Digital BW, The Print

Thank you Mr.Roark

I'm printing mostly 11x14 and 13x19, I'll stick with the 360 dpi and the 16 bit greyscale when the pictures are B&W, The color ones will stay in color since I've found that the print out was very good this way. If I can figure the output vs the color version on screen, I'll be quite happy.

As for the paper, I made some tests with Epson Presentation matte, Epson Ultra Presentation matte, Red River Polar matte. I was keeping the Hahnemhule for the end since it is a bit expensive. I'm using the Epson driver and let the printer manage; I tried with PhotoShop manage(with the right paper choice) but it compresses the end of the scale (both blacks and whites) too much. I made a test file with a scan of a 4x5" B&W neg at 360 dpi adding squares filled with black from 0-0-0 to 50-50-50, a 50% grey, plus five whites (from 235 to 250). I followed your tutorial for using my scanner(Microtek i800) as a densitometer. All my readings are made from scans.

At the end, I still see  a picture and not numbers; I'll buy the Epson Hot Press to compare.

As for metallic, isn't EB6 for matte only?

Thanks again... I'm having fun

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Paul Roark <roark.paul@...> wrote:
>
> In detailed comparisons, I've been able to detect the difference even
> between 720 and 360 dpi files, but in the real world, 240 can look very
> sharp.  With the 16 v 8 bit it's the same type of  thing.  16 is needed  in
> files mostly to allow manipulations, for printing 8 makes a very good
> print.  One one artificially generated ramp the 16 bit file looked better,
> but I've never seen an 8 bit QTR print that showed a problem due to lack of
> gray levels.  I'd guess the dithering pattern the printer has to use to
> generate the levels makes  most of the theoretical differences moot.  In
> side-by-side comparisons I've  also been able to detect a sharpness
> advantage to the 1400 and its 1.5 pl drop when compared to the 4000 and
> it's  larger drop size.  Again, however, in practice  nobody is going to
> see a difference.
> 
> As to the dmax, be sure you try a high dmax paper  like Epson Hot Press
> Natural or one of  the Hahnemuhle papers, and view them in actual indoor
> display settings before concluding the matte dmax is not adequate.  The
> reflections off the surface of the glossy papers often makes them appear
>  to have worse black tones than the matte papers.
> 
> On the other hand, the I'm using the dyes on high gloss metallic  paper to
> get  the most dramatic sense of dynamic range "3d" look.  When I was doing
> wet darkroom work, I would look at the negatives and marvel  at
> the dynamic range; the prints never seemed to look as good.  A couple of us
> who are using these dyes have commented that they produce the first prints
> we've ever seen that come close to matching that sensation we got from the
> B&W negatives and good  color  slides.  Then again some have also commented
> that they are gaudy, not "fine art," and not a medium then want hanging on
> their walls.  So, there is a lot of subjectivity here.  I like having both
> media available for different purposes.