Digital BW, The Print

Steve-

Actually I think I wasn't clear on the soft proofing versus the 
print.  What I mean to say, in short, is that the HPR print is better 
predicted by the soft proof with simulate ink black, the VFA better 
predicted without the simulate ink black.

On the HPR shadow cramming, I've fixed that with the ABW driver 
in "Light" mode.  I posted about that the other day, but the HPR 
figures for 90-100% blacks are now:  23.93, 21.68, 19.90, 17.99, 
17.19, 16.91.  The previous equivalent figures were:  18.42, 17.69, 
17.21, 16.94, 16.69, 16.80.  Opened up with the Light ABW setting, 
the Dmax is actually slightly worse for some reason (16.91 vs. 
16.80).  The VFA Dmax is about LAB 2.7 better in either workflow (now 
14.19 vs. 16.91). 

Walt



--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Steve Kale 
<stevekale@b...> wrote:
>
> 
> 
> 
> > From: wwodets <odets@c...>
> > 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).
>