Digital BW, The Print

As part of my play with the Nanochromes I reprinted some HPR images I have
framed done with Epson K3 and Eboni (in lieu of Epson MK).  The Epson/Eboni
prints measured dMax of 1.7 (15.4 L*).  The (best of the) Nanochrome prints
peaked at 2.0 (L* 8.1).  The difference in punch was considerable. The
Nanochrome prints had much more depth, presence and shadow detail.  Of
course, that wouldn't get a bad photo to look better than a good one but
side by side there is no doubt in my mind that there is more to be desired
from matte cotton paper than 1.7D.  And of course that's not to say the
Nanochrome inks are great - they have other issues :-) but I see no reason
why 2+ archival dMax shouldn't be conquerable in the not too distant future.


> From: Paul Roark <paul.roark@...>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2006 08:46:52 -0800
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: RE: [Digital BW] Re: epson velvet fine art paper
> 
> 
> 
>>> ... roughly 1.79 vs. 1.70. . .
> 
> 
>> ... Does it really look "much better?" ...
> 
> Another variable that is out there is that some of our instruments read
> slightly differently.  I've never measured a matte paper above 1.75.
> 
> So, with that in mind, just looking at what my instrument reads (with white
> paper under the sample -- another variable), I consider 1.60 as the minimum
> dmax I'll accept in a matte paper.  1.65 is very good.  Above this, I don't
> see much difference in real photos and normal lighting.  1.7+ is outstanding
> and, in side-by-side comparisons under bright lights, one can definitely see
> the difference.  In real display, however, I don't think it would make much
> difference above a 1.65 matte dmax.  It's the art, not the dmax that matters
> once an acceptable level is reached, but we always want and strive for more.
> 
> I use UltraSmooth or Premier Art Hot Press (same coating, I believe) even
> though on some of my printers they have a dmax of only about 1.63.  The
> smoothness of the finish and other factors outweigh the minor dmax weakness.
> It's over my 1.6 bottom line, so I'm not too concerned (but I'd love to see
> 1.7 on it).
> 
> Paul
> www.PaulRoark.com
>