Digital BW, The Print

I think it's simply different strokes for different folks and in many cases
different strokes for different images.  Each has its place and neither is
better.  Some prints will be according to any particular individual better
suited to one or the other in the same way that some are "better" (always
only in the eye of the beholder) in sepia rather than cool.  But it is
worthwhile people understanding the properties of each. The dynamic range
(in density, Exposure Zones or f-Stops) of one vs the other is just one of
these properties.  With understanding comes better application of your
vision.  

I'd like to think that Tyler won his competition, firstly, because he took a
damn good photo and, secondly, he chose materials and a means of
presentation that took the qualities of that image and made them shine.  I
don't believe that his win says anything about which format is better.  I
don't believe anyone can say one is better than the other.  What we can each
say, though, is which format WE like the most for a particular image and
come to understand and express why we like it.  This is artistic choice and
expression.  

(I am reminded of my first wine tasting session when I was told that you
can't be taught what you like, only the means to identify why you like it
and thereby increase the probability that you can articulate what you like
and thus acquire more wine that you like.)

As for the numbers, people seem to forget that they allow us a means of
expressing to one another what results we get when we try something or
another.  Saying one is darkish but not quite as dark as the other doesn't
help much.  Measuring and quantifying certain aspects of what we see
enhances communication and understanding.  It is your choice as to whether
you prefer medium a with dMax of 1.7 or medium b with dMax of 1.8 (or 2.45).
The numbers are simply there to help you communicate.  We are fortunate that
the ICC has gone to great lengths to provide us with means of communicating
colour.

The issue with numbers is often people's apathy (a harsh word but likely
true enough) towards understanding them.  Such a Zone person, for example,
may hear the phrase "dMax=1.65 and dMin of 0.05" and can't fathom to
understand it - hasn't made the effort to understand that this is merely an
expression of what he/she already knows in a slightly different language.  A
little effort and this person would know that the phrase means a dynamic
range of 5.3 f-Stops and this person could also determine how stops were
above and how many below Zone V 18% reflectance could be reproduced.  The
same Zone System person might also struggle to find when he/she switches to
a digital camera from film why exposing for Zone V doesn't give him/her the
shadow detail they think they should get.  A little effort would show that
they are better off (due to the way a digital sensor works as opposed to
film) "exposing to the right" and fixing mid grey at their desk. Just a
couple of examples.

Now I have picked on the Zone guys here only by example.  (I did so because
there are so often requests for a "digital Zone system for dummies" here.
It only takes a little effort for a great reward.)  The point of my argument
is that the numbers allow expression and understanding.  The artistic use of
this understanding is entirely up to you and your personal preference.  To
be honest, if you had true artistic integrity you would not care whether 30
people preferred the "glossy" (I would likely hate it BTW) over the "matte".
It's which one best allows you to express what you feel is in the image that
matters.

Congratulations Tyler on seeing what must have been a beautiful image and
taking it to fruition so that your vision can be shared!  If only we could
all see the print.


> From: Shilesh Jani <shilesh.jani@...>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2005 14:13:14 -0000
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: [Digital BW] Re: Will we be obsolete? More...
> 
> 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
>