Yahoo Groups archive

Digital BW, The Print

Index last updated: 2026-04-28 22:56 UTC

Thread

D-Max with Ultrachrome Inks - How good?

D-Max with Ultrachrome Inks - How good?

2002-11-27 by Robert

How rich is the D-Max on a photograph printed from the Epson 2200 
supposed to be compared to a true photographic print? 

I have two identical prints - one made the traditional wet-process 
way, and the other on the Epson 2200 with Enhanced 
Matt paper (with the Matt Black cartridge).

The D-max on the wet-processed paper is noticably darker and richer 
than the image printed on the Epson. And I know it has nothing to do 
with my printer settings -- I've got the blackest blacks my equipment 
can produce. The blacks on the Epson print lack punch, and have a 
slightly soft charcoal look to them

Everything I've read says that the D-max on Epson 2200s is supposed 
to be about as good as from photographs made the old fashioned way, 
but in my experience this just isn't so. Am I missing something here? 
Isn't the 2200 supposed to be very close to true photographic quality 
with the right inks and papers?

RE: [Digital BW] D-Max with Ultrachrome Inks - How good?

2002-11-27 by Lloyd O'Daniel

Robert,

Like you, I prefer the look of the matte and watercolor papers as
opposed to the RC glossy and luster type. A matte or wc inkjet print has
a look to it that cannot be achieved in color in the darkroom short of
dye transfer. B&W is a different story with the availability of
fiber-based papers.

Be that as it may, the best dmax available for the 2200 is using photo
black and glossy or Luster paper. Those combos are rated at 2.0 dmax,
while the matte black can only produce about 1.7. (I've read here that
some have enhanced that considerably by coating, but that's another
story.) If you want to compare the best off the printer dmax with
wet-process, I think you'd have to make a print with photo black on a
paper for which it is designed.

Lloyd
Show quoted textHide quoted text
-----Original Message-----
From: Robert [mailto:LA_Native@...] 
Sent: Wednesday, November 27, 2002 12:03 PM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Digital BW] D-Max with Ultrachrome Inks - How good?


How rich is the D-Max on a photograph printed from the Epson 2200 
supposed to be compared to a true photographic print? 

I have two identical prints - one made the traditional wet-process 
way, and the other on the Epson 2200 with Enhanced 
Matt paper (with the Matt Black cartridge).

The D-max on the wet-processed paper is noticably darker and richer 
than the image printed on the Epson. And I know it has nothing to do 
with my printer settings -- I've got the blackest blacks my equipment 
can produce. The blacks on the Epson print lack punch, and have a 
slightly soft charcoal look to them

Everything I've read says that the D-max on Epson 2200s is supposed 
to be about as good as from photographs made the old fashioned way, 
but in my experience this just isn't so. Am I missing something here? 
Isn't the 2200 supposed to be very close to true photographic quality 
with the right inks and papers?




Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and
other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint

If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to
unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this
same page.

Please follow these basic guidelines:
- Include your full name with your message.
- Include the address of your website, if you have one.
- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to
keep them short.
- As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject
header.
- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or
"flames."
- Complete your Yahoo profile.
- Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
resources on the homepage. 


 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Move to quarantaine

This moves the raw source file on disk only. The archive index is not changed automatically, so you still need to run a manual refresh afterward.