Digital BW, The Print

> 
>> >snippet<
> 
> In the real world, a matte print sitting on my desk top appears to have a
> better dmax than a gloss print because the glossy print dmax is wiped out by
> reflections.  That is, the nature of the lighting is what makes all the
> difference.  If the display conditions are perfect, the glossy prints are
> terrific.  If the lighting is bad, like a window behind the viewer, matte
> wins.  
> 
> Of course, if one puts glass over matte, you may end up with the worst of
> both worlds.  So, my favorite is a sprayed Semimatte with no glass.  But, I
> think both types of prints are important, and being able to print either
> matte or glossy is a critical part of any inkset I mix.
> 
> Paul
> www.PaulRoark.com
> 
I¹d gone solidly matte in my inkjet printing well before it became clear
that that is where the wind was blowing in the whole quality inkjet scene.
Using a 1200 when it first came out. I was happy my ³taste² seemed to have
been vindicated as most my early inkjet printing pals were doing gloss and
went for the high saturation gusto with Canon printers. I was surprised to
see myself going matte in my new inkjet printing as this as I had a decades
long background in darkroom work and was immersed pretty much in Ansel Adams
aesthetic-
Which described how the range of black to white with darkroom paper was so
limited in compared to gloss; and dried down gloss even.
Working with matt in the darkroom is a disaster although I know one guy, an
art director who does ok with it but with a dry to dry processor and RC.
Mat in the darkroom unless you are big with the hair dryer and or microwave
results in prints which end up drying down to be at least a grade flat and a
zone dark.
But in the darkroom world for serious printers it¹s dried down fiber ³F²
paper.  Gloss paper which dries down almost matte. With a subtle but
completely un troublesome sheen. I¹d call it gorgeous.
RC ³paper² has not been able to come close to matching it.
I has just a slight sheen which picks up contrast considerably with out
seemingly creating reflections which get in the way.
Ilford it seems has tried to recreate that in their inkjet paper but my
impression so far is it¹s looked upon as just being cheap and looks cheap
and is cheap. like RC darkroom paper.
I stick to Ilford fiber in the darkroom by the way and don¹t play around
with the other very tempting papers.
Serious inkjet work seems to be a matte thing. Which is ok with me.
I¹d worked intensively also on the intaglio press with lots of fine
watercolor papers and the aesthetic already appealed to me I could see for
some printmaking forms. And ³inkjet² is a new printmaking form.
Commercial photographers who want a fine art look and these are many and
include me also go that matte route.
But if it just had a hint of gloss like what we are used to in our darkroom
work it would seem to be ideal.
Then let them try to tell our darkroom prints from our inkjets without a
loupe of the sizes were the same!

___

I find it amazing that sprays are gaining in credibility in this new
printmaking age.
They were certainly a disastrous no no in the darkroom age. I¹m having
trouble reconciling myself to the idea of spraying my prints.
When I starting out printing in the 60¹s the darkroom books I was using were
written in the 50¹s and 40¹s and talked about routine spraying.
My results were all fairly disastrous and I learned much later that sprays
were not even close to being considered archival. My experience sure for me
already bore that out.
But that was then - this is now. The science of aerosol I could see having
come a long way.
But I¹m sure hoping for ideal an ideal paper which doesn't need to be
sprayed.





Mark Rabiner
Photography
Portland Oregon
http://rabinergroup.com/





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]