Digital BW, The Print

Walt,

I agree with your assessment of VFA.  Highest dmax of all the matte  
papers and best looking prints with the k3 inks.

Carl

On Nov 13, 2005, at 9:13 PM, wwodets wrote:

> 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,
>>