Digital BW, The Print

By way of rough comparison, the colour prints coming from the 4800 look much
like the MIS UC equivalent inks with a 50% glop coating but with better
colour gamut (although the old print I did from Adobe RGB workspace and the
new from ProPhoto and so this will be biased heavily in favour of the new in
terms of gamut) and better retention of underlying surface texture. I would
be very surprised if Epson maintains a separate gloss optimizer going
forward.  The prints can still be scratched with a fingernail and so the
argument for an abrasion proof coating remains for those wanting to frame
without glazing.  I sprayed a print with Lyson Print Guard and observed the
same issues as with the previous inks - droplets of spray disfiguring the
print.  I will not be using that product again.

Your discussion of undercoating is already being explored by paper
manufacturers who infuse their papers or coat their papers to make them more
receptive and responsive to ink.  The more important issue is abrasion
protection once the print has been printed.  I agree that having a printer
do the spraying would be optimal.  As yet I don't believe we have a
substance that does the job and can be sprayed by a printer without
clogging.  Epson have largely killed the bronzing and differential
reflectance issues and argue that they have greatly increased abrasion
resistance.  We will likely have to wait a while for the next iteration....



> 
> 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]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
>