Digital BW, The Print

On 11-Jun-05, at 3:21 PM, Peter Johngren wrote:

> Tyler -
>
> Sorry - you are right - it is my matte images that
> suck - all of them.  They don't give me the feeling
> that what I experienced when taking the picture, is in
> any way transferred to the final print.  I simply like
> a certain pizazz and impact that is lacking in any
> matte prints I have seen so far, though I admit my
> experience is limited.

I've seen many inkjet prints over the years, those who have worked  
their files the best way possible for various outputs create stunning  
work, Tyler is a great example of that work. So are some who have  
come and gone from this forum. And a few who remain.. Antonis,  
Martin, Clayton, Paul to name a few (each with their own methodology)  
But, it's not so much the inks or papers used, or the RIP, or the  
printer... it's the way in which the workflow generates a good or  
excellent print, and the understanding behind that workflow.

I personally have a difficult time with some who say with authority  
that this paper or that ink is bad.. period. Opinion should not be  
stated as fact. Spouting numbers is not the way I personally judge  
the quality of a print. I've used most of the papers that some here  
find inadequate, and I love some of them for different outputs. But  
I'm not after the holy grail of "black".. the image can sing or be  
stunning or be what you want it to be with the proper background  
knowledge in how to obtain it, with the output you have chosen to  
work with. Then again, I've also obtained beautiful blacks with many  
workflows... not measured. What I've found in print exchanges is very  
simple... be wary of who you are trusting when they talk about their  
prints... on any forum.

Carolyn