Digital BW, The Print

> From: wwodets <odets@...>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 15:24:53 -0000
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: [Digital BW] Re: Simulate Ink Black . . .
> 
> Steve-
> 
> This is where the measurement approach fails.  The MK on HPR has
> the "veiled," "fogged" look of the simulate ink black on screen.  It
> as if a milkiness has been introduced into the shadows.  By
> comparison, the same ink of VFA as a deep, rich, clean look that is
> much more like the preview without simulate ink color.  This is an
> obvious difference.

Yes because it has a better black and less shadow compression.  The look on
screen seems consistent with your observations below.

Above you are talking about proofing.  Below you are talking about the
actual prints.  The observations you make below about the finished print can
be a variety of issues but two big factors will be the lower dMax and shadow
cramming you have noted before with HPR.  It is not at all surprising that
make the observations you do given the details you have posted before now.
But the observations below have nothing to do with soft-proofing.

The two need to be segregated for a sensible discussion.  It would seem to
me the veiled soft proof you see for HPR vs VFA is consistent with what you
observe in the actual prints.

> 
> I've had two prints of the same full-range image sitting side by side
> on an easel in the kitchen for two days.  Not only are the blacks
> better on the VFA, the VFA print gives the impression of more detail
> (local contrast?).  I suspect the latter is an issue of dot gain.
> Bottom line, comparitively speaking:  the HPR is murky, the VFA
> crisp.  The HPR, by itself, is a good (very good?) print, but it
> doesn't hold up to a side-by-side comparison to the VFA.  So this is
> a disappointment to me because I like the hand, color, surface and
> weight (308) of the HPR.  But I certainly can't use it for an image
> with a lot of shadow area.  Having begun my experience with the 2400
> with VFA, I have always been a bit puzzled with the preoccupation
> with matte Dmax.  Now I know.
> 


Yep.  It's not the be-all-and-end-all but for a certain type of image it is
a very important issue.  If you like HPR a lot then may I suggest you try
Eboni ink when you can.  It performs better than Epson MK on non-Epson paper
albeit worse than Epson MK on Epson paper (I can't get the same dMax as you
are getting on VFA for example).