Digital BW, The Print

Ernst,

I may change my mind - and I do plan to put the next 2-3 months into glossy formulations to try and see if I can't dig up something that feels like new ground to me. I am definitely in an ink formulation mood and very excited about working in this direction for an extended period. But right now, the only thing I am liking about my process is the extension of tones in the shadow areas - it's very illuminous - and on some papers is moving into the warmer associations of selenium, and I believe it is a direct result of extending the dMax, but not the dMax itself. Hope that makes sense.

And yes, as its been better stated here already - we really do need a certain amount of light to reflect off of black to actually see "black".

I just do not want to make prints that seem to be shouting BLACKKKKK!!!!  I prefer the subtle bits just up to that ear-splitting scream and I am blessed with the ability to linearize that as well as curve it up or down within my linearization process. It seems like a richer area with the extension of dMax. The obviousness is that the space between the points is now lengthier. With matte Piezography profiles I can separate 256 gray levels easily, but the shadow points though open, are a little difficult to discern. With the glossy/dMax profiles, its like prying every thing open in these shadows - so the dMax becomes the enabler.

On the other hand, I went to the Dallas Museum of Art today to look at the exhibition of Piezography prints that John Dean printed from the original Harry Burton glass plates when Howard Carter and Lord Carnarvon discovered the tomb of Tutankhamun. These plates were apparently taken before the artifacts were removed and some immediately after they were removed. I saw masterful printing and extraordinarily beautiful prints. These are made with PiezoTone CarbonSepia inks and the blacks are totally appropriate for the work. dMax does not enter into it. Dean's control of the process is gorgeous. 

So the image quality really is about craftsmanship married to the intent of the photographer. The absence of reflection on the print surface allowed us to see them without any visual interference whatsoever. The original plates are (I assume) appropriately exposed, but the printing in any event, and the control by Dean, created extraordinary image quality. I believe in this case, glossy dMax would have been distracting. And dMax without the gloss would not have added a thing. These prints were lit at about 50 - 75 lux. The blacks were perfect.

So, when is gloss and its associated dMax appropriate? And if we define that criteria, are we penning it in in some sort of genre? Why does matte work always get away with "everything"? Is it the spoiled child?  lol

Jon




--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Ernst Dinkla <edinkla@...> wrote:
>
> 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 )                 |
>