Digital BW, The Print

Dear Peter,
I´ve noticed that yr comment on the Pictorico went unanswered and 
uncommented in this forum. Since I have been using this paper for 
some time, and find it very good with the Epson 2400, I wonder if you 
could qualify better your comment of it giving "the ugliest prints 
I'd ever seen". Is your judgement related to something in the nature 
of all glossy papers or is it specific to Pictorico? I found it gives 
rich blacks, extremely sharp pictures and a good tone gradation. I´ve 
compared it with the pictures of Brooks Jensen in Hahnemuhle Photo 
Rag 310gms/m2, and being a glossy, almost plastic paper one does not 
get the same feeling of fine arts picture, but this is another kind 
of consideration, or was it what you meant? Living quite far from the 
main photo centers, I can only expand my knowledge through foruns 
like this, so I would highly appreciate your comments.
Paulo



--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Peter Marshall 
<petermarshall@...> wrote:
>
> When I tested the range of Pictorico papers I concluded that the 
> Pictorico Photo Gallery Hi-gloss White Film gave the ugliest prints 
I'd 
> ever seen. I can imagine it being popular for display graphics but 
never 
> for fine art prints.
> 
> I think the publication of this piece shows a complete lack of 
editorial 
> judgement by the web site concerned, it should clearly have had a 
> heading that marked it as advertising material.
> 
> Regards
> 
> Peter Marshall
> petermarshall@...   
> _________________________________________________________________
> My London Diary	              http://mylondondiary.co.uk/
> London's Industrial Heritage: http://petermarshallphotos.co.uk/
> The Buildings of London etc:  http://londonphotographs.co.uk/
> and elsewhere......
> 
> 
> 
> john dean wrote:
> > I suspect a lot of that was true about the physics of the surface 
and
> > ink density, and K3, despite the ad for Imageprint, Epson, and
> > Pictorico. It could have been stated in one paragraph. But I can't
> > help but think that these "revolutionary" advancements are wasted 
on
> > such amazingly pedestrian photography. Now that is technology 
wasted.
> >
> > John 
> >
> >
> >
>