Digital BW, The Print

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Tyler Boley" <tyler@...> wrote:
>
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "mxgo95747"
> <mxgo95747@> wrote:
> ...
> > --------
> > I have tried the FibaPrint Gloss and not having tried the other two
> papers, I just wanted see 
> > if the differences in Dmax (between 2.25 and 2.94) can be visually seen.

> 
> Wow! 2.94!!! Sorry, probably meant 2.294...

Did I screw that up, it should be 2.401 ( from your message: FibaPrintGloss C) 2.374 M) 
1.943 Y) 1.797 K) 2.401).  

> 
> Guess which took the subjective edge in richness?
> That's right, the lowly 1.7 dmax quad inks on William Turner prints.
> Additionally, the blacks "felt" as black as the others.
> Also, for non-matte, the silver print still shines above the others in
> surface quality and absolute impression of continuous tone.
> We are probably biased, and it was obviously very subjective, but the
> point is dmax is far from the top of the list for print quality, and
> even being able to tell the differences between these dmax's is a stretch.
> Of course, if that's all you're looking for when looking at prints,
> perhaps you'll perceive it. Of those papers, the surface and paper
> base hue are far more important for choosing.

Thanks, that is the input that I was looking for.  I will compare the three when the Crane 
and Hahnemuehle papers, when Jim Doyle gets 8.5" by 11" sheets.  Then compare all three 
against the matte papers.  By the way richness, among other qualities, was included in the 
"etc." in my post.

Every once in while, I have to be reminded that Dmax is not every thing.  Maybe, I should 
look up at the Epson Velvet Fine Art paper prints that I have in framed and under glass in 
my study, where my typing this message.  I do like the "look."

Martin