Not a formal review but provides some indications......
Not a formal review but provides some indications......
Thanks for the post Eric. This is something that should be of great interest to Silver printers. As has come up on other threads mentioning the DMax of the HP Designjet 130, and now the new Epson with new Ultrachrome ink, it shows that for B&W printing, the Dmax of inkjet now meets and in many cases exceeds the best that can be offered by silver gelatin. As more and more people publish their results showing this to be the case, the old diehards will no longer be able to bury their heads in the sand and attempt to refute the obvious. You don't need a densitometer when it's plainly evident to your eyes.
For me, quad tone and carbon printing on my Epson 7600 killed B&W in my darkroom. After printing samples on the Designjet 130, and comparing them to silver, I knew it was only a matter of time. And based on preliminary results, it appears that a properly profiled Epson 7800 fares even better than the Designjet.
Things just keep getting better!
Dave, Old diehards will always be able to bury their heads. Hell, diehards are still making tintypes, platinum prints, carbon prints, and the list goes on. If Dmax were the only criteria for a fine BW print, then many fine silver papers would have dropped out along time ago. IMO, there will always be something special about a handmade silver print. The more people that switch to Epson, the more special silver printing will be.
my picture blog
LOL...ah the wishful thinking of pixelographers. Did it occur to you that this guy is measuring Dmax on an RC paper against a fiber based paper or a page from a book? If you compare apples to apples a toned RC silver print would have a much greater Dmax. This is just simple phyisics, plastic reflects more than paper.
The numbers for water color paper are barely better than those for a pt/pd print and no where near what a well printed fiber based silver print can acheive.
When you guys comapre apples to apples get back to me.....but let me tell you I dont care if this prints can acheive a Dmax of 5.0..I am staying away from plastic looking prints.
I'd say achieving a density of 2.41 in an initial test on Epson paper, pretty much places the DMax benefit of silver in question. As well, longevity is now being measured in centuries rather than decades. I don't think anyone would disagree that silver looks beautiful, but it has now reached the point that a B&W inkjet print archivally matted behind glass will look every bit as good as silver....with less cost and less time. Funny, now that you can't argue about DMax, you change the issue to"plastic looking" prints. I'm sure that if that were true, and corrected, you'd try to find another non-existant issue.
Jorge, I don't mean this to come across as a personal attack. I've seen some of the work you put up and to my eyes, it's superb. However, that doesn't mean that new technology is bad....maybe just different. But the flaws you state exist, are NOT showing up in tests being done by some of the best printers around. I don't need to pull out the densitometer because dozens of testers around have already published results that show inkjet to do a pretty fine job with DMax. And in spite of your sarcasm and misinterpretation of bias on my part, holding up a silver print and a print on the Designjet proved to me that inkjet is everybit as good in some areas, and better in others.
But I know what thing from your posts....it wouldn't matter if the DMax was 5, that inkjet had 10 times the resolution, last 10,000 years, and cost $0.02 for a 24"x30"....you'd still say silver was better.
Dave, my problem is that these comparisons are always biased in favor of the ink jet prints and then used as a basis to say that ink jet prints "have arrived." As I said, why was the comparison made with a fiber based print and not a silver RC print? If we are to compare apples to apples.
Now, as I have said before Dmax is not something I worry about, considering that a pt/pd print can only acheive a Dmax of 1.45 maybe 1.5. Basing a print's "excellence" on how much of a Dmax it can get is foolish IMO. But to each his own.
"But I know what thing from your posts....it wouldn't matter if the DMax was 5, that inkjet had 10 times the resolution, last 10,000 years, and cost $0.02 for a 24"x30"....you'd still say silver was better."
As you might imagine cost per print is not a considerations for me, but I think many here get tired of this biased comparissons. I know many get upset when I put in question Wilhelm's results. But lets remember the guy has been wrong plenty of times, his results give an indication of the possible lasting properties of the materials, but they are not by any means the last word nor are they real. The only way they will prove real is when 100 years have passed and the prints are still in good shape.
What many of us find tiresome is the exaggerated and sometimes down right stupid claims made. For example, there is a guy on e bay selling ink jet prints. In his ad he claims ink jet prints are more stable than silver and pt/pd prints. So I asked him how did he know this. His reply was that since there are books that have been written with pigments and are more than 1000 years old that this was proof that ink jet pigment prints last more than silver and pt/pd.
As I said before, is time to let ink jet prints stand on their own and stop making these silly comparissons. If you guys insist on making them, then dont get upset when some of us put the results in question.
That was the most reasonable reponse I've seen on this topic. Some of the comparisons are indeed crazy. The 1000 year old book & pigment story got a great laugh out of me. And as far as things go, I'd choose a platinum/palladium print over silver or inkjet anyday. ....I just love the look!
Maybe the best thing to do is to pick one of your favorite photo and print combos and have someone do a comparison for you on the new 2400 or 7800 printers. Based on the work of yours I've seen, you appear to like a warmtone or sepia look. It appears the new printers handle these tones rather well....although I haven't tested the new 7800 myself. Try some tests on the Designjet and new Epsons....just don't give up on the pt/pd printing....there is a nice look to them that I haven't quite duplicated on the Epson just yet.
How can it possibly be cheaper to produce a digital print than it is to produce a "traditional" print?? Are those Epson printers cheaper than my $13.00 light bulb(Yes, I have enbraced the "new" technology of GE's Reveal light bulbs--but I could just as easily use a $5.00 light bulb)???
So, apparantly these digital prints (or whatever you call them) have suffured from a lack of DMAX in the past, but now Epson has come to the rescue and you can have prints with acceptable DMAX. Great!
Most people who have spent a little time pursuing Craftsmanship choose the materials that they use based on more than just one characteristic of that material.
"This is something that should be of great interest to Silver printers." Why should this report have any interest to me. Pixalography is a completely different media. Just as Oil is different from Watercolor. Why the contest?
Sudek ambled across my mind one day and took his picture. Only he knows where it is.
Some of us think inkjet "arrived" some time ago. I personally like the look of Piezotones on Hahnemuhle Photo Rag. The result is a nice smooth tone from black to white, with excellent highlight and shadow detail. Does it look like a silver print? No. Do I care? No.
I'm not very interested in comparisons between inkjet and other technologies. Inkjet prints do stand on their own, and have a distinctive look that I like. I also like the look of silver prints, and platinum prints. But I like inkjet best. Does that mean everyone should? Heavens no. If everyone liked what I like, what a dull world this would be.
As to inkjet trying to improve Dmax, of course it is. Darker blacks give a broader pallet of tones to use to express a given image. Who wouldn't want that? That it's doing this through use of glossy papers is just the laws of physics in action; it's easier to get a higher Dmax using a glossy medium. As the various manufacturers of silver gelatin print materials found decades ago.
Finally, it's not a competition. Each of us should use the materials and methods that work best for our individual needs. After all is said and done, the end product is the image -- not the process.
Try some tests on the Designjet and new Epsons....just don't give up on the pt/pd printing....there is a nice look to them that I haven't quite duplicated on the Epson just yet.
See Dave, this is one of the other things that drive many of us crazy. Why is there a need to "duplicate?"
Butzi writes in his article in his web site that now you can make ink jet prints that look like pt/pd prints. I know he does not like to read this, but he is wrong. I have yet to see an ink jet print that even comes close. But even if this was true, "looking" like and being one are completly different things, so I would not change to ink jet prints even if it was true, the characteristics of a pt/pd print are an integral part of my picture making, to me the process cannot be separated from the image, as different processes give different results even from the same negative, at least IMO.
Since I sell my prints I am not sending my negatives to anybody for testing, but I am willing to send a work print to anybody who wishes to compare the results with and ink jet print.