Digital BW, The Print

pr_roark wrote:
> The glossy dmax figures are hard to pass up, and I understand the 
> visual appeal of glossy photos that are not framed under glass or 
> displayed in ideal lighting conditions.  But in the real world of 
> reflections and less than ideal display, good matte papers will often 
> if not usually appear to have deeper blacks than the glossy ones.
>   


I've been trying for days to not respond to this. It's only going to 
become a (minor, I hope) flame war. But... your "real world" doesn't 
match mine. I don't find your supposition to be true.

I've got both inkjet prints and silver gelatin prints on my walls, side 
by side under the same lighting. Framed the same way (Nielson metal 
frames, OP-3 acrylic). It's clear to just about anyone who actually 
looks at these prints that the inkjet prints do not have a solid black 
where the silver gelatin prints do. It's true that when I turn on the 
75W tungsten halogens you can see the difference between them better. 
But it's also clearly visible in diffuse indirect daylight too. It only 
goes away when the sun goes down and the lights aren't on, but then you 
can't see anything anyway.

The inkjet prints are on HPR, using the Cone PiezoTones (selenium, with 
portfolio black), from a 7600 printer that's been nicely linearized; the 
driver is the StudioPrint RIP. It's a good solid setup that makes really 
nice prints that I'm really happy with.

I really like my inkjet prints and I'm not going back to the darkroom. 
But it has to be said that dark gray isn't the same as black. You can 
dismiss it with a wave of your hand if you want to, but this old saw 
about the glazing making the need for a solid black miraculously "go 
away" is just an oft repeated myth.

We clearly still need, as we have for a decade or more, a good solid 
black. I for one would love to see it on a matte paper. I'm told that 
would require a dye-based ink. I'm all for it. I for one will gladly 
give up some of the longevity that we have with our pigment inks for a 
log 2.0 Dmax on a matte paper.

And no, I'm not going to hold my breath. But sooner or later someone is 
going to innovate an answer to this problem. I just hope I'm still 
printing when it happens.
--
Bruce Watson