Digital BW, The Print

Peter you are not going to get a great dmax on this paper.
Best one can do is about L*7 vs 2.5 for something like Premium Luster.
Its great for images where you don't have / care about deep blacks and where
you want detail held in the highlights.
It really holds detail in the highlights well.

Horses for courses.

Mike


On 23/12/06, Peter Palmieri <pcpalmieri@...> wrote:
>
>   No matter whether I use a custom made profile, Hahnemuhle's profile for
> FAP or just choosing the 4800's ICM, the prints I am getting still look
> "muddy". I have used different media settings, including Premium Semi-Gloss
> (250). Premium Glossy (250) and Premium Luster (250) with the mentioned
> profiles without success. Too, I have done a power clean thinking that could
> be a problem. Then I adjusted the paper thickness to .4mm in the Epson's
> driver. No matter which set of variables I use the prints are still appear
> "muddy". A first glance gives the impression that the wrong side of the
> paper was used to make the print. I wish that was the cause.
>
> There is one constant, and that is the paper.
>
> Good thing I didn't buy larger sizes of this paper!
>
> Thanks for your help and happy holidays to all.
>
> Peter
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Terry Ritz
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com<DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Friday, December 22, 2006 11:21 PM
> Subject: RE: [Digital BW] Hahnemuhle Fine Art Pearl & Flaking
>
> I found the best balance between DMAX and shadow detail on an Epson 2200
> running MIS Pro inks was to use the Premium Glossy setting.
>
> Terry.
>
> > Peter Palmieri wrote:
>
> > I am not getting good results with FAP. Perhaps it is the
> > media setting that I am using with an Epson 4800? I am using
> > the Premium Luster (250) setting. Which media setting would
> > be recommended for this paper?
> >
> > Peter
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> 
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]