Blown Away... Jazzed...Excited...Epson 4800 B&W

[Bobby Sandstrom]

MAN! I got my 4800 today. I installed the QTR to check it out with Matte Blk. I scanned an 8x10 contact print that I happen to really like for tonality, sharpness, clarity. I scanned the print on a measley (don't mean to offend anyone but I own it myself) Epson 4870. I tweaked the image in photoshop so that the scanned image tones matched the print. (only required a slight curve to open it up a bit) I sprinkled in just a tiny, tiny bit of USM to make it match the print. Then, with a 65warm35cool ratio, made the Inkjet Print on EEM. WOW! WOW! WOW! The only difference between the 8x10 contact print and the inkjet was the gloss on the Fiber paper. (of course a drum scan would help for only those with the most descerning eye) Add the gloss, and all bets are off! Don't get me wrong... I like very much the matte velvety look. However, to have the luxury to choose to suit the photo between matte and glossy/satin on a beautiful Fine Art Paper would be a Dream Come True! The day is coming soon when all but the staunchest of hard core darkroom printers will join the revlolution. I'm still with both camps as I see the beauty on both sides. The gap is closing up quickly though. I can't wait to see what the Crane Silver Rag is going to look like. Anyhow, as you can tell by now, I'm TOTALLY impressed with epson's technological achievements! Right On Epson! And.. THANK YOU!

[Brian Ellis]

I've seen black and white prints from the 4800 on semi-gloss paper and there was a good bit of bronzing so I don't think you yet have the "luxury to choose to suit the photo between matte and glossy/satin." That probably will be fixed in another generation or two of Epson printers but for now you're "limited" to matte papers for b&w printing (which means you only have a choice of about 20 different papers : - )). But the prints were gorgeous on matte paper. You might get even better results if you scanned the negative rather than the print, depending on the size of the negative.

[Bobby Sandstrom]

I scanned the print just to try and match the tone. Normally, I will drum scan the neg, either 8x10 or 4x5. From what I've seen on the scanner comparison page, the Tango wins to my eyes. (this of course is based soley on whats on that page) So, I will probably find a good operator to scan on the tango.

[paulr]

"There's no reason to imitate anything that already exists"

there's sometimes a reason to imitate something that doesn't exist anymore. my favorite silver paper is gone. i don't see any that i like as much, and i'm hesitant to invest the time to learn a new material that's just as likely to vanish without warning.

i agree that the greatest strength of any new process is going to be its unique look, but if it's capable of looking like my long lost love, then that's just another option it gives us.

[Bobby Sandstrom]

Well put Paul. I almost feel captive by traditional material manufacturers. It's unsettling. And, you can't blame them 1 single bit. It's just a fact of life. I'm happy... THRILLED... I will be able to continue to produce the kind of work to the standards I hold myself to without worrying if the materials I love will vanish. It's only going to get better too. It's all about the art. If it feels like art, it is art.

We are all photographers and we share the same passions. Let's celibrate every tool that's available to us. Let us not quibble over the vehicle that takes us there. Can we all just get along? :-}

[sanking]

Bobby,

Visually you may not be able to see any difference beteween a great print from an inkjet and one made on photographic paper, but there is a difference. Inkjet prints are limited to top resolution of about 8 lp/mm, regardless of how sharp your negative may be. This is considered to be at about the threshold of vision for many people, i.e. a print with more resolution does not show it. However, a discerning viewer looking side by side at two prints, one that has maximum resolution of 8 lp/mm, another that has resolution of 15-20 lp/mm, should perceive a difference between the two prints even if they are not able to identify the cause. Numerous studies have shown that some people can even distinguish differences at up to 25 lp/mm.

So no, you probably would not see any difference in a drum scan compared to your 4870 scan, and yes, you would see a difference comparing a contact print on fiber paper with the inkjet print, assuming you have at least 15-20 lp/mm of resolution at the printing size. This is because photograhic paper is capable of much higher resolution and can take advantage of greater detail in the negative.

[Bobby Sandstrom]

It's all in good fun! I hope my tone wasn't argumentative in any shape or form. Again, we're all in the same boat. I'm just excited. Sandy, I know exactly what you're talking about. I'm a musician from age 5. All the specs in the world that say you're not supposed to hear above a certain frequency thereby making certain compression schemes bit rate/sample frequency theoretically indistinguishable from a straight anaolog recording are just that... specs! You CAN hear what you're not supposed to be able to. I think we perceive more than we think. All of the detail we are not supposed to be able to notice do contribute to the whole viewing or listening experience. That said, I do love the 4800!

[sanking]

Bobby,

Visually you may not be able to see any difference beteween a great print from an inkjet and one made on photographic paper, but there is a difference. Inkjet prints are limited to top resolution of about 8 lp/mm, regardless of how sharp your negative may be. This is considered to be at about the threshold of vision for many people, i.e. a print with more resolution does not show it. However, a discerning viewer looking side by side at two prints, one that has maximum resolution of 8 lp/mm, another that has resolution of 15-20 lp/mm, should perceive a difference between the two prints even if they are not able to identify the cause. Numerous studies have shown that some people can even distinguish differences at up to 25 lp/mm.

So no, you probably would not see any difference in an inkjet print at 8X10 from drum scan compared to your 4870 scan, and yes, you would probably see a difference comparing a contact print on fiber paper made with a continuous tone negative with an inkjet print, assuming you have at least 15-20 lp/mm of resolution at the printing size. This is because photograhic paper is capable of much higher resolution and can take advantage of greater detail in the negative.

The key to all of this is that inkjet prints are limited to a maximum of about 8 lp/mm, which is just at or slighly below the low point of the threshold of resolution.

[jonathan smith]

Every process will have its own character, and if this is a nice one, great. And dots per inch, or lines per inch may not enter into it. My own experience with scanning and a "photo printer" makes me want to continue with the darkroom, however, one of the ink jet prints I made has a certain (softer) character with better rendering of some things than the photographic one of the same scene. Paper, ink, contrast settings, color balance, all contribute, just like switching brands of photo paper or developer would in the darkroom.

I would like to move to digital printing if it was really good, because of retouching ease, avoiding dust, and enlarging. Maybe it is now. It doesn't have to be identical, just good in its own right.

[David Honey]

Where is digital imaging for the mainstream consumer headed? Here's a possible analogy:

Remember when CDs first appeared? With hindsight, we now know that the sample rates of the time often achieved only a pitiful 12 bits or so of resolution out of a theoretically-possible 16.

It's a 'given' that digital always offered the advantage of low signal-to-noise ratios.

Ludicrous, though, to think that at this level of sophistication it could ever have been thought 'high-fidelity'! Yet even a few professional musicians at the time jumped for joy, hearing what they wanted to hear. There were of course many analog holdouts (including of course those in the audio industry who still had a vested interest in analog.)

Things improved, a 'full' I6 bits resolution became the norm and was pushed by the industry as adequate, debated only by weirdos. Like sheep, the mainstream agreed and went into a buying frenzy, though there were still plenty of holdout 'analog afficianados'.

A few years ago when 24-bit resolution became commercially feasible (big surprise -- more money to be made!), not surprisingly people began jumping back onto the bandwagon, overjoyed at what they could now afford to buy. Finally, the Holy Grail. No more upgrades ever again!

Well, not everyone was fully on the digital bandwagon -- even after all the hooplah, the best used analog equipment commands six-figure price levels equal to current cutting-edge commercial digital, and only the wealthiest recording studio owners can afford it.

In the long term it looks as if most of us are led by the dominant commercial interests of the
time more or less happily down the garden path, but left in the wilderess when it suits them.

Now, can anyone recommend to me a good, 'affordable' 4x5 scanner? ;-)

Cheers,
Dave

[sanking]

Bobby,

I did not find your tone argumentative in any way. I am just trying to point out that much of the reasoning behind the idea that digital prints are as good as traditional silver photograpy is based on the assumption that resolution of more than 8 lp/mm does not make any difference, when in fact it does.

I am not making an argument against scanning and digital printing. In fact, over 50% of the prnting I do these days in carbon, kallitype and palladium is from enlarged digital negatives, and the image uality, assuming magnification of no more than about 3X, is as good as I get from same size in-camera negatives. The fact of the matter is that with these processes it makes little or no difference if you print with an in-camera negative with 50 lp/mm or a digital negative from an inkjet printer with resolution of 8 lp/pm. Why? Because the paper is the limitiing factor in resolution, not the negative. This would not be true, however, in contact printing on a smooth silver paper, AZO for example, that is capable using most or all of the resolution in the negative.

[Paul Kierstead]

"The whole point of a new technology is to do something new."

Not everyone uses new technology in the same way. For example, I don't have room or facilities in my house for a 4x5 enlarger, but my printer and scanner take little space. I do everything in spurts; I don't worry about chemistry going bad. And I could go on. There are lots of reasons to use new technology to produce the same results as something old.

Perhaps, just maybe, not all of us have the same goals, means, materials etc.

[Bobby Sandstrom]

That's funny Dave. I was the last of my friends in the music business to have a 2" machine. Of course to this day there ain't a mic that compares to a clean 47...pultec Eq's and compressors, neve 1073s, LA2As and on and on... even though their software plug-in counterparts make claims to the contrary. Photographically, IMHO, I think that hybrid digital/analog is at a stage now that is a very real solution that produces truly artistic results... ie something that "feels" like honest to goodness art. We are in the next era in photo history. It's a good time to be alive!

[Ed K.]

You scanned a traditional print and ended up with a nice inkjet print. Would the inket print, when scanned, also produce a nice print? One nice quality of a good LF contact print on smooth paper is that it may be reproduced if it ever ends up being useful, historic or valuable. There is also the issue of craft, not that inkjets are not also a craft form, but rather the "purity factor" of someone's skill making the genuine item instead of an authentic item.

Naturally, there are many ways to make a print that will please most people, especially those who look at reasonable distances. The hard part is pleasing peers who so often have a loupe handy. If you don't care about that, you're in good shape. Do the prints hold up well to the "loupe test" ? Lightjets do very well in that regard, especially if not oversharpened. Smooth as a Lightjet?

Sounds great, however who knows how the prints will look after hanging on the wall near a laser printer for a while, or how much per print ( including printer cost, ink & paper ) compares.

One can have some amusement thinking of people who have ultra-hi fidelity tube amps hooked up to CD players. CDs are rather poor fidelity. It's easy to hear the difference between a CD audio sample rate, and that of a higher sample rate digital recording workstation. Then again, how many performances can be easily purchased for one's home recording studio with 2" tape?

It is a great time to be alive, as others have said - so many great options. Congrats on finding something that makes your images look good to your eye - that's not usually an easy process!

[Bobby Sandstrom]

"Naturally, there are many ways to make a print that will please most people, especially those who look at reasonable distances. The hard part is pleasing peers who so often have a loupe handy. If you don't care about that, you're in good shape. Do the prints hold up well to the "loupe test" ?"

You forgot the most important person it's got to please... YOU!

I worked producing records for a number of years. With that came learning that if a performance, be it from the vocalist, guitarist, or whomever doesn't turn you on, it probably ain't gonna turn anyone else on either. I think with producing any form of art, it's got to grab hold of you in some way. It's gotta turn you on. If it does that, then it's a success. If it leaves you empty, wanting more, or indifferent then you best try something else. No sense in kidding yourself. It's got to please you first else why bother? Now, if you're the only one it pleases... that's a whole different story. :-)