Epson Dithered Output

[Alan Goldhammer]

I did this type of comparison about a year ago with the attached image.  It was from a long ago trip to England and taken on Tri-X with a Nikon.  I printed it on Zone VI paper (at least I think that is how it was branded; the manufacturer was a French company as I recall.  I think it was a baryta paper with a high Dmax though the company is long out of business and I don't have any product sheets any longer) and selenium toned it.  When I moved to digital, I scanned the negative with a Nikon Coolscan and printed it on an Epson 3880 in the ABW mode (Ilford Gold Fiber Silk).  Both prints were made at 7x10.  Visually, both images look identical.  You can get a spectral reading from the dense shade at the right hand side of the image which is pretty close to pure black.  There was little difference between the two readings (done with a ColorMunki though I probably should repeat it with my new i1 pro).  

[John R Smith]

As an aside to this debate, really – perhaps I should mention that for the last 30 years my professional career has included the daily very close and often magnified examination of photographic prints (all conventional silver chemistry ones). At work, we use historic photographs extensively for our research, and the majority of those are from very elderly glass-plate negatives which are also large-format, of course. Many of these have exquisite detail and definition, even when viewed under high magnification. The other resource which we make great use of is the RAF vertical B/W coverage of 1946, which is printed to exact linear scale from very large film negatives in stereo pairs. You view these through a stereoscope which also magnifies them, and the detail and sense of vertical scale is extraordinary. So I am very familiar with judging the quality of photographic prints at the forensic level, if you like – it was part of my job. It’s probably not too surprising that I’m applying the same standards to my ink-jet prints and finding them just a little wanting, now and then. Having said that, the print standard which the modern Epsons and the rest produce is really quite amazing, considering that it is not a true continuous-tone process. All I am trying to do is squeeze the last little bit out . . .

John

[elliot_n]

In terms of resolution or smoothness of tonal gradations or colour inconstancy (commonly and erroneously called "metamerism"), I think those horse-races are over with.

I find it hard to believe that an inkjet print could come close to the high resolution and subtle tonality of a contact print made from a large format negative.

[Mark D Segal]

John - Appreciated.

But the historic processes you are accustomed to viewing at the forensic level are not so continuous as one may think. http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/clumps.shtml

[Mark D Segal]

I find it hard to believe that an inkjet print could come close to the high resolution and subtle tonality of a contact print made from a large format negative.

Well Elliott, it's not really a matter of "belief" - it's more a question of comparing comparable things and seeing what your eyes and/or your measuring instruments tell you.

[John R Smith]

But the historic processes you are accustomed to viewing at the forensic level are not so continuous as one may think. http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/clumps.shtml

  Yes, Mark, of course - I had read that a while ago, and it is all true. In practice, though, the screening effect of film grain in large formats (5x4 and above, fine-grain B/W) is much less than the obvious dots from an Epson printer viewed through an 8x loupe in the highlight areas, where the printer can no longer lay down a continuous dither but has to start spacing the dot pattern out. As long as we are talking about small prints, of course. At some point of enlargement, film grain will become as large and obvious as the printer dot pattern, and then the advantage will pass to the inkjet. So as usual, it all depends - on the negative size, the film speed and grain size, and in the digital corner the number of pixels in the image file and the size of the printer dot in pico-liters. So far, I do not believe any inkjet could approach the quality of the RAF vertical prints I mentioned earlier. Or a contact print from a 10x8 negative. But perhaps that time will come.

John