Epson R2400 - Why use the Matte Black Cartridge?

[toms]

Why would anyone use the matte black ink cartridge in the Epson R2400 printer

for B&W prints?

 

I have been a traditional B&W darkroom printer, now transitioning to digital

and inkjet printing. I am printing on an Epson Stylus Photo R2400 using

Photoshop CS2.

 

In the darkroom, I printed on good quality fiber based paper, such as Kodak

Polymax Fine Art, Ilford Multigrade Warmtone, and Oriental Seagull.

 

During my transition to digital, for some reason (that I can't explain at this

point) I was under the impression that printing on matte paper with the matte

black cartridge was the equivalent of using fiber paper in the darkroom and

thus the only choice for serious B&W printing. Conversely, using the photo

black cartridge and associated media would be the equivalent of using RC paper

in the darkroom.

 

Unfortunately, I was very unsatisfied with my Epson B&W prints. I used some

good papers: Epson Velvet Fine Art, Hahnemuhle Photo Rag, and Moab Kayenta to

name a few. Even though I found these papers to have beautiful textures and

nice weights, they were also so completely flat that they seemed to suck the

life right out of certain images.

 

Fortunately, Helen Bach left me a post about Crane Museo Silver Rag and Innova

F-Type Gloss papers. Printing on these papers (with the photo black

cartridge) is an absolute joy. You get rich, satisfying blacks, an incredible

and smooth dynamic range, and just enough of a reflective surface to bring the

prints alive.

 

Although ink jet prints are different than silver prints, some of my prints

are virtually identical to what I have pulled out of the darkroom, and overall

the quality is generally at least as good as a silver print.

 

I refer back to my opening question - why bother using the matte black

printing cartridge?

 

I welcome and encourage anyone to give their opinion on this matter. I have

spent hundreds of dollars on matte black ink and papers and would not mind

being proved wrong.

 

Thank you.

[eddie g]

I just wanted to echo the Crane Museo Silver Rag...wow, that is some serious paper when combined with K3 inks.

 

<p>I'm anxious to hear what this forum thinks about Matte Black. Sorry I don't have that answer.

[sheryl_bury_michals]

Tom,

 

I got my Epson 2400 a few weeks ago. Tried the Matte Black Cartridge with the Epson Matte finish paper - found the effect muddy. It was worse when I printed a shot in color - the whole image seemed flat.

 

So for now I'm using the photo black cartridge with the luster and glossy papers I have - and have been using. B&W on luster paper looks a lot like the darkroom prints I've made with Ilford MGIV Pearl finish paper.

 

From reading your post, it seems that only certain papers produce the desired effect - I assume they are archivally sound (though I haven't used those yet-still experimenting with the papers I did purchase), probably cost a bit more too.

 

But for quality darkroom-like prints that would be worth something to me to use better paper. Do they look exhibit-worthy as well?

 

sheryl

[dan_linne1]

I have the same background as you and reached the same conclusion early on. You must try Hahnemuhle Fine Art Pearl. For me, it is better than the two other photo black papers you mentioned.

[mermaids kiss gallery]

Yes the black "look" blacker. However all prints, matte or glossy need to be put behind glass, for archival purposes. Now the glossy papers have the problem of a double reflection (glass<>surface of paper), which actually makes the glossy black "look" soft, while with the matte papers, you are looking at a pure black abiss.

 

I print with an Epson 4800 and have experimented with both types of paper behind glass at our gallery. Using "reflection control" glass eliminates the glossy paper reflection problem, however now the whole image has that soft gauzy look.

 

When mounting prints archivally behind glass you must also use a matte or "spacers" to keep the print from actually touching the glass (condensation problems). This space also amplifies the glossy<>glass reflection problem.

 

Best of luck

Ron Obvious

[godfrey]

I prefer the flat-matte finish papers to any pearl, luster or glossy surface. Of course, prints

made on flat-matte finish need to be balanced differently than prints on other surfaces to

have the appropriate qualities in their appearance. That's a matter of rendering, nothing else.

 

So I use a lot of matte surface papers and use matte black ink, which achieves a deeper black

than photo black ink.

 

Godfrey

[bobmichaels]

I'm glad we have options and the ability to use what we like. Personally, I like good rag paper and MK ink. They don't look like what I once did in the wet darkroom but that was never my objective. And no one has ever suggested that my prints are flat or suffer from low D-Max.

 

We are fortunate to have some many good choices. Film or Digital, Nikon or Canon, glossy or matte, and it goes on.

[eric friedemann]

"I was under the impression that printing on matte paper with the matte black cartridge was the equivalent of using fiber paper in the darkroom and thus the only choice for serious B&W printing."

 

 

Tom, the problem has been that almost all glossy and semi-matte (e.g. "pearl" or "lustre") surface papers have used non-archival, RC (plastic) bases. Now, companies like Innova are bringing out archival papers like the FibaPrint White Gloss F-type.

 

 

Another issue has been what some have called "surface differential" where different areas of a print can have different reflectance, which appears like bronzing on a decaying silver-based RC print. This is a problem with my 2200 when making glossy or semi-matte prints; but has supposedly been greatly reduced on the 2400.

 

 

I print almost exclusively on velvet fine art matte papers and use the matte black cartridge. On the one hand, you can achive a bottomless black similar to selenium-toning silver-based FB prints. On the other hand, the matte black ink makes it more difficult to preserve shadow detail- particularly in prints with significant dynamic range.

 

 

For B&W printing on the 2200, I'd had awful problems with metamerism. My gray tones had a sickly, uneven look, like dead fish scales. I'd all but given up making B&W prints on the 2200 when I tried QuadTone RIP, an amazing program that has allowed me to make some superb inkjet prints that rival FB prints I was making in my wet darkroom:

 

 

http://www.quadtonerip.com/html/QTRoverview.html

[joseph_wisniewski]

Ron Obvious - "Yes the black 'look' blacker. However all prints, matte or glossy need to be put behind glass, for archival purposes. Now the glossy papers have the problem of a double reflection (glass<>surface of paper), which actually makes the glossy black "look" soft, while with the matte papers, you are looking at a pure black abiss."

 

Ron, you're being quite subtle, and not at all "obvious". There's an interesting phenomenon associated with glass. Plain, uncoated picture framing glass reflects about 8% of the light that strikes it (4% per surface, inner and outer). The exact amount is dependent on angle, but 8% is a good "average" for random light incidence. Normal room lighting is random incidence: if you're not lighting your pictures via well aimed spot lights, then 8% is the reflection that you get. The density of 8% reflection is 1.10. That's right, any picture behind glass in typical room light has best case DMAX of 1.10, and that's only if the image has truly light sucking blacks.

 

Now, if we look at some "real" cases...

 

A well made (just the right ink and paper) inkjet glossy print can hit a DMAX of around 2.4. That's 0.4% reflection. Combine it with 8% from the glass, and you're at 8.4% or DMAX of 1.08.

 

A well made matte print has a DMAX of about 1.6. In the open, it doesn't look as black as the glossy print. But framed, you take its 2.5% reflection, add 8% for the glass, and you've got DMAX 0.98.

 

So, without glass, the DMAX difference is huge: 0.8 (2.4 vs 1.6).

 

Behind glass, the difference is trivial: 0.1 (1.08 vs 0.98).

 

Photographers fondle the prints in the darkroom, and have little experience with them framed in the customer's setting.

 

"I print with an Epson 4800 and have experimented with both types of paper behind glass at our gallery. Using "reflection control" glass eliminates the glossy paper reflection problem, however now the whole image has that soft gauzy look."

 

That's sandblasted or acid etched glass. In addition to the DMAX loss, you're getting a "spreading" effect of edges, a loss of what the Leicaholics refer to as "microcontrast".

 

There is glass that has an actual interference anti-reflective coating, just like your lenses and filters do, but the stuff is frighteningly expensive. And a pain to keep clean. Fingerprints "glow" on real anti-reflective glass.

 

As far as your "condensation" problem, how are you drying your 4800 images? It's trickier than it sounds...

[joseph_wisniewski]

Eric Friedemann - "Tom, the problem has been that almost all glossy and semi-matte (e.g. 'pearl' or 'lustre') surface papers have used non-archival, RC (plastic) bases. Now, companies like Innova are bringing out archival papers like the FibaPrint White Gloss F-type."

 

This is not entirely true. The archival differences between RC and fiber in the chemical darkroom have a lot to do with the accessibility of the silver salts in the print to the developing, fixing, and washing chemicals. This isn't the case in inkjet printing: the pigments are deposited onto the surface of the paper by the inkjet (or soak into the coating, in the case of dye based inks). As long as the surface that the inks are being deposited on is compatible with the inks, archival properties are preserved.

 

The "new generation" papers like FibaPrint Gloss, Crane Silver Rag, and Hahnemuhle Fine Art Pearl haven't tested as more archival than resin coated papers, they're just different in appearance. They may still be resin coated, just without an undercoating that "smooths out" a conventional paper.

 

"Another issue has been what some have called 'surface differential' where different areas of a print can have different reflectance, which appears like bronzing on a decaying silver-based RC print. This is a problem with my 2200 when making glossy or semi-matte prints; but has supposedly been greatly reduced on the 2400"

 

Actually, inkjet prints have both "gloss differential" (which can occur ink to surface or ink to ink, so "surface differential" isn't a correct description) and actual bronzing. The bronzing is an interference effect (just like oil on water, soap bubbles, or the pretty sheens of the coatings on your lenses and filters). It's caused by having just the right thickness to a layer of ink (in terms of wavelengths of light).

 

You're quite right, the 2400 inks address all three effects, they avoid "bronzing" thicknesses of ink, and have a better differential match between all the inks and between the inks and common papers.

 

"I print almost exclusively on velvet fine art matte papers and use the matte black cartridge."

 

Such a lovely combination. I've always been fond of that paper. It looks like "real art" to me, like a stone lithograph or a painting. Something with thousands of tradition, not the bare century of silver gelatin. Gelatin, that's a kid's desert, not an artist's medium!

 

;) ;)

 

"On the one hand, you can achive a bottomless black similar to selenium-toning silver-based FB prints. On the other hand, the matte black ink makes it more difficult to preserve shadow detail- particularly in prints with significant dynamic range."

 

How do you print? Epson drivers are notorious for poorly set "ink limits" and their profiles are notorious for taking the shadow detail and mapping it all into saturation levels of black. A custom profile often opens up the shadows, especially if done on a target with a lot of patches (an 1100 or 1700 patch, instead of the 700 patch a lot of profile companies like to use).

 

And, silly question, but you are using "black point compensation" when you print?

[paul_sokal___dallas__tx]

Tom,

 

I have used all the papers you mention plus the three new papers (SR, F-type, and HFAP). I think for the most part, it's personal preference. Once framed the differences disappear or become minimal. I think one problem with matte prints is that people fail to adjust their output level, thus blocking up the dark tones with loss of detail, making it look flat, posterized.

 

I've had real problems with the F-type. It has beautiful D-max but the surface is terrible. The first batch of 13 by 19 I used had a distinct mottling in even tone areas such as sky. The rep thought it was a bad batch and sent a second box which was better but still not usuable for salable prints.

 

I think the D-max of the Han FAP is not suitable for B&W printing for most images so I've limited it's use to color. Silver Rag may be the closest to ideal, but very expensive (like the others) and not sure it's worth the premium, once the picture is framed.

 

You might try printing a greyscale ramp and seeing where your dark tones actually come out. On my 2400 with matte papers it's around 4-6 depending on the paper and adjust output level accordingly and see if things don't look better to you with matte ink.

 

fwiw

 

Paul

[eric friedemann]

Joseph-

 

1. The main problem I've had with RC silver-based papers hasn't deterioration of the image, but rather yellowing of the plastic base. For instance, a few months ago I unframed a C-print I hand-made and hand-washed years ago (the image had been framed using archival materials and had always hanged in low, indirect light). The emulsion of the print was still fine, but the RC based had yellowed to the point where there was no white to be seen in the print.

 

 

I reprinted the image with the 2200 on Ilford Fine Art Matte and reframed it using new framing materials. We'll see what the inkjet image looks like in a few years.

 

 

2. Velvet rag-matte paper really does give a fine art print look. The only issue I've had with unframed prints is scuffing. I've been experimenting with Krylon's preservative spray. It makes the prints more scuff-resistent, but I'm waiting to see if the spray causes any yellowing or darkening over time.

 

 

3. I've experimented with different drivers, black point compensation and using a lustre surface paper with the regular black cartridge v. matte paper with the matte black cartridge. My experience has been that the matte black cartridge delivers a little shorter tonal range.

 

 

-Eric

[joseph_wisniewski]

Tom S - "Why would anyone use the matte black ink cartridge in the Epson R2400 printer for B&W prints?I have been a traditional B&W darkroom printer,"

 

And you just answered your own question. What you call "traditional" is a little "blip" on the real tradition and history of art. Gelatin paper doesn't go back much more than 100 years. There was a time when photography was printed on the same fine art papers that were used for lithographs or watercolors, coated with platinum salts or prepared for carbon or oil color transfers. The papers came from mills like Arches or Hahnemuhle that had been in the art business for about 1/2 a millennium.

 

"now transitioning to digital and inkjet printing. I am printing on an Epson Stylus Photo R2400 using Photoshop CS2.

 

In the darkroom, I printed on good quality fiber based paper, such as Kodak Polymax Fine Art, Ilford Multigrade Warmtone, and Oriental Seagull. "

 

And there's the rest of the answer. The very best "good quality fiber based paper" is still Naugahyde or pleather compared to a fine art paper. Photographers talk about the nuances between themselves, but outside that circle, it's all meaningless. It's part of the reason why so many folks don't consider photographers to be "artists", at all. One has to reach outside a closed circle. To a non-photographer, Oriental Seagull, Epson Premium Luster, Fuji Crystal Archive are all just forms of plastic.

[joseph_wisniewski]

Eric - interesting reply.

 

1. I've seen yellow decay. Haven't used RC since Kodak PC RC 3. I found washing it to be quite a challenge. The procedure that actually worked was a very extended wash: two hour warm wash (bathwater temperatures, say 100 deg F) with hypo killer after the first 20 minutes. 60 degree tap water couldn't do it.

 

I've never seen longevity numbers for Ilford Matte.

 

2. I've had pretty good luck with three coats of PremierArt Print Shield for VFA scuffing. Minimal change to the appearance, but a lot of protection. Wilhelm did accelerated life testing on VFA with Print Shield, all the effects on print life were positive. I use Krylon for things like business cards, because the cost is so low.

 

3. If by "shorter" you mean the range from DMAX to DMIN, yup, much shorter. It takes some getting used to. And some working around, beyond just black point compensation. One of my favorite tricks is to use PhotoShop's "Shadows and Highlights" feature, with both shadows and highlights turned off (although a slight "bump" to shadows, perhaps 5% can help with a "problem" profile or ink limit setting) and a 10-20% boost on "mid tone contrast". That seems to be the long sought after "magical image popper" tool for curing "flat" images.

[robert_fisher4]

I glanced at the responses and didn't see anyone ask this question: What is your digital workflow and what profiles, if any, are you using with your printer and papers? Or this one: What light source are you viewing your prints under?

 

In order to get the best out of a machine like the 2400 you need to be using good paper profiles and have a properly calibrated monitor. Canned profiles from the manufacturer are a decent start but custom profiles made for your specific printer are even better. If you want to get really anal about it you should make new profiles, or tweak existing ones, each time you change to a new ink cartridge or open a new box of paper from a different batch.

 

In addition, you should use the soft proofing capabilities of PS to see how your prints will look when converted to the profile for the particular paper you're using. What you'll likely find when you soft proof is that you'll get a slight softening of contrast and it may almost look like there's a slight fog over the image. This will be more evident if you're using a paper that has a lower brightness level, or is somewhat warm toned. What you can do to help resolve this is have two copies of the image open. One is an edited original the other is an edited copy that has been converted to the proper paper profile and is used for soft proofing. Then what you do is you make slight changes to the soft proofing image until it looks like as close as possible to the original file. Once you've tweaked your proofing image you print it. This will definitely help with the dullness you may be experiencing.

 

Keep in mind too that the print will never exactly match what you see on screen. Monitors are transmitted light and prints are reflected/absorbed light. There is a difference in luminance and even in the best calibrated and profiled workflow there will be slight luminance differences between the two. If you're viewing your prints under a dull bulb or one that's not daylight balanced you're going to see a less lively print as well.

[toms]

Thank you all for the informative responses and exchange of ideas. My apologies also for being slow to respond.

 

I believe that Silver Rag and Innova papers are archivally sound. My personal opinion is that they are most certainly exhibit worthy. I should disclose that I am not a professional photographer and would also be interested to know if any professionals are using these papers in their exhibits.

 

Thanks for letting me know about Hahnemule Fine Art Pearl - I look forward to experimenting with it.

 

I generally review my prints under incandescent lights in a room well lit during the day. I also walk them over to the window to assess them under natural light. I will certainly add looking at them under glass, with a matte in between of course to prevent contact. Looking at a matte print under glass does make a difference.

 

I have not had any quality issues with the Innova F-Type, but my personal preference leans towards the Silver Rag.

 

To Mr. Wisniewski: thank you for the historical perspective - it's always good to keep sight of the big picture.

 

My digital workflow involves bringing the image into PS(CS2) and using layers (levels, curves, channel mixer, etc.) to optimize the image, never altering the original image. Then I save the image, create a duplicate, and close the original image. Working with the duplicate, I flatten the image, sharpen it with either smart sharpen or USM, then send it to the printer.

 

I readily admit that I don't fully understand all the printing options and setting in PS, although I am actively trying to improve on my knowledge level. I select the following: Print with Preview, Let Photoshop Determine Colors (when I select Let Printer Determine Colors it turns out way too dark), Perceptual, Black Point Compression. Under printer profile, I use either the Silver Rag profile that I downloaded or the closest Epson equivalent (e.g. Premium Luster Best Photo).

 

In the R2400 properties screen, I again select the most appropriate Epson paper on the menu list, best photo, and also select Advanced B&W Photo.

 

These setting generally give me what I expect based on what I see on my monitor (an HP Pavilion dv8000 17" widescreen laptop).

 

I am not necessarily trying to duplicate what I get in the darkroom, I mention that I get close as a point of reference. I am more concerned about what is satisfying to my eye. I believe that a well made B&W printed on silver is beautiful and satisfying to the eye.

 

Thank you all again for your comments. This wonderful forum has made me be a better educated, more informed, and more open minded photographer.

[nickmunning]

Thank you all for your responses. Robert, a question to your comment "In order to get the best out of a machine like the 2400 you need to be using good paper profiles and have a properly calibrated monitor. Canned profiles from the manufacturer are a decent start but custom profiles made for your specific printer are even better. If you want to get really anal about it you should make new profiles, or tweak existing ones, each time you change to a new ink cartridge or open a new box of paper from a different batch."

 

How do you make custom profiles and tweak existing ones?

 

I am new to this forum and trying to learn about my Epson 2400 printer from which I am having a terrible time getting pictures to look at all like on my HP L2335 24 in monitor which has been calibrated without Spyder 2 Pro or any other software other than Adobe. At this point I'd be satisfied with just having snap shots look like they used to when I printed off of a HP 920 CSE using low grade software! I will calibrate my monitor using one of the professional softwares. I'm open for suggestions. Perhaps this isn't the thread to do this, but I don't know how to start my own.

 

Thank you all, Nick Munning

[gerard_van_den_akker]

Tom: "Let Photoshop Determine Colors ..." and then later in the R2400 "select Advanced B&W Photo".

Theoretically IMHO these options are conflicting, as you are doing your color management twice. Did you try to switch off color management in the printer dialog, and how did that turn out?

I have also been wrestling with these settings for color prints and experienced prints that were always darker than my calibrated monitor. I let PS do color management, proofs on the screen look fine, but I had to add about +10 to the Brightness in PS2 to correct for the dark prints (not a subtle solution, I know). I still haven't figured out why this difference is occuring. From Nikon Capture NX it's the same story, althoug compensation in PS and Capture differ a bit.

[eric friedemann]

BTW, in recent months, I've been printing on the pricey, but excellent, Harman FB Mp Matt paper:

 

 

http://www.harman-inkjet.com/products/product.asp?n=63&t=Inkjet+Baryta+Photo+Paper

 

 

This is an archival paper with a nice-looking surface and none of the scuffing issues of velvet fine art paper. With my 2200 printer, I use the Matte Black Cartridge, but on a watercolor setting so a little less ink is used, resulting in a slightly-longer apparent tonal scale.

 

 

I spoke to a techie at Harman who said that with the 2400 printer, the regular black cartridge can be used. Also, Harman has two newer papers- a warm tone matt and a glossy, both of which are archival:

 

 

http://www.harman-inkjet.com/products/producttype.asp?n=11&t=Inkjet+Baryta+Photo+Paper

[jonathan_levy2]

Tom: "Let Photoshop Determine Colors ..." and then later in the R2400 "select Advanced B&W Photo". Theoretically IMHO these options are conflicting, as you are doing your color management twice".

 

I recently read something about when using the Epson Advanced B&W you should turn off PS management and let the Advanced driver do the management alone. Anyone see this information?