Digital BW, The Print

John-

Since I started this round of this perpetual ruckus, let me say that 
how a print *looks* is certainly the only criterion.  To the extent 
that measurements help us find the things that actually look better, 
they are useful.  In my experience, the one standout among these 
matte papers is VFA with K3 inks, in terms of how people actually see 
it.  The most inexperienced viewer perceives that the blacks are 
deeper than anything else I've put next to it.  The qualities of VFA 
have also been apparent in the numbers, so the numbers here have been 
useful to me.

Whether such comparative evaluations are the way to go is another 
question.  

Walt 

--- 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,
>