Digital BW, The Print

Hi Christian,

>... the main thing is the paper.

It is a huge factor.  In fact, with the 100% carbon pigment workflows I've
been using it's about all that affects tone.

> I am looking for something in between matte and gloss, 
> so I can get deeper blacks and more definition and sharpness, 
> especially in the highlights. 

In my tests the sharpness is usually limited by the printer.  The smooth
matte papers can be very sharp.  I'm wondering if what you're noticing is
that texture in the paper distracts from the fine detail.  Some like
texture, but I personally want the details captured by my medium format Tech
Pan shots to be what people see -- not paper.

>I have tried silver rag and did not like the surface at all. 
>To pebblely and shiny and bright.

I agree with the pebbly look, as well as the shiny -- but that is why I use
a smooth matte paper.  As to the brightness, it is actually not a brightened
paper.  You'll find some of the cheaper matte and glossy papers are over the
top with OBAs (optical brightening agents).

> To illustrate the look that I am trying to get you just have too 
> look at any page of Lenswork Magazine. 

I have indeed, and I like what I see.  Part of the LesWork look is the
tonality.  See page 3 of
http://www.paulroark.com/BW-Info/R1800-OBA-Papers.pdf .  I found that with
the R1800 3-MK (three Eboni MK jets, not dilute inks and no color inks)
workflow, a number of papers printed with this tonality.  But this is
strictly a matte paper workflow with Eboni.  See Carl's post with respect to
the 3-PK approach with the 1800.

>Maybe what I want is impossible with inkjet technology. 
>Maybe we just didn't get there yet. 

I have not tried the Harmon paper yet.  For very smooth paper with the new
"fiber based" "glossy" technology, I was impressed with Moab's entry in
terms of the finish.

> So the main thing is the paper and it's got to be very smooth, 
> closer to gloss than to matte, but not so much that it will 
> look like RC.

I think a lot of former silver printers are looking for this "holy grail" of
papers.  I'm no longer sure it's the way to go.  My fear is that if it's
glossy enough to have a glossy-level dmax, it's probably also glossy enough
that I'd see a slightly less than flat presentation when displayed, and I
truly dislike the dry mounting I used to have to do with silver prints.
It's a real pleasure to be able to just tape hang a matte print behind
glazing and never see any "surface" on the print, which to me turns "looking
at a B&W view" into "looking at a piece of paper."  Once a surface becomes
visible, to me it seriously damages the three dimensionality that I want in
my prints.  But then that's just my subjective view.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com