

> > images at http://tylerboley.com/info/RGB_Quad.jpg
<http://tylerboley.com/info/RGB_Quad.jpg>

> > http://home1.gte.net/res09aij/Comparisons.jpg
<http://home1.gte.net/res09aij/Comparisons.jpg>


It's important to keep in mind that these are 0.8 inch high segments. To
get a better comparison of what a print would look like upon close
inspection, have the monitor view at about 25% in Photoshop. The bottom
line, in my opinion, is that there is no significant difference.



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

In a message dated 11/21/06 1:58:27 PM, moodymz3@... writes:


> Anything less than 100% is throwing away image information.  A better 
> method
> would be to move 4X away from your monitor.
> 

Or, ideally, move away until the image on screen is .8 inches high, between 
your finger and thumb at two feet out; if your room is large enough. <G>

C. David Tobie
Product Technology Manager
ColorVision Business Unit
Datacolor Inc.
CDTobie@colorvision.com
www.colorvision.com


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

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Tyler Boley" 
<tyler@...> wrote:

> In my opinion the one thing that contributes to a 3 dimensional 
> quality in monochrome is to work with subtle hue shifts throughout 
the scale, Many 
> analogue methods have this as well, it has a long tradition. 

Hi Tyler,

I really appreciate your original post and all the valuable 
reactions it has evoked. What sticks out for me is the point you 
raise above. Can you elaborate on this? I'm phantasizing about 
cooler/bluer tones that tend to receed and warmer/redder tones that 
tend to come forward.  I'm currently setting up a set of QTR curves 
for the UT3D inkset, including some split tone curves, and I'd love 
to experiment in this direction. Would a curve with cool shadows and 
carbon or selenium highlights do the "trick"? Or is it way more 
subtle than that?

Kind regards,

Joost

Joost, first of all I should restate that, "one of the things" instead
of "the one thing".
There are no guidelines I can arrive at for this, you simply have to
play. I've heard the "warm forward cool receding" thing before, and
think it's valid sometimes, other times not so much. I see warm as
more opaque than cool sometimes, not always. It's just a matter of
what brings the image alive on paper, hopefully.
I use these blends all kinds of ways, and despite using very similar
settings more often than not, I wind up trying several for each image
as I'm doing test prints anyway toward a final. I'm often suprised at
the conclusion and would not have been able to predict without seeing
it on paper, even with previews showing hue.
To start with though, your idea is valid and well worth trying, it's
similar to one I've used a lot.
Tyler

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "horstenj"
<j.h.j.h@...> wrote:

>
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Tyler Boley" 
> <tyler@> wrote:
> 
> > In my opinion the one thing that contributes to a 3 dimensional 
> > quality in monochrome is to work with subtle hue shifts throughout 
> the scale, Many 
> > analogue methods have this as well, it has a long tradition. 
> 
> Hi Tyler,
> 
> I really appreciate your original post and all the valuable 
> reactions it has evoked. What sticks out for me is the point you 
> raise above. Can you elaborate on this? I'm phantasizing about 
> cooler/bluer tones that tend to receed and warmer/redder tones that 
> tend to come forward.  I'm currently setting up a set of QTR curves 
> for the UT3D inkset, including some split tone curves, and I'd love 
> to experiment in this direction. Would a curve with cool shadows and 
> carbon or selenium highlights do the "trick"? Or is it way more 
> subtle than that?
> 
> Kind regards,
> 
> Joost
>

"Another example: when students begin to learn the Zone System they gain 
control over the overall contrast of an image by exposing for the highlights 
and developing for the shadows."

You've got that backwards. In the zone system you expose for the shadows and 
control the highlights through development.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: <BKPhoto@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, November 22, 2006 5:02 PM
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: How to get this "3 dimensional quality"?


Joost-

 Let's say an image has a wall in it. The overall impression is that the 
wall is one continuous tone. If you looked closely, though, this continous 
tone is actually a set or range of similar values. By seperating those local 
tonalities--increasing their relative differences--you increase the local 
contrast, and the dimensionality of that area of the image. You don't have 
to change the overall contrast of the print to affect that area, but it 
takes skill.

 Often, when students begin their apprenticeship to fine printing in the wet 
darkroom, it's all about seperating tonal values in the shadows. They learn 
that by properly exposing and developing the film, they can get detail and 
texture in dark areas that they couldn't get before. Eventually--and this 
usually takes a long time--they begin to realize that the real challenge 
isn't the shadows; that's pretty easy. It's controlling the subtle variation 
of tone in the highlights that often make a beautiful print.

 Another example: when students begin to learn the Zone System they gain 
control over the overall contrast of an image by exposing for the highlights 
and developing for the shadows. With high contrast scenes you quickly 
realize that the real challenge isn't controlling overall contrast. That's 
relatively easy to do. The problem is that reducing the overall contrast of 
a high contrast scene also reduces local contrast. Areas within the image 
are reduced in contrast and the image just looks flat and two dimensional. 
The "secret" is to control both the overall contrast of an image, and it's 
internal contrast.

 In Photoshop it's possible to have localized areas of low contrast, and 
areas of high contrast. Used well, this is a powerful technique. Combine 
this with localized sharpening and you can have an enormous effect on the 
way a print feels, and the way it's viewed.

 Hope that helps.

 Bill K.



 -----Original Message-----
 From: j.h.j.h@...
 To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
 Sent: Wed, 22 Nov 2006 3:13 PM
 Subject: [Digital BW] Re: How to get this "3 dimensional quality"?

     --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, BKPhoto@...
 wrote:
 Hi Bill,

 Thanks for your comment as well. Soem questions though:

 > I'd add to Tyler's comments that the illusive "three dimensional
 quality" idea is closely related to the internal tonal structure of
 an image. This has always been true, from the earliest photographic
 printing processes to inkjet printing. Wet darkroom printers often
 refer to this as the "internal contrast" of a print; the local
 contrast rather than the overall contrast. Internal contrast helps
 separate close values and, in my experience, this is a major
 contributor to that dimensional quality.

 I'm not sure I completely get what you mean. I'm having trouble to
 visualize the length scale of "local". Are you meaning the
 microstructure/texture, or over a more larger scale, let's say 5% of
 the image, typically parts of key objects. or both? Could you
 elaborate it bit furhter on this?

 > When you add hue, or subtle shifts in color, in a monochrome image
 you get an accumulative effect. The color is perceived as part of the
 internal contrast of the image.

 I think I understand that one.

 > Lastly, this sense of internal contrast is affected by any number
 of issues: the grain structure of the image, sharpness (optical and
 printing), and the size of the print.

 Not sure I understand this one, but as said before: I have some
 trouble understanding the concept.

 Joost


________________________________________________________________________
Check out the new AOL.  Most comprehensive set of free safety and security 
tools, free access to millions of high-quality videos from across the web, 
free AOL Mail and more.


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



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 Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines 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 OWNER AND 
MODERATORS 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  OWNER AND 
MODERATORS 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

Joost-
 
 I'd add to Tyler's comments that the illusive "three dimensional quality" idea is closely related to the internal tonal structure of an image. This has always been true, from the earliest photographic printing processes to inkjet printing. Wet darkroom printers often refer to this as the "internal contrast" of a print; the local contrast rather than the overall contrast. Internal contrast helps separate close values and, in my experience, this is a major contributor to that dimensional quality.
 
 This actually easier to do in Photoshop than it ever was with wet darkroom practices. I'd caution, though, that achieving this quality with inkjet prints requires either luck or a very accurate print profile used with a calibrated machine.
 
 When you add hue, or subtle shifts in color, in a monochrome image you get an accumulative effect. The color is perceived as part of the internal contrast of the image. Lastly, this sense of internal contrast is affected by any number of issues: the grain structure of the image, sharpness (optical and printing), and the size of the print.
 
 Bill Kennedy
 K2 Press
 Author of "The Photographer's Guide to the Digital Darkroom"

 -----Original Message-----
 From: tyler@...
 To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
 Sent: Wed, 22 Nov 2006 12:29 PM
 Subject: [Digital BW] Re: How to get this "3 dimensional quality"?
 
     Joost, first of all I should restate that, "one of the things" instead
 of "the one thing".
 There are no guidelines I can arrive at for this, you simply have to
 play. I've heard the "warm forward cool receding" thing before, and
 think it's valid sometimes, other times not so much. I see warm as
 more opaque than cool sometimes, not always. It's just a matter of
 what brings the image alive on paper, hopefully.
 I use these blends all kinds of ways, and despite using very similar
 settings more often than not, I wind up trying several for each image
 as I'm doing test prints anyway toward a final. I'm often suprised at
 the conclusion and would not have been able to predict without seeing
 it on paper, even with previews showing hue.
 To start with though, your idea is valid and well worth trying, it's
 similar to one I've used a lot.
 Tyler
 
 --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "horstenj"
 <j.h.j.h@...> wrote:
 >
 > --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Tyler Boley" 
 > <tyler@> wrote:
 > 
 > > In my opinion the one thing that contributes to a 3 dimensional 
 > > quality in monochrome is to work with subtle hue shifts throughout 
 > the scale, Many 
 > > analogue methods have this as well, it has a long tradition. 
 > 
 > Hi Tyler,
 > 
 > I really appreciate your original post and all the valuable 
 > reactions it has evoked. What sticks out for me is the point you 
 > raise above. Can you elaborate on this? I'm phantasizing about 
 > cooler/bluer tones that tend to receed and warmer/redder tones that 
 > tend to come forward. I'm currently setting up a set of QTR curves 
 > for the UT3D inkset, including some split tone curves, and I'd love 
 > to experiment in this direction. Would a curve with cool shadows and 
 > carbon or selenium highlights do the "trick"? Or is it way more 
 > subtle than that?
 > 
 > Kind regards,
 > 
 > Joost
 >
 
      
________________________________________________________________________
Check out the new AOL.  Most comprehensive set of free safety and security tools, free access to millions of high-quality videos from across the web, free AOL Mail and more.


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

>>Wet darkroom printers often
>>refer to this as the "internal >>contrast" of a print; the local
>>contrast rather than the overall >>contrast. Internal contrast helps
>>separate close values and, in my >>experience, this is a major
>>contributor to that dimensional >>quality.

>I'm not sure I completely get what >you mean

Local contrast just means contrast with a particular area or areas of the 
print as opposed to the overall contrast of the print. The latter is 
measured by the range between the brightest white in the print and the 
darkest dark in the print. Local contrast just refers to the range within 
some smaller area of the prints. For example, in a landscape photograph of 
say mountains, sky, and clouds, the contast between the sky and clouds could 
be referred to as local contrast. Or the contrast within small areas of 
rocks in the mountain could be referred to as local contrast. It's just the 
contrast within some area of the print as opposed to the print as a whole. 
Photoshop makes it much easier to adjust local contrast than it ever was in 
the darkroom.

I thought Tyler was talking more about tonal values within areas of the 
print rather than contrast within those areas but perhaps both work 
together. Or perhaps I misunderstood some of the things he was saying.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "horstenj" <j.h.j.h@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, November 22, 2006 4:13 PM
Subject: [Digital BW] Re: How to get this "3 dimensional quality"?


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, BKPhoto@...
wrote:
Hi Bill,

Thanks for your comment as well. Soem questions though:

>  I'd add to Tyler's comments that the illusive "three dimensional
quality" idea is closely related to the internal tonal structure of
an image. This has always been true, from the earliest photographic
printing processes to inkjet printing. Wet darkroom printers often
refer to this as the "internal contrast" of a print; the local
contrast rather than the overall contrast. Internal contrast helps
separate close values and, in my experience, this is a major
contributor to that dimensional quality.

I'm not sure I completely get what you mean. I'm having trouble to
visualize the length scale of "local". Are you meaning the
microstructure/texture, or over a more larger scale, let's say 5% of
the image, typically parts of key objects. or both? Could you
elaborate it bit furhter on this?


>  When you add hue, or subtle shifts in color, in a monochrome image
you get an accumulative effect. The color is perceived as part of the
internal contrast of the image.

I think I understand that one.

> Lastly, this sense of internal contrast is affected by any number
of issues: the grain structure of the image, sharpness (optical and
printing), and the size of the print.

Not sure I understand this one, but as said before: I have some
trouble understanding the concept.

Joost





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 "Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines" 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 "OWNER" AND 
"MODERATORS" 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  "OWNER" AND 
"MODERATORS" 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

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Tyler Boley" 
<tyler@...> wrote:

> There are no guidelines I can arrive at for this, you simply have to
> play. I've heard the "warm forward cool receding" thing before, and
> think it's valid sometimes, other times not so much. I see warm as
> more opaque than cool sometimes, not always. It's just a matter of
> what brings the image alive on paper, hopefully.
> I use these blends all kinds of ways, and despite using very similar
> settings more often than not, I wind up trying several for each 
image
> as I'm doing test prints anyway toward a final. I'm often suprised 
at
> the conclusion and would not have been able to predict without 
seeing
> it on paper, even with previews showing hue.

Hi Tyler,

Thanks for the reply. I was already afraid you were going to give an 
answer like this ;-). It would have been too good to be true to find 
the Magic Bullet ;-). Nevertheless, you have pointed a route that's 
worth exploring. Till so far I didn't take split toning too serious. 
Thanks for the suggestion. I'll have a try.

Joost

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, BKPhoto@... 
wrote:
Hi Bill,

Thanks for your comment as well. Soem questions though:

>  I'd add to Tyler's comments that the illusive "three dimensional 
quality" idea is closely related to the internal tonal structure of 
an image. This has always been true, from the earliest photographic 
printing processes to inkjet printing. Wet darkroom printers often 
refer to this as the "internal contrast" of a print; the local 
contrast rather than the overall contrast. Internal contrast helps 
separate close values and, in my experience, this is a major 
contributor to that dimensional quality.

I'm not sure I completely get what you mean. I'm having trouble to 
visualize the length scale of "local". Are you meaning the 
microstructure/texture, or over a more larger scale, let's say 5% of 
the image, typically parts of key objects. or both? Could you 
elaborate it bit furhter on this?     


>  When you add hue, or subtle shifts in color, in a monochrome image 
you get an accumulative effect. The color is perceived as part of the 
internal contrast of the image. 

I think I understand that one.

> Lastly, this sense of internal contrast is affected by any number 
of issues: the grain structure of the image, sharpness (optical and 
printing), and the size of the print.

Not sure I understand this one, but as said before: I have some 
trouble understanding the concept.
 
Joost

Joost-
 
 Let's say an image has a wall in it. The overall impression is that the wall is one continuous tone. If you looked closely, though, this continous tone is actually a set or range of similar values. By seperating those local tonalities--increasing their relative differences--you increase the local contrast, and the dimensionality of that area of the image. You don't have to change the overall contrast of the print to affect that area, but it takes skill.
 
 Often, when students begin their apprenticeship to fine printing in the wet darkroom, it's all about seperating tonal values in the shadows. They learn that by properly exposing and developing the film, they can get detail and texture in dark areas that they couldn't get before. Eventually--and this usually takes a long time--they begin to realize that the real challenge isn't the shadows; that's pretty easy. It's controlling the subtle variation of tone in the highlights that often make a beautiful print.
 
 Another example: when students begin to learn the Zone System they gain control over the overall contrast of an image by exposing for the highlights and developing for the shadows. With high contrast scenes you quickly realize that the real challenge isn't controlling overall contrast. That's relatively easy to do. The problem is that reducing the overall contrast of a high contrast scene also reduces local contrast. Areas within the image are reduced in contrast and the image just looks flat and two dimensional. The "secret" is to control both the overall contrast of an image, and it's internal contrast.
 
 In Photoshop it's possible to have localized areas of low contrast, and areas of high contrast. Used well, this is a powerful technique. Combine this with localized sharpening and you can have an enormous effect on the way a print feels, and the way it's viewed.
 
 Hope that helps.
 
 Bill K.

 -----Original Message-----
 From: j.h.j.h@zonnet.nl
 To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
 Sent: Wed, 22 Nov 2006 3:13 PM
 Subject: [Digital BW] Re: How to get this "3 dimensional quality"?
 
     --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, BKPhoto@... 
 wrote:
 Hi Bill,
 
 Thanks for your comment as well. Soem questions though:
 
 > I'd add to Tyler's comments that the illusive "three dimensional 
 quality" idea is closely related to the internal tonal structure of 
 an image. This has always been true, from the earliest photographic 
 printing processes to inkjet printing. Wet darkroom printers often 
 refer to this as the "internal contrast" of a print; the local 
 contrast rather than the overall contrast. Internal contrast helps 
 separate close values and, in my experience, this is a major 
 contributor to that dimensional quality.
 
 I'm not sure I completely get what you mean. I'm having trouble to 
 visualize the length scale of "local". Are you meaning the 
 microstructure/texture, or over a more larger scale, let's say 5% of 
 the image, typically parts of key objects. or both? Could you 
 elaborate it bit furhter on this? 
 
 > When you add hue, or subtle shifts in color, in a monochrome image 
 you get an accumulative effect. The color is perceived as part of the 
 internal contrast of the image. 
 
 I think I understand that one.
 
 > Lastly, this sense of internal contrast is affected by any number 
 of issues: the grain structure of the image, sharpness (optical and 
 printing), and the size of the print.
 
 Not sure I understand this one, but as said before: I have some 
 trouble understanding the concept.
 
 Joost
 
      
________________________________________________________________________
Check out the new AOL.  Most comprehensive set of free safety and security tools, free access to millions of high-quality videos from across the web, free AOL Mail and more.


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

Yes, I did! My bad.
 
 BK 

 -----Original Message-----
 From: bellis60@...
 To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
 Sent: Wed, 22 Nov 2006 1:39 PM
 Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: How to get this "3 dimensional quality"?
 
     "Another example: when students begin to learn the Zone System they gain 
 control over the overall contrast of an image by exposing for the highlights 
 and developing for the shadows."
 
 You've got that backwards. In the zone system you expose for the shadows and 
 control the highlights through development.
 
 ----- Original Message ----- 
 From: <BKPhoto@...>
 To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
 Sent: Wednesday, November 22, 2006 5:02 PM
 Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: How to get this "3 dimensional quality"?
 
 Joost-
 
 Let's say an image has a wall in it. The overall impression is that the 
 wall is one continuous tone. If you looked closely, though, this continous 
 tone is actually a set or range of similar values. By seperating those local 
 tonalities--increasing their relative differences--you increase the local 
 contrast, and the dimensionality of that area of the image. You don't have 
 to change the overall contrast of the print to affect that area, but it 
 takes skill.
 
 Often, when students begin their apprenticeship to fine printing in the wet 
 darkroom, it's all about seperating tonal values in the shadows. They learn 
 that by properly exposing and developing the film, they can get detail and 
 texture in dark areas that they couldn't get before. Eventually--and this 
 usually takes a long time--they begin to realize that the real challenge 
 isn't the shadows; that's pretty easy. It's controlling the subtle variation 
 of tone in the highlights that often make a beautiful print.
 
 Another example: when students begin to learn the Zone System they gain 
 control over the overall contrast of an image by exposing for the highlights 
 and developing for the shadows. With high contrast scenes you quickly 
 realize that the real challenge isn't controlling overall contrast. That's 
 relatively easy to do. The problem is that reducing the overall contrast of 
 a high contrast scene also reduces local contrast. Areas within the image 
 are reduced in contrast and the image just looks flat and two dimensional. 
 The "secret" is to control both the overall contrast of an image, and it's 
 internal contrast.
 
 In Photoshop it's possible to have localized areas of low contrast, and 
 areas of high contrast. Used well, this is a powerful technique. Combine 
 this with localized sharpening and you can have an enormous effect on the 
 way a print feels, and the way it's viewed.
 
 Hope that helps.
 
 Bill K.
 
 -----Original Message-----
 From: j.h.j.h@...
 To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
 Sent: Wed, 22 Nov 2006 3:13 PM
 Subject: [Digital BW] Re: How to get this "3 dimensional quality"?
 
 --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, BKPhoto@...
 wrote:
 Hi Bill,
 
 Thanks for your comment as well. Soem questions though:
 
 > I'd add to Tyler's comments that the illusive "three dimensional
 quality" idea is closely related to the internal tonal structure of
 an image. This has always been true, from the earliest photographic
 printing processes to inkjet printing. Wet darkroom printers often
 refer to this as the "internal contrast" of a print; the local
 contrast rather than the overall contrast. Internal contrast helps
 separate close values and, in my experience, this is a major
 contributor to that dimensional quality.
 
 I'm not sure I completely get what you mean. I'm having trouble to
 visualize the length scale of "local". Are you meaning the
 microstructure/texture, or over a more larger scale, let's say 5% of
 the image, typically parts of key objects. or both? Could you
 elaborate it bit furhter on this?
 
 > When you add hue, or subtle shifts in color, in a monochrome image
 you get an accumulative effect. The color is perceived as part of the
 internal contrast of the image.
 
 I think I understand that one.
 
 > Lastly, this sense of internal contrast is affected by any number
 of issues: the grain structure of the image, sharpness (optical and
 printing), and the size of the print.
 
 Not sure I understand this one, but as said before: I have some
 trouble understanding the concept.
 
 Joost
 
 __________________________________________________________
 Check out the new AOL. Most comprehensive set of free safety and security 
 tools, free access to millions of high-quality videos from across the web, 
 free AOL Mail and more.
 
 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
 
 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 Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines 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 OWNER AND 
 MODERATORS 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 OWNER AND 
 MODERATORS 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
 
      
________________________________________________________________________
Check out the new AOL.  Most comprehensive set of free safety and security tools, free access to millions of high-quality videos from across the web, free AOL Mail and more.


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

Lots of great comments on acheiving depth in images. I'd like to add something that I've 
often noticed but that is related to resolution on the paper. Here's an excerpt from an 
email I sent Tyler after receiveing his now-famous piezo/ABW comparison prints. I think 
Bill and I , both in blind tests had very similar reactions but we may differ somewhat on the 
factors contributing to the 3-dimensional quality.
----
The Piezo resolves more and finer detail. The K3s are not reproducing the same degree of 
gradation. And it's not just a matter of opening shadows. For example, the suds of the 
receding surf are noticeably more detailed. From a normal viewing distance the Piezo has a 
greater feeling of depth. The K3 looks 1 dimensional--everything feels like it is resting on 
a single plane. The Piezo gives the illusion of the paper itself being a multi-dimensional 
surface. I've noticed a similar effect with the Piezos when printing on Hahnemühle vs. 
Innova matte papers. The Innova coating holds a tighter dot, which yields a sharper image, 
which makes objects appear more spatially distinct based on where they were in the len's 
plane of focus. So I'm chalking up this depth issue to resolution.
----
The main point being that I've experienced a greater sense of depth on identical images 
when printed on a paper where the coating holds a tighter dot. I've seen this on single hue 
quads, blends and splits. Take a careful look at an Innova sheet like Soft or Rough Texture 
in comparison with a Hahnemuhle stock like Will Turner. Now I love Will Turner but the 
Innovas hold a tighter, crisper dot. With images where prominent objects rest along 
different planes of focus (thinking specifically of LF closeups) the paper with a tighter dot 
yields sharper edges. This can accentuate the effect of physical space between sharp and 
defocused objects, making it feel as if the paper itself is a 3 dimensional surface. 

So something else to add to the mix, perhaps.  

amadou diallo
www.diallophotography.com

Hi Bill,

Thanks for the further explanation. Clarifies a lot. It makes explicit 
what I am half deliberately half intuitively sometimes try to do. 
aware. I understand better understand now why some my pictures are 
actually a class better than some others.

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, BKPhoto@... wrote:
>  Hope that helps.

It sure does!

Joost

It has been my experience that all of the factors discussed play a
role and you can't sepearate one from the others. First, you need a
great scan or captured file, second you need good subtle inks. Third,
fine quality coating of the media. Fourth, you need a good
linearization of your printer and the tonal seperaton that a workable
rip affords. Fifth, you need a good dmax in the bottom end. Sixth, the
skills to work the tonal range in the mids and high values through
subtle control of a curves adjustmet layer. Seventh, there is the
amazing factor of localized dodging and burning to emphasize volumes.
Finally there is careful sharpening, if it is an image with texture.
Being able to co-ordinate all of these things is what makes a print
come alive. That's eight steps, I'm sure somone can think of 2 more. 
It is easier said than done.

John

Well said, John. In the end, it's how the photographer brings to the process what they know. Some of this is purely technical in nature, but it's the apprenticeship to an ideal that matters in the end. That's one of the reasons why the idea of an annual conference/gathering is so exciting. It would give folks an opportunity to see actual prints and share information firsthand.
 
 Happy Thanksgiving!
 
 Bill Kennedy 

 -----Original Message-----
 From: deanwork2003@...
 To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
 Sent: Thu, 23 Nov 2006 8:42 AM
 Subject: [Digital BW] Re: How to get this "3 dimensional quality"?
 
     It has been my experience that all of the factors discussed play a
 role and you can't sepearate one from the others. First, you need a
 great scan or captured file, second you need good subtle inks. Third,
 fine quality coating of the media. Fourth, you need a good
 linearization of your printer and the tonal seperaton that a workable
 rip affords. Fifth, you need a good dmax in the bottom end. Sixth, the
 skills to work the tonal range in the mids and high values through
 subtle control of a curves adjustmet layer. Seventh, there is the
 amazing factor of localized dodging and burning to emphasize volumes.
 Finally there is careful sharpening, if it is an image with texture.
 Being able to co-ordinate all of these things is what makes a print
 come alive. That's eight steps, I'm sure somone can think of 2 more. 
 It is easier said than done.
 
 John
 
      
________________________________________________________________________
Check out the new AOL.  Most comprehensive set of free safety and security tools, free access to millions of high-quality videos from across the web, free AOL Mail and more.


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

In a message dated 11/23/2006 10:18:07 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,  
BKPhoto@... writes:

Well  said, John. In the end, it's how the photographer brings to the process 
what  they know. Some of this is purely technical in nature, but it's the  
apprenticeship to an ideal that matters in the end. That's one of the reasons  
why the idea of an annual conference/gathering is so exciting. It would give  
folks an opportunity to see actual prints and share information  firsthand.

Happy Thanksgiving!

Bill Kennedy 




In that vein, I just want to say THANKS to all of you for clearing up a lot  
of the mysterious for this old fixer mixer about the intricacies of the 
digital  print process. The more things change, the more they stay the same.
At the Print-off, I felt like I was really out of my league.... didn't know  
what you guys were talking about half the time, and still trying to make sense 
 of this dot process. But after Tyler gave me his answer and the other heavy  
hitters weighed in and elaborated, I now know what it is I'm looking at and  
looking for in my own printing. 
I will be at the next Print-Off, God willing, wherever it's held. I'm off  to 
France again this evening, and I wish you all a happy holiday.
 
Richard (Brooklyn)


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

Richard,

It was really a pleasure to meet you in NY. It was all too short. I
hope we can do it again next year.

john




--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, CorrPro96@... wrote:
>
>  
> In a message dated 11/23/2006 10:18:07 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,  
> BKPhoto@... writes:
> 
> Well  said, John. In the end, it's how the photographer brings to
the process 
> what  they know. Some of this is purely technical in nature, but
it's the  
> apprenticeship to an ideal that matters in the end. That's one of
the reasons  
> why the idea of an annual conference/gathering is so exciting. It
would give  
> folks an opportunity to see actual prints and share information 
firsthand.
> 
> Happy Thanksgiving!
> 
> Bill Kennedy 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In that vein, I just want to say THANKS to all of you for clearing
up a lot  
> of the mysterious for this old fixer mixer about the intricacies of the 
> digital  print process. The more things change, the more they stay
the same.
> At the Print-off, I felt like I was really out of my league....
didn't know  
> what you guys were talking about half the time, and still trying to
make sense 
>  of this dot process. But after Tyler gave me his answer and the
other heavy  
> hitters weighed in and elaborated, I now know what it is I'm looking
at and  
> looking for in my own printing. 
> I will be at the next Print-Off, God willing, wherever it's held.
I'm off  to 

> France again this evening, and I wish you all a happy holiday.
>  
> Richard (Brooklyn)
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

I hope none of this is suggesting that this impression of depth is some magical difference 
clearly obvious that is easily recognized. I find it pretty subtle actually. Also, as others 
have suggested, hue shifts or split toning will not be the answer to this look in all cases. In 
fact, it's not even appropriate to all images. Additionally, how it is perceived is image 
depandant. A lot of my very textural personal work barely shows it, while the same split 
make be clearly obvious in a portrait, with larger smooth areas with slow gradations. 
Sometimes it can even appear garish.
Interesting examples in darkroom printing with opposing shifts are Michael Kenna with his 
sepia highlights and cold shadows, and Olivia Parker with her rust red selenium warm 
shadows and cold Azo silvery highlights. Some Platinum paladium shows a subtle split as 
well, but some traditional platinum is lead pencil neutral.
Amadou's comments about resolution are very important for dimension in photography on 
paper, and I find too much USM can kill all depth very quickly.
So many dimensional prints exhibit no hue shifts, or obvious hue shits, I don't think split 
toning is always the answer, just another tool to use if desired. I've seen dead neutral K7 
prints with great photographic roundness. Sometimes it's image dependent. Also, a lot of 
amazing photography just doesn't seem like it should be "printerly" for lack of a better 
word and deserves a respectful straight approach.
A Cartier-Bresson show I saw years ago was totally straight with no printmaking issues 
calling attention, and they were perfect. Not as easy to do as it sounds.
A lot of this goes back to Walker's comment a few weeks ago that we should perhaps talk 
more about the fine craft and art of printing and less about technical issues. I always liked 
Paul Caponigro's comments about trying anything and everything with no preconceptions 
and keeping your eyes open for the possibilities.
I still find tonal placement, balance, harmony/disharmony, global and local contrast the 
Bill talked about, lightness/darkness, the normal stuff, the real challenges. Ink and hue 
choices will not save work that didn't have those areas covered.
Keep knowledge and tools and tricks at hand and just keep working, something will 
happen. Or you'll just find yourself done at a certain point. Sometimes you simply have to 
conclude the image doesn't have a "special" print in it, so you do a good one and move on.

These are some of the things that make printing a constant learning experience for me 
and an atrocioulsy boring subject for those that have to be around me.

Oh yeah, it's Thanksgiving, back to that...
Tyler