Digital BW, The Print

"Paul" <paulmwhiting@...> wrote:
>
>... 
> I'm using ... R1800/3MK on PremierArt Fine Art Smooth paper.
>... my dmax seemed a little weak lately.

That paper plus a Premier Art spray would not have the best dmax.  Have you measured it?

> I do notice the lighting has quite an effect. The blacks seem blacker under artificial, incandescent light. If they are facing a north window, the dmax seems weaker.


Lighting makes a huge difference in whether the blacks look black.  That is a big reason I went to glossy papers for my gallery brochures.  Indoors the matte brochures looked fine, but outside in the sun the blacks looks gray.  The glossy brochures hold up much better outside.

I have a bright LED as well as compact fluorescent lights in my office to examine metamerism in prints and test strips.  What I've noticed in addition to how weak some blacks look is how much the brighter LED shows the digital artifacts.  It's a bit depressing, but forcing me to take my quality standards up a bit.


 
> Anyway, back to your comments... I made another print of an image I'd made earlier, and did not spray it this time. I put it side by side with one where I used Print Shield, and yes, there is a difference. Very slight though. 

>... The print without the Print Shield is not so much a stronger dmax but it's a cooler black... the one with the spray has a slightly warmer black. Maybe the cooler black seems blacker.


I think most of the UV sprays has a slight yellow cast.  And, yes, a cool black will look blacker in warm indoor light.  But the sprayed one also is probably also not as black in an absolute sense.


> The Lascaux costs about twice as much as the Print Shield, ...

The standard Lascaux Fixativ (they omit the last "e") has been on "sale" for $19.99 at the large sellers.

I might add that that pastel painters also rate Lascaux at the top of the heap due to its minimal affect on their colors.  They still claim it affects the colors a bit.  


 
> (by the way, personal note: I had some cataracts removed lately and it made quite a difference in viewing my prints... they are much cooler now!)

That's a great response to a complaint that carbon is too warm.  I'll keep that in mind.


As expected, your fade test sample at 
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com/  is doing very well at 90 Mlux-hrs.
An average delta-e of 0.2 is hard to beat.  With the Eboni carbon we're at the point where I worry more about the paper than the carbon image stability.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com