Digital BW, The Print

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "wwodets" 
<odets@c...> wrote:
> Scott-
> 
> Thanks for those observations.  It occurs to me that you, I and 
some 
> othes are using wet printing as the standard, while many here are 
> comparing only digital processes.
> 
> Just a few observations.  I find that the midtones too are more 
open 
> in the 2400 prints.  Also that with traditional RC papers, the 
> coating was over the image.  With the digital process, the image 
is 
> on top of the coating.  So I can see that the physical aesthetic 
is 
> the issue and this might make me have a look at the semigloss 
papers, 
> which I had not even considered.  I too has a severe aversion for 
the 
> early RC papers.
> 
> Do you find viewing illumination levels critical as I earlier 
> mentioned.  This might well be the matte process I am using now 
that 
> I think of it.
> 
> As for angst about getting out of the darkroom, I couldn't get out 
> fast enough!
> 
> Thanks,
> Walt
> 

Thanks again Walt. I did NOT see any differences with different 
lighting schemes and levels. I (and many of us here) would be very 
interested in your thoughts if you tried some Epson Premium 
Semigloss and do another analysis. I find its surface to have a very 
nice sheen (like ADFBG) with just the slightest of sparkle (not 
nearly as bad as the Luster)and only seen at very high angle viewing.

I am beginning to think that our natural aversion to the idea of an 
RC type paper is a little silly. As you note, in the darkroom RC was 
really not a very high quality product, but these RC-ish papers for 
inkjet printing seem fine to me, if I can just throw away an old 
prejudice and wow, do I get some beautiful deep blacks.

Interested in trying some EPSG for us????

Scott