Digital B&W

How important is monitor calibration, color space, and hardware

profiles for digital black and white? What do you think are the most

important technical issues for digital black and white considering the

interplay of computer hardware, software, and printers?

Unfortunately, the printer. I say unfortunately because it's an issue that isn't really

satisfactorily resolved yet. Even the reports on the expensive new 3-monotone-ink Epson

printers have been decidedly mixed. Epson printers with custom RIPs are also being used

to good effect, but setting them up requires some computer knowledge. It seems the best

"set and forget" system is still the HP 8450 and 8750.

I agree with Mike, the printer is probably the most important element.

 

I use a color workflow (1Ds > Capture One > Photoshop CS > Epson 4800)

in which I use Photoshop tools to convert my images to B&W. The results with the 4800

have been truly spectacular! Although my workflow is color-managed, I don't believe that

would be necessary when using the Epson driver's "Advanced B&W" mode. In this mode,

the driver ignores the profiles entirely!

 

I don't know what the "decidedly mixed" reports have been on Epson's new K3 inkset. But

my experience, and that of others I've read, suggest that this is the first ink jet printer

technology -using OEM inks - that can make high quality B&W prints.

 

Enjoy!

 

-- Jim

For advice in this area, try the Yahoo group called digitalblackandwhitetheprint

Yes, the printer is the weak link here. I've been through a series of printers trying to get cheap BW prints. Started with a 7960, but didn't like the paper the HP forces you to use. Then went to an Epson C86 and MIS inks and loved it, but wanted bigger prints so I went to an Epson 2200 and use either BO printing or Quadtone RIP. Both are easy to use, but hard to master...

Kirk is right - it's an excellent resource for discussing B&W printing using a digital

workflow.

 

As well, you might read the related thread here:

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00CoG4

 

Gary Ferguson says:

> I'm now considering shutting down my B&W darkroom after thirty years,

> the R2400 really is that good.

...

> [T]he R2400 does represent a fundamental leap forward in the search

> for a comprehensive and high quality B&W inkjet solution. You should

> take a serious look at it.

 

Hope this helps!

 

-- Jim

My opinion is that the choice of inksets is the most important equipment factor. You can compensate and find ways to print b&w with color inks, but it's the equivalent of making a good b&w print in a wet darkroom with a color neg and color paper.

 

Choosing real b&w inks is like trading a three piece suit for a bathing suit in a swimming race.

Exactly! Trying to get a good, neutral B&W print using a CMYK ink set (or even CcMmYK) is

problematic. You'll get color casts, especially in transition areas.

 

On the other hand, the new Epson Ultrachrome K3 ink set, as you can tell from its name,

has 3 "shades" of black. While arguably better B&W prints can be made with 6 or 7

"shades" of black in a printer that's solely dedicated to B&W printing, the K3 inks produce

a VERY credible B&W print!

I cast another vote for the Epson 2400. I have used numerous methods for black & white digital printing, generally with mixed results. I got decent prints with the original Piezography system, but only on matte papers, and with constant head clogs. The 7600 gives me decent black & white prints using either Roy Harrington's Quadtone RIP, or duotones printed through a good profile, but the D-max is mediocre and bronzing & gloss differential are disturbing on glossy papers. The 2400 is the best of both worlds- black & white prints are made using in large part just the three black inks, with a fabulously dark D-max on semigloss or luster papers. Better yet, the black & white driver lets you custom-tone prints by adding small amounts of color inks, controlled by a very intuitive color wheel. The tonal range, smoothness, detail and D-max of black & white prints from the 2400 stand up very well next to a traditional silver print.

Geoffrey - I use a rip on a 2200, loaded with multiple dilutions of black ink and a version of glop (gloss optimizer) from MIS. The glop sits in the yellow channel, and is applied (either through the print driver using Paul Roarks's curves or through QTR) to the areas that would normally get too lightly inked, resulting in the paper's own gloss showing through and causing gloss differential.

 

First time I ever fooled anyone into thinking the 2200 prints were wet darkroom work ;)

The most insightful and authoratative review of the R2400 that I've read is Jeff Schewe's article. Jeff was a beta tester of the R2400 and researched the article in conjunction with the equally knowledgeable Bruce Fraser. In other words even if you disagree with these people you have to take their opinions very seriously.

 

Jeff explored the "D Max" of various black and white print options, in other words how dark is the darkest black that can be obtained? It's this more than any other measurement that determines the punch and impact that a black and white print will have.

 

To put this in context normal, everyday web press work would have a D Max of about 1.47, the best photographic books might use quad tone commercial printing with a D Max of about 1.98, and properly developed traditional silver prints can get to a D Max of about 2.21.

 

Jeff shows that the Epson 2100/2200 series printers deliver a D Max of 1.51 on Enhanced Matte paper and 2.04 on Epson Luster paper. So basically they were in the same range as commercial printing but fell some way behind traditional silver prints.

 

The new R2400 represents a huge leap forward. It scores 1.51 with Epson Enhanced Matte, 2.39 with Epson Premium Luster, and 2.41 with Epson Premium Glossy. In other words, in terms of D Max at least, the R2400 isn't just matching traditional silver prints, it's actually exceeding them and by some margin.

 

Jeff's measurements accord with my own observations. Alongside my traditional darkroom I've used a dedicated Epson running a Piezzographic B&W inkset, and a 2100/2200 both "out-of-the-box" and with a Colorbyte RIP. For B&W prints on matte paper I've been pretty satisfied with the digital option, but if I wanted a glossy or semi-gloss print then I'd always prefer a silver print.

 

IMO the new R2400 inks have the potential to make better B&W prints than can be achieved in a wet darkroom, and far better B&W prints than from any previous Epson printer.

 

However, the inks aren't the full story. There's also the paper, and here the argument's less convincing. Those of you old enough will remember the battle that raged between fibre papers and RC papers. Well to my eye all the available gloss and semi-gloss Epson papers are similar to RC silver stock. Perfectly acceptable but not quite reaching the heights of silver, glossy, air-dried, fibre prints.

 

But even here the momentum of product development favours the R2400. In a few weeks the Colorbyte RIP for the R2400 will be released which will allow many more papers to be used by virtue of Colorbyte's excellent profiles (that's the main reason that I'll be using their RIP, expensive though it is it's actually a bargain compared with buying all the profiles that are included free within the price), and there's also rumours that Epson themselves are set to announce some interesting new papers that will address this issue.

 

It's sad to think that after thirty years I'll likely soon be closing my darkroom, and that my treasured Leitz developer will probably end up as land fill. But I'm increasingly convinced that in the same way I can get a technically better image from a Canon 1Ds Mk II than from a Leica M, I'll soon be getting better technical quality from B&W digital than from a darkroom.

Gary, I think I've seen it, but could you please link the Jeff Schewe review? Thanks.

Here it is

 

http://photoshopnews.com/2005/05/16/epson-r2400-and-ultrachrome-k3-ink-report/

Thanks much!

Sorry, a correction to the above post. The R2400 scores 1.71 with Epson Enhanced Matte, not 1.51 as I said