Black and White Printing [Archive] - Large Format Photography Forum

David Williams

5-Jun-2009, 09:12

I'm returning to large format photography after several years and just joined this forum. I no longer have a wet darkroom so I'll be printing in inkjet machines. I currently have an Epson 2200 I bought new some time ago.

I'm curious about how those of you who print your own black and white are doing it. By that I mean are you using a standard inkset on a good printer and getting good black and white through Photoshop or Lightroom? Or are you using one of the all black ink sets like the Quadtone or MIS systems.

The few times I have tried to print black and white, I've not been happy with the results. But then I haven't spent the time working with it. Most of what I've been printing the last everal years has been color portrait prints.

I want to get back to my first love, black and white. I understand shooting on film, scanning and all that. It's the printing I need to learn. So I want to pick the brains of the Masters of black and white here.

Thanks!

Dave

Steve Wadlington

5-Jun-2009, 09:25

I've heard the Cone inksets are great. My choice for me is mixing my own dilutions from Eboni Black ink.

Gem Singer

5-Jun-2009, 09:31

Look into pigment inks and baryta coated inkjet papers. Today's state of the art materials for B&W inkjet printing.

For scanning, strive for a thinner negative (less contrasty) than you would normally use for wet printing.

David Williams

5-Jun-2009, 09:46

Gem, any particular brands in mind? I'm not sure what you mean by pigmented inks.

Dave

Bruce Watson

5-Jun-2009, 09:59

The few times I have tried to print black and white, I've not been happy with the results. But then I haven't spent the time working with it. Most of what I've been printing the last several years has been color portrait prints.

I want to get back to my first love, black and white. I understand shooting on film, scanning and all that. It's the printing I need to learn. So I want to pick the brains of the Masters of black and white here.

Some resources. First, the yahoo group DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint (http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/?yguid=276055793) which has a large membership and a lot of history in its archives. If you have a question it's probably already been asked and answered there. Another resource is the yahoo group QuadtoneRIP (http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/QuadtoneRIP/?yguid=276055793) which as a lot of information about the shareware QTR software RIP.

If you want more in depth information from a single source, there's Amadou Diallo's book Mastering Digital Black and White. Mr. Diallo is certainly a master B&W printer using inkjets. I speculate that George DeWolfe's new book Digital Masters: B&W Printing: Creating the Digital Master Print is also a good book (I'm speculating because it came out just three days ago and I haven't seen it yet). He also is a master printer in color and B&W, and his last book Digital Photography Fine Print Workshop was just excellent -- but is almost entirely about color printing.

There are some things you'll have to decide before you can pick a direction. First, can you dedicate a printer to B&W only? Second, can you live with matte surface papers only?

Another question is: how good is good enough? QTR can drive your 2200 with color inks to produce a pretty good B&W print. But the Cone K7 inks in your 2200 will be considerably better IMHO. So, how good is good enough for you personally?

Like I often say, if you can't define the problem you can't solve it. So figure out what you want to do first; you need to be more specific than something like "print B&W inkjet prints." I'm not trying to be mean here, I'm just sayin' that it's not that simple (yet). Would that it were.

Gem Singer

5-Jun-2009, 10:15

Dave,

These items have been around for a while and are readily available. Check out www.atlex.com:

Example of pigment ink----Hewlett Packard Vivera. Epson also makes a line of pigment ink.

Example of Baryta coated paper-----Ilford Galerie Gold Fibre Silk Baryta. Harman and Hahnemuhle also make baryta coated papers.

B&W inkjet printing has made rapid strides improving it's look.
I have not made a B&W wet print for over a year now. My B&W inkjet prints look as good, or better.

Tyler Boley

5-Jun-2009, 10:15

For decent B&W from large format imagery in my opinion no less than three black inks is required. There are several determinations to narrow the choices down from there. If you require the ability to do both matte and gloss, probably an out-of-the-box solution with a newer printer would be the least trouble. The newer HPs do all this well, but at some cost with the smallest printer at 24". The newest Epsons with the K3 inksets will also do this, with some smaller units, though some will require changing out the black ink manually. Your 2200 will only do reasonable B&W with the Epson inks if you install and learn QuadtoneRIP, a viable option for many. It will perform even better with a K3 printer.
I am no longer familiar with the MIS inksets, for more info about those options I would ask at-

http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/
and look here-
http://www.paulroark.com/BW-Info/

In this day and age, for matte, I find the K6 and K7 systems are the state of the art in terms of linearity, resolution, and print beauty. The Cone systems have become total plug and play, with QTR support and easy setups. I've had people totally unfamiliar with QTR or anything Cone printing in 5 minutes. The ink technology has continually evolved and in my experience are more problem free than even the Epson inks.
They have a few different hue sets and will send sample prints to help decide.

If your 2200 is in reasonable condition and now works well, the most cost effective route is probably a CIS, and a black and white inkset from MIS or Cone, assuming matte will work for you. If you want photo surfaces, a new printer, or overspraying with one of the B&W inksets, would be required.

You might consider Amadou's book-
http://www.masteringdigitalbwbook.com/
it's still relevant, I should know as I was tech editor <G>.

We live in a good era for dedicated B&W ink printing, no more dinking around is required with dicey systems, the inks perform well and easily, and in my opinion some of the most beautiful B&W photography prints I've ever seen are the result.
Good luck in your efforts,

Tyler
http://www.custom-digital.com/

David Williams

5-Jun-2009, 10:20

Bruce,

Thanks for your reply and I don't take it as mean. This is what I want, honest advice. I guest I don't know enough yet to ask the right questions.

I'll check out the resources you mentioned. I can dedicate my 2200 to just black and white, and I like matte papers. Most of what I do will end up framed, so that's not an issue.

Several years ago I ordered some sample prints from the peizo website and was very impressed by them. I guess what I am asking is has the technology advanced enough to do that kind of work with standard inks or does one need to use those or the K7 type inks to make prints that look close to darkroom prints.

I'll check out your resources so I'll know better what to ask. I was a decent darkroom printer, and I'd like to get as close to that look and feel as I can without the darkroom.

Thanks again,

Dave

Tyler Boley

5-Jun-2009, 10:33

Bruce types faster than me... what he said<G>
Tyler

Joanna Carter

5-Jun-2009, 13:21

Ron Marshall

5-Jun-2009, 14:14

Steve Wadlington

5-Jun-2009, 16:07

I tried the ABW printing on the Epson 2400 and really couldn't stand it. You can look under a loupe and see alot of cyan and magenta inks and can watch the cartridges drop as you print. QTR would allow you to drop the colors though, I've seen Roy Harringtons prints and they are nice. I switched my 2400 to CIS with pigment inks, matte, and never looked back.

Brian Ellis

5-Jun-2009, 16:38

I wouldn't call myself a master of digital b&w printing but I've been doing it for about 7 years so hopefully I've learned a few things along the way.

I've used dedicated quadtone inks (MIS) and I've used the Epson inks in a 2200 with QTR (www.harrington.com). I thought the 2200 and QTR were an excellent combination, at least as good as the MIS inks I had used previously. If you'll be keeping your 2200 for a while I'd strongly suggest that you look into QTR. I don't think that you can just use the Epson inks in a 2200 without a RIP of some sort and get optimum results and QTR does an excellent job for little money ($50). I don't even think it's possible to do that in my Epson 3800 (because I think QTR will produce better results even in a printer that uses K3 inks than the Epson drivers alone) but you can come much closer with K3 inks and Epson's Advanced B&W than you can with a 2200 and no RIP.

You can make great b&w prints digitally, better IMHO than can be made in a darkroom, but you do need to spend some time and effort learning how to do it. The Yahoo group that Bruce mentioned is an excellent resource, as is the Yahoo QTR group if you go that route. I haven't read the books he mentions but I did take a one-week workshop from George deWolfe and if his book is as good as his workshop was then the book should be very good.

venchka

5-Jun-2009, 17:23

Search recent threads here. There was a good discission in the last 1-3 months regarding Epson printers. Many folks feel that the 3800 new with a full supply of ink is a good deal.

The photo-matte black ink switching with Epson gets expensive. In fact, everything about the small Epson ink carts is expensive. That's how they make money.

D. Bryant

5-Jun-2009, 19:06

I had a 2200, now I have a 3800. b/w with the Epson inkset was terrible, with the Cone NK7 inks and the quadtone RIP it is wonderful, except the Dmax is not high since they only work with matt papers. For some images the lower Dmax is not a hindrance.

The 3800 does a wonderful job with b/w on glossy papers. Images that benefit from greater Dmax really shine; other images look better using Cone inks.

Overall, I am very satisfied with the 3800.

I have both the 3800 and the 2200. Since the OP asked about the 2200 I would suggest that he try QTR and the Epson inks for the 2200. With that combination I've been able to make some very nice prints on matt paper. I think as a starting point the OP might find that combination very satisfactory.

The Cone inks will certainly make very beautiful prints.

Based on my experience I had nothing but trouble with the MIS inks (several different inksets, printers, carts, and CIS) so I quit using their products a long time ago and don't reccomend them to others.

Don Bryant

pherold

8-Jun-2009, 11:58

do that kind of work with standard inks or does one need to use those or the K7 type inks to make prints that look close to darkroom prints.

It's worth a try to use standard ink sets. But you would probably have to go to a custom-made printer profile rather than using the canned profiles that come with the 2200. Getting a color ink set to print purely neutral B & W is one of the most challenging things a printer profile can be asked to do. As has been said, it depends on how particular you are, and also what you're looking for. Sepia tone and other tints will be easier on a color ink set than Quadtone, etc.

Lenny Eiger

8-Jun-2009, 12:02

I want to get back to my first love, black and white.Dave

Congratulations. There isn't anything like a great b&w print. I've been working on getting the right print from this technology for a number of years. I couldn't be happier the results.

My system has a few more complications beyond what most people need. I am using a 12-slot Roland FJ-540. I take Cone's Piezotones and expand the quad-black set to a 6 black. I did this before he invented the K6 and K7 sets and just kept doing it because its easy enough once you know how and have the tools, and I like my set better. Both the Peizotone and K6/7 sets are amazing, way beyond what other systems can come up with, and just what a b&w nut needs. My focus is museum quality printing.

I suggest a RIP and there are two very good ones for b&w printing, QTR (very inexpensive!) and StudioPrint. Cone also will do custom profiles for your printer, I think they still do that. For those that print a lot, Cone has just added inks in 1 liter bottles, which offer a nice savings over the smaller quantities.

My favorite paper is Hahnemuehle Photo Rag 308. It's expensive, but feels great in your hand and makes a rich, velvety print. They started making paper in the 16th Century and it shows.

Feel free to contact me for more info if you need it.. Tyler's suggestion of Amadou's book is also very good.

Best,

Lenny

dwhistance

8-Jun-2009, 15:28

I'm also a fan of the Cone K6/7inksets with Photorag or similar papers. To me prints made with these papers and inks offer a degree of sublety that is missing with even very well profiled K3 inksets. Whats more they are pretty much plug and play with the standard profiles Cone provides with QTR - custom profiles are really just the icing on the cake. The only downside is having to choose between the different inksets in advance (unless you have several printers).

Good luck

David Whistance

PS - this inkset works really well with the 2100/2200 generation of Epson printers

Peter De Smidt

8-Jun-2009, 19:18

I've used Cone inks in a 2200. It produced very nice output. However, I also have prints of the same files made by Paul Roark using some of his inksets, Eboni 6 and...well, I'd have to check. The results are just as good, although the prints are slightly different. The Cone inks are more plug-n-play, but they're more expensive. Some of Paul's ink sets give the ability to print on both matte and gloss papers.

I'm not a fan of bw prints made with the 2200s OEM inkset.

K3 printers can produce very good bw prints. I've gotten the best results with QTR, but the ABW mode can produce very nice prints. (I don't look at prints through a loupe. I save that for my ground glass.)

David Williams

10-Jun-2009, 08:32

Thanks for all the advice! I looked on the Cone site, Inkjet MAll, but I could only find CIS systems for the 2200. Do they not sell K7 inks in cartridges? The MIS Eboni inks do come in cartridges, but more of you favor the Cone inks.

I'd like to have the CIS system, but its more expensive, and I'll have to sell off more old gear before I can afford it.

Dave

Tyler Boley

10-Jun-2009, 09:25

Epson won an ITC ruling some time ago that directly effects the ability for 3rd party inks to be sold in the USA. I'm not sure how MIS may be getting around this, but Epson already took Media Street to court. Therefore, InkjetMall only sells their inks as bulk systems with CIS, or large format printer carts, which were not effected by the ruling (though I hear one is still pending related to that too). Pre-filled desktop cartridges, which were a staple of their business, had to be dropped to avoid spending the rest of the decade in courts...
You can buy their bottles, and fill empty carts you can get from MIS, but a CIS is much less hassle.
Tyler

Tom Monego

10-Jun-2009, 10:42

I'm using a Canon iPF5000 and I like the b&w prints. The printer has a reputation for gloss differential, but I only find this on RC papers.
My current favorite is Ilford Gold Fiber Silk, a little warm with Canon inks, but not as warm as Protriga Rapid the old AGFA warmtone paper (Ilford profile), Harman Baryta Gloss is excellent (Booksmart Profile), as is Hahnemuhle Photo Rag Baryta (borrowed profile have to get one made). For a matte paper I really like Parrot Digigraphics Angelica Smooth White.
What I have liked about scanning and digital printing is that I had several images that had air bells or had gotten scratched that I can easily retouch and print.

Tom

Peter von Gaza

10-Jun-2009, 22:08

Over the years I have tried everything, but over the last couple years I have settled on just using my Epson 4000 and QTR. Results are amazing. I work my prints using cheap Epson Heavy Weight Matte Paper (Matte black ink) and then do my final prints on Hahnemuhle Fine Art Baryta (Photo black ink). I will a final proof with Epson Premium Luster (cheap) before printing on the Baryta paper. Baryta paper is the key - it is AMAZING. The key is to get a printer that switches between matte black and photo black inks. I guess that means something like the Epson 3800.

I tried various dedicated B&W inksets over the years, but using QTR with color inksets I get such good results I just can't be bothered. Using color inksets has the advantage that you could actually make a color print (gasp!!).

Good Luck,
Peter

PenGun

11-Aug-2009, 05:14

Wasting paper ... oh yeah. I have an Epson 3800 and I'm printing B&W from 4x5 scans.

The ABW in the Epson driver does a very nice job and I can get some good prints on both matt and gloss paper.

Just started with QTR and the ability to separate midtones is quite a bit better than the ABW driver. I have a photo of my motorcycle and the seat has a pebble that is just sweet with the QTR but barely visible with ABW.

A lot more paper will be wasted but I'm starting to get some good prints.

PenGun

11-Aug-2009, 05:46

I realize that you are interested in printing from an inkjet. It seems that there's a lot of time, effort and expense involved in attempting to duplicate real silver and platinum prints. From what I have seen, they all fall short. If you are shooting 8x10, you could set up a very small contact print/wet darkroom operation in a closet, laundry room, bathroom etc.

I printed silver for many years. I really like my Epson. Like anything subtle it takes some fooling with to get it under control. If you have never seen nice inkjet output ... you have no idea.

bvstaples

11-Aug-2009, 15:44

From my experience, forget all the old printers, special ink sets and RIP software; they just aren't necessaary when you can buy an Epson K3 printer and, once it is profiled for your paper, use it straight with the Epson driver and get superb B&W prints.

And you will loan us the money for these wonderful new printers?

Sometimes we need to work with what we have. For me it's an old printer and inksets, that is, until I can get into a darkroom.

Brian

rdenney

11-Aug-2009, 16:32

It would appear to me that the K7 continuous ink system for the 2200 from Cone is $508, including the system, the inks, and the $50 shareware contribution for the Quadtone RIP.

I just paid $900 for a factory refurbed 3800, including $500 worth of ink.

The black-and-white prints from it are superb, with deep, rich blacks and good scale. The only issue I have is that the ink is more reflective than the glossy paper I prefer, so areas with blown-out highlights will not be as reflective as areas where some ink was laid down. I can usually pull the curves in on the ends so that the highlights don't reach above about 245 and that minimizes that issue. I never really like having no ink at all on the paper, just as I never really liked having no density at all in the highlights on silver prints. It's not noticeable for the occasional specular highlight, or if the print is behind glass. The ABW driver for the 3800 provides the ability to tone the print. I'm really impressed by the results.

I'm sure the dedicated multi-black systems work beautifully, but it is a big effort to set them up. If black and white is only one aspect of your work, you'll have to get another printer in any case.

Rick "who also prints in color" Denney

Greg Lockrey

11-Aug-2009, 22:39

Greg Lockrey

11-Aug-2009, 22:41

And you will loan us the money for these wonderful new printers?

Sometimes we need to work with what we have. For me it's an old printer and inksets, that is, until I can get into a darkroom.

Brian

Sometimes it's more expensive to make those old printers with all those expensive RIPs and inksets to catch up to the new printers that really aren't that expensive to begin with.

FWIW, I printed commercially in a wet darkroom for about 30 years when about 10-12 years ago I got turned on to working in the "daylight" and never looked back. IMO the papers that are available today aren't close to the papers we had back then. Digital printing is just getting better everyday.

paulr

11-Aug-2009, 22:57

I have an older epson printer (1280) with 4-color, all carbon pigment piezotone inks from Cone, fed from a CIS. The print quality is mind blowing.

But it's a fussy setup, and I'd recommend shelling out for a higher quality printer ... one that's designed for serious production work. The cheaper printers like mine seem more prone to paper feed issues and possibly also clogging issues. And when I finally do retire this thing (which will likely be a loud, messy process, involving a hammer), I'll have to start from scratch with a new profile.

Lenny Eiger

12-Aug-2009, 10:31

I tend to agree.... why make a lot of work for yourself.

I disagree with both you and Joanna.

I went and looked at your site. It wouldn't matter whether the b&w photos there were printed with b&w inks or not. I am NOT saying you are a bad printer - I assume that you may have tons of experience and the prints are exactly what you intended. That kind of print is not difficult for a color inkset to make, that's all.

There is an issue of printing style and what someone is after here. If you are a fairly contrasty printer, want to make prints like Greg here, or you have a fairly commercial look, I say make life easy and go with ABW. I sincerely mean no disrespect - it takes all kinds.

If, on the other hand, one's sights are set to a different tune, say to reproduce the range of a George Tice print, a Frederick Evans print, a Weston, a Caponigro, Sutcliffe, etc., I submit that color ink won't do it justice, nor will two to three black ink carts. The b&w inks are still here, after a number of years, and people put so much effort into it because they are getting a return... Cone's inks are really something, QTR and StudioPrint are pretty terrific. It can be difficult to get everything balanced but once you do it works for a good long while... and you can forget the tech and get back to work knowing you have the tools to do it well.

Just my 2cents

Lenny

Michael Gordon

12-Aug-2009, 11:53

Greg Lockrey

12-Aug-2009, 13:51

I disagree with both you and Joanna.

I went and looked at your site. It wouldn't matter whether the b&w photos there were printed with b&w inks or not. I am NOT saying you are a bad printer - I assume that you may have tons of experience and the prints are exactly what you intended. That kind of print is not difficult for a color inkset to make, that's all.

There is an issue of printing style and what someone is after here. If you are a fairly contrasty printer, want to make prints like Greg here, or you have a fairly commercial look, I say make life easy and go with ABW. I sincerely mean no disrespect - it takes all kinds.

If, on the other hand, one's sights are set to a different tune, say to reproduce the range of a George Tice print, a Frederick Evans print, a Weston, a Caponigro, Sutcliffe, etc., I submit that color ink won't do it justice, nor will two to three black ink carts. The b&w inks are still here, after a number of years, and people put so much effort into it because they are getting a return... Cone's inks are really something, QTR and StudioPrint are pretty terrific. It can be difficult to get everything balanced but once you do it works for a good long while... and you can forget the tech and get back to work knowing you have the tools to do it well.

Just my 2cents

Lenny

FWIW at my website all the B&W's are fiberbase silver or toned prints posted about 15 years go using an inexpensive HP scanner. The only thing digital about them is the scan. You really can't appreciate the quality of the photos on a web page due to size restrictions of the site. I haven't made a nickel from the web and refuse to put any effort into it. More importantly, I don't need to. So please don't judge anything you see there. I don't doubt that Cone inks and Image Print are great tools, but like you said it all depends on your needs. You can count on one hand the number of B&W's that go through my printer in a month. This ain't LA here, just Toledo. :)

Brian Ellis

12-Aug-2009, 19:20

I agree entirely with what Lenny says.

I spent some serious time trying to overcome the challenges of printing both monochrome and color using a single Epson 7600, a RIP, and my own custom curves. I learned a lot about profiling and software, but lost a lot of time as well. And then the Cone K7 inksets came along, making extraordinary Piezography prints a piece of cake even to the ordinary user. I bought an Epson 7880 for the K3 color inks, and converted my 7600 to K7 Piezography. The K7 inkset and QTR are practically plug and play, and the prints simply blow out of the water any prints made using ABW or any other combination of colored inks. Even with my old 7600, clogging with Piezography is a non-issue (less troublesome than the original Ultrachrome inks).

Discerning black and white print makers choose Piezography :)

Just curious - in what way does the K7 ink set "simply blow out of the water any prints made using ABW or any other combination of colored inks?"

I used MIS inks for about three years, Epson color inks in an Epson 2200 printer with QTR for about two years, Advanced B&W only a few times, and Epson K3 inks in a 3800 printer with QTR for about two years. I have a good friend who used to use Piezography inks in a CF system with an Epson 2400 printer (until he tried K3 inks in a with QTR and abandoned the Piezography system). So while I haven't used Piezography inks myself, I've seen a lot of prints made with some version of those inks.

If I were ranking the systems, I'd put the Epson 2200 at the bottom even with QTR, followed by Advanced B&W, and with Epson K3 inks and QTR along with Piezography inks in a tie though I'd choose K3 inks and QTR just because it doesn't require that I abandon color printing with my 3800.

I can understand someone having a different ranking and thinking Piezography inks or some other system are the best. But claiming the Piezography inks "simply blow out of the water any prints made using ABW or any other combination of colored inks?" Certainly not from what I've seen. But maybe I don't know what to look for or in some other way have missed this huge difference that Piezography has over anything else so I'm open to learning from you.

Discerning black and white print makers don't dump on the systems used by other discerning printers or make outrageous claims without explaining the basis for the claims. : - )

Greg Lockrey

12-Aug-2009, 20:00

Lenny Eiger

12-Aug-2009, 22:50

I can understand someone having a different ranking and thinking Piezography inks or some other system are the best. But claiming the Piezography inks "simply blow out of the water any prints made using ABW or any other combination of colored inks?" Certainly not from what I've seen. But maybe I don't know what to look for or in some other way have missed this huge difference that Piezography has over anything else so I'm open to learning from you.

Discerning black and white print makers don't dump on the systems used by other discerning printers or make outrageous claims without explaining the basis for the claims. : - )

It certainly does depend what one is looking for, doesn't it. That said, there is an issue with smoothness throughout the entire tonal range. For folks that print contrasty, this is often not what they are looking for. They are looking for the impact of the image. Some folks even shoot with infrared! It's not my interest, but they love it. OTOH, if you want a look that rivals a platinum print, which extends each tone, with smooth transition to smooth transition all the way from top to bottom - then the only way you can accomplish it is with a black and white inkset with sufficient number of channels (oh yeah, and superb negs, great scans, lots of knowledge and some experience). That's a matter of physics, and not opinion.

Its the criteria of a "great print" that is the assumption, not the technology. Most historical reference to great prints, with some exceptions, refer to the long tonal range prints vs the short...

Lenny

Bruce Watson

13-Aug-2009, 04:58

Just curious - in what way does the K7 ink set "simply blow out of the water any prints made using ABW or any other combination of colored inks?

For me it's in the areas of color stability, tonal transitions, and overall smoothness.

By color stability I mean constancy of shade from black to white. I've seen a number of B&W prints made with color inks that "drift" back and forth in color cast as the print goes up the scale from black to white, often being a bit magenta in some tones and a bit green in others. It makes the print "shimmer" for me and it's an ugly effect. With the advent of separate gray inks in the color inksets color stability in B&W prints has improved but I still see it now and then. Less so with ABW. Less still with QTR. But it's not gone.

Tonal transitions can vary with the color inksets depending on where the tone is on the scale. If the tone hits a point where the inkset has to leave a fair amount of paper white showing to make the tone, it can look sort of ragged or rough. This is particularly true of highlights where the lightest inks in the inkset are used, but are still very dark compared to the tone that is being printed, thus requiring lots of paper white to show through to lighten the tone.

Overall smoothness for me is important. I don't really know why, just seems to be the way I see. What I'm talking about is an upshoot of the tonal transitions I discussed above. But these occur at all the crossover points in the inkset. I can get by with a quad-tone set, but I can certainly see the improvements from a hex-tone or sep-tone set. I think it has to do with better coverage -- the inks cover more of the paper so there's less paper white involved in making tones. This makes it more of a continuous tone process.

I'm not doing a great job explaining this. Words were never my strong point. But perhaps you get at least a hint of my meaning.

All that said, this is clearly about the curve of diminishing returns. What you get with the current color inksets with their multiple gray inks is really pretty good. When you control it with ABW or QTR it's even better. When you use a grayscale quad-tone inkset it's even better. But when you use a hex-tone or sep-tone inkset it reaches a level where I can cease seeing the print and see the image.

And I think it's reaching this level, where the tech. used to make the print gets out of my way so I no longer see the flaws and the image can "communicate with me" as it were, is what the K7 partisans are talking about.

Clearly, not everyone sees the same way, or sees the same things. Else we wouldn't have the vast variety of photography we have today. Just because it works for one person doesn't mean it will for anyone else. But it works for some of us and I'm very glad this tool is available for those that want it.

bob carnie

13-Aug-2009, 05:50

Bruce Watson

13-Aug-2009, 07:22

I like to think that in the end what makes a successful print isn't the tools used to make it, but the vision used to shape it. That said, people should use the tools with which they are most comfortable, so they can put a minimum of effort into using the tools and maximize the effort used to express their vision.

bob carnie

13-Aug-2009, 07:52

A very savvy lab owner I worked for late 70's had 15 mural rooms all with magnetic walls, 8x10 horizontal enlargers with Apo lenses in every room including econorolls, each room was identical and well thought out all leading to a darkhall and processor.
I asked him why he went to all the expense to give each technician the best/equal gear.
His response was that it took away all the excuses and the best printers would be obvious.
This lab was extremely successful and he retired a multi- millionare and his reasoning made a lot of sense to me then and now.

I like to think that in the end what makes a successful print isn't the tools used to make it, but the vision used to shape it. That said, people should use the tools with which they are most comfortable, so they can put a minimum of effort into using the tools and maximize the effort used to express their vision.

Peter De Smidt

13-Aug-2009, 08:48

This thread reminds me about the Fred Picker demo prints that I bought before the internet was available to me. I bought into the notes and waited patiently for each issue. At the time I thought I was a pretty good printer and I was being told that if I bought these wonderful prints and put them in my darkroom , the beauty of them would inspire me to become a better printer overnight.
So I bought them, waited with great enjoyment in knowing I was going to see the best prints in the world.
Well they arrived, I took one look at the chalky whites and dead blacks and with a lesson learned threw them into bin 9 where they belonged.
I have had the luck to be able to see most processes including piezo , digital fibre, cannon black whites, enlarger black whites, platinum, azo, gum,carbon, tricolourcarbon,................
which one is better, depends on the viewer and their tastes.

I agree with Bob, both about Picker's sample prints and subjectivism concerning which printing method is best. I've printed with both Piezography (the current version), and QTR with K3 and K4 (MIS) inks. Each of these processes when fine-tuned can produce beautiful prints. There are differences, sure, but none clearly blows the other out of the water.

Brian Ellis

13-Aug-2009, 09:46

It certainly does depend what one is looking for, doesn't it. That said, there is an issue with smoothness throughout the entire tonal range. For folks that print contrasty, this is often not what they are looking for. They are looking for the impact of the image. Some folks even shoot with infrared! It's not my interest, but they love it. OTOH, if you want a look that rivals a platinum print, which extends each tone, with smooth transition to smooth transition all the way from top to bottom - then the only way you can accomplish it is with a black and white inkset with sufficient number of channels (oh yeah, and superb negs, great scans, lots of knowledge and some experience). That's a matter of physics, and not opinion.

Its the criteria of a "great print" that is the assumption, not the technology. Most historical reference to great prints, with some exceptions, refer to the long tonal range prints vs the short...

Lenny

Lenny - I certainly agree with the part about superb negatives, scans, etc. But I disagree with the notion that you need Cone inks (or any other dedicated monochrome inks) to make the kind of prints you describe. That used to be the case, which was why I used MIS inks for so many years. But it is no longer the case and hasn't been since K3 inks came along and an inexpensive but excellent RIP (QTR) came to market.

I don't ask this question sarcastically or facetiously but rather because I'd like to know: how much time have you actually spent using K3 inks and QTR in a good Epson printer with the kinds of negatives, scans, etc. you describe or how many such prints made by an excellent printer (person, not machine) have you seen?

Michael Gordon

13-Aug-2009, 09:58

Just curious - in what way does the K7 ink set "simply blow out of the water any prints made using ABW or any other combination of colored inks?"

Brian: trying to describe how online is asking the impossible. And of course, my statement is just my opinion. Perhaps the most succinct way for me to state how is smoothness and purity of tone and a richness and depth that I haven't seen in any of my previous efforts. Watch the resolution demo on the Piezography homepage (http://www.piezography.com/) - that should tell you a little.

I'd agree that if one is not making a side-by-side comparison, then most of the current b/w printing methods using color inks (ABW, QTR, etc.) look rather good. Where one really sees the difference is when a Piezography print is viewed next to the same image printed with ABW, for example. Here is where the differences are rather glaring, at least to my eyes.

Lenny Eiger

13-Aug-2009, 10:19

Lenny - I certainly agree with the part about superb negatives, scans, etc. But I disagree with the notion that you need Cone inks (or any other dedicated monochrome inks) to make the kind of prints you describe. That used to be the case, which was why I used MIS inks for so many years. But it is no longer the case and hasn't been since K3 inks came along and an inexpensive but excellent RIP (QTR) came to market.

I don't ask this question sarcastically or facetiously but rather because I'd like to know: how much time have you actually spent using K3 inks in a good Epson printer with the kinds of negatives, scans, etc. you describe or how many such prints made by an excellent printer (person, not machine) have you seen?

I have two printers, one is color, the other b&w. They are both profiled to the hilt. The b&w on the color machine is dead neutral. I have made numerous prints using it. It's a 1-color d'Vinci system, superior to what the Epson K3 inks can do.

Truthfully, there are occasions when a really nice print can be made in this way. However, if you want to create a print with a lot of atmosphere, you can see that the transitions between the tones just aren't there. One wouldn't want to do a photo with mist in it, for example.

Lenny

Brian Ellis

13-Aug-2009, 10:30

Brian: trying to describe how online is asking the impossible. And of course, my statement is just my opinion. Perhaps the most succinct way for me to state how is smoothness and purity of tone and a richness and depth that I haven't seen in any of my previous efforts. Watch the resolution demo on the Piezography homepage (http://www.piezography.com/) - that should tell you a little.

I'd agree that if one is not making a side-by-side comparison, then most of the current b/w printing methods using color inks (ABW, QTR, etc.) look rather good. Where one really sees the difference is when a Piezography print is viewed next to the same image printed with ABW, for example. Here is where the differences are rather glaring, at least to my eyes.

Thanks for your response. My quarrel with your ealier post wasn't with your opinion that Cone inks produce better prints than other inks/RIPs. You're entitled to your opinion. It was with the "blows out of the water" (and "discerning printers") stuff. I think that kind of exaggerated (IMHO) statement, especially without any explanation of the basis for the statement, does a disservice to people considering printing b&w digitally because it leads them to think they can't make excellent b&w prints unless they buy the Cone system, which I don't believe is the case.

I'm not a fan of Advanced B&W as you can tell from my previous message. On the basis of the few times I've used it I think it produces good results but not the best possible results. So I haven't made the comparisons you mention between it and Cone inks. I have, however, seen a lot of prints made with Cone inks as I mentioned in my earlier message. They were very fine prints but not IMHO better than what I can do with QTR and K3 inks, certainly not on an order of "blows everything out of the water" magnitude.

I won't pursue this further, I appreciate your response and I don't want to turn this into the ink version of a film/digital tirade. I'll just paraphrase what Tyler Boley said in a previous message, that regardless of the particular system one chooses to use, this is a great time to be a serious b&w printer with the many wonderful tools available to us.

Bruce Watson

13-Aug-2009, 10:31

...that this is a great time to be a serious b&w printer with the many wonderful tools available to us.

Ain't that the truth!

Brian Ellis

13-Aug-2009, 10:42

This thread reminds me about the Fred Picker demo prints that I bought before the internet was available to me. I bought into the notes and waited patiently for each issue. At the time I thought I was a pretty good printer and I was being told that if I bought these wonderful prints and put them in my darkroom , the beauty of them would inspire me to become a better printer overnight.
So I bought them, waited with great enjoyment in knowing I was going to see the best prints in the world.
Well they arrived, I took one look at the chalky whites and dead blacks and with a lesson learned threw them into bin 9 where they belonged.
I have had the luck to be able to see most processes including piezo , digital fibre, cannon black whites, enlarger black whites, platinum, azo, gum,carbon, tricolourcarbon,................
which one is better, depends on the viewer and their tastes.

Funny but I did the exact same thing, bought all four of Picker's prints, opened up the package, and thought there was some mistake, that he had sent me prints made by his sister maybe. I learned a lot from Fred Picker's book and videos and I don't mean to claim he was a charlatan or anything like that. But those prints that he sold for $25 each I think it was couldn't have been examples of his best work.

I don't think I knew what a really great b&w print could look like until I attended my first John Sexton workshop. Obviously there's much more to John's prints than just the technical aspects but when he put his prints up on the wall for discussion in that first workshop (I later attended three more) I thought I'd die happy if I could make just one print that good.

Lenny Eiger

13-Aug-2009, 10:50

I don't think I knew what a really great b&w print could look like until I attended my first John Sexton workshop. Obviously there's much more to John's prints than just the technical aspects but when he put his prints up on the wall for discussion in that first workshop (I later attended three more) I thought I'd die happy if I could make just one print that good.

Brian,

This is quite telling. If one is after the look of a Sexton print, then color inks and glossier paper is in order.

It wouldn't be my favorite. But that's not a value judgement, he's a nice guy, it's just up to everyone's taste......

Lenny

Brian Ellis

13-Aug-2009, 10:55

A while back I purchased a few prints from that I would say is among the most "discernable B&W photographer/printers" here on this forum thinking I was finally going to get the chance to see a print made with the heralded Cone inkset. We don't get to see what you guys in the big cities see in the "Tundra" that often. He was however quick to tell me that they weren't made with the Cone inks after all and that he would be glad to refund my money if I thought that they were. He went on to explain that he had to take back several prints due to fading issues. Apparently Cone has since improved his formula and my "discernable" photographer friend is going to try them again. If this is the formula that you all have been using for "years", I'd be wondering.

Cone had a number of issues in years past with various claims for his inks that didn't pan out. That's one reason why I chose MIS over Cone back when I decided to go with a dedicated monochrome ink set. In fairness though, I think those issues are in the past and if they exist with the present inks I haven't heard about it.

Tyler Boley

13-Aug-2009, 11:32

I have a lot to say about this thread, but so far am content to let you all hash it out...
Regarding Cone ink issues, those original Sundance inks are long long in the past, and Jon spent much of his life in court with the manufacturer over issues related to them.
I even testified.

Piezotones, which were the next generation and still wonderful viable inks, and then the next generation, the K6&7 sets, have nothing to do with the Sundance inks and at Aardenburg Imaging & Archives initial results indicate both sets will have better B&W longevity than any other B&W ink process to date.
It's unfortunate that this list alone was the one where attempts to raise awareness and support for Aardenburg Imaging & Archives generated no interest whatsoever.

Despite attempting to take care of his customers at his own expense at the risk of legal exposure back then, then the heavy impact of a long expensive lawsuit, then the development of two generations of top quality inks that move the craft of B&W photography forward more than any others, the Sundance inks debacle continues to be brought up.
Other clarifications- things have evolved so much in recent years that these constant referrals to clunky old printers, difficult RIPS, fussy processes, etc. are simply misleading. These are plug and play systems, easy to set up and use, with no performance issues. In fact the inks are less problematic the the OEM Epson inks.

Can we put these kinds of outdated and unfair references to rest?

By the way, I've found people think I'm somehow connected to Cone. Absolutely not the case. I do find his products excel and fulfill my needs where others fall short. I also am a strong supporter of his efforts, no one else developing products for us are at his level of innovation, an artist, photographer and great printer himself, with a proven record of knowing the difference between a great print and an amazing print.
Nobody, no one. Yeah, I'll stand up for that. You bet. Some other development comes along that puts everything else to shame, I'll stand up for that too.
Our tools are being developed by board rooms now, instead of dedicated developers with a history and passion for the art, the likes of Edwin Land etc.
Thanks,
Tyler

Brian Ellis

13-Aug-2009, 11:36

I have two printers, one is color, the other b&w. They are both profiled to the hilt. The b&w on the color machine is dead neutral. I have made numerous prints using it. It's a 1-color d'Vinci system, superior to what the Epson K3 inks can do.

Truthfully, there are occasions when a really nice print can be made in this way. However, if you want to create a print with a lot of atmosphere, you can see that the transitions between the tones just aren't there. One wouldn't want to do a photo with mist in it, for example.

Lenny

Actually I didn't ask what system you used or for a comparison of your system with Epson K3 inks. I asked about the extent of your experience with K3 inks and QTR. I asked because you've made some fairly emphatic statements about the inability of any color system to match dedicated b&w inks. And since I think Epson K3 inks with QTR is the best of the color systems, it seemed appropriate to ask about your experience with that combination. If you don't want to answer, that's fine, there's no need to answer. I don't want to sound antagonistic or get into an argument so I'll just drop the subject at this point. Thanks again for the response.

bvstaples

13-Aug-2009, 11:43

Sometimes it's more expensive to make those old printers with all those expensive RIPs and inksets to catch up to the new printers that really aren't that expensive to begin with.

FWIW, I printed commercially in a wet darkroom for about 30 years when about 10-12 years ago I got turned on to working in the "daylight" and never looked back. IMO the papers that are available today aren't close to the papers we had back then. Digital printing is just getting better everyday.

I like working in the darkroom for the shear pleasure of the mechanical process. But you're correct that digital is fantastic stuff these days.

After working for about two months to get my 1280/MIS/QTR system tweaked, I just printed some outstanding stuff yesterday. And someday I will move up to a better printer and CIS, but for right now I just don't have the cash. Sometimes we just have to work with what we have.

Brian

Tyler Boley

13-Aug-2009, 11:47

Cone had a number of issues in years past... ...In fairness though, I think those issues are in the past and if they exist with the present inks I haven't heard about it.

by the way Brian, I wasn't picking on you, your post just gave me the opportunity to get some "stuff" out...

Tyler

Chris Strobel

13-Aug-2009, 11:57

I have an old Epson 1160.I started with Jon Cones inks on it, then switched to MIS inks.I still run it with MIS inks to this day printing on photorag 308.I also bought an Epson 4800 2 years ago, and use velvet fine art with ABW mode.When the prints are mounted and framed behind glass I can't tell which printer did which.

Brian Ellis

13-Aug-2009, 12:16

Brian,

This is quite telling. If one is after the look of a Sexton print, then color inks and glossier paper is in order.

It wouldn't be my favorite. But that's not a value judgement, he's a nice guy, it's just up to everyone's taste......

Lenny

I actually use matte paper mostly. I'm not aware that I'm trying for "the look" of a Sexton print. I'm not even sure what "look" that would be except that I think he's an excellent printer and I try to make excellent prints.

Greg Lockrey

13-Aug-2009, 13:10

I like working in the darkroom for the shear pleasure of the mechanical process. But you're correct that digital is fantastic stuff these days.

After working for about two months to get my 1280/MIS/QTR system tweaked, I just printed some outstanding stuff yesterday. And someday I will move up to a better printer and CIS, but for right now I just don't have the cash. Sometimes we just have to work with what we have.

Brian

I'm with you there.. myself I've been looking at the carbon transfer process. As an artist foremost I like the idea of getting my hands into the work. But to make a living I try to be as "lazy" as I can and go as inexpensively as possible and meet the client's requirements. There is a lot of hype that has to be analyzed because mistakes get very expnsive fast. It's hard to determine your needs without knowing at what level you may be. I try to help others based on the path that I took that is successful for my needs so that you don't have to make some of the mistakes I made along the way.

Ed Richards

13-Aug-2009, 13:42

If you want to get great prints with the minimum amount of pain, get a 3800 and print with the ABW setting, using Harmon FB glossy, regular or warm. This even beats my very expensive RIP. Harmon FB glossy is the best glossy black and white paper I have found, if you want the look of a classic neutral silver print. I am not saying that this the solution for any other paper, it just happens that the ABW setting for Epson Glossy is a perfect match to Harmon. (I even had the RIP maker do a custom profile for my printer, and it still was not as good.)

If you like to screw with equipment, go for a third party ink solution. If you want to print on matte paper, get a water color kit.:-)

More seriously, paper is more important than printers, in that you need different solutions for different papers. I have seen nothing that beats Epson ABW on Harmon Glossy FB for the look of traditional silver glossy dried matte prints. But if you want a different look, esp. for matte papers or textured papers, you may need a different solution entirely.

Ed

Michael Gordon

13-Aug-2009, 13:54

If you like to screw with equipment, go for a third party ink solution.

I can't speak for other systems, but as aforementioned, Cone K7 inks, QTR, and any supported Epson printer provides a virtually plug and play experience. There is no screwing with equipment.

Michael Gordon

13-Aug-2009, 14:03

Thanks for your response. My quarrel with your earlier post wasn't with your opinion that Cone inks produce better prints than other inks/RIPs. You're entitled to your opinion. It was with the "blows out of the water" (and "discerning printers") stuff.

I tried to temper the "discerning printers" humor with a smiley, but I guess it didn't work. I was being facetious, Brian. Otherwise, I myself would not have been a "discerning printer" until I had converted to Cone ;)

As for "blows out of the water", I still stand by it. It is my opinion, and I have made the comparisons using my own prints. If I didn't believe the quality of the prints were worth it, I would simplify and save money and use one printer for everything.

I have, however, seen a lot of prints made with Cone inks as I mentioned in my earlier message. They were very fine prints but not IMHO better than what I can do with QTR and K3 inks, certainly not on an order of "blows everything out of the water" magnitude.

Have you made any same-image side-by-side comparisons of K3/QTR with K7/QTR?

I'll just paraphrase what Tyler Boley said in a previous message, that regardless of the particular system one chooses to use, this is a great time to be a serious b&w printer with the many wonderful tools available to us.

I agree!

h2oman

14-Aug-2009, 07:00

venchka

14-Aug-2009, 07:09

Switching black inks in an Epson 3800 is a $5 or $6 operation. Switching everything would be expensive.

Epson isn't the only answer. The Canon 5000-5100 printers are very good. Their ink costs seem to be less than Epson. The bad news is that the machines are more expensive thna the Epson 3800.

Ron Marshall

14-Aug-2009, 07:25

As someone who intends in the next year to start printing B&W on an inkjet, I have enjoyed this thread. It is clear that there is no single answer as to what to do, because one is working with a variety of parameters. If all I wanted to do is print B&W I think I would try the Cone inks, but I may wish to have coor capability out of the same printer, in which case going with the standard Epson inks would be my choice most likely.

Which brings up a question: how difficult is it to change back and forth from the Cone inkset to the Epson K3 inks? would it be reasonable for a person to just stockpile printing jobs, stay color for a couple months, then change to B&W for a couple months, etc?

You would need a set of flush carts, which depending on the model of printer, could be expensive.

I used Cone's NK7 inks for a couple of years. They exibit wonderfully smooth midtone gradation but since they are for matt surfaces only they don't have a great Dmax.

I now run a 3800 with QTR. For images that benefit from a greater Dmax this is a better solution than NK7s.

I have reprinted several images with the 3800 (QTR) to compare with the respective images printed using NK7s; In cases where I don't require a high Dmax, the NK7 prints look better to me.

When space and finances permit, I plan to get a second 3800 to dedicate to NK7 inks. As I still want to print on glossy stock and in color.

But we certainly do have some great options.

Michael Gordon

14-Aug-2009, 08:13

Which brings up a question: how difficult is it to change back and forth from the Cone inkset to the Epson K3 inks? would it be reasonable for a person to just stockpile printing jobs, stay color for a couple months, then change to B&W for a couple months, etc?

It's rather a PITA. I can't imagine anyone liking doing that for long.

paulr

14-Aug-2009, 08:24

This thread reminds me about the Fred Picker demo prints that I bought ...

Hilarious.

But I suspect this has more to do with a certain photographer/salesman than with the possibilities of the gelatin silver process ...

paulr

14-Aug-2009, 08:36

But those prints that he sold for $25 each I think it was couldn't have been examples of his best work.

Maybe they weren't, but he said they were! In his catalog ... I have a few around becase I'm nostalgic ... he says that the price is only low because he makes them in quantity from "perfect" negatives.

I do agree with Mr. Picker that you can learn a lot from looking at other amazing prints ... ones that do the kinds of things you'd like your ownimages do. I don't want them "at my elbow" in the darkroom, but i want to have them around.

For me, those inspiring and instructive prints were the plates in the big Paul Strand book printed by Steinhour press in 4 colors, a tint, and two varnishes, with separations made by Richard Benson. Holy wow the printing of that book is incredible. It also opened my eyes and mind to the possibility of ink on paper. I couldn't make my silver prints look that good!

If it hadn't been for that book, I would have assumed my old mentor had been joking when he first called me up blabbing about the wonders of piezography.

venchka

14-Aug-2009, 08:46

Nobody uses or has tried the Canon 5000-5100 line of printers? Or HP?

Chris Strobel

14-Aug-2009, 09:55

Tyler Boley

14-Aug-2009, 10:05

The high end HPs are quite viable for good B&W. On fine art matte they are true quads, on photo surfaces they are tritones with a gloss optimizer. In fact this seems to be what they are using for the ink Ansel Adams editions. Neither of these options use the color inks, unless the user chooses to change to a mode that does, for toning purposes.
I believe the smallest model using these inks and processes is 24".
The image quality still falls short of K7, or even a great quad with the proper inksets, for matte, though it is certainly good. The quality of the photo surface setups rivals anything else on the market for ink, other than perhaps a gloss 2 pass K7 setup with the MPS inkset.
The Cone sets are doing better than the HP inks in current longevity testing as well.
I have seen many HP B&W prints from my friend John Dean, a great printer, who also though has Cone K6 and K7 setups when higher quality and different hue is required.
Canon has an inkset similar to the HP, including a gloss optimizer, that is supposed to work well, but it seems to have the lowest resolution and most visible dither. I believe they have a 17" printer that deserves some attention, but since it has not caught on I've seen no examples. Bowhaus makes an advanced driver specifically for optimizing B&W from the Canons that looks very well thought out-
http://www.trueblackandwhite.com/
I know a few people using it, but have seen no prints.
Tyler

venchka

14-Aug-2009, 10:54

Thank you Tyler.

rdenney

14-Aug-2009, 11:04

As someone who intends in the next year to start printing B&W on an inkjet, I have enjoyed this thread. It is clear that there is no single answer as to what to do, because one is working with a variety of parameters. If all I wanted to do is print B&W I think I would try the Cone inks, but I may wish to have coor capability out of the same printer, in which case going with the standard Epson inks would be my choice most likely.

Which brings up a question: how difficult is it to change back and forth from the Cone inkset to the Epson K3 inks? would it be reasonable for a person to just stockpile printing jobs, stay color for a couple months, then change to B&W for a couple months, etc?

I've investigated it and I don't think it's at all reasonable to switch back and forth. It would require a lot of flushing and cleaning, because the inks are not compatible. Think of how much ink the 4800 consumes moving back and forth between photo black and photo matte, and then multiply that times all the color cartridges.

If I were going to use a continuous flow system like that, I think my only option would be to dedicate a printer.

I'm in this situation right now. For now, I'm going to see how good I can get with the built-in capability of the K3 inks using ABW. So far, on the glossy paper that I prefer, the results are really impressive, and already very close to what I could do conventionally back when I was going that way. If I get to the point where I feel like it's holding me back, then I'll explore an alternative. Given that far better printers than myself are not in full agreement here, that suggests to me that exploring the potential of the Epson built-in capability before doing anything else will not be time or effort wasted.

Rick "who does both black and white and color, and only has one printer" Denney

rdenney

14-Aug-2009, 11:17

I do agree with Mr. Picker that you can learn a lot from looking at other amazing prints ... ones that do the kinds of things you'd like your ownimages do. I don't want them "at my elbow" in the darkroom, but i want to have them around.

For me, those inspiring and instructive prints were the plates in the big Paul Strand book printed by Steinhour press in 4 colors, a tint, and two varnishes, with separations made by Richard Benson. Holy wow the printing of that book is incredible. It also opened my eyes and mind to the possibility of ink on paper. I couldn't make my silver prints look that good!

I have a couple of the Adams Special Edition Yosemite prints made by Alan Ross, and it is instructive to compare them with the duotone reproductions in Yosemite and the Range of Light, which is no longer state-of-the-art printing but it was when it was printed. The lithography actually finds edges that don't exist in the direct enlargement. I saw the same effect (but not as pronounced) with my 1270, but I don't see it at all on the 3800.

Using the K3 inks and ABW on Epson glossy paper, the blacks I'm getting are at least as rich as those Special Edition prints. I can't compare the gradation--none of my negatives are as good as the 8x10 negatives Ross had access to--and you can't print what isn't there on any printing technology.

Which brings me to another point. I wonder if there is a correlation between the responses here and where in the large-format spectrum the responders work. Maybe 4x5 isn't big enough to bring those differences out as clearly as 8x10 and larger.

Rick "thinking out loud" Denney