I got this 24-inch printer last week and have been enjoying the slightly trying process of getting to know it — and using up the three sets of Epson color inks that came with it before I convert it to all black and white.

The prints are beautiful, rich and lush, and best of all can be done on full sheets of real watercolor paper. Can’t wait to see what all-BW prints look like.

The only catch is, no Epson driver for Windows7. I set up an old laptop with Linux, then downloaded Gutenprint; it works OK as a driver but I’ve been having trouble getting accurate margins. After I convert to BW ink, I’ll use Quadtone RIP.

Just about the time you think you’ve got everything under control, more or less, something insists on changing.

At least, this is a happy change.

After some years of being convinced that digital was not for me — not, at least, for serious work and for lasting prints — I’ve finally figured out how to make digital black and white prints that satisfy me on all counts, from artistic quality to permanence. (Printing with pure black carbon ink on watercolor paper is about as good as it gets for permanence. It looks great, too.)

So what I’ve been up to lately is a kind of retrenchment: Not abandoning film, but bringing digital onboard as an equal partner, if you will.

That means figuring some things out: What are the best print sizes for me to make? What’s the best paper to use? How should prices for digital prints compare to traditional hand-colored black and white prints?

I believe I know the general answer to that last question: Digital print prices can be quite a bit lower, given the lower cost of production and the smaller amount of time invested in making each print.

So I’m working on setting up a whole new wing of the sales gallery that will have digital black and white prints, matted and ready to go. Just as soon as I figure out how much to charge for them…..

One of the things that convinced me is the series of photos I’ve made lately of grape leaves in the garden. They have a lovely, clean, crisp and almost ghostly quality to them.

photo: Grape leaves, digital black and white, 2010

I’m figuring out, at last, how to use digital black and white carbon prints for hand coloring.

Turns out the carbon pigment is well bound to the paper — mostly. So what you need to do is remove the loose particles.

About 30 seconds under cool running water and an all-over scouring with a paintbrush seems to do the trick without noticeably affecting the quality of the print. Most of the ink is tightly attached to the watercolor paper. You can see a trickle of loose ink  flow off the page, though.

I then dry the print and give it a spray of workable fixative before painting. That’s a step I would like to skip, if I can perfect the scrubbing; I hate the smell of fixative.

But the scrubbing works.

Painting on the watercolor paper is very different from painting on the smooth, non-absorbent surface of a traditional silver-gelatin print. It will take me a while to get used to the new process.

photo: Twilight in the garden, digital black and white, 2010

I haven’t been able to figure out exactly what is going on here — obviously it’s some kind of digital artifact — but I do love the look. This is taken at ISO 3200 in the garden at twilight, shot into the sky.

And good news on the printing front: MIS sent a new ink system, having concluded that the directions I was given with the last one were incorrect, thus explaining the pale, washed out prints I was getting. Putting the right ink in the right slot, oddly enough, nailed it. The new prints, at least so far, are dead on and gorgeous (and even match what I see on the computer monitor). And a side benefit: No profiles to deal with.

photo: Grape leaves by twilight, digital black and white, 2010

photo: Garden leaves, digital black and white, 2010