Digital BW, The Print

This confusion may come from prevailing careless of "tone." 

In wet darkroom usage, "tone" refers specifically to the color or
treatment of a B&W print, as in sepia, gold, brown, selenium, cold,
"duo-tone" etc. It doesn't refer to density or contrast or darkness etc.

NON-"tone" factors include Dmax and  the question of clear definition
of each zone from adjoining zones (ie zone system), Vs unclear
definition of zones, zones that are missed entirely or over-emphasized.

"Tone" is carelessly used in inkjet printing because many  have had no
serious contact with wet darkrooms, don't have language for or are
completely unaware of those factors, are unaware of B&W zones etc. 




--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "John Moody"
<moodymz3@...> wrote:
>
> Clarence,
> It may take a re-read to grasp what Jon had written.  Non-matte has a
> greater tonal range than matte, so his point may have been finer
than the
> obvious.
> Other than personal taste, I think lighting has a huge affect on
what looks
> best.  Controlled gallery lighting makes gloss surfaces look
exceptional,
> while uncontrolled lighting can make those images almost
un-viewable.  There
> must be some galleries in Atlanta with inkjet prints that you can visit?
> There are so many choices and future promises now, making it extremely
> difficult to home in on one's own aspiration.
> 
> Best regards,
> John Moody
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of
Clarence
> Walker
> Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2006 9:36 AM
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [Digital BW] Matte versus gloss papers for tone
> 
> In reading an article containing the thoughts of Jon Cone it was
mentioned
> that while matte papers excel in their ability to reproduce tones
and depth,
> none of the non-matte papers receive the ink as well and do not have the
> same quality. Previously, I had thought that the opposite was true,
and that
> matte papers wouldn't have the depth and tonal range and depth. Do I
need to
> reverse my understanding? In having to choose between inks and papers to
> achieve depth and tone, are the matte papers superior?
> 
> Clarence W. Walker,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>