Creating true B&W prints from Digital

"Nicholas O. Lindan" wrote in message
nk.net...
Cough, yes ... the 'processor' in a camera is designed for
imaging, can't do much else, but it sure can process
images quickly.

Cough...No...Most certainly not.
And what is B&W..? Take a B&W film, shot the same scene and develop it in
different developers - you'll get completely different tonality...
To obtain the tonality you like, either use a B&W film exposed and developed
to your liking or shot in color and use yer ol' Photoshoppe.


Now, if what it does and what you want done are different
then you have a bit of a problem. Ref.: Lem, Stanislaw; "The
Stupidest Machine in the Universe"; _The Cyberaids_.


Yeah, maybe... Lem also wrote in 1954 (I'm paraphrasing the first sentence
of his novel "The Astronauts")
"In the year 2000, when the entire world was already communist..." :-)))

--
eM eLThere's no place like 127.0.0.1

Graham Fountain wrote:

I had the following thoughts on how to create a true B&W print from a
digital image, and was wondering if anyone here had tried it or what
your thoughts are on the technique. If someone has tried it and it is
hopeless, then I won't fork out the $$ to try it myself. Basically my
idea is to invert the image in whatever photo editor software to create
a negative image. Print this negative image at the output size on a
piece of transparency paper. Then contact print the negative image on
B&W paper and process as per normal.
I can't see why it wouldn't work, although I don't know how the quality
would compare - I wonder how a contact printed 8x10 inkjet negative
would compare to a 35mm neg enlarged optically.

I do it. I prepare the negative in Photoshop and print it on the Pictorico
Hi-Gloss White Film using Epson 2100 desktop inkjet printer with standard
Epson ink set. Then I do contact prints on regular Ilford MGIV DeLuxe
paper. Results are very nice, but first you have to calibrate yuor process.

Take a look he
http://www.danburkholder.com/

This is site of Dan Burkholder - the man who invented this process.

Another good site is he
http://www.slonet.org/~mhd/2photo/outneg/outneg.htm

This is the site of Donald Krehbiel, who worked (or works) with Dan
Burkholder and placed lots of information on his site.

Regards
Jakub
http://www.roguski.org

"Graham Fountain" wrote in message
...

Output of B&W with most inkjets though is pretty bad - most use a mix of
black and colour inks which results in your grays becoming muddy, you
usually end up with a colour cast (which can often change depending on how
light or dark the area is), and black areas end up with an unnatural sheen
to them. These limitations of inkjet were what I was hoping to overcome by
printing a neg onto transparency, then printing that neg in the darkroom.
My reasoning being that inkjets can produce a reasonable range of
densities from light to dark, but because they use colours to do it, they
look awful. If those densities were then reproduced in a B&W only medium
(ie printing on B&W paper), then hopefully the results will be ok.


You need to look into Piezography or quad-tone or hex-tone printing.

(Look up Roy Harrington's Quad Tone RIP.)

Or possibly the Epson R2400 which has two or three different black inks
that are used simultaneously.

Or possibly an Epson Pro model with a suitable RIP (the RIP alone
will cost $1K or more.) Certain RIPs are optimized for BW printing.

Inkjet printers using only their K (black) ink nozzles won't do the trick.

You need to have all the nozzles firing, preferably with a set of black/
gray inks. This means a dedicated Epson inkjet printer. MIS and Inkjet
Mall both sell these ink sets. Lyson used to make "limited gamut" inks
that would work with standard print drivers. Neither HP nor Canon
printers are really in this game. The best RIPs are all targeted at the
Epson Pro models.

Once you have the inks, you get the Quad Tone RIP and start calibrating.

What you end up with is a beautiful BW print with incredible tonality and
perfect neutrality. Trouble is you can't "buy" this solution. You have to
put it together yourself.


rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com

In article ,
"rafe b" wrote:

That has nothing to do with Darkroom work.
--
Reality-Is finding that perfect picture
and never looking back.

www.gregblankphoto.com

WHY not shoot on B & W film in the first place, it's much better than
digital anyway


"Jakub Roguski" wrote in message
...
Graham Fountain wrote:

I had the following thoughts on how to create a true B&W print from a
digital image, and was wondering if anyone here had tried it or what
your thoughts are on the technique. If someone has tried it and it is
hopeless, then I won't fork out the $$ to try it myself. Basically my
idea is to invert the image in whatever photo editor software to create
a negative image. Print this negative image at the output size on a
piece of transparency paper. Then contact print the negative image on
B&W paper and process as per normal.
I can't see why it wouldn't work, although I don't know how the quality
would compare - I wonder how a contact printed 8x10 inkjet negative
would compare to a 35mm neg enlarged optically.

I do it. I prepare the negative in Photoshop and print it on the Pictorico
Hi-Gloss White Film using Epson 2100 desktop inkjet printer with standard
Epson ink set. Then I do contact prints on regular Ilford MGIV DeLuxe
paper. Results are very nice, but first you have to calibrate yuor
process.

Take a look he
http://www.danburkholder.com/

This is site of Dan Burkholder - the man who invented this process.

Another good site is he
http://www.slonet.org/~mhd/2photo/outneg/outneg.htm

This is the site of Donald Krehbiel, who worked (or works) with Dan
Burkholder and placed lots of information on his site.

Regards
Jakub
http://www.roguski.org

Lofty wrote:
WHY not shoot on B & W film in the first place, it's much better than
digital anyway
What actually prompted me to post the question is one particular image I
have which I would like to print properly, rather than just on RA4 or
inkjet. This image was shot on film, however circumstances at the time
of taking it, dictated that it has an ugly element in the background
which is much better photoshopped out. Consequently it has been scanned,
photoshopped, and thus far has only been printed on RA4 paper through a
digital minilab.
Since I don't own an enlarger, and so far haven't found a decent and
affordable 2nd hand one, I was also thinking contact printing from
inkjet negatives would be a viable option for the small number of prints
I would do.
So yes, I do shoot B&W film, I agree that it is better than shooting
digital and converting to B&W, but I was looking for an alternative way
of producing a print once a digital image has been obtained, or an
alternative to an enlarger.

Lofty wrote:

WHY not shoot on B & W film in the first place, it's much better than
digital anyway

Sure, but sometimes I have only DSLR handy, and finally I see that
particular photo has big potential as B&W enlargement. It happened last
weekend - I was on location with DSLR (I planned some makro work), but
finally I shot nice portrait, which looks much better in B&W than in color.

Of course, when I know that I will be doing B&W, I use 4x5 LF camera, not
DSLR.

--
Jakub
http://www.roguski.org

In article ,
Graham Fountain writes:

Lofty wrote:
WHY not shoot on B & W film in the first place, it's much better than
digital anyway
What actually prompted me to post the question is one particular image I
have which I would like to print properly, rather than just on RA4 or
inkjet. This image was shot on film, however circumstances at the time
of taking it, dictated that it has an ugly element in the background
which is much better photoshopped out. Consequently it has been scanned,
photoshopped, and thus far has only been printed on RA4 paper through a
digital minilab.

Check out Mpix (http://www.mpix.com). They offer true B&W prints from
digital files. According to their information page, they use Ilford RC
paper for this service. I ordered a few B&W prints from them once and they
came out OK, but they were just 4x6 prints and I haven't used them since
then. If you're not in the US, you might be able to find a digital
photofinisher that offers a similar service near you, but I have no
specific suggestions.

--
Rod Smith,
http://www.rodsbooks.com
Author of books on Linux, FreeBSD, and networking

"Jakub Roguski" wrote in message
...
Lofty wrote:

WHY not shoot on B & W film in the first place, it's much better than
digital anyway

Sure, but sometimes I have only DSLR handy, and finally I see that
particular photo has big potential as B&W enlargement. It happened last
weekend - I was on location with DSLR (I planned some makro work), but
finally I shot nice portrait, which looks much better in B&W than in
color.

Of course, when I know that I will be doing B&W, I use 4x5 LF camera, not
DSLR.

--
Jakub
http://www.roguski.org

If you copy your digital negs to CD then send to www.vivaimaging.co.uk they
will print anything you want off of it.
I use them for all my important colour neg work, and they have done laser B
&W for me.but I do my own darkroom work.
Top quality with good prices, and no I don't work for them

"Greg "_"" wrote in message
...

That has nothing to do with Darkroom work.

Maybe not, but it does succinctly and directly address a
misconception in the post I was responding to.

To wit, Graham's remark, "because [inkjets] use colours to
do it, they look awful."


rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com