Digital BW, The Print

For reasons I won't go into there is a silver fine art print by Carl
Chiarenza in my studio right now.
http://homepage.mac.com/chiarenza/Menu2.html
Like all, I am probably more biased than I realize, but none of the
quad prints here on good art papers that utilize much black suffer by
comparison. No doubt they have lower dmax, but they look rich and by
no means weak next to Carl's beautiful print.
You gotta pick the medium to make the particular image sing, instead
holding biases about particular materials. Or the reverse, pick
materials you love and make the images work on them, or some mix of
both...
I say this now because Carl is universally known as someone utilizing
a lot of black as part of his visual vocabulary, and also as one who
goes for as much dmax as possible. I could claim all day that the
quads here are as good as my silver, but it wouldn't mean anything
since you don't know if I had my silver together, we all know Carl does.
I'm positive I could not make Carl's image more impressive or even as
good with a pigment inkjet on matte. It wouldn't say what he intended.
On the other hand I venture to add that he could possibly not make a
silver print of one of my images as nice as my quad print.

At risk of angering people, I'd say that when someone says matte
prints suck, it really means their matte prints of their images suck,
or they've never seen a good one.
I could state my opinion, that there are no "photo" surface inkjet
papers that do not look artificial and cheap, and therefore inkjet
photo surface prints suck. But they probably actually don't, I just
lack user knowledge of them and an affinity for them, and such a
statement really provides nothing useful to anyone anywhere, does it?

Tyler

Amen!

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Tyler Boley" <tyler@t...> wrote:

> For reasons I won't go into there is a silver fine art print by Carl
> Chiarenza in my studio right now.
> http://homepage.mac.com/chiarenza/Menu2.html
> Like all, I am probably more biased than I realize, but none of the
> quad prints here on good art papers that utilize much black suffer by
> comparison. No doubt they have lower dmax, but they look rich and by
> no means weak next to Carl's beautiful print.
> You gotta pick the medium to make the particular image sing, instead
> holding biases about particular materials. Or the reverse, pick
> materials you love and make the images work on them, or some mix of
> both...
> I say this now because Carl is universally known as someone utilizing
> a lot of black as part of his visual vocabulary, and also as one who
> goes for as much dmax as possible. I could claim all day that the
> quads here are as good as my silver, but it wouldn't mean anything
> since you don't know if I had my silver together, we all know Carl does.
> I'm positive I could not make Carl's image more impressive or even as
> good with a pigment inkjet on matte. It wouldn't say what he intended.
> On the other hand I venture to add that he could possibly not make a
> silver print of one of my images as nice as my quad print.
> 
> At risk of angering people, I'd say that when someone says matte
> prints suck, it really means their matte prints of their images suck,
> or they've never seen a good one.
> I could state my opinion, that there are no "photo" surface inkjet
> papers that do not look artificial and cheap, and therefore inkjet
> photo surface prints suck. But they probably actually don't, I just
> lack user knowledge of them and an affinity for them, and such a
> statement really provides nothing useful to anyone anywhere, does it?
> 
> Tyler

On 11-Jun-05, at 12:45 PM, Tyler Boley wrote:

> At risk of angering people, I'd say that when someone says matte
> prints suck, it really means their matte prints of their images suck,
> or they've never seen a good one.

thanks for saying that so well T.
:)

Carolyn

Tyler -

Sorry - you are right - it is my matte images that
suck - all of them.  They don't give me the feeling
that what I experienced when taking the picture, is in
any way transferred to the final print.  I simply like
a certain pizazz and impact that is lacking in any
matte prints I have seen so far, though I admit my
experience is limited.

So - please excuse my babbling generalization.  I am
new to this forum.

Peter

--- Tyler Boley <tyler@...> wrote:

At risk of angering people, I'd say that when someone
says matte
prints suck, it really means their matte prints of
their images suck,
or they've never seen a good one.
I could state my opinion, that there are no "photo"
surface inkjet
papers that do not look artificial and cheap, and
therefore inkjet
photo surface prints suck. But they probably actually
don't, I just
lack user knowledge of them and an affinity for them,
and such a
statement really provides nothing useful to anyone
anywhere, does it?

Tyler


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Peter Johngren
<pjohngren@y...> wrote:
> 
>...They don't give me the feeling
> that what I experienced when taking the picture, is in
> any way transferred to the final print.

Peter, I think we are saying the exact same thing, aren't we? ABout
printmaking?

Didn't mean to jump down anyone's throat, there just been a number of
opinions about anything but gloss or near gloss being somewhat lacking
esthetically. That would most definitely not be a universally held pov.
T

On 11-Jun-05, at 3:21 PM, Peter Johngren wrote:

> Tyler -
>
> Sorry - you are right - it is my matte images that
> suck - all of them.  They don't give me the feeling
> that what I experienced when taking the picture, is in
> any way transferred to the final print.  I simply like
> a certain pizazz and impact that is lacking in any
> matte prints I have seen so far, though I admit my
> experience is limited.

I've seen many inkjet prints over the years, those who have worked  
their files the best way possible for various outputs create stunning  
work, Tyler is a great example of that work. So are some who have  
come and gone from this forum. And a few who remain.. Antonis,  
Martin, Clayton, Paul to name a few (each with their own methodology)  
But, it's not so much the inks or papers used, or the RIP, or the  
printer... it's the way in which the workflow generates a good or  
excellent print, and the understanding behind that workflow.

I personally have a difficult time with some who say with authority  
that this paper or that ink is bad.. period. Opinion should not be  
stated as fact. Spouting numbers is not the way I personally judge  
the quality of a print. I've used most of the papers that some here  
find inadequate, and I love some of them for different outputs. But  
I'm not after the holy grail of "black".. the image can sing or be  
stunning or be what you want it to be with the proper background  
knowledge in how to obtain it, with the output you have chosen to  
work with. Then again, I've also obtained beautiful blacks with many  
workflows... not measured. What I've found in print exchanges is very  
simple... be wary of who you are trusting when they talk about their  
prints... on any forum.

Carolyn

Tyler Boley said:

>No doubt they have lower dmax, but >they look rich and by
>no means weak next to Carl's beautiful >print.

Glad to hear someone say this. With every third message here seemingly 
worried about inadequate dMax I was beginning to think there must be 
something wrong with me because I've been happy  with the blacks I get on my 
matte papers.

I've spent a lot of time printing in a darkroom (a little color, mostly 
monochrome) from 4x5 and 8x10 negatives. I switched to scanning the 
negatives and printing digitally about 3 years ago (a little color, mostly 
monochrome). I have enlargements printed on variable contrast fiber base 
papers, contact prints from 8x10 negatives on  Azo paper (a graded contact 
printing paper noted for it's beautiful tonal separation from blacks to 
highlights), and digital prints hanging together on my walls. The blackest 
blacks in the digital prints look just fine and to my eyes don't look weak 
or washed out in comparison to the silver prints.

IIRC glossy fiber base papers typically have a dMax in the  2.0 - 2.1 range, 
which isn't all that much greater than dMax from digital prints on matte 
paper.  More importantly, many silver prints don't display the highest dMax 
that could possibly be achieved(because of the problems doing so can present 
in other areas of the image).  So to me the real life differences between 
the measured dMax from digital prints on matte paper and the measured dMax 
theoretically attainable from silver paper isn't all that important, an idea 
that seems to be borne out by your comparison.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Tyler Boley" <tyler@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, June 11, 2005 2:45 PM
Subject: [Digital BW] the black thing


For reasons I won't go into there is a silver fine art print by Carl
Chiarenza in my studio right now.
http://homepage.mac.com/chiarenza/Menu2.html
Like all, I am probably more biased than I realize, but none of the
quad prints here on good art papers that utilize much black suffer by
comparison. No doubt they have lower dmax, but they look rich and by
no means weak next to Carl's beautiful print.
You gotta pick the medium to make the particular image sing, instead
holding biases about particular materials. Or the reverse, pick
materials you love and make the images work on them, or some mix of
both...
I say this now because Carl is universally known as someone utilizing
a lot of black as part of his visual vocabulary, and also as one who
goes for as much dmax as possible. I could claim all day that the
quads here are as good as my silver, but it wouldn't mean anything
since you don't know if I had my silver together, we all know Carl does.
I'm positive I could not make Carl's image more impressive or even as
good with a pigment inkjet on matte. It wouldn't say what he intended.
On the other hand I venture to add that he could possibly not make a
silver print of one of my images as nice as my quad print.

At risk of angering people, I'd say that when someone says matte
prints suck, it really means their matte prints of their images suck,
or they've never seen a good one.
I could state my opinion, that there are no "photo" surface inkjet
papers that do not look artificial and cheap, and therefore inkjet
photo surface prints suck. But they probably actually don't, I just
lack user knowledge of them and an affinity for them, and such a
statement really provides nothing useful to anyone anywhere, does it?

Tyler






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

IMO this kind of discussion *usually* revolves around failure to cause
one medium to emulate another medium...an iffy pursuit, given that
silver paper is still available.

But inkjet prints are not silver paper, need not look like silver
paper. That appears currently not to be their forte. The pursuit of
silver paper characteristics is worthwhile and important, but it's
peripheral to the medium, like a watercolorist trying to emulate an
etching. 

Each is a different medium, each deserving respect independently. 

IMO inkjet prints readily look better than virtually all Ciba and most
Ektacolor (except for digitally enlarged or laser enlarged Ektacolor),
using Ciba and Ektacolor frames of reference. It's said that Epson has
long had this comparison in mind, only recently thinking about
comparisons to silver paper.

On 11-Jun-05, at 3:21 PM, Peter Johngren wrote:

> any way transferred to the final print.  I simply like
> a certain pizazz and impact that is lacking in any
> matte prints I have seen so far, though I admit my
> experience is limited.

I said without an important name.

> .. Tyler, Antonis,
> Martin, Clayton, Paul to name a few (each with their own methodology)
> But, it's not so much the inks or papers used, or the RIP, or the
> printer...

and of course Roy Harrington.. . One in particular that comes to  
mind, the "Lounge Car"... amazing chrome that sings and shines, on  
matte paper. This prior to QTR I believe.

Carolyn

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Brian Ellis"
<bellis60@v...> wrote:

>...I have enlargements printed on variable contrast fiber base 
> papers, contact prints from 8x10 negatives on  Azo paper (a graded
contact 
> printing paper noted for it's beautiful tonal separation from blacks to 
> highlights), and digital prints hanging together on my walls. The
blackest 
> blacks in the digital prints look just fine and to my eyes don't
look weak 
> or washed out in comparison to the silver prints.

I just think they are different, one wouldn't go to one of them for
the same thing one might go to the other.
During one very brief period in my youth when I had disposable income,
and the price was right, I bought a Caponigro.
It has no deep silver black in it and it's range could easily be
precisely equaled on a nice quad print on good paper. But when you
look at it, you're looking through the matte frame into a three
dimensional sculptural representation of Stonehenge made out of subtly
glowing pewter.
The quad wouldn't do that. It'll do something else, maybe something
remarkable, but not that.
I honestly hope silver hangs around a very long time and people keep
using it.
Tyler

Just to toss in a lay person's opinion.... I *really* appreciate the
level of refinement and expertise on this list. And I'm sure that there
are viewers/customers, paying or otherwise, who also appreciate
some of the finer nuances of the inkjet B&W medium vs. traditional
darkroom prints.

That said, I make candid/street photos and photos of friend and family,
many portraits with black backgrounds. For me, at least, inkjet B&W
printing has allowed me to make matte prints for my good ol' friends
and family that just floor them. So by that measure, the blacks are
black enough for me. For me it's about the output and the reactions
of the viewers/recipients.

Without a wet darkroom at my disposal (no room), B&W inkjet is
delivering the goods just fine, and provides a satisfactory output medium
for the scanned negs from my film cameras. I just work with the medium
as best I can, and the more I do, the better my prints are getting (or 
at least,
I hope so).

Scott

Djon wrote:

> IMO this kind of discussion *usually* revolves around failure to cause
> one medium to emulate another medium...an iffy pursuit, given that
> silver paper is still available.
>
> But inkjet prints are not silver paper, need not look like silver
> paper. That appears currently not to be their forte. The pursuit of
> silver paper characteristics is worthwhile and important, but it's
> peripheral to the medium, like a watercolorist trying to emulate an
> etching.
>
> Each is a different medium, each deserving respect independently.
>
> IMO inkjet prints readily look better than virtually all Ciba and most
> Ektacolor (except for digitally enlarged or laser enlarged Ektacolor),
> using Ciba and Ektacolor frames of reference. It's said that Epson has
> long had this comparison in mind, only recently thinking about
> comparisons to silver paper.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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/>.
>
>

On 6/11/05 3:27 PM, "Djon" <westsidemaurice@...> typed:

> IMO this kind of discussion *usually* revolves around failure to cause
> one medium to emulate another medium...an iffy pursuit, given that
> silver paper is still available.
> 
> But inkjet prints are not silver paper, need not look like silver
> paper. That appears currently not to be their forte. The pursuit of
> silver paper characteristics is worthwhile and important, but it's
> peripheral to the medium, like a watercolorist trying to emulate an
> etching. 
> 
> Each is a different medium, each deserving respect independently.
> 
> IMO inkjet prints readily look better than virtually all Ciba and most
> Ektacolor (except for digitally enlarged or laser enlarged Ektacolor),
> using Ciba and Ektacolor frames of reference. It's said that Epson has
> long had this comparison in mind, only recently thinking about
> comparisons to silver paper.
> 
> 
> 
I think this decade the preference for Ciba or whatever the real name of it
is now went over to this thing you are talking about recently, Dijon.
This digitally enlarged or laser enlarged Ektacolor which I believe is
called something like LightJet. As a brand name. I think there¹s more than
one.
It ³won out² over Ciba as the color printing medium of choice.
These are people who typically sell their 20x24s for 500 bucks and 30x40s
for a grand.
But in the past year and a half those people like John Wawrzonek, Bill
Atkinson, the Silver light gallery group who also has their work in the
better New York and everywhere else galleries but are mainly landscape
although solidly fine art and not decorative have gone UltraChrome.
That¹s us folks, the Epson thing!
These are color people though and we are supposedly black and white.
As far as color goes I think UltraChrome is officially ³it².
I¹ts the cream of the crop, the way to fly in color photography bar none.
In black and white though it¹s still a bit of a tossup. With a lot of the
smart money still growing over to the silver gelatin print.
I think in a year and a half the better shows in the better galleries by the
better photographers will be just as much done UltraChrome as they are
darkroom.
But right now I think the technology is already there. And we have nothing
to apologize about.
If a top photographer gave me a choice on ordering one of his/her works
inkjet or darkroom I¹d have no preference.
³What ever you¹re in the mood for doing today²  I¹d say.
If it was a sunny day I¹d say ³Platinum². :)
But I¹d expect to pay a few extra bucks for the rare earth metals...
And that white Zink sun screen for his/her nose.


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:
...
> In black and white though it¹s still a bit of a tossup. With a lot
of the
> smart money still growing over to the silver gelatin print.
> I think in a year and a half the better shows in the better
galleries by the
> better photographers will be just as much done UltraChrome as they are
> darkroom.

Ultrachrome? For black and white? Hmm.
I see you are in Portland, scoot on over to Cirrus Digital and see
some real B&W inkjet, some even being done for your museum there.
But don't take up too much of Phil's time, he's having a hard time
keeping up with the orders for the better shows in the better
galleries by the better photographers... and not with ultrachromes.
Tyler

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Tyler Boley"
<tyler@t...> wrote:

>...scoot on over to Cirrus Digital and see
> some real B&W inkjet...
> ... and not with ultrachromes.
> Tyler

Sorry about how that must have sounded, and to those of you using UCs
for B&W. But inkjets and Ultrchrome prints are not the equivalent of
each other, though Epson may pull that off eventually. Very much the
same as the personal computer is the same as a windows machine in the
public's mind (PC).

There are options, many are the best, and Epson is usually trying to
catch up with them.
Tyler

And what papers are they generally printing to?.....


> From: Mark Rabiner <mark@...>

> As far as color goes I think UltraChrome is officially ³it².

>thanks for saying that so well T.

Ditto!


Regards,
Clayton


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

On 6/11/05 4:26 PM, "Tyler Boley" <tyler@...> typed:

> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Mark Rabiner
> <mark@r...> wrote:
> ...
>> > In black and white though it¹s still a bit of a tossup. With a lot
> of the
>> > smart money still growing over to the silver gelatin print.
>> > I think in a year and a half the better shows in the better
> galleries by the
>> > better photographers will be just as much done UltraChrome as they are
>> > darkroom.
> 
> Ultrachrome? For black and white? Hmm.
> I see you are in Portland, scoot on over to Cirrus Digital and see
> some real B&W inkjet, some even being done for your museum there.
> But don't take up too much of Phil's time, he's having a hard time
> keeping up with the orders for the better shows in the better
> galleries by the better photographers... and not with ultrachromes.
> Tyler
> 
> 
Yes of course not the present “UltraChrome” brand name pigment for black and
white inkjet.
The next generation “UltraChrome2” or whatever it’s called which is just now
coming out with the three grays at least.
Or the MIS or the other pigment options.
The UltraChrome in it’s present carnation has perhaps gotten it sown up in
color.  
Not even close in black and white.

Will come by and check you out at Cirrus,  Tyler.
Will be wearing a red Cumulous carnation so you can pick me out.



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





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

On 6/11/05 4:58 PM, "Steve Kale" <stevekale@...> typed:

> And what papers are they generally printing to?.....
> 
> 
>> > From: Mark Rabiner <mark@...>
> 
>> > As far as color goes I think UltraChrome is officially ³it².
> 
> 
I’m much less up on the great papers than you guys.
I just switched from the Epson enhanced matt to the Velvet.
Using Epson “brand” papers sounds and is kind of boring but for some reason
I like to go into Pro Photo and know that my paper is going to be there.
I wonder if someone else really makes it for them. Someone with a more
impressive name than “Epson” paper wise.

The fact that my paper now is 100% rag just like the mat board I’d always
used blows me away.

The papers available for inkjet is amazing far surpassing anything we ever
knew  in the darkroom. The variety and quality.

But it’s definitely a matt ballgame.

In the darkroom I’ve stuck to Ilford. Avoided the temptation to stray.
When you flip thought my stack of prints they’re all the same size.
Bugs the hell out of me when they're slightly not.
Makes it hard to shuffle and deal.

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





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

I don¹t mind sarcasm because in a face to face meeting I¹ll have my stack of
prints and they¹ll have thiers.

And if someone's prints are good they can say anything they want about
anything.


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:
...
> Will come by and check you out at Cirrus,  Tyler.
> Will be wearing a red Cumulous carnation so you can pick me out.

Mark, I'm in Seattle, different deal. But do say hi to Phil for me,
and do check it out...

> I just switched from the Epson enhanced matt to the Velvet.
> Using Epson ¡°brand¡± papers sounds and is kind of boring but for
some reason
> I like to go into Pro Photo and know that my paper is going to be there.
> I wonder if someone else really makes it for them. Someone with a more
> impressive name than ¡°Epson¡± paper wise.

Yes, that would be Somerset. Available for quite some time before
Epson rebranded it. Also around for years as an uncoated, became the
standard for Iris.
Tyler

And, there are many among us who were drawn to inkjet printing because it allowed printing on materials that were/are not available in the wet darkroom.
 
Tom Baker

Tyler Boley <tyler@...> wrote:
--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Peter Johngren

wrote:
> 
>...They don't give me the feeling
> that what I experienced when taking the picture, is in
> any way transferred to the final print.

Peter, I think we are saying the exact same thing, aren't we? ABout
printmaking?

Didn't mean to jump down anyone's throat, there just been a number of
opinions about anything but gloss or near gloss being somewhat lacking
esthetically. That would most definitely not be a universally held pov.
T





Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other resources as they are often being updated.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint

If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same page.

Please follow these basic guidelines:
- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep them short.
- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames. Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the membership without notice.
- Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be removed from the membership.
- By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group Owner and Moderators. See “Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines” in the Files section:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/

BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE “OWNER” AND “MODERATORS” OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS, GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE “OWNER” AND “MODERATORS” OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.

Yahoo! Groups Links









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

> > IMO inkjet prints readily look better than virtually all Ciba and most
> > Ektacolor (except for digitally enlarged or laser enlarged Ektacolor),
> > using Ciba and Ektacolor frames of reference. It's said that Epson has
> > long had this comparison in mind, only recently thinking about
> > comparisons to silver paper.
> > 
 
> I think this decade the preference for Ciba or whatever the real
name of it
> is now went over to this thing you are talking about recently, Dijon.
> This digitally enlarged or laser enlarged Ektacolor which I believe is
> called something like LightJet. As a brand name.

 Devere and Durst make enlargers for it. Any Ektacolor processer runs
it. I didn't mention Lightjet because I don't think brands are relevant.

 
> It ³won out² over Ciba as the color printing medium of choice.
> These are people who typically sell their 20x24s for 500 bucks and
30x40s
> for a grand.

Yes. Successful photogs.

> But in the past year and a half those people like John Wawrzonek, Bill
> Atkinson, the Silver light gallery group who also has their work in the
> better New York and everywhere else galleries but are mainly landscape
> although solidly fine art and not decorative have gone UltraChrome.
> That¹s us folks, the Epson thing!

Yes. I agree. But I do think the Ektacolor process has a small, very
expensive edge. And is reportedly even more archival, fwiw (zero IMO).
 
> As far as color goes I think UltraChrome is officially ³it².
> I¹ts the cream of the crop, the way to fly in color photography bar
none.

Not quite, but very near. I love it.

 
 With a lot of the
> smart money still growing over to the silver gelatin print.
> I think in a year and a half the better shows in the better
galleries by the
> better photographers will be just as much done UltraChrome as they are
> darkroom.

I think many are actively moving away from inkjet because they see a
marketing advantage...and because some inkjet is actually inferior (I
won't mention brands of alternative "inks" or non-Epson printers).

> But right now I think the technology is already there.

Nope. It's not equal to silver printing, it's better or worse. Not the
same. 

 And we have nothing
> to apologize about.

Of course not. I print inkjet. 

> If a top photographer gave me a choice on ordering one of his/her works
> inkjet or darkroom I¹d have no preference.

I wouldn't if he was famous for his silver prints.

> ³What ever you¹re in the mood for doing today²  I¹d say.
> If it was a sunny day I¹d say ³Platinum². :)
> But I¹d expect to pay a few extra bucks for the rare earth metals...
> And that white Zink sun screen for his/her nose.

I agree with your points more or less, but I know that there's a
*growing* market for silver and platinum prints, especially at the top
end of the market dollar-wise. Some galleries that once showed inkjet
in Santa Fe are now avoiding it for marketing reasons. Inkjet and
silver/platinum look different. Not better or worse, but interestingly
many inkjet print experts are trying to emulate these other media. I
think this has to do with a pervasive sense that inkjet is inferior as
is, right now. It ain't. It's just different, like etchings or silkscreen.

Djon

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

Djon wrote:

>I
>think this has to do with a pervasive sense that inkjet is inferior as
>is, right now. It ain't. It's just different, like etchings or silkscreen.
>  
>
The "it's just different"  is only partially true.  Most traditional 
media have a look that's hard to emulate with other media, and the 
emulation will not usually be very successful. For example, oil paints 
have different characteristics than watercolors. One can try to use one 
to emulate the other, but it would be very difficult, if not impossible, 
to achieve an identical looking piece, as long as the original piece 
used the characteristics of it's medium to full effect. Inkjet prints, 
on the other hand, can fairly easily be  made to look very similar to 
traditional photographic prints. In fact, according to certain criteria, 
dmax for example, some inkjets can surpass traditional prints.   Inkjet 
prints can also look quite different from air dried glossy fb silver 
gelatin prints, but so can other traditional silver gelatin and 
alternative processes.  Traditional photography does not amount to just 
one look. Hence one need not be "emulating" the look of traditional 
photography only by preferring non-matte papers.

I use the traditional air dried glossy fiber based silver gelatin paper 
not because others have used it in the past; but because it's dynamic 
range, range of hues, archivability, surface reflection and other 
characteristics have in the past best fit the type if image that I've 
wanted to make.  I've tried numerous other traditional processes, and 
for my work none were as satisfying, but I have nothing against those 
who use other processes.  Since the traditional air dried...silver 
gelatin paper has best met my needs, when looking for a replacement, 
it's only natural that I should compare them to that standard, and 
there's nothing wrong with this, as some seem to suggest. I'm only 
trying to emulate the look of FB with regards to those characteristics 
of inkjet printing that aren't as satisfying to me. If possible, I'd 
like to get injet prints which surpass my FB prints in all of their 
characteristics.  This is not, as some have suggested, trying to get one 
medium to do something that it's not suited for.  With the progress 
being made with inkjet prints, I have no doubt that my goal will 
eventually be achieved. Now those who print on matte inkjet papers may 
have other goals, and that's fine. My goals, though, are not inherently 
less legitimate than theirs.

Like what you like, and let others worry about themselves.

-Peter De Smidt

<<Tyler Boley said:

>No doubt they have lower dmax, but >they look rich 
and by
>no means weak next to Carl's beautiful >print.>>

It is my personal experience that life is not usually
at dMax or particularly glossy. So, that elusive dMax
is not usually at the top of my list of objectives for
most of my prints and probably why I prefer the
subleties of matte prints to the garishness of overly
glossy prints ..... It is just a personal thing as it
should be ..... I am not trying to be Paul or steve or
Ansel although each of them has helped me to work
toward my idea of what my photos and prints should be.
 JMHO

Jerry in Houston

This is not, as some have suggested, trying to get one 
> medium to do something that it's not suited for.  With the progress 
> being made with inkjet prints, I have no doubt that my goal will 
> eventually be achieved.

We each have our own challenges and goals. Mine are more involved with
imagery, less with approximating silver paper. I'm increasingly
thinking in terms of etching. For me, matte papers and often simple
black-only printing already seem to be better than silver paper ever
was (thanks Clayton!). 

 Now those who print on matte inkjet papers may 
> have other goals, and that's fine. My goals, though, are not inherently 
> less legitimate than theirs.

Happily the new generation of Epson printers is probably only a
generation or two away from closely approximating what you're after,
right out of the box. I'd bet on 2008.

> 
> -Peter De Smidt

Djon

I noticed this ‘black thing’ thread a bit late,  but just the same 
here’s my 2 cents worth:

1)	I agree that trying to get inkjets to imitate silver in 
general is a bit ‘iffy’ and to some extent raises the issue of 
remaining true to the integrity of the new medium. One could make an 
argument for letting it stand on its own at this point and using its 
strengths to best advantage.
Having said that, however, I have to point out that pursuing the 
characteristics of silver has in no way been ‘peripheral’ or 
irrelevant, it has in fact driven the development of inkjet 
printing, and is continuing to do so. 
Think about it: we have pigment inks because the dyes didn’t hold up 
as well as color photos, not even Kodak’s.  
We have dither patterns and droplet sizes that print finer than a 
lot of the photographic output to date (small format at any rate), 
because the manufacturers perceived us as demanding ‘true 
photographic output’-whatever that means. 
The development of grayscale pigment printing happened in pursuit of 
the smoothness, neutrality and tonal range of silver prints.
If Epson and early reports are to be believed, we are now getting 
pigments capable of better color with a longer lifespan than any 
photo process currently available. 
All of the above (and more) happened because the various parties 
involved were trying hard to equal or exceed the photographic 
standards of our day, in order to gain wider acceptance-and 
eventually replace chem. based photography. So like it or not, 
pursuing photographic standards and characteristics has been the 
engine driving this train. The process has blessed us with many 
improvements, and there are undoubtedly more to come. So is any one 
really ready to say ‘this is my stop, I’ll get of the train, thank 
you’ just because they’re tired of the ‘the black thing’ argument?

Personally I’d like to see a dmax of over 2.0 on matte papers. In 
the days before I knew better, and even afterwards once by mistake, 
I used dye black on a couple different cotton papers, and the 
density was just intense. If you think rag papers are incapable of 
better damx, try it sometime. It was quite a letdown to go back to 
Archival K and even Eboni, so I for one am not willing to settle for 
(IMO) a barely adequate 1.65 or whatever it is. I’ll live with it 
temporarily, but the first ink maker that bumps it up even a small 
but noticeable increment (with good lifespan of course) gets my 
nickel.

Shovel that coal & stoke that fire boys & girls, we still have some 
track left to explore.

Steven Karafyllakis

http://www.stevekphoto.com

Very well said.

Gary

----- Original Message -----
From: "Carolyn Frayn" <cafrayn@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, June 11, 2005 3:06 PM
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] the black thing



On 11-Jun-05, at 3:21 PM, Peter Johngren wrote:

> Tyler -
>
> Sorry - you are right - it is my matte images that
> suck - all of them.  They don't give me the feeling
> that what I experienced when taking the picture, is in
> any way transferred to the final print.  I simply like
> a certain pizazz and impact that is lacking in any
> matte prints I have seen so far, though I admit my
> experience is limited.

I've seen many inkjet prints over the years, those who have worked
their files the best way possible for various outputs create stunning
work, Tyler is a great example of that work. So are some who have
come and gone from this forum. And a few who remain.. Antonis,
Martin, Clayton, Paul to name a few (each with their own methodology)
But, it's not so much the inks or papers used, or the RIP, or the
printer... it's the way in which the workflow generates a good or
excellent print, and the understanding behind that workflow.

I personally have a difficult time with some who say with authority
that this paper or that ink is bad.. period. Opinion should not be
stated as fact. Spouting numbers is not the way I personally judge
the quality of a print. I've used most of the papers that some here
find inadequate, and I love some of them for different outputs. But
I'm not after the holy grail of "black".. the image can sing or be
stunning or be what you want it to be with the proper background
knowledge in how to obtain it, with the output you have chosen to
work with. Then again, I've also obtained beautiful blacks with many
workflows... not measured. What I've found in print exchanges is very
simple... be wary of who you are trusting when they talk about their
prints... on any forum.

Carolyn




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

On 6/11/05 9:42 PM, "Jerry in Houston" <glewis4457@...> typed:

> <<Tyler Boley said:
> 
>> >No doubt they have lower dmax, but >they look rich
> and by
>> >no means weak next to Carl's beautiful >print.>>
> 
> It is my personal experience that life is not usually
> at dMax or particularly glossy. So, that elusive dMax
> is not usually at the top of my list of objectives for
> most of my prints and probably why I prefer the
> subleties of matte prints to the garishness of overly
> glossy prints ..... It is just a personal thing as it
> should be ..... I am not trying to be Paul or steve or
> Ansel although each of them has helped me to work
> toward my idea of what my photos and prints should be.
>  JMHO
> 
> Jerry in Houston
> 
> 
> 
I believe the printmaking form most famous for it¹s blacks. Richness, depth
of and a kind of transparency even...
Is platinum.
And that¹s a matt thing.
So I don¹t think it¹s all about how glossy the surface is.

Platinum prints appear to be floating on top of the paper.
Not underneath something like Gelatin.
Or at least there does not seem to be something between you and the image
like in a gelatin silver image.
This is kind of the case with inkjet as well.
The pigment is right up top.
Hence the success of matt with inkjet as well.

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





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

Well said.

> From: Peter De Smidt <pdesmidt@...>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Sat, 11 Jun 2005 21:56:46 -0500
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: the black thing
> 
> Djon wrote:
> 
>> I
>> think this has to do with a pervasive sense that inkjet is inferior as
>> is, right now. It ain't. It's just different, like etchings or silkscreen.
>>  
>> 
> The "it's just different"  is only partially true.  Most traditional
> media have a look that's hard to emulate with other media, and the
> emulation will not usually be very successful. For example, oil paints
> have different characteristics than watercolors. One can try to use one
> to emulate the other, but it would be very difficult, if not impossible,
> to achieve an identical looking piece, as long as the original piece
> used the characteristics of it's medium to full effect. Inkjet prints,
> on the other hand, can fairly easily be  made to look very similar to
> traditional photographic prints. In fact, according to certain criteria,
> dmax for example, some inkjets can surpass traditional prints.   Inkjet
> prints can also look quite different from air dried glossy fb silver
> gelatin prints, but so can other traditional silver gelatin and
> alternative processes.  Traditional photography does not amount to just
> one look. Hence one need not be "emulating" the look of traditional
> photography only by preferring non-matte papers.
> 
> I use the traditional air dried glossy fiber based silver gelatin paper
> not because others have used it in the past; but because it's dynamic
> range, range of hues, archivability, surface reflection and other
> characteristics have in the past best fit the type if image that I've
> wanted to make.  I've tried numerous other traditional processes, and
> for my work none were as satisfying, but I have nothing against those
> who use other processes.  Since the traditional air dried...silver
> gelatin paper has best met my needs, when looking for a replacement,
> it's only natural that I should compare them to that standard, and
> there's nothing wrong with this, as some seem to suggest. I'm only
> trying to emulate the look of FB with regards to those characteristics
> of inkjet printing that aren't as satisfying to me. If possible, I'd
> like to get injet prints which surpass my FB prints in all of their
> characteristics.  This is not, as some have suggested, trying to get one
> medium to do something that it's not suited for.  With the progress
> being made with inkjet prints, I have no doubt that my goal will
> eventually be achieved. Now those who print on matte inkjet papers may
> have other goals, and that's fine. My goals, though, are not inherently
> less legitimate than theirs.
> 
> Like what you like, and let others worry about themselves.
> 
> -Peter De Smidt

Yes exactly.  I don't think you will have long to wait.  Luckily we are not
all happy with the status quo.

> From: Steven Karafyllakis <steve@stevekphoto.com>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Sun, 12 Jun 2005 05:36:19 -0000
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: [Digital BW] RE: the black thing
> 
> I noticed this ‘black thing’ thread a bit late,  but just the same
> here’s my 2 cents worth:
> 
> 1) I agree that trying to get inkjets to imitate silver in
> general is a bit ‘iffy’ and to some extent raises the issue of
> remaining true to the integrity of the new medium. One could make an
> argument for letting it stand on its own at this point and using its
> strengths to best advantage.
> Having said that, however, I have to point out that pursuing the
> characteristics of silver has in no way been ‘peripheral’ or
> irrelevant, it has in fact driven the development of inkjet
> printing, and is continuing to do so.
> Think about it: we have pigment inks because the dyes didn’t hold up
> as well as color photos, not even Kodak’s.
> We have dither patterns and droplet sizes that print finer than a
> lot of the photographic output to date (small format at any rate),
> because the manufacturers perceived us as demanding ‘true
> photographic output’-whatever that means.
> The development of grayscale pigment printing happened in pursuit of
> the smoothness, neutrality and tonal range of silver prints.
> If Epson and early reports are to be believed, we are now getting
> pigments capable of better color with a longer lifespan than any
> photo process currently available.
> All of the above (and more) happened because the various parties
> involved were trying hard to equal or exceed the photographic
> standards of our day, in order to gain wider acceptance-and
> eventually replace chem. based photography. So like it or not,
> pursuing photographic standards and characteristics has been the
> engine driving this train. The process has blessed us with many
> improvements, and there are undoubtedly more to come. So is any one
> really ready to say ‘this is my stop, I’ll get of the train, thank
> you’ just because they’re tired of the ‘the black thing’ argument?
> 
> Personally I’d like to see a dmax of over 2.0 on matte papers. In
> the days before I knew better, and even afterwards once by mistake,
> I used dye black on a couple different cotton papers, and the
> density was just intense. If you think rag papers are incapable of
> better damx, try it sometime. It was quite a letdown to go back to
> Archival K and even Eboni, so I for one am not willing to settle for
> (IMO) a barely adequate 1.65 or whatever it is. I’ll live with it
> temporarily, but the first ink maker that bumps it up even a small
> but noticeable increment (with good lifespan of course) gets my
> nickel.
> 
> Shovel that coal & stoke that fire boys & girls, we still have some
> track left to explore.
> 
> Steven Karafyllakis
> 
> http://www.stevekphoto.com
>

Again I have to say that of all the exhibitions I have been to in the last
year, none have exhibited work on matte paper.  Maybe I am just not getting
to enough galleries - or cheaper galleries or something.

The last exhibition I took in was in New York.  I don't recall the artist -
unfortunately the visit was too rushed.  The prints were colour cibachrome
shots of some American natural history archives - all sorts of preserved
animals etc. (Someone in New York will know of the exhibition.)  $5000-$6500
per print (if I recall properly) roughly 16x20in stuff.

All the black and white stuff I have seen has been traditional processes.
Most other colour work has been Lightjet/Durst Lambda.  Whenever Epson/HP
chooses to showcase their work at events it is colour on photo paper.  Now I
don't spend countless hours scouring exhibitions but this seems a heavily
weighted sample.  I also don't think that this is any reason why an
individual should alter the way they choose to express themselves.  I am
just puzzled when I see such statements.

> From: Mark Rabiner <mark@...>


> 
> But it¹s definitely a matt ballgame.
>

Sorry I need to correct myself here.  The exhibit "Ashes and Snow" at the
Nomadic Museum was on some sort of parchment - definitely not a
run-of-the-mill matte paper.

> From: Steve Kale <stevekale@...>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Sun, 12 Jun 2005 11:23:30 +0100
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: the black thing
> 
> Again I have to say that of all the exhibitions I have been to in the last
> year, none have exhibited work on matte paper.  Maybe I am just not getting
> to enough galleries - or cheaper galleries or something.
> 
> The last exhibition I took in was in New York.  I don't recall the artist -
> unfortunately the visit was too rushed.  The prints were colour cibachrome
> shots of some American natural history archives - all sorts of preserved
> animals etc. (Someone in New York will know of the exhibition.)  $5000-$6500
> per print (if I recall properly) roughly 16x20in stuff.
> 
> All the black and white stuff I have seen has been traditional processes.
> Most other colour work has been Lightjet/Durst Lambda.  Whenever Epson/HP
> chooses to showcase their work at events it is colour on photo paper.  Now I
> don't spend countless hours scouring exhibitions but this seems a heavily
> weighted sample.  I also don't think that this is any reason why an
> individual should alter the way they choose to express themselves.  I am
> just puzzled when I see such statements.
> 
> 
>> From: Mark Rabiner <mark@...>
> 
> 
>> 
>> But it¹s definitely a matt ballgame.
>>

Interesting

Around here a lot (most?) of the better artists exhibit on matte paper---better blacks I 
think.  I certainly do too.

And the Epson print seminars and trade shows that I have been to have displayed large 
stunning B&W prints, as well as color of course.

Scott


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

> Again I have to say that of all the exhibitions I have been to in the last
> year, none have exhibited work on matte paper.  Maybe I am just not getting
> to enough galleries - or cheaper galleries or something.
> 
> The last exhibition I took in was in New York.  I don't recall the artist -
> unfortunately the visit was too rushed.  The prints were colour cibachrome
> shots of some American natural history archives - all sorts of preserved
> 
> All the black and white stuff I have seen has been traditional processes.
> Most other colour work has been Lightjet/Durst Lambda.  Whenever Epson/HP
> chooses to showcase their work at events it is colour on photo paper.  Now I
> don't spend countless hours scouring exhibitions but this seems a heavily