Digital BW, The Print

In reading an article containing the thoughts of Jon Cone it was mentioned
that while matte papers excel in their ability to reproduce tones and depth,
none of the non-matte papers receive the ink as well and do not have the
same quality. Previously, I had thought that the opposite was true, and that
matte papers wouldn't have the depth and tonal range and depth. Do I need to
reverse my understanding? In having to choose between inks and papers to
achieve depth and tone, are the matte papers superior?

Clarence W. Walker,   
Creative Expression Photography
http://www.creativeexpressiononline.com
Commercial, fine-art, and stock

Hello Clarence,

>In reading an article containing the thoughts of Jon Cone it was 
>mentioned that while matte papers excel in their ability to 
>reproduce tones and depth, none of the non-matte papers receive the 
>ink as well and do not have the same quality. Previously, I had 
>thought that the opposite was true, and that matte papers wouldn't 
>have the depth and tonal range and depth. Do I need to reverse my 
>understanding? In having to choose between inks and papers to
>achieve depth and tone, are the matte papers superior?

This is really hard to answer because it's so subjective.  Terms like
"depth", "tone" and "recieve the ink as well" mean different things to
different people, and it can vary among different images.  I keep
around 10 different matte papers on hand.  Some have very hard smooth
surfaces and some have soft and/or textured surfaces, plus different
contrast curves, and it's amazing what a huge difference they can make
for any given image.  I recently did some testing with Silver Rag
using several different images, and some looked better on it and
others looked better on matte paper even with its lower dmax.  

Ultimately, these are individual aesthetic decisions.  Which ice cream
is superior, chocolate or strawberry?  IMO the only way you'll be able
to answer this question is to make prints of a variety of images on
several examples of both kinds of papers and come to your own conclusions.


Regards,
Clayton


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

Clarence,
It may take a re-read to grasp what Jon had written.  Non-matte has a
greater tonal range than matte, so his point may have been finer than the
obvious.
Other than personal taste, I think lighting has a huge affect on what looks
best.  Controlled gallery lighting makes gloss surfaces look exceptional,
while uncontrolled lighting can make those images almost un-viewable.  There
must be some galleries in Atlanta with inkjet prints that you can visit?
There are so many choices and future promises now, making it extremely
difficult to home in on one’s own aspiration.

Best regards,
John Moody

-----Original Message-----
From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of Clarence
Walker
Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2006 9:36 AM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Digital BW] Matte versus gloss papers for tone

In reading an article containing the thoughts of Jon Cone it was mentioned
that while matte papers excel in their ability to reproduce tones and depth,
none of the non-matte papers receive the ink as well and do not have the
same quality. Previously, I had thought that the opposite was true, and that
matte papers wouldn't have the depth and tonal range and depth. Do I need to
reverse my understanding? In having to choose between inks and papers to
achieve depth and tone, are the matte papers superior?

Clarence W. Walker,




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

This confusion may come from prevailing careless of "tone." 

In wet darkroom usage, "tone" refers specifically to the color or
treatment of a B&W print, as in sepia, gold, brown, selenium, cold,
"duo-tone" etc. It doesn't refer to density or contrast or darkness etc.

NON-"tone" factors include Dmax and  the question of clear definition
of each zone from adjoining zones (ie zone system), Vs unclear
definition of zones, zones that are missed entirely or over-emphasized.

"Tone" is carelessly used in inkjet printing because many  have had no
serious contact with wet darkrooms, don't have language for or are
completely unaware of those factors, are unaware of B&W zones etc. 




--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "John Moody"
<moodymz3@...> wrote:
>
> Clarence,
> It may take a re-read to grasp what Jon had written.  Non-matte has a
> greater tonal range than matte, so his point may have been finer
than the
> obvious.
> Other than personal taste, I think lighting has a huge affect on
what looks
> best.  Controlled gallery lighting makes gloss surfaces look
exceptional,
> while uncontrolled lighting can make those images almost
un-viewable.  There
> must be some galleries in Atlanta with inkjet prints that you can visit?
> There are so many choices and future promises now, making it extremely
> difficult to home in on one's own aspiration.
> 
> Best regards,
> John Moody
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of
Clarence
> Walker
> Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2006 9:36 AM
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [Digital BW] Matte versus gloss papers for tone
> 
> In reading an article containing the thoughts of Jon Cone it was
mentioned
> that while matte papers excel in their ability to reproduce tones
and depth,
> none of the non-matte papers receive the ink as well and do not have the
> same quality. Previously, I had thought that the opposite was true,
and that
> matte papers wouldn't have the depth and tonal range and depth. Do I
need to

> reverse my understanding? In having to choose between inks and papers to
> achieve depth and tone, are the matte papers superior?
> 
> Clarence W. Walker,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

> This confusion may come from prevailing careless of "tone."
> 
> In wet darkroom usage, "tone" refers specifically to the color or
> treatment of a B&W print, as in sepia, gold, brown, selenium, cold,
> ...

The glossy papers also win with respect to this traditional definition of
tone.

Truth is, the paper companies appear to have figured out how to put micro
porous, "glossy" surfaces onto rag (or probably a mix of cotton and alpha
cellulose) that can give us the 2+ dmax we've been looking for.  These
appear to be barrier papers, but they are a major improvement over the older
RC papers we've used in the past.  An inkset that is not compatible with
this new generation of papers is going to be at a significant disadvantage.
I'm not sure if the Piezo inkset would be compatible if it just added a
Photo Black. 

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Clarence Walker" <creative-
expression@...> wrote:
>
> In reading an article containing the thoughts of Jon Cone it was mentioned
> that while matte papers excel in their ability to reproduce tones and depth,
> none of the non-matte papers receive the ink as well and do not have the
> same quality. Previously, I had thought that the opposite was true, and that
> matte papers wouldn't have the depth and tonal range and depth. Do I need to
> reverse my understanding? In having to choose between inks and papers to
> achieve depth and tone, are the matte papers superior?

Clarence:
I know for a fact, that Jon Cone used to spray his matte Sommerset Velvet  Iris prints with 
several coats of a protectant finish, primarily to enhance the blacks that result. 

John Nollendorfs