Digital BW, The Print

Hi Eric and Marco:

I totally agree re: Dmax. I think that it is easy to get hung up on  
numbers instead of the look of the image on paper or other surface.  
Glass and lighting (spot vs. more flat light) can also have different  
effects on different papers. Some of the most beautiful prints I've  
seen were platinum and other contact prints on hand-coated art  
papers. They probably had a Dmax of about 1.5.

Even more interesting is the effect of comparing two prints side by  
side. I often do that when testing different papers, but in reality,  
I think that an argument can be made against doing that. If I like a  
print by itself, comparing it to another print might make me change  
my opinion of it, just because I'm seeing it side by side. It is a  
bit like seeing a glossy magazine cover and then the same image on an  
uncoated or less glossy paper. Both may look great, but side by side,  
the one on matte paper may look lifeless. Or a historic movie before  
and after restoration. All interesting food for thought.

All the best,

Andrew
---------------------------------------------------
Andrew Darlow
Editor, The Imaging Buffet
http://www.imagingbuffet.com
Author, 301 Inkjet Tips and Techniques:
An Essential Printing Resource for Photographers - http:// 
www.inkjettips.com


On Dec 28, 2008, at 8:25 PM, E Neilsen wrote:

> Marco, Not everyone is obsessed with the pursuit of Dmax as the most
> important aspect of their print. What a good strong Dmax does for  
> you is
> give you the ability to expand the tonal scale. Does it really  
> matter to the
> quality of the print? Some yes, some not. So while it can be a  
> worthwhile
> part of the workflow and printing process, I believe that there are  
> many
> other issues that need to be addressed ahead of an absolute Dmax goal.
>
> Eric
>
> >
> > When discussing B&W, everybody cares about the dmax a paper/ink
> > combination is able to achieve.
> >
> >
> > What am I missing ?
> >
> > Thanks, Marco.
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
> __._






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