In 2004, I was using a Canon 10D, a Fred Miranda action for black-and-white conversion, Photoshop 7.0, an Epson 2200 and Ultrachrome inks and the ImagePrint RIP. Now I use a Canon 5D, Convert to B&W Pro 3.0 (www.theimagingfactory.com), Photoshop CS2, an Epson 4000 and Piezography inks (www.inkjetmall.com) and the Quadtone RIP (www.quadtonerip.com). Is all of this really necessary? Have my photographs and prints really improved or has it just been the nation’s economy that has benefited from my purchases?
I pulled out some old prints, done back in the dark ages of 2004, and compared them to ones done last week. What’s different?
Tone
The difference in tone is the first thing I notice. With the Ultrachrome inks and ImagePrint RIP I mostly printed neutral black-and-white. I wanted a warmer tone print but was never happy with the toned results from that software. It was an improvement over the standard Epson driver but still wasn’t what I envisioned. By moving to the Carbon Sepia Piezotone inks I finally found the warm look I was after. There is a depth to the prints that I find amazing.
I have made custom profiles using a densitometer and the Quadtone RIP and my prints match my screen and my vision very accurately. I have experimented extensively with the inks and now blend a small amount of neutral ink into the highlights which, to my eye, makes the prints just a bit brighter and cleaner than when the full sepia inkset is used. The only downside – clogging. Yes, the Piezotones do clog more than the Ultrachromes. So I was very intrigued when a newer inkset, one touted to clog less frequently, was introduced recently. It is a split tone carbon sepia inkset (also available in a neutral tone with other tones to follow) and I have it temporarily loaded in my Epson 2200. After nearly two months I have yet to experience a single clog – even with little use. It consists of seven dilutions of black with the shadows and midtones sepia and the upper midtones and highlights neutral. The prints have even more depth than the original Piezotones and certain images seem to actually shimmer on cotton rag paper. I am using it on a trial basis for now but will probably load it into my 4000 before too much longer.
Camera and Lens
Moving from the 10D to the 5D camera body allows me to make larger prints but, more important to me, more detailed prints. Fine detail in areas such as foliage is much improved and I am again shooting landscapes that I never would have attempted with the 10D. And having a true wide-angle lens on the full-frame sensor has broadened my horizons both literally and figuratively. 17mm is w-i-d-e!
Software
When using Photoshop 7 there were always images that ended up with increased noise due to the restriction of using 8 bit layers during processing. Photoshop CS2 allows me to use 16 bit throughout the process and my images are better for it. I have redone old files where noise crept into the shadows or skies during extensive processing. With 16 bit layers, they are now smooth as silk.
The Convert to B&W Pro software is easier and quicker for me to use than the Fred Miranda action. Some will argue that the channel mixer is easiest of all, but I am able to get more subtle tones and gradations with the Convert to B&W Pro software than any other method I have tried. It is setup to work in a similar manner to a traditional wet darkroom.
Printer
The change from the 2200 to the 4000 allows me to make larger prints and the ink costs are reduced because of the larger cartridges. But the 4000 is fussier, is more difficult to load thick paper into and takes up way more space. It’s a trade-off and I still use the 2200 for color printing.
So the capture, processing and printing of my images has improved since 2004. But again, are the final prints better? To me, yes, they are. They are richer, deeper, smoother, more detailed and with more “life” than ever before. And with the addition of the 5D and its full frame sensor and wide-angle lens, the subject matter is finer with a new and exciting point of view. Holding a print from two years ago next to a recent one, the improvement is obvious and well worth the trouble and expense.
I have seen black-and-white results from the Epson K3 printers such as the 4800 and they are wonderful also. And the new printers from Canon and HP look very promising using their standard inks. Where does it end? I don’t know that it does.
If technological advances in digital photography stopped right now, I would be perfectly happy capturing, processing and printing with my current setup for the foreseeable future. But some new advancement will dangle a monochrome carrot before me and I will have to test it to see if it is indeed better. I am afraid (and secretly encouraged) that sooner or later, it will be.
But it's the writing of Edward Weston in his daybooks that brings my self-satisfaction to a screeching halt. His complaints of fogged negatives, half- a-dozen light leaks in his camera, constant battles with lens flare and dependency on cheap used gear leaves me humbled. For a long time he relied on a minimal amount of defective equipment in less than ideal conditions. After a day's fieldwork he would sometimes come home with only three negatives that were "clean, brilliant and chemically fine." The thought that the prints from those three blessed negatives probably reside in a museum somewhere fuels my discomfort - as I try to untangle my printer cable from my monitor calibration cable from my card reader cable from my external hard drive cable from even more cables that no longer connect to anything.
I keep telling myself that no matter the technology, it’s the photographer who makes the image memorable. And that the best equipment in the world will never make up for a lack of vision nor will the latest camera transform a boring idea into a magical one. But then again, I allow myself a smile when I remember that a few years later, Mr. Weston sang the praises of his newly purchased 4x5 Graflex and a Meyer 10 5/8, f5.5 double Plasmat lens and the extra fast Panchromatic films. Yes, new toys can be very, very good.
Jenny Ellerbe is currently involved in a long-term project documenting the area around her hometown of Monroe, Louisiana - not only the landscapes and wildlife but also the lives and livelihoods of the people who inhabit it. More of her work can be seen at her website www.jennyellerbe.com.
