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.