Digital BW, The Print

On 24/11/2010 23:11, "kwalsh74" <kwalsh74@...> wrote:

> 
> Huh????  Maybe we read language differently, but how is this "awful":
> 
> "This is a gorgeous paper."

Perhaps awful was not precise, I was being more rhetorical in tone of voice.
But this is the quote:

>     All the beauty of the Bright White version, but with slightly worse color
> rendition. For prints that are under UV protection, or prints where longevity
> is important, I would not take the risk of brighteners and would use this
> paper instead of the Bright.
> 
>     For portraits, no question this is the better paper; skin tones are
> slightly more natural and highlights have just the right amount of punch
> without getting too aggressive.

I would not say this is glowing. He does say of Hot Press Bright White:

> This is a gorgeous paper.  To be perfectly honest, I was predisposed to like
> the Natural White better, because I typically do not like brighteners, but in
> this case I ended up preferring the Bright White by a slight margin. The only
> exception is in portraiture, where the highlights can be a bit too aggressive
> with this paper.

He seems to reluctantly like it. In essence I am curious about the nature of
the review here.

Toodle-pip,

Allan.