Digital BW, The Print

Tyler,

As also replied to Eric, I know what you're saying. But 1) the 
EEM/HPR combo is known to give very similar results (curves are often 
interchagned) and more important 2) I'm using a curve calibrated for 
HPR, not EEM. So, if there would be any difference, then HPR should 
give the better results, which is not the case.

Joost

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Tyler Boley" 
<tyler@...> wrote:
>
> if the paper is the only thing that changed, then the printing 
process was not linearized 
> and/or profiled, or otherwise calibrated for each paper.
> Papers don't print alike, they can't really be evaluated unless the 
printing system is 
> calibrated to each somehow, then prints compared. One is not 
necessarily Better than 
> another, I supposed some fixed systems print better on one than 
another though.
> I hope that makes sense, though I doubt it's much help...
> Can you make your QTR curves, one for each, then compare?
> Tyler
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Joost 
Horsten" <j.h.j.h@> 
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi all,
> > 
> > Normally, PhotoRag is my paper of choice and I use Epson Enhanced 
> > Matte as draft paper. My default print size is A4.
> >  
> > Lately I'm making some smaller prints (A5-A6) with quite some 
detail. 
> > And I notice that my EEM prints show clearly more detail than the 
> > ones on PhotoRag. The paper is the only thing that changes. All 
> > prints are made on an Epson 2100, UT3D inks, QTR. In both cases I 
use 
> > the very same QTR curves (made with an Eye-One). No, I don't 
print on 
> > the back side of PhotoRag - once in a while I do by mistake, and 
then 
> > the difference is MUCH bigger :O).
> > 
> > I think I observed the same phenomenon earlier, but can not 
recall it 
> > was that clear. Perhaps I notice better because of the smaller 
print 
> > size? Or I got a different batch (of both PhotoRag and EEM) with 
some 
> > more difference.
> > 
> > Have you seen the same thing?
> > 
> > Joost
> >
>