Digital BW, The Print

I have been happily printing and giving away b/w prints using various 
methods for the last 3 years, always on matte papers using FS & FSN 
inks on a 1280, and QTR UC inks on a 4000 lately.  Seeing the 
possibility of gloss prints, I printed some images at a local CompUsa 
on the newer HP printers using their gray inks.  I am a hobbyist, and 
do not sell.

Seeing the HP prints' wow-punch got me interested in glossy prints.  
Soon I was asking myself how to go about doing that, having just 
spent a lot of money on the 4000.  I am just not keen on the bronzing 
one gets with the UC inks and RC coated papers.  I wondered how much 
of my own "wow-punch" reaction to glossy prints was purely 
conditioned on knowing that the matte prints were giving me a paltry 
~1.7 DMax, while the RC prints were in the 2.2 range.  Was I too 
influenced by numbers?

So I did an experiment.  I printed the same image (see attached 
link)  to 6.5 x 10 inches with QTR on EEM and on Pictorico Photo 
Gallery Glossy, both neutral, both very linear.  There is absolutely 
no difference in the detail rendered in these prints.  Tonal 
transitions (some subtle, some drastic) in the image are faithfully 
reproduced in both prints.  The original was a 4x5 transparency 
scanned on a 4870 scanner; it has tons of detail. The Pictorico print 
was sprayed very carefully with Printshield, so it exhibited NO 
bronzing.  

http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3066583

I showed the prints to co-workers at lunch, randomly stopping them in 
coridoors, in their offices, in the smoke-hall.  These are just 
regular folk, most who appreciate art.  I sampled a total of 46 
individuals, both men and women.  They were allowed to handle the 
prints, look at them anyway they chose for as long as they wanted.  I 
asked them to pick their preference of the two.

To cut to the chase:

30 people prefered the matte print.
16 people prefered the glossy print.

So what is this desire of so many of us (myself included) for glossy 
high DMax print?  Are we conditioned purely by the numerical value of 
DMax?  Is it really worth it?  Am I trying to rationalize the 
limitation of my 4000?

Regards.

Shilesh

> So what is this desire of so many of us (myself included) for glossy 
> high DMax print?  Are we conditioned purely by the numerical value of 
> DMax?  Is it really worth it?  Am I trying to rationalize the 
> limitation of my 4000?

I've experimented a lot with PKN and GLOP in my 2100 lately and have 
done some thinking on this issue.

The only thing I actually like about glossy papers is their high dmax. 
Besides that one issue I much prefer matte papers in every way. I really 
don't like the reflections, and the texture and feel of the glossy 
papers I've tried just doesn't come near a good cotton rag paper.

My ideal print would be on Photo Rag with 3.0+ dmax and no flaking. To 
me the whole glossy thing is just an unfortunate compromise that you 
have to deal with in order to get high dmax.

Several non-photographer friends have also specifically preferred matte 
papers when I've printed pictures for them and given them a choice of 
paper. They've also commented on how much they like the paper, and that 
it looks "different" from ordinary photographs. I've gotten comments 
like this with both EEM and Photo Rag.

--
Daniel Staver
http://daniel.staver.no

I am a musiocian, and pretty often am asked to do some shots for bands, 
or singers, etc, or weddings once in a while. The people I know really 
like the look and feel of a glossy BW print a lot better. That is 
probably because they are made to be handled, pulled from envelopes, 
passed around from person to person. If it is a matte print someone 
invariably will get a sour look on their face and make a comment about 
this cheap promo package duped at kinkos on a Xerox machine. Any good 
band is going to have a package with "real" BW photgraphs. Not dry 
paper Xerox looking Plain paper (" i didn't know kinkos had paper this 
thick".... is another old stand-by comment)
Now If the print is under glass, nobody ever notices that it is matte 
or rag. I think they actually assume it is a glossy print under there, 
looking great.
Now I really do think that the UT2 with glop is a better looking print 
with no spray than without glop and with spray. The regular people that 
I have shown them to, see it that way about 10 to 1, but I have not 
done a survey, other than to pay attention to the comments they 
make.........I dont think anyone is kidding themselves though. maybe 
your prints on pictorico glossy dont have the pop that kirkland 
has?....DM

maybe 
> your prints on pictorico glossy dont have the pop that kirkland 
> has?....DM

Nope.  The Pictorico has as much pop as any glossy print I have seen 
including from HP 8xxx on their glossy paper (supposedly Dmax of more 
than 2.5).  Those in my survey who prefered the glossy print actually 
said that it had more pop.  BTW when pinned to the wall and viewed 
from ~3 feet, there is hardly any reason to prefer one over the 
other.  Many in my survey found the reflection from the gloss 
annoying.

....still searching.

Shilesh

Doug  -
 
You're dealing with a very narrow segment of the population.  Over the years glossy prints have been ingrained in that business (I was in it too).  Delivering a top quality glossy print to them is very important.  But, I hear more and more about how people prefer the 'look' of fine art prints on the matt papers.
 
From a personal perspective, the ability to print on a variety of media is what finally swayed me from the wet room.  
 
A few more impromptu surveys like this would be useful.
 
Tom Baker

Douglas Meeuwsen <lipshurt@...> wrote:

I am a musiocian, and pretty often am asked to do some shots for bands, 
or singers, etc, or weddings once in a while. The people I know really 
like the look and feel of a glossy BW print a lot better. That is 
probably because they are made to be handled, pulled from envelopes, 
passed around from person to person. If it is a matte print someone 
invariably will get a sour look on their face and make a comment about 
this cheap promo package duped at kinkos on a Xerox machine. Any good 
band is going to have a package with "real" BW photgraphs. Not dry 
paper Xerox looking Plain paper (" i didn't know kinkos had paper this 
thick".... is another old stand-by comment)
Now If the print is under glass, nobody ever notices that it is matte 
or rag. I think they actually assume it is a glossy print under there, 
looking great.
Now I really do think that the UT2 with glop is a better looking print 
with no spray than without glop and with spray. The regular people that 
I have shown them to, see it that way about 10 to 1, but I have not 
done a survey, other than to pay attention to the comments they 
make.........I dont think anyone is kidding themselves though. maybe 
your prints on pictorico glossy dont have the pop that kirkland 
has?....DM




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









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

I would generally agree with Daniel.  I like the finish of matte papers or
very silky semi-matte papers like Epson Premium Luster. I don't like glazing
on either.  If I print some of my favourite images using my current glop
setup, though, the matte prints look dull in comparison.  I don't think this
is not the same as "pop" - it's dynamic range which is a little different.
I would prefer the RC paper dMax on the matte paper because I think the
matte surface gives a more 3 dimensional feel - the "not like a photo"
thing.  All of this is very personal though.

I think we are a lot closer to good RC paper prints than we are matte paper
prints.  In my mind, a dMax of 1.6 or so simply doesn't cut it anymore for
B&W (I think it is potentially less of an issue with colour work, though,
particularly that which doesn't have large swathes of black) and I will drop
the surface finish in favour of the dMax.  With glop we are at around 2.5 on
semi matte paper without bronzing.  If we can find a decent way to get a
good protective coating over that (or replace glop with something that still
kills bronzing but leaves a better protective finish) then we are really
there - especially if we have a variety of coating finishes (matt, gloss,
semi-matte etc).  The same dMax on matte would be great but I think it is
likely a lot further away - and we still need a convenient way to really
protect matte prints without destroying that lovely surface; I am not sure
that these two aren't mutually exclusive.

I would argue our goal ought to be dMax of around 2.6 or so (with a bright
white) and the ability to frame without glazing (of course we also want the
archival quality).  In my humble opinion, any glazing largely kills a
photograph (or any other piece of visual art).

> From: Daniel Staver <daniel@...>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2005 00:03:17 +0100
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] DMax and Glossy Prints - Are We Kidding Ourselves?
> 
> 
>> So what is this desire of so many of us (myself included) for glossy
>> high DMax print?  Are we conditioned purely by the numerical value of
>> DMax?  Is it really worth it?  Am I trying to rationalize the
>> limitation of my 4000?
> 
> I've experimented a lot with PKN and GLOP in my 2100 lately and have
> done some thinking on this issue.
> 
> The only thing I actually like about glossy papers is their high dmax.
> Besides that one issue I much prefer matte papers in every way. I really
> don't like the reflections, and the texture and feel of the glossy
> papers I've tried just doesn't come near a good cotton rag paper.
> 
> My ideal print would be on Photo Rag with 3.0+ dmax and no flaking. To
> me the whole glossy thing is just an unfortunate compromise that you
> have to deal with in order to get high dmax.
> 
> Several non-photographer friends have also specifically preferred matte
> papers when I've printed pictures for them and given them a choice of
> paper. They've also commented on how much they like the paper, and that
> it looks "different" from ordinary photographs. I've gotten comments
> like this with both EEM and Photo Rag.
> 
> --
> Daniel Staver
> http://daniel.staver.no
>

Most art-oriented photographers have always preferred air-dried fiber
based paper....glossy has always been used for mass-produced press
kits, the cheap stuff. 

No portrait or wedding photographer delivers his good work on glossy
paper, but some of the bargain wedding photographers deliver their
proofs as glossies from minilabs, unconcerned about quality.

Industrial photographers deliver glossy because old fashioned
lithographers preferred it and because of generations of habit.   

The public identifies glossy as cheaper, inferior, because glossy is 
correctly associated with poor or "adequate" quality, mass production.
They don't care about Dmax.

Surely this isn't new information, or debatable? 




--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Shilesh Jani"
<shilesh.jani@s...> wrote:

> 
>  maybe 
> > your prints on pictorico glossy dont have the pop that kirkland 
> > has?....DM
> 
> Nope.  The Pictorico has as much pop as any glossy print I have seen 
> including from HP 8xxx on their glossy paper (supposedly Dmax of more 
> than 2.5).  Those in my survey who prefered the glossy print actually 
> said that it had more pop.  BTW when pinned to the wall and viewed 
> from ~3 feet, there is hardly any reason to prefer one over the 
> other.  Many in my survey found the reflection from the gloss 
> annoying.
> 
> ....still searching.
> 
> Shilesh

Define glossy?  Aren't we lumping all non-matte paper into the same basket
in this conversation?  There is significant variance in finish in the RC
paper (call it PK ink) basket.  Even a glop-coated image on Ilford Smooth
Pearl (a rather glossy semi-matte paper in comparison to, say, Epson Luster)
is not a "glossy" print in the sense that you imply below.

> From: Djon <westsidemaurice@...>
 
> 
> Most art-oriented photographers have always preferred air-dried fiber
> based paper....glossy has always been used for mass-produced press
> kits, the cheap stuff.
> 
> No portrait or wedding photographer delivers his good work on glossy
> paper, but some of the bargain wedding photographers deliver their
> proofs as glossies from minilabs, unconcerned about quality.
> 
> Industrial photographers deliver glossy because old fashioned
> lithographers preferred it and because of generations of habit.
> 
> The public identifies glossy as cheaper, inferior, because glossy is
> correctly associated with poor or "adequate" quality, mass production.
> They don't care about Dmax.
> 
> Surely this isn't new information, or debatable?
> 
> 
>

Bands and actors and modeling agencies buy the cheapest possible
prints, but they do always want glossy, 

A person who wants that kind of business should use a printer designed
for glossy, not one that's really designed for matte paper. 

Mass production of glossies is an incredibly low-margin business. 

However, here's a link to a friend who started out doing that over 30
years ago and look where he's gotten:

http://www.patjohnson.com/pgs_bio/bio5_oak.html



Any good 
> band is going to have a package with "real" BW photgraphs.

I didn't "lump" anything. I just said "glossy." 

Glop is a temporary workaround and it doesn't even serve the purposes
of most photographers, who do after all usually print color and/or
didn't want to show glossy in the first place.

The other resin coated surfaces have *never* been considered top
quality by collectors, but a lot of students have enjoyed the
convenience, Vs air drying fiber based paper.  RC's always been a
second-rate material, just a convenience. 

Go to any public gallery: You won't see *any* Pearl and the few
glossies will mostly be secondary work by photographers who primarily
favored air dried prints, unless they were press photographers like
Weegee.



--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Steve Kale
<stevekale@b...> wrote:
> Define glossy?  Aren't we lumping all non-matte paper into the same
basket
> in this conversation?  There is significant variance in finish in the RC
> paper (call it PK ink) basket.  Even a glop-coated image on Ilford
Smooth
> Pearl (a rather glossy semi-matte paper in comparison to, say, Epson
Luster)

> is not a "glossy" print in the sense that you imply below.
> 
> 
> > From: Djon <westsidemaurice@y...>
>  
> > 
> > Most art-oriented photographers have always preferred air-dried fiber
> > based paper....glossy has always been used for mass-produced press
> > kits, the cheap stuff.
> > 
> > No portrait or wedding photographer delivers his good work on glossy
> > paper, but some of the bargain wedding photographers deliver their
> > proofs as glossies from minilabs, unconcerned about quality.
> > 
> > Industrial photographers deliver glossy because old fashioned
> > lithographers preferred it and because of generations of habit.
> > 
> > The public identifies glossy as cheaper, inferior, because glossy is
> > correctly associated with poor or "adequate" quality, mass production.
> > They don't care about Dmax.
> > 
> > Surely this isn't new information, or debatable?
> > 
> > 
> >

I didn't say that you did - I said the subject matter was.  The title says
"glossy" but I think the subject is better described as matte paper or
cotton versus PK ink papers. Don't confuse the use of the term RC here - in
the digital domain RC loosely denotes digital photographic glossy or
semi-gloss/matte paper.  It is not the same thing as the wet process
distinction between fibre and RC.

By your comments, any image that isn't air dried fiber based paper (ie a
traditional analogue print) is not collectible.  This is nonsense.  Anything
which is storable is collectible, particularly that which is scarce and has
great longevity.  More and more galleries are displaying and selling (and
collectors buying) non air dried fibre prints - be they Durst Lamda,
Lightjet, matte paper inkjet or RC paper inkjet (digital definition).  Some
are matte, many have some form of "gloss": semi-matte, semi-gloss, or gloss.

Yes glop may be temporary as may MIS Eboni ink - when something better is
found, all of us (ok there are a few people who think upgrading is a waste
of time!  ;-)  ) will move on.  This is nothing more than moving from one
form of image reproduction to another, in line with all the other stages of
development we have witnessed since photography began.  Oh but be assured it
does serve a purpose (including on semi-matte images - B&W and colour).

> From: Djon <westsidemaurice@...>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2005 01:07:19 -0000
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] DMax and Glossy Prints - Are We Kidding Ourselves?
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't "lump" anything. I just said "glossy."
> 
> Glop is a temporary workaround and it doesn't even serve the purposes
> of most photographers, who do after all usually print color and/or
> didn't want to show glossy in the first place.
> 
> The other resin coated surfaces have *never* been considered top
> quality by collectors, but a lot of students have enjoyed the
> convenience, Vs air drying fiber based paper.  RC's always been a
> second-rate material, just a convenience.
> 
> Go to any public gallery: You won't see *any* Pearl and the few
> glossies will mostly be secondary work by photographers who primarily
> favored air dried prints, unless they were press photographers like
> Weegee.
> 
> 
>

At last some sanity, repeat this often!!
 
Forest John 

Shilesh Jani <shilesh.jani@...> wrote:

I have been happily printing and giving away b/w prints using various 
methods for the last 3 years, always on matte papers using FS & FSN 
inks on a 1280, and QTR UC inks on a 4000 lately.  Seeing the 
possibility of gloss prints, I printed some images at a local CompUsa 
on the newer HP printers using their gray inks.  I am a hobbyist, and 
do not sell.

Seeing the HP prints' wow-punch got me interested in glossy prints.  
Soon I was asking myself how to go about doing that, having just 
spent a lot of money on the 4000.  I am just not keen on the bronzing 
one gets with the UC inks and RC coated papers.  I wondered how much 
of my own "wow-punch" reaction to glossy prints was purely 
conditioned on knowing that the matte prints were giving me a paltry 
~1.7 DMax, while the RC prints were in the 2.2 range.  Was I too 
influenced by numbers?

So I did an experiment.  I printed the same image (see attached 
link)  to 6.5 x 10 inches with QTR on EEM and on Pictorico Photo 
Gallery Glossy, both neutral, both very linear.  There is absolutely 
no difference in the detail rendered in these prints.  Tonal 
transitions (some subtle, some drastic) in the image are faithfully 
reproduced in both prints.  The original was a 4x5 transparency 
scanned on a 4870 scanner; it has tons of detail. The Pictorico print 
was sprayed very carefully with Printshield, so it exhibited NO 
bronzing.  

http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3066583

I showed the prints to co-workers at lunch, randomly stopping them in 
coridoors, in their offices, in the smoke-hall.  These are just 
regular folk, most who appreciate art.  I sampled a total of 46 
individuals, both men and women.  They were allowed to handle the 
prints, look at them anyway they chose for as long as they wanted.  I 
asked them to pick their preference of the two.

To cut to the chase:

30 people prefered the matte print.
16 people prefered the glossy print.

So what is this desire of so many of us (myself included) for glossy 
high DMax print?  Are we conditioned purely by the numerical value of 
DMax?  Is it really worth it?  Am I trying to rationalize the 
limitation of my 4000?

Regards.

Shilesh







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 SponsorADVERTISEMENT


---------------------------------
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 the Yahoo! Terms of Service. 


Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com 

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

You're right.  And I've said that before.  But they need glossy for the
possibilty of reproduction in news media, but not inkjet based.

IMHO, that is why gloss has hung on.  In the amateur market there are
different reasons for Walmart, Costco, Target, etc. to make them.

Seth 

==-----Original Message-----
==From: Djon [mailto:westsidemaurice@...] 
==
==
==
==
==Bands and actors and modeling agencies buy the cheapest 
==possible prints, but they do always want glossy, 
==

I don't think we've lumped papers together.

I suppose we could compare gloss, semi-gloss, luster and matte to F, E, N,
etc. surfaces.  Or, some Oriental or Ilford papers.
That would be a relatively good understandable "lumping" to those with a
photographic background.

Seth



==-----Original Message-----
==From: Steve Kale [mailto:stevekale@...] 
==
==
==Define glossy?  Aren't we lumping all non-matte paper into 
==the same basket in this conversation?  There is significant 
==variance in finish in the RC paper (call it PK ink) basket.  
==Even a glop-coated image on Ilford Smooth Pearl (a rather 
==glossy semi-matte paper in comparison to, say, Epson Luster) 
==is not a "glossy" print in the sense that you imply below.

My point was that, if I am not mistaken, in the original post the author
showed people the same print on matte paper and then on "glossy".  I am not
certain that the author meant glossy in the sense of a hi-gloss paper (ie a
subset of inkjet RC or PK-ink papers) or simply the broader group of
RC/PK-ink inkjet papers - I suspect the latter.  I don't like high gloss
either - but a semi-matte print has quite a different finish.

> From: Seth <seth@...>
> Organization: Serh Rossman Photography
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2005 09:24:52 -0500
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: RE: [Digital BW] DMax and Glossy Prints - Are We Kidding Ourselves?
> 
> 
> I don't think we've lumped papers together.
> 
> I suppose we could compare gloss, semi-gloss, luster and matte to F, E, N,
> etc. surfaces.  Or, some Oriental or Ilford papers.
> That would be a relatively good understandable "lumping" to those with a
> photographic background.
> 
> Seth
> 
> 
>

Don't get me wrong.  I like Ilford Pearl, just have fits with it and
pigments.  Any gloss beyond that I don't mess with.

But, Hawk Mountain Merlin and Osprey, along with Epson DWM are my mainstays.
Red River for cards, but they don't pay enough for the effort.

Seth 

==-----Original Message-----
==From: Steve Kale [mailto:stevekale@...] 
==
==
==My point was that, if I am not mistaken, in the original post 
==the author showed people the same print on matte paper and 
==then on "glossy".  I am not certain that the author meant 
==glossy in the sense of a hi-gloss paper (ie a subset of 
==inkjet RC or PK-ink papers) or simply the broader group of 
==RC/PK-ink inkjet papers - I suspect the latter.  I don't like 
==high gloss either - but a semi-matte print has quite a 
==different finish.
==
==

I just rechecked Shilesh's original post.  He showed Pictorio Glossy Paper.  Perhaps we 
should ask him to rerun his test using, say, Epson premium semi-matte (with or without 
glop  ;-)  ).

Hello Shilesh,

I read with great interest the email below and tend to agree with you 
ALMOST completely. My printing is done through QTR and with UT2 inks 
at the present. I hedge because I have some images which need to be 
printed on glossy in order to gain the richness in the lower Zones (I-
III). I have some images which when printed on Matte paper seem to 
have a veil of light gray over the shadow areas (I-III) that seem to 
diminish the richness of detail that is evident there. I learned this 
today while working on an image made yesterday. I know the detail was 
there and recalled a trick from my darkroom days of rubbing some oil 
from my nose into one of the areas I needed to increase the richness 
there. That didn't work so I looked around for some petroleum jelly 
and not finding, any used massage oil instead (glorified baby oil 
with an aroma). That improved the richness of the shadows, but went 
right through the paper and enabled light to shine through from 
behind; which may be what increased the shadow detail. I then printed 
the same image with the identical settings (other than changing the 
paper type to glossy)using QTR; and was amazed at the shadow richness 
and detail visible now. I think the image has to be taken into 
consideration as to whether it would benefit from Matte or Glossy. 
Most of my images with little deep shadow detail required do fine on 
Matte paper, but I plan to reevaluate some of those also. There is 
always learning to be done in Photography, which is what keeps it 
from become stale. I find myself changing my opinions quite often and 
do not care to become stagnated simply because of my own 
unwillingness to make changes in workflow or technique.

Your friend in Photography,

Johnny

> Shilesh Jani <shilesh.jani@s...> wrote:
> 
> I have been happily printing and giving away b/w prints using 
various 
> methods for the last 3 years, always on matte papers using FS & FSN 
> inks on a 1280, and QTR UC inks on a 4000 lately.  Seeing the 
> possibility of gloss prints, I printed some images at a local 
CompUsa 
> on the newer HP printers using their gray inks.  I am a hobbyist, 
and 
> do not sell.
> 
> Seeing the HP prints' wow-punch got me interested in glossy 
prints.  
> Soon I was asking myself how to go about doing that, having just 
> spent a lot of money on the 4000.  I am just not keen on the 
bronzing 
> one gets with the UC inks and RC coated papers.  I wondered how 
much 
> of my own "wow-punch" reaction to glossy prints was purely 
> conditioned on knowing that the matte prints were giving me a 
paltry 
> ~1.7 DMax, while the RC prints were in the 2.2 range.  Was I too 
> influenced by numbers?
> 
> So I did an experiment.  I printed the same image (see attached 
> link)  to 6.5 x 10 inches with QTR on EEM and on Pictorico Photo 
> Gallery Glossy, both neutral, both very linear.  There is 
absolutely 
> no difference in the detail rendered in these prints.  Tonal 
> transitions (some subtle, some drastic) in the image are faithfully 
> reproduced in both prints.  The original was a 4x5 transparency 
> scanned on a 4870 scanner; it has tons of detail. The Pictorico 
print 
> was sprayed very carefully with Printshield, so it exhibited NO 
> bronzing.  
> 
> http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3066583
> 
> I showed the prints to co-workers at lunch, randomly stopping them 
in 
> coridoors, in their offices, in the smoke-hall.  These are just 
> regular folk, most who appreciate art.  I sampled a total of 46 
> individuals, both men and women.  They were allowed to handle the 
> prints, look at them anyway they chose for as long as they wanted.  
I 
> asked them to pick their preference of the two.
> 
> To cut to the chase:
> 
> 30 people prefered the matte print.
> 16 people prefered the glossy print.
> 
> So what is this desire of so many of us (myself included) for 
glossy 
> high DMax print?  Are we conditioned purely by the numerical value 
of 
> DMax?  Is it really worth it?  Am I trying to rationalize the 
> limitation of my 4000?
> 
> Regards.
> 
> Shilesh
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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 SponsorADVERTISEMENT
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------
> 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 the Yahoo! Terms of 
Service. 
> 
> 
> Send instant messages to your online friends 
http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

>So what is this desire of so many of us (myself included) for glossy
>high DMax print?  Are we conditioned purely by the numerical value of
>DMax?  Is it really worth it?  Am I trying to rationalize the
>limitation of my 4000?

I don't think so. I've kind of wondered about the concern shown in so many
messages posted here with dmax or the lack thereof.  In traditional
photographic printing dmax is mostly a theoretical concept in the sense that
real prints don't need to exhibit true dmax in the darkest areas and doing
tends to result in there being no separation of tones within the important
shadow areas of the print. Even the ANSI standard for stating the exposure
range of papers doesn't use dmax as the starting point, it uses 90% of dmax.

Perhaps I lack the eye or the standards of others here or maybe I need to
see more prints by people who are better printers than I am but FWIW I've
been completely satisfied with the blacks I get using matte papers and Eboni
black ink with QTR and my 2200. I don't know who it was who first said that
we don't need the blackest possible black, all we need is a convincing black
but I certainly agree.

The difference between the densities of 1.7 and 2.2 mentioned in the message
below is a difference of a little over one and a half stops or approximately
the difference between zone 1 and high zone 2 in zone system terms. I think
it's pretty well agreed that at least in traditional darkroom printing
there's no practical difference between Zones I and II (a difference can be
seen but only when the two zones are placed next to each other so that the
darker tone is available for reference).  If the same is true with ink jet
prints perhaps that's one of the reasons why the two prints in question
looked alike despite the different measurements for dmax with the two types
of paper.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "John Edmunds" <charleysfabrics@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, March 11, 2005 2:00 AM
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] DMax and Glossy Prints - Are We Kidding Ourselves?



At last some sanity, repeat this often!!

Forest John

Shilesh Jani <shilesh.jani@...> wrote:

I have been happily printing and giving away b/w prints using various
methods for the last 3 years, always on matte papers using FS & FSN
inks on a 1280, and QTR UC inks on a 4000 lately.  Seeing the
possibility of gloss prints, I printed some images at a local CompUsa
on the newer HP printers using their gray inks.  I am a hobbyist, and
do not sell.

Seeing the HP prints' wow-punch got me interested in glossy prints.
Soon I was asking myself how to go about doing that, having just
spent a lot of money on the 4000.  I am just not keen on the bronzing
one gets with the UC inks and RC coated papers.  I wondered how much
of my own "wow-punch" reaction to glossy prints was purely
conditioned on knowing that the matte prints were giving me a paltry
~1.7 DMax, while the RC prints were in the 2.2 range.  Was I too
influenced by numbers?

So I did an experiment.  I printed the same image (see attached
link)  to 6.5 x 10 inches with QTR on EEM and on Pictorico Photo
Gallery Glossy, both neutral, both very linear.  There is absolutely
no difference in the detail rendered in these prints.  Tonal
transitions (some subtle, some drastic) in the image are faithfully
reproduced in both prints.  The original was a 4x5 transparency
scanned on a 4870 scanner; it has tons of detail. The Pictorico print
was sprayed very carefully with Printshield, so it exhibited NO
bronzing.

http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3066583

I showed the prints to co-workers at lunch, randomly stopping them in
coridoors, in their offices, in the smoke-hall.  These are just
regular folk, most who appreciate art.  I sampled a total of 46
individuals, both men and women.  They were allowed to handle the
prints, look at them anyway they chose for as long as they wanted.  I
asked them to pick their preference of the two.

To cut to the chase:

30 people prefered the matte print.
16 people prefered the glossy print.

So what is this desire of so many of us (myself included) for glossy
high DMax print?  Are we conditioned purely by the numerical value of
DMax?  Is it really worth it?  Am I trying to rationalize the
limitation of my 4000?

Regards.

Shilesh







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 SponsorADVERTISEMENT


---------------------------------
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 the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com

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




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

Hello Shilesh and Johnny,

Thanks for sharing your experiences. In an earlier post I wrote about
my quest for a perfect coating for matte papers and found myself
growing fonder of the uncoated matte print. Is there such a thing as a
coating that boosts dmax to 2.2 and leaves alone the beautiful tactile
feel?

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Johnny Eades"
<jeades1@s...> wrote:
> ... I hedge because I have some images which need to be 
> printed on glossy in order to gain the richness in the lower Zones 
> (I-III). I have some images which when printed on Matte paper seem 
> to have a veil of light gray over the shadow areas (I-III) that seem
> to diminish the richness of detail that is evident there.

I agree with Johnny that there are prints you must must make with a
paper with very high dmax, those with important shadow details. But
those that are higher key with soft features actually benefit from
softer shadows as as attempt to map a black point to zero may make
make the subject too harsh.

> ... a trick from my darkroom days of rubbing some oil from my nose 
> into one of the areas I needed to increase the richness  there... 
> That improved the richness of the shadows, but went right through 
> the paper and enabled light to shine through from behind

Why didn't I think of this before  :)  I actually tried Dorland Wax
Medium for a while and gave up. It's just too much work.

I found that matte papers of the ultrasmooth sort gives as high a dmax
with a much more luxurious feel than glossy when coated with my
favorite water-based polymer coating mediums.

> ... There is always learning to be done in Photography, which is 
> what keeps it from become stale. I find myself changing my opinions 
> quite often and do not care to become stagnated simply because of my
> own unwillingness to make changes in workflow or technique.

I couldn't agree more.

Best regards,
--nick

Perhaps I lack the eye or the standards of others here or maybe I 
need to
> see more prints by people who are better printers than I am but 
FWIW I've
> been completely satisfied with the blacks I get using matte papers 
and Eboni
> black ink with QTR and my 2200. I don't know who it was who first 
said that
> we don't need the blackest possible black, all we need is a 
convincing black
> but I certainly agree.


Hmm, some good obervations/thoughts to the original post.  I for one 
have decided to set aside this need for higher DMax, at least for 
now - and go back to making prints which have satisfied me just 
fine.  Epson velvet Fine Art is a current favorite.

Perhaps I could make the prints on a non-glossy RC paper like Epson 
Semi-Matte, or such.  But I have lost the urge anymore.

I still remember the first time I held a well made b/w inkjet print 
(from one of the founders of this forum - Martin Wesley).  It was on 
308 gsm Photo Rag.  It elicited an almost orgiastic response in me; 
the tonality, detail, and most importantly the tactile feel of the 
paper.  William Turner has a similar effect on me.  Yet a few of the 
people I have shown/asked to hold prints made on these venerable 
papers have reacted "what sort of cardboard is this"!!  Just goes to 
show you that there is no accounting for personal taste and 
preference.

Regards.

Shilesh

Not on matte paper (by this I mean a non resin-coated paper).  I think the
best we have seen is 1.6-7 and a coated that helps protect without
diminishing dMax eg Lascaux fixative.  To exceed these dMax values and hence
obtain a greater dynamic range to work with we need to move to resin coated
papers and "photo black" ink.  Some have noted higher densities on matte
paper but from dye rather than pigment inks.  John Edmunds once referenced
2.1 on matte paper but did not disclose the ink.

> From: "Nick H. Nugent" <nghin@...>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2005 19:19:38 -0000
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] DMax and Glossy Prints - Are We Kidding Ourselves?
> 
> 
> 
> Hello Shilesh and Johnny,
> 
> Thanks for sharing your experiences. In an earlier post I wrote about
> my quest for a perfect coating for matte papers and found myself
> growing fonder of the uncoated matte print. Is there such a thing as a
> coating that boosts dmax to 2.2 and leaves alone the beautiful tactile
> feel?
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Johnny Eades"
> <jeades1@s...> wrote:
>> ... I hedge because I have some images which need to be
>> printed on glossy in order to gain the richness in the lower Zones
>> (I-III). I have some images which when printed on Matte paper seem
>> to have a veil of light gray over the shadow areas (I-III) that seem
>> to diminish the richness of detail that is evident there.
> 
> I agree with Johnny that there are prints you must must make with a
> paper with very high dmax, those with important shadow details. But
> those that are higher key with soft features actually benefit from
> softer shadows as as attempt to map a black point to zero may make
> make the subject too harsh.
> 
>> ... a trick from my darkroom days of rubbing some oil from my nose
>> into one of the areas I needed to increase the richness  there...
>> That improved the richness of the shadows, but went right through
>> the paper and enabled light to shine through from behind
> 
> Why didn't I think of this before  :)  I actually tried Dorland Wax
> Medium for a while and gave up. It's just too much work.
> 
> I found that matte papers of the ultrasmooth sort gives as high a dmax
> with a much more luxurious feel than glossy when coated with my
> favorite water-based polymer coating mediums.
> 
>> ... There is always learning to be done in Photography, which is
>> what keeps it from become stale. I find myself changing my opinions
>> quite often and do not care to become stagnated simply because of my
>> own unwillingness to make changes in workflow or technique.
> 
> I couldn't agree more.
> 
> Best regards,
> --nick
> 
>

Shilesh, this isn't in direct response to your statement, but I just wanted to state that I  printed on William Turner this afternoon and though I may not have had as STRONG an emotional response as you (i.e., 'orgiastic response' to the HPR) *smile*---it did elicit a very strong response from me.  I particularly noted your thought about the tactile feel (but tonality and detail also)--this could be one of my favorite papers and, like you, Epson Velvet has been my current favorite for awhile.  I printed the same image on other papers--didn't do the same thing for me.

Diane
-----------
Diane B. Fields
picnic@...
photo site  http://www.pbase.com/picnic

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Shilesh Jani 
  To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Friday, March 11, 2005 2:26 PM
  Subject: Re: [Digital BW] DMax and Glossy Prints - Are We Kidding Ourselves?


  <snip>

  Epson velvet Fine Art is a current favorite.

  Perhaps I could make the prints on a non-glossy RC paper like Epson 
  Semi-Matte, or such.  But I have lost the urge anymore.

  I still remember the first time I held a well made b/w inkjet print 
  (from one of the founders of this forum - Martin Wesley).  It was on 
  308 gsm Photo Rag.  It elicited an almost orgiastic response in me; 
  the tonality, detail, and most importantly the tactile feel of the 
  paper.  William Turner has a similar effect on me.  Yet a few of the 
  people I have shown/asked to hold prints made on these venerable 
  papers have reacted "what sort of cardboard is this"!!  Just goes to 
  show you that there is no accounting for personal taste and 
  preference.

  Regards.

  Shilesh





  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 Sponsor 
              ADVERTISEMENT
             
       
       


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Yahoo! Groups Links

    a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/
      
    b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
      
    c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. 



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

Actually the sort of coating I refer to is not Lascaux fixative or the
likes (Sennelier Delacroix or Latour, etc). I use an airbrush to apply
a coat of water-borne Golden Polymer GAC 500.

The result on such paper as Hawk Mountain Merlin or Osprey Natural,
Epson Ultra Smooth, or Photo Rag, is a beautiful low gloss surface
with 2.2 - 2.3 in dmax. The best looking surface after this treatment
maybe the line of Hawk Mountain papers. For large prints I  simply
roll this coating on using a foam brayer (after some airbrush spraying
to protect the surface). You can apply a thin coat of resin-based
varnish or Golden self-leveling polymer to bring the dmax to 2.4+ but
you'd end up with too much surface reflection.

However with such paper as H. William Turner, and only this paper, I
seriously scrub the surface prior to printing (sort of tenderizing it,
making it feel like prewashed denim) and then use the Lascaux. The
Golden polymer turns this paper into a cardboard which neither looks
nor feels good.

Still I'm learning to resist the temptation to get max dmax on every
print via glossy papers or (wet) coating on matte. And I must admit it
took me a long time to learn to appreciate the soft, seemingly lack of
punch, look of fine art papers.

--nick

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Steve Kale
<stevekale@b...> wrote:

> Not on matte paper (by this I mean a non resin-coated paper).  I 
> think the best we have seen is 1.6-7 and a coated that helps protect
> without diminishing dMax eg Lascaux fixative.  To exceed these dMax 
> values and hence obtain a greater dynamic range to work with we need
> to move to resin coated papers and "photo black" ink.  Some have 
> noted higher densities on matte paper but from dye rather than 
> pigment inks.  John Edmunds once referenced 2.1 on matte paper but 
> did not disclose the ink.
> 
> 
> > From: "Nick H. Nugent" <nghin@p...>
> ... Is there such a thing as a
> > coating that boosts dmax to 2.2 and leaves alone the beautiful 
> > tactile feel? ...

But, photographic papers had a MUCH lower range of reproducible tones than
digital/inkjet are capable of creating.  

Even in color, the negative and scanner is capable of a much higher dynamic
range than a type C print can produce.

Seth

==-----Original Message-----
==From: B. Ellis [mailto:bellis60@...] 

==
==I don't think so. I've kind of wondered about the concern 
==shown in so many messages posted here with dmax or the lack 
==thereof.  In traditional photographic printing dmax is mostly 
==a theoretical concept in the sense that real prints don't 
==need to exhibit true dmax in the darkest areas and doing 
==tends to result in there being no separation of tones within 
==the important shadow areas of the print. Even the ANSI 
==standard for stating the exposure range of papers doesn't use 
==dmax as the starting point, it uses 90% of dmax.
==
---snip--
==
==The difference between the densities of 1.7 and 2.2 mentioned 
==in the message below is a difference of a little over one and 
==a half stops or approximately the difference between zone 1 
==and high zone 2 in zone system terms. I think it's pretty 
==well agreed that at least in traditional darkroom printing 
==there's no practical difference between Zones I and II (a 
==difference can be seen but only when the two zones are placed 
==next to each other so that the darker tone is available for 
==reference).  If the same is true with ink jet prints perhaps 
==that's one of the reasons why the two prints in question 
==looked alike despite the different measurements for dmax with 
==the two types of paper.