Digital BW, The Print

Antonis,

I certainly agree with your comments.  You clearly illustrate the 
need for both theory and experiment, as Galileo taught us long ago 
<g>!  And you show that we have an advantage if we know in advance 
under what conditions our prints will be displayed.

Ron


> I understand what you say and certainly can't dispute what you 
observe. All I 
> am adding to the discussion is that "in theory", which means under 
ideal 
> profiling conditions, the "loose dots" and the "filled gray" 
should result in the 
> same density. IOW, let's say we take a 10% gray. Whether we make 
it up of 
> darker dots spread apart or lighter dots packed tighter together, 
the result 
> should read the same on a densitometer (with appropriate aperture) 
and 
> seem the same to our eyes.  
> 
> 
> 
>  I should add that this luminosity is best observed when 
> > the prints are illuminated indirectly.  I don't see this 
advantage 
> > when illuminated by strong direct lighting.
> 
> 
> 
> Well,...  here is another rather big factor all these theoretical 
discussions leave 
> out: the conditions under which we view these prints. I recently 
made a test of 
> an "ordinary" print on EAM with PTs and an ultra-dmax print using 
the 
> Ultrachromes (2200) on Ilford Smooth Pearl. Of course the 
difference is 
> staggering if you put them on a wall with a spotlight on them, 
framed without 
> glass. But leave them on a table in the middle of a living room 
lit by diffuse 
> daylight, and the EAM print is starting to look pretty good!  It's 
no magic. The 
> diffuse reflections in the room lower the perceived black in the 
semiglossy 
> surface. A whole huge dmax difference between 1.60 and 2.40-
something is 
> leveled by lighting conditons. 
> 
> Your experiences seem to fall in this category where theory meets 
perception.
> And, speaking of perception... the same crappy EAM paper (in the 
tests 
> above) looked terrific when used with my Sepia profiles on the 
2200 and 
> dead flat out of the 7000/PTs. The dmax difference was minimal 
(like 0.05). It 
> was the coloration that gave  richness to anotherwise mundane 
paper. Go 
> figure...  
> 
> Antonis