Would Epson 3800 B&W look like darkroom-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.
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.in...7&d=1192175841