Printer vs Old style

[Ron Marshall]

I generally scan at 800-1200 dpi for anything up to 11x14. The ink that came with the printer I think should be good enough. What name brand of inks are good for B&W?

I have used Jon Cone's NK7 inks, from Inkjetmall for printing on matt papers with excellent results. He is currently testing a new formulation that will permit printing on glossy papers and will achieve a greater dmax. To use these inks with the 3800 a CIS must be purchased, and it is expersive for that model.

What you should do is get a good book on digital printing, and put in more time before you contemplate a switch. I can get very good b/w from my 2200 (using the Quad tone RIP), but as others have said, it does take time. At Calumet I have seen very good b/w output from the 3800.

Good luck!

[Clay Turtle]

Funny thing to see a thread in the darkroom section that bearly mentions anything about or having to do with the darkroom? So here, I will add a bit on enlarging . . . I recently have been getting a darkroom set up . . . been so going but I started with doing some contact prints of the 4x5 b&w that I had shot. I had basically inherited the use of the complete darkroom with a Beseler 67SD . . . may be I should rephrase that last statement? A friend had set up a darkroom years ago, but a few years back he was killed but before that he had started to make the transition to digital. To make along story short, I ended up with usage of the darkroom & its equipment. Not to look a gift horse in the mouth but I shelled out 20.00 just to replace the bulb in the enlarger only to find that he had trouble with the voltage regulator & it was blowing bulbs! Which is to say that he had sold out some of the equipment that was in a good state of repair . . .
I had an older Omega 35mm enlarger but had lost the negative carrier so I used it to do some contact prints as I stated before, boy did it feel good to be back in a darkroom again!
In fact, it felt so good that I decided to go out & shoot some b&w with my 35mm.

Actually, I want to do some Clyde Butcher type shooting in LF so I started looking at canoes & kayaks as a means of getting myself & my equipment to isolated areas. Not wanting to take the plunge (or the camera) into those waters, I decided try it with the 35mm first.

It really paid off, not only it I learn what would be necessary to shoot the LF out there but this gave me an excuse to go whole hog & do some printing with the b&w 35mm negatives. I had a box of 5x7 paper (out of date purchase to check bellows & such on the 5x7 camera that I rebuilt) so I printed the roll with it. I hadn't realized how closey the full frame 35mm negative was to the 5x7 format. besides giving me a preview to the use of a kayak & the inherent problems related to that aspect, it gave in insight into the 5x7 format (I am more satisfied with my decision to shoot this format, now). Which as I had been considering getting a LF enlarger, I really think it will need to have 5x7 capacity as well.
Oh, by the way . . . as I was printing a roll of 35mm (36 exposure), I found that I needed to take some time out from the printing so I inserted extra trays into the processing trays before I left. This reduces the effect of having open containers on chemistry , extending their active working life.
PS
I had scanned the contacts & some of the prints (5x7) only to find that the prints had dust spots but then after a long time year or 2 of inactivity (at least as he had started printing digitally) I should have done a better clean up. Probably need to get one of those electrostatic cleaners (both an air & film) as well as the liquid film cleaner that I use. As for that perhaps it would be best to move the computer with the scanner into the darkroom, ya know how those electrostatic & magnetic fields produced by such electronic equipment attract air borne particles.
http://www.captaincynic.com/thread/8...umes.htm#80141

Ever stop to think 'just how much fuel do you lose in the form of evaporation from the tank, especially now with the addition of bio-fuel to extend or alternate to fossil fuel? I mean, the stuff is volatile to begin with (gasoline) without the addition of ethanol, so I wonder just how much fuel have we been losing all along?

Oh, the trick with the trays is commonly used by commercial printers in their tanks (replenishment reservoirs).
Hm . . . ya know I got this pack of 11x14 paper & if I go get ome more chemistry to fill the larger trays . . .

[cjbroadbent]

I would love to compare the old silver printing to the new style but I don't have a darkroom..

My Epson 4000 does better prints than I ever managed when I did have an enlarger.
But if one prints digital, one might as well shoot digital. I would suggest that, to beat both printer and enlarger, one has to contact print. That's where LF has the edge, and that's why it's coming back.

[Clay Turtle]

I purchased a Epson 3800 printer for 4x5 negs and I'm not to crazy about the results. It prints fine at 4x6 but when I try 8x10 the print just does not look like a traditional b&w print. Any tips on printing?? I would love to compare the old silver printing to the new style but I don't have a darkroom. Am i expecting to much or am I doing something wrong. Let me hear your experiences with a 3800 printer.

Haven't really checked (compared) prints but I did have a negative experience related to an inkjet b&w. Customer said it was too dark but I got the feeling that they had expectations of silver gelatin print . . . Which was kind of humorous as I shot color negative film!

My Epson 4000 does better prints than I ever managed when I did have an enlarger.

which just goes to show that printing like shooting is an art (expertise) that has to be mastered. When it comes to digital I would rather let someone else do it, rather than spend the time & energy to learn reach such a position.

[Lenny Eiger]

I generally scan at 800-1200 dpi for anything up to 11x14. The ink that came with the printer I think should be good enough. What name brand of inks are good for B&W?

I like Cone inks much more than the other varieties. You aren't going to get a good black and white print using color inks (altho' you might get a passable one). Unfortunately, you have to get deeper into this... go visit inkjetmall.

There are plenty of folks who know about this, and you can visit them, depending on where you are....

Inkjet quality is absolutely amazing. I don't want to start another discussion on this, or compare one to the other. Let's just say the prints can be great. It's a matter of having the right tools, materials and knowledge to get there.

You might pick up a copy of Amadou's book...

Mastering Digital Black and White: A Photographer's Guide to High Quality Black-and-White Imaging and Printing (Digital Process and Print) (Paperback)
by Amadou Diallo

It's very good info...

Lenny

[Clay Turtle]

Funnu thing tome though is why? I was at my local photo processor's just the other day. They still do b&w printing so while some photo labs have gone to inkjets, other have not. So why would you want to do an inkjet print in b&w? First off ot those responses that giving use of different inks, you still have to have separate jets to produce separate shades of grey which means you have a high end printer strictly setup for b&w!
Now I understand how labs tend to compete with inkjet printer vs digital printer but if you are going to print your own work, why would you go to all the expense to print only b&w inkjets'? At best(?), you only get something that is "as good as" an enlarger print? At least, if you go with an enlarger then you could still print color on it, you would have to use gel filters if you were to use condenser enlarger but at least your b&w would be true 'black & white' prints?

[Bruce Watson]

Funnu thing tome though is why? I was at my local photo processor's just the other day. They still do b&w printing so while some photo labs have gone to inkjets, other have not. So why would you want to do an inkjet print in b&w?

To make the best print possible. Like it or not, digital printing gives you more control. More control of the image, and a huge amount more control over the substrate you print on. There are orders of magnitude more papers, more surfaces, and there are other substrates that the darkroom has never seen, like aluminum sheet, vinyl, mylar, silk, canvas, fabrics of all kinds, etc.

First off ot those responses that giving use of different inks, you still have to have separate jets to produce separate shades of grey which means you have a high end printer strictly setup for b&w!
Now I understand how labs tend to compete with inkjet printer vs digital printer but if you are going to print your own work, why would you go to all the expense to print only b&w inkjets'? At best(?), you only get something that is "as good as" an enlarger print?

I don't understand this prejudice against inkjet prints. Really, I don't. Inkjet prints are better than silver gelatin prints in some ways. Not as good in other ways. IOW, the two media are different. They don't compete, any more than platinum competes with silver gelatin. One is an alternative process to the other. Just like platinum and silver gelatin are alternative processes to each other.

At least, if you go with an enlarger then you could still print color on it, you would have to use gel filters if you were to use condenser enlarger but at least your b&w would be true 'black & white' prints?

Again with the prejudice. Surely you realize that no one process can claim the mantle of "true B&W." Inkjet prints are just as valid B&W prints as platinum, silver gelatin, albumen, carbon, salt, dye transfer,... It's just another process. Nothing more. Nothing less.

[Clay Turtle]

To make the best print possible. Like it or not, digital printing gives you more control. More control of the image, and a huge amount more control over the substrate you print on. There are orders of magnitude more papers, more surfaces, and there are other substrates that the darkroom has never seen, like aluminum sheet, vinyl, mylar, silk, canvas, fabrics of all kinds, etc.

Yes, I agree to some extent . . .
1)digital does give better manipulation of image therefore more control.
2)Inkjets do have a better selection of paper, canvas, etc. Point in fact I would very much like to print some of my work onto window film for application of vehicles & of course I would love to print some wall size murals on canvas, & I even found a place that does your whole vehicle over with your print! Which is great as I find the bigger the better when it comes to inkjets.
3) But if I were to get window film it would probably dark & silver or chrome, not b&w.
4)because inkjets are digital they also have the negative attributes, small prints (file size) don't do justice to LF negatives (chromes). Of course those big prints would cost big bucks which for trade shows might be great but as window tint, it would be expensive for a temporary coating that the sun seems to make of the tinting on cars that have been around for a few years?
Again I may not be communicating well but part of the question is that not knowing the printer he has, just what sizes does he plan to print?

I don't understand this prejudice against inkjet prints. Really, I don't. Inkjet prints are better than silver gelatin prints in some ways. Not as good in other ways. IOW, the two media are different. They don't compete, any more than platinum competes with silver gelatin. One is an alternative process to the other. Just like platinum and silver gelatin are alternative processes to each other.

You are absolutely right there , they shouldn't compete but people do, don't they?

Again with the prejudice. Surely you realize that no one process can claim the mantle of "true B&W." Inkjet prints are just as valid B&W prints as platinum, silver gelatin, albumen, carbon, salt, dye transfer,... It's just another process. Nothing more. Nothing less.

Again Surely (you)I realize that no one process can claim the mantle of "true B&W." As you say black & white & shades of grey, which is why I pointed out that those (commercial) printer using inkjets tend to replace the color cartridges & reformat the printer software to print those shades of grey? Not (Again with the) 'prejudice' but merely pointing out things that he or she may not have stopped to think about so to speak. Now, there is the off chance that LF is not the format being discussed or that say something 32 x what ever may not be what is considered as output? Hey, although the discussion seems to be about b&w. Does mean that considerations of color might be totally out of the picture?
PS:My pro folio is strictly LF, mostly 4x5 but I am adding some 5x7 but that is My prejudice, then again I don't particularly try to foster it upon others.

[Lenny Eiger]

Funnu thing tome though is why? I was at my local photo processor's just the other day. They still do b&w printing so while some photo labs have gone to inkjets, other have not. So why would you want to do an inkjet print in b&w? First off ot those responses that giving use of different inks, you still have to have separate jets to produce separate shades of grey which means you have a high end printer strictly setup for b&w!
Now I understand how labs tend to compete with inkjet printer vs digital printer but if you are going to print your own work, why would you go to all the expense to print only b&w inkjets'? At best(?), you only get something that is "as good as" an enlarger print? At least, if you go with an enlarger then you could still print color on it, you would have to use gel filters if you were to use condenser enlarger but at least your b&w would be true 'black & white' prints?

I only go to the trouble because I haven't seen a print made in a darkroom, mine or anyone else's, that can compare to what can be done with a dedicated b&w inkjet, contact or otherwise. In my opinion, and for what I am trying to accomplish, it is far superior.

That's my answer, and I don't expect it to be anyone else's. It's totally subjective. We are all trying to accomplish different things.

Lenny

[Clay Turtle]

I only go to the trouble because I haven't seen a print made in a darkroom, mine or anyone else's, that can compare to what can be done with a dedicated b&w inkjet, contact or otherwise. In my opinion, and for what I am trying to accomplish, it is far superior.
That's my answer, and I don't expect it to be anyone else's. It's totally subjective. We are all trying to accomplish different things.
Lenny

Yes, you have the ability to make your own decisions but from what was stated . . .

I purchased a Epson 3800 printer for 4x5 negs and I'm not to crazy about the results. It prints fine at 4x6 but when I try 8x10 the print just does not look like a traditional b&w print. Any tips on printing??

It would seem that others may not. Especially the last portion seems to be left unanswered? This section refers to 4x6 print, which would tend to form the question as to format? As I shoot 35mm, I am aware that the 4x6 is a full frame enlargement of that format.

I would love to compare the old silver printing to the new style but I don't have a darkroom. Am i expecting to much or am I doing something wrong.

Not using an Epson printer, I certainly couldn't make any useful comments on it in particular so I offered comments of a general nature to understand 'the old silver printing' & how it relates to the inkjet. So in relation to that I did point out that to achieve a comparable b&w print from an inkjet would require the use of shades of gray to replace the color cartridges. To continue that line of reasoning . . .

If you go to a photo shop & request b&w film, what would you be given?
If you asked for b&w paper would they ask 'do you want emulsion based or inkjet'?

On the other hand in a previous comment

they had expectations of silver gelatin print . . . Which was kind of humorous as I shot color negative film!

Most people using an enlarger would use multi-grade paper with certain gels to print a b&w from a color negative but to get as close as possible I should use Panalure, a Kodak paper which is especially biased (prepared) to give a favorable rendition of color values to b&w. Hmm . . what is that I am saying . . . B&W film has about twice the range or latitude of color negative film but b&w film isn't sensitive to light as color film is . . . the emulsion reacts to light more or less as the camera meter.
It is not just the frequency (color channel) but a proportional relationship of color & intensity that establishes the shade of gray which is reproduced in the print.