Digital BW, The Print

> From: Brian Ellis <bellis60@...>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Wed, 08 Jun 2005 17:58:23 -0400
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Advice needed... 4000 vs. 4800???
> 
>> Still the
>> look of 1.7dMax is a long way off >2.4dMax.
> 
> I have two questions about those numbers. IIRC 2.0 or thereabouts was a
> fairly typical dMax number for silver papers and in actual printing 90% of
> dMax or roughly 1.8 was about the "blackest black" that was actually desired
> (because of the loss of detail in slighly lighter shadow areas printing the
> darkest  shadows at dMax caused). At least in part because of this, the ANSI
> standard for measuring silver papers' density range doesn't begin at dMax,
> ANSI uses 90% of dMax as the starting point.
> 
> With Eboni matte black ink in the 2200 and printing on EEM, I measure dMax
> at 1.8 

EEM produces a fantastic black for today's matte paper and pigment inks.  I
get 1.72 dry (unsprayed).  Your 1.8 is pretty darn good.  But Permajet Alpha
is down around 1.55 on the 4800.  There is a huge difference in the look of
these two "blacks" - even without putting them side by side.

> or about the "blackest black" I would print at if I were making a
> traditional silver print (at least I think it is, dMax numbers of silver
> papers are from memory, it's been several years since I actually tested
> papers in a darkroom).
> 
> So I guess I'm asking two questions: (1) where does the 2.4 number in the
> quoted statement come from?

Measured density of 100% K patch.  (Also measured off actual prints.)

> (2) assuming it's a number you or someone else
> has obtained in printing a test strip or making a print, is it considered
> desirable in digital printing to print important shadow areas at that high a
> dMax (i.e. is digital printing different from traditional silver printing in
> that respect?).

How much of an image is printed at "pure black" depends on the image.  You
may have none of the image bar a couple of pixels at pure black (or none at
all) or, in the case of something contrasted against a black background, a
very large proportion.  How you print the other parts of the image relative
to this black point is up to you.  You have much more control over this in
the digital domain.  If by "important shadows" you mean the darkest areas of
an image where detail is important then I would obviously not be printing it
at 100% black.  Don't be constrained by benchmarks set by the narrower
constraints of former processes.

My display can produce a black of L* 2.56 which is equivalent to a density
of 2.55 so it is properly capable of displaying a density of 2.45 when I
measure a step wedge for EPSG.  With a 256-step wedge, I can see the
difference between patch 0 and patch 5 on the display.  The difference
between 2.28, patch 7, and 2.45 is very very easy to see.  (Of course
looking at a 256-step wedge printed means one just sees a gradual reduction
in black to white and it is much more difficult.  I have not bothered to
print adjacent stepped patches to do the same test in a print but I would
not expect too greater a difference.)   By contrast, a density of 1.72 is
equivalent to patch 37 - only 86% "black".  Your black point is only 86% of
what it might otherwise be.  If mid grey is printed the same on both prints,
there is considerable compression of shadow detail in the matte print.   You
can reveal more shadow detail in photo print.

Personally I doubt there is much practical difference in aesthetic quality
between a print whose dynamic range extends to a density of, say, 2.2 vs
2.45 - probably even lower than 2.2.  But with matte at 1.7/8  or so at
best, there's a lot to play for on matte paper today.

I think each person will make their own subjective judgement about the
relative strengths and weaknesses of various ink and paper combinations.
Personally, I like colour prints that don't require "vivid colour" to be on
matte paper.  That blue sky doesn't have to hit a massive density to still
look great.  With B&W, because you are working with just one dimension
dynamic range becomes all the more important - it's all you are playing
with.  That's why we crave better blacks much more so than the colour guys.
We want black skies even though they weren't black or even super super dark
blue to begin with.   I was never satisfied with photo paper prints until
the 4800 due to bronzing etc.  They look great with the K3 inks.  Would I
prefer to get the same dynamic range on matte paper?  Absolutely!  I prefer
the finish.  But it's not available today and many B&W images on matte paper
now pale in comparison to identical images on photo paper.  I don't think it
will be long before matte ink closes the gap  ;-)