Digital BW, The Print

There has been a lot of discussion over extended periods on the group regarding matte 
and glossy dmax. Is it true that light SCATTERED at the paper surface is what gives a matte 
surface its look, and that very same scattering is what reduces dmax? And with a glossy 
paper less light is scattered, more is REFLECTED, dmax is greater, and you have the 
glossyness to deal with. In other words isn't it true that you can't have a matte surface with 
a truely large dmax? Aren't paper surface/glossiness and dmax directly related in a way we 
wish they weren't? Is it physically possible to separate the two? Any thoughts?

Dave

Dave,

I think the best example that shows that the surface reflective
characteristics are the main differences between matte and glossy papers
with respect to dmax is that an Arches Hot Press, un-coated print jumps from
about 1.5 to 2.5 with multiple coats of, for example, acrylic, applied to
its surface to give it a gloss.

The spectrophotometers we use for measuring dmax use nearly perfect lighting
that avoids the problems of reflections.  This gives the glossy papers a
huge advantage.  

In the real world, a matte print sitting on my desk top appears to have a
better dmax than a gloss print because the glossy print dmax is wiped out by
reflections.  That is, the nature of the lighting is what makes all the
difference.  If the display conditions are perfect, the glossy prints are
terrific.  If the lighting is bad, like a window behind the viewer, matte
wins.  

Of course, if one puts glass over matte, you may end up with the worst of
both worlds.  So, my favorite is a sprayed Semimatte with no glass.  But, I
think both types of prints are important, and being able to print either
matte or glossy is a critical part of any inkset I mix.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
> davelongviews
> Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2005 7:29 AM
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [Digital BW] Matte versus glossy dmax: a matter of physics?
> 
> There has been a lot of discussion over extended periods on the group
> regarding matte
> and glossy dmax. Is it true that light SCATTERED at the paper surface is
> what gives a matte
> surface its look, and that very same scattering is what reduces dmax? And
> with a glossy
> paper less light is scattered, more is REFLECTED, dmax is greater, and you
> have the
> glossyness to deal with. In other words isn't it true that you can't have
> a matte surface with
> a truely large dmax? Aren't paper surface/glossiness and dmax directly
> related in a way we
> wish they weren't? Is it physically possible to separate the two? Any
> thoughts?
> 
> Dave
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> 
>

The colour black is the sensation we perceive due to the absence of (in this
case) reflected light.  Most of today's spectrophotometers project D50
lighting at 0 degrees and measure the light reflected back at 45 degrees.
The deeper blacks on photo paper with photo black ink have higher dMax
because they reflect less light not more.  The fact that photo papers
produce a less diffuse reflection contributes to their sheen characteristic
but not their increased dMax.  It's the properties of the ink and other
coatings in/on the paper which affect its ability to absorb light.  The
specular reflection characteristics of the surface are a different issue?

I think what you are saying is that you are prepared to sacrifice dMax in
order to achieve less specular, more diffuse, reflection properties -
particularly if you don't have "perfect" lighting. (I agree.)  But this is
not to say that glossy papers have an inherent advantage.  In fact their
reflection properties is a big disadvantage - it is lucky they have better
dMax to make up for it.  The question at hand is how much dMax loss are you
prepared to take in order to have a more diffuse reflection? The answer
probably hasn't changed much over the years (although I doubt it's been
measured), only the relevant performance of each competing type of
paper/ink.

> From: Paul Roark <paul.roark@...>

> 
> The spectrophotometers we use for measuring dmax use nearly perfect lighting
> that avoids the problems of reflections.  This gives the glossy papers a
> huge advantage.  
> 
> In the real world, a matte print sitting on my desk top appears to have a
> better dmax than a gloss print because the glossy print dmax is wiped out by
> reflections.  That is, the nature of the lighting is what makes all the
> difference.  If the display conditions are perfect, the glossy prints are
> terrific.  If the lighting is bad, like a window behind the viewer, matte
> wins.  
> 
>

> The colour black is the sensation we perceive due to the absence of (in this
> case) reflected light. 

Good point, although I don't agree entirely. Black is the absence of light, period. If light is 
either scattered back to the viewer from the object, or reflected, either way it makes gray 
shall we say.

Most of today's spectrophotometers project D50
> lighting at 0 degrees and measure the light reflected back at 45 degrees.
> The deeper blacks on photo paper with photo black ink have higher dMax
> because they reflect less light not more. 

Again, I don't know if I agree. Reflected light reflects back at the same angle it goes in 
(towards the paper surface in this case). In the case of the 45 degree angle with the 
spectrophotometer, the photo papers reflect more (back at 0 degrees) but don't scatter as 
much (back to 45 degrees the way matte papers do). Thus photo versus matte papers 
show higher dmax as measured at 45 degrees. So to my way of thinking dmax and 
glossyness are inextricably tied. Witness Pauls observations on Arches hot press. It is not 
just "lucky" that glossy papers have a higher dmax. It's because they are glossy that they 
have a high dmax. Put another way: Matte surfaces scatter a lot of light relative to glossy. 
Light coming into a surface is scattered at a wide range of angles, making everything in 
effect grey.

>The fact that photo papers
> produce a less diffuse reflection contributes to their sheen characteristic
> but not their increased dMax.  It's the properties of the ink and other
> coatings in/on the paper which affect its ability to absorb light.  The
> specular reflection characteristics of the surface are a different issue?
> 
> I think what you are saying is that you are prepared to sacrifice dMax in
> order to achieve less specular, more diffuse, reflection properties -
> particularly if you don't have "perfect" lighting. (I agree.)  But this is
> not to say that glossy papers have an inherent advantage.  In fact their
> reflection properties is a big disadvantage - it is lucky they have better
> dMax to make up for it.  The question at hand is how much dMax loss are you
> prepared to take in order to have a more diffuse reflection? The answer
> probably hasn't changed much over the years (although I doubt it's been
> measured), only the relevant performance of each competing type of
> paper/ink.
> 
> 
> > From: Paul Roark <paul.roark@v...>
> 
> > 
> > The spectrophotometers we use for measuring dmax use nearly perfect lighting
> > that avoids the problems of reflections.  This gives the glossy papers a
> > huge advantage.  
> > 
> > In the real world, a matte print sitting on my desk top appears to have a
> > better dmax than a gloss print because the glossy print dmax is wiped out by
> > reflections.  That is, the nature of the lighting is what makes all the
> > difference.  If the display conditions are perfect, the glossy prints are
> > terrific.  If the lighting is bad, like a window behind the viewer, matte
> > wins.  
> > 
> >

davelongviews wrote:

> There has been a lot of discussion over extended periods on the group 
> regarding matte and glossy dmax. Is it true that light SCATTERED at 
> the paper surface is what gives a matte surface its look, and that 
> very same scattering is what reduces dmax? And with a glossy paper 
> less light is scattered, more is REFLECTED, dmax is greater, and you 
> have the glossyness to deal with. In other words isn't it true that 
> you can't have a matte surface with a truely large dmax? Aren't paper 
> surface/glossiness and dmax directly related in a way we wish they 
> weren't? Is it physically possible to separate the two? Any thoughts?
>
> Dave
>
>
Yes to all. This is explained pretty well in the book /Light Science & 
Magic/ by Hunter and Fuqua IIRC. In the early chapters they cover how 
objects reflect light. I can't find the book right off, so I'll have to 
broadly paraphrase.

Basically, matte object give a diffuse reflection, while glossy objects 
give off direct reflection. If you are looking at a matte print on axis, 
light coming from anywhere in front of the print is reflected difusely - 
that is, light coming in at a 10 degree angle is reflected back fairly 
equally across a 180 degree hemisphere. Some of this light reflects to 
your eyes.

If you try that with a glossy print, the light coming in at a 10 degree 
angle is reflected back off the print at 170 degrees. Almost none of it 
will reflect back into your eyes.

What it all comes down to is, glossy surfaces reflect less light into 
your eyes. It's the essence of being glossy. And it's the reason that 
glossy surfaces exhibit greater Dmax.
--
Bruce Watson

Thanks very much Bruce for the informative reply. Say, is that book Light Science and 
Magic woth a read for printer types?

> 
> > There has been a lot of discussion over extended periods on the group 
> > regarding matte and glossy dmax. Is it true that light SCATTERED at 
> > the paper surface is what gives a matte surface its look, and that 
> > very same scattering is what reduces dmax? And with a glossy paper 
> > less light is scattered, more is REFLECTED, dmax is greater, and you 
> > have the glossyness to deal with. In other words isn't it true that 
> > you can't have a matte surface with a truely large dmax? Aren't paper 
> > surface/glossiness and dmax directly related in a way we wish they 
> > weren't? Is it physically possible to separate the two? Any thoughts?
> >
> > Dave
> >
> >
> Yes to all. This is explained pretty well in the book /Light Science & 
> Magic/ by Hunter and Fuqua IIRC. In the early chapters they cover how 
> objects reflect light. I can't find the book right off, so I'll have to 
> broadly paraphrase.
> 
> Basically, matte object give a diffuse reflection, while glossy objects 
> give off direct reflection. If you are looking at a matte print on axis, 
> light coming from anywhere in front of the print is reflected difusely - 
> that is, light coming in at a 10 degree angle is reflected back fairly 
> equally across a 180 degree hemisphere. Some of this light reflects to 
> your eyes.
> 
> If you try that with a glossy print, the light coming in at a 10 degree 
> angle is reflected back off the print at 170 degrees. Almost none of it 
> will reflect back into your eyes.
> 
> What it all comes down to is, glossy surfaces reflect less light into 
> your eyes. It's the essence of being glossy. And it's the reason that 
> glossy surfaces exhibit greater Dmax.
> --
> Bruce Watson

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

> The deeper blacks on photo paper with photo black ink have higher dMax
> because they reflect less light not more. 

Actually that is only true in the spectrometer example. They really do
reflect more concentrated light. Just not where the spectrometer is
looking. 

>The fact that photo papers
> produce a less diffuse reflection contributes to their sheen
characteristic
> but not their increased dMax.

The issues are pretty much one and the same from a practical
perspective. If the light direction enhances the "sheen" you have
visually less d'max and if it reduces the sheen you have more.

>It's the properties of the ink and other
> coatings in/on the paper which affect its ability to absorb light.

Yes, like glossy,satin, or matt coatings vs equal opacity/absorbant inks.


>The
> specular reflection characteristics of the surface are a different
issue?
> 

I think it is - the - main issue. If you could get d'max 3.0, via an
ink improvement, on matt, it's not going to alter the specular
relationships. Glossy could still do better.( under certain
circumstances ie: 45 degree lighting )

> I think what you are saying is that you are prepared to sacrifice
dMax in
> order to achieve less specular, more diffuse, reflection properties -
> particularly if you don't have "perfect" lighting. (I agree.)  But
this is
> not to say that glossy papers have an inherent advantage.  In fact their
> reflection properties is a big disadvantage - it is lucky they have
better
> dMax to make up for it.

I don't think they do.

>The question at hand is how much dMax loss are you
> prepared to take in order to have a more diffuse reflection? The answer
> probably hasn't changed much over the years (although I doubt it's been
> measured), only the relevant performance of each competing type of
> paper/ink.
> 
> 
> > From: Paul Roark <paul.roark@v...>
> 
> > 
> > The spectrophotometers we use for measuring dmax use nearly
perfect lighting
> > that avoids the problems of reflections.  This gives the glossy
papers a
> > huge advantage.  
> > 
> > In the real world, a matte print sitting on my desk top appears to
have a
> > better dmax than a gloss print because the glossy print dmax is
wiped out by
> > reflections.  That is, the nature of the lighting is what makes
all the
> > difference.  If the display conditions are perfect, the glossy
prints are
> > terrific.  If the lighting is bad, like a window behind the
viewer, matte

> > wins.  
> > 
> >

davelongviews wrote:

> Thanks very much Bruce for the informative reply. Say, is that book 
> Light Science and
> Magic woth a read for printer types?
>
The Hunter and Fuqua book is actually about studio lighting for 
photographers. They explain it from an interesting point of view, and 
make it very easy to understand how to use lights and control 
reflections while capturing an image. It's certainly worth reading if 
you are interested in learning how things work.

If you are a straight up print maker, it might help you understand your 
photographer and art reproduction customers better because it explains 
what they go though to capture well lit images of 3d and 2d objects. The 
book is about the front end image capture though, not about processing 
or printing the captured image.
--
Bruce Watson

Paul,

What spray are you using on you prints.  With MIS ink I assume.

Thanks
M Stratton


On May 25, 2005, at 11:39 AM, Paul Roark wrote:

> Dave,
>
>  I think the best example that shows that the surface reflective
>  characteristics are the main differences between matte and glossy 
> papers
>  with respect to dmax is that an Arches Hot Press, un-coated print 
> jumps from
>  about 1.5 to 2.5 with multiple coats of, for example, acrylic, 
> applied to
>  its surface to give it a gloss.
>
>  The spectrophotometers we use for measuring dmax use nearly perfect 
> lighting
>  that avoids the problems of reflections.� This gives the glossy 
> papers a
>  huge advantage.�
>
>  In the real world, a matte print sitting on my desk top appears to 
> have a
>  better dmax than a gloss print because the glossy print dmax is wiped 
> out by
>  reflections.� That is, the nature of the lighting is what makes all 
> the
>  difference.� If the display conditions are perfect, the glossy prints 
> are
>  terrific.� If the lighting is bad, like a window behind the viewer, 
> matte
>  wins.�
>
>  Of course, if one puts glass over matte, you may end up with the 
> worst of
>  both worlds.� So, my favorite is a sprayed Semimatte with no glass.� 
> But, I
>  think both types of prints are important, and being able to print 
> either
>  matte or glossy is a critical part of any inkset I mix.
>
>  Paul
>  www.PaulRoark.com
>
>
>  > -----Original Message-----
>  > From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
>  > [mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
>  > davelongviews
>  > Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2005 7:29 AM
>  > To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
>  > Subject: [Digital BW] Matte versus glossy dmax: a matter of physics?
>  >
>  > There has been a lot of discussion over extended periods on the 
> group
>  > regarding matte
>  > and glossy dmax. Is it true that light SCATTERED at the paper 
> surface is
>  > what gives a matte
>  > surface its look, and that very same scattering is what reduces 
> dmax? And
>  > with a glossy
>  > paper less light is scattered, more is REFLECTED, dmax is greater, 
> and you
>  > have the
>  > glossyness to deal with. In other words isn't it true that you 
> can't have
>  > a matte surface with
>  > a truely large dmax? Aren't paper surface/glossiness and dmax 
> directly
>  > related in a way we
>  > wish they weren't? Is it physically possible to separate the two? 
> Any
>  > thoughts?
>  >
>  > Dave
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  > 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
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >
>
>
>
>
>
> 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 the Yahoo! Terms of 
> Service.
>
>
Margaret Stratton
Obermann Center Research Scholar
Professor of Art
Department of Art and Art History
Iowa City, IA  52245
www.margaretstratton.com


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

When creating a neutral profile, how far into the highlights do you try to
"force" neutral against a paper with brighteners.
I'm about to try making a QTR profile for my 2200 using Kirkland glossy with
UC ink, and was wondering if there was any general thoughts on this.

John




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

John,

My approach is to let my "neutral" profiles favor the color of the 
paper white somewhat.  So, for a bluish white paper, I will skew the 
entire profile slightly to the cool side.  For warm papers, I skew them 
slightly to the warm side.  These are not huge color moves, but subtle 
moves.  As you approach paper white, you move toward its color and I 
prefer to work with the paper, rather than having a profile that is 
dead on neutral until it reaches paper white and shows a shift.  Others 
may prefer a different approach, but this works for me.  

Lou

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "John Moody" 
<moodymz3@y...> wrote:
> When creating a neutral profile, how far into the highlights do you 
try to
> "force" neutral against a paper with brighteners.
> I'm about to try making a QTR profile for my 2200 using Kirkland 
glossy with

> UC ink, and was wondering if there was any general thoughts on this.
> 
> John
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

> 
>> >snippet<
> 
> In the real world, a matte print sitting on my desk top appears to have a
> better dmax than a gloss print because the glossy print dmax is wiped out by
> reflections.  That is, the nature of the lighting is what makes all the
> difference.  If the display conditions are perfect, the glossy prints are
> terrific.  If the lighting is bad, like a window behind the viewer, matte
> wins.  
> 
> Of course, if one puts glass over matte, you may end up with the worst of
> both worlds.  So, my favorite is a sprayed Semimatte with no glass.  But, I
> think both types of prints are important, and being able to print either
> matte or glossy is a critical part of any inkset I mix.
> 
> Paul
> www.PaulRoark.com
> 
I¹d gone solidly matte in my inkjet printing well before it became clear
that that is where the wind was blowing in the whole quality inkjet scene.
Using a 1200 when it first came out. I was happy my ³taste² seemed to have
been vindicated as most my early inkjet printing pals were doing gloss and
went for the high saturation gusto with Canon printers. I was surprised to
see myself going matte in my new inkjet printing as this as I had a decades
long background in darkroom work and was immersed pretty much in Ansel Adams
aesthetic-
Which described how the range of black to white with darkroom paper was so
limited in compared to gloss; and dried down gloss even.
Working with matt in the darkroom is a disaster although I know one guy, an
art director who does ok with it but with a dry to dry processor and RC.
Mat in the darkroom unless you are big with the hair dryer and or microwave
results in prints which end up drying down to be at least a grade flat and a
zone dark.
But in the darkroom world for serious printers it¹s dried down fiber ³F²
paper.  Gloss paper which dries down almost matte. With a subtle but
completely un troublesome sheen. I¹d call it gorgeous.
RC ³paper² has not been able to come close to matching it.
I has just a slight sheen which picks up contrast considerably with out
seemingly creating reflections which get in the way.
Ilford it seems has tried to recreate that in their inkjet paper but my
impression so far is it¹s looked upon as just being cheap and looks cheap
and is cheap. like RC darkroom paper.
I stick to Ilford fiber in the darkroom by the way and don¹t play around
with the other very tempting papers.
Serious inkjet work seems to be a matte thing. Which is ok with me.
I¹d worked intensively also on the intaglio press with lots of fine
watercolor papers and the aesthetic already appealed to me I could see for
some printmaking forms. And ³inkjet² is a new printmaking form.
Commercial photographers who want a fine art look and these are many and
include me also go that matte route.
But if it just had a hint of gloss like what we are used to in our darkroom
work it would seem to be ideal.
Then let them try to tell our darkroom prints from our inkjets without a
loupe of the sizes were the same!

___

I find it amazing that sprays are gaining in credibility in this new
printmaking age.
They were certainly a disastrous no no in the darkroom age. I¹m having
trouble reconciling myself to the idea of spraying my prints.
When I starting out printing in the 60¹s the darkroom books I was using were
written in the 50¹s and 40¹s and talked about routine spraying.
My results were all fairly disastrous and I learned much later that sprays
were not even close to being considered archival. My experience sure for me
already bore that out.
But that was then - this is now. The science of aerosol I could see having
come a long way.
But I¹m sure hoping for ideal an ideal paper which doesn't need to be
sprayed.





Mark Rabiner
Photography
Portland Oregon
http://rabinergroup.com/





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

Hi John,

I am using Kirkland Glossy / QTR and UC inks, without a colorimeter 
I am having a hard time getting a neutral tone, is there any chance 
that you would be willing to share the profile you create with the 
group?

Regards

Martin 

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "John Moody" 
<moodymz3@y...> wrote:
> When creating a neutral profile, how far into the highlights do 
you try to
> "force" neutral against a paper with brighteners.
> I'm about to try making a QTR profile for my 2200 using Kirkland 
glossy with
> UC ink, and was wondering if there was any general thoughts on 
this.

> 
> John
>

Hmmmm  This is interesting.  I am happy to proven wrong on this but I still
don't believe that the greater dMax of photo paper is purely attributable to
the way it is measured.  I agree that because matte paper scatters the light
produced by a densitometer more so than photo paper that all else being
equal the chances are that more light hits the sensor at 45 degrees even if
the total amount of reflected light is the same for both.  But if you have a
perfectly diffuse light source then the reflection characteristics (in terms
of the angles of reflection) of matte paper and photo paper converge.  Light
is hitting both from all angles and being reflected at all angles.  I do not
believe that a matte black square and a photo black square look the same
black under very diffuse lighting sources.  For any given surface this
property could arguably be measured by comparing readings from a d/0 degrees
(diffuse light source) instrument - excluding the specular component.

> From: <hogarth@...>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Wed, 25 May 2005 15:07:58 -0400
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Matte versus glossy dmax: a matter of physics?
> 
> davelongviews wrote:
> 
>> There has been a lot of discussion over extended periods on the group
>> regarding matte and glossy dmax. Is it true that light SCATTERED at
>> the paper surface is what gives a matte surface its look, and that
>> very same scattering is what reduces dmax? And with a glossy paper
>> less light is scattered, more is REFLECTED, dmax is greater, and you
>> have the glossyness to deal with. In other words isn't it true that
>> you can't have a matte surface with a truely large dmax? Aren't paper
>> surface/glossiness and dmax directly related in a way we wish they
>> weren't? Is it physically possible to separate the two? Any thoughts?
>> 
>> Dave
>> 
>> 
> Yes to all. This is explained pretty well in the book /Light Science &
> Magic/ by Hunter and Fuqua IIRC. In the early chapters they cover how
> objects reflect light. I can't find the book right off, so I'll have to
> broadly paraphrase.
> 
> Basically, matte object give a diffuse reflection, while glossy objects
> give off direct reflection. If you are looking at a matte print on axis,
> light coming from anywhere in front of the print is reflected difusely -
> that is, light coming in at a 10 degree angle is reflected back fairly
> equally across a 180 degree hemisphere. Some of this light reflects to
> your eyes.
> 
> If you try that with a glossy print, the light coming in at a 10 degree
> angle is reflected back off the print at 170 degrees. Almost none of it
> will reflect back into your eyes.
> 
> What it all comes down to is, glossy surfaces reflect less light into
> your eyes. It's the essence of being glossy. And it's the reason that
> glossy surfaces exhibit greater Dmax.
> --
> Bruce Watson
> 
>

You are forgetting refraction and defraction in and by the matte surface.

On the other hand, the lack of reflection, etc. should make it DARKER to a
reflection densitometer; the more light absorbed, the darker the object.

My guess (purely speculative, so attack now!!) is MUCH of the difference can
be in the chemistry of the matte coating (tiny crystalline surfaces?) that
can change light characteristics as to densitometers. Different
manufacturers, different chemical make-up.  A LOT of possibilities.

Seth

==-----Original Message-----
==Behalf Of Steve Kale

==same for both.  But if you have a perfectly diffuse light 
==source then the reflection characteristics (in terms of the 
==angles of reflection) of matte paper and photo paper 
==converge.  Light is hitting both from all angles and being 
==reflected at all angles.  I do not believe that a matte black 
==square and a photo black square look the same black under 
==very diffuse lighting sources.  For any given surface this 

-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.322 / Virus Database: 266.11.16 - Release Date: 5/24/2005

Lou, thanks for the tip, that was helpful.

I created one cool and one warm profile for Kirkland glossy, UC ink on a
2200.
With warm mixed 35% into the cool, the blue yellow transition is at Lab* 50,
and the red-green is within +/-0.5 of neutral up to Lab* 55, then peaks up
to +2.3 as it heads towards full black.  DMax is 2.23 before drying or
spraying.  I’m not sure what to do or make of the blue shift at 100% black.
I did not use any gray overlap in the cool profile; should I?
For my first somewhat serious attempt at a profile, I feel this is a good
start.

I would appreciate any comments or criticisms on the results, and
suggestions for moving forward.
LAB_L  LAB_A  LAB_B  Density
93.66    -0.59     -6.07     0.073
89.27    -0.34     -5.68     0.126
84.75    -0.14     -5.18     0.184
80.15    -0.04     -4.72     0.245
75.53    0.15      -4.04     0.309
71.05    0.19      -3.31     0.374
66.55    0.24      -2.70     0.443
62.07    0.28      -1.96     0.516
57.80    0.27      -1.37     0.589
53.29    0.29      -0.75     0.671
48.91    0.31      0.18      0.756
44.40    0.44      1.29      0.850
40.06    0.71      2.13      0.947
35.68    1.16      2.97      1.053
31.28    1.53      3.62      1.169
27.03    1.81      4.15      1.292
22.30    2.13      4.65      1.444
18.25    2.30      4.75      1.589
14.25    2.35      4.19      1.751
9.78      2.00      2.32      1.960
5.25      -0.54     -3.44     2.236

Martin,
I was going to put the profiles up for use and comments, in the files
section of the group, but it seems that we don’t have the ability to upload
files.

Best regards,
John Moody

-----Original Message-----
From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of Louis Dina
Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2005 10:19 PM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Digital BW] Re: Neutral profile goals

John,

My approach is to let my "neutral" profiles favor the color of the
paper white somewhat.  So, for a bluish white paper, I will skew the
entire profile slightly to the cool side.  For warm papers, I skew them
slightly to the warm side.  These are not huge color moves, but subtle
moves.  As you approach paper white, you move toward its color and I
prefer to work with the paper, rather than having a profile that is
dead on neutral until it reaches paper white and shows a shift.  Others
may prefer a different approach, but this works for me.

Lou

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "John Moody"
<moodymz3@y...> wrote:
> When creating a neutral profile, how far into the highlights do you
try to
> "force" neutral against a paper with brighteners.
> I'm about to try making a QTR profile for my 2200 using Kirkland
glossy with
> UC ink, and was wondering if there was any general thoughts on this.
>
> John

Hi John,

I am using Kirkland Glossy / QTR and UC inks, without a colorimeter
I am having a hard time getting a neutral tone, is there any chance
that you would be willing to share the profile you create with the
group?

Regards

Martin


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

The reason I've always stayed away from glossy inkjet prints for my own work 
is the fact that they are rc based. I have a closet full of old rc type c and black 
and white prints from 20+ years ago and they have already become brittle 
and dried out. The plastic just seems to have aged badly under average 
storage conditions while fiber prints in the same boxes look like new. And I'm 
not talking about prints that have been subjected to even norml WR type uv 
components.  I know that Cibas tend to hold up better and I don't know why.

Personally I think Wilhelms data about rc prints is overly optimistic. 

I used to use a paper that Epson made called Glossy Paper Photo Weight. It 
was a non-rc glossy paper and it looked very rich and saturated even in the 
reds with CF pigments. It was never condisdered "archival" and I"m not sure 
what the reason for that was. The reason I stopped using it altogether was that 
it scratched so easily in the printer and out of it. I even went to an Epson event 
where they had a bunch of prints hanging up and their Glossy P Photo Weight
prints were scratched too. Too bad because I like what they were onto there - 
fiber glossy prints that didn't look and feel like plastic. It would be nice to have 
something like the old Agfacolor fiber silver paper.

John






--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Margaret Stratton <
ms@m...> wrote:
> Paul,
> 
> What spray are you using on you prints.  With MIS ink I assume.
> 
> Thanks
> M Stratton
> 
> 
> On May 25, 2005, at 11:39 AM, Paul Roark wrote:
> 
> > Dave,
> >
> >  I think the best example that shows that the surface reflective
> >  characteristics are the main differences between matte and glossy 
> > papers
> >  with respect to dmax is that an Arches Hot Press, un-coated print 
> > jumps from
> >  about 1.5 to 2.5 with multiple coats of, for example, acrylic, 
> > applied to
> >  its surface to give it a gloss.
> >
> >  The spectrophotometers we use for measuring dmax use nearly perfect 
> > lighting
> >  that avoids the problems of reflections.  This gives the glossy 
> > papers a
> >  huge advantage. 
> >
> >  In the real world, a matte print sitting on my desk top appears to 
> > have a
> >  better dmax than a gloss print because the glossy print dmax is wiped 
> > out by
> >  reflections.  That is, the nature of the lighting is what makes all 
> > the
> >  difference.  If the display conditions are perfect, the glossy prints 
> > are
> >  terrific.  If the lighting is bad, like a window behind the viewer, 
> > matte
> >  wins. 
> >
> >  Of course, if one puts glass over matte, you may end up with the 
> > worst of
> >  both worlds.  So, my favorite is a sprayed Semimatte with no glass.  
> > But, I
> >  think both types of prints are important, and being able to print 
> > either
> >  matte or glossy is a critical part of any inkset I mix.
> >
> >  Paul
> >  www.PaulRoark.com
> >
> >
> >  > -----Original Message-----
> >  > From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> >  > [mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
> >  > davelongviews
> >  > Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2005 7:29 AM
> >  > To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> >  > Subject: [Digital BW] Matte versus glossy dmax: a matter of physics?
> >  >
> >  > There has been a lot of discussion over extended periods on the 
> > group
> >  > regarding matte
> >  > and glossy dmax. Is it true that light SCATTERED at the paper 
> > surface is
> >  > what gives a matte
> >  > surface its look, and that very same scattering is what reduces 
> > dmax? And
> >  > with a glossy
> >  > paper less light is scattered, more is REFLECTED, dmax is greater, 
> > and you
> >  > have the
> >  > glossyness to deal with. In other words isn't it true that you 
> > can't have
> >  > a matte surface with
> >  > a truely large dmax? Aren't paper surface/glossiness and dmax 
> > directly
> >  > related in a way we
> >  > wish they weren't? Is it physically possible to separate the two? 
> > Any
> >  > thoughts?
> >  >
> >  > Dave
> >  >
> >  >
> >  >
> >  >
> >  >
> >  > 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
> >  >
> >  >
> >  >
> >  >
> >  >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > 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 the Yahoo! Terms of 
> > Service.
> >
> >
> Margaret Stratton
> Obermann Center Research Scholar
> Professor of Art
> Department of Art and Art History
> Iowa City, IA  52245
> www.margaretstratton.com
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

For glossy prints I use PremierArt Print Shield.  For matte prints I use
Lascaux Fixativ (see http://www.dickblick.com/zz217/14/ ).

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
> Margaret Stratton
> Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2005 1:46 PM
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Matte versus glossy dmax: a matter of physics?
> 
> Paul,
> 
> What spray are you using on you prints.  With MIS ink I assume.
> 
> Thanks
> M Stratton
> 
> 
> On May 25, 2005, at 11:39 AM, Paul Roark wrote:
> 
> > Dave,
> >
> >  I think the best example that shows that the surface reflective
> >  characteristics are the main differences between matte and glossy
> > papers
> >  with respect to dmax is that an Arches Hot Press, un-coated print
> > jumps from
> >  about 1.5 to 2.5 with multiple coats of, for example, acrylic,
> > applied to
> >  its surface to give it a gloss.
> >
> >  The spectrophotometers we use for measuring dmax use nearly perfect
> > lighting
> >  that avoids the problems of reflections.  This gives the glossy
> > papers a
> >  huge advantage.
> >
> >  In the real world, a matte print sitting on my desk top appears to
> > have a
> >  better dmax than a gloss print because the glossy print dmax is wiped
> > out by
> >  reflections.  That is, the nature of the lighting is what makes all
> > the
> >  difference.  If the display conditions are perfect, the glossy prints
> > are
> >  terrific.  If the lighting is bad, like a window behind the viewer,
> > matte
> >  wins.
> >
> >  Of course, if one puts glass over matte, you may end up with the
> > worst of
> >  both worlds.  So, my favorite is a sprayed Semimatte with no glass.
> > But, I
> >  think both types of prints are important, and being able to print
> > either
> >  matte or glossy is a critical part of any inkset I mix.
> >
> >  Paul
> >  www.PaulRoark.com
> >
> >
> >  > -----Original Message-----
> >  > From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> >  > [mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
> >  > davelongviews
> >  > Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2005 7:29 AM
> >  > To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> >  > Subject: [Digital BW] Matte versus glossy dmax: a matter of physics?
> >  >
> >  > There has been a lot of discussion over extended periods on the
> > group
> >  > regarding matte
> >  > and glossy dmax. Is it true that light SCATTERED at the paper
> > surface is
> >  > what gives a matte
> >  > surface its look, and that very same scattering is what reduces
> > dmax? And
> >  > with a glossy
> >  > paper less light is scattered, more is REFLECTED, dmax is greater,
> > and you
> >  > have the
> >  > glossyness to deal with. In other words isn't it true that you
> > can't have
> >  > a matte surface with
> >  > a truely large dmax? Aren't paper surface/glossiness and dmax
> > directly
> >  > related in a way we
> >  > wish they weren't? Is it physically possible to separate the two?
> > Any
> >  > thoughts?
> >  >
> >  > Dave
> >  >
> >  >
> >  >
> >  >
> >  >
> >  > 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
> >  >
> >  >
> >  >
> >  >
> >  >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > 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 the Yahoo! Terms of
> > Service.
> >
> >
> Margaret Stratton
> Obermann Center Research Scholar
> Professor of Art
> Department of Art and Art History
> Iowa City, IA  52245
> www.margaretstratton.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
> 
> 
> 
> 
>

Curious - why not Print Shield for matte prints? What does it "do"
to them?

Scott

Paul Roark wrote:

> For glossy prints I use PremierArt Print Shield. For matte prints I use
> Lascaux Fixativ (see http://www.dickblick.com/zz217/14/ ).
>
> Paul
> www.PaulRoark.com
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> > [mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
> > Margaret Stratton
> > Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2005 1:46 PM
> > To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Matte versus glossy dmax: a matter of physics?
> >
> > Paul,
> >
> > What spray are you using on you prints. With MIS ink I assume.
> >
> > Thanks
> > M Stratton
> >
> >
> > On May 25, 2005, at 11:39 AM, Paul Roark wrote:
> >
> > > Dave,
> > >
> > > I think the best example that shows that the surface reflective
> > > characteristics are the main differences between matte and glossy
> > > papers
> > > with respect to dmax is that an Arches Hot Press, un-coated print
> > > jumps from
> > > about 1.5 to 2.5 with multiple coats of, for example, acrylic,
> > > applied to
> > > its surface to give it a gloss.
> > >
> > > The spectrophotometers we use for measuring dmax use nearly perfect
> > > lighting
> > > that avoids the problems of reflections. This gives the glossy
> > > papers a
> > > huge advantage.
> > >
> > > In the real world, a matte print sitting on my desk top appears to
> > > have a
> > > better dmax than a gloss print because the glossy print dmax is wiped
> > > out by
> > > reflections. That is, the nature of the lighting is what makes all
> > > the
> > > difference. If the display conditions are perfect, the glossy prints
> > > are
> > > terrific. If the lighting is bad, like a window behind the viewer,
> > > matte
> > > wins.
> > >
> > > Of course, if one puts glass over matte, you may end up with the
> > > worst of
> > > both worlds. So, my favorite is a sprayed Semimatte with no glass.
> > > But, I
> > > think both types of prints are important, and being able to print
> > > either
> > > matte or glossy is a critical part of any inkset I mix.
> > >
> > > Paul
> > > www.PaulRoark.com
> > >
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> > > > [mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
> > > > davelongviews
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2005 7:29 AM
> > > > To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> > > > Subject: [Digital BW] Matte versus glossy dmax: a matter of physics?
> > > >
> > > > There has been a lot of discussion over extended periods on the
> > > group
> > > > regarding matte
> > > > and glossy dmax. Is it true that light SCATTERED at the paper
> > > surface is
> > > > what gives a matte
> > > > surface its look, and that very same scattering is what reduces
> > > dmax? And
> > > > with a glossy
> > > > paper less light is scattered, more is REFLECTED, dmax is greater,
> > > and you
> > > > have the
> > > > glossyness to deal with. In other words isn't it true that you
> > > can't have
> > > > a matte surface with
> > > > a truely large dmax? Aren't paper surface/glossiness and dmax
> > > directly
> > > > related in a way we
> > > > wish they weren't? Is it physically possible to separate the two?
> > > Any
> > > > thoughts?
> > > >
> > > > Dave
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > 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
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 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 \ufffdGroup Topic, Rules and Guidelines\ufffd 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 \ufffdOWNER\ufffd
> > > AND \ufffdMODERATORS\ufffd 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 \ufffdOWNER\ufffd AND \ufffdMODERATORS\ufffd 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
> > >
> > > \ufffd To visit your group on the web, go to:
> > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/
> > >
> > > \ufffd To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > > DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> > >
> > > \ufffd Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> > > Service.
> > >
> > >
> > Margaret Stratton
> > Obermann Center Research Scholar
> > Professor of Art
> > Department of Art and Art History
> > Iowa City, IA 52245
> > www.margaretstratton.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 \ufffdGroup Topic, Rules and Guidelines\ufffd 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 \ufffdOWNER\ufffd AND
> > \ufffdMODERATORS\ufffd 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
> > \ufffdOWNER\ufffd AND \ufffdMODERATORS\ufffd 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
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> 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 \ufffdGroup Topic, Rules and Guidelines\ufffd 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 \ufffdOWNER\ufffd 
> AND \ufffdMODERATORS\ufffd 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 \ufffdOWNER\ufffd AND \ufffdMODERATORS\ufffd 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
>       <mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>
>     * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
>       Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
>
>

>For glossy prints I use PremierArt Print Shield.  For matte prints 
>I use Lascaux Fixativ (see http://www.dickblick.com/zz217/14/ ).


Jerry's has this on sale thru June for $12.99

http://www.jerrysartarama.com/art-supply/catalogs/0047147000000



Regards,
Clayton


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

You can use Premier A S for matte prints, and it does give them better uv 
protection and can in many cases double the life of the print. But, there is 
slight loss of d-max with it on matte papers which Lascaux does not exhibit. 
For prints with a lot of  blacks as Paul suggested to us all, Lascaux works very 
well as a protectant.

John



--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Scott McLoughlin <
scott@a...> wrote:
> Curious - why not Print Shield for matte prints? What does it "do"
> to them?
> 
> Scott
> 
> Paul Roark wrote:
> 
> > For glossy prints I use PremierArt Print Shield. For matte prints I use
> > Lascaux Fixativ (see http://www.dickblick.com/zz217/14/ ).
> >
> > Paul
> > www.PaulRoark.com
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> > > [mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
> > > Margaret Stratton
> > > Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2005 1:46 PM
> > > To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> > > Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Matte versus glossy dmax: a matter of physics?
> > >
> > > Paul,
> > >
> > > What spray are you using on you prints. With MIS ink I assume.
> > >
> > > Thanks
> > > M Stratton
> > >
> > >
> > > On May 25, 2005, at 11:39 AM, Paul Roark wrote:
> > >
> > > > Dave,
> > > >
> > > > I think the best example that shows that the surface reflective
> > > > characteristics are the main differences between matte and glossy
> > > > papers
> > > > with respect to dmax is that an Arches Hot Press, un-coated print
> > > > jumps from
> > > > about 1.5 to 2.5 with multiple coats of, for example, acrylic,
> > > > applied to
> > > > its surface to give it a gloss.
> > > >
> > > > The spectrophotometers we use for measuring dmax use nearly 
perfect
> > > > lighting
> > > > that avoids the problems of reflections. This gives the glossy
> > > > papers a
> > > > huge advantage.
> > > >
> > > > In the real world, a matte print sitting on my desk top appears to
> > > > have a
> > > > better dmax than a gloss print because the glossy print dmax is wiped
> > > > out by
> > > > reflections. That is, the nature of the lighting is what makes all
> > > > the
> > > > difference. If the display conditions are perfect, the glossy prints
> > > > are
> > > > terrific. If the lighting is bad, like a window behind the viewer,
> > > > matte
> > > > wins.
> > > >
> > > > Of course, if one puts glass over matte, you may end up with the
> > > > worst of
> > > > both worlds. So, my favorite is a sprayed Semimatte with no glass.
> > > > But, I
> > > > think both types of prints are important, and being able to print
> > > > either
> > > > matte or glossy is a critical part of any inkset I mix.
> > > >
> > > > Paul
> > > > www.PaulRoark.com
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> > > > > [mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On 
Behalf Of
> > > > > davelongviews
> > > > > Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2005 7:29 AM
> > > > > To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> > > > > Subject: [Digital BW] Matte versus glossy dmax: a matter of physics?
> > > > >
> > > > > There has been a lot of discussion over extended periods on the
> > > > group
> > > > > regarding matte
> > > > > and glossy dmax. Is it true that light SCATTERED at the paper
> > > > surface is
> > > > > what gives a matte
> > > > > surface its look, and that very same scattering is what reduces
> > > > dmax? And
> > > > > with a glossy
> > > > > paper less light is scattered, more is REFLECTED, dmax is greater,
> > > > and you
> > > > > have the
> > > > > glossyness to deal with. In other words isn't it true that you
> > > > can't have
> > > > > a matte surface with
> > > > > a truely large dmax? Aren't paper surface/glossiness and dmax
> > > > directly
> > > > > related in a way we
> > > > > wish they weren't? Is it physically possible to separate the two?
> > > > Any
> > > > > thoughts?
> > > > >
> > > > > Dave
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > 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
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > 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 the Yahoo! Terms of
> > > > Service.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > Margaret Stratton
> > > Obermann Center Research Scholar
> > > Professor of Art
> > > Department of Art and Art History
> > > Iowa City, IA 52245
> > > www.margaretstratton.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
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > 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
> >       <mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-
unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>

> >     * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> >       Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
> >
> >

> 
> Curious - why not Print Shield for matte prints? What does it "do"
> to them?

It lowers the dmax.  Lascaux has the least negative effect on matte dmax of
the sprays I've tested.  (I have 3 more sitting here waiting for testing.)

With glossy paper it is just the opposite.  The Premier Art raises the dmax
more than Lascaux. 

As John notes, the Premier Art spray has a UV filter in it that Lascaux
lacks.  Thus Lascaux has no significant effect on lightfastness.  Premier
Art will generally help the lightfastness.  However, my tests show about a
35% improvement with UC pigments but only about a 10% improvement with MIS
pigments.  (The Premier Art spray takes the UC pigments up to about the same
level as the MIS pigments.)  The MIS pigments almost act as if they already
have a UV filter on them, and, in fact, the "clear" base is a yellowish
color.

So, different types of spray are better for different types of paper.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com 

> 
> Paul Roark wrote:
> 
> > For glossy prints I use PremierArt Print Shield. For matte prints I use
> > Lascaux Fixativ (see http://www.dickblick.com/zz217/14/ ).
> >
> > Paul
> > www.PaulRoark.com
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> > > [mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
> > > Margaret Stratton
> > > Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2005 1:46 PM
> > > To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> > > Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Matte versus glossy dmax: a matter of
> physics?
> > >
> > > Paul,
> > >
> > > What spray are you using on you prints. With MIS ink I assume.
> > >
> > > Thanks
> > > M Stratton
> > >
> > >
> > > On May 25, 2005, at 11:39 AM, Paul Roark wrote:
> > >
> > > > Dave,
> > > >
> > > > I think the best example that shows that the surface reflective
> > > > characteristics are the main differences between matte and glossy
> > > > papers
> > > > with respect to dmax is that an Arches Hot Press, un-coated print
> > > > jumps from
> > > > about 1.5 to 2.5 with multiple coats of, for example, acrylic,
> > > > applied to
> > > > its surface to give it a gloss.
> > > >
> > > > The spectrophotometers we use for measuring dmax use nearly perfect
> > > > lighting
> > > > that avoids the problems of reflections. This gives the glossy
> > > > papers a
> > > > huge advantage.
> > > >
> > > > In the real world, a matte print sitting on my desk top appears to
> > > > have a
> > > > better dmax than a gloss print because the glossy print dmax is
> wiped
> > > > out by
> > > > reflections. That is, the nature of the lighting is what makes all
> > > > the
> > > > difference. If the display conditions are perfect, the glossy prints
> > > > are
> > > > terrific. If the lighting is bad, like a window behind the viewer,
> > > > matte
> > > > wins.
> > > >
> > > > Of course, if one puts glass over matte, you may end up with the
> > > > worst of
> > > > both worlds. So, my favorite is a sprayed Semimatte with no glass.
> > > > But, I
> > > > think both types of prints are important, and being able to print
> > > > either
> > > > matte or glossy is a critical part of any inkset I mix.
> > > >
> > > > Paul
> > > > www.PaulRoark.com
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> > > > > [mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
> > > > > davelongviews
> > > > > Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2005 7:29 AM
> > > > > To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> > > > > Subject: [Digital BW] Matte versus glossy dmax: a matter of
> physics?
> > > > >
> > > > > There has been a lot of discussion over extended periods on the
> > > > group
> > > > > regarding matte
> > > > > and glossy dmax. Is it true that light SCATTERED at the paper
> > > > surface is
> > > > > what gives a matte
> > > > > surface its look, and that very same scattering is what reduces
> > > > dmax? And
> > > > > with a glossy
> > > > > paper less light is scattered, more is REFLECTED, dmax is greater,
> > > > and you
> > > > > have the
> > > > > glossyness to deal with. In other words isn't it true that you
> > > > can't have
> > > > > a matte surface with
> > > > > a truely large dmax? Aren't paper surface/glossiness and dmax
> > > > directly
> > > > > related in a way we
> > > > > wish they weren't? Is it physically possible to separate the two?
> > > > Any
> > > > > thoughts?
> > > > >
> > > > > Dave
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > 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
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > 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 the Yahoo! Terms of
> > > > Service.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > Margaret Stratton
> > > Obermann Center Research Scholar
> > > Professor of Art
> > > Department of Art and Art History
> > > Iowa City, IA 52245
> > > www.margaretstratton.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
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > 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
> >       <mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-
> unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>
> >     * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> >       Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/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 Links
> 
> 
> 
> 
>

Paul, John,

>...slight loss of d-max with it on matte papers 
>which Lascaux does not exhibit...Lascaux works very well 
>as a protectant.

There is a Jerry's in my town and I'm considering getting a can of
Lascaux to try.   Does it have a bad smell, and does the print give
off a smell even after it has dried? (I got a sprayed print from
someone once and I had to throw it out because the off-gassing filled
the room with fumes that irritated my eyes and sinuses - I don't know
what it was sprayed with). What is drying time?  Thanks...


Regards,
Clayton


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

Hi Clayton,

I really like the Lascaux spray ,it is really invisible and protects those delicate 
rag papers. You know all Epson prints are actually vulnerable to scraches.

I did have one client complain that their print smelled like arcylic. But, that was 
presumably because I did not let it sit overnight in the open air before placing 
it in a plastic bag. In my experience Lascaux smells a little stronger when 
sprayed than Premier Art, but nothing like the Krylon type sprays we have 
used in the past. The prints need to sit out overnight before delivering. Then I 
think you will be ok. No one has complained since I started doing this and I 
haven't noticed an after smell either. 

Use a mask with charcoal filters when using any of this stuff and also plastic 
goggles and it will all be painless.

Yes, Jerry's has great prices on the Lascaux, about $12 now I belive. It workd 
great as Paul said.

John



--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Clayton Jones" <
cj@c...> wrote:

> Paul, John,
> 
> >...slight loss of d-max with it on matte papers 
> >which Lascaux does not exhibit...Lascaux works very well 
> >as a protectant.
> 
> There is a Jerry's in my town and I'm considering getting a can of
> Lascaux to try.   Does it have a bad smell, and does the print give
> off a smell even after it has dried? (I got a sprayed print from
> someone once and I had to throw it out because the off-gassing filled
> the room with fumes that irritated my eyes and sinuses - I don't know
> what it was sprayed with). What is drying time?  Thanks...
> 
> 
> Regards,
> Clayton
> 
> 
> Info on black and white digital printing at    
> http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm

I use "Print Shield" on matte prints, it works very well.

Gary
----- Original Message -----
From: "Scott McLoughlin" <scott@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2005 4:29 PM
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Matte versus glossy dmax: a matter of physics?


> Curious - why not Print Shield for matte prints? What does it "do"
> to them?
>
> Scott
>
> Paul Roark wrote:
>
> > For glossy prints I use PremierArt Print Shield. For matte prints I use
> > Lascaux Fixativ (see http://www.dickblick.com/zz217/14/ ).
> >
> > Paul
> > www.PaulRoark.com
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> > > [mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
> > > Margaret Stratton
> > > Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2005 1:46 PM
> > > To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> > > Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Matte versus glossy dmax: a matter of
physics?
> > >
> > > Paul,
> > >
> > > What spray are you using on you prints. With MIS ink I assume.
> > >
> > > Thanks
> > > M Stratton
> > >
> > >
> > > On May 25, 2005, at 11:39 AM, Paul Roark wrote:
> > >
> > > > Dave,
> > > >
> > > > I think the best example that shows that the surface reflective
> > > > characteristics are the main differences between matte and glossy
> > > > papers
> > > > with respect to dmax is that an Arches Hot Press, un-coated print
> > > > jumps from
> > > > about 1.5 to 2.5 with multiple coats of, for example, acrylic,
> > > > applied to
> > > > its surface to give it a gloss.
> > > >
> > > > The spectrophotometers we use for measuring dmax use nearly perfect
> > > > lighting
> > > > that avoids the problems of reflections. This gives the glossy
> > > > papers a
> > > > huge advantage.
> > > >
> > > > In the real world, a matte print sitting on my desk top appears to
> > > > have a
> > > > better dmax than a gloss print because the glossy print dmax is
wiped
> > > > out by
> > > > reflections. That is, the nature of the lighting is what makes all
> > > > the
> > > > difference. If the display conditions are perfect, the glossy prints
> > > > are
> > > > terrific. If the lighting is bad, like a window behind the viewer,
> > > > matte
> > > > wins.
> > > >
> > > > Of course, if one puts glass over matte, you may end up with the
> > > > worst of
> > > > both worlds. So, my favorite is a sprayed Semimatte with no glass.
> > > > But, I
> > > > think both types of prints are important, and being able to print
> > > > either
> > > > matte or glossy is a critical part of any inkset I mix.
> > > >
> > > > Paul
> > > > www.PaulRoark.com
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> > > > > [mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
> > > > > davelongviews
> > > > > Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2005 7:29 AM
> > > > > To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> > > > > Subject: [Digital BW] Matte versus glossy dmax: a matter of
physics?
> > > > >
> > > > > There has been a lot of discussion over extended periods on the
> > > > group
> > > > > regarding matte
> > > > > and glossy dmax. Is it true that light SCATTERED at the paper
> > > > surface is
> > > > > what gives a matte
> > > > > surface its look, and that very same scattering is what reduces
> > > > dmax? And
> > > > > with a glossy
> > > > > paper less light is scattered, more is REFLECTED, dmax is greater,
> > > > and you
> > > > > have the
> > > > > glossyness to deal with. In other words isn't it true that you
> > > > can't have
> > > > > a matte surface with
> > > > > a truely large dmax? Aren't paper surface/glossiness and dmax
> > > > directly
> > > > > related in a way we
> > > > > wish they weren't? Is it physically possible to separate the two?
> > > > Any
> > > > > thoughts?
> > > > >
> > > > > Dave
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > 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
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > 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 \ufffdGroup Topic, Rules and Guidelines\ufffd 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
\ufffdOWNER\ufffd
> > > > AND \ufffdMODERATORS\ufffd 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 \ufffdOWNER\ufffd AND \ufffdMODERATORS\ufffd 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
> > > >
> > > > \ufffd To visit your group on the web, go to:
> > > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/
> > > >
> > > > \ufffd To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > > > DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> > > >
> > > > \ufffd Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> > > > Service.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > Margaret Stratton
> > > Obermann Center Research Scholar
> > > Professor of Art
> > > Department of Art and Art History
> > > Iowa City, IA 52245
> > > www.margaretstratton.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 \ufffdGroup Topic, Rules and Guidelines\ufffd 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 \ufffdOWNER\ufffd AND
> > > \ufffdMODERATORS\ufffd 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
> > > \ufffdOWNER\ufffd AND \ufffdMODERATORS\ufffd 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
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > 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 \ufffdGroup Topic, Rules and Guidelines\ufffd 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 \ufffdOWNER\ufffd
> > AND \ufffdMODERATORS\ufffd 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 \ufffdOWNER\ufffd AND \ufffdMODERATORS\ufffd 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
> >
<mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Uns
ubscribe>
> >     * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> >       Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/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 \ufffdGroup Topic, Rules and Guidelines\ufffd 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 \ufffdOWNER\ufffd AND
\ufffdMODERATORS\ufffd 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  \ufffdOWNER\ufffd AND
\ufffdMODERATORS\ufffd 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
>
>
>
>
>
>

I'm reluctant to spray my prints. It seems archival wise to be opening up a
can of worms we have no way of anticipating.
When I look at my stack of matt prints, mostly Epson enhanced or earlier but
now the Epson Velvet I don't see them lacking.
And that stack is right next to my stack of darkroom prints. Air dried
glossy fiber of course. Sometimes the stack consists of both darkroom and
inkjet prints intertwined. You know when you hit an inkjet you know it
mainly because it's matt but it doesn't look worse because of it.
It doesn't look worse at all. In some ways they look better.


So my thought is this:
Many darkroom glossy papers are/were called "F" papers, the f standing for
"ferrotype". Which we don't do any more.
Its not considered archival and otherwise long considered "tacky"
in more ways than one!:)
BUT!
You DO get a better Dmax and tonal range when you ferrotype your glossy
paper. 
When you air dry it, which has been the standard in darkroom for decades it
just doesn't match up to the "Zing" a ferrotyped print has.
Do we get all upset bout it?! Nooooo!.
And figure our blacks are good enough and we can live without it.

Same certainly with platinum prints. Those are matt watercolor paper and no
one to put it mildly complains about the blacks. The blacks I believe are
considered better than darkroom.

Why cant we approach our inkjet prints with this philosophy.
The blacks we get as part of the process are great!
I don't feel like I'm getting worse blacks then I do with my darkroom
prints. I'm constantly wowed by them.

Some day I'll see the results of these sprays and have a better idea what is
going on but so far my feeling is let well enough alone.
And let the paper get down with it's natural paperlikeness.
I like my prints NAKED!

(but behind glass of course)
:)


Mark Rabiner
Photography
Portland Oregon
http://rabinergroup.com/

I'd still like to know the answer to the original question.  What is the
measured dMax of "photo" vs "matte" prints when surface bias is eliminated?

(As for spraying, I have yet to find a suitable solution for spraying
"photo" prints - in the case of matte prints it's just a lot easier as the
spray is absorbed and does not affect surface texture.)

> From: Mark Rabiner <mark@...>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Wed, 01 Jun 2005 12:48:00 -0700
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Matte versus glossy Dmax: a matter of physics?
> 
> I'm reluctant to spray my prints. It seems archival wise to be opening up a
> can of worms we have no way of anticipating.
> When I look at my stack of matt prints, mostly Epson enhanced or earlier but
> now the Epson Velvet I don't see them lacking.
> And that stack is right next to my stack of darkroom prints. Air dried
> glossy fiber of course. Sometimes the stack consists of both darkroom and
> inkjet prints intertwined. You know when you hit an inkjet you know it
> mainly because it's matt but it doesn't look worse because of it.
> It doesn't look worse at all. In some ways they look better.
> 
> 
> So my thought is this:
> Many darkroom glossy papers are/were called "F" papers, the f standing for
> "ferrotype". Which we don't do any more.
> Its not considered archival and otherwise long considered "tacky"
> in more ways than one!:)
> BUT!
> You DO get a better Dmax and tonal range when you ferrotype your glossy
> paper. 
> When you air dry it, which has been the standard in darkroom for decades it
> just doesn't match up to the "Zing" a ferrotyped print has.
> Do we get all upset bout it?! Nooooo!.
> And figure our blacks are good enough and we can live without it.
> 
> Same certainly with platinum prints. Those are matt watercolor paper and no
> one to put it mildly complains about the blacks. The blacks I believe are
> considered better than darkroom.
> 
> Why cant we approach our inkjet prints with this philosophy.
> The blacks we get as part of the process are great!
> I don't feel like I'm getting worse blacks then I do with my darkroom
> prints. I'm constantly wowed by them.
> 
> Some day I'll see the results of these sprays and have a better idea what is
> going on but so far my feeling is let well enough alone.
> And let the paper get down with it's natural paperlikeness.
> I like my prints NAKED!
> 
> (but behind glass of course)
> :)
> 
> 
> Mark Rabiner
> Photography
> Portland Oregon
> http://rabinergroup.com/
>

> I like my prints NAKED!
> 
> (but behind glass of course)
> :)

Good stuff!

Well, I guess my motivation for posting this question in the first
place is more forward 
thinking than back. Please don't misunderstand. I respect and admire
traditional 
processes. But the question is are we dealing with something very
different, this pigment 
sprayed onto the surface of paper. This ain't no emulsion. We are
making water colors. 
Paintings. If you look at the surface of an inkjet print under a
microscope, and compare it 
with a view of a water color painting, they look VERY similar. As we
know artists use a very 
wide range of materials, varnishes, etc. Shouldn't we consider the
same opportunities? It 
isn't that your old prints are lacking. They are oranges, and oranges
are magic. No chemist 
can mix up an ornage in an instant. I'm talking about making some
other sort of fruity 
thing.

:)

PS I apologize to all for the untrimmed previous posts.

Steve,
What measurement with what type of light source are you looking for?  It
would seem that a total reflectance measurement ignores the observer, so I'm
not sure what the value of such a measurement would be?

John

-----Original Message-----
From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of Steve Kale
Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2005 5:42 PM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Matte versus glossy Dmax: a matter of physics?

I'd still like to know the answer to the original question.  What is the
measured dMax of "photo" vs "matte" prints when surface bias is eliminated?




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

I thought the point of this thread was that because matte paper had a more
diffuse reflection than "photo" paper that a measurement (stress:
measurement) of the dMax of that paper was fundamentally biased because of
the typical measurement device used (0/45 geometry).  The corollary to this
is that in a diffuse light setting the two prints would "look" the same
black.  (I don't believe they do and believe that photo black on "photo"
paper is fundamentally blacker.)  Using a sphere instrument one can make a
measurement for which the lighting is diffuse.  We could then know how much
of the dMax difference is attributable to the underlying absorption of light
and how much is due to the difference in surface properties.

> From: John Moody <moodymz3@...>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2005 23:12:33 -0400
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: RE: [Digital BW] Matte versus glossy Dmax: a matter of physics?
> 
> Steve,
> What measurement with what type of light source are you looking for?  It
> would seem that a total reflectance measurement ignores the observer, so I'm
> not sure what the value of such a measurement would be?
> 
> John

"davelongviews" <dave@l...> wrote:

(quoting Mark Rabiner)
> > I like my prints NAKED!
> > 
> > (but behind glass of course)
...

> But the question is are we dealing with something very
> different, this pigment 
> sprayed onto the surface of paper. This ain't no emulsion. We are
> making water colors. 
> Paintings. If you look at the surface of an inkjet print under a
> microscope, and compare it 
> with a view of a water color painting, they look VERY similar. As we
> know artists use a very 
> wide range of materials, varnishes, etc. Shouldn't we consider the
> same opportunities? 

I think those opportunities are already been considered by the inkjet
community.

Watercolor paintings are framed under glass without coating. Pretty
much the same presentation that Mark prefers. At least that's the
longstanding tradition for gallery or museum quality presentations for
watercolors on cotton rag papers.  

As a general rule, the varnishes and sprays are used on paintings on
canvas or boards (i.e. not paper) that are not framed under glass.
Acrylic and oil paintings on canvas are the most common forms treated
with varnishes or glazes.  Inkjet canvas is following that tradition
for the same practical reasons.

Pastel/charcoal drawings on paper are the only common fine art media
that I can think of that are normally sprayed.  A fixative is used to
adhere the pastel to the paper because pastels are fragilly adhered to
the paper without the spray.  The Lascaux fixative that Paul likes is
one of the commonly used pastel fixatives.  This is a bit like
spraying the papers that are prone to flaking, for the same reasons.

Recently, both painters and photographers have started presenting art
on paper without glass.  Various coatings, laminations and backing
techniques have been used.  It's easier with a glossier look, but some
new coatings and laminations appear to give adequate protection and a
matte or semi matte look.  

The downside of these presentations is that the lams and adhesives are
often not removeable.  Museum conservators would not be very happy
with a presentation that cannot be restored in the future.  When
applied over an isolation coating, traditional varnishes could be
removed for restorations,

Hi Steve.

Perhaps I'm not understanding your reference to a sphere instrument
but it would seem reasonable to think that perfectly diffuse lighting
on both papers (assuming identical ink on both as otherwise your
measuring apples and oranges anyway ) would simply tend to subdue the
difference in surface characteristics. If this is done, so long as you
had equal ink laydown,thickness and coverage etc you would get
equivalent measurements, none of which would be fully accurate in
regards to actual ink absorption of light. After all, the ink's
absorbtion properties aren't affected by surface gloss. Or is what you
are proposing just that? That the different surface characteristics
effect some chemical change to the ink?

It is even possible under those conditions that the matt surface might
show a slightly better d'max than the glossy due to multiple
absorbtion from bouncing light around the hills and valleys of the
matt while being singly reflected/absorbed by the highly specular
nature of the glossy surface.

It's an interesting speculation but one unlikely to be tested anytime
soon.

Regards
Duane


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Steve Kale
<stevekale@b...> wrote:
> I thought the point of this thread was that because matte paper had
a more
> diffuse reflection than "photo" paper that a measurement (stress:
> measurement) of the dMax of that paper was fundamentally biased
because of
> the typical measurement device used (0/45 geometry).  The corollary
to this
> is that in a diffuse light setting the two prints would "look" the same
> black.  (I don't believe they do and believe that photo black on "photo"
> paper is fundamentally blacker.)  Using a sphere instrument one can
make a
> measurement for which the lighting is diffuse.  We could then know
how much
> of the dMax difference is attributable to the underlying absorption
of light
> and how much is due to the difference in surface properties.

Hi 

The whole point is to measure apples (matte ink on matte paper) with oranges
(photo ink on photo paper) but with a light source that doesn't bias one
over the other ie a fair test.  A sphere densitometer takes the surface
texture off the table so to speak because the light is coming from all
angles.  Then you have a measure of dMax that is comparable and we can see
if your matte ink and matte paper "hills and valleys" produce a better
result than the properties of photo black ink on "photo" paper.   I would
still expect the photo combo to show a HIGHER dMax because I think it simply
absorbs light better.  You are arguing that matte paper would have the
higher dMax.  If anyone has a sphere densitometer it can be tested quickly.

Steve

> From: dlruckus <dlruckus@...>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Thu, 02 Jun 2005 18:26:23 -0000
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: [Digital BW] Re: Matte versus glossy Dmax: a matter of physics?
> 
> Hi Steve.
> 
> Perhaps I'm not understanding your reference to a sphere instrument
> but it would seem reasonable to think that perfectly diffuse lighting
> on both papers (assuming identical ink on both as otherwise your
> measuring apples and oranges anyway ) would simply tend to subdue the
> difference in surface characteristics. If this is done, so long as you
> had equal ink laydown,thickness and coverage etc you would get
> equivalent measurements, none of which would be fully accurate in
> regards to actual ink absorption of light. After all, the ink's
> absorbtion properties aren't affected by surface gloss. Or is what you
> are proposing just that? That the different surface characteristics
> effect some chemical change to the ink?
> 
> It is even possible under those conditions that the matt surface might
> show a slightly better d'max than the glossy due to multiple
> absorbtion from bouncing light around the hills and valleys of the
> matt while being singly reflected/absorbed by the highly specular
> nature of the glossy surface.
> 
> It's an interesting speculation but one unlikely to be tested anytime
> soon.
> 
> Regards
> Duane

Steve

You can test it yourself even without such a densitometer. Just put a
light tent around the prints and peek thru a hole in the tent. Or
better yet photograph them through the hole. 
No. It's not quantitative but will show whether or not it's worth
making measurements.

Regards

Duane

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Steve Kale
<stevekale@b...> wrote:
> Hi 
> 
> The whole point is to measure apples (matte ink on matte paper) with
oranges
> (photo ink on photo paper) but with a light source that doesn't bias one
> over the other ie a fair test.  A sphere densitometer takes the surface
> texture off the table so to speak because the light is coming from all
> angles.  Then you have a measure of dMax that is comparable and we
can see
> if your matte ink and matte paper "hills and valleys" produce a better
> result than the properties of photo black ink on "photo" paper.   I
would
> still expect the photo combo to show a HIGHER dMax because I think
it simply
> absorbs light better.  You are arguing that matte paper would have the
> higher dMax.  If anyone has a sphere densitometer it can be tested
quickly.
> 
> Steve

just a thought

You could make 2 fair sized, all black prints, one matte, one glossy.
Put them side by side
light them as you think appropriate.

You could compare them by eye, by light meter, or with a camera.

You would see and measure the paper/coating/ink differences along with
the surface effects, but the sphere measurement would have the same
problem.

Steve Kale <stevekale@b...> wrote:
> I thought the point of this thread was that because matte paper had
a more
> diffuse reflection than "photo" paper that a measurement (stress:
> measurement) of the dMax of that paper was fundamentally biased
because of
> the typical measurement device used (0/45 geometry).

oops, didn't see this before I posted.

"dlruckus" <dlruckus@y...> wrote:

> Steve
> 
> You can test it yourself even without such a densitometer. Just put a
> light tent around the prints and peek thru a hole in the tent. Or
> better yet photograph them through the hole.

On 6/2/05 1:17 PM, "dlruckus" <dlruckus@...> typed:

> Steve
> 
> You can test it yourself even without such a densitometer. Just put a
> light tent around the prints and peek thru a hole in the tent. Or
> better yet photograph them through the hole.
> No. It's not quantitative but will show whether or not it's worth
> making measurements.
> 
> Regards
> 
> Duane
> 


I think this is not off the point to say that you can just as I¹ve done
plenty of times which is put an image which you¹ve printed on glossy next to
a semi glossy or matt print of the same image and the glossy wins out
obviously visually every time. The blacks appear easily noticeably blacker
and the separation in the lower to middle tones are more clear.
It would seem hard to justify not just going with the glossiest you can find
every single time.
But I manage.
I just go as glossy as possible until the gloss starts to bug me.
With darkroom this is the standard dried down glossy paper. Semigloss is the
result in the end.
With RC I have a heck of a time with the glossy it¹s so plasticlike but will
use it for contact proofs.
The ³pearl² surface just doesn¹t cut it hence a main reason I never print RC
but always fiber.
Rc or matt darkroom paper for me is such a travesty it is not even close to
a consideration.
You don¹t even use it for hand coloring its so bad.

But with inkjet the glossiest I can stand it matte.

I did see some 4x6¹s yesterday during a demonstration of an Epson 4x5
snapshot printer machine and the semigloss I thought was kind of good. Thin
paper though.

I¹ve sprayed my water colors and pastels and charcoal drawings and can see
the logic in looking at an inkjet almost in that way.
I also noticed you some of the Epson printers with the red and blue in them
have a gloss coating cartridge? Is that what he said?
This would be the answer to the issue in my book.
Have to printer do it.

Even have something which looks almost just like a printer and you feed your
already printed print in one side and it ³prints² it with the over
protective coating.
Such a unit would have all it¹s cartridges filled with a variety of evil
solvents and varnishes so you can dial in the amount of glass vs. matt you
want and other parameters.
Quickness of drying vs. quality. A faster drying to avoid bleed.
An on purpose warm organic varnish look.
Tooth. This was always an aspect of the sprays we used which we¹d be aware
of for doing more work over the spray.
Fixative I guess that stuff was called
Intentional crackelure effect! (just kidding, almost)
I don¹t know I guess some protective coatings would be better for dyes than
pigments.

Another thing would have them UNDERCOAT the paper, not over coat it.

A good mat paper with just the right coating would become in effect semi
gloss paper and set up the pigments or inks just right to the optimum
absorbing and you'd get just the amount of vibrance you¹d need.

Also you¹d make printing papers out of a lot of watercolor papers and rag
boards which would not otherwise be suited.

I think this pre coat idea is better than the post coat come to think of it.

Ultimately with a pre coat AND a post coat the final effect could be better
then the sum of it¹s parts.
 (I always think 2 coatings is way more than twice as good as one coating
when painting or doing just about anything)
You¹ve created an image sandwich. With the image being the filling and the
coatings being the bread.
And the paper being the paper plate it¹s sitting on.
I actually AM serious.

Mark Rabiner
Photography
Portland Oregon
http://rabinergroup.com/





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

When, under diffuse lighting, I look at a sheet of matte black ink on matte
paper next to a sheet of photo black ink on "photo" paper, the latter simply
looks more black - despite your "valleys and hills" argument.  As a result,
I conclude that the photo ink/paper combo is better at absorbing light
(ignoring specular highlights for the moment - see below) and that the
measured dMax difference we observe between matte and photo is largely real
despite the argument that the matte paper is likely to reflect a little more
light back to a 0/45 degree sensor because of its more diffuse reflection.
The issue with photo paper is that it is more prone to specular reflection.
This is a big DISadvantage.  I am sure that if photo only produced the same
black (visual or measured) as matte then matte would rule the day.  I would
argue that matte paper has been the choice du jour for inkjet only because
of issues such as "bronzing" and "differential gloss".  These have largely
been dealt with by the new K3 inks.  The next step is a paper with a finish
more closely resembling the air dried fibre print.  Personally I like the
finish of matte papers and if one could achieve a photo dMax on matte then I
would do all matte.   I suspect though that that day is still a wee way off.
Photo ink/paper just took a massive leap forward.  I don't see such gains in
matte ink/paper.

By way of rough comparison, the colour prints coming from the 4800 look much
like the MIS UC equivalent inks with a 50% glop coating but with better
colour gamut (although the old print I did from Adobe RGB workspace and the
new from ProPhoto and so this will be biased heavily in favour of the new in
terms of gamut) and better retention of underlying surface texture. I would
be very surprised if Epson maintains a separate gloss optimizer going
forward.  The prints can still be scratched with a fingernail and so the
argument for an abrasion proof coating remains for those wanting to frame
without glazing.  I sprayed a print with Lyson Print Guard and observed the
same issues as with the previous inks - droplets of spray disfiguring the
print.  I will not be using that product again.

Your discussion of undercoating is already being explored by paper
manufacturers who infuse their papers or coat their papers to make them more
receptive and responsive to ink.  The more important issue is abrasion
protection once the print has been printed.  I agree that having a printer
do the spraying would be optimal.  As yet I don't believe we have a
substance that does the job and can be sprayed by a printer without
clogging.  Epson have largely killed the bronzing and differential
reflectance issues and argue that they have greatly increased abrasion
resistance.  We will likely have to wait a while for the next iteration....

> 
> I think this is not off the point to say that you can just as I¹ve done
> plenty of times which is put an image which you¹ve printed on glossy next to
> a semi glossy or matt print of the same image and the glossy wins out
> obviously visually every time. The blacks appear easily noticeably blacker
> and the separation in the lower to middle tones are more clear.
> It would seem hard to justify not just going with the glossiest you can find
> every single time.
> But I manage.
> I just go as glossy as possible until the gloss starts to bug me.
> With darkroom this is the standard dried down glossy paper. Semigloss is the
> result in the end.
> With RC I have a heck of a time with the glossy it¹s so plasticlike but will
> use it for contact proofs.
> The ³pearl² surface just doesn¹t cut it hence a main reason I never print RC
> but always fiber.
> Rc or matt darkroom paper for me is such a travesty it is not even close to
> a consideration.
> You don¹t even use it for hand coloring its so bad.
> 
> But with inkjet the glossiest I can stand it matte.
> 
> I did see some 4x6¹s yesterday during a demonstration of an Epson 4x5
> snapshot printer machine and the semigloss I thought was kind of good. Thin
> paper though.
> 
> I¹ve sprayed my water colors and pastels and charcoal drawings and can see
> the logic in looking at an inkjet almost in that way.
> I also noticed you some of the Epson printers with the red and blue in them
> have a gloss coating cartridge? Is that what he said?
> This would be the answer to the issue in my book.
> Have to printer do it.
> 
> Even have something which looks almost just like a printer and you feed your
> already printed print in one side and it ³prints² it with the over
> protective coating.
> Such a unit would have all it¹s cartridges filled with a variety of evil
> solvents and varnishes so you can dial in the amount of glass vs. matt you
> want and other parameters.
> Quickness of drying vs. quality. A faster drying to avoid bleed.
> An on purpose warm organic varnish look.
> Tooth. This was always an aspect of the sprays we used which we¹d be aware
> of for doing more work over the spray.
> Fixative I guess that stuff was called
> Intentional crackelure effect! (just kidding, almost)
> I don¹t know I guess some protective coatings would be better for dyes than
> pigments.
> 
> Another thing would have them UNDERCOAT the paper, not over coat it.
> 
> A good mat paper with just the right coating would become in effect semi
> gloss paper and set up the pigments or inks just right to the optimum
> absorbing and you'd get just the amount of vibrance you¹d need.
> 
> Also you¹d make printing papers out of a lot of watercolor papers and rag
> boards which would not otherwise be suited.
> 
> I think this pre coat idea is better than the post coat come to think of it.
> 
> Ultimately with a pre coat AND a post coat the final effect could be better
> then the sum of it¹s parts.
>  (I always think 2 coatings is way more than twice as good as one coating
> when painting or doing just about anything)
> You¹ve created an image sandwich. With the image being the filling and the
> coatings being the bread.
> And the paper being the paper plate it¹s sitting on.
> I actually AM serious.
> 
> Mark Rabiner
> Photography
> Portland Oregon
> http://rabinergroup.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
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
>

Considering that the past successful "coating" experiments discussed
here also vastly improved the visual and, reportedly, measured d'max
on matt papers it seems obvious that embedding the pigments into a
clear coat does the same thing you are refering to with glossy papers.

As far as the ink itself goes it's not difficult at all to measure
their relative opacities and opacity "is" density by definition.

The more interesting question would be just how does the "Photo" ink
differ from the matt variety and is it absorbed into the coating on
glossy or is it just in a clear medium that remains when the ink is
dry? It has been reported that the Photo black d'max when used on matt
papers suffers drastically. Having such a clear medium absorbed away
into microporous papers could explain that loss.

Silver gelatine photo papers have precisely the same visual
characteristics glossy vs matt that you are talking about. There
doesn't need to be any difference in adsorbtion characteristics of the
actual pigment itself to get the same difference in look. The
reflection characteristics themselves can explain all of it. It isn't
it's absorbtion of light that makes it look darker, it's simply
because it "is" darker eg: the impinging light has been reflected away
and is not visible to the eye.

Having said all this doesn't answer your desire to measure the actual
adsorbtions of the two types of ink/papers without reflective
interference. If you ever manage to do it let us know the results.

Regards
Duane


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Steve Kale
<stevekale@b...> wrote:
> 
> When, under diffuse lighting, I look at a sheet of matte black ink
on matte
> paper next to a sheet of photo black ink on "photo" paper, the
latter simply
> looks more black - despite your "valleys and hills" argument.  As a
result,
> I conclude that the photo ink/paper combo is better at absorbing light
> (ignoring specular highlights for the moment - see below) and that the
> measured dMax difference we observe between matte and photo is
largely real
> despite the argument that the matte paper is likely to reflect a
little more
> light back to a 0/45 degree sensor because of its more diffuse
reflection.
> The issue with photo paper is that it is more prone to specular
reflection.
> This is a big DISadvantage.  I am sure that if photo only produced
the same
> black (visual or measured) as matte then matte would rule the day. 
I would
> argue that matte paper has been the choice du jour for inkjet only
because
> of issues such as "bronzing" and "differential gloss".  These have
largely
> been dealt with by the new K3 inks.  The next step is a paper with a
finish
> more closely resembling the air dried fibre print.  Personally I
like the
> finish of matte papers and if one could achieve a photo dMax on
matte then I
> would do all matte.   I suspect though that that day is still a wee
way off.
> Photo ink/paper just took a massive leap forward.  I don't see such
gains in
> matte ink/paper.

Earlier today I drove by a startlingly black new car. Beautiful. 

What made it so incredibly black looking? 

It was the contrast between the specular highlights (including the
chrome) and the areas that actually appeared black. 

In other words, my visual definition of "black" has to do with extreme
contrast, which has to do with specular reflection. It's not primarily
a matter of how much light is absorbed. 

Matte Black looks blacker on Epson Enhanced Matte than it does on
watercolor papers...it's because of the brightened white, not because
of the black. Black would measure virtually the same on each paper.

This was essentially Greg Gorman's point (online interview). He still
awaits a paper that looks air-dried glossy fiber, hates the resin
coated look that we have now. He's content with the Dmax of current
pigments.

Djon



--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "dlruckus"
<dlruckus@y...> wrote:

> Considering that the past successful "coating" experiments discussed
> here also vastly improved the visual and, reportedly, measured d'max
> on matt papers it seems obvious that embedding the pigments into a
> clear coat does the same thing you are refering to with glossy papers.
> 
> As far as the ink itself goes it's not difficult at all to measure
> their relative opacities and opacity "is" density by definition.
> 
> The more interesting question would be just how does the "Photo" ink
> differ from the matt variety and is it absorbed into the coating on
> glossy or is it just in a clear medium that remains when the ink is
> dry? It has been reported that the Photo black d'max when used on matt
> papers suffers drastically. Having such a clear medium absorbed away
> into microporous papers could explain that loss.
> 
> Silver gelatine photo papers have precisely the same visual
> characteristics glossy vs matt that you are talking about. There
> doesn't need to be any difference in adsorbtion characteristics of the
> actual pigment itself to get the same difference in look. The
> reflection characteristics themselves can explain all of it. It isn't
> it's absorbtion of light that makes it look darker, it's simply
> because it "is" darker eg: the impinging light has been reflected away
> and is not visible to the eye.
> 
> Having said all this doesn't answer your desire to measure the actual
> adsorbtions of the two types of ink/papers without reflective
> interference. If you ever manage to do it let us know the results.
> 
> Regards
> Duane
> 
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Steve Kale
> <stevekale@b...> wrote:
> > 
> > When, under diffuse lighting, I look at a sheet of matte black ink
> on matte
> > paper next to a sheet of photo black ink on "photo" paper, the
> latter simply
> > looks more black - despite your "valleys and hills" argument.  As a
> result,
> > I conclude that the photo ink/paper combo is better at absorbing light
> > (ignoring specular highlights for the moment - see below) and that the
> > measured dMax difference we observe between matte and photo is
> largely real
> > despite the argument that the matte paper is likely to reflect a
> little more
> > light back to a 0/45 degree sensor because of its more diffuse
> reflection.
> > The issue with photo paper is that it is more prone to specular
> reflection.
> > This is a big DISadvantage.  I am sure that if photo only produced
> the same
> > black (visual or measured) as matte then matte would rule the day. 
> I would
> > argue that matte paper has been the choice du jour for inkjet only
> because
> > of issues such as "bronzing" and "differential gloss".  These have
> largely
> > been dealt with by the new K3 inks.  The next step is a paper with a
> finish
> > more closely resembling the air dried fibre print.  Personally I
> like the
> > finish of matte papers and if one could achieve a photo dMax on
> matte then I
> > would do all matte.   I suspect though that that day is still a wee
> way off.
> > Photo ink/paper just took a massive leap forward.  I don't see such
> gains in
> > matte ink/paper.

> 
> of the black. Black would measure virtually the same on each paper.
> 
> This was essentially Greg Gorman's point (online interview). He still
> awaits a paper that looks air-dried glossy fiber, hates the resin
> coated look that we have now. He's content with the Dmax of current
> pigments.
> 
> Djon
> 
> 
I¹m not much of a gearhead but once I saw an unusual looking black painted
car and asked what was going on and someone said it was ³lacquered² I think
as if everybody knows about that. I recall he said the surface was delicate.
I do know that there's a big cult with car people about matt cars. They¹re
better for racing.

But the black on this lacquered or whatever car was really quite a look.
I¹ve seen it once or twice since.
Perhaps we should be asking car people about finishes.
The British! They¹re supposed to know the most about ³paint²! :)


Mark Rabiner
Photography
Portland Oregon
http://rabinergroup.com/





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

Another incredibly black object is the kind of bowl that ultimate
Japanese craftsmen make mostly FROM layers of black lacquer...hundreds
of layers built up, one after the other..I saw a film by a Japanese
govt agency that showed a man designated as "Living Treasure" working
on one of these bowls...he worked in the dark with only one light, a
bare light bulb with a globe full of water hanging between it and the
object being built...a glaring, focused, uneven specular light on a
very black object. Just the craftsman sitting on his mat, the object,
his lacquer and his brush and that light arrangement.



 I saw an unusual looking black painted
> car and asked what was going on and someone said it was ³lacquered²
I think
> as if everybody knows about that. I recall he said the surface was
delicate. 

> 
> Mark Rabiner
> Photography
> Portland Oregon
> http://rabinergroup.com/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Mark Rabiner <mark@r...> wrote:
> 
> I¹m not much of a gearhead but once I saw an unusual looking black painted
> car and asked what was going on and someone said it was ³lacquered² I think
> as if everybody knows about that. I recall he said the surface was delicate.
> I do know that there's a big cult with car people about matt cars. They¹re
> better for racing.
> 
> > Mark Rabiner
>

There are lacquer or enamel paints for cars.  Lacquer paints are no longer legal in many 
states in the US.   With lacquer paints you could put many coats to get a better finish on 
the cars.  Many of the 'muscle cars' were painted with these paints.  For my 73 TR6, some 
what modified, was re-painted with a red pimento (original color) lacquer paint (when the 
paint was legal here in California, USA).  It requires a lot of color sanding with water using 
a very fine grid sand paper:  600 or 1000.  I believe that even the 600 is too coarse for the 
final coats.  Also, it requires a lot of polishing to get great shiny coat.  A friend painted it 
for me, with the hood, trunk, and hard top painted by me.  If I remember correctly, we put 
about five or six coats on it.  Between coats, it required sanding, by hand, to get the finish. 
The paint easily chips.

Now for the important question will we get a better Dmax on HRag paper with the new 
Epson 2400?

Martin

I very much doubt it.  The matte black ink has not changed and if you use
QTR you have full control over ink limits already.

> From: mxgo95747 <mxgo95747@...>

> 
> Now for the important question will we get a better Dmax on HRag paper with
> the new 
> Epson 2400?
> 
> Martin
>

What me will most likely see though is a refinement in the extreme highlights where we 
often fought off grain up there with the  current UC, and its lack of a real light black. 
Especially when working with scans and digital capture that are not drum scan quality 
would this be evident.

John



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

> I very much doubt it.  The matte black ink has not changed and if you use
> QTR you have full control over ink limits already.
> 
> 
> > From: mxgo95747 <mxgo95747@y...>
> 
> > 
> > Now for the important question will we get a better Dmax on HRag paper with
> > the new 
> > Epson 2400?
> > 
> > Martin
> >