Digital BW, The Print

Bob,

I provided the numbers just for reference. In part because you refered
to dmax for these papers and in part because I just happened to start
a series of comparisons among the top players to see how they do 
with different inks.

Unlike some years back when dmax was everything, I think we've all
come to see it as just another variable. And, yes, if I put the 2 papers
side by side and look really carefully, I can see the 0.10 difference.
But does it matter in a real photograph - or more to the point does
it matter in a particular style of photograph? 

Looking at Condor BW by itself it had a very satisfying velvety black
and I saw nothing wrong with that. Merlin, in fact, held an even better
black. Once these dmax numbers get this close, other factors become
more important ... price, surface, weight, color etc. I very much like
both of these papers and consider them in the top class for digital BW.

We are fortunate to have an ever expanding range of choices these
days. In fact, it's getting so wide that I'm starting an xl sheet  to keep
track - again. The old paper database of a few years back is completely
obsolete and now looking rather naive. Plus now I have a much better
way to reach a meaningful dmax value that is free of profile- and driver-
bias. With any luck, eventually I'll cover the main inksets (UT, UC, Piezo).
For now, I only have Museum Black numbers - cause that's what's in
the 9500.

So, in short, yes: if to your eyes it looks good, measurements be damned!

:   )

Antonis



--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Bob Michaels" 
<bob@b...> wrote:
> Antonis: I'm curious, can you visually discern a difference between a
> DMax of 1.54 and 1.65? Maybe my eye is fooled by the fact that the
> Condor BW is a more neutral black. Who knows, maybe the DMax
> difference between the two papers varies with the ink as you
> contemplated. 
> 
> I'm very simplistic in my approach using the old "looks good, looks
> even better" rule of thumb. 
> 
> Bob Michaels