Lightroom & B&W : refute or agree?

[jtk]

I'm looking for agreement, argument, ridicule, or more insights:

 

Using Lightroom for B&W, instead of QTR (has its own virtues, but offers less control) or expensive/clogging B&W

inksets, and using eyes instead of immediately-antiquated electronic measuring devices, deserves more exploration...

 

...if your game is photography more than data processing.

 

Using an R800 I got specifically for exploration (before I buy a 3800 or HP or whatever):

 

I've learned two important things: 1.5 picolitre dots does not produce higher detail resolution on matte paper

than does my elderly 2200. Does 1.5 give an advantage with fine semi-gloss, such as Moab Satine?

 

Printing B&W images (neutral, split-toned, or toned) from Lightroom using K3 (OEM for R800) pigments completely

eliminates B&W bronzing, metamerism, and gloss differential on highest gloss paper ...seemingly perfectly.

 

Lightroom with OEM color inkset offers tremendous tonal control, split-tone B&W control, and

color-filtration-for-B&W (even more than the R/G/Y filters of yesteryear, and you get an instant proof on your

monitor :-)

 

Split toning is incredibly easy with Lightroom, and it does need color pigments no matter what driver if you

"want what you want". Lightroom appears to offer far MORE CONTROL in most respects for straight photos (as

opposed to graphic manipulations) than does Photoshop, and it's INFINITELY MORE INTUITIVE (sliders and immediate

on-screen evaluation).

 

Neither Piezo nor MIS inks can give you "want what you want" toning or split-toning unless you also use color

pigments...in other words, you can't work entirely in carbon...and of course, MIS/Piezo don't work well on glossy

stock without a lot of hassle. I like QTR's front end, but I like Lightroom's better.

 

The only downside I've found so far is a big one at first, but its not insurmountable: dodging/burning (and

probably masking), and Intuos graphic pad in particular, want Photoshop...don't work directly in my version of

Lightroom ...so I still have to switch from Lightroom to PS, then back to Lightroom to print from Lightroom.

(does Lightroom 2 solve this?)

 

Martin Evening's "The Adobe Photoshop Lightroom Book" is amazingly good. He writes coherently. I thought I'd

never say that about any documentation.

 

Since most of us already have or will inevitably have Lightroom or equivalent, we might want to learn its

potential if we're into B&W.

 

Thoughts here are personal experience, early in personal exploration....

[roger_smith4]

MIS inks work fine on glossy stock without a hassle, but not the 3MK approach for the R800/R1800. 3MK isn't expensive, nor clogging.

I get a Dmax of 2.3+ using a R220 with UTR2 inks and have simple toning options using a mix of cool and warm carts (cool in C, LC, Y, warm in M, LM) and the driver color controls. I haven't had clogs in the 3 years I've owned this printer- I try to print every month or so.

 

I have compared slightly toned B&W with my R1800 and color inks (a touch of warmth) to the 3MK carbon inks and you can definitely see slight color casts with the color ink (not perfectly neutral in shadows even with custom profile). It's not bad, mind you.

 

I do like Lightroom's control over BW conversions and use it extensively.

[winddancing__]

Lots of meat here guys, thanks

[Brad_]

I've been doing B&W with my Epson 4800 w/stock inks for more than three years and have been thrilled with every print.

It's easy and just works.

[jtk]

Unlike Brad, I can't say I've been "thrilled with every print," but I'm very happy with my old 2200 with Epson's seemingly-clog-free inks and the Quadtone driver. However, it seems that Lightroom adds several extra levels of control, especially if working with a RAW file.

 

I've closely inspected B&Ws by dozens of photographers who used everything from Epson's 1270/80 forward on Epson, Moab, Hahnemeule, and all sorts of other beautiful papers...

 

Although more modern printers (such as Brad's 4800) do make fine B&Ws a lot easier automatically than do older printers, they do not reliably beat those older printers visually assuming the older printers are used well (eg with QTR).

 

My impression is that QTR, perhaps other non-Epson drivers both offer something slightly beyond Epson's newest driver, and that Lightroom offers a lot more (particularly it's sophisticated color>BYW conversion routine and infinitely adjustable split toning).

[Spearhead]

<i>Unlike Brad, I can't say I've been "thrilled with every print," .. my old 2200</i><p>Well there's your answer to the "thrill" problem, when it comes to black and white, the 2200 is a long way from the current Epson printers like the 4800 Brad is using.

[Brad_]

Jeff hit it exactly.

 

The 4800 (and later models) use Epson's K3 inks. Outstanding B&W right out of the box - and using ABW, little skill is

required. No other RIPs or other inks are needed. The best prints I've seen from others are with factory inks and no external RIP.

 

The 2200 produces B&W with casts that can range from light green to magenta. QTR, can help to some extent.

[robert_brake1]

John, your R800 is the wrong platform for any b&w printing other than with a dedicated b&w inkset. (If you look at the read me's in QTR

you will see a general disclaimer against using the R800 for b&w. There are some base profiles there for those wanting to experiment with

the R1800/800 platform. ) The R800 is not a K3 printer like the 2400, 3800 etc. The R800 uses the same inkset as the R1800 which has

Red and Blue in place of Light Magenta and Light Cyan. Additionally it holds matte and gloss blacks so you can switch from matte to

gloss paper without removing catridges and it also has Gloss Optimiser to print glossy color on gloss paper, which is what that

printer was designed to do.

 

You can use QTR to print through it's RIP (essentially the ability to control each print head no matter what ink is installed

in that cartridge) and that really has little to do with using LR for B&W conversion.

 

That said you can use a dedicated b&w inkset and get very good b&w on the 800, but with the primary limitation being on matte paper

only at this point Glossies aren't up to the same level yet on any dedicated b&w inkset. The workflow on the r800 will be nothing like the

K3 printers as well.

 

If you want decent toned b&w you will have to use a color inkset with a true K3 (Black, Light Black and Light Light Black plus

the M,C, LM, LC and yellow) like on the 2400. That will give you want you want through LR or any other editing program.

[patricklavoie]

too lazy to answer the queastions totaly (just arrive froma 4days shoot).

 

any printer below the 2400 will not porduce good neutral BW without the help of a RIP, MIS ink, Quatone RIp etc..the 2200 was no exeption, i had to buy a dedicated rip from epson to get good result, and find couple month after QTR, that was more difficult to handle, but give good result.

 

Yes Lr2 would be a nice move, and yes you can use a graphic tablet with it, i do.

 

If you get a 2400 or up and Lr2, you will get spectacular bw print..if you know how to work to get good bw print : )

[jtk]

Thanks all. Here are some tentative responses...I don't want to minimize any of your thoughts but do want to share experiences I'm having.

 

*** FIRST: non-professionals like me commonly take best advantage of older tech (K2 for me, dye inks/1280 for somebody else), knowing that Epson or HP will soon deliver something better, if only for marketing reasons, than current K3. Epson's cluttered array of 13" photo printers makes that obvious.

 

2200 with K2 is a totally reliable old machine, produces excellent matte B&W on the right papers (eg on Museo Portfolio Rag, HPR, Entrada), but is worthless on semi-gloss.

 

Yes, R800 is an irritating B&W/QTR machine (workflow), though it's great for color and delivers a perfect gloss with absolutely no bronzing or gloss-differential on several papers.

 

Robert, Split tone and most other toning inherently requires color pigments, whether K2/K3, Piezotone, Eboni with color, whatever...which levels the game.

 

Brad: Right, for basic neutral black purposes, ABW rivals QTR and dedicated inksets and doesn't demand as much labor or skill. But with the exception of its very important semi-gloss advantage, K3 machines with color inksets and either ABW or QTR don't seem to visually beat K2 and QTR. In other words, it appears that paper is more important than ink or printer.

 

It's easy to produce neutral B&W with K2/2200 and QTR on most matte paper. Casts seem mostly skill/workflow issues.

 

Jeff: I'm dragging my feet replacing a trouble-free 2200 that I use for both color and QTR/B&W, got the R800 only to explore. My #1 goal is printing color and B&W with one machine, specifically on Moab's Satine surface ... my #2 goal is panoramas on roll paper (which rules out 3800). 4800 is out because I don't do this for a living :-)

 

Robert: "You can use QTR to print through it's RIP.." correction: QTR IS a printing RIP (QT & "R")

"... little to do with using LR for B&W conversion. " correction: LR's wonderful for B&W conversion for QTR...it's easy and can be very subtle, far better than Photoshop workflows for conversion...but QTR may lose some LR subtlety, which appears to argue for printing directly from LR rather than QTR sometimes. I'm not sure of this ...might not make sense technically and I may have not looked closely enough.

 

Patrick...thanks for responding re LR2 compatibility with graphic tablet...I'll upgrade from LR1.4 to LR2 on your advice.

 

R800 and its latest XP/Vista driver has worked reasonably well with Vista/QTR, but the workflow is cranky (buggy?).

 

I'm only into this R800 for $100, shipping included: it should be perfect for high production of glossy cards.

 

..as to "...thrilled with every print..." why am I thinking about Sarah Palin's fans? :-)

[kaiyen]

John - one thing that gets me is your comment about non-professionals using older tech. I fall in that group, too. But the cost of Epson ink, which I'd need to use LR without QTR somewhere in the middle, is a big problem for me. So I have to do a complex LR>TIFF (or PSD)>Qimage>QTR process right now which gives me results with which I am extremely happy, but obviously it's not very easy. MIS inks are just so much more affordable.

 

Very difficult situation, to say the least.