jano
Evil Bokeh
Hello,
I have an hp 7960, which can make some very pretty b&w prints, however, I'd like to try to make them look closer to what I see at exhibitions. Careful PS work plus what kind of paper can bring me close to those results? Granted the largest I can go now is 8.5x11, so possibly the size is the issue?
Through the past print swaps, I've received a few prints done in a darkroom. Very nice, I like the results. However, they look different than from what I see at museums and exhibitions, often with a name such as "silver gelatin print". I was informed earlier through rff that this doesn't mean anything more than than photographs created in the darkroom
These have very strong contrast, look a bit shiny (?), excellent tones, and look just amazing. I've never had a chance to physically handle prints like this, so my knowledge here is lacking, but they look like they would feel different than my standard HP or redriver paper.
Please note, not my intention here to begin an inkjet vs. wet darkroom debate.
Thanks,
Jano
I have an hp 7960, which can make some very pretty b&w prints, however, I'd like to try to make them look closer to what I see at exhibitions. Careful PS work plus what kind of paper can bring me close to those results? Granted the largest I can go now is 8.5x11, so possibly the size is the issue?
Through the past print swaps, I've received a few prints done in a darkroom. Very nice, I like the results. However, they look different than from what I see at museums and exhibitions, often with a name such as "silver gelatin print". I was informed earlier through rff that this doesn't mean anything more than than photographs created in the darkroom
These have very strong contrast, look a bit shiny (?), excellent tones, and look just amazing. I've never had a chance to physically handle prints like this, so my knowledge here is lacking, but they look like they would feel different than my standard HP or redriver paper.Please note, not my intention here to begin an inkjet vs. wet darkroom debate.
Thanks,
Jano
jlw
Rangefinder camera pedant
"Wet" prints do tend to have a more substantial feel, but that's not significant in gallery exhibitions, where you're not allowed to handle the prints anyway! You can give your inkjet prints more feeling of substance by using heavier, higher-grade papers, if your printer allows.
I'm going to propose some qualities of good wet prints that may represent the elusive quality you're trying to achieve in your inkjet prints:
-- Wide range of densities: Dark areas look very black and velvety, lightest areas (such as water reflections and catchlights in eyes) show the brilliance of the paper background.
-- Midtone contrast: Shades of gray that differentiate subtle shapes and textures are distinct from each other, not run together in a way that gives the print a flat, posterish look.
-- Smooth transitions: Subtle gray shades transition smoothly and continuously from one into another without any sign of edges or "banding."
-- Smooth flat areas: Areas of a single tone or very similar tones look smooth or show only the texture of film grain; no dot patterns from the printing process are visible.
These qualities are easy to achieve in a good wet print (assuming you're starting from a good negative) but challenging to achieve from the inkjet process. To get them with an inkjet printer, you may need to experiment with factors such as:
-- Quality of your original digital file; in particular, you've got to use files with a full range of levels, not ones that have been "clipped" (histograms of your images should look smooth, without gaps, and have values throughout the range.)
-- Type of printer you use: some produce finer dot patterns and smoother transitions than others.
-- Print driver settings: ditto; some people have to switch to a third-party driver (or "RIP") to get the quality they want.
-- Ink set: Many inks are formulated to produce bright, highly saturated colors so charts and graphs will "pop"; these are unlikely to handle the subtleties of high-quality photo printing.
-- Paper: The paper's characteristics of ink absorption, spread, shininess, etc., strongly influence the appearance of the final print.
You may need to research and experiment with one of these elements at a time until you zero in on the look you want. It's possible, but it's still territory that's not fully explored. One approach might be to keep looking at exhibits until you find inkjet prints that look really good to you, then try to find out exactly how they were made.
I'm going to propose some qualities of good wet prints that may represent the elusive quality you're trying to achieve in your inkjet prints:
-- Wide range of densities: Dark areas look very black and velvety, lightest areas (such as water reflections and catchlights in eyes) show the brilliance of the paper background.
-- Midtone contrast: Shades of gray that differentiate subtle shapes and textures are distinct from each other, not run together in a way that gives the print a flat, posterish look.
-- Smooth transitions: Subtle gray shades transition smoothly and continuously from one into another without any sign of edges or "banding."
-- Smooth flat areas: Areas of a single tone or very similar tones look smooth or show only the texture of film grain; no dot patterns from the printing process are visible.
These qualities are easy to achieve in a good wet print (assuming you're starting from a good negative) but challenging to achieve from the inkjet process. To get them with an inkjet printer, you may need to experiment with factors such as:
-- Quality of your original digital file; in particular, you've got to use files with a full range of levels, not ones that have been "clipped" (histograms of your images should look smooth, without gaps, and have values throughout the range.)
-- Type of printer you use: some produce finer dot patterns and smoother transitions than others.
-- Print driver settings: ditto; some people have to switch to a third-party driver (or "RIP") to get the quality they want.
-- Ink set: Many inks are formulated to produce bright, highly saturated colors so charts and graphs will "pop"; these are unlikely to handle the subtleties of high-quality photo printing.
-- Paper: The paper's characteristics of ink absorption, spread, shininess, etc., strongly influence the appearance of the final print.
You may need to research and experiment with one of these elements at a time until you zero in on the look you want. It's possible, but it's still territory that's not fully explored. One approach might be to keep looking at exhibits until you find inkjet prints that look really good to you, then try to find out exactly how they were made.
jano
Evil Bokeh
Wow, okay, thank you. I guess there's no magic formula for working with the HP 7960. I ran a few tests this morning after my post, getting closer to what I'm looking for. It takes a lot of patience and time. I just end up using the HP Premium Plus papers *shrug*
AOI Photo
Established
jano said:
Nothing wrong with The Premium Plus papers. I love the backing and the heavier feel. Personally I find I can get excellent prints using the Soft Glass (formerly called matte) paper.
Beyond the obvious (Don't work in greyscale, work in RGB), etc) Not much to say.
I love these printers for the black and white ability, and the ability to create beautifully toned prints. Keep working and you will be surprised what some trial and error will achieve.
wdenies
wdenies
I found that applying a copperquadtone in PS to my B&W pictures increases the visual quality on my prints. (on HP and Canon)
Favorite papers:
Permajet museum classic
Fuji supergloss pro
Wim
Favorite papers:
Permajet museum classic
Fuji supergloss pro
Wim
jano
Evil Bokeh
AOI Photo.. nothing wrong with the HP PPP, except they don't "feel" right in the hands. Of course, not important when you have them for display. With further testing yesterday, I left the printer to print in color mode instead of checking the "grayscale" mode. Believe it or not, the prints came out looking more "silvery" than anything else, especially with a touch of added contrast. I quite like the result! Need to play with it more. Maybe its just placebo, haha.
Thanks, Wim, for the suggestion of the quadtone, I'll try that out as well.
What I'm not liking now is that the max size I can print now is 8.5x11. The printer can do longer, but can't seem to find paper anywhere in legal size (8.5x14) so I could print 8x12, I HATE cropping!
Thanks, Wim, for the suggestion of the quadtone, I'll try that out as well.
What I'm not liking now is that the max size I can print now is 8.5x11. The printer can do longer, but can't seem to find paper anywhere in legal size (8.5x14) so I could print 8x12, I HATE cropping!
wdenies
wdenies
jano
Evil Bokeh
I have an old C82 in the closet that I've been thinking about, hmmm. I just don't print that often and am afraid the print heads will block up.
AOI Photo
Established
jano said:
I often use the color mode as well. I also find I get best results by converting to black and white via gradient map.. well sometimes anyway
I also find toning that way more pleasing than the duotone process. OF course all is just opinion Your mileage may vary.
kaiyen
local man of mystery
Jano,
You don't have to print that often with the MIS inks - I do a nozzle check once a day, maybe once every other day and it's been fine on my 1280. Plus, the c82 is designed for pigment inks, whereas mine is not. It's worth a try, at the least.
allan
You don't have to print that often with the MIS inks - I do a nozzle check once a day, maybe once every other day and it's been fine on my 1280. Plus, the c82 is designed for pigment inks, whereas mine is not. It's worth a try, at the least.
allan
parallax
Newbie
Try cutting 13x19 paper into 8.5x13
Try cutting 13x19 paper into 8.5x13
Or just buy a larger printer!
Try cutting 13x19 paper into 8.5x13
jano said:
Or just buy a larger printer!
Terence T
Where'd my Bessa go?
I've been working with an Epson 4800 and 9800 in the last couple of days getting my prints ready for an exhibition and I must say I'm quite impressed with the results of K3 ink on Epson's Photo Paper Glossy 250. Very true blacks without any evidence of bronzing, the best I've seen come out of any inkjet printer... and I've used a lot in the past year. The lower end R1800 and R2400 printers are capable of similar results but at a slower print speed. Files were from an R-D1.
sf
Veteran
I saw my first HP 8750 print today - a sample sent by HP - and I'd have to say I'm not impressed with the print. The image was sketchy - looked like a JPG 6MP image - but the print itself had some serious issues. I'd have to say that if I'm planning on doing any serious printing, it would be chemical style - or sent to a lab.
My Pixma IP5000 + Multi Pro setup is very reasonable for B&W, though. For my own use.
here is the Pixma : http://www.shutterflower.com/pixma.htm
not bad. Pricey, though.
My Pixma IP5000 + Multi Pro setup is very reasonable for B&W, though. For my own use.
here is the Pixma : http://www.shutterflower.com/pixma.htm
not bad. Pricey, though.
N
Nikon Bob
Guest
N
Nikon Bob
Guest
shutterflower said:
Here is a review of this printer and it's B&W output http://www.photo-i.co.uk/Reviews/interactive/HP8750/page_3.htm . Maybe there is something wrong with the sample they sent you? I have had good B&W results with the earlier HP 7960 and would expect the newer model to be as good or better.
Nikon Bob
jano
Evil Bokeh
Thanks for the follow up replies. I'm not interested in new gear/printer now -- trying to get the most out of my current printer, and slowly making progress. Boils down to paying careful attention to the curves, contrast, and USM in PS -- i.e. the "dodging and burning". I'd be tempted to say it's an "artform" in and of itself. Ack!
Nikon Bob, I concur with your last statement, but based on a lot of george's dialogue in lots of other threads, I think he gets too caught up in the pixel peeping through his quest to make something too perfect* It'll be tough for him to find the perfect combo. Me, I'm just looking for an overall result, which may be stressing the limits of my 2-year-old printer.
*No offense george, just an observation -- nothing wrong with it
Nikon Bob, I concur with your last statement, but based on a lot of george's dialogue in lots of other threads, I think he gets too caught up in the pixel peeping through his quest to make something too perfect
* It'll be tough for him to find the perfect combo. Me, I'm just looking for an overall result, which may be stressing the limits of my 2-year-old printer.*No offense george, just an observation -- nothing wrong with it
robert blu
quiet photographer
I have seen an A3+ ink jet print made by HP printer during a workshop-demo for professional prepared by Hasselblad HP and Adobe. The quality of the print was very good, but the harware involved (digital hasselblad) and care of details (make up. lighting, etc) could have help a lot . Personally I thin k that B&W inkjet printing can reach high quality, but needs a long learning curve. Not just switch on and print ! As most of things ! I am tempted, don't know yet if try or not !
rob
rob
Last edited:
sf
Veteran
jano said:Thanks for the follow up replies. I'm not interested in new gear/printer now -- trying to get the most out of my current printer, and slowly making progress. Boils down to paying careful attention to the curves, contrast, and USM in PS -- i.e. the "dodging and burning". I'd be tempted to say it's an "artform" in and of itself. Ack!
Nikon Bob, I concur with your last statement, but based on a lot of george's dialogue in lots of other threads, I think he gets too caught up in the pixel peeping through his quest to make something too perfect
*No offense george, just an observation -- nothing wrong with it
no offense taken. It's true. I am a horrible pixel peeper. It's why I don't trade my Bronica and scanner in for an M7 and little 35mm scanner.
I think I do that because I'm shooting medium format and I figure what's the point in medium format if you can't really see the difference? And, of course, my work isn't just about the subject - it's about everything. The print is what connects the image to the viewer.
Last edited:
meyman
Member
I don't know if your HP allows that, but have you tried printing with black ink only? You might be in for quite a nice surprise. Of course it's good to experiment with different papers, both matte and - contrary to what most "black only" practitioners say - glossy too, to see if any of these gives you the result you want. On my Epson r200 I got very interesting results on Ilford glossy paper using epson's black ink [cool looking prints though - too blueish for me] and on Epson Archival matte [Enhanced Matte in the States] with MIS Associates [Inksupply.com] Eboni black ink. Prints done with the latter combination look really incredible under glass. This may or may not work for you, but it's one of those inexpensive experiments. Maciek
dadsm3
Well-known
I print using the greyscale and the #59 greyscale cartridge in my HP7960, and HPPP high gloss paper....I have to say I love them, but I've never tried printing them using RGB. I did find that maxing the ink thickness and drying time really increased the quality....
If you print in RGB, do you remove the greyscale cartridge and just go with the #56 black?
If you print in RGB, do you remove the greyscale cartridge and just go with the #56 black?