Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Printing: Printers, Papers and Inks => Topic started by: Harry on September 19, 2019, 04:53:11 pm
-
For the first time I have been looking at some darkroom prints and am stunned by the subtle differentiations of textures in the fine detail. The prints are landscapes and village scapes, old wood barns, red rock boulders, twisted tree trunks, grassy fields. I shoot digital and process in Photoshop and get a harsher look with apparently less subtlety.
I wonder if there is a guide to making digital prints more film like, particularly to bring out the textures. I have Silver Efex Pro but am not getting the same look.
-
How are you using Silver EFex Pro? There are film simulations there.
What camera are you using?
Have you tried “texture” in the most recent releases of ACR or Lightroom?
-
For the first time I have been looking at some darkroom prints and am stunned by the subtle differentiations of textures in the fine detail. The prints are landscapes and village scapes, old wood barns, red rock boulders, twisted tree trunks, grassy fields. I shoot digital and process in Photoshop and get a harsher look with apparently less subtlety.
I wonder if there is a guide to making digital prints more film like, particularly to bring out the textures. I have Silver Efex Pro but am not getting the same look.
A huge issue with digital. Often the images can look very clinical. One needs to find a way for their tastes. Many options are available.
Peter
-
My Z3200 prints on Canson Platine with the gloss enhancer followed by two light coats of Premiere Art spray are indistinguishable from silver prints. Usually the spray isn’t even necessary.
A huge issue with digital. Often the images can look very clinical. One needs to find a way for their tastes. Many options are available.
Peter
-
For the first time I have been looking at some darkroom prints and am stunned by the subtle differentiations of textures in the fine detail. The prints are landscapes and village scapes, old wood barns, red rock boulders, twisted tree trunks, grassy fields. I shoot digital and process in Photoshop and get a harsher look with apparently less subtlety.
I wonder if there is a guide to making digital prints more film like, particularly to bring out the textures. I have Silver Efex Pro but am not getting the same look.
Harry, there are basically two easy to see differences between the film and digital processes:
1. Film grain (or lack of it!)
2. Film color rendition vs. digital color rendition
You can artificially add simulated film grain to a digital photograph, so that's kind of easy
And you can simulate the film color palette using some plug-in or film emulation LUT (look up table)
I shoot both film and digital. My 35mm film "look" is the most obvious of film presentations, but my medium format film work is often so fine grained that very few people think it looks like film or digital or see any obvious difference. I will note that even scanned film, does not really show a "film" color palette, unless run through a film emulation as well :) And I often do just that, and it's very convincing.
Lastly, don't over sharpen your images as that can look rather "electronic".
-
For the first time I have been looking at some darkroom prints and am stunned by the subtle differentiations of textures in the fine detail. The prints are landscapes and village scapes, old wood barns, red rock boulders, twisted tree trunks, grassy fields. I shoot digital and process in Photoshop and get a harsher look with apparently less subtlety.
I wonder if there is a guide to making digital prints more film like, particularly to bring out the textures. I have Silver Efex Pro but am not getting the same look.
Presumably you are talking BW darkroom prints? You are probably going to have to scan the prints in question and post them here so folk can see the differences you are seeing. Quite difficult to offer helpful suggestions absent that.
-
I don't think that digital print will ever be the same as analog print. The obvious reason is that in digital printing printer lay out ink on the surface of paper, while in analog one it is inside, on the top of print there is an layer of hardened gelatine, ink or silver particles deep inside.
This change the way lite is reflecting. Digital print is for that reason sensitive and prone to scrathhes.
-
I don't thimk that digital print will ever be the same as analog print. The obvious reason is that in digital printing printer lay out ink on the surface of paper, while in analog one it is inside, on the top of print there is an layer of hardened gelatine, ink or silver particles deep inside.
This change the was lite is reflecting. Digital print is for that reason sensitive and prone to scrathhes.
Sorry no; there are several digital print processes (Lambda, Lightjet, Frontier etc) that use light to expose silver material.
-
Sorry no; there are several digital print processes (Lambda, Lightjet, Frontier etc) that use light to expose silver material.
I don't put that in digital as they use the same process as analogue it is just that projecting picture from enlarger is replace by laser. They are still chemically developed. But if you consider that digital, than you are wright.
-
That’s wrong. The gloss enhancer on some of the HP and Canon printers, and Piezography gloss optimizer provides a very similar encapsulation over the carbon based pigments. If you add the additional uv coat of a solvent spray the latent image is actually more protected than gelatin.
I’ve been looking at a lot of beautifully made silver prints printed in the late 70s and early 80s this week that my client had brought over to scan their negatives and using the vintage prints as a reference and in some cases to scan. I was amazed at how many of the prints had tarnished due to the gelatin wearing thin and exposing the silver. Apparently this happened when prints stacked up were rubbing against each other. I also saw a lot of yellowish brown staining of white borders ( and pure whites in image area). Most of these prints were stored in the dark and suffered from thermal staining ( stored in warm moist to hot conditions) as well as staining from being stored in old photo paper boxes. The gelatin is not as durable as we like to think it is for sealing the image. They are a lot more fragile than is usually thought of. However if they are stored in ideal conditions in regard to humidity, temperature, and away from wood or acidic papers or other air borne toxic conditions ( ozone) they, like pigment prints can last for centuries.
Now there is a metallic quality down in the darkest values of silver prints that can be distinctive. This is one of the reasons why those of us working in the 70s-90s generally printed darker. I went to a class reunion at the University of Arizona a few years ago and saw a show that contained many of my favorite photographers from my student days, Frederick Sommer, Emmit Gowin, Paul Caponigro, Eugene Smith, Aaron Siskind, Wynn Bullock, John Laughlin, Friedlander, etc. and almost everything I saw was printed MUCH, darker that I would even think about today. I thought of those prints as normal in the late 70s.
A noticeable exception was people working in platinum/palladium, like Jan Grover’s beautiful 11x14 and 20x24 contact prints of still life work on platinum, very very subtle light values. But that was very rare.
The sweet spot for silver is dark metallic values and the vast majority of prints were in the 8x10 or 11x14 or maybe an occasional 16x20 range and were viewed very closely. An Ansel Adams 20x24 looked giant in that context.
But today we have much better light and mid tone value dimensionality as well as great dmax, and also usually print larger, giving us many more options, not to mention really cool textures and surfaces to explore. So I wouldn’t want to go back, and have no desire to imitate essentially a 19th century medium when we have so many other great possibilities today.
John
I don't thimk that digital print will ever be the same as analog print. The obvious reason is that in digital printing printer lay out ink on the surface of paper, while in analog one it is inside, on the top of print there is an layer of hardened gelatine, ink or silver particles deep inside.
This change the was lite is reflecting. Digital print is for that reason sensitive and prone to scrathhes.
-
I don't put that in digital as they use the same process as analogue it is just that projecting picture from enlarger is replace by laser. They are still chemically developed. But if you consider that digital, than you are wright.
And yet, they are digital (from digital data).
This generalization is simply that (and wrong):
I don't thimk that digital print will ever be the same as analog print. The obvious reason is that in digital printing printer lay out ink on the surface of paper, while in analog one it is inside, on the top of print there is an layer of hardened gelatine, ink or silver particles deep inside.
-
I wonder if the tendency to print brighter is also a result of us spending so much time looking at our images on a bright display prior to printing them.
-
I wonder if the tendency to print brighter is also a result of us spending so much time looking at our images on a bright display prior to printing them.
Not if the display is properly calibrated to match a print.
-
Exactly, you shouldn’t be viewing your files on a bright screen.
The deal is gelatin silver looked better darker as it didn’t favor high values. I have people all the time wanting me to print dark on inkjet like that to resemble the past, and that is so boring and redundant most of the time.
Not if the display is properly calibrated to match a print.
-
Well, I wouldn't say that darkroom techniques were limited, and that you have more options now. I don't know how it looks on your side of the world, but here in Zagreb, Croatia we had a factory called Fotokemika that made wide variety of papers: from chloride, over chlorobromide to bromide emulsion. And then you were able to choose from matte, pearl, crystal or shiny surface. Each paper was produced on plastic base or on traditional paper base. That all made huge number of possible combinations e.g. I prefer chloride matt paper on traditional paper base. There are papers of various contrast from 0 to 5, and there are also multicontrast papers that opened entire world of possibilities, because if you are skill enough you were able to print different parts of picture with different contrast. They also produce canvas catted or in rolls, and photographic paper in rolls of different size. If you ever use canvas in darkroom it was from Fotokemika, they export it all over the world.
They also made liquid emulsion – you can brush it on any surface you like, which opens new possibilities, I like to use it on artistic watercolor papers, even brush it over the watercolor paintings and that expose black and white picture over it. Liquid emulsion was also made in different gradation or multigrade, also with different composition, chloride or bromide mainly.
Then you have at least 10 different film developer and probably around 20 different paper developer, each combination gives different results. We had Lith printing, toning to various tone in sepia or entire range from selenium to uranium.
Trust me I know what I am talking about, I have master degree in Photochemistry – not photographic chemistry as photochemistry also includes interaction of all kinds of material with light, not just darkroom material, but also interaction of traditional art and painting with light and ozone, I did measure such values in Egypt and Greece around monuments. As a matter of fact, I come to photography over a darkroom work, I needed some photos to work with.
It is easier to do printing now, I agree, but just because it take less time, knowledge or physical skill. There is no undo button or history in darkroom. It is also easier to do large formats, although in the darkroom days I printed 1,5 meters wide prints, on paper or canvas, length depends about format, usually 2 or 2,5 meters, as it was printed mainly from large format negatives.
For this reason, I treat every process in which chemistry is used to develop picture – you run paper through the chemistry to get picture – as analogue one, no matter what is on the input side.
I also need to say something about mechanical properties of darkroom prints. Hardened gelatin is one of the most tough material you will ever see in picture making. It is not prone to scratch, again it depends about manufacturing process, or darkroom use, it was possible to put hardening agent in the fixing bath if it is not hardening in factory. I worked with very old black and white photos, more than century old, I had access to collection of photographs that range from 19 century photos till modern injet printing photos. Darkroom photos was in excellent condition, as it was printed few years ago. Of course, you can even scratch the glass if you want, this means nothing, but inkjet prints are so easily scratched, if you compared it to darkroom prints, that it puts it in completely different category. Also, yellow or brown staining means that darkroom operator did not wash print properly, so there is residual thiosulphate in paper which decompose and stain it.
I also suppose that dark prints were because of „fashion“ not because material was bad. I printed lot more high key photography with an eerie quality than today. What I like today is that it is so easily to print in color, all I was talking about was about black and white prints. Color was a different beast, a dragon for darkroom user.
-
Actually I don’t need to be educated about analogue photography. I’ve done it on the highest level since 1973. I also worked at the Center For Creative Photography as an under graduate student in the late 70s that is an archive containing most all of the great photographs of the world up to that time and houses many of the great archives of 19th century photography. I’ve held thousands of the best of them in my hands.
Staining of bw silver prints due to poor washing or fixing ( or both) is only One possible cause of yellowing or degradation. Since modern ( not 19th century ) silver prints are loaded with dye optical brightening agents, when exposed to daylight they can degrade fairly quickly turning the white areas gray. Maybe there are some papers being made in Eastern Europe that don’t have dye brighteners but I haven’t seen them. I’ve seen this oba burnout over and over here and in exhibitions. Also the gelatin is not so strong, at least not in the last 20 years. I have seen a Lot of beautifully made archival processed prints from highly skilled professionals on Ilford and Agfa fiber media where they have badly tarnished due to worn down gelatin, and these prints were not viewed or handled much at all! Then there is the staining from storing in hot places that turns the edges yellowish brown ( thermal fade ). Like I said stored in cool dry dark conditions they can last centuries, just like well made pigment prints. My sprayed Platine prints are a lot more physically durable than gelatin.
Yes I made my own developers with various tweaks of print colors from many mixes of silver formulas and multiple toners and split toners but it’s a crude capability compared to what is available today. This isn’t my opinion, it’s just an obvious fact.
Now Platinum/ Palladium is a different story and can last practically forever if produced correctly. ( if stored away from pollution).
Does gelatin silver have its own visual sweet spot, yes, but almost all of that is eliminated when shown behind glass.
If making analogue printing and shooting film ( which I sometimes do ) slows people down and improves their personal aesthetic, than by all means it’s valuable so do it. For me it’s usually just an expensive, environmentally unsound toxic hassle.
Is analogue as versatile or capable as modern pigment options, of course not, but that won’t stop people from fetishizing the past as people always do. I would also point out that making great pigment prints is only easier in the respect that you don’t have to deal with and breathe poisonous nasty expensive chemicals and waste tons of valuable drinking water to make noticeably smaller prints from much more expensive precious metal. Because something that inherently takes longer doesn’t make it better or make it last longer. One final thing, have you ever been able to keep a silver print flat in a portfolio without matting or mounting? My carbon based pigment prints on Canson and Hahnemuhle 100% cotton semi gloss papers stay totally flat and that’s great. I’m not going back. If it were only the issue of wasting water, that would be enough,
John
-
I am not fetishizing the past, I am just pointing out that we had many different choices even then. I would not go back to darkroom, I totaly agree with you, except that I do not understand your statement that pigment print is more durable than traditional darkroom print. From my experince that is completly opposite. And yes I have many flat darkroom prints - you just need drying machine, not hang it on the rope, as they always show it in movies.
Your experience about darkroom print may be different from mine because Fotokemika papers, which whome i work as what we will call today beta tester, are different than western papers. In the west they use cadmium salts to make emulsion stabile, when due to environmetal protection they ban cadmiun from paper they lost their quality. Fotokemika use gold salts as stabilizer. That make their paper much more expensive, but also much better quality.
This now goes in wrong direction, this is not darkroom group.
My statement is:
film prints will never look same as digital prints - that doesn't mean they are better - just different, the same way as digital prints will never look the same as picture on monitor, just different experience.
I handle prints from 19th century that looks great, your statment about mechanical superiority of digital print will need about 100 years to be tested.
I have in my hands darkroom prints that have surface very tough and hard, close to plexy, even harder. If you don't saw them that doesn't mean they do not exist. If someone try to scratch it with nail there is no trace or scratch. I will like to try to scratch some of your print to se how it will stand that test.
-
I totaly agree with you, except that I do not understand your statement that pigment print is more durable than traditional darkroom print.
It's simply a fact! Just examine the testing done here and here:
http://wilhelm-research.com
http://aardenburg-imaging.com
Even Ciba can't compare in terms of the archival properties of pigmented inks. And of course, the best approach with either technology is to avoid OAB's in papers.
http://digitaldog.net/files/24TroubleWithFWAs.pdf
-
When I transitioned from silver printing to predominately carbon pigment inkjet printing, I had a number of shows that had prints of both types displayed together. That, was a problem. The silver prints that used to look excellent when displayed by themselves looked second rate compared to the inkjet, "carbon pigment" prints. I found I could not hang them close to each other. I think the main reason was that with inkjet printing the characteristic curve can have, in effect, a straight line right up to the paper white. The silver prints, unless bleached, have a sloping white end of their curve that makes the highlights seem dull next to modern, well done inkjet prints. There is/was and very good reason Bruce Barnbaum and others bleached their silver prints. But bleaching is a nasty chemical process that I would not wish on anyone.
Then there is the issue of archival keeping. I found airborne acids were attacking my old silver prints that were stored in a metal cabinet. I could actually see the yellowing on the backs of the silver prints, coming in from the edges of the prints. The acid stop bath makes buffering silver print paper impossible. Inkjet printing paper, on the other hand, can be buffered to resist the airborne acids.
I appreciate those who keep historic, now "alternative," processes alive, but for me, consistent with the pattern of my sales of photographs, it's the image that matters, not the process. As one who has always had an inclination to experiment with the various processes, I have to rather regularly remind myself of that.
So, while I keep a few of my favorite old film cameras on shelves in glass display cabinets for nostalgia reasons, I will never go back to film, silver prints, and the "wet" darkroom. Technology has moved on. Nothing is perfect, but there are lots of reasons the market has moved to where it is today.
Rather than try to emulate past, historic processes, I would urge photographers to strive to optimize their art using today's superior technologies. The "good old days" were not really that good compared to what can be done today.
FWIW
Paul
www.PaulRoark.com
-
I recall back in the '70s when I was shooting a lot of large format (4x5) B&W and colour landscapes etc. At that time it had been almost 10 years since I had done much B&W photography of any sort, since I was then working at a custom colour lab in Toronto and was able to print all of my own colour negs as well. I eventually left that lab and set up my own lab business east of the city which I moved to my home location in early 2017. Even though I had the equipment for B&W printing at that time, my business was centred around colour printing and processing, so B&W fell by the wayside. As mentioned, I did get back to shooting B&W and enjoyed it immensely. To para phase a rather well known statement from a movie of that era - Apocalypse Now, I loved the smell of HYPO in the morning. I was using high grade lenses both in the field and in the darkroom, but somehow there was still something missing, until I read a very interesting article in the magazine - Photo Technique and set about the procedure of creating unsharp masks and sandwiching them with my 4x5 B&W negs to produce sharper prints with noticeably more detail. Of course the Unsharp Masking procedure was eventually incorporated in a computer program named Photoshop and now included with almost all of the various image editing software available today.
I still love the look of the B&W prints I was able to produce with the masks, but I must say that I would never go back to the darkroom just to perhaps mimic those days. There are many apps and plugins that will allow one to create somewhat the same LOOK as we would get in the darkroom. I do not use any of them because in my opinion I can produce a superior print with my ancient version(CS-6) of Photoshop and my Epson P7000. The secret of course is to know when to stop. I see a lot of overdone digital prints in which the application of sharpening, colour saturation, contrast, etc. etc. produce a personal response akin to poking my eyes with a very sharp stick. In my opinion, knowing when to stop is the essence of producing a print that is preferable to all of the senses.
-
Thanks for that Paul. Another memory from the wet darkroom days - print bleaching. I've been trying to recall the name of the chemical, although I think it was something - ferracyanide, but that's probably wrong. We used to call it Sunshine In A Bottle, or The Zone System in a Bottle. I will admit it did do the job when necessary. But as I mentioned in my previous post, knowing when to stop was imperative when using that chemical procedure. One always had to keep in mind that the STOPPING point was just before you see what you want, since one could easily go too far and then be reprinting. Also keep that water flowing to dilute the chemical if needed.
FUN and GAMES in the darkroom - An Amber Glow of the past :)
-
It's simply a fact! Just examine the testing done here and here:
http://wilhelm-research.com
http://aardenburg-imaging.com
Even Ciba can't compare in terms of the archival properties of pigmented inks. And of course, the best approach with either technology is to avoid OAB's in papers.
http://digitaldog.net/files/24TroubleWithFWAs.pdf
I am not talking about arhival properties, I am talking about scratch resistance of the surface.
Anyway is easy to reprint if you damage the surface of inkjet print.
Old papers do not use OAB.
-
I am not talking about arhival properties, I am talking about scratch resistance of the surface.
Which of course you didn't state (even if true).
Anyway is easy to reprint if you damage the surface of inkjet print.
Sure is. And some ink jet papers are far more scratch resistant than others, another issue with your generalizations! Epson Exhibition Fiber is far more delicate than Luster. That's not a generalization, it's just another specified fact.
Old papers do not use OAB.
Yet another generalization. Old is an undefined metric. Some papers do have OBAs, some don't. Do attempt to be specific with your comments please. ;)
-
Which of course you didn't state (even if true).
Sure is. And some ink jet papers are far more scratch resistant than others, another issue with your generalizations! Epson Exhibition Fiber is far more delicate than Luster. That's not a generalization, it's just another specified fact.Yet another generalization. Old is an undefined metric. Some papers do have OBAs, some don't. Do attempt to be specific with your comments please. ;)
I don't want to be rude, but from my writing it is easy to dedicate what I am talking about if you read it and process information in a proper way.
1. I talked of hardness of the surface, event mentioned nail scratch test.
2. whatever inkjet paper you use it doesn't matter - surface is not as resistant to scratches as hardened gellatine.
3. I talked about about 19-th century photography, mention it several time - that is what I mean old.
Anyway I feel that I'm just lost my time trying to explain some, from my experience, well known facts. This is not scientific magazine, and I do not write science paper.
Have a good day.
-
I talked of hardness of the surface, event mentioned nail scratch test.
Anybody here drag their nails across their prints?
-
I don't want to be rude, but from my writing it is easy to dedicate what I am talking about if you read it and process information in a proper way.
1. I talked of hardness of the surface, event mentioned nail scratch test.
2. whatever inkjet paper you use it doesn't matter - surface is not as resistant to scratches as hardened gellatine.
3. I talked about about 19-th century photography, mention it several time - that is what I mean old.
Anyway I feel that I'm just lost my time trying to explain some, from my experience, well known facts. This is not scientific magazine, and I do not write science paper.
Have a good day.
"I have in my hands darkroom prints that have surface very tough and hard, close to plexy, even harder. If you don't saw them that doesn't mean they do not exist. If someone try to scratch it with nail there is no trace or scratch. I will like to try to scratch some of your print to see how it will stand that test."
I'm obviously missing something here. In both of these posts you have mentioned the issue of hardened gellatine being much more scratch resistant than any of the papers we use today to print from digital image files. Since I have never ever tried the nail test on any photographic paper I've used I cannot provide any sort argument to your assertion. Therefore I can only ask this question. How do you handle your printed images, and do you first use the nail test to make sure the surface of the paper will stand up to your personal specifications? Of course I am being somewhat facetious by asking such a question, but not totally. Therefore I can only surmise that you are rather heavy handed when it comes to handling photographic prints, hard gellatine or otherwise. Obviously I do agree that inkjet papers are less resistant to abrasions than most gellatine papers, but somehow that has never been an issue for me. When I am printing on inkjet matte surface papers for customers I include a note informing them to handle with care, especially if the image contains a lot of deep blacks which can burnish rather easily. Perhaps I should now add to that note not use nails anywhere near these papers. :) ;D
WHOOPS!¡! I think I might have misinterpreted something in your posts that you didn't make clear. I believe you may have been referring to ones fingernails, not necessarily the carpentry variety. If that is the case I apologize. However, I will say that running my fingernails across the printed image has also never occurred to me as being a necessity.
-
WHOOPS!¡! I think I might have misinterpreted something in your posts that you didn't make clear. I believe you may have been referring to ones fingernails, not necessarily the carpentry variety. If that is the case I apologize. However, I will say that running my fingernails across the printed image as also never occurred to me as being a necessity.
Ditto. On all of the above.
-
My first post:
I don't thimk that digital print will ever be the same as analog print. The obvious reason is that in digital printing printer lay out ink on the surface of paper, while in analog one it is inside, on the top of print there is an layer of hardened gelatine, ink or silver particles deep inside.
This change the was lite is reflecting. Digital print is for that reason sensitive and prone to scrathhes.
John reply:
That’s wrong. The gloss enhancer on some of the HP and Canon printers, and Piezography gloss optimizer provides a very similar encapsulation over the carbon based pigments. If you add the additional uv coat of a solvent spray the latent image is actually more protected than gelatin.
I just compare how is surface prone to scratches. I do not test it like that, but accidents do happen and some information is gathered that way. Yes I ment fingernail, sorry I am not native English speaker, I do make a mistake.
-
For the first time I have been looking at some darkroom prints and am stunned by the subtle differentiations of textures in the fine detail. The prints are landscapes and village scapes, old wood barns, red rock boulders, twisted tree trunks, grassy fields. I shoot digital and process in Photoshop and get a harsher look with apparently less subtlety.
I wonder if there is a guide to making digital prints more film like, particularly to bring out the textures. I have Silver Efex Pro but am not getting the same look.
Digital sensors, today's lenses (and even some vintage lenses), monitors, editing software, printing software, digital printers and papers, are very capable to deliver subtle differentiations of textures in the fine detail, or whatever image quality you see in analogue B&W prints. Even the "character" of silver halide prints, like paper white, paper texture, can be found in the diversity of available digital papers + finishing methods these days.
At the stage where you start editing the images, correct color management + compatible viewing conditions are needed for getting it right on the monitor and with the printer/paper. Loss of texture and detail information can also be caused by using mediocre editing methods and printing software. More dedicated tools and ink sets for B&W printing exist to improve on that all.
There is a B&W forum on this site. Also check the website of Paul Roark for information, he replied in this thread as well.
Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
March 2017 update, 750+ inkjet media white spectral plo
-
Old papers do not use OAB.
You have to go back 70 years I guess to find a manufacturer's silver halide paper catalog that had only papers without OBA content. Since then only very warm portrait papers may have been without OBA. Today's Harman made Ilford Multigrade Warmtone Semi-Matt is not even free of it and that is the warmest silver halide B&W paper in their catalog.
http://cool.conservation-us.org/jaic/articles/jaic44-01-001.html
Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
March 2017 update, 750+ inkjet media white spectral plots
-
Sorry no; there are several digital print processes (Lambda, Lightjet, Frontier etc) that use light to expose silver material.
True, they are digital printers as well. Few however are used to print on B&W silver halide papers. I doubt the normal ones using chromogenic paper can simulate an old analogue printed B&W silver halide print in dynamic range and neutrality of the greys. Not to mention the limited choice in paper qualities.
Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
March 2017 update, 750+ inkjet media white spectral plots
-
True, they are digital printers as well. Few however are used to print on B&W silver halide papers. I doubt the normal ones using chromogenic paper can simulate an old analogue printed B&W silver halide print in dynamic range and neutrality of the greys. Not to mention the limited choice in paper qualities.
Few perhaps but some do exist. Using the same paper and processing as analog printing, I can not fathom why there would be any reduction in DR.
-
To finish this discussion for me. "I don't think that digital print will ever be the same as analog print". I agree totally Damir. When all we had was a darkroom (both dry and wet), chemicals and the available papers of that time, we tried to produce the best print we could manage. And yes, I also agree that there were various ways of accomplishing that, both during the enlarging and the processing stages of the final print. I have mentioned in this thread a couple of procedures I used to enhance the sharpness and detail of the print. In the processing of the print there were also various ways of controlling the final outcome. Yes, we did indeed use various procedures to produce the print as we had envisioned it. That would often involve many hours just to produce the final print and then repeat that procedure to produce more prints while all of the information was fresh. I still have some of my old "mock up" prints with the printing instructions written on them for future prints if necessary. Those prints would now look like a road map, which is exactly what they were of course. A road map to a future print that would look like the original as closely as possible.
Having said all of that I will once again use the quote above - "I don't think that digital print will ever be the same as analog print". And yes, I agree totally, simply due to the fact that if done properly, the digital print is superior in many ways. Notice I used the word fact, so I will finish with this Damir. You have voiced your opinion and I have done the same.
-
In the U.S. at least there are several labs that print digital files using traditional-type silver-halide B&W papers and chemicals. I have attached a chart that I recently compiled on the ones I could readily identify. Some print on fiber-based paper, some print on resin-coated paper, and some print on both types. The available papers and surfaces differ, although most (all?) of the labs that offer prints on resin-coated paper use Ilford's paper designed to be printed on wet minilab-type equipment. Ilford sells that paper in glossy and 'pearl' surfaces. The pearl is about like luster. Personally I would have preferred Ilford to offer their 'satin' RC surface, which IMO is closer to matte. The range of prices is large, the cost of an 8x10 inch print running from $3.52 to $45.00 or more (toning etc.).
I have made some comparisons of RC prints from the first three (Mpix, Harman / Ilford, and Fromex / True B&W) with prints of the same files I made on a Canon Pro-100 (dye-ink) printer with papers with similar surfaces. Overall they are pretty close, but I won't say identical. Obviously if you are using pigment inks and/or matte papers the difference could be large.
What I cannot do is make close comparisons of these digital B&W prints to wet B&W prints from film. Not only have I not had a functioning wet darkroom since 2005, but there are too many process differences. I will let you experts discuss and debate that.
To me, potentially-important but unanswered questions include:
(1) are there any traditional-type B&W papers for sale today that are neutral (not warm-tone) that don't contain substantial amounts of OBAs?
(2) Does exposing the paper for a comparatively short time, to comparatively much more intense light, as is done with a typical digital printer, produce some effect that makes the resulting print differ substantially from one made under an enlarger with, say, a 10 s exposure? As a corollary, does the performance of papers designed for short, intense exposures differ meaningfully from the performance of papers designed for longer, less-intense exposures?
-
Wow
What a wonderful discussion about the photographic printing process by some very knowledgable people that have transitioned from the "good old days" to the digital inkjet reality of today. Yes, today's prints are different than yester-years. But remember, the medium of photography has been evolving from the day of it's inception, just not to the extent that we have seen since the digital revolution of the 1990's and early 2000's. Thank you one and all for your personal insights and experiences.
-
Thanks for that Paul. Another memory from the wet darkroom days - print bleaching. I've been trying to recall the name of the chemical, although I think it was something - ferracyanide, but that's probably wrong. We used to call it Sunshine In A Bottle, or The Zone System in a Bottle. I will admit it did do the job when necessary. But as I mentioned in my previous post, knowing when to stop was imperative when using that chemical procedure. One always had to keep in mind that the STOPPING point was just before you see what you want, since one could easily go too far and then be reprinting. Also keep that water flowing to dilute the chemical if needed.
FUN and GAMES in the darkroom - An Amber Glow of the past :)
Potassium ferricyanide....actually it's not that bad (not toxic even though it has cyanide in the name, unless you drop it in concentrated acid, that is.)
-
Potassium ferricyanide....actually it's not that bad (not toxic even though it has cyanide in the name, unless you drop it in concentrated acid, that is.)
HMMMMMM ••••• Not sure you should have included the last part of your previous reply - if you know what I mean. ??? :) However, I doubt anyone on this list would be so reckless as to try it - I hope. 8)
-
Standard issue! Does not work with inkjet prints.
-
HMMMMMM ••••• Not sure you should have included the last part of your previous reply - if you know what I mean. ??? :) However, I doubt anyone on this list would be so reckless as to try it - I hope. 8)
I wanted to make sure people don't start mixing stuff based on what I said about it being non-toxic. If I understand it correctly (no first hand knowledege :))) it requires fairly strong acid, like 90% HCl or something like that to split the cyanide from the ferricyanide so it is not accomplished that easily. If one ingests it, the stomach acid is not strong enough to make cyanide gas. Many anecdotal cases of people trying to commit suicide by eating some of this thinking it was cyanide and lived to tell their story.
-
Potassium ferricyanide....actually it's not that bad (not toxic even though it has cyanide in the name, unless you drop it in concentrated acid, that is.)
LOL!!! I'm reminded of my qualitative organic chemistry class some years ago. Each week the professor would bring in a natural substance and circulate it around the class for us to smell and guess the functional group. One lecture he had a mortar and pestle and was grinding up some leaves. He sent it around for the sniff test and it faintly had the almond smell of cyanide. One of the chief components in the plant was a cyanogenic glycoside that when treated with weak acid released the cyanide (not enough to do any kind of damage). The plant was a common weed whose name I cannot remember and the compound was a deterrent to prevent insects and others from eating it.
-
LOL!!! I'm reminded of my qualitative organic chemistry class some years ago. Each week the professor would bring in a natural substance and circulate it around the class for us to smell and guess the functional group. One lecture he had a mortar and pestle and was grinding up some leaves. He sent it around for the sniff test and it faintly had the almond smell of cyanide. One of the chief components in the plant was a cyanogenic glycoside that when treated with weak acid released the cyanide (not enough to do any kind of damage). The plant was a common weed whose name I cannot remember and the compound was a deterrent to prevent insects and others from eating it.
This is totally OT, but cyanogenic glycosides are in a lot of common foods that we consume regularly:
"There are approximately 25 known cyanogenic glycosides and these are generally found in the edible parts of plants, such as apples, apricots, cherries, peaches, plums, quinces, particularly in the seed of such fruits. The chemicals are also found in almonds, stone fruit, pome fruit, cassava, bamboo shoots, linseed/flaxseed, lima beans, coco yam, chick peas, cashews, and kirsch [3, 4]. Other food products that may contain cyanogenic glycosides include some food ingredients with flavoring properties such as ground almonds powder or paste, marzipan, stone fruit, and alcoholic drinks made from stone fruits. These foods therefore represent potential sources of hydrogen cyanide."
https://www.intechopen.com/books/toxicology-new-aspects-to-this-scientific-conundrum/a-review-of-cyanogenic-glycosides-in-edible-plants
-
Standard issue! Does not work with inkjet prints.
Yup, that's the one John. Well at least I had the last part of the name correct. Not bad for an old memory that seems to be slipping away much more quickly than I had anticipated. Good old liquid sunshine, did a great job once one had mastered the control of it. I also recall using Farmers Reducer (a combo of hypo and potassium ferricyanide) to bring some life back in B&W negs that had been grossly over exposed. Again one that had to be used sparingly and with very close attention to the progress of the reduction. I also seem to recall diluting FR beyond the printed ratio to give more time to play with the process and have more control.
Yes, those were the days, but not necessarily days I'd want to return to at this point in the evolution of photography and all of its parts. I have a video of Ansel Adams walking through Yosemite and talking about his career, both in music and photography. It's a great piece of history that also covers different facets of his life and work. Near the end of the vid he talks about the fact that all of his negatives would be left to the University of Arizona as I recall. Some of them had been scanned and he showed them and the different ways they had been edited in some program way back in the early '80s, perhaps Photoshop but I'm not sure. What I do remember, due to how it really stood out, was the way Ansel talked about some of the negscans that had been manipulated and how he would love to live long enough to see how all of that technology would progress. Unfortunately he was deprived of that wish, but he knew then that photography was on its way to a completely new era. How right he was!
-
In the U.S. at least there are several labs that print digital files using traditional-type silver-halide B&W papers and chemicals. I have attached a chart that I recently compiled on the ones I could readily identify. Some print on fiber-based paper, some print on resin-coated paper, and some print on both types. The available papers and surfaces differ, although most (all?) of the labs that offer prints on resin-coated paper use Ilford's paper designed to be printed on wet minilab-type equipment. Ilford sells that paper in glossy and 'pearl' surfaces. The pearl is about like luster. Personally I would have preferred Ilford to offer their 'satin' RC surface, which IMO is closer to matte. The range of prices is large, the cost of an 8x10 inch print running from $3.52 to $45.00 or more (toning etc.).
I have made some comparisons of RC prints from the first three (Mpix, Harman / Ilford, and Fromex / True B&W) with prints of the same files I made on a Canon Pro-100 (dye-ink) printer with papers with similar surfaces. Overall they are pretty close, but I won't say identical. Obviously if you are using pigment inks and/or matte papers the difference could be large.
What I cannot do is make close comparisons of these digital B&W prints to wet B&W prints from film. Not only have I not had a functioning wet darkroom since 2005, but there are too many process differences. I will let you experts discuss and debate that.
To me, potentially-important but unanswered questions include:
(1) are there any traditional-type B&W papers for sale today that are neutral (not warm-tone) that don't contain substantial amounts of OBAs?
(2) Does exposing the paper for a comparatively short time, to comparatively much more intense light, as is done with a typical digital printer, produce some effect that makes the resulting print differ substantially from one made under an enlarger with, say, a 10 s exposure? As a corollary, does the performance of papers designed for short, intense exposures differ meaningfully from the performance of papers designed for longer, less-intense exposures?
Wonder what is available in the EU using converted minilabs. Size of the prints is more limited than what the Lightjet etc equipment can deliver.
On your second question, at least chromogenic papers were redesigned for that difference in exposure, it would be simpler to do the same for B&W analogue papers. https://imaging.kodakalaris.com/sites/uat/files/wysiwyg/pro/Silver_Halide_White_Paper.pdf. Page 13 to 15
On top of that the digital tools available to compensate exposure effects on sensitive emulsions are way more subtle and easier to apply than what was needed to control that in analogue times. The most simple approach; custom B&W profile creation. Similar methods are used for alternative processes that start with inkjet printed contact films.
I think OBA free silver halide and chromogenic papers are hard to find these days and if available more likely in the non-RC paper qualities. Main reason; the suppliers of the paper base already add OBA in the papers. Best way to check is what Felix Schoeller supplies in that market if that information is published. My gut feeling based on RC papers available for inkjet printers says that there might be one or two papers like that.
I have measured the Harman/Ilford analogue B&W papers, 2014 catalog and as written already none is free of OBA. The one with the least content has it mainly in the paper base. Screenshots added here. I can still make similar measurements of other catalogs if I receive them from list members here.
Whether the OP is happy with this discussion I doubt. His comments were quite specific on what he sees as differences in detail/texture reproduction between digital B&W inkjet prints and analogue B&W prints. IMHO that can be addressed with the right tools and methods.
Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
March 2017 update, 750+ inkjet media white spectral plots
-
Wonder what is available in the EU using converted minilabs. Size of the prints is more limited than what the Lightjet etc equipment can deliver.
Several of the labs in the U.S. that print on resin-coated black and white silver-halide paper mostly offer only minilab-type sizes, i.e., up to 10x15 inches (25x38cm). However, Mpix offers up to 20x30 inches (51x76cm), and Digital Silver Imaging and Whitewall offer much larger.
Whether the OP is happy with this discussion I doubt. His comments were quite specific on what he sees as differences in detail/texture reproduction between digital B&W inkjet prints and analogue B&W prints. IMHO that can be addressed with the right tools and methods.
I agree. I would like to see a Bob Carver-style test (for any audiophiles who may remember). Basically, set up a controlled test, probably in a studio, where both a film camera and a digital camera photograph the same subject and a Color-Checker and a step-wedge from the same position under the same light. Let the film photographer process and print the black and white film to taste, except global controls only (no dodging or burning etc.). It should be possibly to calculate a curve for each of the red, green, and blue channels such that the digital raw file, converted properly and printed with an inkjet with an appropriate profile, would match the film / enlarger-printed black and white print in all aspects of tonality. Once that is done, it is only a matter of grain (original or simulated), noise reduction settings, and sharpening to make a digital camera / inkjet printer print that looks to the human eye the same as the film / enlarger print.
But I don't really worry about such things for my own photos. For the most part I am happy with my digital images, converted from raw then sometimes processed with DxO FilmPack as part of the raw conversion, and sometimes processed separately with DxO Nik Silver Efex, then printed either on silver halide paper by Mpix or Harman / Ilford, or on inkjet. Sometimes I do miss the wet darkroom printing process, though.
-
Interesting conversation and I was just about to start a new thread about this topic when I saw this one. I like the digital workflow however I prefer the look of a silver-gelatin print over an inkjet print (at least I do so far.... I have yet to see an inkjet print exhibit the smooth tonal transitions that you'd see in for instance an Edward Weston print). I am talking black and white, not color.
I have a book called "Dune: Edward and Brett Weston" and while the images in the book are reproductions they still look better than what I have produced using inkjet! If any of you have that book take a look on page 38 or 67 and note the beautiful, smooth, tonal transitions. I went to those same dunes last week and the week before and I got some beautiful photos with my FujiFilm GFX 50s but when I print them do not come close to what I see in that book! Now maybe it is my post-processing, maybe it's the limitations of inkjet... maybe some other reason... I dunno... but I sure love the look of the Weston prints in the book and am trying hard to come close to that!
I have a question. If I were to make an 8x10 digital "negative" from one of my dune images and print on silver gelatin a contact print would I get better results??? Would that print be closer to what I am trying to achieve? I want to try that.
Yes, there are film simulation plug-ins but what I am trying very hard to do is to get a silver gelatin look with a digital image. I am specifically interesting in beautiful, smooth, graceful tonal transitions similar to what some of he masters were capable of.
Have any of you tried making a digital negative and then making a contact print?
Other examples of what I am trying to achieve:
John Sexton's book, "Quiet Light" - look at Plate #47
Ansel Adams book, "Examples", look at page 149. That was photographed using a Hasselblad medium format camera - just beautiful!
-
I have a book called "Dune: Edward and Brett Weston" and while the images in the book are reproductions they still look better than what I have produced using inkjet! If any of you have that book take a look on page 38 or 67 and note the beautiful, smooth, tonal transitions. I went to those same dunes last week and the week before and I got some beautiful photos with my FujiFilm GFX 50s but when I print them do not come close to what I see in that book! Now maybe it is my post-processing, maybe it's the limitations of inkjet... maybe some other reason... I dunno... but I sure love the look of the Weston prints in the book and am trying hard to come close to that!
They we using 8"x10" cameras not 33x44mm sensors. You should expect some quality differences.
-
They we using 8"x10" cameras not 33x44mm sensors. You should expect some quality differences.
Ansel Adams book, "Examples", look at page 149. That was photographed using a Hasselblad medium format camera - just beautiful!
-
We met with Ansel as students in Tucson Arizona in 1980 and a year before. He was good friends of the president of the university, John Schaffer, a scientist and photographer himself. This was before Photoshop and the Mac were around. He had been visiting some cutting edge optical scientists who were working with hi definition digital capture sensors and drum scanners. He told us this would be our world to live in. He only wished he’d be around to take advantage of it. He was talking about how contrast curves in the form of high bit pixels were going to make negative chemical characteristic curves look like the Stone Age , “in a few short years “. He wanted the Center there to allow future students to scan his negatives and make prints that he was sure would accomplish tonal subtleties that he could never begin to approach. He died four years later.
Went back to see his and Westons full archive of original master prints in 2008. They all looked so dark to me now, even the snow in the great photograph of half dome from the 1920s was below middle gray.
If someone can’t make a better monochrome pigment inkjet print than a repro in a book, somethings wrong.
Have you ever drum scanned a well exposed piece of 8x10 film and printed with 4, 6, or 7 channels of gray pigment? I can’t come close to duplicating that with Ilford gelatin silver paper from the original neg.
God, I think this is the same conversation we were having 15 years ago.......
John
Ansel Adams book, "Examples", look at page 149. That was photographed using a Hasselblad medium format camera - just beautiful!
-
We met with Ansel as students in Tucson Arizona in 1980 and a year before. He was good friends of the president of the university, John Schaffer, a scientist and photographer himself. This was before Photoshop and the Mac were around. He had been visiting some cutting edge optical scientists who were working with hi definition digital capture sensors and drum scanners. He told us this would be our world to live in. He only wished he’d be around to take advantage of it. He was talking about how contrast curves in the form of high bit pixels were going to make negative chemical characteristic curves look like the Stone Age , “in a few short years “. He wanted the Center there to allow future students to scan his negatives and make prints that he was sure would accomplish tonal subtleties that he could never begin to approach. He died four years later.
Went back to see his and Westons full archive of original master prints in 2008. They all looked so dark to me now, even the snow in the great photograph of half dome from the 1920s was below middle gray.
If someone can’t make a better monochrome pigment inkjet print than a repro in a book, somethings wrong.
Have you ever drum scanned a well exposed piece of 8x10 film and printed with 4, 6, or 7 channels of gray pigment? I can’t come close to duplicating that with Ilford gelatin silver paper from the original neg.
God, I think this is the same conversation we were having 15 years ago.......
John
You may not know what books I am referring to. These images are not just "repros in a book". lol
Two of the books I mentioned are using the Fultone method of printing. (Incidently that is the process Adams chose to print his books when he saw it. He totally reprinted his "Portfolios" book using this method as well as all his books afterward until he passed away. I can't find the quote but Adams claimed they were very close to his actual prints. So, no I can't print (yet) an inkjet print that looks as good as those images. I doubt many people can. I was very specific in my post about the look I am striving for. I've yet to see it in any inkjet prints. I'm not saying it cannot be done, I am saying I have not seen any yet.
-
I like the digital workflow however I prefer the look of a silver-gelatin print over an inkjet print (at least I do so far.... I have yet to see an inkjet print exhibit the smooth tonal transitions that you'd see in for instance an Edward Weston print).
It's important to make sure which one has a better performance in a silver-gelatin print in your opinion, the "look" or the "tonal transitions". For the "look", old Harman gloss baryta has most similar surface since they actually made Ilford silver halide papers. Unfortunately, the paper has been discontinued. Hahnemuhle Photo Gloss Baryta 320 is a substitute, but I have no experience on hahnemuhle's replacement paper. My baryta inkjet paper test (https://mfalab.pixnet.net/blog/post/28441998). (written in Chinese traditional)
For the "tonal transitions", modern K3 or K4 inks did a good job on this. Or you can try K7 inks, the prints are incredible sharp and without any visible ink dots. I spend a lot of time to fine tune a good K7 print curve, 52 steps 16 bits ink transition and 256 steps density linearization using my own formula in excel. But it's an advantage for digital printing process, once you have done a good setting, it's easily to repeat and get the same performance. My review on K7 ink (https://mfalab.pixnet.net/blog/post/27871496). (sorry, still in Chinese traditional)
I have a question. If I were to make an 8x10 digital "negative" from one of my dune images and print on silver gelatin a contact print would I get better results??? Would that print be closer to what I am trying to achieve? I want to try that.
doubt on this... Even if nearly no loss on chemical stages, this procedure still has more loss when contact print on a silver gelatin paper compare to direct print on inkjet paper. Don't forget the inkjet transparency film has the same loss with inkjet paper, sometimes even more. Some studios use similar procedure but on Platinum/Palladium print. And for best result, use a screen exposure machine to get collimated light beam and assure firm contact between film/paper by the vacuum pressure.
-
It's important to make sure which one has a better performance in a silver-gelatin print in your opinion, the "look" or the "tonal transitions". For the "look", old Harman gloss baryta has most similar surface since they actually made Ilford silver halide papers. Unfortunately, the paper has been discontinued. Hahnemuhle Photo Gloss Baryta 320 is a substitute, but I have no experience on hahnemuhle's replacement paper.
As far as I can tell — i.e. by printing on it, looking at it, and handling it — the Hahnemuhle Photo Gloss Baryta 320 is exactly the same as the old Harman paper.
-
As far as I can tell — i.e. by printing on it, looking at it, and handling it — the Hahnemuhle Photo Gloss Baryta 320 is exactly the same as the old Harman paper.
This is my favorite paper for black and whites with smooth tones.
-
It's my favourite paper for both colour and black-and-white. (It's a shame that it contains OBAs, and has a tendency to curl.)
-
Thank you for all of your very thoughtful comments!
I use Hahnemuhle Photo Rag Baryta 315gsm now because it has a slightly warm tone to it. Probably because it doesn't contain OBA's. The surface is very similar to a Silver Gelatoin print. I had a silver print made and I printed the same image on the Photo Rag Baryta and I prefer the Photo Rag print better!
For some reason I am not getting what I expected when I print the sand dunes images. I have had a few discussions about this and it may be my viewing environment and editing environment as well as my use of Photoshop etc... so I will be looking into all that.
From my research so far I absolutely should be getting fantastic results from my inkjet printer. Good. I won't be buying a film camera anytime soon!
; )
-
It's important to make sure which one has a better performance in a silver-gelatin print in your opinion, the "look" or the "tonal transitions". For the "look", old Harman gloss baryta has most similar surface since they actually made Ilford silver halide papers. Unfortunately, the paper has been discontinued. Hahnemuhle Photo Gloss Baryta 320 is a substitute, but I have no experience on hahnemuhle's replacement paper. My baryta inkjet paper test (https://mfalab.pixnet.net/blog/post/28441998). (written in Chinese traditional)
For the "tonal transitions", modern K3 or K4 inks did a good job on this. Or you can try K7 inks, the prints are incredible sharp and without any visible ink dots. I spend a lot of time to fine tune a good K7 print curve, 52 steps 16 bits ink transition and 256 steps density linearization using my own formula in excel. But it's an advantage for digital printing process, once you have done a good setting, it's easily to repeat and get the same performance. My review on K7 ink (https://mfalab.pixnet.net/blog/post/27871496). (sorry, still in Chinese traditional)
The "look" I want is what I described in my post earlier. I want beautiful smooth tonal transitions on whatever paper I can use! ; )
I wish I could read Chinese!
Thank you very much!
doubt on this... Even if nearly no loss on chemical stages, this procedure still has more loss when contact print on a silver gelatin paper compare to direct print on inkjet paper. Don't forget the inkjet transparency film has the same loss with inkjet paper, sometimes even more. Some studios use similar procedure but on Platinum/Palladium print. And for best result, use a screen exposure machine to get collimated light beam and assure firm contact between film/paper by the vacuum pressure.
-
Thank you for all of your very thoughtful comments!
I use Hahnemuhle Photo Rag Baryta 315gsm now because it has a slightly warm tone to it. Probably because it doesn't contain OBA's. The surface is very similar to a Silver Gelatoin print. I had a silver print made and I printed the same image on the Photo Rag Baryta and I prefer the Photo Rag print better!
For some reason I am not getting what I expected when I print the sand dunes images. I have had a few discussions about this and it may be my viewing environment and editing environment as well as my use of Photoshop etc... so I will be looking into all that.
From my research so far I absolutely should be getting fantastic results from my inkjet printer. Good. I won't be buying a film camera anytime soon!
; )
+1 very much like Photo Rag Baryta for BW - works also good on my HPz3100
-
As far as I can tell — i.e. by printing on it, looking at it, and handling it — the Hahnemuhle Photo Gloss Baryta 320 is exactly the same as the old Harman paper.
It's good to know that. The texture and reflection is so similar to Ilford silver gelatin paper, they even smells the same.
Although my first choice for fiber gloss inkjet print papers is Canson Infinity Platine Fibre Rag and Hahnemuhle Photo Rag Baryta.
Have a exactly the same substitute as a great discontinued paper is always a good thing.
-
I wish I could read Chinese!
Sorry about that, if I translate all my articles to English will cost too much time on it. Maybe you can try google translation for roughly look. a quick link (https://translate.google.com.tw/translate?hl=&sl=zh-CN&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fmfalab.pixnet.net%2Fblog%2Fpost%2F27871496)
You can see the images below show absolutely differential between prints using K7 and K3 inks. no necessary to mark which one is K7
-
It's probably not useful comparing digital with darkroom prints as far as texture goes without knowing something about the lenses, paper/emulsion and printing technique.
However one thing that may affect an inkjet print is banding, particularly in masks. A quick way to check this is to make a solar curve on top of the layers. I use it enough to have made an action for it.
The addition of dithering on the masks from CS6 has made life easier, but I still find I may need to add noise to the mask.
Silver FX can also get quite nasty with banding. I don't it much now for that reason. It's quite hard to see on screen without the solar curve to show it up. But I think it shows up in print with somewhat coarse tonal transitions.
-
Very nice smooth transitions with that K7 inkset. Impressive.
-
It's probably not useful comparing digital with darkroom prints as far as texture goes without knowing something about the lenses, paper/emulsion and printing technique.
However one thing that may affect an inkjet print is banding, particularly in masks. A quick way to check this is to make a solar curve on top of the layers. I use it enough to have made an action for it.
The addition of dithering on the masks from CS6 has made life easier, but I still find I may need to add noise to the mask.
Silver FX can also get quite nasty with banding. I don't it much now for that reason. It's quite hard to see on screen without the solar curve to show it up. But I think it shows up in print with somewhat coarse tonal transitions.
+1
I think banding- that is the inability for the inkjet printer to produce perfect ( 16 bit) gradual transitions is a basic problem inherent to the technique the images are printed.
Screens - especially the 10bit feeded screens, are far better for showing the perfect gradual transitions. (On the other hand grain is more pronounced on screen than it is in print)
Of course the right printerprofile might help a lot to overcome some of the banding, but not in all cases...
Fortunately in most of the prints is not an issue.
To prevent introducing banding in the images itself when going from colour to BW I work in 16 bit and use curves only, to change the BW densities of colours, before changing the image to BW.
In this way the gradual transitions get preserved, they stay continuous.
I noticed the BW-layers in photoshop also may introduce banding
-
Sorry about that, if I translate all my articles to English will cost too much time on it. Maybe you can try google translation for roughly look. a quick link (https://translate.google.com.tw/translate?hl=&sl=zh-CN&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fmfalab.pixnet.net%2Fblog%2Fpost%2F27871496)
You can see the images below show absolutely differential between prints using K7 and K3 inks. no necessary to mark which one is K7
Wow! That's very interesting. I have an Epson P800 and I see that Piezography inks are available for it. I may do this. Is the sharpness affected? Since the K7 inks are "smoother" it looks like it may be not as sharp.
Thank you!
-
Wow! That's very interesting. I have an Epson P800 and I see that Piezography inks are available for it. I may do this. Is the sharpness affected? Since the K7 inks are "smoother" it looks like it may be not as sharp.
Thank you!
Could I suggest you order a sample print or even better have one of you sand dune images printed by Cone Editions Studio, they offer both K7 & Piezography Pro ink options.
https://cone-editions.com/sample-proofs/
The Piezography Pro inks are perhaps the way to go if you are looking for a glossy print, plus you have a very flexible range of tones available from cool to warm
-
I’ve been doing K7 Carbon from my drum scans of film for about 15 years, since whenever k7 came out.
I do work for several clients that are ( were ) masterful silver gelatin printers, so we have direct comparisons to see side by side from all film formats. The extended dynamic range, in the highlights in particular are favored in k7 prints. I use matte only with the pure carbon inkset. Inkjet Mall is supposed to be coming out with two more hues of pure carbon k7 this fall that are a neutral and a less reddish warm hue.
The midtones and highlights are better than the silver And shadows as good or better but of course without that metallic quality. They are like a platinum/palladium print but with silver like dmax and that’s even been improved with the last black offerings.
Because of sharpening capability and selective sharpening they can be sharper than analogue prints. Overall you really see the dimensionality of k7 in the highlights that go on forever. The piezo pro have less highlight subtlety, but have hue control flexibility and are especially useful for split tone configurations. Of course like any other media, a lot depends on the skill of the printmaker to get the most out of it. We’ve all seen how dull silver prints can be when someone doesn’t know what they are doing. I would pull out one of my favorite files that print the best with Epson inks and have inkjet mall do a couple of prints, one with k7 and one with piezo pro - use the same paper. I have found with inkjet the bigger the print the more impressive the impact. I would also ask them about the new two pure carbon hues.
The absolute sharpest results and precision gradients from k7 are out of Studio Print rip, where I started long ago, but very few of us do that anymore. Qtr is so cheap and making profiles easier, not to mention the cost.
For neutral and warm neutral work due to the longevity and flexibility I use an HPZ3200 on platine with extended profiles that I also like better than silver for a lot of reasons, size capability among them. They don’t have quite the subtlety of k7 but I like it better than piezo pro. The hp gloss enhancer is excellent.
But these z3200 printers have been discontinued and they never had desktop versions of that inkset. The new hps z9+, also with the gloss enhancer incorporated has one less light gray and I don’t expect it to equal the z100/3200s, the reason I had mine restored. But eventually I’ll find out.
John
It's probably not useful comparing digital with darkroom prints as far as texture goes without knowing something about the lenses, paper/emulsion and printing technique.
However one thing that may affect an inkjet print is banding, particularly in masks. A quick way to check this is to make a solar curve on top of the layers. I use it enough to have made an action for it.
The addition of dithering on the masks from CS6 has made life easier, but I still find I may need to add noise to the mask.
Silver FX can also get quite nasty with banding. I don't it much now for that reason. It's quite hard to see on screen without the solar curve to show it up. But I think it shows up in print with somewhat coarse tonal transitions.
-
Could I suggest you order a sample print or even better have one of you sand dune images printed by Cone Editions Studio, they offer both K7 & Piezography Pro ink options.
https://cone-editions.com/sample-proofs/
The Piezography Pro inks are perhaps the way to go if you are looking for a glossy print, plus you have a very flexible range of tones available from cool to warm
This is exactly what I did this morning!
I chose the "Piezography Linear" option and the "HAHNEMUHLE PHOTO GLOSS BARYTA" paper because according to them "If you are looking for a print that mimics B&W silver, look no further than Piezography Pro inks on this paper."
So, it'll be interesting to see what their print looks like vs mine.
Thanks!
David
-
Very nice smooth transitions with that K7 inkset. Impressive.
Thank you for your kind words.
Wow! That's very interesting. I have an Epson P800 and I see that Piezography inks are available for it. I may do this. Is the sharpness affected? Since the K7 inks are "smoother" it looks like it may be not as sharp.
quick answer: No. The smoother granularity comes from more ink dots fill up the paper surface, no gap between dots. And 7 shades of gray inks make ink dots between different shades un-noticeable by human eyes, density of two neighboring shades are so close. For half tone printing, more dots can produce higher resolution. That's why light colors always link to lower resolution and poor granularity, like very bright sky blue or other colors near white. Because there are too less ink dots to present complete details. And that's why we have light cyan, light magenta and light black for color printing. So K7 inks printing has better performance on both granularity and resolution.
Could I suggest you order a sample print or even better have one of you sand dune images printed by Cone Editions Studio, they offer both K7 & Piezography Pro ink options.
The Piezography Pro inks are perhaps the way to go if you are looking for a glossy print, plus you have a very flexible range of tones available from cool to warm
It's a great suggestion. And seems David already take an action.
But I would like to give another suggestion: order a K7 print rather a PRO one. Because Piezography PRO ink is actually a K4 system, a warmer K3 gray and a cooler K3 gray plus black. I attach some ink curves below to show that. The x-axis is black tone value, y-axis is ink amount.
I’ve been doing K7 Carbon from my drum scans of film for about 15 years, since whenever k7 came out.
Nice to meet a K7 inks user here. I hope we can talk more, John. Maybe in a K7 print topic.
-
If you want varied print colors and split tones the Pro Series is best.
The most dimensionality is from K7, the highlights are far far beyond anything silver prints could achieve. The high values are like platinum especially on a great Matt rag like Canson. The dmax on both sets are exceptional with their new MK and Pk.
Read on their website about resolution and Jons text comparison between Epson ABW and Piezographty. I’m also amazed at how much additional sharpening I can get away with using k7 ! It may look really oversharpened on the screen but inks can totally handle sharpening like none of the oem inks can.
Ask them about the new K7 hues that are about to be released. They have a new pure carbon that is not as warm as the first k7 Carbon, and a new neutral. I’ve been using these inks for 17 or more years.
Thank you for your kind words.
quick answer: No. The smoother granularity comes from more ink dots fill up the paper surface, no gap between dots. And 7 shades of gray inks make ink dots between different shades un-noticeable by human eyes, density of two neighboring shades are so close. For half tone printing, more dots can produce higher resolution. That's why light colors always link to lower resolution and poor granularity, like very bright sky blue or other colors near white. Because there are too less ink dots to present complete details. And that's why we have light cyan, light magenta and light black for color printing. So K7 inks printing has better performance on both granularity and resolution.
It's a great suggestion. And seems David already take an action.
But I would like to give another suggestion: order a K7 print rather a PRO one. Because Piezography PRO ink is actually a K4 system, a warmer K3 gray and a cooler K3 gray plus black. I put some ink curves below to show that. The x-axis is black tone value, y-axis is ink amount.
Nice to meet a K7 inks user here. I hope we can talk more, John. Maybe in a K7 print topic.
-
order a K7 print rather a PRO one
I ordered "Piezography Linear" (expert mode). I don't see a "Pro" version.
https://cone-editions.com/sample-proofs/
David
-
They’ve got them all mixed up on that custom print order form. There is no way to distinguish k7 from the quad pro inks on that order form which is strange. If you want k7 - you have the choice of selenium, which is a good one to start with, neutral, warm neutral, carbon, and special edition which is a split tone set. All the others are the new inks. I would email that you specifically want to see k7 if that is what you want.
For gloss prints they may suggest the pro inks because it has a single pass gloss enhancer coat. I only use k7 matte rag but with their new black has excellent dynamic range.
John
I ordered "Piezography Linear" (expert mode). I don't see a "Pro" version.
https://cone-editions.com/sample-proofs/
David
-
They’ve got them all mixed up on that custom print order form. There is no way to distinguish k7 from the quad pro inks on that order form which is strange. If you want k7 - you have the choice of selenium, which is a good one to start with, neutral, warm neutral, carbon, and special edition which is a split tone set. All the others are the new inks.
That's weird.. Why Jone Cone do that?
I think if David ordered Selenium, Carbon or Special edition, he will get a K7 print. Because the pro inks did not have these tones.
-
If you want varied print colors and split tones the Pro Series is best.
Yes, pro inks can make varies tones. But in my opinion, more shade is the key to perfect print. If I want a K4 vari-tone print, just use a P10000/P20000 and no need to wash out Epson OEM inks.
Ask them about the new K7 hues that are about to be released. They have a new pure carbon that is not as warm as the first k7 Carbon, and a new neutral. I’ve been using these inks for 17 or more years.
I'm excited about the new carbon inks too. They announced last October but still not available now. They said "there is other higher priority project" in their forum. :(
For gloss prints they may suggest the pro inks because it has a single pass gloss enhancer coat. I only use k7 matte rag but with their new black has excellent dynamic range.
The new GCO in Piezography pro inks needs much less ink amount than old GO, and prints like HP GE or Canon +CO gloss ink. Not like old Piezography GO ink needs a second print process and high ink capacity (about 45% in their curves). I think it can be use in K7 system when carefully control total ink amount.
-
>Quote from: deanwork ... "They have a new pure carbon that is not as warm ..."
That would be interesting, if true.
The appeal of the original MIS Eboni was that it was a pure carbon ink that, particularly in older printers with larger dots, was actually neutral. It didn't last, however, due to modern printers' smaller dots causing more warmth. [The reason for this is that as the dot or particle size increases there is more edge relative to area of dot or particle, and it is the edges of the dots/particles that cause the warmth. Pi D (circumference) increases less than Pi R squared (area) as the dot size increases]. It turns out the neutrality advantage of old Eboni was probably caused by less effective dispersants that caused the ink to have more agglomerated particles which, in effect, increased the average particle sizes.
So far, every "carbon" ink I've tested that is claimed to be neutral has been spiked with color pigs.
My approach to be best archival neutral print has been to use the best color pigments to pull the naturally warm carbon to neutral. Sadly, there is no good blue, single-pigment carbon color offset available to us. (I found a Daniel Smith pigment that did it, but it was not prepared for inkjets, and I don't have the scale to do that, nor did MIS Associates when I suggested it to them.) So, we have to use a combination of cyan and magenta, or, better, cyan and blue (smaller hue angle). My current formula uses Canon Lucia pigments to do this.f (See p. 2 of https://www.paulroark.com/BW-Info/7800-Glossy-Carbon-Variable-Tone-2016.pdf, bottom of the page for the formula.) (Beware that the new Canon "pro" pigs appear to be less lightfast than their older ones, which are still available.) Note that finding color pigments that have the same fade rate (or close) is needed to avoid a drift into a greenish hue as the magenta used in most (or all) formulas fades faster than the naturally tougher cyan.
We really need a truly neutral, carbon-tough pigment, but so far, I have not found one. HP makes a very nice, neutral ink, but it is not in the pure carbon fade rate class. I assume Epson has made the best LK and LLK it can, but they appear to me to be, in effect, carbon plus cyan. They are not neutral.
So, my hat's off to anyone who comes up with a truly neutral, pure carbon grade, inkjet compatible pigment. I suspect it'll take some heavy duty chemistry, and if accomplish, we'll see some believable, third party test results to verify the claims.
FWIW,
Paul
www.PaulRoark.com
-
The new “pure carbon” , that isn’t quite as reddish as the k7 Carbon I use, is what that are claiming as “pure carbon”. I’d have to see them to know if I like it. I love what I’ve been doing the last 10 years but it might be nice to have another k7. They have been totally consistent from batch to batch and besides being the most beautiful gradation I’ve ever used, and now with a darker black, they have never clogged like my Epson inks have on the same printers.
Their new neutral has a new hue apparently, but now I don't see where they have claimed “ pure carbon” with that set. I don’t even see where they are claiming any longevity improvement, though that may be the case. I couldn’t care less what is considered pure anything as long as they have been objectively tested, and it is going to last decently.
I know, I’ve been at this for 20 years now and I have seen a lot of bad color pigments used to neutralize Carbon so I’m totally suspicious of any claims until there is unbiased proof.
The modern carbro pigment transfer process like evercolor that a few people such as Todd Gangler have used gfor 20 years have super stable color pigments but not designed to fit through the nozzle of inkjet tech. don’t know if they could be adapted.
https://artandsoulphoto.net/
The HP Z tests I sent into Aardenburg on a couple of papers are incredibly permanent. There was no observable change at all within the testing period. I don’t add any color for pure neutral on Platine with my HP machines and only one point yellow and one point red with the Rag Photographique but even that isn’t necessary.
The HP pigments are going to last longer than inkjet receptor coatings. I’m not at all happy though that their new Z9 has removed the light gray. Anyway you look at it that was a bad idea, because if they have better smoothness through refined dot placement, the light gray would define the values even better, and at that point they might have owned monochrome inkjet.
Roy says he is not going to support the new 12 color Epsons with QTR due to the difficulty of writing code for the driver. So your stuck with ABW or the expense of Studio Print which personally I wouldn’t rule out as these inks are very stable.
John
-
Update:
Well, I received my Cone Edition proof print and I've viewed it under different lighting conditions etc... the biggest thing I notice is it's more neutral than my Epson P800 BW print but not by much as far as I can see. The tonal graduation didn't blow my socks off like I was hoping... maybe because it's just an 8x10in print?
I do like the neutrality though. I'd take a photograph of both prints and post here but I don't think you'd be able to see much. One more thing, I printed on Hahnemuhle Photo Rag Baryta 315 gsm and Cone used Hahnemuhle Photo Gloss Baryta. I don't have any of that but I'd like to make a print using it and then compare.
-
Yea you need to print both on the same media.
If you have a spectrometer you should be able to finesse the P800 neutral color balance and tonal ramp for better results with QTR with the oem inks. If you are using ABW it’s not going to get you completely there. There being the best out of that printer with Epson inks.
Don’t know what kind of file you sent out, but my K7 profiles for the 9890 on matte media can’t be reproduced with my qtr Epson and Canon inks or any other as far as that goes. The HPZ with a 6,000 patch icc profile comes very close though on Platine but I always wish I had one or two more light grays with everything but K7. I have not tried the new piezography dual quad “pro” set on any kind of media so I can’t really comment on that. With my own experience with any of these set ups it requires personalized experimenting and tweaking and testing and as with everything, it just takes time. Great black and white printing has never been easy and never will be.
Update:
Well, I received my Cone Edition proof print and I've viewed it under different lighting conditions etc... the biggest thing I notice is it's more neutral than my Epson P800 BW print but not by much as far as I can see. The tonal graduation didn't blow my socks off like I was hoping... maybe because it's just an 8x10in print?
I do like the neutrality though. I'd take a photograph of both prints and post here but I don't think you'd be able to see much. One more thing, I printed on Hahnemuhle Photo Rag Baryta 315 gsm and Cone used Hahnemuhle Photo Gloss Baryta. I don't have any of that but I'd like to make a print using it and then compare.
-
Read on their website about resolution and Jons text comparison between Epson ABW and Piezographty. I’m also amazed at how much additional sharpening I can get away with using k7 ! It may look really oversharpened on the screen but inks can totally handle sharpening like none of the oem inks can.
That comparison on Cone's web page about Piezography and ABW is a bit misleading and not a fully fair, since not only inks are compared but also the driver. I print a lot B&W on both 3880 and P800, both ABW, ICC based and using QTR and the thing that makes a lot of difference is QTR. The difference between Epson OEM inks (K3 configuration) and K7 both printed by QTR is not that big as Jon shows on his web page (we also do not know if 720 dpi mode was used on ABW).
After many years of trying different techniques I finally set my printing workflow with OEM inks (K3) and QTR. It can give results quite close to K7. Not in all aspects, but visual differences are not big once you are able to design and optimise proper curves with spectro. Also ABW in P800 is better than previously. I use it also quite often, but made test prints and measurements of all sliders impact on the final results.
The paper used also can give quite a lot of gain. The best process I managed to use for B&W landscape prints is based on 3880 with OEM inks, QTR and Harman Gloss Baryta Warmtone (a bit warm curve). Had K7 prints on HM Cotton Rag Baryta and others and differences are virtually indistinguishable.
-
I will agree with you that if you really get down and linearize K3 inks with qtr well everything improves, neutrality, tonal ramp and resolution, or the appearance of sharpness. Because of the delicate overlap of channels, Studio Print is by far the sharpest platform I’ve ever seen with inkjet printing, especially with Jons inks. It’s too bad the more recent printers no longer support Piezography. I really miss that software, but qtr is much easier, though less subtle.
The new 12 color Epsons and the 10k are not going to be supported by QTR, because they are so different, at least that is what the creator of it keeps saying. Studio Print with Epson inks will be possible, but expensive.
All of my k7 experience is with large format Epsons and matte media like Canson and Entrada. I’ve done numerous comparisons between Qtr k3, Canon with True Black and White and HPz3200 quads and in the high values K7 is superior in dimensionality to them all. What you sacrifice is print hue diversity on all kinds of different papers, and that has to be attempted with the new Pro dual quad set which may or not be visibly that different than k3 with carefully linearized qtr. Until recently piezo required a second pass of the gloss enhancer with gloss media and still does with k7, so far. After the ease and quality of the HP Vivera inks, not something I would have had an interest in.
On a friends p800 we did some tests with qtr and Roy’s generic curve for fiber gloss On Platine. The color was excellent and a clean non greenish non red cast result. Very nice neutral. By far the best I’ve seen from qtr generic curves with k3 and as neutral as anything I’ve seen. What is neutral to me?, something with no perceivable color cast in both daylight and tungsten light.
John
That comparison on Cone's web page about Piezography and ABW is a bit misleading and not a fully fair, since not only inks are compared but also the driver. I print a lot B&W on both 3880 and P800, both ABW, ICC based and using QTR and the thing that makes a lot of difference is QTR. The difference between Epson OEM inks (K3 configuration) and K7 both printed by QTR is not that big as Jon shows on his web page (we also do not know if 720 dpi mode was used on ABW).
After many years of trying different techniques I finally set my printing workflow with OEM inks (K3) and QTR. It can give results quite close to K7. Not in all aspects, but visual differences are not big once you are able to design and optimise proper curves with spectro. Also ABW in P800 is better than previously. I use it also quite often, but made test prints and measurements of all sliders impact on the final results.
The paper used also can give quite a lot of gain. The best process I managed to use for B&W landscape prints is based on 3880 with OEM inks, QTR and Harman Gloss Baryta Warmtone (a bit warm curve). Had K7 prints on HM Cotton Rag Baryta and others and differences are virtually indistinguishable.
-
If you want varied print colors and split tones the Pro Series is best.
The most dimensionality is from K7, the highlights are far far beyond anything silver prints could achieve. The high values are like platinum especially on a great Matt rag like Canson. The dmax on both sets are exceptional with their new MK and Pk.
Read on their website about resolution and Jons text comparison between Epson ABW and Piezographty. I’m also amazed at how much additional sharpening I can get away with using k7 ! It may look really oversharpened on the screen but inks can totally handle sharpening like none of the oem inks can.
Ask them about the new K7 hues that are about to be released. They have a new pure carbon that is not as warm as the first k7 Carbon, and a new neutral. I’ve been using these inks for 17 or more years.
Hey Dean - what Canson paper are you referring to? I have two sample packs I'd like to try. They contain 6 samples:
Rag Photographique 210gsm
Platine Fibre Rag 310gsm
Baryta Photographique 310gsm
Photo Satin Premium RC 270gsm
Photo Hig Gloss Premium RC 315gsm
Arches Aquarelle 240gsm
Ideally I prefer a warmer paper base. I usually like Matt papers but I am testing some glassy papers too. So many papers on the market!
Thanks,
David
-
The reason for this is that as the dot or particle size increases there is more edge relative to area of dot or particle, and it is the edges of the dots/particles that cause the warmth. Pi D (circumference) increases less than Pi R squared (area) as the dot size increases.
It is good to know something deeper. Could you kindly provide some reference about pigment particle size affect color tone.
stay hungry, stay foolish - Kevin Kelly
-
I have primarily used four papers for several years, Rag Photographique and Edition Etching for matte with pigment whiteners, Platine semi-gloss also 100% cotton with pigment whiteners and is an excellent paper for black and white and color and Moab Entrada for slightly warmer smooth matt natural no oba when making warmer bw prints.
I’ve used all these others but settled on these for general work. Best sharpness, best longevity and best durable coatings on the Canson. By the way the Epson Legacy Fiber is Rag Photographique, and Legacy Platine is Canson Platine. I’ve used these papers for over 10 years and see no difference in quality or consistency.
John
Hey Dean - what Canson paper are you referring to? I have two sample packs I'd like to try. They contain 6 samples:
Rag Photographique 210gsm
Platine Fibre Rag 310gsm
Baryta Photographique 310gsm
Photo Satin Premium RC 270gsm
Photo Hig Gloss Premium RC 315gsm
Arches Aquarelle 240gsm
Ideally I prefer a warmer paper base. I usually like Matt papers but I am testing some glassy papers too. So many papers on the market!
Thanks,
David
-
I think we must make things clear, paper look and feel, tone transition(density curve), granularity(fine or coarse grain), tone neutrality(gray shift), resolution(details), they have different meaning and causes. K7 inks, or other ink set has more than 3 gray, mainly has benefit of granularity and detail. Neutrality is not a K7 specialty. K6/K7 ink set have no color inks, means you don't have much control on gray shift after chosen ink/paper combination. Other ink, like HP Vivera, may have a much neutral gray inks than K7, and have CMY inks to neutralize gray shift. That's why Piezography made PRO ink, a duo tone K4 ink system.
Regular K3 ink can still get good density curve and tone neutrality under careful control whether using drivers or RIPs. Because my job, I'd tested some RIPs, e.g., ErgoSoft, GMG, EFI Fiery, Onyx RIPs, now mainly use Caldera and barbieri's spectrometer. Caldera has best dark/light (C/LC, M/LM, K/LK) ink transition function. It actually print, measure and calculate an adjustable customize transition curve. For tone neutrality, GMG and EFI has best performance. Both two RIPs support G7 greyscale linearization and repeated calibration function.
We can use RIPs to improve resolution and granularity, that's for sure. Better ripping, dither, and light/dark ink transition can increase quality, but we cannot break the physical limit. Half tone printing is basically using AM/FM method to generate tone value. Lighter tone means less ink dots and coverage, cause coarse grain and low resolution. K3 inks by Epson, Canon and HP limit noticeable range around 0~30%. It's good enough for most user. K7 is a step forward on it.
-
So some of you have mentioned that a well-calibrated system (Monitor, Printer, paper profiles) can produce a neutral gray scale (BW print). I am looking into this and found a product made by x-rite. The X-Rite i1Studio. It's about $500. Is it something worth considering for calibrating for BW (and color)?
I am getting pretty good results as it is but am always looking for something better if possible!
Thanks!
David
-
>Quote from: deanwork ... "They have a new pure carbon that is not as warm ..."
That would be interesting, if true.
The appeal of the original MIS Eboni was that it was a pure carbon ink that, particularly in older printers with larger dots, was actually neutral. It didn't last, however, due to modern printers' smaller dots causing more warmth. [The reason for this is that as the dot or particle size increases there is more edge relative to area of dot or particle, and it is the edges of the dots/particles that cause the warmth. Pi D (circumference) increases less than Pi R squared (area) as the dot size increases]. It turns out the neutrality advantage of old Eboni was probably caused by less effective dispersants that caused the ink to have more agglomerated particles which, in effect, increased the average particle sizes.
So far, every "carbon" ink I've tested that is claimed to be neutral has been spiked with color pigs.
My approach to be best archival neutral print has been to use the best color pigments to pull the naturally warm carbon to neutral. Sadly, there is no good blue, single-pigment carbon color offset available to us. (I found a Daniel Smith pigment that did it, but it was not prepared for inkjets, and I don't have the scale to do that, nor did MIS Associates when I suggested it to them.) So, we have to use a combination of cyan and magenta, or, better, cyan and blue (smaller hue angle). My current formula uses Canon Lucia pigments to do this.f (See p. 2 of https://www.paulroark.com/BW-Info/7800-Glossy-Carbon-Variable-Tone-2016.pdf, bottom of the page for the formula.) (Beware that the new Canon "pro" pigs appear to be less lightfast than their older ones, which are still available.) Note that finding color pigments that have the same fade rate (or close) is needed to avoid a drift into a greenish hue as the magenta used in most (or all) formulas fades faster than the naturally tougher cyan.
We really need a truly neutral, carbon-tough pigment, but so far, I have not found one. HP makes a very nice, neutral ink, but it is not in the pure carbon fade rate class. I assume Epson has made the best LK and LLK it can, but they appear to me to be, in effect, carbon plus cyan. They are not neutral.
So, my hat's off to anyone who comes up with a truly neutral, pure carbon grade, inkjet compatible pigment. I suspect it'll take some heavy duty chemistry, and if accomplish, we'll see some believable, third party test results to verify the claims.
FWIW,
Paul
www.PaulRoark.com
Paul,
The HP Z3200 Vivera MK pigment ink is not neutral, the PK and Grey inks are neutral though.
Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
March 2017 update, 750+ inkjet media white spectral plots
-
The HP Z3200 Vivera MK pigment ink is not neutral, the PK and Grey inks are neutral though.
...
Yes, I've noticed the HP PK and Grays all seem to be a bit different. I assumed HP had put in more cooling color as the ink density decreased, with the goal of keeping their pure gray channel relatively neutral across the scale, from paper white to 100% black.
Paul
www.PaulRoark.com
-
That’s right. My Vivera Pk prints on Platine are run with no color channels for a great neutral, actually the best I’ve seen in inkjet prints without running color composites like Epson inks and qtr. I do a lot of this Vivera / Platine combination.
Using Canson Rag Photo with MK the prints are a little cool and end up adding a tiny bit of yellow and red, comes to about one point each to neutralize. Same with photorag, etc. if you print straight Vivera grays on a warm matte paper you can see a nice warm/cool split, but very subtle.
John
Paul,
The HP Z3200 Vivera MK pigment ink is not neutral, the PK and Grey inks are neutral though.
Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
March 2017 update, 750+ inkjet media white spectral plots
-
I am looking into this and found a product made by x-rite. The X-Rite i1Studio. It's about $500. Is it something worth considering for calibrating for BW (and color)?
i1Photo Pro 2 or i1Photo Pro 3 Plus will be better if that is under your budget.