To update a well-known saying from Mr.Adams, "The image file is like the musical score, and the print is the performance of that score."
We photographers and printers make and sell photographs that are a combination of 2 major components: the image and the print.
Part of my journey has been exploring the options and refining the processes and workflows that fit my current needs.
I consider 100% carbon pigment prints using "Eboni-6" inks (developed by me on an open source basis and sold by MIS Associates)
on Arches watercolor paper to be my signature medium. I work under a lifetime limit of one full sheet Arches carbon print per week.
I also sell dye-based prints on an open edition basis. These are very appropriate for the gallery walk-by business we get Los Olivos, CA.
These pages document the printing approaches I have developed and used since the transition from darkroom to digital.
Ars longa, Vita brevis
(Art is long, Life is short)
Carbon on cotton is forever, while B&W dyes on metallic paper win the "wow" factor for many interested in shorter term display.
See http://www.paulroark.com/BW-Info/Eboni-6.pdf for general information about the Eboni-6 100% carbon inkset. See also http://www.paulroark.com/BW-Info/7800-EbHP-2013.pdf for the approach I use on the 7800. Eboni-6 and its variations will run in a number of Epson printers from the WorkForce quads to 8-ink K3 printers.
Beware that some companies call their inks "carbon" pigments even though they may be blends of carbon plus weak color pigments. There is no such thing as a neutral 100% carbon pigment ink. Carbon pigments print with a warm tone by their nature. What is unique about Eboni carbon is that it is capable of making quite neutral matte prints.
For those who expect their prints to be considered worthy successors to the silver (or noble metal) prints, the issue of longevity is very relevant. For those who don't care about long term image stability, the ease and economy of carbon pigment printing may still be enough to make the approaches I recommend worth considering.
A 100% carbon pigment print is the benchmark for longevity, and the further one moves away from that, the more problems are likely to occur, not only with lightfastness but also with various color artifacts and profiling consistency. Using the highest percentage of carbon is a worthy goal, particularly if longevity and lack of color artifacts are the primary objectives. See http://www.paulroark.com/BW-Info/7800-EbHP-2013.pdf for the description of the Eboni plus HP neutral pigment toning option, which I believe to be the most lightfast and stable printing that can be cooler in tone than 100% Eboni carbon. Given the reality that most papers will fail before the carbon image, having a small amount of the highest quality color inks may have little or no impact on the print's actual life.
For any print that is expected to have a long life, the papers should be acid free and buffered. Additionally, photographers should understand that Optical Brightening Agents (OBA's) in the paper are dyes that will fade, causing the paper to warm.
Good, deep blacks are a characteristic I, like most B&W photographers, expect in a top quality B&W print. Here, I have found and verified with 1 degree light meter readings that the best matte papers usually have a deeper black than do the glossy papers when both types are displayed indoors, on the walls, under glass/acrylic in normal office and home environments. Glossy papers can have a great dmax in ideal and very bright lighting (including spectrophotometers). However, in typical indoor display environments, and when protected under standard picture glass or acrylic, the reflections from the glossy surfaces and glazing usually give the matte papers an edge. It's all about the reflections.
On the other hand, if the print is going to be viewed with no glass or acrylic over it, the "glossy" papers can have a substantial visual advantage. B&W dyes on Red River's glossy "metallic" paper is my formula for the prints with the most "pop" and "three dimensional" feeling. Dyes go into the paper coating rather than lying on top. The latest Epson dyes are very good, and with a proper acrylic spray the coating and dyes can be significantly protected. Here, the particular characteristics of the paper surface can make a major difference. Some papers seem to have an anti-reflection coating built in. Some have hard surfaces that resist fingerprints and abrasion significantly better than others. These may not do well in torture testing, but for medium term home or office display, they can be very good indeed. Pigments and an inappropriate protective spray on top of the highly-engineered surface of a modern glossy paper can seriously affect the potential of a paper-ink combination. As usual, which approach is best varies with the circumstances.
The amount of color needed to neutralize carbon warmth tends to be least with matte papers and most with glossy papers. The natural, un-coated papers tend to be more neutral by nature. With MIS Eboni-based inksets, there are a few coated matte papers that are also quite neutral. Glossy papers tend to print sepia tone with just carbon. As such, they require heavy toning with color pigments.
Physical deterioration of the paper is a factor that is not well tested. While it is likely that an image composed of 100% carbon would outlive the paper base, finding objective data on the relative expected longevity of different paper types is difficult. The coatings and laminations on inkjet papers appear to be the most likely to cause problems. Differential expansion and contraction caused by humidity and temperature fluctuations tend to crack and separate laminated paper substrates over time. These factors are not being tested in popular long term storage testing protocols, where humidity and temperature are kept constant and not cycled. Historical evidence is probably our best guide. See http://www.dp3project.org/preservation#crackinginkjetlight for the Digital Print Preservation Project's look at cracking of inkjet coatings. See also http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=87926.0 for a comparison of how different types of inkjet paper did after 6 months of sun exposure through a window. Both of the tests, above, involve treatment of the paper that no one would subject a valued photograph to, but they probably also indicate what will happen eventually to these coated papers.
In the past, the photographic "RC" papers had the worst reputation. The extent of that reputation that was due to specific photo paper characteristics as opposed to the nature of that type of laminated substrate is unclear.
In my own old photo digital restoration work, I find what I call "micro-cracking" of the emulsion rather typical of many of the oldest photos. This surface deterioration is often the limiting factor in pulling information off the old prints. Some conservators have opined that all coated or laminated substrates will eventually crack and/or delaminate.
Arches un-coated watercolor papers have an outstanding reputation in the painting world, where they have been used for hundreds of years by artists. And they can make excellent carbon pigment B&W prints -- not quite as smooth as coated inkjet papers, but more than adequate for large display prints. While there are other high quality watercolor papers, Arches achieves the highest dmax (deepest blacks) of any un-coated paper I've tested -- competitive with many fine art inkjet papers, though not as good as the best. On the wall in typical indoor display settings, the Arches dmax is fine. With no coatings or laminations to crack or flake off, these un-coated watercolor papers are likely to age much better than coated inkjet papers. While I suggest this paper as a benchmark, and I use it, uncoated watercolor papers require special workflows and inks to make good images. They are not what I recommend for most people. There are many very good inkjet papers. The best matte papers look excellent and will last a very long time with proper handling and display. I note and profile many of these in the various PDFs I have posted on printer and ink workflows.
With respect to the unique visual quality of the dyes, it is probably the fact that pigments lie on top of the glossy surface, whereas dyes take the image into the coating and off the high gloss surface that makes the difference. The pigments on top of the paper result in a number of artifacts and relatively veiled highlights. The unique look of the metallic paper with dye results in an image quality that is, in some important respects, beyond what I've seen before.
Note that advances in the molecular structure of dyes have made the best dyes reasonably lightfast. Epson's advanced dyes (perhaps based on Fujifilm R&D) have been rated by Wilhelm Research at close to 100 years of display under glass. Epson's latest "dry lab" professional printer uses the "UltraChrome D6" inkset, which uses dyes and is marketed as producing "archival" prints, although their literature also indicates a projected display life of "over 80 years," which some might think is a bit shy of what the vague term "archival" usually implies. Other, more detailed and critical tests suggest that, particularly when a protective spray is used (and I do for all display dye prints), a reasonable display life is likely with advanced dyes, and photo album life may, in fact, be good for Epson's claimed "generations." A high priority of mine is to continue to find ways to improve the qualty of prints made with advanced dyes. In this regard, for 2014 I have changed my (Epson-Noritsu) dye inkset approach using an Epson 4000. It should result in a significant increase in the likely display life of the dye-based prints I make. See my 2014 approach, which should work for any Epson K2 and K3 printers, at www.PaulRoark.com/BW-Info/4000-Noritsu-2K.pdf. It is also described briefly below.
The main visual weakness of this medium is that it can display color shifts when viewed under different lighting conditions. This was mostly a problem with old-style fluorescent lights. Older lights with Color Rendering Indices (CRI's) of less than 80 may result in a green/cyan tone shift that is significant. I and the gallery I most often show in have switched to LED lights. For me, that has essentially solved this problem.
I have made B&W profiles for the Epson 1400 and Claria inks, using QTR, and have outlined my recommended approaches in a PDF at http://www.paulroark.com/BW-Info/1400-Claria-BW.pdf. I currently use a 1400 with Claria and Noritsu inks, in the standard (color) arrangement both as my color printer and B&W printer for cards, brochures and other high glossy output.
With an easily mixed "LK" added, a dedicated B&W inkset can be made with the these inks, and the Epson driver also becomes a viable way to print good B&W with the dyes. Dedicated B&W inksets like this are much easier to profile. See http://www.paulroark.com/BW-Info/1400-Claria-Noritsu-2K2LK.pdf.
As noted above, an Epson 4000 printer outfitted with Noritsu-Epson dyes is described at www.PaulRoark.com/BW-Info/4000-Noritsu-2K.pdf. This replaces the dedicated B&W inkset ("NK5") I used last year in the 4000. The new setup is a standard K2 ink arrangement that can print color or B&W. The addition of the color inks allows me to have greater lightfastness. It also facilitates an Epson driver workflow and ICCs for both color and B&W for those so inclined. It takes the best readily available advanced dyes for both to wide format.
I have been using the Epson 4000 and the dyes with a 17" roll of Red River Polar Pearl Metallic paper to make most of my display prints during the last year. After spraying them with Lascaux Fixativ, I dry mount the prints on foam core and use a simply black frame for display.
"Carbon on Cotton" for best image stability and low cost;
MIS 100% carbon pigment inksets;
-- Eboni-6 for smoothness;
-- Eboni-6 details, including for the 1400;
Ink Mixing, including for Carbon-6, HP, and dyes; for former darkroom workers and others so inclined;
High Sierra Workshops at the historic Golden Trout Camp;
Solvang, CA, USA