Digital BW, The Print

Paul: Thanks for bringing some objective data into play. Now in the
subjective arena, should I be able to discern the difference between a
D-Max of 1.72 and one that's in the 1.60-1.65 range? I suspect that if
a print with 1.72 "looks good" then one with 1.60-1.65 should "look
good" as well? Comment?

I must also add that my brain focuses much more on the content /
emotion of the image rather than the quality of the print. So I can
certainly live with any of these three papers. 

Bob Michaels

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Roark"
<paul.roark@v...> wrote:
> 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