Digital BW, The Print

Jon Cone schreef:
> Just my opinion, but the high dMax prints have not really done that much for me visually. I really like open (palladium type linear) shadows which is probably very obvious at this point.
> 
> So for me, being able to create a perfect linearization from L*1.5 to L*96.5 is something I have never visually seen before - and this is an impact I am responding to.  The monster black does not take on all the "meaning" - rather the depth of the darkness before it is what I find very visually compelling. To me it's like giving steroids to Piezography. The dMax is not an "accessory" to call attention to the outfit.
> 
> dMax for dMax sake is a vestige of silver print (IMHO). Silver gets very black and photographers like "very black". But it does not get there gradually. The gradual of silver is through the middle and then it darkens fast.  
> 
> So for me, dMax without all the wonderful detail leading up to it is imitative. I think as we move the medium further that the bar should also be raised.  I don't think it's enough to say one is almost as good as silver print, or as good as silver print... I prefer to try and make processes that become their own level, and that necessarily means adding something that is not familiar. And also, may not be everyone's cup of tea.
> 
> I do not know that others will agree with my opinion on dMax, until they see open linearization just up to dMax. Most of the digital b&w glossy that I see is very closed shadow. I also do not know what will be gained by going deeper. I just know that I have not yet come up against the point at which I can not get it "blacker". I think it will only make the dynamic range more expansive - rather than punchier. If I were to release this system in some way that could be used on Epsons, I would have no doubt that most users would prefer to force more of the 3/4 range into blackness and go for the "punch". To me that reduces "image quality", but might enhance the "wow" factor for the photographer.
> 
> SO my question to you Ernst, is "What is image quality?"
> 
> best,
> 
> Jon

Jon,

That subject line had to be short. What I actually was thinking off is 
already mentioned in some of the messages. It is more like: Can you use 
the extra Dmax in the gloss picture so it does add to the image quality 
? More in the physical sense than that of taste or convention. I agree 
with you that inkjet printing shouldn't be kept within the boundaries of 
what we are used to in analogue photography. It already has a wider 
choice of media, it can resemble textures from other graphic arts, we 
shouldn't be shy to adopt from the sign industry what suits us, etc. In 
that sense I'm unconventional while at the same time I can appreciate 
the subtle grades in the low contrast of a gum print by Berssenbrugge 
(to throw in one of the Dutch pioneers :-)

Greg mentioned the limitation of the measuring instruments. I didn't 
think of that right away but it has been mentioned before when Dmax was 
discussed. It is a valid point, right now it is already at the edge of 
the methods we used so far. I mean the theory of extending the range and 
get the shadow grades better separated and with more detail is of course 
appealing but in practice it has to be achieved and controlled as well.

I was actually thinking of a more fundamental aspect. The difficulty to 
get a good gloss print displayed properly. With a higher Dmax and the 
longer Dynamic range possible (suitable content of course) there's a lot 
of light needed and at the same time a good distribution of that light 
to get that Dynamic range working. The print has to be mounted extremely 
flat, the size limited due to that aspect and the lighting conditions. 
Diasec or similar mounting methods show that it can work but I also 
observed there that it works to a certain size. Too large and the viewer 
can't get the whole image evenly captured, too small and the image's 
"natural" perspective is compromised. (I know that an unnatural 
perspective can work too). The mirror that shows the viewer, more on the 
black parts than the white etc. Other methods like framing behind glass 
destroy the dynamic range effect, you can't get enough light in the 
frame and reflected to make it work.

I expect there's a kind of diminishing return on increasing gloss Dmax 
and solutions like prints on light boxes will achieve a better result 
then. But in that case the black ink has to be opaque, block the light, 
instead of absorbing the light, another physical aspect of inks. Not to 
mention the much harder to achieve homogene ink load and the use of 
transmissive densitometers for calibration.
I'm not so pessimistic about the human eye, it can bridge more levels in 
nature.

-- 
Met vriendelijke groeten,   Ernst


New: Dinkla Canvas Wrap Actions

|      Dinkla Grafische Techniek      |
|         www.pigment-print.com        |
|                 ( unvollendet )                 |