Best place for B&W prints - b&w inkjets better?

09/20/2007 09:17:23 PM · #8

If you really want to get into black and white I think you need to work on printing your own images. You could either go with a high-end ink jet with multiple black inks or use a lower end printer with special monochrome inks like the ones from Cone Editions. I'm probably old school, but for me printing is still part of the photography process.

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

09/20/2007 09:21:03 PM · #9

Originally posted by JeffryZ:

I've got a few B&W prints from Miller's (part of mpix) and, while nice, they do no match the kind of work I have seen from a more traditional B&W printers.

violinist123

Canon EOS-6D

09/21/2007 12:23:13 AM · #10

Originally posted by Nusbaum:

Originally posted by JeffryZ:
//www.mpix.com has a black and white only Illford process for digital prints. Standard digital prints in BW are still comprised of the colored layers to create the BW effect, but this is just like the film days- no colored pigments used. I won a ribbon at the San Diego County Fair with one done by them.
[/url]

I've got a few B&W prints from Miller's (part of mpix) and, while nice, they do no match the kind of work I have seen from a more traditional B&W printers.

Like who? Mpix has an option for true black and white printing. I'd be intereted in trying some other vendors out, but I am confused about what method is more traditional.

fotomann_forever

09/21/2007 12:59:52 AM · #11

Just my opinion (ofcourse) but...

If you are outputting pure grey images, you aren't getting traditional appearing, B&W prints. There are/were very few papers that were neutral gray.

That said, as long as you are working with a calibrated monitor, there is no reason you should get unacceptable output from any ;ab.

petrakka

09/21/2007 01:05:16 AM · #12

Print your own images, with the inkjet technology they have these days some black and white prints can even be better than silver gelatin prints.

To give you a different perspective, I did printing for James Nachtwey this summer and a good portion of our output was scanned from 35mm negatives and toned in photoshop, printed on big epson inkjet printer. Looked great. Sent to galleries, magazines, clients etc. People who paid thousands for his prints I made on that set up. And Jim's not particularly all about the digital technology either....but for the printing, yeah.

09/21/2007 09:12:26 AM · #13

Originally posted by routerguy666:

Originally posted by Nusbaum:

Originally posted by JeffryZ:
//www.mpix.com has a black and white only Illford process for digital prints. Standard digital prints in BW are still comprised of the colored layers to create the BW effect, but this is just like the film days- no colored pigments used. I won a ribbon at the San Diego County Fair with one done by them.
[/url]

I've got a few B&W prints from Miller's (part of mpix) and, while nice, they do no match the kind of work I have seen from a more traditional B&W printers.

Like who? Mpix has an option for true black and white printing. I'd be intereted in trying some other vendors out, but I am confused about what method is more traditional.

After thinking about it, my statement doesn't really help in this context. I was comparing traditional hand printed black and white, from a film process, to the output from the new Illford digital process. There is a certain crispness and tonal quality in these older prints that I have not been able to get through even a good quality digital lab. But, as you pointed out, the labs that specialised in tradition B&W film based output are useless for somebody with digital output. I've always been a huge fan of B&W and perhaps am too picky about the prints, but my comments was pretty useless in this context. sorry

Message edited by author 2007-09-21 09:13:09.

Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II

09/21/2007 09:28:49 AM · #14

Originally posted by fotomann_forever:

Your opinion is welcome and open discussion is good...

I do have a calibrated monitor and I have spend a fair amount of time going from monitor to printer and then comparing the entire workflow to the calibration prints from two different printers. The outpout from the Ilford process is not unacceptable but it just doesn't have the crispness and tonality I expect from a really good B&W print. I acknowledge that the problem could be in my own editing and workflow, so I'm trying to think of a way to validate my statements. I do have a new Canon Pro9000 printer that I have not use for B&W yet, it doesn't have multiple black inks like the 9500, but I could run the same digital file through that and compare.

swankFoto

Fujifilm X-E1

09/24/2007 09:34:40 AM · #15

Thanks for the replies.
I guess I really need to send an image out to Mpix to get their "B&W Digital" print and compare with a "fine art print" of the same image and see first hand.

Interesting reads on The Luminous Landscape:
//www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/printers/Surface2.shtml
//www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/surface-reflections.shtml

Gordon

RIM BlackBerry Curve

Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM

09/24/2007 10:30:33 AM · #16

Originally posted by fotomann_forever:

That's certainly true. Some of the multiple grey inksets for inkjets take that in to account - having cooler (bluer) inksets and warmer (more orange) options for their B&W options.

When I'm doing B&W with my normal inkset inkjet printer, I usually end up adding a slight amount of tonality, warming the highlights, cooling the shadows and that sort of thing. ( //www.butzi.net/articles/toning.htm )