Archival Ink and View Camera Conference

[Kirk Gittings]

One of the issues that I find frustrating in terms of sharing information on archival ink printing is that everyone has allot of time and money tied up in different ink/rip/paper combinations and believe they are getting the best product they can from what they are currently using and invested in. We have to take their word for the quality of their prints because we can't see them. Yet I know that some of the combinations people defend here are inferior to others, sometimes grossly inferior to other combinations. I know this because I have done extensive testing on many papers and had the unique opportunity to test more than one inking/RIP system and compare my own prints side by side. But certainly I have not been able to test everything and I am behind the curve right now because I haven't tested UC3 inks.

I am trying to conceptualize a presentation for the next View Camera Conference that would bring together allot of varied working photographers/printers and approaches in a concrete and non-competitive way, something more like a print sharing round, where people would bring a couple of examples of their best work for the purpose of comparing papers, inks and RIPs.

I do not personally have the time, because of book projects etc., to do an ink print version of what Bruce Barlow did with silver papers and developers at the Monterey conference. That was extraordinary. If allot of people participated it could provide some valuable insights.

Would this have any value to people? Would people participate? I would be intersted in moderating such a round.

[Michael Mutmansky]

Kirk,

I expect I will be at the conference again discussing scanning, and I will have sample of QTR printed images with me for sure, as that is my preferred method right now. I'm using stock Epson inks, but I intend to try some other inks in the near future.

I can particiapte if you would like.



---Michael

[Kirk Keyes]

Kirk -

Find/develop/make a target image that each person can print out and then you all can make direct comparisons between the different setups. Perhaps something like the HC Screen Test3.JPG from http://www.hutchcolor.com/Images_and_targets.html would be good place to start.

Kirk

[tim atherton]

Micahel,

Have you just tried swapping the Epson black for the MIS Ebony black? (not sure what pritner you are on)

With QTR it gives a nicer look I find - "blacker" and cooler (i.e. I find it moves the cool/warm setting on QTR up from about 50 to 70, but gives a more "neutral" look than the very warm Epson black)

[Michael Mutmansky]

Tim,

That's one of the inks that I want to try. I have an Epson 2200 that I can easily try the ink in, and if I like it, it may go into a 4000 as well.

I tend to prefer warm toned prints, but QTR is capable of a wide range of 'basic' color adjustment and it wil also permit custom controls as well, so I expect that a slight shift in the tone will be no problem for me.

Are there any other inks to try? I am thinking that I would like to be able to keep the printer capable of printing color, so I would probably only want to ake adjustments to the light black and the black inks, as opposed to replacing colors with grays/blacks.

---Michael

[Kirk Gittings]

Tim, Michael,

Examples of this experimentation outside the box is exactly what I am interested in seeing first hand and where I think we could all benefit from the sharing.

Kirk,

That would be very useful for comparison purposes.

[Paul Butzi]

Yet I know that some of the combinations people defend here are inferior to others, sometimes grossly inferior to other combinations. I know this because I have done extensive testing on many papers and had the unique opportunity to test more than one inking/RIP system and compare my own prints side by side.

While I agree with Kirk on this in general, there's a big trap that sits here, eager to gobble us up.

And that's that there's really no single metric of print quality. Some people feel that a surface finish similar to air-dried F surface gelatin silver paper is the best. Some people feel that smooth, non-gloss papers (like Epson Enhanced matte, or Ultrasmooth) are far and away the best. Some folks want papers with quite a bit of texture, like Somerset Velvet.

Some folks feel that tonal smoothness is most important, and trumps Dmax. Some folks feel that punchy black are what it's all about, and that tonal smoothness is strictly secondary.

What looks great to one artist for one body of work will be hopelessly inappropriate for another artist and another body of work.

Even worse, I like some papers quite a lot DEPENDING on the image color. I like Epson Ultrasmooth, for instance, when the image color is generally warm. But for cold tone prints, it just rubs me the wrong way. Likewise, I have about 80% of a roll of Hawk Mountain Condor Bright White, which is truly a lovely paper but the paper base is just to damn cool to print warm tone prints on it.

Horses for courses, as they say. About the best we can hope for is to look at the work of lots of other folks who are doing their printing digitally, and see what works for them, and try to pick up on the general drift of things, and see which combinations of materials and printing style seem to have promise.

Even a great combination is going to look lousy if the printer doesn't know what they're doing. A combination I have carefully profiled, and for which I have tweaked my toning curves to match the paper and image for the results I like best - it might look great. But the same combo, printed by someone who does not have an accurate profile, who has not adjusted image tone to suit the paper - it might look like dreck.

I'm reminded of a story a friend of mine tells - there was this guy who was an INCREDIBLE printer, whose prints just glowed and were greatly admired by my friend. So my friend asked him, "What paper do you use to get such incredible prints?". Disappointingly, the answer was "Oh, I just go to the store and buy whatever is cheapest."

If you're a good printer, the prints are going to look good, regardless of (and perhaps despite) the materials choice. And if you're a lousy printer, the prints are going to look bad, even if the materials are capable of so much more.

[Scott Davis]

Michael, Kirk, et al;

I'm trying to get a better grip on my printing digitally. My input device is an Epson 2450 scanner, and I've got an Epson 2200 for printing. I have no plans to change printers or scanners for the immediate future. I'm just using the stock Epson driver set and printing from Photoshop. I'm at a bit of a loss for what software is available out there and what it will cost me. I'd also like to find something that doesn't have a massive learning curve. Maybe I'm asking too much with that last one. I've seen so many different names tossed around out there - ImagePrint, QTR, Studioprint, among others. Some things are billed as ICC compliant, others are not. How important is that? How many other pieces of hardware/software do I have to buy in order to get prints that don't exhibit grotesque metamerism?

I've been leery of books on the subject because, like so many other resources, they tend to recommend whatever it is that the author has figured out works best for himself, with none of the intervening how-he-got-there, so the expectation often diverges from the reality after you've spent another $50.

[Ted Harris]

I will stand by and bring what is needed. I can bring:

1) Samples of the new UC K3 inks using QTR RIP and (probably by then) the new Colorbyte Imageprint RIP

2) Samples of the new Canon inks

Let me know if you want color as well and will make the prints.

[Kirk Gittings]

Paul,

I won't want to see just tests but a couple of examples of peoples best prints.

Quantifiability is always the achilles heal of art comparisons. This will be far from perfect, but instructive never-the-less. If nothing else because if one sees a print to die for and can know what the guy used then you have something to shoot for. The first large format show I ever saw was like that for me, a Wynn Bullock show in 1970 at the museum in Santa Fe. It showed me what was possible.

[John Flavell]

Kirk and all:

Information on all of these things would be helpful. As with some of the resonses, it seems to me there is just too much out there and not ALL of it can be good.

One slight problem I have with conferences is they tend to be far away, adding to the expense of trying out "the something new".

[Brian Ellis]

I don't attend these conferences so I can't be there but I'd be happy to send you some prints if you like. I do, however, share some of Paul's reservations about the value of such a presentation. It's one thing to do something like this with darkroom prints as Bruce Barlow did, where the only equipment/material variables are developer and paper and the same person is doing all the printing on the same equipment. It's a whole different deal with digital where there are probably hundreds of different equipment/software variables and then on top of that you have different people of different skill levels doing the printing.

[Kirk Gittings]

"It's a whole different deal with digital where there are probably hundreds of different equipment/software variables"

That is exactly the reason to do this. No one on there own could possibly try out all the possibilities or usually even see examples of the variables, but if they see wonderful prints using XYZ then they know what is possible and that maybe what they are using or what they are doing does not measure up.

Recently I ordered some samples of prints of the new Cone 7 ink cartridges, because I assumed that the samples would show what was possible with the new inks, rip etc. If It had been superior to what I could do then I would explore it further. It wasn't and I could tell that from their prints. So I didn't have to waste my money on a full ink set to try it out. It was incredibly useful to see a sample print from that system knowing the ink. rip, paper etc.

[steve_782]

One of the problems I'm currently trying to get a handle on is paper profiles with K3 inks. They are totally different than the previous Ultrachrome inkset. In fact, the gamut is so much wider that my current printer profiling system will not handle the range and reduces the gamut strikingly.

My guess is either the input device or the software isn't setup to deal with a gamut that large. It easily profiled my 9600 and my 1280 with MIS inks. It doesn't even come close with the K3 inkset in my new 9800.

While profiling is not quite the same problem with B&W printing as with color, there are different dot gain characteristics between the old inkset and the new inkset - which the profile also factors into the profile.

If you want to have people do this comparison, I would suggest setting up a tech sheet that they have to fill out so that each person's print process is documented. It would be especially helpful to know profiles and how the profile was generated. Also, since RIPs can make a difference it would be nice to see a print sent through the Epson driver and the same print though the RIP.

[Andy Eads]

Kirk,
Several years ago I attended the PMA conference and they held a "shoot out" for inkjet printers by size and media categories. Now PMA attracts 50,000 + photo vendors so they are able to attract the big players. However, they did generate a really useful test target which I believe was made available to members. Their target was designed to test both the RIP and printer for commercial printing applications. Never the less, the target was color managed which gave opportunity for objective measurements. To frost the cake, the prints were displayed without indication of which printer made the image. Attendees voted for the best looking image and winners were announced. It was quite the honor to be selected best of show.
Perhaps some variation that fits your needs could be devised. I hope your effort goes well.
Andy