Digital BW, The Print

Hi Steve

I can tell the difference between ISP and EPSG immediately from the paper
sheen.  EPSG has less "sparkle" (probably a poor description of what I see).
I must admit I prefer EPSG but the price of ISP is much more attractive.
I've just done a bunch of color prints on both papers.  The only area where
I can see a gloss differential is in one spot where I blew the highlights.
I also have a copy of this image which I had printed on my 2100 with MIS UC
clones and coated with glop. The gloss differential in non existent in the
trouble spot - unsurprisingly as the whole image has an even coating of
"ink".  Maybe I am only noticing the obvious spot so to speak but I really
do think the gloss differential issue is dead with the new inks except for
where there is no or next-to-no ink laid down.

Cheers

Steve


> From: Steve Gledhill <stephengledhill@...>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2005 20:22:28 -0000
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Forward Stepping, was Backward
> 
> Steve,
> I have to hand three identical prints, one on Ilford Smooth Pearl, one
> on Epson Premium Semigloss and one on Permajet Oyster.  They are
> almost identical papers to looks at, surface, weight, etc.  Could they
> actually be the same I wonder???  They were printed with my 4800 using
> PK black and identical ABW settings.  The prints are all but identical
> - you have to look with a supercritical eye to see any  differences.
> Except, that is, for the gloss differential.  On the Epson Semigloss
> and the Permajet Oyster the gloss differential is present, is almost
> the same on each paper, but not at an offensive level and only (as you
> say) at or very close to base white - i.e. (almost) no ink.  But on
> the Ilford Smooth Pearl it is barely visible - almost non-existent -
> when compared with the other two.  So, maybe Ilford Smooth Pearl is
> the one for glossdiff haters.
> Steve
> http://www.virtuallygrey.co.uk/