Digital BW, The Print

I find the paper base of EEM or at least the EAM I tried to be warmer 
than I like. I prefer the base of Somerset Velvet Photo Enhanced, but 
I'm not fond of it's texture. I have fond photo rag to be my favorite 
paper - of course it would have to be it cost the most.  The base is 
cooler than the EEM and is acceptable. It has superior blacks, good 
shadow detail and as good of highlight detail as the Somerset. On photo 
rage the blacks are deep and the highlights glow and the base is neutral 
enough to get a good cool print, like the selenium toned prints I spend 
hours fussing over in the darkroom.

Truman

Bob_Michaels wrote:

>Jerry: not only can I not see a quality difference between HWM & EEM
>but the exhalted Photo Rag doesn't look any better to my eye. I print
>the same image consecutively on all three papers and I just can't say
>HPR looks any better. All three differ, oh so slightly, but none is
>better. 
>
>I even printed HPR on the other side just to make sure I wasn't using
>the back side. I had it right the first time. 
>
>I still try be objective and open minded plus continuing to learn. In
>that regard, I will say that my hextone prints (Woolf workflow) are
>now looking better than my Black Only. That wasn't the case last
>month. Who knows, maybe in the future my prints on big $ HPR will look
>better than on cheaper paper. 
>
>I'm still open to ideas.
>
>Bob Michaels
>  
>



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Truman: This is amazing. I pulled out an image I just printed on all
three papers. Critically comparing the HPR and EEM prints side by
side, I simply can see no difference in the blacks, shadow detail or
highlights. And, the base of the EEM is very slightly whiter than the
HPR. All different from your observations. Maybe they vary in
production batches. Anyway, very puzzling. 
Bob Michaels

 --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Truman Prevatt
<tprevatt@m...> wrote:
> I find the paper base of EEM or at least the EAM I tried to be warmer 
> than I like. I prefer the base of Somerset Velvet Photo Enhanced, but 
> I'm not fond of it's texture. I have fond photo rag to be my favorite 
> paper - of course it would have to be it cost the most.  The base is 
> cooler than the EEM and is acceptable. It has superior blacks, good 
> shadow detail and as good of highlight detail as the Somerset. On photo 
> rage the blacks are deep and the highlights glow and the base is
neutral 

> enough to get a good cool print, like the selenium toned prints I spend 
> hours fussing over in the darkroom.
> 
> Truman
> 
> Bob_Michaels wrote:
> 
> >Jerry: not only can I not see a quality difference between HWM & EEM
> >but the exhalted Photo Rag doesn't look any better to my eye. I print
> >the same image consecutively on all three papers and I just can't say
> >HPR looks any better. All three differ, oh so slightly, but none is
> >better. 
> >
> >I even printed HPR on the other side just to make sure I wasn't using
> >the back side. I had it right the first time. 
> >
> >I still try be objective and open minded plus continuing to learn. In
> >that regard, I will say that my hextone prints (Woolf workflow) are
> >now looking better than my Black Only. That wasn't the case last
> >month. Who knows, maybe in the future my prints on big $ HPR will look
> >better than on cheaper paper. 
> >
> >I'm still open to ideas.
> >
> >Bob Michaels
> >  
> >
> 
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Bob Michaels wrote:

>... Critically comparing the HPR and EEM prints side by
>side, I simply can see no difference in the blacks, shadow detail or
>highlights. And, the base of the EEM is very slightly whiter than the
>HPR. ...

Out of curiosity I pulled some test strips and measured the whites and
blacks with the X-Rite spectrophotometer.

Whites:

	Photo Rag - C = 0.03, M = 0.04, Y = 0.03, Visual = 0.04;

	EAM - 	C = 0.04, M = 0.04, Y = 0.02, Visual = 0.04.

So, for these batches of paper, the visual brightness is equal, the EAM is
slightly blue, and the PhotoRag is slightly magenta.  The PR readings were
the same from two separate batches.  The EEM/EAM has been fairly stable
recently, but did go through a period when it was distinctly yellower.

With respect to the blacks/dmax, PhotoRag has generally had about the best
that could be achieved by the FS/VM black ink.  It generally read about
1.72.  On the old EAM, the FS/VM dmax would be about 1.65.  With the new
EAM/EEM, however, the FS/VM dmax has fallen to 1.60 or below, depending on
printer.

For most images, I find that as long as I get a dmax of about 1.65 on matte
paper, it looks jet black.  In fact, except with ideal lighting, a matte
print dmax of 1.65 usually looks better side-by-side than a glossier print
with a 2.0+ dmax.  The reflections on even semi-gloss blacks eliminates
their advantages.  Of course, glass eliminates much of the advantage of the
matte paper.

Also, the new EAM/EEM seems to hold the high-load blacks better than
PhotoRag.  As such, for example, the new MIS matte black hits 1.69 on EEM
with the 7500 and only 1.67 with PhotoRag.

(Note that EEM appears to be sold as EAM outside the U.S. and inside the
U.S. by outfits doing gray market.  They appear to be the same paper.)

Paul
http://www.PaulRoark.com

I must have gotten a yellow batch.  I sure didn't like it's base color 
compared to photo rag or Somerset Velvet either.

Truman

Paul Roark wrote:

>Bob Michaels wrote:
>
>  
>
>>... Critically comparing the HPR and EEM prints side by
>>side, I simply can see no difference in the blacks, shadow detail or
>>highlights. And, the base of the EEM is very slightly whiter than the
>>HPR. ...
>>    
>>
>
>Out of curiosity I pulled some test strips and measured the whites and
>blacks with the X-Rite spectrophotometer.
>
>Whites:
>
>	Photo Rag - C = 0.03, M = 0.04, Y = 0.03, Visual = 0.04;
>
>	EAM - 	C = 0.04, M = 0.04, Y = 0.02, Visual = 0.04.
>
>So, for these batches of paper, the visual brightness is equal, the EAM is
>slightly blue, and the PhotoRag is slightly magenta.  The PR readings were
>the same from two separate batches.  The EEM/EAM has been fairly stable
>recently, but did go through a period when it was distinctly yellower.
>
>With respect to the blacks/dmax, PhotoRag has generally had about the best
>that could be achieved by the FS/VM black ink.  It generally read about
>1.72.  On the old EAM, the FS/VM dmax would be about 1.65.  With the new
>EAM/EEM, however, the FS/VM dmax has fallen to 1.60 or below, depending on
>printer.
>
>For most images, I find that as long as I get a dmax of about 1.65 on matte
>paper, it looks jet black.  In fact, except with ideal lighting, a matte
>print dmax of 1.65 usually looks better side-by-side than a glossier print
>with a 2.0+ dmax.  The reflections on even semi-gloss blacks eliminates
>their advantages.  Of course, glass eliminates much of the advantage of the
>matte paper.
>
>Also, the new EAM/EEM seems to hold the high-load blacks better than
>PhotoRag.  As such, for example, the new MIS matte black hits 1.69 on EEM
>with the 7500 and only 1.67 with PhotoRag.
>
>(Note that EEM appears to be sold as EAM outside the U.S. and inside the
>U.S. by outfits doing gray market.  They appear to be the same paper.)
>
>Paul
>http://www.PaulRoark.com
>
>
>
>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/ 
>
>
>
>  
>



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Paul: Thanks for bringing some objective data into play. Now in the
subjective arena, should I be able to discern the difference between a
D-Max of 1.72 and one that's in the 1.60-1.65 range? I suspect that if
a print with 1.72 "looks good" then one with 1.60-1.65 should "look
good" as well? Comment?

I must also add that my brain focuses much more on the content /
emotion of the image rather than the quality of the print. So I can
certainly live with any of these three papers. 

Bob Michaels

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Roark"
<paul.roark@v...> wrote:
> Bob Michaels wrote:
> 
> >... Critically comparing the HPR and EEM prints side by
> >side, I simply can see no difference in the blacks, shadow detail or
> >highlights. And, the base of the EEM is very slightly whiter than the
> >HPR. ...
> 
> Out of curiosity I pulled some test strips and measured the whites and
> blacks with the X-Rite spectrophotometer.
> 
> Whites:
> 
> 	Photo Rag - C = 0.03, M = 0.04, Y = 0.03, Visual = 0.04;
> 
> 	EAM - 	C = 0.04, M = 0.04, Y = 0.02, Visual = 0.04.
> 
> So, for these batches of paper, the visual brightness is equal, the
EAM is
> slightly blue, and the PhotoRag is slightly magenta.  The PR
readings were
> the same from two separate batches.  The EEM/EAM has been fairly stable
> recently, but did go through a period when it was distinctly yellower.
> 
> With respect to the blacks/dmax, PhotoRag has generally had about
the best
> that could be achieved by the FS/VM black ink.  It generally read about
> 1.72.  On the old EAM, the FS/VM dmax would be about 1.65.  With the new
> EAM/EEM, however, the FS/VM dmax has fallen to 1.60 or below,
depending on
> printer.
> 
> For most images, I find that as long as I get a dmax of about 1.65
on matte
> paper, it looks jet black.  In fact, except with ideal lighting, a matte
> print dmax of 1.65 usually looks better side-by-side than a glossier
print
> with a 2.0+ dmax.  The reflections on even semi-gloss blacks eliminates
> their advantages.  Of course, glass eliminates much of the advantage
of the
> matte paper.
> 
> Also, the new EAM/EEM seems to hold the high-load blacks better than
> PhotoRag.  As such, for example, the new MIS matte black hits 1.69
on EEM

> with the 7500 and only 1.67 with PhotoRag.
> 
> (Note that EEM appears to be sold as EAM outside the U.S. and inside the
> U.S. by outfits doing gray market.  They appear to be the same paper.)
> 
> Paul
> http://www.PaulRoark.com

On 2/22/03 4:37 PM, "Paul Roark" <paul.roark@...> wrote:

> Also, the new EAM/EEM seems to hold the high-load blacks better than
> PhotoRag.  As such, for example, the new MIS matte black hits 1.69 on EEM
> with the 7500 and only 1.67 with PhotoRag.

This is consistent with what I have found with the Epson Ultrachrome matte
black as well.  Has anyone tested the new Cone Museum black for dmax with
photorag and EEM?

Robert

You may be able to tell the diffference between 1.60 and 1.65...but 1.67 vs.
1.72 will be tough.  The higher you go the less visual difference the same
measured difference makes. But, I bet your wallet can tell the difference
between $.25/sheet and $1.25/sheet!


Robert

On 2/22/03 5:06 PM, "Bob_Michaels <bob@...>"
<bob@...> wrote:

> Paul: Thanks for bringing some objective data into play. Now in the
> subjective arena, should I be able to discern the difference between a
> D-Max of 1.72 and one that's in the 1.60-1.65 range? I suspect that if
> a print with 1.72 "looks good" then one with 1.60-1.65 should "look
> good" as well? Comment?
> 
> I must also add that my brain focuses much more on the content /
> emotion of the image rather than the quality of the print. So I can
> certainly live with any of these three papers.
> 
> Bob Michaels
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Roark"
> <paul.roark@v...> wrote:
>> Bob Michaels wrote:
>> 
>>> ... Critically comparing the HPR and EEM prints side by
>>> side, I simply can see no difference in the blacks, shadow detail or
>>> highlights. And, the base of the EEM is very slightly whiter than the
>>> HPR. ...
>> 
>> Out of curiosity I pulled some test strips and measured the whites and
>> blacks with the X-Rite spectrophotometer.
>> 
>> Whites:
>> 
>> Photo Rag - C = 0.03, M = 0.04, Y = 0.03, Visual = 0.04;
>> 
>> EAM -     C = 0.04, M = 0.04, Y = 0.02, Visual = 0.04.
>> 
>> So, for these batches of paper, the visual brightness is equal, the
> EAM is
>> slightly blue, and the PhotoRag is slightly magenta.  The PR
> readings were
>> the same from two separate batches.  The EEM/EAM has been fairly stable
>> recently, but did go through a period when it was distinctly yellower.
>> 
>> With respect to the blacks/dmax, PhotoRag has generally had about
> the best
>> that could be achieved by the FS/VM black ink.  It generally read about
>> 1.72.  On the old EAM, the FS/VM dmax would be about 1.65.  With the new
>> EAM/EEM, however, the FS/VM dmax has fallen to 1.60 or below,
> depending on
>> printer.
>> 
>> For most images, I find that as long as I get a dmax of about 1.65
> on matte
>> paper, it looks jet black.  In fact, except with ideal lighting, a matte
>> print dmax of 1.65 usually looks better side-by-side than a glossier
> print
>> with a 2.0+ dmax.  The reflections on even semi-gloss blacks eliminates
>> their advantages.  Of course, glass eliminates much of the advantage
> of the
>> matte paper.
>> 
>> Also, the new EAM/EEM seems to hold the high-load blacks better than
>> PhotoRag.  As such, for example, the new MIS matte black hits 1.69
> on EEM
>> with the 7500 and only 1.67 with PhotoRag.
>> 
>> (Note that EEM appears to be sold as EAM outside the U.S. and inside the
>> U.S. by outfits doing gray market.  They appear to be the same paper.)
>> 
>> Paul
>> http://www.PaulRoark.com
> 
> 
> 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
> &amp;amp;quot;flames.&amp;amp;quot;
> - 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/
> 
> 
>

On 2/22/03 4:37 PM, "Paul Roark" <paul.roark@...> wrote:

>> Also, the new EAM/EEM seems to hold the high-load blacks better than
>> PhotoRag.  As such, for example, the new MIS matte black hits
>>1.69 on EEM with the 7500 and only 1.67 with PhotoRag.

Robert wrote:

>This is consistent with what I have found with the Epson
>Ultrachrome matte black as well.

>Has anyone tested the new Cone Museum black for dmax with
>photorag and EEM?

I only have an EEM dmax reading for Museum -- and it's identical to the new
MIS matte black.  Their fade (or lack thereof) test results are identical
also.  Good stuff.

Paul
http://www.PaulRoark.com

Bob, I agree that Epsons EAM (Now EEM) does print nearly as good as any
of the expensive papers at a MUCH lower price. I have a lot of prints on
this paper, (maybe 2000 or so) and I've not noticed any fading or color
shifting. The EEM is surely thicker than the HWM. I haven't used any HWM
for a while now, but it looks (in some print exchange prints) to be a
tad whiter than it was when I tried it a long time ago. The whiteness
now is awfully close.  I think photo rag looks a hair nicer (More
luxurious feel and look) than the EEM though. But it isn't worth the 10
times costlier price than the EEM. If I could afford it, I would use
German Etching paper, as it is beautiful. But I think the Eclipse Satine
Bright White is practically as nice, and is much less money, plus it's whiter!
 
Jerry

But, neither of you gentlemen has said in EXACTLY what light you are looking
at them.  Brightness and type could play a significant role in eyeballing
papers (?!?!)

Seth

=
=Truman: This is amazing. I pulled out an image I just printed 
=on all three papers. Critically comparing the HPR and EEM 
=prints side by side, I simply can see no difference in the 
=blacks, shadow detail or highlights. And, the base of the EEM 
=is very slightly whiter than the HPR. All different from your 
=observations. Maybe they vary in production batches. Anyway, 
=very puzzling. 
=Bob Michaels

Diffused daylight.

Truman

Seth Rossman wrote:

>But, neither of you gentlemen has said in EXACTLY what light you are looking
>at them.  Brightness and type could play a significant role in eyeballing
>papers (?!?!)
>
>Seth
>
>=
>=Truman: This is amazing. I pulled out an image I just printed 
>=on all three papers. Critically comparing the HPR and EEM 
>=prints side by side, I simply can see no difference in the 
>=blacks, shadow detail or highlights. And, the base of the EEM 
>=is very slightly whiter than the HPR. All different from your 
>=observations. Maybe they vary in production batches. Anyway, 
>=very puzzling. 
>=Bob Michaels
>
>
>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/ 
>
>
>
>  
>

Thanks, Truman.

Bob, what about your viewing?

Thanks,

Seth

=-----Original Message-----
=From: Truman Prevatt [mailto:tprevatt@...] 
=Sent: Sunday, February 23, 2003 4:54 PM
=To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
=Subject: Re: [Digital BW] HWM v. EEM v. HPR, was: HWM rated 
=more archival than EAM/EEM !?
=
=
=Diffused daylight.
=
=Truman
=
=Seth Rossman wrote:
=
=>But, neither of you gentlemen has said in EXACTLY what light you are 
=>looking at them.  Brightness and type could play a 
=significant role in 
=>eyeballing papers (?!?!)
=>
=>Seth
=>
=>=
=>=Truman: This is amazing. I pulled out an image I just printed
=>=on all three papers. Critically comparing the HPR and EEM 
=>=prints side by side, I simply can see no difference in the 
=>=blacks, shadow detail or highlights. And, the base of the EEM 
=>=is very slightly whiter than the HPR. All different from your 
=>=observations. Maybe they vary in production batches. Anyway, 
=>=very puzzling. 
=>=Bob Michaels
=>
=>
=>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/
=>
=>
=>
=>  
=>
=
=
=
=
=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/ 
=
=
=

Mine was viewed originally under bright flourescent but one of those
with the color of incadescent. But, I just took them outside to view
them in late afternoon daylight and the conclusions are the same. HWM
is a tad brighter than EEM. Photo Rag is the creamiest of all, and by
a  noticeable amount. 

Bob Michaels

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Seth Rossman"
<seth@m...> wrote:

> Thanks, Truman.
> 
> Bob, what about your viewing?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Seth
> 
> =-----Original Message-----
> =From: Truman Prevatt [mailto:tprevatt@m...] 
> =Sent: Sunday, February 23, 2003 4:54 PM
> =To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> =Subject: Re: [Digital BW] HWM v. EEM v. HPR, was: HWM rated 
> =more archival than EAM/EEM !?
> =
> =
> =Diffused daylight.
> =
> =Truman
> =
> =Seth Rossman wrote:
> =
> =>But, neither of you gentlemen has said in EXACTLY what light you are 
> =>looking at them.  Brightness and type could play a 
> =significant role in 
> =>eyeballing papers (?!?!)
> =>
> =>Seth
> =>
> =>=
> =>=Truman: This is amazing. I pulled out an image I just printed
> =>=on all three papers. Critically comparing the HPR and EEM 
> =>=prints side by side, I simply can see no difference in the 
> =>=blacks, shadow detail or highlights. And, the base of the EEM 
> =>=is very slightly whiter than the HPR. All different from your 
> =>=observations. Maybe they vary in production batches. Anyway, 
> =>=very puzzling. 
> =>=Bob Michaels
> =>
> =>
> =>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/
> =>
> =>
> =>
> =>  
> =>
> =
> =
> =
> =
> =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/ 
> =
> =
> =

Hi Bob,
 
one reason might be that the image hasn't 100% blacks. You can verify it in
Photoshop: if the darkest parts of the picture, those that should be pure
black, with no detail, even read 1 or 2 rather than 0, you're not getting
the best blacks in the final print.
As someone else posted not long ago, checking this is worth as a standard
routine before printing, but the more so when comparing papers.
 
Hope this helps,
Alessandro

 -----Original Message-----
From: Bob_Michaels <bob@...> [mailto:bob@...]
Sent: domenica 23 febbraio 2003 0:18
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] HWM v. EEM v. HPR, was: HWM rated more archival
than EAM/EEM !?



Truman: This is amazing. I pulled out an image I just printed on all
three papers. Critically comparing the HPR and EEM prints side by
side, I simply can see no difference in the blacks, shadow detail or
highlights. And, the base of the EEM is very slightly whiter than the
HPR. All different from your observations. Maybe they vary in
production batches. Anyway, very puzzling. 
Bob Michaels




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

The other thing about this is when doing an initial levels move to always
use the 'alt' key so that you can see exactly what goes to black

Julian
----- Original Message -----
From: "Alessandro Pardi" <alessandro.pardi@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, February 24, 2003 12:47 PM
Subject: RE: [Digital BW] HWM v. EEM v. HPR, was: HWM rated more archival
than EAM/EEM !?


> Hi Bob,
>
> one reason might be that the image hasn't 100% blacks. You can verify it
in
> Photoshop: if the darkest parts of the picture, those that should be pure
> black, with no detail, even read 1 or 2 rather than 0, you're not getting
> the best blacks in the final print.
> As someone else posted not long ago, checking this is worth as a standard
> routine before printing, but the more so when comparing papers.
>
> Hope this helps,
> Alessandro
>
>  -----Original Message-----
> From: Bob_Michaels <bob@...> [mailto:bob@...]
> Sent: domenica 23 febbraio 2003 0:18
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] HWM v. EEM v. HPR, was: HWM rated more archival
> than EAM/EEM !?
>
>
>
> Truman: This is amazing. I pulled out an image I just printed on all
> three papers. Critically comparing the HPR and EEM prints side by
> side, I simply can see no difference in the blacks, shadow detail or
> highlights. And, the base of the EEM is very slightly whiter than the
> HPR. All different from your observations. Maybe they vary in
> production batches. Anyway, very puzzling.
> Bob Michaels
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
> 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
&amp;amp;quot;flames.&amp;amp;quot;
> - 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/
>
>
>

Geez. See?  So many variables.  Beyond everyone seeing things a little
differently, if we take Roark's densitometer readings into account, the
papers would look different. Both are equally "bright," but one is magenta;
the othe blue. Late afternoon sunlight --in  February-- is extremely warm,
so would make them look different. Ever so slightly.  

What do brighteners do in the densitometer equation? My educated guess is
that the X-rite sees them differently (more equally) than we do while
holding the paper out in daylight.

Seems to me some of the Mitsubishi papers were magenta, so I quit using them
right away.  I think someone said last week that they do some of the
coatings for Epson, so who knows.

Thanks for the feedback. 

=From: Bob_Michaels 

=Mine was viewed originally under bright flourescent but one of 
=those with the color of incadescent. But, I just took them 
=outside to view them in late afternoon daylight and the 
=conclusions are the same. HWM is a tad brighter than EEM. 
=Photo Rag is the creamiest of all, and by a  noticeable amount. 
=

What I have taken away from this discussion is Epson seems to have 
problems with quality control on their papers. Every once in awhle a 
yellow batch comes our. Right now it is "blue." Is this common with 
Epson EEM?  I never skimped in the Darkroom on paper - Oriental or 
Brillance vs. Kodak or Ilford. The paper and film are the least 
expensive part of most photographs. I might spend more on gas getting to 
a photo site than I do on paper.

T

Seth Rossman wrote:

>Geez. See?  So many variables.  Beyond everyone seeing things a little
>differently, if we take Roark's densitometer readings into account, the
>papers would look different. Both are equally "bright," but one is magenta;
>the othe blue. Late afternoon sunlight --in  February-- is extremely warm,
>so would make them look different. Ever so slightly.  
>
>What do brighteners do in the densitometer equation? My educated guess is
>that the X-rite sees them differently (more equally) than we do while
>holding the paper out in daylight.
>
>Seems to me some of the Mitsubishi papers were magenta, so I quit using them
>right away.  I think someone said last week that they do some of the
>coatings for Epson, so who knows.
>
>Thanks for the feedback. 
>
>=From: Bob_Michaels 
>
>=Mine was viewed originally under bright flourescent but one of 
>=those with the color of incadescent. But, I just took them 
>=outside to view them in late afternoon daylight and the 
>=conclusions are the same. HWM is a tad brighter than EEM. 
>=Photo Rag is the creamiest of all, and by a  noticeable amount. 
>=
>
>
>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/ 
>
>
>
>  
>

Alessandro & Julian: Thanks, I will try your suggestions as they
really make sense. I have to agree that so many of my printing issues
and questions come back to basic use of Photoshop, an area where I
still need improvement. 
Bob Michaels

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Alessandro Pardi
<alessandro.pardi@i...> wrote:
> Hi Bob,
>  
> one reason might be that the image hasn't 100% blacks. You can
verify it in
> Photoshop: if the darkest parts of the picture, those that should be
pure
> black, with no detail, even read 1 or 2 rather than 0, you're not
getting
> the best blacks in the final print.
> As someone else posted not long ago, checking this is worth as a
standard
> routine before printing, but the more so when comparing papers.
>  
> Hope this helps,
> Alessandro
>  
>  -----Original Message-----
> From: Bob_Michaels <bob@b...> [mailto:bob@b...]
> Sent: domenica 23 febbraio 2003 0:18
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] HWM v. EEM v. HPR, was: HWM rated more
archival

> than EAM/EEM !?
> 
> 
> 
> Truman: This is amazing. I pulled out an image I just printed on all
> three papers. Critically comparing the HPR and EEM prints side by
> side, I simply can see no difference in the blacks, shadow detail or
> highlights. And, the base of the EEM is very slightly whiter than the
> HPR. All different from your observations. Maybe they vary in
> production batches. Anyway, very puzzling. 
> Bob Michaels
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I've been doing this for years now, but 'I've only just started reading and
following JC's tutorial on shadow detail - there are just sooo many tricks
to learn!

Julian
----- Original Message -----
From: <bob@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 2:33 AM
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] HWM v. EEM v. HPR, was: HWM rated more archival
than EAM/EEM !?


> Alessandro & Julian: Thanks, I will try your suggestions as they
> really make sense. I have to agree that so many of my printing issues
> and questions come back to basic use of Photoshop, an area where I
> still need improvement.
> Bob Michaels
>
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Alessandro Pardi
> <alessandro.pardi@i...> wrote:
> > Hi Bob,
> >
> > one reason might be that the image hasn't 100% blacks. You can
> verify it in
> > Photoshop: if the darkest parts of the picture, those that should be
> pure
> > black, with no detail, even read 1 or 2 rather than 0, you're not
> getting
> > the best blacks in the final print.
> > As someone else posted not long ago, checking this is worth as a
> standard
> > routine before printing, but the more so when comparing papers.
> >
> > Hope this helps,
> > Alessandro
> >
> >  -----Original Message-----
> > From: Bob_Michaels <bob@b...> [mailto:bob@b...]
> > Sent: domenica 23 febbraio 2003 0:18
> > To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: Re: [Digital BW] HWM v. EEM v. HPR, was: HWM rated more
> archival
> > than EAM/EEM !?
> >
> >
> >
> > Truman: This is amazing. I pulled out an image I just printed on all
> > three papers. Critically comparing the HPR and EEM prints side by
> > side, I simply can see no difference in the blacks, shadow detail or
> > highlights. And, the base of the EEM is very slightly whiter than the
> > HPR. All different from your observations. Maybe they vary in
> > production batches. Anyway, very puzzling.
> > Bob Michaels
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
> 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
&amp;amp;quot;flames.&amp;amp;quot;
> - 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/
>
>
>

> following JC's tutorial on shadow detail - there are just sooo many tricks
> to learn!

?

tim

Jon Cone's mthod for maxing shadow detail on the IJM site 
www.inkjetmall.com. -I saw it when it first was published but only just 
got around to trying it.

Julian

----- Mensaje Original -----
De: Tim Atherton <timatherton@...>
Fecha: Martes, Febrero 25, 2003 5:21 pm
Asunto: RE: [Digital BW] HWM v. EEM v. HPR, was: HWM rated more 
archival than EAM/EEM !?

> 
> > following JC's tutorial on shadow detail - there are just sooo 
> many tricks
> > to learn!
> 
> ?
> 
> tim
> 
> 
> 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/ 
> 
> 
>

Can you point me to it Julian? Couldn't find it

thanks

> -----Original Message-----
> From: JULIANTHOMAS [mailto:julianthomas@...]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 9:29 AM
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: RE: [Digital BW] HWM v. EEM v. HPR, was: HWM rated more
> archival than EAM/EEM !?
>
>
> Jon Cone's mthod for maxing shadow detail on the IJM site
> www.inkjetmall.com. -I saw it when it first was published but only just
> got around to trying it.
>
> Julian
>
> ----- Mensaje Original -----
> De: Tim Atherton <timatherton@...>
> Fecha: Martes, Febrero 25, 2003 5:21 pm
> Asunto: RE: [Digital BW] HWM v. EEM v. HPR, was: HWM rated more
> archival than EAM/EEM !?
>
> >
> > > following JC's tutorial on shadow detail - there are just sooo
> > many tricks
> > > to learn!
> >
> > ?
> >
> > tim
> >
> >
> > 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 &amp;amp;quot;flames.&amp;amp;quot;
> > - 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/
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> 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
> &amp;amp;quot;flames.&amp;amp;quot;
> - 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/
>
>
>

Sorry Tim, I've lost it too - I'll track it down.

Julian
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tim Atherton" <timatherton@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 6:42 PM
Subject: RE: RE: [Digital BW] HWM v. EEM v. HPR, was: HWM rated more
archival than EAM/EEM !?


> Can you point me to it Julian? Couldn't find it
>
> thanks
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: JULIANTHOMAS [mailto:julianthomas@...]
> > Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 9:29 AM
> > To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: Re: RE: [Digital BW] HWM v. EEM v. HPR, was: HWM rated more
> > archival than EAM/EEM !?
> >
> >
> > Jon Cone's mthod for maxing shadow detail on the IJM site
> > www.inkjetmall.com. -I saw it when it first was published but only just
> > got around to trying it.
> >
> > Julian
> >
> > ----- Mensaje Original -----
> > De: Tim Atherton <timatherton@...>
> > Fecha: Martes, Febrero 25, 2003 5:21 pm
> > Asunto: RE: [Digital BW] HWM v. EEM v. HPR, was: HWM rated more
> > archival than EAM/EEM !?
> >
> > >
> > > > following JC's tutorial on shadow detail - there are just sooo
> > > many tricks
> > > > to learn!
> > >
> > > ?
> > >
> > > tim
> > >
> > >
> > > 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 &amp;amp;quot;flames.&amp;amp;quot;
> > > - 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/
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > 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
> > &amp;amp;quot;flames.&amp;amp;quot;
> > - 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/
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> 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
&amp;amp;quot;flames.&amp;amp;quot;
> - 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/
>
>
>

shadow tutorial here http://www.piezography.com/ts/shadows.html

scanning workflow here http://www.inkjetmall.com/store/cone_ts/scanning.htm

Julian
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tim Atherton" <timatherton@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 6:42 PM
Subject: RE: RE: [Digital BW] HWM v. EEM v. HPR, was: HWM rated more
archival than EAM/EEM !?


> Can you point me to it Julian? Couldn't find it
>
> thanks
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: JULIANTHOMAS [mailto:julianthomas@...]
> > Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 9:29 AM
> > To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: Re: RE: [Digital BW] HWM v. EEM v. HPR, was: HWM rated more
> > archival than EAM/EEM !?
> >
> >
> > Jon Cone's mthod for maxing shadow detail on the IJM site
> > www.inkjetmall.com. -I saw it when it first was published but only just
> > got around to trying it.
> >
> > Julian
> >
> > ----- Mensaje Original -----
> > De: Tim Atherton <timatherton@...>
> > Fecha: Martes, Febrero 25, 2003 5:21 pm
> > Asunto: RE: [Digital BW] HWM v. EEM v. HPR, was: HWM rated more
> > archival than EAM/EEM !?
> >
> > >
> > > > following JC's tutorial on shadow detail - there are just sooo
> > > many tricks
> > > > to learn!
> > >
> > > ?
> > >
> > > tim
> > >
> > >
> > > 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 &amp;amp;quot;flames.&amp;amp;quot;
> > > - 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/
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > 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
> > &amp;amp;quot;flames.&amp;amp;quot;
> > - 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/
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> 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
&amp;amp;quot;flames.&amp;amp;quot;
> - 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/
>
>
>

Tim Atherton wrote:
>> following JC's tutorial on shadow detail - there are just sooo many
>> tricks to learn!
> 
> ?

This one?:
http://www.piezography.com/ts/shadows.html

Peter Marquis-Kyle

I've read both tutorials (scanning and getting real blacks in the print).
The main point in the post-scan workflow is not to set white/black point, as
this "stretches" all tones and may result in posterization and harsh
midtones: you should keep the image as comes out of the scanner, and work
locally to darken shadows until they reach black (and, I suppose, lighten
highlights until they reach white).
It makes sense, but I think it heavily depends on the image itself and the
film used: with my Canon I found that silver B&W film generates scans where
setting BP and WP is a small adjustment, whereas Portra400BW (chromogenic)
generates very low-contrast scans (the histogram is very narrow) and
therefore leaving the scan as is yields very flat images.
OTOH, I don't think you can increase contrast in a scan at hardware level,
all you can do is change exposure (but this should only lighten/darken the
image), so if a scan has low contrast, all you can do is set black and white
point with your s/w (maybe not to 0 and 255).
Then again, all this extra-care in being very gentle with your pixels may
turn out to be (practically) invisible in the final prints.

Any opinions/experiences?

Alessandro Pardi

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Julian Thomas [mailto:julianthomas@...]
> Sent: martedì 25 febbraio 2003 9:57
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] HWM v. EEM v. HPR, was: HWM rated more
> archival than EAM/EEM !?
> 
> 
> I've been doing this for years now, but 'I've only just 
> started reading and
> following JC's tutorial on shadow detail - there are just 
> sooo many tricks
> to learn!
> 
> Julian
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <bob@bobmichaels.org>
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 2:33 AM
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] HWM v. EEM v. HPR, was: HWM rated 
> more archival
> than EAM/EEM !?
> 
> 
> > Alessandro & Julian: Thanks, I will try your suggestions as they
> > really make sense. I have to agree that so many of my 
> printing issues
> > and questions come back to basic use of Photoshop, an area where I
> > still need improvement.
> > Bob Michaels
> >
> > --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, 
> Alessandro Pardi
> > <alessandro.pardi@i...> wrote:
> > > Hi Bob,
> > >
> > > one reason might be that the image hasn't 100% blacks. You can
> > verify it in
> > > Photoshop: if the darkest parts of the picture, those 
> that should be
> > pure
> > > black, with no detail, even read 1 or 2 rather than 0, you're not
> > getting
> > > the best blacks in the final print.
> > > As someone else posted not long ago, checking this is worth as a
> > standard
> > > routine before printing, but the more so when comparing papers.
> > >
> > > Hope this helps,
> > > Alessandro
> > >
> > >  -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Bob_Michaels <bob@b...> [mailto:bob@b...]
> > > Sent: domenica 23 febbraio 2003 0:18
> > > To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> > > Subject: Re: [Digital BW] HWM v. EEM v. HPR, was: HWM rated more
> > archival
> > > than EAM/EEM !?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Truman: This is amazing. I pulled out an image I just 
> printed on all
> > > three papers. Critically comparing the HPR and EEM prints side by
> > > side, I simply can see no difference in the blacks, 
> shadow detail or
> > > highlights. And, the base of the EEM is very slightly 
> whiter than the
> > > HPR. All different from your observations. Maybe they vary in
> > > production batches. Anyway, very puzzling.
> > > Bob Michaels
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
> > 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
> &amp;amp;quot;flames.&amp;amp;quot;
> > - 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/
>
>
>


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
&amp;amp;quot;flames.&amp;amp;quot;
- 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/

Alessandro,

While others on the list know more about this than I do, I find that 
experimenting with a layer copied from the image set to various modes 
(i.e., overlay, softlight, hardlight, etc.) really can increase 
contrast and provide depth to a flat image.  You can play with the 
opacity of the layer and get a good deal of micro control by using 
the eraser itself set to various levels of opacity.  I find that 
virtually every scan from my Nikon LS 2000 with B&W film requires at 
least on layer of this sort.  I often find that have to erase some of 
the overlay in the deeper shadows to maintain detail.  I just insert 
the layer and then try a number of modes untill I get one that I 
like.  The downside is that it has to be done in 8 bit mode, so 
layers and curves adjustments have to come first.

Steve


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Alessandro Pardi 
<alessandro.pardi@i...> wrote:
> I've read both tutorials (scanning and getting real blacks in the 
print).
> The main point in the post-scan workflow is not to set white/black 
point, as
> this "stretches" all tones and may result in posterization and harsh
> midtones: you should keep the image as comes out of the scanner, 
and work
> locally to darken shadows until they reach black (and, I suppose, 
lighten
> highlights until they reach white).
> It makes sense, but I think it heavily depends on the image itself 
and the
> film used: with my Canon I found that silver B&W film generates 
scans where
> setting BP and WP is a small adjustment, whereas Portra400BW 
(chromogenic)
> generates very low-contrast scans (the histogram is very narrow) and
> therefore leaving the scan as is yields very flat images.
> OTOH, I don't think you can increase contrast in a scan at hardware 
level,
> all you can do is change exposure (but this should only 
lighten/darken the
> image), so if a scan has low contrast, all you can do is set black 
and white
> point with your s/w (maybe not to 0 and 255).
> Then again, all this extra-care in being very gentle with your 
pixels may
> turn out to be (practically) invisible in the final prints.
> 
> Any opinions/experiences?
> 
> Alessandro Pardi
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Julian Thomas [mailto:julianthomas@t...]
> > Sent: martedì 25 febbraio 2003 9:57
> > To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: Re: [Digital BW] HWM v. EEM v. HPR, was: HWM rated more
> > archival than EAM/EEM !?
> > 
> > 
> > I've been doing this for years now, but 'I've only just 
> > started reading and
> > following JC's tutorial on shadow detail - there are just 
> > sooo many tricks
> > to learn!
> > 
> > Julian
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: <bob@b...>
> > To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 2:33 AM
> > Subject: Re: [Digital BW] HWM v. EEM v. HPR, was: HWM rated 
> > more archival
> > than EAM/EEM !?
> > 
> > 
> > > Alessandro & Julian: Thanks, I will try your suggestions as they
> > > really make sense. I have to agree that so many of my 
> > printing issues
> > > and questions come back to basic use of Photoshop, an area 
where I
> > > still need improvement.
> > > Bob Michaels
> > >
> > > --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, 
> > Alessandro Pardi
> > > <alessandro.pardi@i...> wrote:
> > > > Hi Bob,
> > > >
> > > > one reason might be that the image hasn't 100% blacks. You can
> > > verify it in
> > > > Photoshop: if the darkest parts of the picture, those 
> > that should be
> > > pure
> > > > black, with no detail, even read 1 or 2 rather than 0, you're 
not
> > > getting
> > > > the best blacks in the final print.
> > > > As someone else posted not long ago, checking this is worth 
as a
> > > standard
> > > > routine before printing, but the more so when comparing 
papers.
> > > >
> > > > Hope this helps,
> > > > Alessandro
> > > >
> > > >  -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Bob_Michaels <bob@b...> [mailto:bob@b...]
> > > > Sent: domenica 23 febbraio 2003 0:18
> > > > To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> > > > Subject: Re: [Digital BW] HWM v. EEM v. HPR, was: HWM rated 
more
> > > archival
> > > > than EAM/EEM !?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Truman: This is amazing. I pulled out an image I just 
> > printed on all
> > > > three papers. Critically comparing the HPR and EEM prints 
side by
> > > > side, I simply can see no difference in the blacks, 
> > shadow detail or
> > > > highlights. And, the base of the EEM is very slightly 
> > whiter than the
> > > > HPR. All different from your observations. Maybe they vary in
> > > > production batches. Anyway, very puzzling.
> > > > Bob Michaels
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > >
> > >
> > > 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
> > &amp;amp;quot;flames.&amp;amp;quot;
> > > - 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/
> >
> >
> >
> 
> 
> 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
> &amp;amp;quot;flames.&amp;amp;quot;
> - 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/