Does anyone have a B&W printing source that they can recommend?

What I am looking for a printing source that not only looks like real a B&W print but also pops.

I had an image printed by a color process on matte paper that had a bit of pop to it but also a very slight red tint and did not really look like a B&W print. Then I had the same image printed on a Epson 9800 on Hahnemuhle Photo Rag paper with black inks. This had the real look of B&W but did not have the pop.

The closest thing that I can compare this to is the difference between looking at a real Ansel Adams photo and then a the same photo in a book containing his work. The real one is just fantastic, the one in the book is just OK . . . not comparing myself to the master, just making a point.

Thanks
JimFX

I suppose you print with a customized profile. Hahnemühle profiles are good but not excellent.

Have you tried Hahnemühle FineArt Pearl paper? The look is quite similar to the colour matte paper.

m

Mpix.com prints on real BW paper. You can try them. I really like their products.

Not sure exactly what pop is regarding BW's. Getting a good range of tonalities and deep blacks and whites is important. A print is only as good as the information being sent to the printer. If you have a conversion from a digital camera, don't ever expect the tonalities and separation you'll have with a well scanned negative.

I have seen samples of a pearl paper . . . seemed more like a gloss finish. Did have a nice look however.

Mpix . . . are they like Shutterfly?

Hi Jim,

I'm using a R2400 with Baryta and Pearl from Hahnmühle which are both Glossy Fine Art. These are probably the best from them. However reading Lenswork (No.79), there is one outstanding paper Harman Glossy Fiber Base AL, supposedly this exceeds silver gelatin. I haven't sourced it yet here in Austria. But no doubt you can pick it up in the States, might be worth ago.

Gavin

Jeffrey wrote:
Not sure exactly what pop is regarding BW's. Getting a good range of tonalities and deep blacks and whites is important. A print is only as good as the information being sent to the printer.

The pop I am referring to is just what you are describing when you say a good range of tonalities.
Which is why I made an example of Ansel Aams work. When you see one of his prints you can't help but look and say WOW! If you were to look at a book about him where the same image is printed you just don't get the same effect.

Now I realize that the road to that level of work is long . . . what I am trying to do is eliminate the short comings of the wrong paper, ink etc so all that I am left with is . . . it's me, what did I do wrong.

Jeffrey wrote: If you have a conversion from a digital camera, don't ever expect the tonalities and separation you'll have with a well scanned negative.

I was under the impression that with the latest version of digital cameras that this was no longer true. This assumes that they are used correctly of course. Why do you feel differently?
Thanks
JimFx

marcelo wrote:
I suppose you print with a customized profile. Hahnemühle profiles are good but not excellent.

Have you tried Hahnemühle FineArt Pearl paper? The look is quite similar to the colour matte paper.

m


First I tried a standard color process with a B&W image . . .OK but not good.
Then I tried a print on a Epson 9800 on Hahnemuhle Photo Rag paper with black inks.
Much better but still lacking what I described as POP in my previous posts.

I processed my image to make sure I had a range of tonality from Dead black, Night sky on the lake, to total white, Streetlights etc. So far I have improved the image from my first print by simply using the photo rag paper & different inks on a 9800. So I am looking for the best method I can find. Once I have that then I know the rest is up to me.

glyons wrote:
Hi Jim,

I'm using a R2400 with Baryta and Pearl from Hahnmühle which are both Glossy Fine Art. These are probably the best from them. However reading Lenswork (No.79), there is one outstanding paper Harman Glossy Fiber Base AL, supposedly this exceeds silver gelatin. I haven't sourced it yet here in Austria. But no doubt you can pick it up in the States, might be worth ago.

Gavin

So far, I have sent my image to various labs to print, not the best way maybe but it is a lot less expensive than buying equipment and doing a trial & error my self.
Thanks for the post . . .

Trying to get it to look like this . . .
http://photocamel.com/forum/black-white/64497-city-lights.html

I think what is going to make you happier, is to develop a contrast curve to emulate the non-linear way that film "sees" light. So, here's what to do. First do all your local corrections. Next, use a color adjustment layer to emphasize the image elements that you want to have the longest tonal range. This will look very goofy while still in RGB Mode. Next, convert to B&W. Use whatever tools you like to bring up the highlight edges, I am getting pretty happy with SILVER Fx Pro. Now, add a curves adjustment layer. Keep the highlight values fairly low contrast at least to the 3/4 tone and part way toward the mid-tone. Keep the curve fairly linear (meaning that it is cutting dramatically from the above linear setting to the right of the mid-tone through the average midtone and then deeply descending to the 3/4 tone, once again flatening from the mid-tone to the three-quarter tone then use you eyedropper to read the darkest tone, set that equal to about 20-24.

You can play with that using Preview and changing the BLENDING MODES. If you like part of the luminance range, but not another part, keep what you have make anew adjustment layer and utilizing the ADVANCED Blending modes, cut out what you do not want and start fresh with a new ADJ Layer Curve.

Jerry

Dalmation Labs was superb for me.
http://www.dalmatianlab.com/