Yahoo Groups archive
Thread
2012-03-18 by Paul
I'm profiling Hahnemuhle Photo Rag with the 4000 and the dyes at the moment. The HPR box had an old test strip from the C88 test of the dyes. The dmax on the thoroughly dry and cured HPR with Noritsu dye is now 2.05 (Lab L = 8.06). I always wondered if one could even see the difference between a 1.75 and 2.05 dmax. Under good lighting I can. Paul www.PaulRoark.com
2012-03-18 by John
2.05 DMax on art paper? Wow, I didn't think that possible Paul! Do the blacks have slight sheen to them, or are they perfectly matte? John Nollendorfs --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Paul" <roark.paul@...> wrote:
> > I'm profiling Hahnemuhle Photo Rag with the 4000 and the dyes at the moment. The HPR box had an old test strip from the C88 test of the dyes. The dmax on the thoroughly dry and cured HPR with Noritsu dye is now 2.05 (Lab L = 8.06). I always wondered if one could even see the difference between a 1.75 and 2.05 dmax. Under good lighting I can. > > Paul > www.PaulRoark.com >
2012-03-18 by Tom Mallonee
I got the same results years ago with cone's black-black on photorag. Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE DROID
-----Original message----- From: John <jrnolly@...> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sun, Mar 18, 2012 15:20:05 PDT Subject: [Digital BW] Re: Matte paper dmax 2.05 2.05 DMax on art paper? Wow, I didn't think that possible Paul! Do the blacks have slight sheen to them, or are they perfectly matte? John Nollendorfs --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Paul" <roark.paul@...> wrote: > > I'm profiling Hahnemuhle Photo Rag with the 4000 and the dyes at the moment. The HPR box had an old test strip from the C88 test of the dyes. The dmax on the thoroughly dry and cured HPR with Noritsu dye is now 2.05 (Lab L = 8.06). I always wondered if one could even see the difference between a 1.75 and 2.05 dmax. Under good lighting I can. > > Paul > www.PaulRoark.com > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
2012-03-18 by Tom Mallonee
Sorry that 1 got away from me. Obviously as cone said it was loaded with dye and didn't have much fade resistance but it was fine behind glass and moderately lit areas. As paul said the results weren't as dramatic as you might think but it did help in images that required a lot of shadow separation. Tom Mallonee Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE DROID
-----Original message----- From: Tom Mallonee <tom@...> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sun, Mar 18, 2012 16:01:45 PDT Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: Matte paper dmax 2.05 I got the same results years ago with cone's black-black on photorag. Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE DROID -----Original message----- From: John <jrnolly@...> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sun, Mar 18, 2012 15:20:05 PDT Subject: [Digital BW] Re: Matte paper dmax 2.05 2.05 DMax on art paper? Wow, I didn't think that possible Paul! Do the blacks have slight sheen to them, or are they perfectly matte? John Nollendorfs --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Paul" <roark.paul@...> wrote: > > I'm profiling Hahnemuhle Photo Rag with the 4000 and the dyes at the moment. The HPR box had an old test strip from the C88 test of the dyes. The dmax on the thoroughly dry and cured HPR with Noritsu dye is now 2.05 (Lab L = 8.06). I always wondered if one could even see the difference between a 1.75 and 2.05 dmax. Under good lighting I can. > > Paul > www.PaulRoark.com > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
2012-03-19 by Paul
"John" <jrnolly@...> wrote: > > 2.05 DMax on art paper? Wow, I didn't think that possible Paul! Do the blacks have slight sheen to them, or are they perfectly matte? Totally matte looking -- like a black hole. To bad it's dye. Paul www.PaulRoark.com
2012-03-19 by Ernst Dinkla
On 03/19/2012 07:39 AM, Paul wrote: >To bad it's dye. Yes. On that paper it will not have the best Noritsu-Claria fade resistance either. Paul, the good lighting you need to see the difference between 1.75 and 2.05 is with bare prints I guess, framed behind glass it will need even more. I know you are using the dyes for another purpose but I wonder how relevant 2.0 Dmax and above is for framed prints, the light needed is then already beyond recommendations for better longevity. met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst Shareware too: 330+ paper white spectral plots: http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
2012-03-19 by Paul
Ernst, > On 03/19/2012 07:39 AM, Paul wrote: > >To bad it's dye. > > Yes. On that paper it will not have the best Noritsu-Claria fade > resistance either. True. And putting a spray on it to give it better longevity will wipe out that dmax. As to the glazing, I think that type of dmax would need very good, coated anti-reflective glass. I've considered trying the Tru-View product, but the greenish hue bothers me. I may try a couple on the wall of the gallery to see what happens. There appears to be a high end acrylic coated product that may avoid the greenish hue, but it is too expensive for me. > ... I wonder how relevant 2.0 Dmax and above is for framed prints, ... Probably not very ... It's really more of a curiosity. I personally favor the carbon on Arches for hanging on my walls, well protected by standard acrylic; and the blacks look black to me. Some have even commented on the great dmax the prints have -- not knowing that they are looking at prints that have very modest blacks. While I enjoy pushing the envelope on the technology, it's the image that counts, not the dmax. As to the dyes, for me they are aimed primarily at glossy and display without glazing, not collectible or museum quality prints. But, I think there may be some significant markets where the dyes have an edge. High dynamic range without glazing appears to enhance sales in at least some circumstances. As cynics have noted, looking good is often more important than being good. Paul www.PaulRoark.com