Digital BW, The Print

This is the message I posted a while back (#57907):


I have been happily printing and giving away b/w prints using various
methods for the last 3 years, always on matte papers using FS & FSN
inks on a 1280, and QTR UC inks on a 4000 lately. Seeing the
possibility of gloss prints, I printed some images at a local CompUsa
on the newer HP printers using their gray inks. I am a hobbyist, and
do not sell.

Seeing the HP prints' wow-punch got me interested in glossy prints.
Soon I was asking myself how to go about doing that, having just
spent a lot of money on the 4000. I am just not keen on the bronzing
one gets with the UC inks and RC coated papers. I wondered how much
of my own "wow-punch" reaction to glossy prints was purely
conditioned on knowing that the matte prints were giving me a paltry
~1.7 DMax, while the RC prints were in the 2.2 range. Was I too
influenced by numbers?

So I did an experiment. I printed the same image (see attached
link) to 6.5 x 10 inches with QTR on EEM and on Pictorico Photo
Gallery Glossy, both neutral, both very linear. There is absolutely
no difference in the detail rendered in these prints. Tonal
transitions (some subtle, some drastic) in the image are faithfully
reproduced in both prints. The original was a 4x5 transparency
scanned on a 4870 scanner; it has tons of detail. The Pictorico print
was sprayed very carefully with Printshield, so it exhibited NO
bronzing.

http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3066583

I showed the prints to co-workers at lunch, randomly stopping them in
coridoors, in their offices, in the smoke-hall. These are just
regular folk, most who appreciate art. I sampled a total of 46
individuals, both men and women. They were allowed to handle the
prints, look at them anyway they chose for as long as they wanted. I
asked them to pick their preference of the two.

To cut to the chase:

30 people prefered the matte print.
16 people prefered the glossy print.

So what is this desire of so many of us (myself included) for glossy
high DMax print? Are we conditioned purely by the numerical value of
DMax? Is it really worth it? Am I trying to rationalize the
limitation of my 4000?

Regards.

Shilesh

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Tyler Boley" 
<tyler@t...> wrote:
> This will be a bit long, but I find it very interesting-
> 
> Last week there was a digital "festival" sponsored by our local pro
> Epson dealer. He does a very good job hosting each year and brings 
in
> various stars to give presentations, etc.. We've had Bruce Fraser 
and
> others, this year Greg Gorman was the major star, also John Panozzo
> from Colorbyte (ImagePrint), Epson reps, Onyx reps, Chromix, the 
usual
> suspects.
> For the first time there was a print competition. Any antendee could
> enter, and the winners were chosen by a completely open vote by all.
> There was mostly color of course, everything from large fine art to
> reproduction on canvas, a variety of surfaces and subject matter. 
Also
> some B&W. Even a UC over platinum print. Quality of work was from
> fairly accomplished amateur to internationally known fine artists.
> 
> And the winner was, apparently by an overwhelming margin...
> A B&W print, made with 3rd party monochromatic inks, on 3rd party 
fine
> art "matte" paper. Placement was by artist, not by print, so an
> individual could not place more than once. Had it been by piece,
> apparently the second entry by the same person, using the same
> process, would have taken second place. In fact, that "second place"
> print got three times more votes than any other print entered.
> 
> I find this amazing. The point, to me, is this- it's not about the
> numbers, it's not about who has the power to squash smaller 
companies,
> and not about presuppositions about technical superiority or what
> photographs are "supposed" to look like.
> Some of these processes have come to fruition, some of them, in the
> right hands with the right images, can make beautiful art.
> 
> Obviously beautiful art. Not, sort of, or maybe, or
> if-you-look-at-it-right...
> But to the majority there by a huge margin, over color, over blacker
> blacks, relatively unsophisticated eyes and critical eyes together. 
I
> think we forget how far we have come.
> 
> "We" may get pushed out, may become marginalized, or evolve into
> something else, but are significant in a larger sense. Some things 
are
> just about the art, you know? Thank goodness for the innovators. 
Keep
> pushing it, and support your 3rd party suppliers.
> The votes are in, they are making it happen.
> Tyler