Tyler,
Great illustrations. Thanks for posting the link.
Sandy
Originally Posted by Tyler Boley
Tyler,
Great illustrations. Thanks for posting the link.
Sandy
Hollywood - which has deep pockets for technology - uses analog capture and digital correction.
I presume they feel that the combination currently gives us the best of both worlds.
I don't mind sacrificing a few line pairs per millimeter, or even a few levels of grey, to gain nuanced corrections and adjustments.
See issue nbr 79 (Nov-Dec 2008) of LensWork. Tests performed with the Epson 9880. Best results achieved with Harmon Glossy Fiber AL paper. Quoting Brooks Jensen from his article:
"Testing these four papers, there was a very clear winner: the Harman Glossy Fiber Base AL. It was not only the deepest, darkest density of all — a density that exceeded what I was ever able to get in the darkroom with gelatin silver fiber
papers. Looking up close, from across the room, under various light sources, it was simply better to my eye. I showed these papers to other people, visitors to LensWork, and members of our staff . Almost everyone agreed it was a marvelous paper, the best of the test subjects.
So, with the ability to use Harman papers in combination with Epson printers and K3 inks we can produce prints that, in my opinion, exceed the quality of the Lens Work Special Editions we used to produce in the wet darkroom. In fact, one of the tests we did was to print selected images from the former LensWork Special Editions program on Harman Glossy Fiber Base AL and compare it to the original gelatin silver prints that we made on Ilford Multigrade Fiber Base, selenium toned. In every single case, the Harmon print looked better than, or at least as good as, the toned gelatin silver version. I would never have predicted this. I’ve been a gelatin silver guy since my earliest days in photography. As a matter of fact, in the earlier edition of the LensWork Special Editions we made a big deal out of the fact that we were not producing inkjet prints. We advertised that and used that specific language; no inkjet prints.
Well, times have changed. The new papers and the new inks produce work that I could never produce in the darkroom, with a look and a feel that is absolutely spectacular. I am unapologetic about this. I have no qualms whatsoever in offering these Epson K3 pigment-on-paper prints on Harman paper and claiming with confidence and assurance that they are every bit as good, if not better, than the original LensWork Special Editions gelatin silver prints. Back then, we claimed our Special Editions were visually indistinguishable from the photographer's original work. I stand by that claim."
Maybe it's time to reexamine this "wet darkroom vs inkjet" debate, taking into consideration the current state of the art inkjet technology...
I certainly hope it doesn't appear that I am interested in, or contributing to, that debate. I don't think it's very helpful. My interest is that during this complete, sudden, and in some sense unrequested overhaul of our process, the standards set by our history remain at the highest level. I wound up looking hard at this stuff, and making information available, not judging anyone's choices. It directly speaks to the thread, which as should be obvious by now, has no clear answers.
Tyler
I'm confused, Tyler.
You state in your latest post "I certainly hope it doesn't appear that I am interested in, or contributing to, that debate. I don't think it's very helpful."
Yet five posts earlier you provide the following link: http://www.custom-digital.com/info/B...ity/index.html to a test that you illustrate on your personal website. You state, reaching a conclusion from that test "It’s clear to me that we have not yet met the level of technical photographic quality our previous methods achieved. Does this matter? Can you see these differences with normal viewing? I think you can, given certain images, and viewing conditions, and eyesight. But I care less about that than keeping the bar high, often we can’t put our finger on a technical reason one print is “better” then another, but adherence to the highest standard at each step of the process clearly yields a higher percentage of stunning prints, every little tweak contributes."
How is there "adherence to the highest standard at each step" when, as you later state under the Technical Notes of the test: "All ink prints were done at 100% full 4000ppi on Hahnemuhle PhotoRag 308 and the silver prints were 1:1 contact, so all were the same size. The Epson ABW prints were made with a 9800, the quad prints with a 9600, and the K7 prints with a 7800."?
You're comparing a silver contact print to five year old technology in the Epson 9800... not to mention even older technology in the 9600, a paper (Hahnemuhle PhotoRag 308) that is a far cry from the best inkjet printing can achieve (in terms of resolution). Hardly "adherence to the highest standard at each step". How can you even make such a comparison?
It appears to my uninitiated eye that this is a rather strong contribution to that very debate that you don't find very helpful.
What am I missing here?
Lawrence
No doubt Tyler will respond to your post, however I would like to comment on your statement about the technology - "five year old technology in the Epson 9800... not to mention even older technology in the 9600, a paper (Hahnemuhle PhotoRag 308) that is a far cry from the best inkjet printing can achieve (in terms of resolution). Hardly "adherence to the highest standard at each step". "
Whilst the Epson 9800 has indeed been available for 5 years I think you will find that there is very little difference between it and the "latest" 9880 (or even 11880 or 9900), particularly in terms of B&W output.
Similarly although the 9600 is an even older printer the underlying technology is very similar to the later printers (they added extra inks and ways to stop you using third party products and very little else!). Also in Tyler's case he drives it with a well set up, state-of-the-art, RIP and uses a dual quad set-up. Whilst this is probably no longer state-of-the-art for B&W inkjet printing (I think that is represented by the K7 inks at the moment although Lenny may disagree in favour of his own) it is nevertheless very close to state-of-the-art.
I am inclined to agree with your final comment regarding Photorag - there are papers with higher resolution available now, even matte ones. However, in my opinion, Photorag does have sufficient resolution for a test of this kind (as I think is clear from Tylers scans) and is a well known product which is presumably why Tyler used it.
David Whistance
Thanks for your comment David.
I should have beter qualified my statement by indicating that I was speaking of the 11880 model which has some noticeable improvements and changes to the dither pattern which result in a noticeable improvement in output.
The single most significant improvement would be noticed with a state of the art glossy paper as opposed to a fine art substrate that exhibits far more dot gain. The fact that LensWork has admitted better quality with the 9880 and Harmon Gloss Fiber Base AL makes me wonder how much better the prints would have looked if printed with the 11880.
Lawrence, your post deserves a serious reply, sorry for the delay... family stuff. More soon, honest. I feel like my enthusiasm for these issues has hijacked the thread with stuff of little interest, and the answers about almost every point you make are complex and lengthy. Anyway, more as soon as possible.
Tyler
What I understood is that Tyler was simply pointing out the different capabilities of printing systems, not trying to debate the merits of one or the other. I understand that there are people who want to push the concept of superiority of one printing system over another, but my impression is that the majority of photographers are reasonable folks who recognize that we are dealing with different media.
It is entirely possible, as you suggest, that the newer line of printers, using smooth papers, will be capable of greater resolution than the previous generation. However, even if that is a fact I doubt very much that the improvement will be enough to bridge the rather huge different that now exists between an inkjet print, on whatever surface, and a silver gelatin print made by contact printing as the difference is on the order of 10 lp/mm versus 40 lp/mm.
However, as others have pointed out, resolution in itself is not the determining factor in print quality, or for that matter, even in sharpness. I previously made the point that one of my carbon transfer prints, made with an inkjet digital negative, is one of the sharpest photographs I have ever seen, yet it has the same limitations in terms of detail as an inkjet print.
I personally never liked silver gelatin prints all that much, which is the major reason I took up alternative printing. Inkjet prints on fine art papers are much more attractive to me than inkjet prints on baryta. So if it were up to me I would say, let inkjet me the best media it can be, not try to imitate the glossy look of silver gelatin. Pt/Pd prints also are very limited in terms of detail compared to silver gelatin prints but few complain that they are not sharp enough as there are other qualities that speak to us.
Sandy King
I suppose that I ought to respond since I was mentioned. I cancelled, or let die, my subscription to Lenswork last year. I did this for a number of reasons. First of all there was an article that suggested we all sell our work for $20 a print. Those of us that sell our work often work quite hard at it for many years and I found it simply offensive. Second, he put out another article suggested that his printing technology had gotten to the point where it was the best thing going, better than darkroom, better than inkjet. (We should all give up our inkjets and get presses.) Third, for the longest time he resisted showing photographers whose printing was done on inkjet, suggesting it was lesser somehow. Finally, when I looked at this printing style - I didn't like it. It's very dark, gloomy and depressing. There's a style that gets applied to every photographer's work. On occasion there's some very interesting photography. But all in all, I didn't see it as something that fed me, so I let it go. Given his disdain for the new medium over the years and his predilection for a very specific type of printing, I question whether he is the right person for the "ultimate test."
I have just printed some images on a PhotoRag Baryta paper for someone. Very difficult print, lots of masking and twiddling with the colors to get them right. I did another print right after on PhotoRag. I like the PhotoRag print much better. The matte surface has many advantages over a shiny one. You can't knock PhotoRag and suggest that Harmon's whatever is "better." They are very different mediums. They are as different as black and white is from color. I have done as much profiling of PhotoRag as anyone - probably about 40-50 different profiles of this same paper over the last few years. It is a superb paper. It has exceptional richness. I just went and looked at my profile test print. I have just made a new profile for PhotoRag Baryta. My PhotoRag print of the exact same image (actually set of images) is at least as sharp as the Baryta coated paper. In some cases it looks sharper, but this is likely a minor difference in contrast. The matte surfaces allow for more richness and deeper tonality.
Many of the top papers perform excellently. Hahnemuhle's line is exception, as is Crane's. There are others that I haven't played with as much. A lot of the excellence of these papers (and any paper) comes with working with them over the years, just like it was in the darkroom, just like it is with film.
I would also suggest that great prints are made by great printers, as in humans, not machines. The machines are just there as support. I think a focus on sharpness is misplaced, as is the focus I often hear, of dmax. I think a rich print is made with the midtones, and how they interact with each other. It is also about the entire balance of tones, and not one side of the spectrum or the other.
Of course, these are my opinions, not intended to be a statement of fact. Everyone is welcome to disagree.
Lenny
EigerStudios
Museum Quality Drum Scanning and Printing
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks