B&W, traditional -vs- digital printing

[victor4]

Has anyone made the switch? From optical to digital black and white

printing?

 

I have been doing my own optical printing. Was all set to buy a

traditional darkroom set-up but realized it may be time to print

digitally.

 

Optically I'm not that good, though am capable of split filter

printing. My photos are not really that good either, thus do not

require the best treatment, yet do not want a trashy result.

 

How good a result can the Epson 4000 or 2200 actually produce,

compared to a traditional print? With or without a RIP. Metamerism

would be a concern. I would want to print on a subtle mat finish. A

rag or canvas type finish would also be cool.

 

I am very familiar with PS, though still use rev. 5.5. (hey, its

better than aldus photostyler)

 

I would consider a dedicated b&w printer and a separate one for color.

 

Just sort of fishing at this point so any and all comments are

welcome.

 

Thanks, vic...:)

[beauh44]

Hi Victor, I made the switch in the sense that I used to make B&W darkroom prints quite a bit "back in the day" but haven't made traditional prints in ages. I'll usually develop the negs nowadays and just scan them. Anyway, I'll try to toss a few answers which will mostly be just my opinions your way. ;-)<P>

 

<I>How good a result can the Epson 4000 or 2200 actually produce, compared to a traditional print?</i><P>

 

I've only had experience with the 2200 and not the 4000. IMHO, the 2200 benefits greatly by using a RIP for B&W. Using a RIP typically eliminates some of the colored inks (like yellow) that are usually mixed in when you use the Epson print driver - these colored inks can cause metamarism. In short, I'd have to say that yes, the prints stack up quite nicely when I do use a RIP and decent paper.<P>

 

A quick aside - again, this is just personal opinion. The <I>best</i> B&W output I've ever personally gotten from an inkjet printer has come from an HP 7960 printer. Absolutely amazing dead-ringer for a traditional print. The downside? It'll only print up to 8 1/2 X 11" and the ink is very expensive. It probably doesn't support as many paper types as the 2200 though. I believe HP recently discontinued this printer and I've not heard good things about the replacement in terms of reliability. You might still find new ones sitting on a shelf somewhere though.<P>

 

My .02 cent's worth: Before taking the plunge find people using these things and see if you like the prints and the paper(s) available for them. You may be pleasantly surprised or may come away glad you avoided the whole thing.<P>

 

Lastly, it's not just the printer you'll need. You can tear your hair out if you don't get a colorimeter (even though you'll just be printing B&W); you may end up buying an expensive RIP, books, paper, ink, etc, etc. It adds up - although the same is true for traditional darkroom expenses. Good luck!<P>

[john_amiet2]

Victor, I am roughly where you are at currently. I am a long experienced darkroom worker, both col & B/W. I love darroom work (mostly!), but I have ADDED desktop printing for colour to my workflow. I am 'trying' (like you) to ADD B/W desktop printing, but matamarism, casts, etc are problematic. I use an Epson 1290 with CIS (Continous Ink System) which works really well after much research and expense. I have needed to use a RIP to get the quality I demand.

 

For the B/W, I am convinced a separate printer using dedicated Black/Grey inks is the only way to go. I have an old Eson 1200 that I will try to invigorate with the grey inks. I understand all grey inks will NOT work with all paper, so some resarch is necessary.

 

BOTTOM LINE Learning the workflow in an analog darkroom requires years of practice and application to reach a certain level. I have every confidence the same is true for the digital darroom.

[kaiyen]

I use a Epson 1280 with the MIS Ultratone 2 inkset. I use it mostly with Epson Enhanced Matte, Entrada Natural, and Permajet Alpha. I also use Ilford Smooth Pearl for semigloss.

 

I am completely happy with the results. I started out on wet printing with a few classes at the local community college about 1.5 years ago. I never really became comfortable printing, but I did eventually get some nice prints. I soon latched onto inkjet printing as an opportunity to maximize my printing capability and results through a method that allowed me the most freedom.

 

At the beginning, I used to show prints to others and say "well, it's different than wet printing, but it's just as good." Now, after polishing my technique, I now just say "here's my print." I don't have to tell anyone about the method I used.

 

As for the 2200 and/or the 4000..I have a 2200 at work that I "test" now and then with a print via QTR. While I haven't mastered the coolness/warmth of the print yet, the results are just as good, in terms of tonal range, resolution, and "smoothness."

 

allan

[bob_peters]

I had my b&w professionally digitally printed to reduce costs, then wedding clients looking at albums I've done always seemed to pick-out the "proper" darkroom prints as the kind of thing they wanted. Back to the darkroom for me then...

[west_cork]

30 years darkroom, 5x4, 6x7, Ilford Galerie fibre paper, selenium toning, etc, etc...

 

Switched to printing black only on an Epson 1290, using Epson matte paper. Still got the darkroom setup, but haven't used it in a year.

 

Prints aren't the same, but I prefer them, and so do most people I show them to.

 

You have to scan and work with 16 bit files. I scan all 35mm at 4000 dpi on a Canoscan 4000, use very minimal sharpening, print 12 x 18 inches on 13 x 19 inch paper.

[geoffrey_wittig]

B&W digital printing is paradoxically more complicated than color printing, but you can get excellent results after some trial and error. I've tried most every method out there. I'm now getting superb prints from an Epson 7600 by two methods. Roy Harrington's Quadtone RIP is a $50 shareware program that drives most Epson printers from the 1280 to the 7600. It produces beautiful B&W prints with excellent tonal smoothness and lets you choose a range of tones from warm to cool+selenium. It comes with profiles for a decent range of papers. Metamerism is minimal to non-existent. The second method is to use Photoshop's duotone mode to intentionally tone your image, then print it using an accurate printer profile. I have had beautiful results using "duotone" settings that mimic sepia prints, cyanotypes, and selenium toned traditional darkroom prints. Using Bill Atkinson's excellent profiles for the 7600, I see very little metamerism. Using either of these two methods on matte paper give me prints that have a d-max just a bit short of standard darkroom prints, but with better gradation and detail in shadows & highlights.

I have tried dedicated quad-black inks in the form of Jon Cone's Piezography system. This can give beautiful results, but I found it very finicky and struggled with repeated head clogs that killed two printers. I gave up after the above two methods gave me results at least as good. Printing "straight" to your color inkjet with a B&W file generally gives you metamerism and color casts, but working backwards you can sometimes correct for this using adjustment layers in Photoshop.

[paul_sokal___dallas__tx]

Victor, I worked a wet dark room for many years and then had to give up photography (day job took too much time) for 30yrs. I came back last year, 100% digital, shooting a D-70 and printing on an Epson 1280. I have experimented with MIS UT2 full ink set and Eboni black, as well as the Epson inks. I've tried several papers too and I've tried all the different ways of converting color images to B&W in PS CS. IMO, all of this is made way too complex. Black only printing, which can be done with the 1280 and I believe the 2200 gives beautiful results-I've gone up 13 by 19. My favorite matte papers are Moab-Entrada, which is a bright white, and Crane Museo when I want some thing a little warmer. The only difference I can see between black only printing and using a full set like MIS UT2 is the tone, and if you want your images toned, the duotone and quadtones in PS will do a nice job. Black only also avoids metamerism as I understand it since no color ink is used. Look at the 1280 as it's $300-400 less than the 2200 and I think you'll be happy with the result. Check out Clayton Jones website on B&W printing. Good luck. Paul

[les_lammers]

Victor,

 

I am a newbie and decided on an Epson 1280 for a dedicated B&W printer and will use MIS ink. Have a look here: www.paulroark.com

There is a $100 rebate on the 1280. MIS bulk ink can save a lot of money. Hope this helps.

 

As another member posted, it takes a lot of effort to get excellent results regardless of wet or inkjet printing.

[jerry_diakiw]

I have a 2200 epson and a brand new wet darkroom. . . it sits idle while i use black only process with MIS indigo black in clayton jones' process at

http://www.cjcom.net/articles/digiprn3.htm

The digitalblackanwhite forum thru yahoo groups is wonder of discussion on all types of bw systems

but i love my black only prints and I switch back and forth from color to bw with no problems so far on the same printer

[dickhilker]

I've been scanning medium format B&W negatives (2800 dpi) and printing prize-winners up to 12 X 18, using Epson and Hahnemuhle papers on my 2200 with no problems whatsoever. After many years of darkroom work, I'd never go back!

[kent_morris]

Hi -

 

I would second the HP 7960 for B&W output. I have a dual scan IV to scan my negs as well. The HP papers are good but a bit expensive. I like the Ilford Gallerie Pearl just a bit more though they are about equal. I have been very pleased with the B&W output. As mentioned it only prints up to 8.5x11. The color is good with some effort, though I have to admit I haven't done nearly as much color, and if I were only going to do color I may or may not have purchased the same printer. It is superb for B&W and it's relatively easy compared to buying another printer and dedicating it to B&W printing I would guess.

[duane_polcou]

Victor

I believe a fair question to ask yourself at this point is the level of involvement you wish to commit to in regards to time, money, and effort.I'm sure most darkroom workers can remember that their first experiences in utilizing a proper darkoom setup were filled with confusing choices, the adequate results of which were determined largely by trial and error and cutting through a lot of dogma. Well, this whole digital shebang isn't much different. In fact, it's probably even more complex. The inks and profiles and printers and RIPs and papers are (mostly) all manufactured with a profit motive in mind, not the smooth transition from a silver halide to an ink-based media. I've been at this for awhile, and I always seem to fare the best when I am conservative with a buck (i.e., only spending it when absolutely necessary), conservative with my time (spending the minimum necessary to learn whatever is needed to get started), but liberal with the effort (not "locking into" a system, but working it until you know it's flaws and it's strengths). Never forget, Edward Weston printed with a piece of plate glass and a light bulb, because he wanted to. I shoot 4x5 on TMX readlyload, rotary processed in Edwal FG-7. I scan the negs on an Epson Perfection Photo flatbed scanner using the Twain interface. I print on 11x17 Moab Entrada paper using the black only setting on an Epson 1280. If you look closely, you can see the ever-so-slight dot pattern in the light gray areas, but otherwise the prints look stunning. Even better the Piezography prints I've seen at the Photo Plus shows in NYC (in my humble opinion) which totally lack D-Max. Okay, so I threw in 3 cents instead of 2. Good luck, amigo.

[steve_brink]

Hi Victor,

Because I don't have a lot of time and to get to the point, I've done a fair bit of experimenting w/ digital B&W over the past 3 years. The quickest, easiest, and best quality digital method is to buy a epson 4000 and use the QTR RIP. Which also means you can print color. Absolute nuetral prints, smooth tonal transitions, and good blacks.

However, I also use a custom B&W lab here in Seattle (Moon Photo),and their drakroom prints beat my digital prints nearly every time. Glossy fiber prints have exceptionla blacks and an elegance to them that I have not yet matched digitally. But,I have made some very good B&W digital prints -- good enough to sale! Soooo, my very best work (~20%) still goes to Moon, and I do the remainder digitally. One thing that really bugs me is bronzing of digital prints on luster/gloss papers, so use must treat with a coating like Printshield, or use a matte paper which can be limiting. So, my advice is to do both digital, and (maybe)not set-up a darkroom and get them done at a custom lab...