I'd still like to know the answer to the original question. What is the measured dMax of "photo" vs "matte" prints when surface bias is eliminated? (As for spraying, I have yet to find a suitable solution for spraying "photo" prints - in the case of matte prints it's just a lot easier as the spray is absorbed and does not affect surface texture.) > From: Mark Rabiner <mark@...> > Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com> > Date: Wed, 01 Jun 2005 12:48:00 -0700 > To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com> > Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Matte versus glossy Dmax: a matter of physics? > > I'm reluctant to spray my prints. It seems archival wise to be opening up a > can of worms we have no way of anticipating. > When I look at my stack of matt prints, mostly Epson enhanced or earlier but > now the Epson Velvet I don't see them lacking. > And that stack is right next to my stack of darkroom prints. Air dried > glossy fiber of course. Sometimes the stack consists of both darkroom and > inkjet prints intertwined. You know when you hit an inkjet you know it > mainly because it's matt but it doesn't look worse because of it. > It doesn't look worse at all. In some ways they look better. > > > So my thought is this: > Many darkroom glossy papers are/were called "F" papers, the f standing for > "ferrotype". Which we don't do any more. > Its not considered archival and otherwise long considered "tacky" > in more ways than one!:) > BUT! > You DO get a better Dmax and tonal range when you ferrotype your glossy > paper. > When you air dry it, which has been the standard in darkroom for decades it > just doesn't match up to the "Zing" a ferrotyped print has. > Do we get all upset bout it?! Nooooo!. > And figure our blacks are good enough and we can live without it. > > Same certainly with platinum prints. Those are matt watercolor paper and no > one to put it mildly complains about the blacks. The blacks I believe are > considered better than darkroom. > > Why cant we approach our inkjet prints with this philosophy. > The blacks we get as part of the process are great! > I don't feel like I'm getting worse blacks then I do with my darkroom > prints. I'm constantly wowed by them. > > Some day I'll see the results of these sprays and have a better idea what is > going on but so far my feeling is let well enough alone. > And let the paper get down with it's natural paperlikeness. > I like my prints NAKED! > > (but behind glass of course) > :) > > > Mark Rabiner > Photography > Portland Oregon > http://rabinergroup.com/ >
Message
Re: [Digital BW] Matte versus glossy Dmax: a matter of physics?
2005-06-01 by Steve Kale
Attachments
- No local attachments were found for this message.