Frustrated...you bet I am.

[peter_glass1]

In Sept. of 04 I decided to abandon 25 years of black and white

darkroom work to hook into the technical world of the digital

darkroom. Time, space, and priorities dictated I needed to make a

change. I read and heard that great strides had been made with black

and white digital printing, and I read and heard personal

testimonials that the gap between traditional wet darkroom prints and

digital print making had been closed. Supposedly, judges and jurers

coudn't tell the difference.

 

After a year of constant trial and error - paper and ink

experimentation, printer and paper profiles, digital capture (Canon

10D), film scanners and more film scanners, extensive Photoshop CS

study, etc, etc, I've come to the conclusion that digital black and

white print making doesn't even come close to good wet darkroom

prints. Color is quite another story. I can produce incredible A3

color prints. Black and white, on the other hand, is pretty

pitiful.

 

I was once known as a just a fairly decent photographer and an

excellent darkroom technician. Digital has taken away the latter

reputation. For black and white, I'm using the Epson 2200 printer,

and a wide variety of papers (Moab, Legion Somerset, Epson, Ilford,

etc, etc. The way I see it, the inability to print on a premium

quality gossy paper is disasterous to anyone serious about fine art

black and white. Current digital Matte surface papers are

indeed "chaulk and soot." I can spot a digital black and white print

from across the room, in spite of what others have testified. I

judge exhibits and contests from time to time, and I swear I don't

understand the claims by some that digital prints are

indistinguisable from wet darkroom prints.

 

Maybe my expectations are too high. Digital printing reminds me of

those days in the late 70s when papers were crappy, when low quality

RC papers were prevelent. I've come to the conclusion that I have to

lower my standards when it comes to digital black and white, I

guess. I would certainly entertain any ideas. I want to print with

pigmented inks for longevity, but papers certainly are limiting.

[Ray House]

I understand your frustrations... have you tried Quad tone Rip? If not, go to yahoo groups and take a look at digital black and white the print. Lots of good information and links to down loading a free trial. I don't think you have to lower your standards, more like adapting to the technology and improving upon it to meet your standard. At least that's what I keep telling myself!

[jonathan_traupman]

<p>I think a lot of your frustration comes from wanting to make digital prints that look like analog fiber prints. I personally fail to see the point of trying to make one medium imitate a vastly different one. If you prefer the look of air dried fiber or Velvia or Tri-X, then use the real thing, as it will always look superior to a digital facsimile when judged in that light. I understand it's only natural to want to force a new medium into the mold of something familiar -- look at how the pictorialists tried to make photographs look like paintings. But eventually, the new medium needs to establish itself as independent and capable of being judged with regard to its unique set of strengths and weaknesses.

 

<p>My own experience with digital B&W comes from a background as a decent photographer but a merely so-so darkroom printer. That, combined with a chronic lack of time, pushed me to investigate digital B&W. A year later, I will declare unequivocably that <i>my</i> digital B&W prints are better than <i>my</i> darkroom prints ever were. This is not to say that a master printer couldn't blow my prints out of the water, rather it's a reflection of my personal abilities with the two media in question. All I know is that the kind of tone I get with digital is something I could never get in the darkroom, and the precision over dodging, burning, and spotting I have with photoshop allows me to print negatives I wouldn't have even bothered proofing in the darkroom.

 

<p>None of this happened overnight -- it took about a year of learning, experimenting, and investigating in depth the available materials. I now build my own QuadtoneRIP profiles, have written custom software for making grayscale ICC profiles for screen-to-print and print-to-print matching, and I'm starting to look into custom ink blending. The digital darkroom requires just as much patience, practice, and persistence as the chemical darkroom. Only the techniques are different.

 

<p>I guess the point I'm trying to make is that there is a lot of potential with digital B&W if you're willing to work within the boundaries set by the available materials. Currently, there are no pigment inks that work really well with glossy materials. The new Epson K3 inks are a vast improvement from the samples I've seen, but most of the papers look more like RC than fiber and it still has that "on the paper" not "in the paper" look. The Lyson daylight darkroom is also apparently good with glossy papers, but it's dye based (though claimed archival). I haven't seen samples so I can't vouch for it one way or the other.

 

<p>So, if you really dislike the matte papers, then digital B&W probably isn't for you. Even with the latest printers and inks, an imitation fiber print will still be just an imitation. I personally think that there is a lot of potential with this medium if you embrace it for what it is and what it can do. One thing it is not, however, is a substitute for traditional chemical prints.

 

<p>-Jon T.

 

<p>P.S. I'll never claim that a digital B&W print is "indistiguishable" from a darkroom print -- I too can spot the difference from across the room. But I can spot a platinum print from across the room too, and wouldn't say it's inferior to a silver one. You have to change your standards, not lower them.

[garry_anderson3]

I feel for you and agree whole heartedly. Black and white digital, no matter how good the equipment or the operator, looks nothing like a well crafted silver print. And looking at the differences in technology, I have my doubts if it ever will approach the look of a silver print.

 

I don't think your expectations are too high, my opinion is that the acessability to digital technology has in some cases "dumbed down" our skills and expectations. People seem to think that digital black and white is good because they have never seen a well made silver print.

 

I too have tried to produce quality black and white using digital means, and they look pretty good, but still lack the qualities that make a great black and white print great.

 

For me, colour digital has made life much easier, but I'm going back to my darkroom for black and white prints.

[sean de merchant httpw]

How many years did it take you to master wet chemistry B&W printing?

 

enjoy,

 

Sean

[terence_patrick]

Upgrade to the R2400. I too was a darkroom freak and after being disappointed with the

R1800's black & white, I sold it and got the R2400. I made a few black & white prints that

were amazing in tonality and sharpness. No color bias when viewed under a daylight

balanced light (JUST Normlict booth).

[terence_patrick]

Also, to add to my post, I've found that my b/w conversion in Photoshop will alter how I

perceive my final print. I've found using the calculations method to give me the best result in

what I would actually see in a dark room. There are several settings in that menu that you

should find pleasing, but the trick is to test em all out...like the good ol' days.

[beauh44]

Hi Peter, In my humble opinion the 2200 is not a good choice for B&W printing. The ultrachrome (pigment) inks it uses do not do well with glossy paper. Using a RIP like Quad Tone Rip definitely helps but even with that, it's not as good as say, many of HP's inkjet offerings - which use dye inks instead of pigment and do much better with glossy papers. I own a 2200 and an HP 7960. Believe it or not, the HP *can* make prints that rival darkroom prints; IMHO the 2200 just falls short, especially if you like glossy paper. Perhaps the new Epson does better - I don't know because I haven't tried it - but some say it does. On the other hand, many people said the 2200 did B&W just fine too when it first came out and I just don't agree with that, personally. I know it's not what you wanted to hear but you might want to check out HP's printers if B&W is your thing.

[beauh44]

PS - on the software side of the equation, check out <a href="http://www.theimagingfactory.com/">Convert to B&W Pro</a> by The Imaging Factory. You can download a free, 30 day trial. I was skeptical of it at first but I'm a convert now. Good luck!

[jtk]

Lots of self-congratulation here. IMO everything depends on the photograph. If the print itself becomes the topic, the image must be pretty insignificant.

[Brad_]

Epson 2400/4800.

[beepy]

Yeah, odd... I'm sort of with Brad and others here - I recently picket up the 4800 and was

impressed immediately with the B+W prints it produced to Epson Premium Lustre. The 2400

is the little brother of it. I was driving a 2200 and 7600 (Matte) with Espon driver or Colorbyte

ImagePrint RIP - and I never got really excited about that output. I tried Piezography ICC on

a converted Epson 1280 - but I suppose I never mastered that (the results were never to my

liking).

<p>

Before you completely give up go get a demo of a 2400, and push out some test prints.

[jtk]

I WAS frustrated, but I've become ecstatic. Just took some skill acquisition.

 

There is no more reason to expect a year or two of fiddling with inkjet to produce excellent results, than would have a year or two of fiddling in a darkroom.

 

Complaints come from people who have not yet paid the necessary dues.

 

There seems general agreement that 2200/4000 are equal to the new generation if one prints on matte paper, and there seems agreement that neither produces the air-dried-glossy-fiber look that many of us once preferred.

 

Glossy-non-RC-look is another story: I suggest Kirkland Glossy (from Costco). There's NO gloss differential. Looks great with black-only or QTRgui using 2200 and Epson pigments.

 

QTRgui looks smoother but has bronzing...less than other glossy papers because Kirkland isn't glassy smooth: glossy, but somewhat eggshell. Black-only has no bronzing...its "dottiness" becomes less than grain when one prints above 9" IMO.

 

I use both black-only and QTRgui, preferring QTRgui generally for small prints, for smoothness, and when sepia seems right.

[bruce_watson1]

Peter,

 

I think you are laboring under some misconceptions.

 

First and foremost, you seem to think that inkjet prints should look like darkroom prints. You couldn't be more wrong if that's what you think. Inkjet prints are *not* wanna-be darkroom prints. Inkjet is a new media with its own look.

 

Second, if you are getting chalk and soot from inkjet prints, you haven't figured it out yet. One of inkjet's strengths is that it can deliver better shadow detail and better highlight detail than darkroom prints. Chalk and soot are user errors, not media failings.

 

If your complaint is about Dmax on matte papers, that's a condition of the media at this point. No question that is one of inkjet's weaknesses. If you must have glossy papers, you should be looking to the new MIS B&W inksets which perform better with non-matte papers. Another alternative is one of the dozens of lamination methods from full encapsulation to roll or spray coatings.

 

That brings me to another point. You don't say it, but it sounds to me as if you are trying to print B&W prints using color inks. This is not the path to maximum quality for B&W prints. If you aren't using the MIS pigments or the Piezotone pigments then you aren't getting the best prints you can get.

 

For the record, I'm using Piezotone inks, the StudioPrint RIP, and Epson x6xx machines, using Hahnemuhle Photo Rag and Brilliance II canvas. I find my inkjet prints exceed my expectations which, after many years in the darkroom (like you), are quite high.

 

I'm not going back to the darkroom. But that's not saying that you shouldn't. Everyone should use the tools that make them most comfortable. Whether that's the traditional or digital, so be it.

[scott_eaton]

<I>Lots of self-congratulation here</i><P>Ditto.<P>Also remember that wet darkroom printing is 'craft', while printing digitally is 'imaging'.<P>Gotta be honest here, but I consider printing B/W to glossy or semi-gloss resin or ink-jet paper to look amatuerish and scream "darkroom 101 college student". No offense, but unless you're making prints for a B-rate comedy actor to put in their portfolio, why do this? You actually like B&W images that look like a monochrome piece of plastic?<P>I'll take me Epson 820 and Velvet paper over any wet darkroom print on glossy or semi gloss resin anyday. Not my fault somebody doesn't know how to use their 2200 correctly. Heck, give it to me.<P>Fiber based paper is another story because the surface and density range is tough to emulate with even the best ink-jet printers, but if you're getting better results with Dektol and glossy resin than a 2200/2400, the problem isn't with the printer, ahem.

[mr._smith]

Hang in there. New papers are coming out every month, like this one for example:

 

http://www.premierimagingproducts.com/prfiart3323l.html

[mattb1]

The mistake is using an Epson for B&W. Let go of the marketing promises of Epson and their pigmented inks, they sound good but can not deliver (remember its marketing, not gospel). Epson has a fanatical cult following, but that does not make them the best tools for the job.

 

Check out the HPs. While I was never very good in the darkroom, I've been pretty happy with my B&W prints from my HP. If treated as art the prints will last as long as the pigment prints. Some experienced darkroom printers have admitted the HP blacks on glossy are the deepest of any medium available today.

[._._z]

What Sean and Jonathan said: it takes time, experience and experimentation to get

excellent prints consistently, and it is a fool's errand to try to duplicate the precise

characteristics of a chemical print via inkjet.

[jtk]

I don't think it's "a fool's errand" to try to emulate silver with inkjet (Clayton Jones' black-only energy and Hamrick's behind QTRgui are gifts to us), but I do think it's important to remember that darkroom work and photography are not the same thing: Many of Ansel's best silver prints don't rival what he got by supervising scanning of his negs for books (look at a few hundred of his prints to confirm).

 

Digital/inkjet is SHARPER than optical technology, which may be a reasonable trade Vs silver's Dmax (I say that with significant point-source-enlarger experience).

 

There are plenty of credible reports that HP's Designjets more easily produce better blacks than Epson with any inkset, but HP's got paper shortcomings Vs Epson...win a few, lose a few. HP's current inkset may not be around long, whereas old Epsons continue to produce beautiful prints with various inksets as well as Epson's OEM.

[peter_glass1]

Thanks for your responses. I do use Quad tone RIP, and use MIS inks, since this combo gives the best results of those I have tried...and I have tried a lot of different tools.

 

To respond to what some of you are saying, I don't have the expectation that I should be able to make digital prints that look exactly like wet prints. I should have the expectation, though, that my prints have a good range of tones, and are at least pleasing to look at at a reasonable distance. Mine are just okay, but most of my frustration is with paper surfaces (lack of glossy).

 

Perhaps the 2200 printer is not the best tool for b/w, after all, as some of you are saying. I also own the Canon i9900 which produces beautiful color prints. I read and heard that a dedicated 2200 printer for b/w was the way to go, and now that's being contradicted here. As for those who imply I might not have the abilities (smarts) to figure out quality digital printing methods, I'll just allow them to remain judgemental and think what they may. I'm too thick skinned for that.

[gary_woodard]

Ya you need the 2400 cause the 2200 and the 2000 are prehistoric, by the

way if the 2400 doesnt quite cut it, wait till the 2600 comes out, which will be

next summer, maybe you need $600.00 worth of software which will become

outdated in 8 months, or maybe go back to the darkroom where you know the

real deal exists, whos buying this bulls*&t.

[joshua daniels]

Peter -

 

I think it may be helpful for you at least to see what those who feel some success with digital would produce from one of your files on their printer of choice. Perhaps some in this forum with the latest / greatest Epson could volunteer to take one of your files, print it, and send it to you.

 

I have an HP 8750 and would be glad to make you a print. If you contact me off line, we can arrange for you to send the file.

 

Then you can determine whether your disappointment is strictly with the technology or perhaps in part owing to your technique.

[peter_glass1]

Joshua - that's a good idea that I may take advantage of. I never assumed (or stated) that I know everything about digital methods. In fact, I know I've just touched the surface. The fault may in all likelyhood reside in me instead of the technology. I am saying, however, that I've invested a lot of time and resources into much trial and error. I've spent a solid year on this project, learning as much as I can. I told myself that spending as much time as I could afford early would pay dividends in productivity later.

 

My results are okay, but I'm disappointed I'm not further along. My prints don't sing like the wet ones used to. By the way, I've been printing the last couple of days on the Canon i9900 in the grayscale mode, using Canon and Legions glossy papers. The tonal range is vastly superior to the Epson 2200 prints. The 2200 Eboni BO prints are fairly good on glossy, but bronzing is horrible when I use the full MIS inkset. Again, the Canon prints beats anything I've done so far, and they are equivalent to a pretty good RC darkroom print.

But, then again, the Canon uses dye inks...oh, well, it looks like compromising is unavoidable.

 

John Kelly wrote: "Lots of self-congratulation here. IMO everything depends on the photograph. If the print itself becomes the topic, the image must be pretty insignificant."

 

John - It goes without saying the photographic image trumps all else (that's so obvious - why would you even bring that up? Are you a student?) Surely, a discussion about print quality doesn't automatically relegate the image content to the realm of insignficance. As soon as a discussion turns to van Gogh's techniques, his paintings are deemed insignificant? Fine art printmaking concerns itself with comprehensive quality.

[jonathan_traupman]

<p>Peter-

 

<p>First off, let me apologize if I implied that you weren't capable of learning to print digitally. The point I was trying to make was that the skills you've acquired in the darkroom don't all translate over to the digital realm.

 

<p>I get the sense that you're using Eboni black on glossy papers. In my experience, this is a bad idea. No matter what MIS claims, Eboni looks like crap on glossy papers. It dries very flat, so it bronzes like crazy, and it gives very low Dmax (~1.7) on glossy papers. The MIS photo black isn't great, but it bronzes a lot less and get's slightly deeper Dmax (~1.9). I've recently started playing with their Photo Black Neutral (PKN), which has slightly better (but still poor) Dmax at around 1.95, and is less warm toned.

 

<p>Also, since you already have a 2200 and the MIS inks, I strongly encourage you to download Quadtone RIP and take it for a spin. I find the results much better than using the MIS curves workflow. The standard QTR package doesn't come with many profiles for the 2200/UT7 combination. I have made profiles for Epson Enhanced Matte and Velvet Fine Art, Hahnemuhle Photo Rag, and Moab Kayenta and Entrada. I also have ICC profiles for these papers at different warm/cool blending levels. Contact me via email and I will send them to you.

 

<p>Unfortunately, I can't be much help with glossy papers. I've had little success with printing on glossy papers with the MIS inks. Part of the problem is that the MIS Photo Black is very weak -- less dense, in fact, than the dark grays they use. I have had some success reducing bronzing by putting their R800 gloss optimizer in the yellow cartridge, which normally contains the sepia toner I never use. Check out <a href="http://www.inksupply.com/roarkslab.cfm">this</a> for more information.

 

<p>If you're really focused on glossy papers, the Epson Photo Black gets much better Dmax than MIS Photo Black, around 2.2-2.3. You might be happier with the results from the Epson inks driven by Quadtone RIP. QTR can make very neutral, metamerism free B&W prints using the standard Epson 2200 inks by using only the Black and Light Black inks plus small amounts of Light Magenta and Light Cyan to shift the tone from warm to neutral to cool. Highlights aren't quite as smooth as with a 3- or 4-ink system like UT7, Epson K3, or Piezo, but without a loupe it's hard to find fault. I do prefer the MIS inks for matte papers, however.

 

<p>There are also reports that MIS will be upgrading their Ultratone inks with the technology they use in their new MISPRO color inks. They're supposed to give denser blacks and less bronzing on glossy papers. I guess we just have to wait and see.

 

<p>One last thing you might try is coating prints. I've experimented a little bit with printing on matte papers and coating with an acrylic gloss gel medium. Depending on the paper, it can give a look a lot like an air-dried fiber print. I'm still trying to refine my application techniques to avoid brush marks and bubbles, though.

 

<p>Again, email me if you have any specific questions.

[bobmichaels]

Peter: it sounds to me like you have your act together.

 

Have you seen digital b&w prints that you liked but just could not emulate? Or have you never seen one you liked? Possibly you are doing almost as well as can be done but just don't like the way digital b&w prints look. If so, no problem. This is art and we all have our own likes and dislikes.

 

Bob Michaels