BW printing

I finally got around to print some pics in BW and decided to compare
to some of the old baryth (SP?) prints I did 15-20 years ago.
Interesting.

The house printer is an Epson R285 using Epson Semigloss Photo Paper,
and the results were not bad at all. I tried both printing it as BW
and colour, and found I liked the latter best. But it was like it did
not really "catch" me.

I then found my old prints (prob. HP5(+?) on Ilford MG semigloss), and
I found a number of differences:

1) The old prints had a much warmer tone, possibly due to the base
colour of the paper. I liked that better.

2) It was as the black on the old prints was richer in some way, not
blacker, but with more detail.

3) The old ones were incredibly grainy compared.

4) I didn't really mind the grain. Colour is a different matter.

Prints sizes were A4 (21x29.7cm) vs 24x30.5cm, very similar. Dig.
camera is D80.

I like all the options that comes with digital, and can't have a wet
darkroom anyway. How do I get Really Nice Prints rather than OK ones?

Martin

---

Have a look at some of my pictures on http://www.casaflordesal.com/photos/photos.html

On Mar 5, 9:07*am, Martin Sørensen <santana.soren...@get2net.dk>
wrote:
> I finally got around to print some pics in BW and decided to compare
> to some of the old baryth (SP?) prints... How do I get Really Nice Prints rather than OK ones?

You might want to visit the forum:

http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/D...WhiteThePrint/

Lot's of wonderful things on digital b&w printing. Within the past
few months there have even been a number of "baryta" type papers for
inkjets released. Lot's of info on third party inksets with the
ability to tone anywhere you want from sepia to selenium. Info can be
a bit daunting in quantity but worth checking out if you like b&w.

Martin Sørensen wrote:
> I finally got around to print some pics in BW and decided to compare
> to some of the old baryth (SP?) prints I did 15-20 years ago.
> Interesting.
>
> The house printer is an Epson R285 using Epson Semigloss Photo Paper,
> and the results were not bad at all. I tried both printing it as BW
> and colour, and found I liked the latter best. But it was like it did
> not really "catch" me.
>
> I then found my old prints (prob. HP5(+?) on Ilford MG semigloss), and
> I found a number of differences:
>
> 1) The old prints had a much warmer tone, possibly due to the base
> colour of the paper. I liked that better.
>
> 2) It was as the black on the old prints was richer in some way, not
> blacker, but with more detail.
>
> 3) The old ones were incredibly grainy compared.
>
> 4) I didn't really mind the grain. Colour is a different matter.
>
> Prints sizes were A4 (21x29.7cm) vs 24x30.5cm, very similar. Dig.
> camera is D80.
>
> I like all the options that comes with digital, and can't have a wet
> darkroom anyway. How do I get Really Nice Prints rather than OK ones?
Not a solution for you since you can't have a wet darkroom,
but something I've been meaning to try for a while is to
print a digital photo as a B&W neg on a piece of
transparency paper, then contact print that to traditional
B&W paper and process as normal. In theory it should give
the character of a B&W print. I imagine I'll probably have
to play with contrast and gamma a bit when I create the
negative print. Unfortunately I don't get into the darkroom
very often anymore.
>
> Martin
>
> ---
>
> Have a look at some of my pictures on http://www.casaflordesal.com/photos/photos.html

[Ray1979]

"Doug Jewell" <ask@and.maybe.ill.tell.you> wrote in message
news:47cf1cec$0$23626$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
> Martin Sørensen wrote:
>> I finally got around to print some pics in BW and decided to compare
>> to some of the old baryth (SP?) prints I did 15-20 years ago.
>> Interesting.
>>
>> The house printer is an Epson R285 using Epson Semigloss Photo Paper,
>> and the results were not bad at all. I tried both printing it as BW
>> and colour, and found I liked the latter best. But it was like it did
>> not really "catch" me.
>>
>> I then found my old prints (prob. HP5(+?) on Ilford MG semigloss), and
>> I found a number of differences:
>>
>> 1) The old prints had a much warmer tone, possibly due to the base
>> colour of the paper. I liked that better.
>>
>> 2) It was as the black on the old prints was richer in some way, not
>> blacker, but with more detail.
>>
>> 3) The old ones were incredibly grainy compared.
>>
>> 4) I didn't really mind the grain. Colour is a different matter.
>>
>> Prints sizes were A4 (21x29.7cm) vs 24x30.5cm, very similar. Dig.
>> camera is D80.
>>
>> I like all the options that comes with digital, and can't have a wet
>> darkroom anyway. How do I get Really Nice Prints rather than OK ones?
> Not a solution for you since you can't have a wet darkroom, but something
> I've been meaning to try for a while is to print a digital photo as a B&W
> neg on a piece of transparency paper, then contact print that to
> traditional B&W paper and process as normal. In theory it should give the
> character of a B&W print. I imagine I'll probably have to play with
> contrast and gamma a bit when I create the negative print. Unfortunately
> I don't get into the darkroom very often anymore.
>>
>> Martin


I have also been printing on my B&W laser using dye sub paper, interesting
result.