kevin_hicks

I am particularly impressed with the photographs of Amanda Marsalis. Her talent

with the wide range of subjects in her portfolio is striking:

http://www.amandamarsalis.com/

I think she is using a Hasselblad. I wonder what film or films she uses. Does

anyone know or care to guess?

-Kevin

There are brand spanking new F100s going for $600 on ebay at this time from respected sellers. I just bought one from Cameta(sp?) via ebay. It is indeed a very nice camera. I have had the N80 for many years. It is no slouch. It isn't a professional camera like the F100 though.

Still, if you want to be a really good photographer, spend a few years with a FM3a in manual mode. You might just fall in love with the zen of the thing.

I have been using the 2200 for some time now. It can produce very good, long lasting color prints. I can't claim to have seen output from the other printers you mention, but it is difficult to imaging that they could do any better with color.

B&W printing with the 2200 can be troublesome. The problem is metamerism where the print changes color depending on the light in which it is displayed. There are ways around this problem. One good solution is to use Imageprint. This is a rather expensive printing program that can produce very good B&W with the 2200. I have not used Imageprint, but I have several B&W prints that were produced by Imageprint on a 2200 and they are perfectly lovely.

Do a few searches on photo.net and you will find many discussions of the 2200 and B&W printing.

<a

href="http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/West/01/23/obit.newton.ap/index.html

">Link</a>

I have recently gotten back into photography after a 15 year vacation. I have been using Portra B&W and Tmax in my 501cm and scanning with a Nikon 8000. Then I print with a Epson 1280 and MIS Ultratone inks onto cotton papers. I just participated in a print exchange with 14 other photographers who are printing B&W digitally. So, I have been studying their prints as well.

The verdict: I spent the weekend pricing enlargers.

I have not completely given up on the digital print thing, but I am having serious doubts. They can be very nice. PS gives incredible control. You can dodge, burn, sharpen, etc. until the print is exactly what you want. A "carbon on cotton" print has a lovely warm tone and promises to be more archival than anything ever.

Still, there is something missing. They look sort of flat, lifeless. Maybe the problem is the Dmax thing. I dunno.

More to your question: I have done some B&W using my Fuji S2. The results are much the same. You do have to watch the dynamic range by checking the histogram. Not a big deal. My biggest problem with going completely digital (other than the prints) is the lack of enlargability from the current crop of 6MP cameras.

There is just something "more real", "more alive", "more organic" about a B&W film-darkroom print than a film-scanner-inkjet or digicam-inkjet print. This is from a guy who has been all the way down the digital B&W road. I may change my mind, but that is my $0.02 at the moment.

Greetings,

I am considering a 11x14 pinhole to use for making contact prints.

My question is: would I be just as well off getting a smaller

pinhole camera, say a 4x5, and enlarging to make 11x14 prints?

Please set aside the inherent qualities of a contact prints. I am

specifically worried about the optical issues here. Does a 11x14

pinhole negative capture more detail than a smaller negative - as

would be expected with a glass lense camera? Will the 11x14 negative

make a shaper print?

Thanks in advance.

Kevin

With the full ink set and the epson driver your B&W prints will always be ruined by metamerism. The only possible exception is if you heavily "tone" the image by making it blue or brown or whatever.

If you have a 2200 and want good neutral B&W prints, you have three choices: get a RIP like ImagePrint, try the BO method or get another printer like a 1160 or a 1280 and use quadtone/hextone inks. Trust me, I and many others have been down this road. There are hextone carts out for the 2200. However, you would loose you ability to print color.

I'll admit that I have not tried the BO method. I have often read that it produces too many visible dots in the highlights. It is probably worth a try though.

I tried and tried to get good B&W from my 2200. As I type this, there is a 2200 sitting to my right that produces stunning color prints with Ultrachrome ink and a 1280 to my left that produces stunning B&W prints with Ultratone ink. I sit happily between.

Best of luck.

I have an Epson 2200. Trying to get decent B&W out of it without a RIP is hopeless. I considered ImagePrint but decided to go for a carbon ink system in hopes of gaining greater print longevity.

I got lucky and found a "buy it now" Epson 1280 on ebay for $35. It even works! So, I purchased carts of the Ultratone inks from MIS. This is a cheap and easy way of trying monochrome inks if you have a supported printer.

I short - I love 'em. Paul Roark's workflows are very simple. The prints are beautiful. I really like the warmer prints. It was $60 bucks well spent for the cartidges. In fact, I just ordered bulk bottles of these inks so I can refill them.

The 2200 is looking kinda lonely over there.

Best of luck!

I have an Epson 2200 which is great for color but not so great for

B&W. I am considering either purchasing ImagePrint to use with the

2200 or getting an Epson 3000 to use with a Piezography system.

I have seen small samples from each system. They both look nice but

are really too small to make a good judgement.

I am not too worried about costs. I want extreme longevity and

perfect quality in my prints.

Which is better in these regards?

Well, I followed the advice given and printed out Andy's greyscale. Everything was black beyond 95%. So, I backed off the blacks to 95% using curves. The resulting print looks wonderful with lots of shadow detail - the best B&W I have done.

Thank you all. You have been of great help.

If anyone wants to add more to this discussion, that will be welcome.

"As far as 'matching' the shadow detail you see on your monitor, that's comparing apples and oranges."

Perhaps this the real answer to my problem. Still, isn't the whole idea of having a profiled system to make everything apples? Shouldn't a profile adjust the printer so that compensating by backing off the blacks would not be needed?

Or is the 2200 with matte black just not physically capable of matching a good monitor's shadow detail?

(BTW, you folks are being of great help!)

I am able to scan and edit my B&W negatives to my satisfaction on my

profiled monitor. However, when I print them on matte paper with the

Epson 2200 the print looses a good deal of the shadow detail that is

evident on the monitor. Those areas simply go black.

I have seen this using Somerset Velvet and Epson Enhanced Matte. I

have used paper profiles from Nick Wheeler and Cathy Stratton (these

are free profiles not custom ones). Interestingly, I do not see this

blocking up of the shadows when printing on glossy paper.

Is this just something we are forced to live with to enjoy the other

benefits of matte paper? Would a custom profile fix this? I have

hesitated to order a custom profile because I plan to purchase

ImagePrint 5.5 soon (nice review here: http://www.computer-

darkroom.com/epson2100/imprint_1.htm ). Will ImagePrint help with

this problem?

I appreciate all your thoughts and suggestions.

Here's a quotation from the Microtek site: Karl Heinz Zahorsky,

president and CEO of LaserSoft Imaging AG, praises the image quality

of the new scanner. "The ArtixScan 120tf costs considerably less than

the Imacon scanners yet delivers the same professional image

quality," he said.

They claim an optical resolution of 4000 dpi; 4.2 maximum optical

density; 42-bit color. Price is $1,799.

http://www.microtekusa.com/pras120tf.html

Sounds promising. Of course, the Edsel did also. I'm curious if

anyone has tried this thing and can offer an opinion.

Thanks Peter. I look forward to your evaluation of a good B&W Epson RIP image. Keep us posted.

I will be in B&W heaven if the Epson RIP can produce prints that are both sharp and neutral. I might even start saving for a 9600 if it can be made to do the same.