Digital BW, The Print

Alan

I really think something is wrong here.  I can get better than that on matte
paper.  The Nano K ink tends to slightly under-perform Epson PK (UC or K3)
in the dMax stakes and so I'd expect it to be behind the Epson PKs on this
paper.  And I got 5 or thereabouts on the 2100 and with the Epson driver.

Nonetheless I still prefer other ink and paper combinations.  The Da Vinci
paper looks more natural and is whiter than the SR but it seems to bronze
more so.  I still think both loose a lot of shadow detail when ever so
slightly tilted.

I have the same print here (the Elephant Mother and Baby I from
http://homepage.mac.com/stevekale/photography/sabisand1.html ) on 1. Da
Vinci with Nanochromes, 2. Crane Silver Rag with Nanochromes, 3. HPR with
Nanochromes, 4. HPR with Eboni/Epson K3 (Adv B&W on a 4800) and 5. EPSM with
Nanochromes.  All of the Nanochrome prints were done with a colour profile
and the colour driver on my 2100.  (The image is quite good for checking out
shadow detail in the baby elephant below the mother's chest.)  On looks
alone, I would have to say the placing would go as follows:

1. Nanochromes on HPR
2. Nanochromes on EPSM (Epson K3 would likely be a tad better)
3. Eboni/K3 Epson Adv B&W on HPR.
4. Nanochromes on SR
5. Nanochromes on Da Vinci

(I'd like to see Epson K3 on the second and last two but I'd have to do an
ink change in my 4800.)

Placings 2, 3 and 4 all revolve around surface reflection characteristics.
Eboni/K3 on HPR doesn't have quite the punch of Nano on SR but the sheen
means a lot of SR hides a lot of this punch.  Hence EPSM jumping ahead
because I think it has the punch with a better surface look.  HPR is of
course much more fragile and the Nanos have their issues.  I'd like to see a
true matte PK "silver rag" and an archival Nano derivative....

Steve


> From: alanrew42 <Alan-Rew@...>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2006 18:15:46 -0000
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: [Digital BW] Re: Da Vinci Fibre Gloss Paper
> 
> I've now profiled DVFG using the 'Glossy Paper Photo Weight' media
> setting in the Epson driver for my 2100 using the standard UC inks
> with PK installed, 2880 dpi, NCA. TC9.18 target as before, PMP 5.0.5b,
> Eye-One Pro Rev.B
> 
> Reading the profile with Chromix ColorThink, the black point with
> 'GPPW' comes out as
> Lab 16 0 -3
> 
> which is lighter than the profile I made using the 'Premium Semi
> Glossy' setting earlier, for which ColorThink shows the black point in
> the profile as being
> Lab 12 -1 -4
> 
> (this doesn't match my manual measurements posted earlier, but I think
> PMP has done some interpolation/extrapolation for the black point).
> 
> There is a bit more shadow separation in a 21-step grey wedge printed
> using this GPPW profile. The neutrality is also a tiny bit better. But
> my earlier conclusion is unchanged: the Epson driver is probably the
> limiting factor here in terms of retrieving shadow detail with UC inks
> on DVFG. Choosing DVFG over other papers with the Epson 2100 and Epson
> driver will probably be based on aesthetic reasons (relating to the
> look & feel of the paper) rather than on technical grounds (e.g.
> shadow detail). Personally I'm sticking with my previous favourite
> glossy paper with this printer 7 driver.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Alan
>