Frustrated...you bet I am.

[beepy]

I've never used the MIS inks... Hmmmm... did you use the Epson inks and prefer the MIS inks

for color?

<p>

So you like the Canon results better (if I'm sorting the comments right) after a couple days?

Interesting...

[peter_glass1]

I'll try to respond in reverse order:

?Beepy - For quite a long while, I did use the Epson inks as originally came with the printer. B/W prints with the full color inkset were horrible, and so I tried Clayton Jone's Black Only method (using the matte black ink in the first position), and I actually got pretty good results from a wide range of papers, including glossy. This produced a nicely warm print (my preference). Photo Black ink in BO printing mode gave more neutral results, so I did have a choice in print toning. But still, I wasn't satisfied when using digital glossy paper. I experimented with MIS inks and found they work fairly well with matte papers, which I tried out of frustration over glossy. Later, I tried the Quad tone RIP (w/Eboni ink in the first position) and I got interesting results with matte papers. Sort of like platinum prints when I used Paul's curves. Decent, but not the song of wet darkroom prints. I pretty much stayed with this set-up. In between I screwed around with other papers and profiles, though not other third party inks. Again, I'm more frustrated by papers than by anything else. I guess I just don't like matte paper, and the glossy results I get from the Epson are frustrating. The Canon gives me better tonal results, it seems, but again, it is a dye ink printer and I'm kind of hung up about longevity.

 

Bob may have hit the nail on the head. If this is the best I can do, then maybe I really don't like the look and feel of a digital print. It might be that simple.

 

Jonathon - No problem. Your last response gave me some very concrete ideas. I use the Quadtone RIP with matte papers, and it works better than anything else. I've also tried many other profiles, but I'll be contacting you to request the Moab profiles. Your observations are very helpful. Thanks.

[tapas_maiti5]

Peter

 

It is frustrating, I've spent the last year doing the same as you but I have nowhere to put a darkroom so must persevere. If you really want glossier prints, may I suggest a few options.

 

1. Lyson quad black or small gamut work very well on glossy papers, the quad black has a 100 year life even though it is dye base. I;ve used these and like the quad black; the small gamut is fun but needs expensive profiling to work accurately.

 

2. Lyson photochrome - new pigment ink that apparently works on both glossy and black; not tried it though.

 

3. Permajet have a new paper that I am trying Art Silk which is a fine art paper which seems to work with epson and MIS inks and has a light glossy sheen.

 

4. Lyson also have a "darkroom gloss" paper that is nice which works with their inks.

 

Regards

 

Tapas

[beepy]

Well, :-( Good luck!

[Brad_]

Getting great B&W archival prints today is so easy now - right out of the box, without the

need for special inks, software, RIP, and rabbit's foot. Why make life complicated?

[jtk]

"As soon as a discussion turns to van Gogh's techniques, his paintings are deemed insignificant?"

 

No, but they get lost in the shuffle. The people who most analyze his techniques are the most jaded.

 

Yes, I'm a 61 year old student of photography, been at it since I made my first silver print at 8. My main influences have been a bunch of Minor White (inventor of Zone System, Ansel notwithstanding) students.

 

No, it's not self-evident from your post that you're primarily concerned about the image. But your unhappiness is a good thing:

 

That you are dissatisfied with your results indicates not that you have more refined tastes than others, rather that you should continue as a student...your dissatisfaction can be a virtue, even though it does look like self-congratulation.

[peter_glass1]

Point, well taken.

[l.dwight_horricks]

I too have never really embraced the digital print, primarly because of the media available for printing on...nothing can replace the look of the air dried glossy fiber...IMHO.

 

What I've been doing recently is shooting on film (in medium format)... scanning the negs...working on the "keeper" images in PS...then outputing on an LVT to make a new (TMAX) neg, which I then print traditionally in my darkroom. For me its the best of both worlds...I have the control of PS, but am able to use my traditional materials (paper,toner,bleach,etc). It can be a bit more complicated work flow, but what I've found is that once I got calibrated, with what the final image I had on my screen and what came out of the LVT...I could zero in on a final print in the darkroom remarkably faster than doing the whole process under the enlarger...its now just a matter of minor contrast and exposure adjustments (usually three prints max (factoring in dry-down)...and I have the print that matches what I had on my computer screen...my darkroom time is much more productive and althought the LVT out is not cheap...I make up for it in paper consumption and productvity.

[geoff_samuel]

There is somthing nice and simple about a traditional "wet darkroom" b&w print, and an inkjet print will never match it exactly.

 

Optical, analogue printing is awesome!

[katherine_gillis]

I have always preferred holding a brush in my hand instead of a computer mouse or tablet brush. I'm one of the few remaining traditional retouchers and spotters. I love what I do. It's no longer a profession one would aspire to but if you're an analog photographer wanting to learn the techniques or you need a retoucher. Give me a shout.

[JDMvW]

Something there is here that reminds me of http://holyjoe.org/poetry/holmes1.htm

[url=http://holyjoe.org/poetry/holmes1.htm][/url]

Of course, the digital darkroom is different from the actual darkroom. And of course you have to have the right tools to do the job.

Ansel Adams didn't use a $3 mail-order enlarger, but he said

• 

  
  

[rodeo_joe1]

12 years on from the original post and I fear not much has changed WRT printing B&W digitally.

 

However I'll admit I don't keep up with printing (aka ink guzzling) technology. I've toyed with the idea of converting a disused Canon A3 inkjet to a dedicated greyscale printer - using multiple black/grey ink cartridges.

 

Anyone satisfied with the output of such a setup?

[etkennedy1]

I switched 3 months after 30 years of darkroom and am extremely satisfied. After trying 3 printers. 3 different ink sets and tons of paper, I have reached a point where I much prefer my ink jet results. Negatives that were unprintable are no longer. I scan my 30 year accumulation of 4x5 and 5x7 negatives using epson v750 with better scanner holder and silverfast, use silver efx pro and adjust tonal range, then print using epson 3880 with Cone Pro inks and ABW setting. After a day, spray lightly with MOAB desert Varnish

 

Since I don't print larger than 16x20, the v750 gives more than enough resolution. The blacks with Cone inks on Canson or Ilford Bartya papers measure 2-4 luminance, very deep black and are very neutral. The papers measure 97-98 luminance white. I much prefer the ink jet prints. I have calibrated the monitor and printer so what I see is what I get.

 

I don't miss

-retouching each print, now I basically retouch the digital file once. After going to digital editing, I could never return to old practice.

-print smaller size to adjust print contrast/time to save paper then readjusting time again for larger print

-working hours in the darkroom to get a print I think is just right and realizing after drying it is off and have to redo it again

-the chemicals and working in the basement in the semi dark

 

I had taken the Sexton darkroom workshop when it was in Snowmass, plus numerous workshop with Sexton and McSavaney. I considered myself a decent photographer and careful worker. I was just about to give up photography, too much frustration in the darkroom. I started to sell my lens, camera and darkroom equipment but decided to give digital process a try. I made a last try at photography using digital and have a renewed enthusiasm.

 

The only downside I see is the prints are much more fragile.

 

 

-

-

[Uhooru]

<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.

 

Interestingly there is now fiber paper for digital prints that are especially good for b/w printing. But it is pretty expensive.

[rodeo_joe1]

I've tried using colour inks for monochrome printing and, apart from the waste and cost of colour inks, I found the neutrality and permanence completely unsatisfactory, and varying with the paper used. That's why I was considering pigment black/grey inksets.

 

Anyone have experience going this route for true B&W printing?

 

I'm not worried about scanning. Desaturated digital camera output is great on screen. It's just getting it onto paper that's the issue.

[etkennedy1]

I have found that ABW setting with Epson inks on the 3880 using either Canson Bartya, Ilford Legacy Bartya, or Ilford Gold fiber Silk gives very neutral prints with reasonably uniform gloss. I see no magenta, green or yellow cast. The gloss can be evened out by post spraying lightly with Moab Desert Varnish. I have just switched to ConeColor Pro for the back inks, deeper blacks than I could ever achieve in the darkroom- luminance of 2-3. I find I prefer the ink jet prints to my darkroom prints. I can much more easily get to what I envisioned with inkjet than in the darkroom. The prints have deeper blacks with good tonal separation in the midtones and highlights. The prints have no dust spots or blemishes due to easily done careful touchup of the scanned file in photoshop. I am scanning 4x5s and 5x7s on a Epson 750. If you are not satisfied with a print, it takes a little more photoshop adjustment and push a print button. Also, there is no difference in the tonal range and appearance when you tune the print on a small size paper, then resize larger by changing dpi to get the final print.

 

After 30 years of darkroom work, I am finished in the darkroom, I have sold 1/2 of it. The only downside for me is that ink jet prints are more easily marked/damaged.

[Sandy Vongries]

Usually it is easy to distinguish film from digital images in B&W -- the few times I have managed to come close to film, it has been done in the camera. There are a variety of others here who have created images that are very close, on screen, at least. Prints are an entirely different issue, with which I have not managed to achieve more than "acceptable" level vs. enlarger / darkroom. "Endeavor to persevere." Good luck!

[Asad Ali]

Peter I truly understand what you are saying, A silver gloss look in a well made silver gelatin print can never be seen with inkjet pigments.