Hello Shilesh and Johnny, Thanks for sharing your experiences. In an earlier post I wrote about my quest for a perfect coating for matte papers and found myself growing fonder of the uncoated matte print. Is there such a thing as a coating that boosts dmax to 2.2 and leaves alone the beautiful tactile feel? --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Johnny Eades" <jeades1@s...> wrote: > ... I hedge because I have some images which need to be > printed on glossy in order to gain the richness in the lower Zones > (I-III). I have some images which when printed on Matte paper seem > to have a veil of light gray over the shadow areas (I-III) that seem > to diminish the richness of detail that is evident there. I agree with Johnny that there are prints you must must make with a paper with very high dmax, those with important shadow details. But those that are higher key with soft features actually benefit from softer shadows as as attempt to map a black point to zero may make make the subject too harsh. > ... a trick from my darkroom days of rubbing some oil from my nose > into one of the areas I needed to increase the richness there... > That improved the richness of the shadows, but went right through > the paper and enabled light to shine through from behind Why didn't I think of this before :) I actually tried Dorland Wax Medium for a while and gave up. It's just too much work. I found that matte papers of the ultrasmooth sort gives as high a dmax with a much more luxurious feel than glossy when coated with my favorite water-based polymer coating mediums. > ... There is always learning to be done in Photography, which is > what keeps it from become stale. I find myself changing my opinions > quite often and do not care to become stagnated simply because of my > own unwillingness to make changes in workflow or technique. I couldn't agree more. Best regards, --nick
Message
Re: [Digital BW] DMax and Glossy Prints - Are We Kidding Ourselves?
2005-03-11 by Nick H. Nugent
Attachments
- No local attachments were found for this message.