I think the key is that the viewer is seeing the print (paper surface) from a different angle than the angle of incident light. Light hitting a mirror-like surface (smooth) reflects at the same angle it went in (think of bouncing a ball at an angle to the floor), and none of it comes reaches the viewer. In the case of a rough surface the incident light hits the paper and bounces back at a range of angles, some of which put the light in the viewer's eyes. Again think of bouncing balls on rough surfaces-they go all over the place. For me it is interesting to contemplate ways of getting around this. Strictly I think there are none, but I wonder if in practice there is a solution that amounts to a compromise (other than the obvious semi matte). Reflections depend on differences in refractive index of the two materials at the interface. > >Now when the paper has a rough >texture (matte), the ink covers or travels > > >over hills and > >valleys and as the light hits it, some will >be reflected back and some > >scattered >about. . . . As light hits the rough >surface it bounces back in > >every >direction instead > >of in a more discrete, coherent bundle. > > I'm probably missing something here but if this is the case then it would > seem that matte paper should have a higher dMax than glossy paper, not the > other way around, i.e. since the matte paper is scattering the light and not > reflecting everything back one would expect that the blacks would be > "blacker" than with glossy paper which is reflecting more light back to the > viewer and hence should appear less "black." > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Julio Fernandez" <gluemax@s...> > To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com> > Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2005 12:03 AM > Subject: [Digital BW] Re:Glossy, MAtte and Dmax- Is it physics? > > > Yes, all physics. The print you see, you see because light reached the > print and the > print reflected some of that light back to your eyes. On the way from the > light source to > the print and to your eyes the light underwent several transformations. > > As the light hits the paper it is partially reflected back by the paper/ ink > back to you. > Some of the light is absorbed to varying degrees. It is the varying degree > to which the > light is absorbed and reflected that constitutes the image. If no light was > reflected and > all was absorbed you will se....black. If no light was absorbed you will > see white. > > Now when the paper has a rough texture (matte), the ink covers or travels > over hills and > valleys and as the light hits it, some will be reflected back and some > scattered about. > To visualize the effect imagine spray painting a thin clear glossy finish > over very finely > sanded smooth hardwood (glossy) and then over roughly sanded wood (matte). > The same > finish will look glossy in the first instance and not so glossy over the > rough wood. To > get the highest sheen the wood surface must be very smooth. Why? light > scattering on the > rough surface. As light hits the rough surface it bounces back in every > direction instead > of in a more discrete, coherent bundle. Evidently, it is not possible on > rough surfaces > to achieve as high a contrast as on glossy surfaces. The range of > tonalities will always > be greater on smooth surfaces (higher DMAx). It will be higher still in the > original > transparency especially when wet mounted, because reflections and scattering > is minimized. > > A problem arises with very smooth paper surfaces though: the surface can be > so mirror like > (high reflectivity) that stray light causes it to reflect other objects and > interfere with > the reflections you really want, those from the image. Thus the compromise > is semi-gloss. > Naturally if the light is diffuse, the glossy print will not suffer from > unwanted > reflections. But when the light is diffuse you will neither see the print > at its maximum > Dmax. Diffuse light is scattered at the source and it reaches the print as > such. The > effect of matte paper is more or less similar to what you get when you put > fine a > groundglass screen over a sharp print: the print will loose Dmax and > sharpness all because > of the physics of light. > > > > > > Julio Fernandez > ----- Original Message ----- > From: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com> > To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com> > Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2005 7:49 PM > Subject: [Digital BW] Digest Number 3138 > > > > There are 25 messages in this issue. > > Topics in this digest: > > 1. Re: Wax > From: "Djon" <westsidemaurice@y...> > 2. Wet Mounting - What is it? > From: "Bob Marsolais" <bob@m...> > 3. Re: The Epson R1800 is the replacement for the 2100/2200 > From: "dlruckus" <dlruckus@y...> > 4. Re: Matte versus glossy dmax: a matter of physics? > From: Steve Kale <stevekale@b...> > 5. Re: The Epson R1800 is the replacement for the 2100/2200 > From: Steve Kale <stevekale@b...> > 6. Re: Re: The Epson R1800 is the replacement for the 2100/2200 > From: AWStolzing@a... > 7. Re: Matte versus glossy dmax: a matter of physics? > From: "davelongviews" <dave@l...> > 8. Re: Thoughts on the new Epsons > From: Ernst Dinkla <E.Dinkla@c...> > 9. Re: Matte versus glossy dmax: a matter of physics? > From: hogarth@s... > 10. white sky > From: "chatzebussi" <chatzebussi@y...> > 11. Re: white sky > From: "guy washburn" <guido02474@y...> > 12. Re: Matte versus glossy dmax: a matter of physics? > From: "davelongviews" <dave@l...> > 13. Re: Matte versus glossy dmax: a matter of physics? > From: "dlruckus" <dlruckus@y...> > 14. Re: Matte versus glossy dmax: a matter of physics? > From: hogarth@s... > 15. Re: white sky > From: Roy <thinkgreen@s...> > 16. RE: To all: 7000/7500?? > From: "Paul Roark" <paul.roark@v...> > 17. Re: Grain and Photoshop > From: "Ukko Heikkinen" <ukko.heikkinen@p...> > 18. 9000 w/ Ethernet and IJC? > From: Bill Morse <whm.lists@v...> > 19. Re: The Epson R1800 is the replacement for the 2100/2200 > From: Christer Rosewelll <christerart@m...> > 20. RE: A bit OT. Mounting Prints - effect of heat on inkjet print - > any recommended > books > From: Roy <thinkgreen@s...> > 21. Re: Wet Mounting - What is it? > From: "Troy" <troyb@s...> > 22. Re: white sky > From: "Brian Ellis" <bellis60@v...> > 23. Neutral profile goals > From: "John Moody" <moodymz3@y...> > 24. Photoshop brushes and Wacom tablet > From: "rgb2bw" <jnk0941@e...> > 25. Re: Thoughts on the new Epsons > From: "Tyler Boley" <tyler@t...> > > > ________________________________________________________________________ > ________________________________________________________________________ > > Message: 1 > Date: Wed, 25 May 2005 17:59:40 -0000 > From: "Djon" <westsidemaurice@y...> > Subject: Re: Wax > > > I think Johnson's paste wax (floor wax), applied thinly and rubbed > gently with a rag, would not lower Dmax. I've not tried on inkjet > paper but it certainly didn't reduce Dmax of silver paper, a thousand > years ago when I last did it. > > Wax in general is shiny (perhaps adding Dmax?) when polished (applied > with a gentle rub), but not shiny when applied without polishing. > > --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Hal Gage > <halgage@a...> wrote: > > Don't know what the original questions was, but I have used artist's > > wax (low temp wax for encaustic painting) on canvas pieces. The net > > effect is a "film" appearance over the image leading to a lowered > > D-Max. The use of wax on a print would most certainly be for surface > > effect only (with the advantage of pigment protection as a secondary > > consideration). > > > > Hal Gage > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________ > ________________________________________________________________________ > > Message: 2 > Date: Wed, 25 May 2005 18:15:35 -0000 > From: "Bob Marsolais" <bob@m...> > Subject: Wet Mounting - What is it? > > I know this is a bit off topic, but I saw mention earlier this week on > this forum of "wet mounting" as a way of improving scanner output. > What is this, how do you do it, and where can I get more information? > > Thanks! > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________ > ________________________________________________________________________ > > Message: 3 > Date: Wed, 25 May 2005 18:19:53 -0000 > From: "dlruckus" <dlruckus@y...> > Subject: Re: The Epson R1800 is the replacement for the 2100/2200 > > Hi Kevin. > I don't know about which is what but, if it were me, I would be > equally insistant that if they could not give an "exact" replacement ( > another new 2100 ) then I want my money returned. Then you can do as > you wish. > > Regards. > Duane. > > --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Kevin Bell" > <kevbell@e...> wrote: > > I thought the group may be interested in my resent experience with > > Epson Customer services in the UK regarding the replacement for the > > 2100 printer: > > > > On reading the recommendations on this forum I purchased a new Epson > > 2100 which was faulty when delivered. The supplier was insistent that > > I should not return it but to arrange to have a new replacement sent > > direct from Epson. The printer was taken to an Epson Express Centre > > for replacement. Three weeks passed before I was contacted by Epson > > and was informed that the 2100 is no longer being made, I was offered > > an R1800 instead. I pointed out that this was a less expensive printer > > and that according to a much respected user group, the R1800 is not a > > like for like replacement for the 2100. Epson insisted that the R1800 > > was the replacement for the 2100 and will not move on their > > replacement offer. I offered to pay the difference between the 2100 > > and the 2400 but they would not budge. I assumed that the 2400 was the > > replacement for the 2100 from the posts on this forum but Epson say > > no, the R1800 replaces the 2200. > > > > I would be interested to hear from anyone in the group who has any > > thoughts this. > > > > Regards, Kev Bell > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________ > ________________________________________________________________________ > > Message: 4 > Date: Wed, 25 May 2005 19:29:48 +0100 > From: Steve Kale <stevekale@b...> > Subject: Re: Matte versus glossy dmax: a matter of physics? > > The colour black is the sensation we perceive due to the absence of (in this > case) reflected light. Most of today's spectrophotometers project D50 > lighting at 0 degrees and measure the light reflected back at 45 degrees. > The deeper blacks on photo paper with photo black ink have higher dMax > because they reflect less light not more. The fact that photo papers > produce a less diffuse reflection contributes to their sheen characteristic > but not their increased dMax. It's the properties of the ink and other > coatings in/on the paper which affect its ability to absorb light. The > specular reflection characteristics of the surface are a different issue? > > I think what you are saying is that you are prepared to sacrifice dMax in > order to achieve less specular, more diffuse, reflection properties - > particularly if you don't have "perfect" lighting. (I agree.) But this is > not to say that glossy papers have an inherent advantage. In fact their > reflection properties is a big disadvantage - it is lucky they have better > dMax to make up for it. The question at hand is how much dMax loss are you > prepared to take in order to have a more diffuse reflection? The answer > probably hasn't changed much over the years (although I doubt it's been > measured), only the relevant performance of each competing type of > paper/ink. > > > > From: Paul Roark <paul.roark@v...> > > > > > The spectrophotometers we use for measuring dmax use nearly perfect > > lighting > > that avoids the problems of reflections. This gives the glossy papers a > > huge advantage. > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________ > ________________________________________________________________________ > > Message: 5 > Date: Wed, 25 May 2005 19:32:06 +0100 > From: Steve Kale <stevekale@b...> > Subject: Re: The Epson R1800 is the replacement for the 2100/2200 > > They should replace it with a 2400 - I am in no doubt about that! Hold firm > and scour the internet for quotes (particularly from those that sell the > printers) as evidence to support your case. > > > > From: Kevin Bell <kevbell@e...> > > Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com> > > Date: Wed, 25 May 2005 17:41:04 -0000 > > To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com> > > Subject: [Digital BW] The Epson R1800 is the replacement for the 2100/2200 > > > > I thought the group may be interested in my resent experience with > > Epson Customer services in the UK regarding the replacement for the > > 2100 printer: > > > > On reading the recommendations on this forum I purchased a new Epson > > 2100 which was faulty when delivered. The supplier was insistent that > > I should not return it but to arrange to have a new replacement sent > > direct from Epson. The printer was taken to an Epson Express Centre > > for replacement. Three weeks passed before I was contacted by Epson > > and was informed that the 2100 is no longer being made, I was offered > > an R1800 instead. I pointed out that this was a less expensive printer > > and that according to a much respected user group, the R1800 is not a > > like for like replacement for the 2100. Epson insisted that the R1800 > > was the replacement for the 2100 and will not move on their > > replacement offer. I offered to pay the difference between the 2100 > > and the 2400 but they would not budge. I assumed that the 2400 was the > > replacement for the 2100 from the posts on this forum but Epson say > > no, the R1800 replaces the 2200. > > > > I would be interested to hear from anyone in the group who has any > > thoughts this. > > > > Regards, Kev Bell > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________ > ________________________________________________________________________ > > Message: 6 > Date: Wed, 25 May 2005 14:34:18 EDT > From: AWStolzing@a... > Subject: Re: Re: The Epson R1800 is the replacement for the 2100/2200 > > I am so sorry for you. Of course the 1800 does not replace the 2100. > Unfortunately this is typical for the Epson policy - they are the same in > Germany - > it seems to be a part of their corporate identity. > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > ________________________________________________________________________ > ________________________________________________________________________ > > Message: 7 > Date: Wed, 25 May 2005 19:04:08 -0000 > From: "davelongviews" <dave@l...> > Subject: Re: Matte versus glossy dmax: a matter of physics? > > > > The colour black is the sensation we perceive due to the absence of (in > > this > > case) reflected light. > > Good point, although I don't agree entirely. Black is the absence of light, > period. If > light is > either scattered back to the viewer from the object, or reflected, either > way it makes > gray > shall we say. > > Most of today's spectrophotometers project D50 > > lighting at 0 degrees and measure the light reflected back at 45 degrees. > > The deeper blacks on photo paper with photo black ink have higher dMax > > because they reflect less light not more. > > Again, I don't know if I agree. Reflected light reflects back at the same > angle it goes in > (towards the paper surface in this case). In the case of the 45 degree angle > with the > spectrophotometer, the photo papers reflect more (back at 0 degrees) but > don't scatter as > much (back to 45 degrees the way matte papers do). Thus photo versus matte > papers > show higher dmax as measured at 45 degrees. So to my way of thinking dmax > and > glossyness are inextricably tied. Witness Pauls observations on Arches hot > press. It is > not > just "lucky" that glossy papers have a higher dmax. It's because they are > glossy that they > have a high dmax. Put another way: Matte surfaces scatter a lot of light > relative to > glossy. > Light coming into a surface is scattered at a wide range of angles, making > everything in > effect grey. > > > >The fact that photo papers > > produce a less diffuse reflection contributes to their sheen > > characteristic > > but not their increased dMax. It's the properties of the ink and other > > coatings in/on the paper which affect its ability to absorb light. The > > specular reflection characteristics of the surface are a different issue? > > > > I think what you are saying is that you are prepared to sacrifice dMax in > > order to achieve less specular, more diffuse, reflection properties - > > particularly if you don't have "perfect" lighting. (I agree.) But this is > > not to say that glossy papers have an inherent advantage. In fact their > > reflection properties is a big disadvantage - it is lucky they have better > > dMax to make up for it. The question at hand is how much dMax loss are > > you > > prepared to take in order to have a more diffuse reflection? The answer > > probably hasn't changed much over the years (although I doubt it's been > > measured), only the relevant performance of each competing type of > > paper/ink. > > > > > > > From: Paul Roark <paul.roark@v...> > > > > > > > > The spectrophotometers we use for measuring dmax use nearly perfect > > > lighting > > > that avoids the problems of reflections. This gives the glossy papers a > > > huge advantage. > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________ > ________________________________________________________________________ > > Message: 8 > Date: Wed, 25 May 2005 22:08:57 +0200 > From: Ernst Dinkla <E.Dinkla@c...> > Subject: Re: Thoughts on the new Epsons > > 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 > > > ________________________________________________________________________ > ________________________________________________________________________ > > Message: 9 > Date: Wed, 25 May 2005 15:07:58 -0400 > From: hogarth@s... > Subject: Re: Matte versus glossy dmax: a matter of physics? > > davelongviews wrote: > > > There has been a lot of discussion over extended periods on the group > > regarding matte and glossy dmax. Is it true that light SCATTERED at > > the paper surface is what gives a matte surface its look, and that > > very same scattering is what reduces dmax? And with a glossy paper > > less light is scattered, more is REFLECTED, dmax is greater, and you > > have the glossyness to deal with. In other words isn't it true that > > you can't have a matte surface with a truely large dmax? Aren't paper > > surface/glossiness and dmax directly related in a way we wish they > > weren't? Is it physically possible to separate the two? Any thoughts? > > > > Dave > > > > > Yes to all. This is explained pretty well in the book /Light Science & > Magic/ by Hunter and Fuqua IIRC. In the early chapters they cover how > objects reflect light. I can't find the book right off, so I'll have to > broadly paraphrase. > > Basically, matte object give a diffuse reflection, while glossy objects > give off direct reflection. If you are looking at a matte print on axis, > light coming from anywhere in front of the print is reflected difusely - > that is, light coming in at a 10 degree angle is reflected back fairly > equally across a 180 degree hemisphere. Some of this light reflects to > your eyes. > > If you try that with a glossy print, the light coming in at a 10 degree > angle is reflected back off the print at 170 degrees. Almost none of it > will reflect back into your eyes. > > What it all comes down to is, glossy surfaces reflect less light into > your eyes. It's the essence of being glossy. And it's the reason that > glossy surfaces exhibit greater Dmax. > -- > Bruce Watson > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________ > ________________________________________________________________________ > > Message: 10 > Date: Wed, 25 May 2005 19:21:35 -0000 > From: "chatzebussi" <chatzebussi@y...> > Subject: white sky > > Hi > > I know my question is completely OT. But: can anybody please tell me > quickly how they replace a completely white sky by a blue sky with a > few clouds in it. I seem to remember that there are actually a few PS > plug-ins around, but I can't remember which ones the are/were. > > Thanks for any info > > Chatzebussi > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________ > ________________________________________________________________________ > > Message: 11 > Date: Wed, 25 May 2005 19:32:10 -0000 > From: "guy washburn" <guido02474@y...> > Subject: Re: white sky > > In Photoshop CS3 it is Filters->Regional->Fix New England Sky > > Or perhaps will be... ;-) (we have had the 7th coldest May on record > and rain for part-of or all of the last 8 weekends.) > > I don't know of a plug in. Perhaps a composite with a nice sunny sky > in another pic? > > Guy > --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "chatzebussi" > <chatzebussi@y...> wrote: > > Hi > > > > I know my question is completely OT. But: can anybody please tell me > > quickly how they replace a completely white sky by a blue sky with a > > few clouds in it. I seem to remember that there are actually a few PS > > plug-ins around, but I can't remember which ones the are/were. > > > > Thanks for any info > > > > Chatzebussi > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________ > ________________________________________________________________________ > > Message: 12 > Date: Wed, 25 May 2005 19:37:06 -0000 > From: "davelongviews" <dave@l...> > Subject: Re: Matte versus glossy dmax: a matter of physics? > > Thanks very much Bruce for the informative reply. Say, is that book Light > Science and > Magic woth a read for printer types? > > > > > There has been a lot of discussion over extended periods on the group > > > regarding matte and glossy dmax. Is it true that light SCATTERED at > > > the paper surface is what gives a matte surface its look, and that > > > very same scattering is what reduces dmax? And with a glossy paper > > > less light is scattered, more is REFLECTED, dmax is greater, and you > > > have the glossyness to deal with. In other words isn't it true that > > > you can't have a matte surface with a truely large dmax? Aren't paper > > > surface/glossiness and dmax directly related in a way we wish they > > > weren't? Is it physically possible to separate the two? Any thoughts? > > > > > > Dave > > > > > > > > Yes to all. This is explained pretty well in the book /Light Science & > > Magic/ by Hunter and Fuqua IIRC. In the early chapters they cover how > > objects reflect light. I can't find the book right off, so I'll have to > > broadly paraphrase. > > > > Basically, matte object give a diffuse reflection, while glossy objects > > give off direct reflection. If you are looking at a matte print on axis, > > light coming from anywhere in front of the print is reflected difusely - > > that is, light coming in at a 10 degree angle is reflected back fairly > > equally across a 180 degree hemisphere. Some of this light reflects to > > your eyes. > > > > If you try that with a glossy print, the light coming in at a 10 degree > > angle is reflected back off the print at 170 degrees. Almost none of it > > will reflect back into your eyes. > > > > What it all comes down to is, glossy surfaces reflect less light into > > your eyes. It's the essence of being glossy. And it's the reason that > > glossy surfaces exhibit greater Dmax. > > -- > > Bruce Watson > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________ > ________________________________________________________________________ > > Message: 13 > Date: Wed, 25 May 2005 19:37:57 -0000 > From: "dlruckus" <dlruckus@y...> > Subject: Re: Matte versus glossy dmax: a matter of physics? > > --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Steve Kale > <stevekale@b...> wrote: > > > The deeper blacks on photo paper with photo black ink have higher dMax > > because they reflect less light not more. > > Actually that is only true in the spectrometer example. They really do > reflect more concentrated light. Just not where the spectrometer is > looking. > > >The fact that photo papers > > produce a less diffuse reflection contributes to their sheen > characteristic > > but not their increased dMax. > > The issues are pretty much one and the same from a practical > perspective. If the light direction enhances the "sheen" you have > visually less d'max and if it reduces the sheen you have more. > > >It's the properties of the ink and other > > coatings in/on the paper which affect its ability to absorb light. > > Yes, like glossy,satin, or matt coatings vs equal opacity/absorbant inks. > > > >The > > specular reflection characteristics of the surface are a different > issue? > > > > I think it is - the - main issue. If you could get d'max 3.0, via an > ink improvement, on matt, it's not going to alter the specular > relationships. Glossy could still do better.( under certain > circumstances ie: 45 degree lighting ) > > > I think what you are saying is that you are prepared to sacrifice > dMax in > > order to achieve less specular, more diffuse, reflection properties - > > particularly if you don't have "perfect" lighting. (I agree.) But > this is > > not to say that glossy papers have an inherent advantage. In fact their > > reflection properties is a big disadvantage - it is lucky they have > better > > dMax to make up for it. > > I don't think they do. > > >The question at hand is how much dMax loss are you > > prepared to take in order to have a more diffuse reflection? The answer > > probably hasn't changed much over the years (although I doubt it's been > > measured), only the relevant performance of each competing type of > > paper/ink. > > > > > > > From: Paul Roark <paul.roark@v...> > > > > > > > > The spectrophotometers we use for measuring dmax use nearly > perfect lighting > > > that avoids the problems of reflections. This gives the glossy > papers a > > > huge advantage. > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________ > ________________________________________________________________________ > > Message: 14 > Date: Wed, 25 May 2005 15:56:32 -0400 > From: hogarth@s... > Subject: Re: Matte versus glossy dmax: a matter of physics? > > davelongviews wrote: > > > Thanks very much Bruce for the informative reply. Say, is that book > > Light Science and > > Magic woth a read for printer types? > > > The Hunter and Fuqua book is actually about studio lighting for > photographers. They explain it from an interesting point of view, and > make it very easy to understand how to use lights and control > reflections while capturing an image. It's certainly worth reading if > you are interested in learning how things work. > > If you are a straight up print maker, it might help you understand your > photographer and art reproduction customers better because it explains > what they go though to capture well lit images of 3d and 2d objects. The > book is about the front end image capture though, not about processing > or printing the captured image. > -- > Bruce Watson > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________ > ________________________________________________________________________ > > Message: 15 > Date: Wed, 25 May 2005 13:00:22 -0700 > From: Roy <thinkgreen@s...> > Subject: Re: white sky > > At 12:21 PM 5/25/2005, you wrote: > >Hi > > > >I know my question is completely OT. But: can anybody please tell me > >quickly how they replace a completely white sky by a blue sky with a > >few clouds in it. I seem to remember that there are actually a few PS > >plug-ins around, but I can't remember which ones the are/were. > > > >Thanks for any info > > > >Chatzebussi > > > > This from a struggling neophyte but I had the same issue. First I had a > picture of a nice sky. I selected the white sky and then did an inverse on > the select. This in turn selected every thing but the sky. I then copied > that scene onto the picture of the nice sky. I had to screw around getting > it positioned on the nice sky and play with transparencies and the like > which I don't remember well enough to tell you but at least you've got some > direction. > > take a look at duendevision.com/images the grey horse has the original > sky and the brown one I put in. > > > Peace > > Roy > > > > ________________________________________________________________________ > ________________________________________________________________________ > > Message: 16 > Date: Wed, 25 May 2005 14:00:44 -0700 > From: "Paul Roark" <paul.roark@v...> > Subject: RE: To all: 7000/7500?? > > The 7500 may have a higher dmax. It would also have the firmware that does > more cleaning cycles, thus possibly resulting in fewer clogs. My 7500 is a > very nice B&W pigment printer. If you're going to use pigments, it may make > sense to buy a printer that was designed for them. > > Paul > www.PaulRoark.com > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com > > [mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of > > dlruckus > > Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2005 9:31 AM > > To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com > > Subject: [Digital BW] To all: 7000/7500?? > > > > Hi all. > > > > I'm thinking of upscaling to one of the above. Would like input from > > those with experience with both in using pigment inks on the 7000. > > I'm aware that they seem to be the same base machine with "perhaps" > > some slight upgrade differences but have not seen these expressly > > deliniated anywhere. > > > > Is there a very strong reason not to consider either one as feasible? > > If not, what would be needed in setting up the 7000 to assure success? > > > > I have searched here and in the wide format group for info but would > > like current knowledgeable opinions if possible. (without "get a New > > printer" bias as I'm stretching here :-)) ) > > > > Thanks. > > Duane. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other resources as > > they are often being updated. > > > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint > > > > If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to > > unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same > > page. > > > > Please follow these basic guidelines: > > - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep > > them short. > > - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames. > > Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the > > membership without notice. > > - Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W > > printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be removed from > > the membership. > > - By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and > > guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group Owner > > and Moderators. See "Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines" in the Files > > section: > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/ > > > > BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT > > YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE "OWNER" AND > > "MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO > > YOU FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR > > EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF > > PROFITS, GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE > > "OWNER" AND "MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN > > ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE > > OR THE INABILITY TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) > > UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) > > STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT > > YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE > > PRINT YAHOO GROUP. > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________ > ________________________________________________________________________ > > Message: 17 > Date: Thu, 26 May 2005 00:30:03 +0300 > From: "Ukko Heikkinen" <ukko.heikkinen@p...> > Subject: Re: Grain and Photoshop > > > MS wrote: > > Doesn't an ASA 800 film give you more "noise" however it is termed, that > > say a 400 ASA > > > film? > > "In principle" yes, but if you ask, doesn't Fuji NPZ 800, or Fujicolor Pro > 800 Z, as it is > now called, give you more "noise" than all the 400 ASA films, "It ain't > necessarily so". > Since one should always expose for the deepest shadows, I appreciate the > speed of the film > more often than not, hand-holding my cameras in available light. > > For more information. please see for eample > http://forums.photographyreview.com/showthread.php?t=8911 > > Ukko Heikkinen > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > ________________________________________________________________________ > ________________________________________________________________________ > > Message: 18 > Date: Wed, 25 May 2005 17:36:54 -0400 > From: Bill Morse <whm.lists@v...> > Subject: 9000 w/ Ethernet and IJC? > > Can anyone tell me if IJC supports ethernet to a 9000? If not, can you tell > me where to get a USB adapter for the 9000? > > Thanks, > > Bill Morse > Digital Eye Editions > 450 Harrison Ave. Studio 227 > Boston, MA 02118 > (617) 429-3298 > > http://digitaleyeeditions.com > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > ________________________________________________________________________ > ________________________________________________________________________ > > Message: 19 > Date: Wed, 25 May 2005 14:37:50 -0700 > From: Christer Rosewelll <christerart@m...> > Subject: Re: The Epson R1800 is the replacement for the 2100/2200 > > Kevin, > > I've had a similar experience with Epson several years ago - not until > I threatened to post the problem on my site (30 - 50K hits/day) and > also post it on every forum I could think of did I get a response from > Epson. I flatly told them I would also sue them - and I refused to talk > to nobody but a supervisor/manager and I told him that unless they > called me the very next day I would go ahead. > > They called me the next morning. > > What they offer and tell you is unacceptable - you paid for one product > - you should - and must - get a similar product in return! The 1800 is > a totally different product from the 2100 - the 1800 replaces the > 1280/1290. > > Don't cave in! > > Christer > > Christer, AKA Christer Rosewell > http://www.ChristerArt.com > 3.6 million visitors to date.. > > > On May 25, 2005, at 10:49 AM, > DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com wrote: > > > From: "Kevin Bell" <kevbell@e...> > > Subject: The Epson R1800 is the replacement for the 2100/2200 > > > > I thought the group may be interested in my resent experience with > > Epson Customer services in the UK regarding the replacement for the > > 2100 printer: > > > > On reading the recommendations on this forum I purchased a new Epson > > 2100 which was faulty when delivered. The supplier was insistent that > > I should not return it but to arrange to have a new replacement sent > > direct from Epson. The printer was taken to an Epson Express Centre > > for replacement. Three weeks passed before I was contacted by Epson > > and was informed that the 2100 is no longer being made, I was offered > > an R1800 instead. I pointed out that this was a less expensive printer > > and that according to a much respected user group, the R1800 is not a > > like for like replacement for the 2100. Epson insisted that the R1800 > > was the replacement for the 2100 and will not move on their > > replacement offer. I offered to pay the difference between the 2100 > > and the 2400 but they would not budge. I assumed that the 2400 was the > > replacement for the 2100 from the posts on this forum but Epson say > > no, the R1800 replaces the 2200. > > > > I would be interested to hear from anyone in the group who has any > > thoughts this. > > > > Regards, Kev Bell > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > ________________________________________________________________________ > ________________________________________________________________________ > > Message: 20 > Date: Wed, 25 May 2005 14:40:19 -0700 > From: Roy <thinkgreen@s...> > Subject: RE: A bit OT. Mounting Prints - effect of heat on inkjet print - > any recommended > books > > At 09:39 AM 5/25/2005, you wrote: > >Roy, > > > >I have measured test strips of MIS B&W inks before and after dry mounting > >and found no significant differences. I have the press set to 180 and use > >Seal Archival mount. I leave the prints in the press for 1 minute, but > >usually have to do more than one press per print for large prints. I do > >not > >press matte paper -- only sprayed Premium Semimatte. > > > >Paul > > > Thanks Paul > > What do you do for matte? > > > Roy > > > > ________________________________________________________________________ > ________________________________________________________________________ > > Message: 21 > Date: Wed, 25 May 2005 18:44:40 -0000 > From: "Troy" <troyb@s...> > Subject: Re: Wet Mounting - What is it? > > I would recommend that you go to a user group for your specific scanner - I > belong > to the Coolscan 8000-9000 yahoo group; wet mounting is talked about all the > time. > The subject comes up also on the Epson 4870/4990 group. > > Wet mounting is a process used in drum scanning that has been applied to > dedicated > film scanners like the Nikon LS 8000 or flatbeds like the Epson Perfection > series. > > The arguments for wet mounting are that you reduce the effects of film grain > while > minimizing dust and scatches. The evidence is difficult to show online due > to monitor > resolution - it is the kind of thing you would have to see in person. > > The thing that scares me is puting flammable fluids into my only scanner, > without > enough proof that wet mounting is actually superior enough to dry. There is > also > clean-up to do afterward. Anytime you soften grain, you risk some detail > loss, > depending on how it is handled and if it matters for your subject. For me > detail is > critical, so I keep the grain. > > - Troy > > --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Bob Marsolais" > <bob@m...> > wrote: > > I know this is a bit off topic, but I saw mention earlier this week on > > this forum of "wet mounting" as a way of improving scanner output. > > What is this, how do you do it, and where can I get more information? > > > > Thanks! > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________ > ________________________________________________________________________ > > Message: 22 > Date: Wed, 25 May 2005 18:16:51 -0400 > From: "Brian Ellis" <bellis60@v...> > Subject: Re: white sky > > Open two photographs in Photoshop, one with the foreground you want (i.e. > the one with the white sky), the other with the good sky. Make sure they're > the same size and dpi and in 8 bit mode Then take the following steps: > > 1. Mark the entire foreground image as a selection (Select > All). > 2. Copy the foreground image (Edit > Copy). > 3.Close the foreground image, the sky image should become active, if it > doesn't click on it to make it active. > 4. Edit > Paste. Now you will see only the foreground image. Use the > Background Eraser tool (Eraser > Background Eraser) to erase the white sky > and you will see the sky from the sky image showing through. Use a large > eraser size until you get close to things like mountain tops, trees, > buildings, etc., then switch to a small tool when you get to those areas. > > You have created two layers so when you're through flatten the image (Layers > > Flatten Layers). > > I'm sure there are other, perhaps better, ways to do it and there probably > is a plug-in out there somewhere but this method is easy and works well as > long as you take some time and care to get the transition from sky to > objects (horizon line, mountain tops, trees, buildings, etc.) correct so > that there isn't a thin white line showing between them and the new sky. > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "chatzebussi" <chatzebussi@y...> > To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com> > Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2005 3:21 PM > Subject: [Digital BW] white sky > > > Hi > > I know my question is completely OT. But: can anybody please tell me > quickly how they replace a completely white sky by a blue sky with a > few clouds in it. I seem to remember that there are actually a few PS > plug-ins around, but I can't remember which ones the are/were. > > Thanks for any info > > Chatzebussi > > > > > > Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other resources as > they are often being updated. > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint > > If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to > unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same > page. > > Please follow these basic guidelines: > - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep > them short. > - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames. > Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the > membership without notice. > - Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W > printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be removed from > the membership. > - By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and > guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group Owner and > Moderators. See "Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines" in the Files section: > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/ > > BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT > YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE "OWNER" AND > "MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU > FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY > DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS, > GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE "OWNER" AND > "MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE > POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY > TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR > ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY > THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER > MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP. > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________ > ________________________________________________________________________ > > Message: 23 > Date: Wed, 25 May 2005 18:41:35 -0400 > From: "John Moody" <moodymz3@y...> > Subject: Neutral profile goals > > When creating a neutral profile, how far into the highlights do you try to > "force" neutral against a paper with brighteners. > I'm about to try making a QTR profile for my 2200 using Kirkland glossy with > UC ink, and was wondering if there was any general thoughts on this. > > John > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > ________________________________________________________________________ > ________________________________________________________________________ > > Message: 24 > Date: Wed, 25 May 2005 23:41:00 -0000 > From: "rgb2bw" <jnk0941@e...> > Subject: Photoshop brushes and Wacom tablet > > For those of you who have downloaded the Photoshop brush set from the > ZuberPhotographics web site, there is now a customized version of the > brush set designed to be used with the Wacom tablets with Touch Strip. > > The download instructions include instructions for programming the > Wacom tablet so you can increase/decrease the size of a brush tip > just by sliding the Wacom pen on the Touch Strip. Your Wacom tablet > must have the Touch Strip feature for this to work. > > The brush set and instructions can be found at the following url. > > http://www.zuberphotographics.com/page_Downloads.htm > > Thomas > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________ > ________________________________________________________________________ > > Message: 25 > Date: Wed, 25 May 2005 23:49:30 -0000 > From: "Tyler Boley" <tyler@t...> > Subject: Re: Thoughts on the new Epsons > > --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Ernst Dinkla > <E.Dinkla@c...> wrote: > > Tyler Boley wrote: > ... > > >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. > ... > >...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 ? > > I should have been less imprecise in my rave. I honestly don't know > what the gamut or dmax of the carbros may be. I can only say how they > looked on the wall next to traditional prints. The certainly appeared > more dramatic than even type Cs. > But I could ask Todd, he would probably know. > Also, I believe the pigments have a surface quality of their own, are > translucent (they go down in registered layers) and don't go into the > paper much. > > > 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. > > At this point I'm only talking subjective, I'd better be clear about that. > One point I was trying to make is that the Matte vrs Glossy may not > always equate to density range, and the experience of an impressive > gamut and dramatic density range on a beautiful paper surface is > beautiful. Hopefully something we can get to one day with inkjet. > Tyler > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________ > ________________________________________________________________________ > > > Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other resources as > they are often > being updated. > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint > > If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to > unsubscribe, > please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same page. > > Please follow these basic guidelines: > - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep > them short. > - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames. > Hostile, > aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the membership without > notice. > - Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W > printing. Users > who persistently make off-topic posts may be removed from the membership. > - By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and > guidelines, and to > abide by the actions and decisions of the group Owner and Moderators. See > "Group Topic, > Rules and Guidelines" in the Files section: > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/ > > BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT > YAHOO! GROUP YOU > EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE "OWNER" AND "MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL > BW, THE PRINT > YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, > SPECIAL, > CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES > FOR LOSS OF > PROFITS, GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE > "OWNER" AND > "MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE > POSSIBILITY OF > SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY TO USE THE > DIGITAL BW, THE > PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR ALTERATION OF YOUR > TRANSMISSIONS OR > DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE > PRINT YAHOO > GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO > GROUP. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > > -- > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. > Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.11.16 - Release Date: 24/05/2005 > > > > > Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other resources as > they are often being updated. > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint > > If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to > unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same > page. > > Please follow these basic guidelines: > - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep > them short. > - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames. > Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the > membership without notice. > - Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W > printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be removed from > the membership. > - By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and > guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group Owner and > Moderators. See "Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines" in the Files section: > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/ > > BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT > YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE "OWNER" AND > "MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU > FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY > DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS, > GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE "OWNER" AND > "MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE > POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY > TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR > ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY > THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER > MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP. > > Yahoo! Groups Links
Message
Re:Glossy, MAtte and Dmax- Is it physics?
2005-05-26 by davelongviews