Would Epson 3800 B&W look like darkroom-print?

[Marcus Carlsson]

Hi,

I am tempting to buy an Epson 3800 and since I haven't seen a B&W print from that machine (and I don't have the opportunity in my town), especially not with my own digital files, I have a question for you.

You see, I shoot 4x5" and print the negatives in my darkroom on mainly Kentmere VC FB 12x16".

My main question is. If I would take a good scan (I have an Epson V700) of that negative and write it on an Epson, would I have the same tonality as my darkroom print?

I understand that it may come to which paper I use and such, but my main conserne is if it will look like a darkroom-print with great black and wonderful tonality or will it look like a print has done it?

/ Marcus

[Ed Richards]

This is a religious issue. I use an Epson 3800 and Harmon Gloss FB paper. I scan my 4x5 black and white with a scanner about like yours, and I print in AWB mode, using Qimage for final sharpening on the image from Photoshop. (On 4x5, sharpening should be more about contrast than making the grass blades pop, and is critical to a good looking print.)

I took a box of 17x25 prints to a serious portfolio review with some national picture editors and some gallery folks. A number of them did not recognize that these were digital prints until I told them. I got high praise for the print quality, and they were not intrinsically polite folks.

Of course content was another issue - this was my Katrina work and to a person, they said that no one wants to hang that sort of stuff on their walls.:-)

[D. Bryant]

I understand that it may come to which paper I use and such, but my main conserne is if it will look like a darkroom-print with great black and wonderful tonality or will it look like a print has done it?

Marcus,

IMO, one can produce very nice B&W prints with a 3800 using a RIP, much better than with the Epson driver. However they are not the equivalent to a well made gelatin silver print as these will look different in ways that I can't describe. Prints made on Harman Fiber Gloss are very very nice but they aren't the equivalent of gelatin silver.

Lenswork publishing is now selling 3 sample prints (2 B&W and 1 color) for $15 using HFG if you wish to get an idea about how these well made inkjet prints might look.

My 2 cents,

Don Bryant

[cobalt]

This is a religious issue.

Agreed. I've managed to spark a few holy wars myself, unintentionally, mind you.
I am pleased to see such excellent work done with a process I sometimes use, Ed.

Your images are impressive.

[cobalt]

Marcus,

IMO, one can produce very nice B&W prints with a 3800 using a RIP, much better than with the Epson driver. However they are not the equivalent to a well made gelatin silver print as these will look different in ways that I can't describe. Prints made on Harman Fiber Gloss are very very nice but they aren't the equivalent of gelatin silver.


I always seem to get into trouble by noting this...

[Greg Lockrey]

I second Ed's comments as my workflow is very similar to his. I will add that I used to have a commercial wet lab for twenty until about ten years ago where I gone to digital only printing. The papers we had thirty years ago were better than those we can get today and that's my main reason for going digital. I would say that Harmon FB Gloss looks to me very similar to a RC type paper that you can get today but saying that neither one has that great look of fiber based papers from the past IMHO. But they are close. :)

I will also add that when I started in fine art B&W printing in the early 70's that using RC paper was just shy of blasphamey and variable contrast paper was a sin. ;);)

[Don Hutton]

Ilford glossy FB based paper was my "stock" paper for a long time. I basically haven't done too many wet prints since Harman glossy FB was released. I've done comparisons of the two papers of the same image a few times. If you want, email me an file and I'll print it for you and mail it back to you. Drop me a PM if you're interested.

[Michael Graves]

to a person, they said that no one wants to hang that sort of stuff on their walls.:-)

They're wrong about NO ONE. If I could afford one, I certainly would hang it with pride.

[Eric Brody]

Darkroom wet prints are intrinsically different than pigment prints. Having said that, I printed in the darkroom for a lot of years, originally with Dupont Varigam and Varilour, on to Seagull and Agfa graded papers, and in the end with Ilford Multigrade and Forte.

I now scan 4x5 with a Microtek 1800f, print with an Epson 3800 and Harman Glossy paper and I am happier with my results now than I ever was with my darkroom work. That, of course, may just say something about my darkroom skills. I think my new work is better, but some of that may be the result of the incredible ability of Photoshop CS3 to adjust local contrast.

I agree that the easiest thing in your situation is to get the Lenswork prints and compare. I do not think anything done with a pigment printer will be exactly the SAME as a darkroom print, but I also have "fooled" some renowned photographers who had seen my darkroom work and did not know I had switched to pigment printing.

The struggle people have in describing the differences also says a lot about how good pigment prints can be when properly done.

Ultimately, if you are an amateur, and work for your own enjoyment, you will need to decide which process you prefer. I thought I'd never give up darkroom printing...

Good luck.

Eric

[Bruce Watson]

If I would take a good scan (I have an Epson V700) of that negative and write it on an Epson, would I have the same tonality as my darkroom print?

A difficult question to answer because the topic is so subjective.

The bottom line: inkjet is a new and different media. It's not wanna-be silver gelatin. Both inkjet and silver gelatin have their own inherent strengths and weaknesses. With the right techniques and materials you can make outstanding prints with either one.

I doubt seriously you'll get the exact same tonality from one as you get from the other. That doesn't make either one bad. And it doesn't make either one good. They are just different. Which one you personally like more, suits your images better, or has a workflow with which you are more comfortable, only you can decide.

[David A. Goldfarb]

I've seen some very nice inkjet prints, but I have yet to see one that I would mistake for a silver gelatin print, and I've certainly never seen a silver gelatin print that I would mistake for an inkjet print.

[windpointphoto]

I've seen some very nice inkjet prints, but I have yet to see one that I would mistake for a silver gelatin print, and I've certainly never seen a silver gelatin print that I would mistake for an inkjet print.

Well, I have an 8x10 contact print and an 8x10 inkjet Epson 3800 print of the same picture, both matted, framed and behind glass hanging on the wall. You, like everyone else would finally have to guess which is which. Of course you have a 50% chance of being right. You could say you knew but in your heart of hearts....

[Brian Ellis]

I printed in a darkroom for about 17 years. I've been printing digitally for about 8 years (using a 3800 now). If I couldn't make a better b&w print digitally than I made in my darkroom I'd still be printing in the darkroom. But to answer your question, no your prints on the 3800 won't look the same as your darkroom prints, they hopefully will look better. But it won't happen just by powering up a 3800. You'll need to learn Photoshop, you'll need learn to use QTR or a similar program but QTR is very good and by far the least expensive, you'll need to do some reading, and you'll need to gain some experience. You might also go to the Yahoo group digitalblackandwhite:theprint and look at the messages posted there just to get an idea of what some excellent printers are doing, what problems they're having, what solutions they're finding, etc.

[Marcus Carlsson]

Thanks all for your input. I can understand that I won't get an exact copy of a darkroom-print. But my main concerne is that the ink-jet doesn't even look close.

/ Marcus

[Joanna Carter]

Thanks all for your input. I can understand that I won't get an exact copy of a darkroom-print. But my main concerne is that the ink-jet doesn't even look close.
Just to add my experience, which is that of using an Epson R2400 which uses the same inks. I have shown prints to someone who is a dedicated "wet" printer. their opinion was that the quality of printing (I use Fotospeed Platiunum Gloss) was good enough that they ordered a copy of one of my pictures to give as a present to another photographer.

As others have said, the key difference between wet and digital printing is that there can be a difference. The degree to which a negative can be manipulated in Photoshop is way beyond that achievable in a wet darkroom. Areas much smaller than those selectable by conventional dodging or burning can be subjected to increase or decrease in, not only exposure but also contrast.

It has taken me a lot of time, effort, paper and ink but, now I am regularly getting comments on the quality of the work that I am achieving.

[Ed Richards]

If you want to print on Harman Glossy FB, I found that the Epson AWB mode, with a little tweaking, does a better job than my very expensive rip, even after the rip guys made a custom profile for my printer. Not true of other papers, but for this one paper AWB is a perfect fit. (Another expensive learning experience.)

I use Qimage to resize and sharpen, but not to affect tonality. I finish the image in Photoshop, sharpen it at 100% so that image looks correct, i.e., NO artifacts, then saved a flattened tiff. Qimage then resizes the Tiff to 360 DPI and exact image size, using very good methods to optimize sharpening, and feds it to the 3800 so the printer driver is not doing anything other than printing. The prints look great, but if were to save the image as a file, it would look hugely oversharpened, unless you were printing to a size that needed no resizing. Qimage sharpens right to edge of what would be visible in a print, rather than on the screen.

[David A. Goldfarb]

You could say you knew but in your heart of hearts....

...I would know.

[Bruce Watson]

Thanks all for your input. I can understand that I won't get an exact copy of a darkroom-print. But my main concern is that the ink-jet doesn't even look close.

/ Marcus

With that attitude, stay in the darkroom. You'll be happier there.

[russyoung]

I began learning the darkroom working after school for a professional photographer in 1966- have a fair amount of 'wet' experience bit with silver gelatin and alternative processes (my first platinum print was either 1978 or the next year). Last year when the old 1280 gave out, I bought a 3800 and now have 18 months experience with it.

The question of whether you will be happy with an ink jet print depends on your level of experience and your aesthetic inclinations. If you are an f/64 school advocate, you will probably be happy with its output; it produces a sharp print with the characteristic local contrast of that school. However, if you are accustomed to the creamy and very gradual tonal transitions of platinum prints, it fails to pass the test. IMHO, the output more closely resembles an offset press image as found in a high quality book or journal such as Lens Work, not the silver print (or platinotype) itself.

your mileage may vary,

Russ

[Brian Ellis]

Thanks all for your input. I can understand that I won't get an exact copy of a darkroom-print. But my main concerne is that the ink-jet doesn't even look close.

/ Marcus

I don't know about "close." Hopefully not. I look at many of my old darkroom prints, which were the subject of a fair amount of praise at the dozen or so John Sexton, Bruce Barnbaum, Don Kirby, Ruth Bernhard, et al workshops I've attended over the years, and wonder how I could ever have been satisfied with them. So your goal shouldn't be to make ink jet prints that look close to your darkroom prints. Your goal should be to make better prints digitally because that's certainly possible given enough time and effort.

It's one thing for someone to print digitally because of convenience, lack of space for a darkroom, cost, time, client needs, any number of practical reasons having nothing to do with quality of the prints. But it doesn't sound like you're a commercial photographer and you obviously know how to print in a darkroom and have access to one. So why would you - or anyone else similarly situated - print digitally unless better prints can be made that way ("better" in this case meaning prints that exceed your previous standards for what's possible in making a fine print)?

[PViapiano]

Well, Brooks has weighed in this month (my LensWork just arrived) with his introduction to the LensWork Special Editions and unequivocally states that the digiprints with K3 inks are equal or better than gelatin silver.

The thing that bugs me is that one of the supposed benefits is that it's easier. Well, whoever said making art is easy?

It's easier to write a symphony using sampled instruments and a sequencer than it is to hire a whole orchestra and a hall and record it, but really, what is gained?

I'm not anti-digital at all, but process and craft is something that is important to me. I don't feel process when I print with the inkjet, not the way I do when I process a silver print and look at it in different kinds of light and then decide how I want to tone it, or when I make an argyrotype, working to make the enlarged negative, preparing the paper for coating, exposing it (in the sun, for chrissakes!), clearing, fixing, washing, drying, making notes and starting all over again.

Yeah, it can be frustrating, but when you reach your vision it is so, so satisfying, and the learning process and its knowledge is something you have with you for the rest of your life along with that satisfaction.

Ultimately, it's different strokes for everyone...I'm sure that the "new" gelatin silver crowd crowed about how their new process was sharper than pt/pd, had more resolution and was "easier and quicker" than the old stuff, too.

[Brooks Jensen]

I would advise you that nothing -- not even our Special Editions -- are "like gelatin silver." Gelatin silver is a wonderful medium with its own look and feel. It is not like platinum/palladium -- which has its own look and feel. Epson prints on Harman have their own look and feel. I think that each of us a photographers needs to know these differences and make aesthetic decisions for our fine art originals that best serve the work. I'm glad that by chance I happen to be in the generation that has access to all these materials and can make such decisions. A print from a 3800 will not be identical to a gelatin silver print no matter what you do. The question is, which will you prefer?

Bottom line, you'll need to see some prints, try some prints, to see if it's for you or not. Don't be surprise if you find, like so many of us, that you prefer some of your work in one medium and other work in a different medium. I've tried printing some of my older work that was originally produced in gelatin silver with our Epson 4880 and been sorely disappointed. For those images, gelatin silver is clearly best. I've also printed some that look better than my original gelatin silver prints. I guess this is why this is ART and not merely science.

Having said that, I am enthusiastic about the new baryta inkjet paper because they do allow us to now print with a comparable density to gelatin silver and with a surface texture that is not a matte paper. Blacks are once again black! That does not mean, however, that Epson prints are the end-all and be-all, nor do they offer a universal substitute for gelatin silver when that is the best material for an image.

Eyes wide open! Be picky and be relentless in your aesthetic judgments and you will be well served. And if gelatin silver is the best choice for your work, don't let the current technological trends dissuade you. (It's a pretty good time to pick up darkroom gear at great prices!)
Brooks

[cobalt]

Brooks:

Couldn't agree more. Some things I've produced simply look better printed as inkjets, although, on the whole, I have a preference for silver gelatin. A scanner can be helpful for those perfect-except-for-the-scratch-in-the-middle-of-the-subject's-forehead negatives also. And the I-thought-the-darkslide-was-seated-properly negatives. And those... well... you get the... picture.

[Brooks Jensen]

I thought I was the only one who had crappy negatives like that! Light Impressions boxes full of them. :D
Brooks

[cobalt]

Yeah. What pisses me off is that (in my mind) the absolute best of my work seems to always manifest on a damaged negative. I end up wishing I could print some things in silver, and as contact prints, that unfortunately can only be salvaged digitally. Transparency film helps, but isn't as easy as one might think.

[Bruce Watson]

Yeah. What pisses me off is that (in my mind) the absolute best of my work seems to always manifest on a damaged negative. I end up wishing I could print some things in silver, and as contact prints, that unfortunately can only be salvaged digitally. Transparency film helps, but isn't as easy as one might think.

Scan it, fix it, print out a new negative at final print size using a film recorder, make a contact print. Best of both worlds. Or so I'm told.

[sanking]

One of the things that often goes unmentioned in discussions of inkjet versus silver gelatin prints is that the inkjets, being digitally printed, almost always have a higher level of tonal correction than silver gelatin prints made in the darkroom. If one wants or needs the higher level of tonal correction it is possible, as Bruce notes, to scan the original negative, make corrections and adjustments in Photoshop, print out a digital negative, and then make a contact print on silver gelatin paper.

In the past the best negative for contact printing was made on a recorder or with an imagesetter. Today excellent negatives can be made from a good printer like the Epson 3800 on to a piece of OHP film like Pictorico.

Sandy King



Scan it, fix it, print out a new negative at final print size using a film recorder, make a contact print. Best of both worlds. Or so I'm told.

[cobalt]

One of the things that often goes unmentioned in discussions of inkjet versus silver gelatin prints is that the inkjets, being digitally printed, almost always have a higher level of tonal correction than silver gelatin prints made in the darkroom. If one wants or needs the higher level of tonal correction it is possible, as Bruce notes, to scan the original negative, make corrections and adjustments in Photoshop, print out a digital negative, and then make a contact print on silver gelatin paper.

In the past the best negative for contact printing was made on a recorder or with an imagesetter. Today excellent negatives can be made from a good printer like the Epson 3800 on to a piece of OHP film like Pictorico.

Sandy King

Actually, that's what I meant. Brain fart.

[gary alessi]

possibly not really addressing your main question...but 4 months ago, at SFMOMA, i was delighted to see a very large Lois Conner triple print ...from her travels in China from nearly 20 years ago.....the originals were of course 3, 7x17 platinum prints... probably matted all 3 under one board...... but this pice was 5 feet tall.....and the wall tag said GSP.......no way.... it had to be an inkjet print... and the venue just made a mistake on the wall label.....but... it certainly did pass for a GSP....

[Stephen Best]

IMO, one can produce very nice B&W prints with a 3800 using a RIP, much better than with the Epson driver.

How better? This is a genuine question. My experience is that it's easier to achieve tonal linearity (from paper white to neutral black) with ABW that it is with QTR when working with the K3 inkset, at least for most papers. Tonal separation isn't an issue with either. QTR has obvious benefits for spilt toning or specialty inksets etc, but I'm not seeing the benefit for single tone prints.

Are your results significantly better than this (Harman FB Gloss Al, 4800, ABW):

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=6607&d=1192175841

[paulr]

My digital printing experience is with monchrome quadtone inks, so I can't directly comment on that particular printer/paper combination.

I imagine you could come pretty close to the look of a gelatin silver printer (at least for a viewer who isn't scrutinizing it to see what kind of print it is. And especially if it's under glass). But by making this your goal, I don't think you'll be getting everything you could out of the process. As others have said, ink is a different medium with its own strengths, its own look, its own expressive potential. If you open yourself up to the possibilities it presents, you'll likely find yourself happy with the process. At least for printing work that's well suited for it.

[Marcus Carlsson]

Ok, you can call me stupid (or at least my wife does).

I went to a big city in Sweden and ended up buying the big horse.

I have only printed one copy on a Ilford Gold Fibre Silk and it came out way too light.
It was probably me :)

Anyway I really love the paper because it reminds me a lot of my Kenmtere VC Fibers.

Now I just hope I can calibrate and profile everything so I get the images darker.

/ Marcus

[D. Bryant]

How better? This is a genuine question. My experience is that it's easier to achieve tonal linearity (from paper white to neutral black) with ABW that it is with QTR when working with the K3 inkset, at least for most papers. Tonal separation isn't an issue with either. QTR has obvious benefits for spilt toning or specialty inksets etc, but I'm not seeing the benefit for single tone prints.

Are your results significantly better than this (Harman FB Gloss Al, 4800, ABW):

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=6607&d=1192175841
Presenting me with a set of LAB values tells me nothing. What is the point of your question?

Don Bryant

[Marcus Carlsson]

Now, I know why the image looked really pale.
I had accidently set to use the proofed image as source space (and it was a pale proof).

Now I just love the printer and the Ilford Gold Fibre Silk.

/ Marcus

[Stephen Best]

Presenting me with a set of LAB values tells me nothing. What is the point of your question?

The LAB values show how linear the transform is, both in density and tonality. With a linear
response, you can then concentrate on using Photoshop to get the look you want with predictable results. I would have thought this was obvious. But getting back to the original question, you made the claim that output with a RIP was "much better" and all I'm asking is in what respects is it "much better"?

[Richard M. Coda]

Scan it, fix it, print out a new negative at final print size using a film recorder, make a contact print. Best of both worlds. Or so I'm told.

http://www.albumenworks.com/lvt_prices_working_photogs.htm

I've done it... wonderful! Even made a 4x5 negative from a color DSLR shot (the flag on my website) and made a silver print in my darkroom. Can't tell the difference...

[D. Bryant]

The LAB values show how linear the transform is, both in density and tonality. With a linear
response, you can then concentrate on using Photoshop to get the look you want with predictable results. I would have thought this was obvious. But getting back to the original question, you made the claim that output with a RIP was "much better" and all I'm asking is in what respects is it "much better"?

First, I'm aware of what the LAB values mean and I certainly understand why one wants to linearize those values.

However, my comment was subjective based on using ABW ICC profiles created by Eric Chan and using curves included with QTR for the 3800. In others words I made prints, looked at them and made a judgement about how they looked.

[gbogatko]

Hello.

My question is more basic.

I've been using a 2200 with the MIS UT7 ink set, and even after a repair by an authorized agent, the head has clogged again... and so forth. Time for a new printer.

What I DON'T want to have to do is buy two 3800's -- one for monochrome and one for color, so my question is... Do the newer 3800 inks still show that god-awful magenta tinge under certain lights? Or can I get the same result with 3800 ink that I was getting with the MIS monochrome ink set.

It was that discoloration that drove me nuts. Sigh... the MIS inks are probably why the 2200 is now seriously clogged. I could continue to spend $$$ on fixing the 2200, but if the 3800 can produce the UT7 look (and more), I'll take it.

Besides, I do want to print in color every now and then. :)

BTW, I do print wet as well, so know how it looks.

george

[Ron Marshall]

I sold my 2200 (I used NK7 inks from Cone) and bought a 3800.

I now print almost exclusively with the PK ink on Ilford Gold Fiber Silk, mainly because of the better dmax.

I have reprinted on the 3800 many of the images that I made on the 2200 with NK7 inks. In most cases the image looks better with the greater dmax, but in some the smooter gradation of the NK7 provides a better rendition. In most cases the difference is very minor.

I find the 3800 prints look diferent than selenium toned silver gelatin prints (I have some of my old ones from years ago for comparison) but not better or worse. Some images suit a particular printing medium better than others.



Hello.

My question is more basic.

I've been using a 2200 with the MIS UT7 ink set, and even after a repair by an authorized agent, the head has clogged again... and so forth. Time for a new printer.

What I DON'T want to have to do is buy two 3800's -- one for monochrome and one for color, so my question is... Do the newer 3800 inks still show that god-awful magenta tinge under certain lights? Or can I get the same result with 3800 ink that I was getting with the MIS monochrome ink set.

It was that discoloration that drove me nuts. Sigh... the MIS inks are probably why the 2200 is now seriously clogged. I could continue to spend $$$ on fixing the 2200, but if the 3800 can produce the UT7 look (and more), I'll take it.

Besides, I do want to print in color every now and then. :)

BTW, I do print wet as well, so know how it looks.

george