Digital BW, The Print

On 6/2/05 1:17 PM, "dlruckus" <dlruckus@...> typed:

> Steve
> 
> You can test it yourself even without such a densitometer. Just put a
> light tent around the prints and peek thru a hole in the tent. Or
> better yet photograph them through the hole.
> No. It's not quantitative but will show whether or not it's worth
> making measurements.
> 
> Regards
> 
> Duane
> 


I think this is not off the point to say that you can just as I¹ve done
plenty of times which is put an image which you¹ve printed on glossy next to
a semi glossy or matt print of the same image and the glossy wins out
obviously visually every time. The blacks appear easily noticeably blacker
and the separation in the lower to middle tones are more clear.
It would seem hard to justify not just going with the glossiest you can find
every single time.
But I manage.
I just go as glossy as possible until the gloss starts to bug me.
With darkroom this is the standard dried down glossy paper. Semigloss is the
result in the end.
With RC I have a heck of a time with the glossy it¹s so plasticlike but will
use it for contact proofs.
The ³pearl² surface just doesn¹t cut it hence a main reason I never print RC
but always fiber.
Rc or matt darkroom paper for me is such a travesty it is not even close to
a consideration.
You don¹t even use it for hand coloring its so bad.

But with inkjet the glossiest I can stand it matte.

I did see some 4x6¹s yesterday during a demonstration of an Epson 4x5
snapshot printer machine and the semigloss I thought was kind of good. Thin
paper though.

I¹ve sprayed my water colors and pastels and charcoal drawings and can see
the logic in looking at an inkjet almost in that way.
I also noticed you some of the Epson printers with the red and blue in them
have a gloss coating cartridge? Is that what he said?
This would be the answer to the issue in my book.
Have to printer do it.

Even have something which looks almost just like a printer and you feed your
already printed print in one side and it ³prints² it with the over
protective coating.
Such a unit would have all it¹s cartridges filled with a variety of evil
solvents and varnishes so you can dial in the amount of glass vs. matt you
want and other parameters.
Quickness of drying vs. quality. A faster drying to avoid bleed.
An on purpose warm organic varnish look.
Tooth. This was always an aspect of the sprays we used which we¹d be aware
of for doing more work over the spray.
Fixative I guess that stuff was called
Intentional crackelure effect! (just kidding, almost)
I don¹t know I guess some protective coatings would be better for dyes than
pigments.

Another thing would have them UNDERCOAT the paper, not over coat it.

A good mat paper with just the right coating would become in effect semi
gloss paper and set up the pigments or inks just right to the optimum
absorbing and you'd get just the amount of vibrance you¹d need.

Also you¹d make printing papers out of a lot of watercolor papers and rag
boards which would not otherwise be suited.

I think this pre coat idea is better than the post coat come to think of it.

Ultimately with a pre coat AND a post coat the final effect could be better
then the sum of it¹s parts.
 (I always think 2 coatings is way more than twice as good as one coating
when painting or doing just about anything)
You¹ve created an image sandwich. With the image being the filling and the
coatings being the bread.
And the paper being the paper plate it¹s sitting on.
I actually AM serious.

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





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