Article: It Doesn't Have To Be Complicated

The Dark Age

During the age of the darkroom and film, fine art black and white printing was dominated by the Zone System, brought to prominence by Ansel Adams and other well known photographers. The Zone System is a highly technical and exacting approach which gives more precise control over the process.

There were many photographers, however, who were simply not inclined to go to such great lengths to get that extra control. After all, they reasoned, good photographers who understand the principles have been making good prints for years without the Zone System (Edward Weston comes to mind). Over time, some less complicated variants of the Zone System emerged which still provided a good degree of control, but without all the extreme fuss and bother. The most popular of these was promulgated by Fred Picker, through his books, magazine articles, workshops and newsletters.

This simpler approach had a wide following and, in the opinion of its users, provided the "most bang for the buck". I was one of them. I felt that the extra amount of control provided by the Adams approach wasn't worth all the extra work. For me, Picker's approach was a life saver which provided the best balance between the full blown Zone System and a completely non technical recipe type approach.

The Great Debate

As often happens in human endeavors, people disagreed and a great Zone System debate raged throughout the land, roughly divided between the Adams and Picker advocates. The Adams folks declared that "Real" photographers used the full Zone System and implied that Picker folks were not dedicated or were too lazy to do the work. The Picker folks in defense said that Adams people were insanely obsessed with unnecessary technicalities, and so on.

It was clear to me that while there were those who obviously gloried in the technical stuff for its own sake, there were also many photographers who weren't put off by the technicalities and were genuinely searching for the highest possible level of achievement. And I also knew that, like myself, there were many photographers who loved and were dedicated to the art and craft and were willing to work hard, but whose nature was simply not inclined to such extreme technical methods, who nevertheless wanted to make high quality prints. In my mind, both approaches were equally valid.

The Digital Age

A similar situation is emerging today in digital black and white printing. There are those on the one hand who say that in order to get really good prints and have full control, one must calibrate the monitor (using an expensive device), create profiles for every ink and paper combination one wishes to use (which requires a densitometer and special software), and use full Color Management (CM) techniques, a complicated approach involving icc profiles and such.

On the other hand, there are those who say that all of the above, while valid if one is so inclined, isn't really necessary, that excellent gallery quality prints can be made with much simpler methods. One example of this is the group of UT ink sets and procedures developed by Paul Roark and sold by MIS Associates. Just as in The Dark Age, I find myself in this second camp. I am simply not inclined to go in the high tech direction, and am happy to report that I have found a simpler way with the Epson R2400 and R200/220 printers.

The Search

A few years ago the choices were fewer and more difficult. I was one of the ones who had difficulty getting anything to work well, and ended up using and advocating the Black Only (BO) technique, which is quite popular and has a dedicated following. It is simple, easy, inexpensive, and has several other advantages (see article 3a). Unfortunately it has the disadvantage of a grainy appearance, which looks good on some images but weakens others. So all the while I have been experimenting with various multi-ink techniques, trying (unsuccessfully) to find something as easy as BO, or nearly so, with results I like. But everything I tried had something that made it unsatisfactory. And then the Epson 2400 arrived on the scene.

In August 2005 after two years of busy use, my trusty 2200 began showing serious problems with the paper feed mechanism. The two year replacement warranty had only one month left before it expired, so with over $700 in trade-in value at stake, and with much trepidation, I swapped it for a new 2400, Epson's 13" K3 printer.

K3 And The 2400

I have never been a fan of the color dot approach to BW printing, but the K3 printers have this ability built in (not requiring a 3rd party RIP), and do as good a job of it as I have seen. The K3 inks are also improved in fade resistance, lessening the longevity issue. At first it seemed that my worst fears were coming true: prints that looked colorized, with hints of various hues visible. But with experimentation I began to find certain settings for different papers that minimized the colorized look to the point where it is not an issue. It's a delicate dance, but it can be done.

In addition, I was able to find other settings that allowed me to get excellent results on various papers without resorting to CM and profiles and all the rest. I am happy to report that I can now print on all my favorite papers with essentially the same ease as I could with BO. All of my images can be printed either BO (on the R200) or K3 with a nearly identical approach. The 2400 is an amazing machine, offering a wide variety of settings and options for easily controlling the process.

Article #9 of this series, "Fine Art Black and White with the Epson 2400", gives detailed instructions on how to use the 2400 with this simplified approach.

R2 And The R200/220

Some months after I began working with the 2400, MIS began selling a new grayscale pigment ink set specifically designed for the R200/220 printers, called UT-R2. Designed to be easily controlled with the Epson driver, this ink set comes in two flavors: R2-W (warm tone) and R2-N (neutral, or cool toned). By combining certain inks from both sets, intermediate tones can be achieved. I use an R200 for BO printing, so I began to experiment with these new inks.

Due to a mix up at MIS, I was sent incorrectly labeled cartridges and ended up using an unusual mixture of the two sets that was not mentioned in the documentation. I discovered that with the Epson driver controls, this combination provides a very nice variable tone ink set. This allows us to fine tune the tone without having to switch cartridges. With some systematic testing a range of tone control guidelines was worked out that fits nicely into the same simplified workflow I use for BO and the 2400.

Because this is a dedicated grayscale ink set, it has different characteristics than the 2400's color dot approach, and I am pleased to add this capability to the list of printing techniques that don't require the profiling and color management procedures. Complete instructions for using this ink set are described in article #10 in this series,
"A Variable Tone Ink Set for the Epson R200/220"

The Tyranny Of The Profile

With the K3 and R2 systems I now have a complete arsenal with which I can work up any image to its best potential, without having to resort to all the complicated profiling and color management procedures. I can print on any paper I wish without having to either make profiles or be dependent on someone else for them.

I expect that, just as in the Zone System debates of The Dark Age, some who advocate the full blown technical approach will take issue with this, claiming all sorts of dire consequences, along with implications that the approach (or its user) is inferior in some way or another. So be it. All I can say is that I am not spouting theory. I am actively making very fine prints using these methods. It is relatively easy, and am free of the "tyranny of the profile".

Please note that I am not saying that the high tech approach is invalid. If one is so inclined then by all means go for it. But, just as with the modified Zone System, there is a less complicated way which provides excellent control and produces very fine gallery quality prints.
In my mind, both approaches are equally valid. Just because someone is not so technically inclined does not mean that he or she is not a good photographer or is in any way less dedicated or has lower standards.