Digital BW, The Print

Sounds like this was a great meeting.

>...
>The most common weakness in terms of print quality
>was lack of separation in deep blacks. ...

The rod coating that Robert and I are now doing allows one to address this.
With the deeper blacks (density over 2.0) one can increase the deep shadow
contrast and separate the tones, with dramatic visual impact.

Note that my lightly-selenium-toned Kodak Polymax Fine Art silver prints
have a dMax of only about 1.9.  So, one easy coat on an Eclipse Satine and
we have a visibly-greater dynamic range than the silver prints.  Add the
digital controls that allow us to selectively increase the contrast of the
deep blacks, and, well, the silver print just cannot compete on that basis
any more.

Another problem that the coating addresses is the physical deterioration
that prints can suffer. In the preservation projects I'm involved with the
poor physical condition of the prints is often the worst problem.  Pigmented
inks are going to be hit in spades with this.  Those particles on the
surface of the paper are very vulnerable.  One reason the traditional silver
print has done relatively well is that the image-forming particles are
embedded in gelatin.  This protects them to a certain degree.

The coatings (acrylic or polyurethane) we are now using to fix the carbon
particles to the paper and encapsulate them are a lot tougher and less
permeable than gelatin.  The resulting print surfaces are so tough I can
clean them with a damp paper towel.

With a tough, cleanable surface, this now opens up display without glazing.
When the glass/plexiglass and resulting reflections are removed, the dynamic
range of the print that is, as a practical matter, accessible to us in most
lighting situations expands dramatically.  In most actual display
conditions, an un-glazed, coated, carbon-pigment print will have a very
significantly better dynamic range than a glazed silver print.

The unglazed, high-dynamic-range prints we can now produce and display will
speak for themselves.

Paul
http://www.PaulRoark.com

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Paul Roark" 
<paul.roark@v...> wrote:.
> The rod coating that Robert and I are now doing allows one to 
address this.
> With the deeper blacks (density over 2.0) one can increase the 
deep shadow
> contrast and separate the tones, with dramatic visual impact.


Paul,

There is SO much to talk about from what we observed and 
learned this past weekend in New York. I truly wish ALL of you 
could have been there with us, including Carolyn and Tyler, and 
everyone else who contributes valuable information to this list.

In short, I have, in the past, pretty much poo-pooed the quad-ink 
approach. Yet, Thomas Dunn showed some VERY impressive 
prints made with quads and ImagePrint. We disagreed on some 
fine points of his approach, yet we bonded in spirit and if you 
could see his handmade booklets, I'd bet a fifty that you'd be 
impressed with his shadow detail and overall look.

So let me just say that I'm now watching this list more than ever. I 
might even buy another 7000 or something similar and load it up 
with quads. I love to tone, using RGB controls, yet, the quad 
prints were quite striking. They clearly stood on their own.

As far as the coating goes, Robert's test prints impressed me 
very much. My rep FedExed my book to NYC; the book I opened 
up to show I had not seen in months. I saw a great deal of 
scuffing, and also flaking. So, come Monday, when I sober up, 
my new goal is to deal with this flaking issue with PhotoRag, 
either via some type of spray, or Robert's coating, or something. I 
was quite embarrassed by my prints; the FedExing of the book 
just kills it, by the friction of the prints rubbing together. This must 
be dealt with soon; could possibly be another solution in some 
type of binding, to keep them from rubbing against each other. All 
I know is that I have a new paranoia about scuffing and flaking. At 
least with ESFA, Museo, and PhotoRag.

We'll continue the discussion. I'd say, after Friday's meeting, 
you're going to see fresh and new energy on this, and on the 
Epson9000 list. It will be interesting to watch...

-Mark Tucker, http://marktucker.com/

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Paul Roark" <paul.roark@v...> 
wrote:

> With a tough, cleanable surface, this now opens up display without glazing.
> When the glass/plexiglass and resulting reflections are removed, the 
dynamic
> range of the print that is, as a practical matter, accessible to us in most
> lighting situations expands dramatically.  In most actual display
> conditions, an un-glazed, coated, carbon-pigment print will have a very
> significantly better dynamic range than a glazed silver print.
> 
> The unglazed, high-dynamic-range prints we can now produce and display 
will
> speak for themselves.
Sounds great.  Any suggestions for framing/mounting unglazed prints for 
display?

First, Bryan and Mark's group meeting of this and the 9000's 
digital dogs was the highlight of the whole Expo.  

I was very fortunate to be in a room with two dozen critics with 
their noses to my prints talking about how this square inch could 
be increased in contrast or that black could be deeper.  We were 
lining up blacks side by side.  My ultrachromes were a step up 
from my old 2000P pigments, but Mark's blacks from old 7000 
epson dye inks could not be beat.  Actually,  my MIS FS piezo 
blacks looked damn good.  As far as B+W is concerned there is 
nowhere to go but with quads.

There  were more questions about flaking Photo Rag and 
William Turner than comments about fading inks.  I always 
sweep my paper before inserting it into the printer.  I use a 
traditional Staedtler graphics handled horse hair brush.  Prints 
always go into clearbags before stacking or transporting.  

These are delicate materials.  Paul's paper coatings may be the 
ultimate answer.

One other impression.  I spent a lot of time looking at portfolio 
boxes.  Nothing moved me until I saw Mark's.  He simply took a 
standard clamshell style box and wrapped it in one of his 
beautiful photos.  He coated it with an antique varnish and glued 
it right around the box.  This was no quickie job, but it was 
individualized and special.

Frank

http://www.photoeye.com/frankward

Does anyone know where one could get inexpensive boxes to hold about 50
to 100 letter size and 13x19 inch prints that have been placed in clear
storage envelopes?

The boxes that the paper comes in are too small, once you have placed
the prints in the storage bags, which are about 1/4 inch larger than the
actual prints.  I need a few dozen boxes for the letter size prints, and
maybe a dozen for the 13x19 inch prints.  Nothing expensive, just
storage boxes.

Light Impressions are way too expensive, and they don't have the correct sizes.

Jerry

Jerry...Try this...

http://www.iconusa.com/online/index.html

Val Brunell



--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., Jerry Olson 
<jerryolson@r...> wrote:
> Does anyone know where one could get inexpensive boxes to hold 
about 50
> to 100 letter size and 13x19 inch prints that have been placed in 
clear
> storage envelopes?
> 
> The boxes that the paper comes in are too small, once you have 
placed
> the prints in the storage bags, which are about 1/4 inch larger 
than the
> actual prints.  I need a few dozen boxes for the letter size 
prints, and
> maybe a dozen for the 13x19 inch prints.  Nothing expensive, just
> storage boxes.
> 
> Light Impressions are way too expensive, and they don't have the 
correct sizes.
> 
> Jerry