Printing Black and White Digital images for an exhibition.

<p>I was advised this would be the best forum for this question.<br>

HI, I am going to present a black and white folio for exhibition in about 12 months after all th eimages are captured. I have never printed black and white digitally. I use to do all of my work with film, I would proces my own work and do all my own printing.<br />While I was at the lab the other day, they advised that B&W prints should be done on Matt Paper to get greater bdepth of blacks, this goes against my experience using Silver Halide printing, where gloss gave the best and deepest blacks.<br />I would like some advise on what sort of Paper would be best suited to try to get the feel of say ilford fibre based gloss paper. And is there anything else i should be aware of when printing black and white digital images? Your assistance and comments would be great.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>While I was at the lab the other day, they advised that B&W prints should be done on Matt Paper to get greater bdepth of blacks.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Probably not true (a glossy, non matt paper, at least for ink jet printing has a higher dmax). I'd first suspect the advise of the lab and maybe find another. </p>

<p>I agree Andrew, Gloss for me has always had a better Dmax and a greater tonal range in general.</p>

<p>take a look around, I know of a few places that print on real RC b/w paper (mpix,adoramapix andI'm sure there are others) vs printing monochrome on a color paper. Ilford makes a fiberbased paper for digital exposure now, but I've never seen it in person.</p>

<p>I suggest you try Harman Warmtone gloss. This is a fibre based paper with baryta coating so it mimics rather well IMO the qualities of a traditional analogue fibre print. You might find it via Hahnemuehle under a strange hybrid brand name -Harman by Hahnemuehle. It is a 320g paper . It is by far the closest I have come across to a traditional fibre gloss and made an enforced transition from analogue to digital b&w rather easy. Don't use the matte versions. </p>

<p>If you struggle to find a lab who uses this (normally in conjunction with the latest large format Epson printers and K3 inks) then I'd suggest you try The Lightroom in Berkeley - talk to Rob. They did some work for me that was pleasing but I needed to avoid the high costs of shipping prints Fedex to the UK and found a UK lab that could help. </p>

<p>An excellent fibre based glossy paper is Oriental Graphica:<br>

<a href="http://www.orientalphotousa.com/graphica.htm">http://www.orientalphotousa.com/graphica.htm</a></p>

 

<p>The magic rule of paper - without glass and matt - behind glass. This has been the decision to hang most of my work without glass. Likely I stumbled across a paper that would meet me halfway - Ilford SMOOTH PEARL. It has a porous surface that feels like a matt but is bright like a gloss. Like matt the reflections are kept to a minimum, and like gloss enough ink is kept on the surface to keep the blacks rich. It works it's magic on BW or COLOUR.</p>

<p>Like all the suggestions here, pick up some small 4x6 packs and give them a try.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I use to do all of my work with film, I would proces my own work and do all my own printing.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Then you should know that there is a wide range of processing methods and media to choose from. The same is true in the digital darkroom, if not more so.</p>

<p>If you wish to produce similar digital prints like your traditional prints, let us know how you used to print and on what media. You may get much better suggestions.</p>

<p>agree with Peter, smooth pearl or epson luster are both excellent and not expensive paper, yet very pro looking .. and behind a glass and frame.. you cant see if the paper worth 1$ or 8$.. epson fiber exhibition is a excellent looking paper but i would use it if i sell a print unframed / unmounted only as it give some richness in the hand of the buyer, but don't bring much visually behind a glass vs a *cheaper* (talking about price) paper. But if you are printing them to sell them, better use the best paper all around so it is exactly the same thing the buyer get frame or not of course.</p>

<p>The problem with most lab out there is that is hard to get a real neutral BW print, as they are printed on a RA4 type of printer and not tune correctly (or maybe it is the limitation of those printer i should say?) you will always more than never have a slight color cast of violet / bluish tint over your print.. not talking neon in your face violet.. but a slight % of it IF you look at your print under a daylight lamp / outside and IF you can see it or if you are use to see those small %. I unfortunately can see it because i work with color print and press approval all day long.. so i assume that if i can, most people can also.. i cant honestly sell those print as *neutral*.</p>

<p>The best result if you are serious about quality, and want a result that is equal or better than what you are use to get with your darkroom.. a epson inkjet printer starting from a old 2400 to anything higher with the ABW mode (2800, 2880, 3800, 3880 etc....).</p>

<p>I think you first need to look into the very different alternative ways the prints can be produced. They have their advantages and disadvantages, and you might like one better than another for your own personal reasons. Your options include at least:<br>

* printing your digital files to real fiber-based silver halide paper (at places like A&I), which is expensive (e.g., $50 for an 8x10) but, with the right digital darkroom work, should be able to closely duplicate what you get with film and a wet darkroom (IMO);<br>

* printing your digital files to real resin-coated silver halide paper (at places like Mpix and sometimes Adorama), which is cheap (e.g., $3 for an 8x10) but, with the right digital darkroom work, should be able to closely duplicate what you get with film and a wet darkroom (IMO);<br>

* printing your digital files to paper designed for inkjets with a pigment-based inkjet printer (such as an Epson 3880), which you can do at home or get done at a lab; and<br>

* printing your digital files with a slightly alternative process ("carbon prints" and the like).</p>

<p>Some people will say one or another is better. I say that top printers can produce excellent results, at least for some subjects and some tastes, with each; that they are somewhat <em>different</em> but that you can't really say, for all tastes, subjects, and purposes, that any one is <em>better</em> than the others; and that you should make up your own mind after seeing well-made examples of each.</p>

<p>After you decide on how to print, you can think about what to print on. Or at the very least, the decision what to print on and how to print are related, and should be considered together. IMO at least.</p>

 

<p>^^^ Everything that Patrick said!</p>

<p>Expanding on what Dave said, I'm wondering whether there's any possibility of doing digital siver halide prints at home. Maybe we could use our printers to make large digital "negatives" and then use a contact printing process to transfer to real silver halide. Has anyone tried this? The appeal of this approach is that tone neutrality doesn't matter, and neither does light fastness. If light fastness doesn't matter, then pigment-based inks similarly don't matter. That leaves us free to use cheaper, MUCH less problematic dye-based inks.</p>

<p>It would be really cool if someone made a laser-based scanning digital enlarger that a mere mortal could afford, but I suspect I'm just dreaming. Perhaps it would be possible to modify a laser printer? If so, one could expose a whole series of prints with the printer in the darkroom, and then break to go and develop them all! :-)</p>

<p>I suppose there are Epson solutions, as Patrick suggests, but it seems there's GOT to be a better way. I am SO SICK of clogged Epson jets! Also my printer swills ink like a drunken sailor.</p>

<p>Yes Sarah some people print inket negs and contact print them onto photographic paper. You can read more about it here.<br>

http://www.ppmag.com/web-exclusives/2007/07/making-digital-negatives.html</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>The problem with most lab out there is that is hard to get a real neutral BW print, as they are printed on a RA4 type of printer and not tune correctly </p>

</blockquote>

<p>This isn't the case with the true black and white paper that mPix (and I assume a few other labs) use, as Dave Redmann points out. There is no way to have a color cast, and the tonality of a bare print (I agree with you that behind glass, things change) is better than any inkjet black and white I have seen. I say "better" in the sense of smooth gradation of tones. And pricing is not bad.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>The best result if you are serious about quality, and want a result that is equal or better than what you are use to get with your darkroom.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Thanks to another poster here (probably easy to guess who), I have been very happy with the inkjet prints from Costco. They are so inexpensive - $8.99 for a 20x30 - that it's ridiculous for me to think about buying paper, ink, and another printer. </p>

<p>Like Peter Carter, I now hang my work without glass...</p>

<p><center><img src="http://spirer.com/images/abigailwall.jpg" alt="" width="700" height="467" /></center></p>

I'm with Jeff... I have an Epson 4800 that I'm leaving in a clogged state for now and printing at Costco. BTW,

the 20x30 (and 16x20) prints he speaks of are printed on an Epson 7880 professional printer...

 

I use White House Custom Color for metallic prints. Inexpensive, excellent quality and orders over $12

include 2 day shipping (overnight if you're between San Diego and San Francisco) at no extra charge.

 

The above choices, along with mpix, sure make me not want to buy, and more importantly *maintain*, another printer...

<p><em>...is there anything else i should be aware of when printing black and white digital images?</em></p>

<p>You should be aware that the learning curves to achieve really good images digitally, are roughly equal to but different from the learning curves to achieve really good images chemically. Don't sit there and think it's just "push a button" simple. It's not. Not even close.</p>

<p>A place to start learning is <a href="http://www.inkjetmall.com/">Ink Jet Mall.</a> It's not a great website, but if you'll dig there's all kinds of information there. Then start looking around the web -- all kinds of good places to look for information, from the Yahoo groups like <a href="http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/">DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint</a> (don't blame me for the name) to books like <a href="http://www.masteringdigitalbwbook.com/main.html"><em>Mastering Digital Black and White</em></a> by Diallo (slightly dated but still highly recommended).</p>

<p>Let your education begin!<br>

<em><br /></em></p>

<p>At work, I have a laser cutter with an 18" x 24" bed. I'm sure that if they allowed me to take it home to my darkroom, I could set it to very low power and expose images to paper with it.<br /><br />I think an old fashioned X-Y pen plotter could be adapted too. It would be very slow but should work.</p>

<p>Thinking about this a bit more, this is exactly how the Barco Graphics film printer we used to have worked. </p>

<p>I printed in a darkroom for years using fiber base paper, mostly Kodak Polymax Fine Art. I've tried the Harmon AI paper (I forget the exact name and it may have changed since I tried it but it's the Harmon paper that supposedly closely resembles traditional darkroom fiber base paper), Crane Museo Silver Rag, another paper that's supposed to resemble fiber base paper, and most recently Epson Ultra Premium Photo Paper Luster. I'm not trying to duplicate fiber base paper, I actually use matte paper most of the time. I used these three papers for a while just to see what they looked like. Of the three, and without pulling out some of my old darkroom prints and making a detailed comparison, I thought the Epson paper most closely resembled traditional fiber base paper. To me the other two looked more like RC paper than fiber base. But since you have a year before your exhibition you can experiment and see for yourself.</p>

<p>I'd suggest trying QTR (www.harrington.com, scroll to "Quadtone Printing Information" at the bottom of the page) for your black and white printing. You can try it for free, if you want to keep it you pay $50. Or you might investigate Jon Cone's piezography inks if you're willing to dedicate your printer to b&w.</p>

<p>Unless there's some new developments I'm not familiar with, your lab has it backwards. You'll get somewhat better dMax with glossy paper than matte. However, I use matte because the dMax is adequate and I like its looks better than glossy or semi-gloss.</p>

 

<p>Thank you all for your feedback, there is a wealth of information here for me to consider.<br>

I understand that there are many ways to present work and appologise if i have been vague. I guess not having gone down this path has not given me a starting point other that reference to what i use to do. I experimented with lots of papers<br>

@Robert K -<br>

This particular body of work i am going to present I want to mimic the Tones and depth of Tone to the Classic "Gallerie" Fibre based Ilford FB Paper, I would process this with ilford chemicals under recomended conditions from the manufacturer. I guess the only difference is the image has already been worked using software,<br>

And Bruce thank you for the advise, I was silly enough to think that it was just a push a button and sit back. and yes the learning is begining.<br>

To put things into context for the respondents, I hold a Diploma in photography so my knowledge regarding curve charactersitics of paper film etc is fairly comprehensive, however when i studdied it did not cover digital as it was not around then. So i guess i am trying to get a grasp of the pitfalls, the limitations and the rendition of the printed digital image in Black and white. I was aware that when reproducing photographic images for "Glossy Magazines" that there were limitations on presenting and preplicating an image, ie for black and white where subtle Black tones would block up and not present the way the chemically printed image would, is this the same with printing for digital files?<br>

I think the best way for me get an understanding of this is to take an image and get several various prints on various papers and establish the results for myself. That said your responses have certainly given me a Great starting point. Thank you all very much for taking the time to narrow my focus.</p>

Lenswork uses Harman Warmtone for all their b/w folios. Beautiful tonal quality.

<p>Hi Richard,</p>

<p>I have been building a knowledge base on fine art photographic printing as Costco was just not what I wanted. I do not like gloss due to the reflectivity, nor do I like lustre due to the texture which creates a flat plane of reflective light points. For me, anything that interferes with the eye seeing the image on the paper is to be avoided. The only paper I find acceptable at Costco is the semigloss board stock. Both color and B+W look good on it. Plus you will not kink it by just handling it. If you accidentally get spittle on the image, generally it will not show after it dries. Try that with gloss. Yes the paper is pricier and you have to allow for a 5/8 white border on the stock. The machine also accepts images up to 700 DPI. You may find that the board stiffness may eliminate the need for a mat and frame. Just a simple clear plexiglass rail for it to rest on may all that is needed.</p>

<p>The reason I have chosen to go with a matte finish paper is to get the image as close to the look of what my eye sees. Everything does not have a gloss sheen. Glass and water does but not most items you are photographing. That is also what I want. However I also want archival life. So the choice led me to <em>Canson Rag Photographique</em>. I went to Glazer's in Seattle to see what a new but different Canson paper looked like. I did not like the texture but found I really liked the slightly creamy, smooth matte finish of Rag Photographique. It also comes in a stiff 310 weight. Just be sure to grab the Canson paper printer profile. I am currently not doing my own printing but the lab I use was happy to run the paper and add the profile. The woman who does the printing is very fussy about quality and a photographer herself for 30 years. She liked the profile and the paper. I was happy with the fifteen items I printed. More are being prepped for printing.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.canson-infinity.com/en/ragphot310.asp">http://www.canson-infinity.com/en/ragphot310.asp</a></p>

<p>I do want some flexibility and am also considering one of the Canson Baryta finish inkjet papers for B+W. In the end the subject matter will determine the paper choice.</p>

<p>If you prefer a traditional silver based paper, then give consideration to the new Ilford B+W paper:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.ilfordphoto.com/home.asp">http://www.ilfordphoto.com/home.asp</a></p>

<p>The drive to excellence is a pain, but your critical eye should be looking towards the visual quality of the image and of the paper choice. A beautiful image can be spoiled by the issues related to the paper.</p>

<p>CHEERS...Mathew</p><div></div>

<p>To answer Sarah's question and point out some other options:<br>

* Yes, you can print a negative with an inket by printing onto a transparency material (instead of paper), and then contact-print the inkjet-printed transparency in your darkroom to produce the final prints. Some people swear by this approach. (The inkjets don't have enough resolution to produce a negative that can be enlarged much with good quality.)<br>

* Yes, there are digital enlargers that project a digital image onto paper just like a regular enlarger. IIRC, they cost like $25,000 US, though. There is at least one lab that uses such a machine to make FB prints from digital files. The cost is a lot less than A&I's $50 for an 8x10 but a lot more than Mpix's $3 (IIRC they charge about $20 for an 8x10).<br>

* Places like A&I and Mpix use machines like Lightjets, Chromiras, Frontiers, etc. that have LED's or lasers to expose light-sensitive paper. The fiber-based options at some labs include the Ilford FB paper you mentioned. Mpix uses Ilford RC paper, albeit only with the "pearl" surface, which is my least favorite of the Ilford RC surfaces (last I had a functioning darkroom, Ilford RC use went about 70% glossy, 25% satin, 5% pearl).</p>

 

<p>Well, to be clear, I was thinking about something goofier. I bet my clog-monster Epson wouldn't be so cloggy or expensive if it were spraying dye-type inks. So I could make a large paper print and then contact print it. It wouldn't even have to be a transparancy. I've done contact printing just using paper, and it works fine; however, it takes a very consistent paper. I think my 4000 has become like Brad's 4800. It's settled into an unused, clogged-up-for-now state.</p>

<p>Has anyone tried an Epson printer with dye inks instead of the Ultrachrome?</p>

<p>Sarah, dye ink are worst for that problem.. im surprised you have so mkuch problem with your 4000.. you must not print a lot or leave in a very dry place?.. i had a 4000 for years and until i sell it to get a 7880 she was working like new.. but i print everyday. (not during summer time where she was off for 2month, but back on track with a single clean up).</p>

<p>Patrick, I live in a humid place. Perhaps volume of printing is the issue (business is REALLY slow... sigh), but I even had this problem after resolving to make my 4000 my general use printer. I loaded 8 1/2 x 11 paper into the tray and used it for business stuff, just to keep the ink flowing, and it STILL would clog up on me with time. Admittedly it takes many pages of documents to draw the ink that a single print requires, but I did at least shoot some ink everyday.</p>

<p>I miss the days when I could just mix up some Dektol, stop bath, and Rapid Fix and go to work. If only there were a better way to marry the advantages of digital with conventional silver halide printing!</p>

<p>Richard i think best photo paper is Canon Photo Paper is also a very premium quality photo paper provides excellent photo results and you also need to have matt look on your photos. you also need to choose digital printing press very carefully can found <a href="printingfairy.com">online printing services</a> for best look of your photos. And yes sampling is also needed print and then look in exhibition like environment, then you can judge by yourself better.</p>