Printer Limitations as "Weakest link" In My Efforts?

[JimAscher]

Several months ago I began a thread in this sub-forum entitled "How Important Is Picture Print Size" (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=46307.msg390636#msg390636) which surprisingly (to me) garnered quite a bit of very useful and enlightened comment, with John R. Smith taking the lead.  The net result for me was the regrettable conclusion that for the type of print I favored (a "miniature" black-and-white emulating the intent of a 5x7 contact print), the ink-jet printer was the least suitable (because of pixel size) with few if no other viable printer options.  (Apparently there CAN be an increase in precision of gradation and sharpness as the print becomes larger in the ink jet process.)

Now, I have to ask myself (if I wish to continue for my own aesthetic purposes producing smaller sized black-and-white prints), employing the "chain is only as small as the weakest link" analogy, whether the ink jet printer limitation doesn't have the implication that virtually no matter what I do before printing, i.e., utilizing a digital camera with a larger sensor and better quality lens, and meticulous post-processing with such software as Photoshop and/or Lightroom, is not beyond a certain point pretty much in vain.  I have tried some sub-lamination printing, but that hasn't proved sufficiently aesthetically satisfying to me as you can't really attain a true matte surface with that printing method, which is my surface of preference.

So my query now is whether I am correct in my assumption that as long as I continue to try to produce small black-and-white prints with an ink jet printer, I must accept its inherent limitations and not spend any more money on larger sensor and better lensed cameras, and trying other more-costly post-processing software.   

[Schewe]

So my query now is whether I am correct in my assumption that as long as I continue to try to produce small black-and-white prints with an ink jet printer, I must accept its inherent limitations and not spend any more money on larger sensor and better lensed cameras, and trying other more-costly post-processing software.   

Eactty what size are you talking about and what sort of inkjet media are to trying to use?

I also like small jewels of a print sometimes (other times I really like really HUGE prints).

If you print at the "native resolution of the file, and that resolution is near 720PPI (or 600PPI for HP & Canon) you should be able to get prints that rival that of the darkroom. Yes, if you put a loupe on it you wills see ink droplets...but only with a loupe.

So, what size original files are you talking about? Even a 6.3MP (Canon 10D camera can produce an image that is 6.4 x 4.26 at 480PPI which should be plenty of resolution for an inkjet print...

The question I have to ask is whether or not you've actually done actual prints to see for yourself?

[JimAscher]

Eactty what size are you talking about and what sort of inkjet media are to trying to use?

I also like small jewels of a print sometimes (other times I really like really HUGE prints).

If you print at the "native resolution of the file, and that resolution is near 720PPI (or 600PPI for HP & Canon) you should be able to get prints that rival that of the darkroom. Yes, if you put a loupe on it you wills see ink droplets...but only with a loupe.

So, what size original files are you talking about? Even a 6.3MP (Canon 10D camera can produce an image that is 6.4 x 4.26 at 480PPI which should be plenty of resolution for an inkjet print...

The question I have to ask is whether or not you've actually done actual prints to see for yourself?

Schewe:  Thanks for such a quick response.  Virtually ALL of my finished prints have measured about 8.5 inches wide with a vertical measurement in proportion to the photo, about 5.5 inches high.  I use an Epson Stylus Photo 1400 with a CLE feed of carbon-based pigment inks of various dilutions.   After post-processing a RAW image with Photoshop Elements and Silver Efex Pro, I print with a curve I have evolved with QTR.  My primary cameras these days are Lumix G1 and GF1.  My resulting prints are quite satisfying to me when the subject matter consists of strong contrasting elements, but less so when I need subtle gradations.  I have a very hard time in gaining a clear differentiation between the "forest" and the "trees" (literally) and with largish bodies of water, i.e., lakes and streams.  Does this help or enlighten you any? 

[Schewe]

My resulting prints are quite satisfying to me when the subject matter consists of strong contrasting elements, but less so when I need subtle gradations.  I have a very hard time in gaining a clear differentiation between the "forest" and the "trees" (literally) and with largish bodies of water, i.e., lakes and streams.  Does this help or enlighten you any? 

It may be your tools and the limitations of your captures. I wouldn't rank any version of Elements are comparable to what you could get with Photoshop. And to be honest, if you are primarily interested in B&W, an Epson 1400 wouldn't be my first choice. Using a printer with Epson's Advanced B&W mode would be indicated...an Epson 2880 would allow printing B&W with a much better neutrality...so, bottom line, I think your toolset is lacking.

[JimAscher]

It may be your tools and the limitations of your captures. I wouldn't rank any version of Elements are comparable to what you could get with Photoshop. And to be honest, if you are primarily interested in B&W, an Epson 1400 wouldn't be my first choice. Using a printer with Epson's Advanced B&W mode would be indicated...an Epson 2880 would allow printing B&W with a much better neutrality...so, bottom line, I think your toolset is lacking.

Schewe:  Now that appears to be a really "right-on" analysis, and quite welcome.  Much for me to think about -- and possibly spend more money.  But, after Christmas.  Thanks again.  Regards, Jim

[Alan Goldhammer]

Jim, I echo what Jeff has said in his post.  I've printed a lot at the size you mention (most but not all are scans of 35 mm negatives) using first the Epson 2880 and now the 3880 in the ABW mode.  I get excellent results and have compared the inkjet prints of scanned negatives with the darkroom prints that I made two decades ago.  I find the Epson prints equal in every way (I've not gone down the loupe level which may reveal certain differences).  Digital captures from my Nikon D300 result in wonderful B&W images from the Epson.  There is lot that can be done in either Lightroom and/or Photoshop to give you wonderful results.  If your chief goal is B&W, I can recommend the book by Leslie Alsheimer and Bryan O'Neil Hughes, "Black and White in Photoshop CS4 and Photoshop Lightroom"

Alan

[JimAscher]

Jim, I echo what Jeff has said in his post.  I've printed a lot at the size you mention (most but not all are scans of 35 mm negatives) using first the Epson 2880 and now the 3880 in the ABW mode.  I get excellent results and have compared the inkjet prints of scanned negatives with the darkroom prints that I made two decades ago.  I find the Epson prints equal in every way (I've not gone down the loupe level which may reveal certain differences).  Digital captures from my Nikon D300 result in wonderful B&W images from the Epson.  There is lot that can be done in either Lightroom and/or Photoshop to give you wonderful results.  If your chief goal is B&W, I can recommend the book by Leslie Alsheimer and Bryan O'Neil Hughes, "Black and White in Photoshop CS4 and Photoshop Lightroom"

Alan

Thanks Alan for your confirmation of Jeff's advice.  I've ordered the book from an Amazon Marketplace merchant as a starting point.  I don't have Photoshop CS4 but do have Lightroom.  Your and Jeff's advice is most welcome as I was getting pretty discouraged.  Maybe there's hope, after all.  Thanks again.  Jim 

[Alan Goldhammer]

Thanks Alan for your confirmation of Jeff's advice.  I've ordered the book from an Amazon Marketplace merchant as a starting point.  I don't have Photoshop CS4 but do have Lightroom.  Your and Jeff's advice is most welcome as I was getting pretty discouraged.  Maybe there's hope, after all.  Thanks again.  Jim 

You can do a great deal in Lightroom regarding the B&W conversions; probably 80% of my conversions don't need to travel to Photoshop.

Alan

[JimAscher]

You can do a great deal in Lightroom regarding the B&W conversions; probably 80% of my conversions don't need to travel to Photoshop.

Alan

Alan:  That's ESPECIALLY encouraging, as I would like to avoid having to purchase a full Photoshop.  I notice that you're in Bethesda and Jeff's in Chicago.  I was born and raised in Chicago and spent a lot of time near Bethesda, when I was posted with the State Department.  I currently live in Seattle, but on many an occasion miss both those locales.

[NikoJorj]

I don't have Photoshop CS4 but do have Lightroom.

Process and print from Lightroom, then.
From the very few I've seen from Silver Efex, it may be more tuned towards very contrasty, "careful with that axe Eugene" processings than for subtlety - or at least I didn't see much subtlety in the examples provided. And as said PSE may not really be up to the task.

For your printer, I'd say the 1400, once fed with carbon pigments from QTR, shouldn't give much (if any) to the Epson ABW mode (BTW, no clogging issue?).
I think http://www.custom-digital.com/2008/09/bw-print-quality/ was already mentioned in the other thread?

Paper used might also have an influence, although it depends pretty much on inks.
Can you print on glossy paper with your inkset?
Did you experiment many papers (daunting task, but it may be of interest in your case)?

[JimAscher]

Process and print from Lightroom, then.
From the very few I've seen from Silver Efex, it may be more tuned towards very contrasty, "careful with that axe Eugene" processings than for subtlety - or at least I didn't see much subtlety in the examples provided. And as said PSE may not really be up to the task.

For your printer, I'd say the 1400, once fed with carbon pigments from QTR, shouldn't give much (if any) to the Epson ABW mode (BTW, no clogging issue?).
I think http://www.custom-digital.com/2008/09/bw-print-quality/ was already mentioned in the other thread?

Paper used might also have an influence, although it depends pretty much on inks.
Can you print on glossy paper with your inkset?

Did you experiment many papers (daunting task, but it may be of interest in your case)?

Niko:  I feel further encouraged from several of your comments.  Yes, Silver Efex Pro is probably more aimed at contrasty results (which until now has been my preference, but I recognize is also a considerable limitation). While I have Lightroom installed, I've been a bit intimidated by it, although I do have a Lightroom 3 manual by Scott Kelby.  This however pretty much concentrates on color photos, which are not my principal interest.  But I will now make a more dedicated effort at using Lightroom, especially in conjunction with the book Alan recommended and I have ordered.  I am also encouraged by what you have to say about my Epson 1400 with carbon ink.  (It just about never clogs, but a limitation is that it doesn't print glossy, which is no real problem for me, as I prefer a matte finish.)  I have tried a number of papers and for now have settled on the new Epson Hot Press Natural.

Thanks much for your observations.  Jim