Digital BW, The Print

Tyler Boley wrote:

>--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, hogarth@s... wrote:
>...
>  
>
>>Yes. Given a choice of 2.3+ Dmax on gloss, semi-gloss, or matte
>>    
>>
>paper, I 
>  
>
>>would almost certainly pick the matte paper. I don't think I'm alone in 
>>that. The market is there. It's just a matter of time.
>>    
>>
>
>Bruce, Todd Gangler here in Seattle is one of the only (perhaps now
>the only) people making tri-color carbro prints left n the world.
>Near Ciba gamut and density on beautiful Magnani fine art papers, no
>glitzy gloss or fake surface.
>Incredibly beautiful, and inherently photographic. I've never seen
>anything like them, perhaps old dye transfer.
>I've heard people say inkjet prints on art papers are not photographs,
>as though only a photo paper surface is a photograph. I honestly don't
>know what they mean.
>Anyway, in terms of the nature of the media, it's whole new world in
>my opinion. But as above, the marketplace may dictate otherwise. Also,
>I think other inks need to be developed. Lyson dye or even Epson dye
>prints on the same fine art papers blow the UCs out of the water, but
>of course don't have Wilhelm's blessings. Mine either I guess.
>Tyler
>  
>
When I compare the inkjet prints I made so far then the matte blacks of 
dye (Lysonic, Epson) inks are the best, followed by Generations which is 
just a bit more black than MIS Eboni.  If I compare them with intaglio 
prints (heliogravure, rotogravure, etc) and silkscreen matte blacks (on 
Arches, Magnani, Fabriano etc) then all the mentioned inkjet matte 
blacks appear as having more density. Given that, I don't expect much 
more density in inkjet inks + matte paper coatings. What's the measured 
density of carbro prints ? On the net I see evading descriptions on how 
black they actually are. The impression of high  black density in a 
print can be subjective, if that impression is there it is not a bad 
result either.

Taste for gloss and semigloss in photo shops is not just inherited from 
analogue times. Like in analogue times gloss and semigloss serve the 
goal better, the surface is better protected, the reflectance angle is 
easily adjusted when prints go from hand to hand, the dynamic range is 
wider. Photo shops will get less complaints from their normal customers 
with gloss and semigloss prints.

Artist fall for the velvet black of inkjet ink on matte paper. They 
think how it shows on the wall. The blacks they are used to don't have 
that photo gloss density either. Another eye for black.

Many UC printers are not used in photo or art printing shops but are 
used as proof printers in offset print shops, by graphic arts designers, 
by textile designers,  in CAD environments, whatever. They select the 
more universal ink which is the PK and they can't be bothered by a loss 
of Dmax on matte surfaces. That matte density loss is there in offset 
printing too so why try to get the proof better and wet the appetite of 
the customer for something he will not get ? This isn't the taste for 
gloss quality but a practical decision.

There are not enough artists and photographers around that think of 
their prints hanging in a gallery to get a 50-50% selling of PK and MK. 
Maybe we better keep that quantity low too :-)

Ernst