Digital BW, The Print

Bob Michaels wrote:

>... Critically comparing the HPR and EEM prints side by
>side, I simply can see no difference in the blacks, shadow detail or
>highlights. And, the base of the EEM is very slightly whiter than the
>HPR. ...

Out of curiosity I pulled some test strips and measured the whites and
blacks with the X-Rite spectrophotometer.

Whites:

	Photo Rag - C = 0.03, M = 0.04, Y = 0.03, Visual = 0.04;

	EAM - 	C = 0.04, M = 0.04, Y = 0.02, Visual = 0.04.

So, for these batches of paper, the visual brightness is equal, the EAM is
slightly blue, and the PhotoRag is slightly magenta.  The PR readings were
the same from two separate batches.  The EEM/EAM has been fairly stable
recently, but did go through a period when it was distinctly yellower.

With respect to the blacks/dmax, PhotoRag has generally had about the best
that could be achieved by the FS/VM black ink.  It generally read about
1.72.  On the old EAM, the FS/VM dmax would be about 1.65.  With the new
EAM/EEM, however, the FS/VM dmax has fallen to 1.60 or below, depending on
printer.

For most images, I find that as long as I get a dmax of about 1.65 on matte
paper, it looks jet black.  In fact, except with ideal lighting, a matte
print dmax of 1.65 usually looks better side-by-side than a glossier print
with a 2.0+ dmax.  The reflections on even semi-gloss blacks eliminates
their advantages.  Of course, glass eliminates much of the advantage of the
matte paper.

Also, the new EAM/EEM seems to hold the high-load blacks better than
PhotoRag.  As such, for example, the new MIS matte black hits 1.69 on EEM
with the 7500 and only 1.67 with PhotoRag.

(Note that EEM appears to be sold as EAM outside the U.S. and inside the
U.S. by outfits doing gray market.  They appear to be the same paper.)

Paul
http://www.PaulRoark.com