Digital BW, The Print

Those work for me and how I've understood them.

Diane

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Djon 
  To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Friday, March 11, 2005 10:49 AM
  Subject: [Digital BW] Let's simplify nomenclature



  "Glossy" has a very specific meaning in photography. It means maximum
  shiny, with no texture. Variations on that theme are not "glossy."

  There are a variety of "semi-gloss surfaces," ranging from dull gloss
  to faintly pebbled texture/shiney materials that are typically on
  resin coated paper. 

  There are a variety of "matte" surfaces, some of which are dead flat
  matte with no texture, such as Epson Enhanced Matte (a benchmark
  product because it's so good at what it does and so widely
  distributed), and various "art" surfaces, some of which are naturally
  somewhat textured, some of which are highly textured.

  There are also various "canvas" textures.

  With the exception of "art" surface, these terms have been in heavy
  use by photographers for decades: "glossy," "semi-gloss," and "matte".
  There is no excuse for adding to confusion by refusing to use the
  commonly accepted terms. 





  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]

While we are at it let's define RC paper in its INKJET form.  This is after all a digital print 
forum...  At least over the last two years this has meant resin coated "photo" inkjet paper 
encompassing all glossy, semi-gloss and semi-matte inkjet paper.  Not to be confused 
with the wet darkroom paper of similar name which everyone seems to dislike.  


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Diane Fields" <picnic@c...> 
wrote:

> Those work for me and how I've understood them.
> 
> Diane
>   ----- Original Message ----- 
>   From: Djon 
>   To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com 
>   Sent: Friday, March 11, 2005 10:49 AM
>   Subject: [Digital BW] Let's simplify nomenclature
> 
> 
> 
>   "Glossy" has a very specific meaning in photography. It means maximum
>   shiny, with no texture. Variations on that theme are not "glossy."
> 
>   There are a variety of "semi-gloss surfaces," ranging from dull gloss
>   to faintly pebbled texture/shiney materials that are typically on
>   resin coated paper. 
> 
>   There are a variety of "matte" surfaces, some of which are dead flat
>   matte with no texture, such as Epson Enhanced Matte (a benchmark
>   product because it's so good at what it does and so widely
>   distributed), and various "art" surfaces, some of which are naturally
>   somewhat textured, some of which are highly textured.
> 
>   There are also various "canvas" textures.
> 
>   With the exception of "art" surface, these terms have been in heavy
>   use by photographers for decades: "glossy," "semi-gloss," and "matte".
>   There is no excuse for adding to confusion by refusing to use the
>   commonly accepted terms.

Steve, there's no universal dislike for glossy. 

Many on this forum personally find it attractive...and like it or not,
many MUST use glossy for certain clients (eg model headshots, band
publicity,  press kits etc. 

I think it's worthwhile to remember that some printers, the
essentially-discontinued 1280 and the still-current 2200 and 4000 for
example, are simply not built for glossy printing, though obviously
some folks work hard to produce glossy with them. 

Happily there are alternative printers that are designed for glossy,
...they make glop interesting but ultimately not very worthwhile,
especially since glop doesn't help the printers do the job for which
they were designed (color and/or B&W). 


<stevekale@b...> wrote:
> 
> While we are at it let's define RC paper in its INKJET form.  This
is after all a digital print 
> forum...  At least over the last two years this has meant resin
coated "photo" inkjet paper 
> encompassing all glossy, semi-gloss and semi-matte inkjet paper. 
Not to be confused 
> with the wet darkroom paper of similar name which everyone seems to
dislike.

I agree with you.  Not to get fussy, though, if we include semi-gloss and
semi-matte, where do we put that very fine line?

Just as Cibachrome Pearl was more glossy than Ilford Pearl, if they have a
luster they're a semi-gloss, IMO.

Seth

==-----Original Message-----
==From: Steve Kale [mailto:stevekale@...] 
==
==
==This is after all a digital print forum...  At least over the 
==last two years this has meant resin coated "photo" inkjet 
==paper encompassing all glossy, semi-gloss and semi-matte 
==inkjet paper.  Not to be confused with the wet darkroom paper

I never said their was a universal dislike for glossy. I said "everyone
seems to dislike" the "darkroom paper of similar name" to "RC". I said
nothing about whether I liked or disliked glossy.  I will now say that I do
like my glop coated semi-matte prints on either Epson Premium Semi-matte,
Epson Premium Luster or Ilford Smooth Pearl papers.

And by the way, have you tried glop?  Have you seen a print on semi matte
paper using UT7 inks and then coated with glop?  They are not "glossy".  As
for whether printers were designed for it or not, I think you have got
things in reverse chronological order.  Gloss optimizer was clearly invented
post the development of the 2200 printer.  It is a first attempt by Epson to
deal with one of the big issues of pigment inks on Resin Coated media (ooh
there's that term again).  It has been retained by the R1800. When Epson do
decide to replace the 2200 who knows what it might contain.  The large
format printers will always be slower on the technology curve.  Why?
Because these are typically business critical machines and not the right
place for a manufacturer to publicly explore new methods.  I can assure you
that Epson is very conscious of the big negative associated with the new UC
pigments inks - bronzing and gloss differential.  Gloss optimizer on the
R800/1800 is a first attempt to deal with this issue.  Smart people can
often find ways to use new ideas/procedures without having to replace their
existing equipment.  The use of glop in a 2200, 4000 or 7600 is a good
example of this.  Glop is not the be-all and end-all.  It has a few
drawbacks.  But prior to its advent, the printing of either colour or B&W on
Resin Coated inkjet media was really a waste of time.  We are slowly
improving our craft with new techniques, new materials and new ideas.

> From: Djon <westsidemaurice@...>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2005 16:31:03 -0000
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Let's simplify nomenclature
> 
> 
> 
> Steve, there's no universal dislike for glossy.
> 
> Many on this forum personally find it attractive...and like it or not,
> many MUST use glossy for certain clients (eg model headshots, band
> publicity,  press kits etc.
> 
> I think it's worthwhile to remember that some printers, the
> essentially-discontinued 1280 and the still-current 2200 and 4000 for
> example, are simply not built for glossy printing, though obviously
> some folks work hard to produce glossy with them.
> 
> Happily there are alternative printers that are designed for glossy,
> ...they make glop interesting but ultimately not very worthwhile,
> especially since glop doesn't help the printers do the job for which
> they were designed (color and/or B&W).
> 
> 
> <stevekale@b...> wrote:
>> 
>> While we are at it let's define RC paper in its INKJET form.  This
> is after all a digital print
>> forum...  At least over the last two years this has meant resin
> coated "photo" inkjet paper
>> encompassing all glossy, semi-gloss and semi-matte inkjet paper.
> Not to be confused
>> with the wet darkroom paper of similar name which everyone seems to
> dislike.  
>

Exactly - like shades of grey there are an infinite number of gradations
between pure gloss (perfect sheen by a former definition) and matte.  That
is why we have broadly talked about matte papers (made of wood fibre or
cotton etc which we know have various degrees of texture and brightness) and
resin coated or RC papers (which encompasses the gamut from glossy to
semi-matte).

> From: Seth <seth@...>
> Organization: Serh Rossman Photography
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2005 12:00:46 -0500
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: RE: [Digital BW] Let's simplify nomenclature
> 
> 
>  I agree with you.  Not to get fussy, though, if we include semi-gloss and
> semi-matte, where do we put that very fine line?
> 
> Just as Cibachrome Pearl was more glossy than Ilford Pearl, if they have a
> luster they're a semi-gloss, IMO.
> 
> Seth
>

Steve,

It's the slippery nature of semi-* that calls out for
a list standard listing of papers and where the fit on
the gloss-matte continuum. I think we all agree about
the ends but the middle is where the trouble starts.

Guy
--- Steve Kale <stevekale@...> wrote:
> Exactly - like shades of grey there are an infinite
> number of gradations
> between pure gloss (perfect sheen by a former
> definition) and matte.  That
> is why we have broadly talked about matte papers
> (made of wood fibre or
> cotton etc which we know have various degrees of
> texture and brightness) and
> resin coated or RC papers (which encompasses the
> gamut from glossy to
> semi-matte).
> 
> 
> > From: Seth <seth@...>
> > Organization: Serh Rossman Photography
> > Reply-To:
> <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> > Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2005 12:00:46 -0500
> > To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> > Subject: RE: [Digital BW] Let's simplify
> nomenclature
> > 
> > 
> >  I agree with you.  Not to get fussy, though, if
> we include semi-gloss and
> > semi-matte, where do we put that very fine line?
> > 
> > Just as Cibachrome Pearl was more glossy than
> Ilford Pearl, if they have a
> > luster they're a semi-gloss, IMO.
> > 
> > Seth
> > 
> 
> 
> 


		
__________________________________ 
Do you Yahoo!? 
Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/

I don't think we can agree about the ends - they will forever change.
Perfect gloss doesn't exist.  What is perfect matte?  We have a continuum
that at one ever shifting point currently requires a cross over from fibrous
paper (eg cotton) to resin coated paper.  At best we can say it is "semi" ie
not right at either end but more towards the middle and more to one end than
the other...semi-matte or semi-gloss.  These are not scientific definitions
but rather passionate adjectives.

> From: guy washburn <guido02474@...>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2005 11:28:05 -0800 (PST)
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Let's simplify nomenclature
> 
> 
> Steve,
> 
> It's the slippery nature of semi-* that calls out for
> a list standard listing of papers and where the fit on
> the gloss-matte continuum. I think we all agree about
> the ends but the middle is where the trouble starts.
> 
> Guy

There are also a few "hybrid" fiber base inkjet papers available that 
have "RC" coatings.  The Lyson Darkroom Range papers and the Oriental 
FB papers are examples and there may be others.

Carl

On Mar 11, 2005, at 3:27 PM, Steve Kale wrote:

>
> I don't think we can agree about the ends - they will forever change.
> Perfect gloss doesn't exist.  What is perfect matte?  We have a 
> continuum
> that at one ever shifting point currently requires a cross over from 
> fibrous
> paper (eg cotton) to resin coated paper.  At best we can say it is 
> "semi" ie
> not right at either end but more towards the middle and more to one 
> end than
> the other...semi-matte or semi-gloss.  These are not scientific 
> definitions
> but rather passionate adjectives.
>
>
>> From: guy washburn <guido02474@...>
>> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
>> Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2005 11:28:05 -0800 (PST)
>> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
>> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Let's simplify nomenclature
>>
>>
>> Steve,
>>
>> It's the slippery nature of semi-* that calls out for
>> a list standard listing of papers and where the fit on
>> the gloss-matte continuum. I think we all agree about
>> the ends but the middle is where the trouble starts.
>>
>> Guy
>

I think communication should be enhanced rather than confused.
Therefore I think "we" might want to accept Eastman Kodak's terminology, 
if only out of respect...after all, Edward Weston himself was wildly
excited to finally get "Kodabromide" after suffering all those earlier
papers, which he hated.

Why don't we just leave the terminology for the old silver gel darkroom 
papers in the past where they belong and move on.  There are and will 
be many new papers for inkjet use that have properties you can't 
keyhole into the old silver based paper descriptions.

Carl

On Mar 11, 2005, at 3:58 PM, Djon wrote:

>
>
>  I think communication should be enhanced rather than confused.
> Therefore I think "we" might want to accept Eastman Kodak's 
> terminology,
> if only out of respect...after all, Edward Weston himself was wildly
> excited to finally get "Kodabromide" after suffering all those earlier
> papers, which he hated.

Then for clarity let's stop using the generic terms we
can't agree on and just use paper brand and name.
Because saying you got a particular result on a semi-
anything or an RC something else is meaningless.

Guy
--- Steve Kale <stevekale@...> wrote:
> I don't think we can agree about the ends - they
> will forever change.
> Perfect gloss doesn't exist.  What is perfect matte?
>  We have a continuum
> that at one ever shifting point currently requires a
> cross over from fibrous
> paper (eg cotton) to resin coated paper.  At best we
> can say it is "semi" ie
> not right at either end but more towards the middle
> and more to one end than
> the other...semi-matte or semi-gloss.  These are not
> scientific definitions
> but rather passionate adjectives.
> 
> 
> > From: guy washburn <guido02474@...>
> > Reply-To:
> <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> > Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2005 11:28:05 -0800 (PST)
> > To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> > Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Let's simplify
> nomenclature
> > 
> > 
> > Steve,
> > 
> > It's the slippery nature of semi-* that calls out
> for
> > a list standard listing of papers and where the
> fit on
> > the gloss-matte continuum. I think we all agree
> about
> > the ends but the middle is where the trouble
> starts.
> > 
> > Guy
> 
> 
> 


		
__________________________________ 
Do you Yahoo!? 
Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/

Good idea.  From now on Epson Premium Glossy shall be known as Epsobromide.
Now, if we could only get them to make it in grades 3 and 4. <BGGG>

Seth

==-----Original Message-----
==From: Djon [mailto:westsidemaurice@...] 

==
== I think communication should be enhanced rather than confused.
==Therefore I think "we" might want to accept Eastman Kodak's 
==terminology, if only out of respect...after all, Edward 
==Weston himself was wildly excited to finally get 
=="Kodabromide" after suffering all those earlier papers, which 
==he hated.
==