Bonsoir Benoit,

nice to "see" you visit us here. Well, I suppose none of us had a wild part=
y or a
hot date tonight...     Is that a _sign_ of maturity?    ...... sigh!

<bg>

Antonis

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., Benoit Malphettes <Benoit@s...>
wrote:
> Thanks Martin to invite me to this newsgroup, I already sent a note to
> invite PhilBard here and I see that Antonis is already here! Good people.=
  So
> hi, everyone!
> mmm…is it a sigh of maturity  to be here on a Saturday evening LOL
>
> Benoît

Steadman,

You are absolutely right about the name. When I set this up the
program would not let me use any spaces, commas or & signs. I am new
to this, but I will correct is as soon as I figure out how!

Thanks,

Martin

P.S.
What about that great paper to replace EAM you were goint to tell me
about?


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Steadman Uhlich"
<steadmanuhlich@k...> wrote:
> George,
> Interesting comments from you.
>
> I bought a six of Killian's Red tonight and will share one with you
anytime.
>
> O.K. Here is a rather simple observation for our moderator...
>
> The name of the list "DigitalBlackandWhiteThe Print" takes up much
too much space in the subject line on my email list.  There is only
room for a word or two of what the real subject is on the email.  I
suggest you truncate the list title or pick a shorter acronym or
name.
>
> Good light to all,
> Steadman
>   ----- Original Message -----
>   From: George DeWolfe
>   To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y...
>   Sent: Saturday, July 28, 2001 10:00 PM
>   Subject: [DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint] Re: Initial Thoughts
>
>
>   Hi All
>
>   There are some real issues to be tackled. One is the reluctance
>   of Adobe to support 16 bit fully in Photoshop. This filters down
>   into the plug-ins, like Silverfast, where all you can scan in is
16
>   bit RAW. I did find a way to overcome this slightly - by changing
>   the default gamma from 2.00 to the maximum of 3.00 - and you
>   get a better looking image, but the companies just shuffle their
>   feet. Let's do some real workflows around this problem.
>
>   Scanning protocols are also problematical. Silverfast is the only
>   third pary scanning software that allows you to make your own
>   LUT's. I've fooled around and come up with N+1, N-1 and N+2
>   LUT's, and they work well - in 8 bit, of course. Both Mike Kravit
>   and I scan in 16, drop down into 8 bit Silverfast HDR and
>   optimize the image before it even gets into Photoshop. What do
>   you guys do at the scanning stage? What works consistenly?
>
>   Does anyone have a solid technique for combining shadow and
>   highlight exposures into one seamless image without resorting
>   to hair-pulling in and after the Apply Command? Seeing as we
>   are trying to get out of the darkroom into the lightroom, we need
>   to explore "closed loop" solutions like Polaroid films, where we
>   don't have much development control, but it doesn't go to the lab
>   and get scrunched either. And if we don't have development
>   control, what can we do with split exposures that takes care of
>   the contrast problem well with little fuss and bother? What, for
>   instance, defines a good highlight exposure and a good shadow
>   exposure for this kind of process?
>
>   Can we arrive at a general workflow through Photoshop that a
>   beginner could take and make a good print? This would be sort
>   of like the Develop/Stop/Fix/Wash routine of the old darkroom.
>
>   How do we teach beginners about Black and White tonal
>   values? I find in teaching workshops that the hardest part of
this
>   is for people to actually see that something is wrong and needs
>   to be corrected tonally. But this is what probably separates
great
>   printers from simply mediocre ones.
>
>   As far as I can see, having tried all the Quadtone types
available
>   to date(and in spades, I might add),  Piezography is hard to
beat,
>   and for several reasons: 1) It has a 2100dpi RIP, 2) It has
>   proprietary profiles for the inks and papers 3) It was designed
by
>   a photographer and a printmaker, not a businessman, 4) If you
>   have a 7000, it prints in 16 bit, and 5) uses grayscale files.
The
>   others suffer from the fact that they are CMYK or RGB files, do
not
>   have profiles, and cannot get over the hump of the 720 Epson
>   driver - in reality, they sell inks, not a total process.
>
>   I also applaud Steadman's desire to talk about other important
>   issues surrounding Black and White printmaking - Picasso once
>   said that whenever artists get together all they want to talk
about
>   is where to buy good turpentine, and I suppose we're no
>   different.
>
>   I, too, would like to have this be a serious discussion and not
the
>   typical "my brother stepped on a frog" list that the others tend
to
>   be.
>
>   We are the pioneers.
>
>   Somebody open a six-pack.
>
>   George
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>   -
>
>
>   If you do not wish to belong to Digital B&W, The Print, you may
>   unsubscribe by sending an email to:
>   DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-unsubscribe@y...
>
>
>
>   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service.

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "George DeWolfe" <dewolfe@m...>
wrote:
...
>
> We are the pioneers.
>
> Somebody open a six-pack.


George,

have one on me! Thanks for infusing this group with such positive energy.
See my post on scan workflows. I will try to respond under separate threads
so that all topics can be discussed under their own headings.

While we are on "initial thoughts": I saw some of your prints on Museo when I
met Robert Rex (rep for Crane). Impressive prints and more importantly I loved
the images. I had met with him to discuss the merits of Museo vs the
Hahnemuhle papers. I will take this up under a different thread as well, but
this is just to say that my opinion of Museo shot up as a result of your prints.
In
evaluating papers, I had used a lot of my images that depend on black. Seing
yours - where black was just accent - made me rethink what I thought about
Museo. A good experience all around.

Antonis

George,

Where to start (other than that six-pack of course)

You have touched on a large number of issues that are absolutely
critical to the advancement of digital B&W.

The 8-bit/16-bit issue with Photoshop being appropriately at the top
of your list. The unfortunate side of the situation is that they have
no serious competition to drive them to change. There are reportedly
some photo editing programs that answer these issue but lack the
industry wide compatibility. In addition a friend has contact with
Adobe informs me that less than 5% of Adobe's revenue is derived from
Photoshop. Apparently, Acrobat is the big money maker. They appear to
have little motivation to change.

So I suspect that the task of the foreseeable future is the
development of the proper workflows to try an compensate for
Photoshop's short comings.

I was lucky enough to stumble into Silverfast when I bought my
Polaroid 4000 and also purchased in with my Polaroid 120 (although
there is an incompatibility with my system I am still waiting for
them to resolve.) I have been RAW scanning in 16-RGB (I develop in
Pyro so the RGB makes sense for me), working the file in SF HDR then
dropping into Photoshop. Some times pulling multiple "scans" out of
HDR to recombine in 8-bit Photoshop.

I have used the gamma control in Silverfast to good effect. Some of
the raw scan problems I have heard reported on the new Nikon 8000 for
instance sound as if they are gamma relate and there is no adjustment
available in the software.

I have not worked with the LUT's. I thank you for the tip and if you
have the time more details in this regard would be appreciated.

The issue of creating an analog to push/pull development is of great
interest not only to using Polaroid film in the view camera but for
roll film shooters as well. Typically people speak of two exposures,
one for the highlights and one for the shadows. Is this really the
best approach? Why not three or more exposures? How do they get
combined? What we are talking about here is developing the digital
equivalent of the Zone System, a coherent approach to exposing film
in light of the potential of combining multiple exposures and scans.

One aspect of teaching B&W tonal values requires exposing young
people to high quality B&W prints. I doubt if 1% of the population of
the 1st world has held in their hands or closely inspected a "fine
art" level print. This is not to sound defeatist but to indicate that
this is another area where greater thought and effort are needed.

Thanks to your magazine articles I escaped a lot of the trials and
tribulations with the early ink sets. But I have to confess to some
curiosity, as I have never seen any output from a MIS or Lysonic
system. I have tried various methods of producing B&W prints from
standard Epson inks and found it encouraging at the time but
ultimately not satisfying. I have seen Iris B&W prints in galleries
and I feel that Piezo is much better. I find the software to be
excellent and enjoy the ease at which I can switch papers by changing
profiles and minor tonal adjustments.

The 7000 and Piezo sound great but are not going to be price
attainable for most. I hope that Epson will replace the aging 3000
with a 17-inch wide printer incorporating 7000 technology. Others and
myself have asked ConeTech about the possibilities of developing a
Piezo version for the 5000 but never got a response. There is a big
gulf (both $ and tech) between the current desktop technology and
the "high end." I would love to see this addressed. I think there is
a viable price point in the $1500 to $3000 range where a significant
number of people would buy a complete hardware/software upgrade.

Much food for though. (I better get back to that six pack. It's
getting warm.)

Thanks,

Martin Wesley



--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "George DeWolfe"
<dewolfe@m...> wrote:
> Hi All
>
> There are some real issues to be tackled. One is the reluctance
> of Adobe to support 16 bit fully in Photoshop. This filters down
> into the plug-ins, like Silverfast, where all you can scan in is 16
> bit RAW. I did find a way to overcome this slightly - by changing
> the default gamma from 2.00 to the maximum of 3.00 - and you
> get a better looking image, but the companies just shuffle their
> feet. Let's do some real workflows around this problem.
>
> Scanning protocols are also problematical. Silverfast is the only
> third pary scanning software that allows you to make your own
> LUT's. I've fooled around and come up with N+1, N-1 and N+2
> LUT's, and they work well - in 8 bit, of course. Both Mike Kravit
> and I scan in 16, drop down into 8 bit Silverfast HDR and
> optimize the image before it even gets into Photoshop. What do
> you guys do at the scanning stage? What works consistenly?
>
> Does anyone have a solid technique for combining shadow and
> highlight exposures into one seamless image without resorting
> to hair-pulling in and after the Apply Command? Seeing as we
> are trying to get out of the darkroom into the lightroom, we need
> to explore "closed loop" solutions like Polaroid films, where we
> don't have much development control, but it doesn't go to the lab
> and get scrunched either. And if we don't have development
> control, what can we do with split exposures that takes care of
> the contrast problem well with little fuss and bother? What, for
> instance, defines a good highlight exposure and a good shadow
> exposure for this kind of process?
>
> Can we arrive at a general workflow through Photoshop that a
> beginner could take and make a good print? This would be sort
> of like the Develop/Stop/Fix/Wash routine of the old darkroom.
>
> How do we teach beginners about Black and White tonal
> values? I find in teaching workshops that the hardest part of this
> is for people to actually see that something is wrong and needs
> to be corrected tonally. But this is what probably separates great
> printers from simply mediocre ones.
>
> As far as I can see, having tried all the Quadtone types available
> to date(and in spades, I might add),  Piezography is hard to beat,
> and for several reasons: 1) It has a 2100dpi RIP, 2) It has
> proprietary profiles for the inks and papers 3) It was designed by
> a photographer and a printmaker, not a businessman, 4) If you
> have a 7000, it prints in 16 bit, and 5) uses grayscale files.  The
> others suffer from the fact that they are CMYK or RGB files, do not
> have profiles, and cannot get over the hump of the 720 Epson
> driver - in reality, they sell inks, not a total process.
>
> I also applaud Steadman's desire to talk about other important
> issues surrounding Black and White printmaking - Picasso once
> said that whenever artists get together all they want to talk about
> is where to buy good turpentine, and I suppose we're no
> different.
>
> I, too, would like to have this be a serious discussion and not the
> typical "my brother stepped on a frog" list that the others tend to
> be.
>
> We are the pioneers.
>
> Somebody open a six-pack.
>
> George
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -

George,

it's great to "see" you here. Thanks for joining our inaugural discussions. You
raised a whole bunch of hot issues each of which calls for a new thread.
I'll start with the scan workflow. You wrote:

>>>
Scanning protocols are also problematical. Silverfast is the only
third pary scanning software that allows you to make your own
LUT's. I've fooled around and come up with N+1, N-1 and N+2
LUT's, and they work well - in 8 bit, of course. Both Mike Kravit
and I scan in 16, drop down into 8 bit Silverfast HDR and
optimize the image before it even gets into Photoshop. What do
you guys do at the scanning stage? What works consistenly?<<<

While I see the point of scanning in 16bit, I don't see that as necessary a
priori. It seems to me a matter of whether or not you have enough control in
the scanner interface to let the scanner  spit out an 8bit file where the tones
are laid out as best they can  without local controls. The Crosfield at BowHaus
in Los Angeles, only outputs 8bits, for example, but they are "great" 8bits,
because of how it's driven.

With less capable scanners and drivers, the 16bit is a workaround t o allow
Photoshop to do the heavy lifting. That's all I see in it for now. All this may
change if Adobe implements 16bits across everything.

However, considering that the upcoming release of PiezoBW software will
allow for 16bit printing on the desktop, there will be the dilemma: If you
didn't
scan it in 16bit and _stayed_ in 16bit, what's the use? Which means that the
brave printer must scan in 16, do all the other maneuvers needed to fake
layers and masks and produce a printing file without ever dropping to 8. For
some who need only one overall move, this may be the ideal and highest
possible quality. I suspect, for most, it will not be used untill Photoshop
embraces 16 more fully.

Here now is a workflow idea (8 or 16bits)  that I would like to post for
feedback
and comments:

-The scan of the negative or other monochrome original is done in RGB (8 or
16) and  saved out of the scanner software with the appropriate profile.

- The file is opened in photoshop for tonal adjustments while still in RGB. But
before starting, we check our color settings (this assumes PS 6).
----Under gray we have created a curve that matches the paper/ink/printer we
intend to use. That means that a _grayscale file_ on screen will look identical
to a print made under those settings.
----Under RGB we set the same color space that the file came from, so that the
intentions of the scanner and our view in PS match. The only real critical
number here is the gamma.

- We now do global and local adjustments as needed while still in RGB mode.
The critical step in this workflow is to stay in RGB. At this point we have the
option to add a channel mixer set to mono as the top layer (if in 8bits) which
does 2 things: Helps us see a consistent gray-color image, and allows us to
pick whatever mix of scanner channels looks best (more important for CCD
users).

- After we are happy with the look of the image, we make a dupe of the file,
flatten (if it was 8bits) and convert to grayscale. We notice that the file
looks
exactly the same in grayscale as it did in RGB. What in fact has happened is
that Photoshop has internally "adapted" the RGB file to the Gray settings we
previously set, which compensated for our paper/ink/printer. It is like putting
it
through a custom profile made for our specific output.

- We now take that grayscale and go to piezo and print with no further
adjustments. I bet that histogram will look pretty damn good now.

We have gained several things from this simultaneous drop to gray and match
the output device.

-We have a master file in RGB from which subsequent gray files can be made
for different papers just as one would for color. Alternatively,  a neutral
conversion can be produced (for other uses), based on a gray gamma that
simply matches the RGB gamma of the file.
- We have used all the information our scanner is capable of by utilizing all
its
channels with whatever benefits they each may have in noise, sharpness etc.
- We have done no moves in the fragile 8bit gray mode. We stand a chance at
a better histogram depending on whether we move all 3 channels at once or
separately.

That's the general idea: work in RGB, drop to a pre-calibrated gray when done
and print with no other tweaks.

I hope we can compare notes on the above.

Antonis Ricos

----- Original Message -----

From: George DeWolfe

To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Saturday, July 28, 2001 10:00 PM

Subject: [DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint] Re: Initial Thoughts

Hi All

There are some real issues to be tackled. One is the reluctance
of Adobe to support 16 bit fully in Photoshop. This filters down
into the plug-ins, like Silverfast, where all you can scan in is 16
bit RAW. I did find a way to overcome this slightly - by changing
the default gamma from 2.00 to the maximum of 3.00 - and you
get a better looking image, but the companies just shuffle their
feet. Let's do some real workflows around this problem.

Scanning protocols are also problematical. Silverfast is the only
third pary scanning software that allows you to make your own
LUT's. I've fooled around and come up with N+1, N-1 and N+2
LUT's, and they work well - in 8 bit, of course. Both Mike Kravit
and I scan in 16, drop down into 8 bit Silverfast HDR and
optimize the image before it even gets into Photoshop. What do
you guys do at the scanning stage? What works consistenly?

Does anyone have a solid technique for combining shadow and
highlight exposures into one seamless image without resorting
to hair-pulling in and after the Apply Command? Seeing as we
are trying to get out of the darkroom into the lightroom, we need
to explore "closed loop" solutions like Polaroid films, where we
don't have much development control, but it doesn't go to the lab
and get scrunched either. And if we don't have development
control, what can we do with split exposures that takes care of
the contrast problem well with little fuss and bother? What, for
instance, defines a good highlight exposure and a good shadow
exposure for this kind of process?

Can we arrive at a general workflow through Photoshop that a
beginner could take and make a good print? This would be sort
of like the Develop/Stop/Fix/Wash routine of the old darkroom.

How do we teach beginners about Black and White tonal
values? I find in teaching workshops that the hardest part of this
is for people to actually see that something is wrong and needs
to be corrected tonally. But this is what probably separates great
printers from simply mediocre ones.

As far as I can see, having tried all the Quadtone types available
to date(and in spades, I might add),  Piezography is hard to beat,
and for several reasons: 1) It has a 2100dpi RIP, 2) It has
proprietary profiles for the inks and papers 3) It was designed by
a photographer and a printmaker, not a businessman, 4) If you
have a 7000, it prints in 16 bit, and 5) uses grayscale files.  The
others suffer from the fact that they are CMYK or RGB files, do not
have profiles, and cannot get over the hump of the 720 Epson
driver - in reality, they sell inks, not a total process.

I also applaud Steadman's desire to talk about other important
issues surrounding Black and White printmaking - Picasso once
said that whenever artists get together all they want to talk about
is where to buy good turpentine, and I suppose we're no
different.

I, too, would like to have this be a serious discussion and not the
typical "my brother stepped on a frog" list that the others tend to
be.

We are the pioneers.

Somebody open a six-pack.

George









-


If you do not wish to belong to Digital B&W, The Print, you may
unsubscribe by sending an email to:
DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

Coating Inkjet Prints

An idea that was introduced on the Piezo list by Bob Tyson was to
varnish Piezo prints (or any inkjet print). Varnishing or otherwise
coating an inkjet print can address several issues.

One of the most common dissatisfaction with B&W inkjet prints is that
the Dmax (maximum density or deepest black) is not as black as a
traditional silver gelatin print. This is due in large part to the
fact that the most suitable papers for pigment inks have a matte
finish. Coating an inkjet print significantly increases the Dmax and
the overall contrast of the image.

Secondly the surface of inkjet prints is frequently rather fragile
and easily damaged. A coating over the ink offers a great deal of
mechanical protection.

Fading issues can also benefit from coating. The dyes used in inkjet
inks are susceptible to fading from exposure to UV light. Many of the
coatings available contain UV absorbers or inhibitors. If the coating
does not, it is possible to add these substances. Even the pigmented
inkjet inks benefit from UV protection since virtually all of them
contain some dye to increase Dmax.

Back when Bob Tyson brought up the idea of varnishing Piezo prints
his idea was to use "alternative coatings," that is using coatings
such as furniture finishes that were not intended to be used as art
varnishes. This inspired me to visit the local art store to check out
the selection of non-alternative or coatings intended for use on
works of art. At the time I promised to give some of these a try when
I had the time.

In the meantime Robert Morrison took up the task of trying artists
varnishes on Piezo prints. Robert ultimately decided that the work he
had done was of commercial value and is currently working with
company to market a coating system specifically for inkjet prints.
His system is currently under going trials and will not be available
be a couple of months.

In any case, I decided to conduct my own trials in coating inkjet,
specifically Piezo inkjet prints. Rather than waiting to the end of
the tests and publishing a report I and will post updates as I go
along. I am going to simply give you the information in roughly the
order things occurred.

Some general thoughts on the subject.

As Bob Tyson aptly put it, "This isn't rocket science." nor is it a
new science. Photographers have been varnishing their photos from
just about day one but tapered off when the silver gelatin on clay
coated papers took over the market. Both the air-dried and the
ferrotyped finishes were popular and varnishing photos largely died
out except for a small number including Paul Strand. (Bob, you have
much more art and photo history than I, so if I err in this area or
you have additional info please jump in.)

A lot of these varnished photos are still around and in good shape so
I don't believe that archival issues should be too concerning. (I
have some 30-year-old photos that were sprayed with Krylon that are
still fine.) Given the advances in polymer technology, the materials
available today should be superior to what was used on photographs
100 years ago.

The traditional art varnishes are made from plant resins dissolved in
solvents and oils. The most common ones are mastic, copal, and dammar
for oil painting and, acrylic for acrylic paintings (although some
artists use acrylic to varnish their oils).

I decided to not try the mastic, copal and dammar varnishes, as they
are known to either start out yellow or turn yellow within 50 years.
Dammar seems to be considered the best of the three starting clear
but yellowing eventually. If you are wondering why oil painters
knowingly use yellowing varnishes on their paintings the answer is
that the varnish can be removed and a fresh coat applied. This isn't
an option for Piezo prints.

I also decided to limit myself to brush application at this time. The
canned sprays I have tried did not seem to have any effect on the
appearance of the surface or the Dmax. I think they simply apply a
coating that is too thin and dries to quickly to smooth out. Although
they do provide some mechanical and UV protection.

First attempts:

Based on the posts to the Piezo list that Robert Morrison made I had
gotten the two Golden acrylic varnishes he mentioned, the water
soluble and the MSA solvent based both in gloss. I also got the
DaVinci #50 varnish brushes he mentioned.

I found the water soluble Golden and the brushes at Dick Blick Art
Materials (http://www.dickblick.com/)

The Golden solvent based varnish I bought locally at University Art
Supplies. I did note that Rex Art (http://www.rexart.com) does carry
the Golden solvent based.

Another excellent source for art supplies on line appears to be
In2art. (http://www.in2art.com/index.shtml )

I also obtained a third coating based on a post by Marty Connelly(?)
on the Piezo list who had mentioned using an aerosol product
ClearJet . I checked out the web site and found that they sell this
in quarts and gallons and also make a water based version called
ClearSheild. These are vinyl coatings that are sold to sign makers as
a coating for inkjet printed signs and banners used in outdoor
displays. I chose the water based ClearSheild in gloss.

(NOTE: If you order some of these items over the Internet or by phone
you will run into some shipping limitations. Hazardous materials are
either not accepted for air shipment or only at a higher charge. Even
ground shipments sometimes involve a "handling fee." This is not just
the solvent-based products. An 8 oz. bottle of Golden water based
varnish was considered hazardous.)

I made identical prints on Lumijet Classic Velour (aka Hahnemuhle
German Etching, Lyson Standard Fine Art, ConeTech Orwell), ConeTech
Wells River (aka Hahnemulhe William Turner 190 gsm), Kodak Ultima
Satin and ConeTech Matte (aka Hahnemulhe Photo Matte). All on 8.5 X
11 paper.

I needed something to tape the prints to so I took three empty
cardboard boxes. Opened the top and bottom and cut one corner. I
taped four sheets to the inside surface of the flattened box and laid
it out on my deck (which would greatly benefit from some spilled
varnish). My working quarters are rather small and while I could coat
a print or two inside a large number would be impossible.

Trial #1

I started with the ClearSheild Gloss. The directions said to use it
undiluted straight from the can. I applied two coats to a print on
Wells River and 1, 2 and 3 coats to three prints on Lumijet Classic
Velour. I let the prints dry about 1 hour between coats. While the
prints were drying I picked up the flattened cardboard box and stood
it on edge in its original box shape to help protect the coated
prints from dust.

First mistake. Undiluted may be fine on the vinyl substrate the
manufacturer had in mind but on paper not a good idea. The absorbent
paper soaked up the thick, undiluted coating unevenly. This resulted
in some slight mottling in smooth toned areas of the prints. This
also resulted in an uneven gloss on the first coat.

Second mistake. While being careful about runs or puddles on the
print area I didn't check the edges of the print or the backing
cardboard so when I stood the cardboard on edge I got a few runs down
a couple of the prints and some behind a print gluing it to the
cardboard.

Impressions/Conclusions:

Wow! When you put that coating on and it is wet, it is like looking
at a silver print in a tray of water! Dry down to reality. The
ClearSheild Gloss gives a new definition to the word gloss. Man this
stuff shines like an RC glossy. Like a lamination only brighter.
Howeve, the total result is not smooth like a RC print. The paper has
texture, there are signs of residual brush strokes and small bumps
from tiny air bubbles that did not fully release from the coating
before it dried.

On the 1 and 2 coat prints there is some variation in the gloss. It
appears that if you do not get a nice smooth, even coat on the very
first coat, the imperfections carry through into the next coat or two.

Dmax is greatly improved as expected. I think that ClearSheild Gloss
is way too glossy for my tastes. With the super high gloss, light
reflects from the many small surface bumps. It is hard to find a
viewing angle that doesn't show some sparkle points. The Wells River,
being a smoother paper was much better in this regard.

I did not observe any buckling in either the Wells River or the
Lumijet Classic Velour. Both took on more curl but look like they
would flatten out under a standard window mat. They are much flatter
than an air-dried silver gelatin print. However, now that they are
coated I doubt they could be dry mounted. Wet mounting should be
feasible if required or desired.

Antonis Rico who saw Robert Morrison's efforts pointed out, these do
not look like sliver prints. The finish looks very similar to the
surface of a varnished oil painting on canvas, which shows the
variation in paint thickness, brush strokes and the underlying canvas
texture. This is not going to be to everyone's taste. I showed my
wife a coated and uncoated print and her reaction was that she liked
them both. I sort of shared that feeling but as a former silver
printer that extra Dmax is attractive.

Trial #2

For this I used the Golden water-soluble acrylic varnish. Once again
I used 1 print on Wells River (3 coats) and 3 prints on Lumijet
Classic Velour (with 3, 4 and 5 coats). I diluted the varnish with
water as directed on the bottle adding approximately 1 part water to
2 parts varnish (Note: In the varnish world this is considered a 50%
dilution). This was more than the 20 to 40% recommended but I assumed
the recommendation was for a painted surface.

First Mistake: Similar to trial #1. The coating was still too thick
and did not spread out nicely on the first coat. Coverage was better
than with the undiluted ClearSheild but the first coat dried with an
uneven gloss indicating uneven application. Second Mistake: Same as
in trial #1. I did them at the same time and had not yet noticed the
run problem. Impressions/Conclusions: The Golden is not as glossy as
the ClearSheild and leveled better giving a nicer finish at 3 and 4
coats. At 5 coats the gloss is starting to get close to the
ClearSheild gloss level. Once again the Wells River with its smoother
surface had fewer spectacular reflections. Small bumps from tiny
unreleased air bubbles was a problem with the Golden too but not as
bad as the ClearSheild. Again great Dmax improvement.

Trial #3

Just as an experiment I tried brushing an undiluted coat of
ClearSheild on a print on Kodak Ultima Satin. As expected the print
smeared but very slightly. I was surprised how little. Here the brush
marks are very obvious. Looking past these flaws the thick coating
really put the paper solidly into silver gelatin territory in my
opinion. Although RC rather than fiber. If you like this paper, I
would recommend pursuing this with a satin finish coating and an
airbrush application perhaps.

Trial #4 This was with the ClearSheild using a 1 to 2 dilution on a
print on Wells River and one on ConeTech Matte. The first coat went
more smoothly than trial #1 and the final result on the Wells River
was better but still too glossy. The ConeTech Matte is too light and
buckled up badly. Also the brush marks are more noticeable on the
smoother surface. It would need to be mounted before coating.

Trial #5

This was with the solvent based Golden acrylic varnish MSA. There
were literally no instructions on the can at all. Checking their
website I found a wealth of information on their products and on
varnishing in general. A must read if you are interested in this.

http://www.goldenpaints.com/ http://www.goldenpaints.com/varns.htm

One of the first things I found was that the odorless paint thinner I
had been sold to dilute this varnish was not appropriate. In fact
they only recommend thinner is extra distilled or refined turpentine
to prevent let down shock (thickening or lumping). Unfortunately that
is not readily available. I made one attempt to put a single
undiluted coat on a print on Lumijet Classic Velour without much
success.

After going through the material on Golden's website I reached some
conclusions. The Golden MSA solvent varnish is probably really great.
For starters, all the HALS and UV absorbers that Jon Cone has
mentioned on the Piezo site already in the varnish. In general,
solvent varnishes will level better and have fewer problems with
foaming and bubble release. In addition solvent system polymers are
generally stronger and more durable. The Golden MSA probably offers
really great protection.

I also concluded that this really isn't a workable system for me and
probably not for many other users. You need to have a very large
working space and be willing to devote the time required. Golden
recommends 4 brush coats or 8 spray coats for best protection. Since
4 to 6 hours of drying time is required between coats and a final
curing time of several days after the last coat before stacking, the
process will really stretch out. Also, this is a solvent based
coating that needs to be done and allowed to dry in a space separate
from where you work or live and in a manner that does not present a
fire or health hazard. In addition commercial use in may urban area
will require air pollution permits and/or abatement.

I intend to pursue this on at least a couple of prints so that I have
the comparison point. I am in sunny California and I can leave them
outside over night. Other than that I will be pursuing only the water
based materials that dry more quickly and will allow me to work
inside once the rainy season arrives.

Some overall conclusions at this point:

It should be pointed out that the Piezo prints I coated were printed
with using a water insoluble pigment ink set. If you want to coat or
varnish a print that was made using a water soluble dye based ink set
you will need to apply a spray coating such as Krylon to fix the inks
in place and protect them from the water in these coatings.

While I need to work on my brush technique for that critical first
coat, I suspect that brushed on coatings will always be somewhat
uneven. This may be good or bad depending upon your artistic taste.
We are used to seeing photographs that have very uniform surfaces.
The brushed on coatings so far add a bit of a hands-on look. I think
that some unevenness is probably okay and would be down played under
glass.

Which reminds me that someone suggested that the coated prints could
be framed and displayed without glass. I don't think that this would
be a good idea as some of the coatings are not all that tough and
your matting would not last.

One item I gleaned from the Golden information is that their
varnishes are designed to be removable. In the painting conservation
world the ability to remove an old coat of varnish along with
accumulated dirt is essential. To make the varnishes removable they
have essentially not designed them for maximum toughness. Something
to keep in mind.

Another piece of information was that polyurethanes are the toughest
polymers available but were not considered for painting varnishes
because they do not pass the test of being removable. Also the more
common aromatic polyurethanes yellow but the aliphatic ones do not.

Since there is no possibility of removing at least the first coat of
varnish from a Piezo print as it sinks into the paper I will try a
polyurethane in my next set of trials. I picked up a can of Varathane
Diamond Wood Finish Exterior Semi gloss at Home Depot. I contacted
Varathane and they confirmed that it was an aliphatic polyurethane
and would not yellow. I chose the Exterior as it is advertised as
having UV blockers and being more flexible during extreme temperature
changes.

I am also thinking of a better way to get the first coat on the paper
to even out the final result. The possibilities are silkscreen,
airbrush or draw down rod. I have a bit of experience with silkscreen
and it offers the chance to make a heavy first coat. Airbrush I have
no experience with and might be hard to use at the dinning room
table. Draw down rods I only know as something used to spread
chemicals during platinum printing, something I have not tried.

So at this point the next set of trials will be the vinyl ClearSheild
in semi-gloss, the acrylic Golden water based (maybe in semi-gloss)
and the polyurethane Varathane in semi gloss. Currently waiting for a
paper shipment and some free time.

All comments and suggestions welcome.

Martin Wesley

Hi All

There are some real issues to be tackled. One is the reluctance
of Adobe to support 16 bit fully in Photoshop. This filters down
into the plug-ins, like Silverfast, where all you can scan in is 16
bit RAW. I did find a way to overcome this slightly - by changing
the default gamma from 2.00 to the maximum of 3.00 - and you
get a better looking image, but the companies just shuffle their
feet. Let's do some real workflows around this problem.

Scanning protocols are also problematical. Silverfast is the only
third pary scanning software that allows you to make your own
LUT's. I've fooled around and come up with N+1, N-1 and N+2
LUT's, and they work well - in 8 bit, of course. Both Mike Kravit
and I scan in 16, drop down into 8 bit Silverfast HDR and
optimize the image before it even gets into Photoshop. What do
you guys do at the scanning stage? What works consistenly?

Does anyone have a solid technique for combining shadow and
highlight exposures into one seamless image without resorting
to hair-pulling in and after the Apply Command? Seeing as we
are trying to get out of the darkroom into the lightroom, we need
to explore "closed loop" solutions like Polaroid films, where we
don't have much development control, but it doesn't go to the lab
and get scrunched either. And if we don't have development
control, what can we do with split exposures that takes care of
the contrast problem well with little fuss and bother? What, for
instance, defines a good highlight exposure and a good shadow
exposure for this kind of process?

Can we arrive at a general workflow through Photoshop that a
beginner could take and make a good print? This would be sort
of like the Develop/Stop/Fix/Wash routine of the old darkroom.

How do we teach beginners about Black and White tonal
values? I find in teaching workshops that the hardest part of this
is for people to actually see that something is wrong and needs
to be corrected tonally. But this is what probably separates great
printers from simply mediocre ones.

As far as I can see, having tried all the Quadtone types available
to date(and in spades, I might add),  Piezography is hard to beat,
and for several reasons: 1) It has a 2100dpi RIP, 2) It has
proprietary profiles for the inks and papers 3) It was designed by
a photographer and a printmaker, not a businessman, 4) If you
have a 7000, it prints in 16 bit, and 5) uses grayscale files.  The
others suffer from the fact that they are CMYK or RGB files, do not
have profiles, and cannot get over the hump of the 720 Epson
driver - in reality, they sell inks, not a total process.

I also applaud Steadman's desire to talk about other important
issues surrounding Black and White printmaking - Picasso once
said that whenever artists get together all they want to talk about
is where to buy good turpentine, and I suppose we're no
different.

I, too, would like to have this be a serious discussion and not the
typical "my brother stepped on a frog" list that the others tend to
be.

We are the pioneers.

Somebody open a six-pack.

George









-

----- Original Message -----

From: mwesley250@...

To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Saturday, July 28, 2001 6:00 PM

Subject: [DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint] Re: Initial Thoughts

Steadman,

I expect that you are right but hope to get the word out to people
using MIS and Lysonic products as well. Not to mention using CYMK
sets for B&W, film recorders, contact neg, production, etc.

One of the things that nydged me into starting this list was that
some of the people on the Piezo list are apparently using other inks
or combinations of Piezo and other inks. I hope to get them to come
forward here and talk about their techniques and results.

I should have something up in the "Photos" area now if I'm driving
this thing right!

Thanks for your input and keep on dropping by!

Martin

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., steadmanuhlich@k... wrote:
> Hello All,
>
> I imagine the core group starting this is going to be an All
> Piezography group, but doubtless that will change with time. 
>
> I can barely keep up with the Piezo list messages (sometimes 30-50)
> but I must admit that I am hooked and look forward to the learning,
> tips and dialog each day.  When my mail box is almost empty...I am
> really disappointed.  ; )
>
> I wish this list the best of luck and will read your messages with
> interest.  And when I can, I will contribute what little knowledge
I
> have squirreled away.
>
> Regards,
> Steadman
>
> PS I checked for photos here and found none.


If you do not wish to belong to Digital B&W, The Print, you may
unsubscribe by sending an email to:
DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

----- Original Message -----

From: Tim Spragens

To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Saturday, July 28, 2001 6:43 PM

Subject: Re: [DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint] Initial Thoughts

I'm not a planner of this site, but my take on it was that it was open
to discussion of any B&W digital printing method, including
different inks, mixed inks, driver twiddles whether Piezography or
not. No ties to any particular branding - if someone comes in with
examples of India ink in a Canon, I'd think the ideas would be
welcome.

Tim

> I imagine the core group starting this is going to be an All
> Piezography group, but doubtless that will change with time. 
>


--
Tim Spragens
http://www.borderless-photos.com


If you do not wish to belong to Digital B&W, The Print, you may
unsubscribe by sending an email to:
DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

Steadman,

I expect that you are right but hope to get the word out to people
using MIS and Lysonic products as well. Not to mention using CYMK
sets for B&W, film recorders, contact neg, production, etc.

One of the things that nydged me into starting this list was that
some of the people on the Piezo list are apparently using other inks
or combinations of Piezo and other inks. I hope to get them to come
forward here and talk about their techniques and results.

I should have something up in the "Photos" area now if I'm driving
this thing right!

Thanks for your input and keep on dropping by!

Martin

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., steadmanuhlich@k... wrote:
> Hello All,
>
> I imagine the core group starting this is going to be an All
> Piezography group, but doubtless that will change with time.
>
> I can barely keep up with the Piezo list messages (sometimes 30-50)
> but I must admit that I am hooked and look forward to the learning,
> tips and dialog each day.  When my mail box is almost empty...I am
> really disappointed.  ; )
>
> I wish this list the best of luck and will read your messages with
> interest.  And when I can, I will contribute what little knowledge
I
> have squirreled away.
>
> Regards,
> Steadman
>
> PS I checked for photos here and found none.

Switching to Digital B&W Printing

One topic to address at the beginning of this forum is some of the
reasons and benefits of digital B&W printing over conventional
methods. What follows is a narrative of my own slow drift into
digital printing.

I come from a background and a deep love of silver gelatin prints. I
love darkroom work. I am perhaps more of a printer than a
photographer. I often find myself heading out on a photo-shooting
exhibition because I need some fresh negatives to work with. This is
probably an unusual attitude.

So why am I attempting digital printing for my B&W photos? There is
not really a straight answer to that question. It is a combination of
circumstances and issues that simmered in my mind over many years.

Back in the late '80 I tried scanning a photo with a cheap Logitech
hand scanner and printing the image on my then new HP LaserJet II.
Ugh! doesn't come close to describing the result. I pretty much put
the idea out of my mind.

About 1993 I was showing my portfolio to a gallery owner and when he
came to an image of a river rushing just under a fallen tree.
Unfortunately, there is a small pine seedling on one side of the
image that intrudes and weakens the composition. The gallery owner
exclaimed in total exasperation, "Why didn't you break that stupid
tree off or scan the image into Photoshop and remove it?"

Well I wish the seedling had not been there but, while I will break
off a small dead branch now and then, I have never felt right about
hacking off living branches much less entire trees, even small ones.
The Photoshop comment did stick and made me take a look to see what
was happening with digital. What I saw at that time was Iris prints
from places like Nash Editions that we too expensive and did not
allow me to do it myself. They also looked to have good color but not
so great B&W. Once again digital went on my mental shelf.

In about 1996 I had an incredible day photographing at Fort
Churchill, Nevada. By late afternoon and into dusk the light, clouds
and my eye seemed to hit a real high. I got a lot of great shots.
Unfortunately I was shooting with a Horseman 4X5 rail camera using
some excellent Nikor wide-angle lenses. These had terrific coverage
but in shooting at right angles to the light of the setting sun the
extra coverage resulted in internal camera flair. A huge number of
those great shots had light bands on one or both sides of the
negative.

If you look at Barracks1 in the "Photo" section of this group you can
see one of the shots.
http://photos.groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/lst
It is not real clear at this size and resolution, but you can see
bands of lighter tonality on both sides of the image.


I could not see anyway to convincingly remove these imperfections in
the darkroom or by post printing retouching. Once again I started
thinking about digital and how easy it would be to fix this in the
computer.

In 1998 I gave digital a serious try using two approaches. I had
negatives scanned by drum and to Pro Photo CD. I then used Dan
Burkholder's method to have half-tone contact negatives made and I
also had files output to film recorders to produce new corrected
negatives for enlargement. I did not find the half-tone negatives
satisfying because I could not get a screen that was not visible at
arms length or closer. The film recorder method also was not workable
due to the poor quality of the negatives.

I gave up I frustration not because I felt the technology couldn't be
made to work but because I was having to work through service bureaus
at great expense. I believe that if I had direct access to the
equipment I could have produced satisfying negs. I don't have to tell
you that the cost of the equipment put it entirely out of reach. Once
again I put the idea of digital B&W prints back on the shelf.

(I would love to get some input here from anyone who is or has used
film recorders to take a digital photo file back into the darkroom to
make a print. Ditto for Dan's half-tone contact method. I am sure
these have improved along with the rapid advances in computer
technology.)

About this time I was hearing of people using inkjet printers with
quadratone ink sets to make B&W prints. Unfortunately I also heard
about some of the difficulties and, already being discouraged over
the whole issue, I did not pursue it.

Two additional factors finally pushed me into digital B&W printing.
My day job became much more demanding leaving little time to set up
my darkroom. For me a reasonable darkroom session lasts 6 to 14
hours. My production of prints dried to a trickle and then nothing. I
finally saw an article by George DeWolfe, whose work I admire,
praising a new ink set and software by Jon Cone called Piezography.

Check out both
http://www.inkjetmall.com/store/piezographyBW.html and
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/piezography3000

After some investigation I took the plunge and finally found a way to
print satisfying B&W images on the desktop. My desire for complete
control led to some scanner purchases and I now feel pretty self-
sufficient.

Now I can get a print of that "unprintable negative" that resembles
the image Barracks2,
http://photos.groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/lst
(The posted image is not a scan of a print but is from the print file
I use.)

I can't tell you what a rush it was to achieve a finished print of
this shot! The scene was so powerful in my mind when I took the
picture and has not diminished in the 5 years that passed.

Of course in reality removing the light bands was not at all easy in
Photoshop! At least not for a novice. It took a lot of trials and I
still think I could do a better job on the right hand side now that I
look at it again. But I can find time to work on it! I can put in an
hour or two, shut down my computer and pick up where I left off the
day before. I am printing!

Are the prints identical to silver gelatin prints? Very similar to
matte silver gelatin papers but quite different from the standard air-
dried glossy or smooth silver gelatin prints. There is an adjustment
period here, if you make the switch. I personally feel that the B&W
ink jet prints I have seen mostly Piezo (some Iris), have to be
viewed as a new medium and a beautiful one. They have to be judge on
their own strength and weaknesses and not necessarily head-to-head
with silver.

Do I still see room to improve the technology? Absolutely!
Positively! But if you are out there wondering whether to take the
plunge, the water's just fine right now so jump on in!

Martin Wesley

I'm not a planner of this site, but my take on it was that it was open
to discussion of any B&W digital printing method, including
different inks, mixed inks, driver twiddles whether Piezography or
not. No ties to any particular branding - if someone comes in with
examples of India ink in a Canon, I'd think the ideas would be
welcome.

Tim

> I imagine the core group starting this is going to be an All
> Piezography group, but doubtless that will change with time.
>


--
Tim Spragens
http://www.borderless-photos.com

Hello All,

I imagine the core group starting this is going to be an All
Piezography group, but doubtless that will change with time.

I can barely keep up with the Piezo list messages (sometimes 30-50)
but I must admit that I am hooked and look forward to the learning,
tips and dialog each day.  When my mail box is almost empty...I am
really disappointed.  ; )

I wish this list the best of luck and will read your messages with
interest.  And when I can, I will contribute what little knowledge I
have squirreled away.

Regards,
Steadman

PS I checked for photos here and found none.

Tim,

Yes. (I tend to monitor list from their web page rather than
receiving posts by e-mail which makes a difference.) In your message
you should direct people to look at photo "ABC" at
http://photos.groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/lst

Martin


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Tim Spragens"
<t.spragens@c...> wrote:
> So if one wants to reference an image, it is best to give the URL
to
> the group page, followed by a title? (This may seem simplistic -
I'm
> just trying to establish protocols).
>
> > 3) When the photo is uploaded it can be uploaded with a title. In
your
> > text post just say refer to photo "ABC" in the Photo section.
> >
>
>
> --
> Tim Spragens
> http://www.borderless-photos.com

So if one wants to reference an image, it is best to give the URL to
the group page, followed by a title? (This may seem simplistic - I'm
just trying to establish protocols).

> 3) When the photo is uploaded it can be uploaded with a title. In your
> text post just say refer to photo "ABC" in the Photo section.
>


--
Tim Spragens
http://www.borderless-photos.com

Tim,

1)The Yahoo's file size limit for a photo is 5MB but given the up-
load and down-load times and the total space limit of 30MB that is
not workable. I would try to keep images in the 100K range which with
JPEG compression gives an image 500 pixel width range using 72 dpi as
common monitor resolution.

2) At this point I have limited posting to the Photo area to myself.
So if you want to put a photo up e-mail the file(s) to me directly
and I will upload to Yahoo. If I don't do it this way, anyone can not
only post but take down or modify what is already there which is
likely to get confusing.

3) When the photo is uploaded it can be uploaded with a title. In
your text post just say refer to photo "ABC" in the Photo section.

Martin


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Tim Spragens"
<t.spragens@c...> wrote:
> I never tried this with Yahoo; some questions:
> 1) what is the size limitation?
> 2) how are the posted?
> 3) is it possible to reference the particular image file in a
message,
> or must one say "go to the group page and look at image X"?
>
> Tim
>
> > As part of a Yahoo group they provide 30MB of space to post files
and
> > photos. If you are viewing the group on line you will see the
links to
> > these areas on the left of the window.
> >
>
>
> --
> Tim Spragens
> http://www.borderless-photos.com

I never tried this with Yahoo; some questions:
1) what is the size limitation?
2) how are the posted?
3) is it possible to reference the particular image file in a message,
or must one say "go to the group page and look at image X"?

Tim

> As part of a Yahoo group they provide 30MB of space to post files and
> photos. If you are viewing the group on line you will see the links to
> these areas on the left of the window.
>


--
Tim Spragens
http://www.borderless-photos.com

As part of a Yahoo group they provide 30MB of space to post files and
photos. If you are viewing the group on line you will see the links
to these areas on the left of the window.

My thought is to use the Photo area to post visual examples of
problems or successes that are not easily conveyed with words alone.
This looks to be a very handy resource keeping in mind the
limitations of low resolution images and variations in monitor color
calibration. (Your monitor is calibrated isn't it?)

Since the area is small in size it would need to be used on a "first-
in, first-out" basis. Also to keep things from being accidentally
removed I will need to moderate the postings to and deletion from
this area.

So if you wish to post some images to illustrate a point in a text
message, send the files to me and I will put them in the "Photo" area
with a title showing which list message they are associated with.

A warning! This is Yahoo and everything is open. Anyone can download
images in this area or use Yahoo to incorporate the photos into a
greeting. They can even order prints of the photo from Yahoo! So this
may not be a place to put your precious images. Watermarks and
copyright notices would be in order.

Martin Wesley

Antonis and Martin,

Congratulations on the launch of your list.  May it prosper in the free
exchange of ideas to the benefit of all who employ digital means in B&W
printmaking.

Phil
http://philbard.com

Antonis,

what I have is the 190 g/m^2 William Turner. The sample pack that
Bernd sent me had both that and the 310. I saw no difference in
surface, though now that I look again, it appears that the 190 is a
bit brighter (not by much). I haven't tried German Etching, but that
is on my list.

Please clarify something for me - is William Turner the same as
Wells River? Some have complained about flaking, and I think it
was Wells River. I've been bending and shaking a print on WT,
trying to induce a flake, but with no success.

Sample prints on both WT and Torchon are going in for ozone
testing. I'll report what I hear about that.

Tim

> did you try both weights of the William Turner? And have you had a
> chance t= o try German Etching (=Orwell)?
>


--
Tim Spragens
http://www.borderless-photos.com

Tim,

did you try both weights of the William Turner? And have you had a chance t=
o
try German Etching (=Orwell)?

Antonis


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Tim Spragens" <t.spragens@c...> =

wrote:

...

> I've used Somerset Velvet and Somerset Enhanced, and just this
> week received boxes of Hahnemühle William Turner and Torchon. I
> am very pleased with the results on both papers with PiezoBW ink
> as well as Epson 2000P. I finally found a local (German) supplier.
>
> I was concerned at first about the texture of the Torchon, but once
> the ink is on the paper (I tested with a very detailed image) the
> texture is not obvious. With a rakinig light, William Turner's texture
> is more apparent
>
> Tim
> --
> Tim Spragens
> http://www.borderless-photos.com

> good to see you here. Maybe we can kick this off by summarizing some
> of our experiences with Piezo prints. Favorite or specialty papers,
> for example....

Hi Antonis. You people are up late, or early.

I am not nearly as experienced as you in papers. For most of my
printing, longevity is not of prime concern. I use Epson Archival
Matte mostly, but have printed an exhibition on Epson Watercolor
with good effect. There is some sharpness loss on that paper over
others, and in hand, the feel is not as pleasing as the art papers.

For work prints, I've started to use Epson Heavyweight Matte;
though not as white as EAM, the surface is very similar and it it
more readily available here.

I've used Somerset Velvet and Somerset Enhanced, and just this
week received boxes of Hahnemühle William Turner and Torchon. I
am very pleased with the results on both papers with PiezoBW ink
as well as Epson 2000P. I finally found a local (German) supplier.

I was concerned at first about the texture of the Torchon, but once
the ink is on the paper (I tested with a very detailed image) the
texture is not obvious. With a rakinig light, William Turner's texture
is more apparent

Tim
--
Tim Spragens
http://www.borderless-photos.com

> Check the "Photos" section for me
> and let me know if you can access the picture I uploaded.

I had troubles with Yahoo login, but that's sorted. Very dramatic
lighting - filtered?

Tim
--
Tim Spragens
http://www.borderless-photos.com

Hi Tim,

good to see you here. Maybe we can kick this off by summarizing some of our
experiences with Piezo prints. Favorite or specialty papers, for example....

Antonis

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Tim Spragens" <t.spragens@c...>
wrote:
> Hi Martin, I'm in.
>
> Tim
>
> --
> Tim Spragens
> http://www.borderless-photos.com

Tim,

Thanks for kicking off with the first post! Still finding myway
arround the moderator's controls. Check the "Photos" section for me
and let me know if you can access the picture I uploaded.

Thanks again,

Martin Wesley

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Tim Spragens"
<t.spragens@c...> wrote:
> Hi Martin, I'm in.
>
> Tim
>
> --
> Tim Spragens
> http://www.borderless-photos.com

Hi Martin, I'm in.

Tim

--
Tim Spragens
http://www.borderless-photos.com

Welcome to Digital B&W, The Print.

This forum was started after much thought and discussion.  There is a
strong desire by many people to make high quality digital B&W prints
and a need for a central place to post and find information. To
facilitate the free flow of this information we established a forum
that has no association with any commercial enterprise.

Photographers moving from traditional methods into the new world of
digital photography are well served by the giants of the industry
when it comes to color printing. There is a wealth of materials,
technology and information available. For those working in
traditional B&W media such as silver gelatin, platinum and the
numerous other monochrome alternatives, there are fewer resources and
a harder task. While in traditional photography, B&W is considered to
be technically simpler and easier to manufacture than color, the
reverse tends to be true for digital B&W, which has been sadly
neglected by the large corporations.

The hope is that this forum will become a place where all of the
current and future techniques for making digital B&W prints will be
discussed, evaluated, disseminated, compared, critiqued, reviewed,
debated and refined in a dynamic exchange of ideas and information.
As time goes by the forum will become an archive of invaluable
information on what has been tried, what works, what does not work,
what problems were faced, and, most importantly, how those problems
were overcome and how success was achieved.

There is a wealth of knowledge out there. There are many people
making stunningly beautiful B&W prints using their computers. You are
invited to participate and share your knowledge. There are many out
there who want to know how to make digital B&W prints. Please ask.
That's a primary reason the forum is here.

Some guidelines on using this forum:
This is an unmoderated forum and no one is checking messages before
they are posted. It is expected that the members of the forum
moderate the forum and themselves. The topic is outlined above. It
does not have rigid borders but it is requested that the members
monitor themselves for the appropriateness of their posts to the
forum.

If you have not done so already, please read the Yahoo! Groups Terms
of Service These cover key issues regarding posting on this forum and
other Yahoo locations.

Moderation of the forum by the users includes an expectation of basic
manners and good taste. While digital B&W printing would seem like a
very mild topic to most, those of us with experience know that people
can become very impassioned over their art, ideas, and choice of
materials. If they were not passionate about their art, they would
not be engaged in this often-difficult enterprise. Open and candid
discussion is encouraged. However, courtesy must prevail and it is
expected that exchanges should not deteriorate into personal insults,
harassment, etc. If they should, intervention will be taken as
necessary.

No SPAM please. Spamming will be grounds for being barred from the
forum.

Postings by commercial ventures or their representatives to promote
their products for digital B&W printing are welcome and encouraged
provided they follow the guidelines below.

1. Only post announcements of products relating to making B&W prints
using a digital device.

2.      If you want to use this forum as a place to announce or
promote your product, it is expected that you reciprocate and promote
the forum by placing a link to this forum on your website. This
should be an obvious win-win situation.

3.      If you promote your products here, you are expected to be a
regular participant on the forum and respond to questions regarding
the products and/or services by other forum users.

4.      Please limit purely promotional posts to roughly once a
month. The forum should not become a string of advertisements.