Digital BW, The Print

I've been playing with a can of PrintGuard spray, on Epson Archival
Matte and Hahnemulle [sic] William Turner.  I've noticed that it
*does* darken the blacks a bit, but also that it darkens the dark
grays a bit, the lighter grays a little bit, and the whites not at
all.  The end result is the midtones are a bit goofy.

How do folks handle this Are folks using customized
profiles/icq's/curves/... or are they adjusting the images themselves,
or?

g.

In music the fans of rock realy groove on the big booming base - they 
want their teeth to fall out from the base. The folks that like 
classical demand a huge spread - high frequency to low frequency and the 
folks that like jazz really get off on the subtitles of the midtones 
into the high range. I think it is probably the same in photography. 
Some people get off on "bad ass"DMax - to the point of being obcessed. 
Some demand the spread of tones -  DMax to bright white and demand it on 
every image independent of if it is best for the image or not.

Me I'm a jazz guy. Give me the subtlness in the mid tones to the glowing 
highlights with enough DMax (bass) to make it interesting. I don't spray 
or coat because I don't need to and it gets in the way of the glowing 
highlights and midtones. You are probably right spraying and coating 
most likely changes the character of the image.

Truman

George Hartzell wrote:

>
> I've been playing with a can of PrintGuard spray, on Epson Archival
> Matte and Hahnemulle [sic] William Turner.  I've noticed that it
> *does* darken the blacks a bit, but also that it darkens the dark
> grays a bit, the lighter grays a little bit, and the whites not at
> all.  The end result is the midtones are a bit goofy.
>
> How do folks handle this Are folks using customized
> profiles/icq's/curves/... or are they adjusting the images themselves,
> or?
>
> g.
>
>

Hello Truman,

>I think it is probably the same in photography. 
>Some people get off on "bad ass"DMax - to the point 
>of being obcessed.  Some demand the spread of tones - 
>DMax to bright white and demand it on every image 
>independent of if it is best for the image or not.

Very true, and well said.  However, it's also true that when you do
have black in an image it's nice to have a good rich deep black
capability in the paper that's there when you need it.  There _are_
differences among papers.  I think the search for Dmax is a valid one.
 How people use it is another matter.  It's a good point.

Regards,
Clayton


Info on black and white digital printing at    
http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm

The paper is the key to Dmax and I think finding the key is still a ways 
off. Clearly you probably won't get it on matt paper - independent on 
the fact that matt paper can produce some very nice results. On the 
other hand the current crop of "RC" papers while maybe a little better 
still confront you with compromises. When you hear "just a little 
bronzing - almost unnoticeable " you know you have to give something up. 
Maybe the next generation of RC will be better.

In that note. I had a print of a photograph I took of the Rio Grand 
River south of Toas, NM about 30 minutes after sunrise one winter day on 
4x5 TriX. It is an absolutely spectular photograph if I have to say so 
myself :-). I had printed it on Seagull paper some years back. Some how 
insects had found their way throug the back of the frame and damaged the 
print. So I scanned it and printed it on photo rag. When I put it in the 
same frame (behind glass)  in the same sport it is difficult to tell 
that it is not a silver print. It sets amoung other B&W silver prints 
some by me and some I bought and it looks right at home.

Truman

Clayton Jones wrote:

> Hello Truman,
>
> >I think it is probably the same in photography.
> >Some people get off on "bad ass"DMax - to the point
> >of being obcessed.  Some demand the spread of tones -
> >DMax to bright white and demand it on every image
> >independent of if it is best for the image or not.
>
> Very true, and well said.  However, it's also true that when you do
> have black in an image it's nice to have a good rich deep black
> capability in the paper that's there when you need it.  There _are_
> differences among papers.  I think the search for Dmax is a valid one.
> How people use it is another matter.  It's a good point.
>
> Regards,
> Clayton
>
>
>

These sprays will change density levels and density distribution in a 
print (more so on RC papers than cotton).  If you make your own 
profiles (eg. with QTR or IJC) then you could simply linearize after 
spraying the printed step wedges.  If you are doing BO printing, then 
make a custom dot gain curve for soft proofing (see Tyler Boley's 
instructions for doing this in the list files).  I did this recently 
for some BO test prints I've been making on semi-gloss and it works 
very well.  My procedure was to first print a step wedge, spray and 
dry, read the density values of the patches, use Martin's spreadsheet 
(also in list files) to calculate dot % values from the density data, 
and finally create the custom dot gain curve in Photoshop color 
settings, per Tyler's instructions, and save as a soft proof file.  The 
soft proof profiles I've made for EEM and semi-gloss this way are 
pretty much WYSIWG when making actual prints.

Carl

On Wednesday, January 7, 2004, at 09:17  PM, George Hartzell wrote:

>
> I've been playing with a can of PrintGuard spray, on Epson Archival
> Matte and Hahnemulle [sic] William Turner.  I've noticed that it
> *does* darken the blacks a bit, but also that it darkens the dark
> grays a bit, the lighter grays a little bit, and the whites not at
> all.  The end result is the midtones are a bit goofy.
>
> How do folks handle this Are folks using customized
> profiles/icq's/curves/... or are they adjusting the images themselves,
> or?
>
> g.
>
>
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other 
> resources as they are often being updated.
>
> 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:
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to 
> keep them short.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or 
> flames. Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from 
> the membership without notice.
> - Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital 
> B&W printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be 
> removed from the membership.
> - By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and 
> guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group 
> Owner and Moderators. See “Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines” in the 
> Files section:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/
>
> BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE 
> PRINT YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE “OWNER” 
> AND “MODERATORS” OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE 
> LIABLE TO YOU FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, 
> CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, 
> DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS, GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE 
> LOSSES (EVEN IF THE  “OWNER” AND “MODERATORS” OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT 
> YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), 
> RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, 
> THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR ALTERATION OF 
> YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD 
> PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER 
> MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
> To visit your group on the web, go to:
>  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>  DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
>  http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>

I do not have separate curves for sprayed v. unsprayed prints.  

I do 3 - 4 light coats of PremierArt and find the densities are barely
affected.  For example, the Ilford Smooth Pearl I sprayed several days ago
has a 0% paper white density of 0.06.  The un-sprayed control strip has a 0%
paper density of 0.05.  I think that is the best measure of the extent to
which these sprays, if done lightly -- which is enough to protect the image
-- have very little affect on the look of the image.  The midtones are not
visibly affected.  

The dmax of the sprayed test strip is 2.32 v. 2.20 for the unsprayed one.
This is the area on RC paper where there may be the most change.  On matte
papers 3 light coats doesn't change the dmax for me at all.  Dmax of RC
papers, however, tends to decrease for some time.  (It may be caused by the
slow glycol release.  This is not an issue with matte papers, where the
glycol sticks to the cellulose so tightly is it never released.  This is the
source of the glass fogging problem with RC papers.) I'm not sure if the
spray is just delaying the reduction of dmax or if this differential will
stay that way.  With blacks that deep, it's rather academic anyway.

>I think part of our Holy Quest is about tweaking the process as far as 
>possible towards the appearance of an air-dried silver print just for the 
>perverse satisfaction of fooling some serious silver print guys for at 
>least a second or two.

Well, maybe this is true for some, but not for me.  On the other hand the
air-dried silver print became a standard for some good reasons.  So, as a
way to measure the success of our efforts to make a good-looking B&W print
with this new technology, it serves as a useful benchmark.

For me the challenge is simply to make the best B&W print -- as easily and
cheaply as possible.  A big part of this for display prints (and not
necessarily for other uses) is accessible/visible dynamic range.  The
greater the difference between the depth of black and brightness of the
whites I actually see in real-world viewing, the more I have to work with in
terms of making an image that has a high impact.  This is the same goal that
we B&W silver printers have been pursuing for years.  Silver prints beat the
other older technologies in part due to the higher dmax.  Selenium toning
was done by many for the dmax increase, not the longevity issues.  I can't
imagine anyone bleaching silver prints except to squeeze a few more
hundredths of units of brightness and dynamic range out of the image.

In my office I have the usual matte prints under glass and one sprayed RC
print dry-mounted and not under glass.  The RC print wins the beauty contest
easily.  I think the dynamic range and lack of reflections makes a big
difference.  The matte under glass images look veiled in comparison. 

>RE coatings, I think lacquer sprays are important for protection ...

Yes, I agree.

> but don't like the idea of having to complete the "look" of a print 
>with them. 

I agree.  Unfortunately, the technology right now demands some form of
protection for both RC and matte inkjet prints -- the non-encapsulated
pigments are sensitive to abrasion.  Also, the reduction in bronzing for RC
is significant.

>tried waxing with very tantalizing results (couldn't eliminate lap marks) 
>but wouldn't want to have to do that all the time for the same reason.

Ditto.

>My hope is someone will invent a pass-through coating device. ...

One of the forum members is going to try a coating machine for Hydrocote.
It's not cheap, but for some it could be an interesting solution.

So far, the sprayed RC papers seem to be the easiest for me in terms of high
visual impact per effort expended.  With a hair drier, I can print, dry and
apply several coats of spray in quick succession.  I'm going to try a cork
board or the like that can be hung temporarily on an outside wall for
spraying a number of small prints all at the same time.  I'll just use pins
to hold the prints down and spray the whole board full of them at once,
using a hair drier to speed the process.  Three quickies without having to
clean the aerosol nozzle until the end of the process seems to work.

I might add that sprayed matte snapshots have been on my refrigerator door
for over a year now and are still in good shape.  With my kids and dog
slinging food and water all over the kitchen this is quite an achievement.
The sprayed matte prints do not, however, have a washable surface the way
the sprayed RC prints do.  So, I expect the RC snapshots to fare even
better.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

At 09:31 PM 1/7/04 -0500, you wrote:
>In music the fans of rock realy groove on the big booming base - they
>want their teeth to fall out from the base. The folks that like
>classical demand a huge spread - high frequency to low frequency and the
>folks that like jazz really get off on the subtitles of the midtones
>into the high range. I think it is probably the same in photography.
>Some people get off on "bad ass"DMax - to the point of being obcessed.
>Some demand the spread of tones -  DMax to bright white and demand it on
>every image independent of if it is best for the image or not.
>
>Me I'm a jazz guy. Give me the subtlness in the mid tones to the glowing
>highlights with enough DMax (bass) to make it interesting. I don't spray
>or coat because I don't need to and it gets in the way of the glowing
>highlights and midtones. You are probably right spraying and coating
>most likely changes the character of the image.
>
>Truman
>
>George Hartzell wrote:
>
> >
> > I've been playing with a can of PrintGuard spray, on Epson Archival
> > Matte and Hahnemulle [sic] William Turner.  I've noticed that it
> > *does* darken the blacks a bit, but also that it darkens the dark
> > grays a bit, the lighter grays a little bit, and the whites not at
> > all.  The end result is the midtones are a bit goofy.
> >
> > How do folks handle this Are folks using customized
> > profiles/icq's/curves/... or are they adjusting the images themselves,
> > or?
> >
> > g.
> >
> >
>
>Truman,

Truman,

Good analogy. I go for the jazz riffs myself.  As you say, knowing when to 
blow the right notes is what counts.
I think part of our Holy Quest is about tweaking the process as far as 
possible towards the appearance of an air-dried silver print just for the 
perverse satisfaction of fooling some serious silver print guys for at 
least a second or two.

RE coatings, I think lacquer sprays are important for protection but don't 
like the idea of having to complete the "look" of a print with them. I 
tried waxing with very tantalizing results (couldn't eliminate lap marks) 
but wouldn't want to have to do that all the time for the same reason.  My 
hope is someone will invent a pass-through coating device. A ferrotype 
sheet for ink-jet would be nice - soak the print in Permagloss and squeegee 
it on the sheet to dry :-) Hydrocoat on a Teflon-coated drum!

AZ




Build a Lookaround!
The Lookaround Book, 2nd ed.
NOW SHIPPING
http://www.panoramacamera.us