Digital BW, The Print

The standards set up for densitometric instruments took precisely the
glossy reflective characteristics into account. Otherwise the
instruments would have given very poor readings of such samples. Hence
the 45 degree angle required between illumination  of the sample and
sensor position. That also gives glossy samples an edge in readings
over matt ones because you are actually getting more specular surface
reflections making it to the sensor from matt samples and thereby
degrading the results. [ and doing so very scientifically ;') ]

Real world eyeballs however are forced to take real world conditions
as they are and not as we might wish them to be. ( Well, I should
strike that I suppose. The mind and emotions are known to interpose
between sight and interpretation on occasion I'm told.)

Regards
Duane

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "john dean"
<deanwork2003@y...> wrote:
>
> That has been my experience also. William Turner and G. Etching
> "appear" to produce deeper richer blacks, especially with monochrome,
> than smoother excellent fine art papers, although they don't measure
> that way. The reflection theory makes total sense to me and although I
> have thought about that, I've  never heard anyone actually articulate
> it in regard to the various coatings of matte textures. I guess that
> could be a characteristic of all types of printmaking media, but
> especially coated stock.
> 
> Also, if we really want to take this further (I don't really) this
> visual-psychological aspect of print tonality is AS important or more
> important than densitometer readings of dmax values when evaluating
> any papers shadow rendition when exibited in the real world. It is
> unsetteling, but true. And, we also have the glass, plexiglass that 
> changes things too.
> 
> I do belive people have talked about this reflection phenomena that
> may render a glossy prints shadow less dense visually than one on a
> good matte rag, while showing a far greater dmax when measured
> scientifically. When you get these glossy prints in a gallery or
> museum you are talking about even more surface reflections and
> scattered light.  That is one of the reasons I never get hung up on
> dmax numbers and when I hear them I take them with a grain of salt. I
> think they are just one thing to look at among many, even the scale of
> an image should be taken into account.
> 
> John
> 
> 
> By the way, that Crane MMax is certainly not revolutionary like they
> claimed. I kind of expeced that was all hype, and its not that bright
> either. It is really where they should have been 5 years ago.
> 
> John
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > it's down to measurement error, or so close as to be visually the
> > same) but the more textured surfaces seem to have blacker blacks than
> > PhotoRag. I speculate this is because a smoother surface may begin to
> > have a slight bit of actual though very diffuse reflection or sheen of
> > the ambient light in the room. William Turner, German Etching, and
> > White Velvet being more textured might break that up more. You know,
>