Digital BW, The Print

Duane, my apologies for not labeling the papers, I incorrectly assumed
most people following the paper discussions on the lists would know
the Ilford is warm, and the Innova cold.
The main difference is the paper itself, the inks are very responsive
to paper differences. The setups were only different in what was
required to make each work. The Ilford could take higher percentages
of the light inks, so it looks a bit less dotty, and Innova had to be
limited more. They each required very different spot channel GO
curves, not only to address bronzing in different parts of the scale,
but gloss differential. The second GO only pass was the same for each,
a solid 65%. So differences were not for effect, but just to make each
work.
Hope that makes sense.
I'm sure in retrospect a sharper image would have been better. I
showed some options to others and they picked this one as many grays
were represented.
Tyler

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "dlruckus"
<dlruckus@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Tyler. I don't know if it's relevant to what you want or not but I
> was struck by the difference between the 2 samples. As they weren't
> marked I have no real clue as to which was which save that others here
> referred to the warmest as the IGFS paper. I'm not sure that my off
> the cuff response was particularly clear. Aside from the color
> difference of the papers I saw a much better separation of your
> primary subject matter from the background in the warmer one. I assume
> that it has to do with apparent sharpness differences between the
> papers because the file you posted has a narrow zone of focus and the
> branch stub on the lower left(approx 8:00 position) is really on the
> far edge of dof. It is not as sharply defined in the cooler print. I
> doubt it had anything to do with contrast differences from paper to
> paper etc because the tonal relationships in the background were no
> different than those of the stub I referred to.
> 
> I also did not see in either of the prints any of the deficits
> mentioned by others here. No roughness, no splatters etc. You did say
> that the prints were automated in your initial post on the matter so
> minor things would not have impacted my opinion in any event. I also
> did not take a loop to the prints. If something cannot be seen in
> proper light at the proper viewing distance with my corrected eyes, it
> doesn't exist to my way of thinking. I diverge from that view with
> proofing of my own images because I am never happy with any of them at
> first view and I suspect most on this group do the same.
> 
> It would, for me, be interesting to have you expound a bit on what, if
> anything, you did differently between the two prints. I'm thinking of
> file preparation, rip setup etc. If that isn't possible, so be it.
> 
> Regards
> Duane
> 
> 
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Tyler Boley"
> <tyler@> wrote:
> >
> > I have taken down the order page, as I've put as much into this as I
> > have available, it was a short term thing anyway. Approximately 67
> > samples went out, and if you ordered and haven not yet received yours,
> > it is on it's way. No orders came in that have not been filled.
> > 
> > Any more feedback would be greatly appreciated, as that was the
> > intention of the project, either here or via K7feedback at
> > custom-digital dot com.
> > So far only about 10% have given their impressions.
> > 
> > Thanks again to all who participated.
> > Tyler
> >
>