Digital BW, The Print

A recent article on the Luminous-Landscape site concludes that these
papers are not good enough. They have that "Naugahyde vinyl" look.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/surface-reflections.shtml

Cheers,
André

Hello Andre,

>A recent article on the Luminous-Landscape site concludes that these
>papers are not good enough. They have that "Naugahyde vinyl" look.

I think he makes some very good points.  I'm lukewarm about SR and
listed it's pros and cons in my article #9b (at link below).  I think
SR is a step in the right direction but there's a long way to go yet.

Regards,
Clayton


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

> A recent article on the Luminous-Landscape site concludes 
> that these papers are not good enough. They have that
> "Naugahyde vinyl" look.

> http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/surface-reflections.shtml

It's subjective.

I think the author's subjective position is clearly established by these
quotes: "Starting as a platinum printer in 1977, I have long preferred
cotton rag papers because of their inherent elegance..."

But now he uses, "hand-blended carbon inks."

He continues, "I have always admired prints that have a passive surface that
lets the viewer look deeply into the print."

The author, Richard Lohmann, simply prefers matte papers.

We've discussed at length here the pros and cons of glossy v. matte
surfaces.  I don't think his article says anything new.

On a more practical side, I still have curl in my 8x10 Silver Rag sheets
that causes the head to hit the edge of the paper.  I thought Crane was
going to be able to flatten the paper.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

Andre,

I've not tried the Fibraprint, but I have used the Silver Rag and the 
Pearl. For me, the Pearl is superior and good enough to use in my part 
of an upcoming show at the San Diego Natural History Museum.  That may 
be because the Silver Rag base is a little creamier and I most often 
prefer a cleaner white. The SR also has a more pronounced bronzing 
effect.  And I found that the Hahnemuehle profile was extremely good for 
my particular Epson R1800 and the Crane profile for SR had a generally 
yellowish feel. I was able to calibrate some profiles in house and they 
showed similar differences. But in my opinion, these materials still 
aren't good enough to hang next to silver prints without suffering in 
the comparison.

I haven't yet been able to try the paper on a 4800 or other K3 machine.

Will Gibson

Andre wrote:

>A recent article on the Luminous-Landscape site concludes that these
>papers are not good enough. They have that "Naugahyde vinyl" look.
>
>http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/surface-reflections.shtml
>
>Cheers,
>Andr\ufffd
>
>
>
>
>  
>

On Sep 5, 2006, at 10:43 AM, will gibson wrote:

> I haven't yet been able to try the paper on a 4800 or other K3  
> machine.

Has anyone here tried all three papers on a K3 printer? If so, are  
you finding the same results as the luminous landscape article?

Last favorite darkroom papers I used were Ilford Gallerie and Zone IV  
Brilliant. Still using Epson Premium Luster at this point because I  
haven't read anything on these new papers that sounds encouraging  
that any of them will match the look of my old favorites.

Jim

will gibson wrote:
> But in my opinion, these materials still 
> aren't good enough to hang next to silver prints without suffering in 
> the comparison.
>   
Why will they suffer? Why the comparison? Inkjet prints aren't wannabe 
silver gelatin prints!

The two technologies have little in common. Why this insistence by so 
many of us (it's certainly not just Will -- he just said it so much more 
succinctly than I could have) that inkjet emulate a "look" from another 
technology? Why can't inkjet prints look like inkjet prints? What is so 
wrong with that?

If people really want the look of an air dried glossy silver gelatin 
print they should return to the darkroom and make the real thing. At 
least then they'd have an authentic silver print, and not an imitation.

When will we embrace what inkjet prints can do? Instead of looking to 
the past, when will we start looking to the future?
-- 
Bruce Watson
/
















/

I have tried all 3 papers on my 9800 and 4800.  In order of 
preference, I like Hahn. Pearl, then Innova, then Silver Rag.  I agree 
with the author of that piece that the surfaec on Silver Rag is too 
obtrusive and I've thought that since I first tested a sample a few 
months ago.  I don't, however, agree with him that the Hahn. is 
radically better than the Innova; I use them pretty interchangeably, 
altough the surface is a bit better on the Hahn. and the Innova is a 
bit whiter than the Hahn (if I'm recalling correctly).

If that guy is looking to precisely replicate his wet darkroom, then I 
guess all these papers do fall short of the mark.  If, on the other 
hand, you want a lovely archival paper with incredible blacks and 
overall quality, the I think either the Hahn. or Innova would serve you 
well.


> Has anyone here tried all three papers on a K3 printer? If so, are  
> you finding the same results as the luminous landscape article?
> 
> Last favorite darkroom papers I used were Ilford Gallerie and Zone 
IV  

> Brilliant. Still using Epson Premium Luster at this point because I  
> haven't read anything on these new papers that sounds encouraging  
> that any of them will match the look of my old favorites.
> 
> Jim
>

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Bruce Watson
<bwyg@...> wrote:
...
> If people really want the look of an air dried glossy silver gelatin 
> print they should return to the darkroom and make the real thing. At 
> least then they'd have an authentic silver print, and not an imitation.


DINNNGGG!!!
Mr Watson, your brand new Ford Taurus will be delivered to your home
next week.

What was that quote somebody famous said..?  people use new methods to
try to emulate the old for at least ten years before attempting to
discover what they inherently haver to offer...
I just spent a week going over issues like this. Hopefully we are in
the last half of our ten years with light at the end of the tunnel.

Tyler

Jim Goshorn wrote:

> Has anyone here tried all three papers on a K3 printer? If so, are  
> you finding the same results as the luminous landscape article?
> 
> Last favorite darkroom papers I used were Ilford Gallerie and Zone IV  
> Brilliant. Still using Epson Premium Luster at this point because I  
> haven't read anything on these new papers that sounds encouraging  
> that any of them will match the look of my old favorites.
> 
> Jim

I've had a negative impression of these papers since seeing them at the 
last PMA. Since all my experience is with digital output (little to non 
in the darkroom) I thought it was my own ignorance of what traditional 
photographers were looking for.

So I ordered a box of all three papers from Jim Doyle to try on a 9800.
With the FibaPrint and the Silver Rag I have a hard time seeing past the 
surface (as the reviewer noted)--the Pearl isn't as bad in this regard, 
but once the ink is on the paper, not really that much better. The Pearl 
doesn't handle black quite as well as the other two either, so it would 
be a tough decision on which one I would choose for my studio.

I dumped the photo black out of the 9800 yesterday so I guess the 
temporary choice continues to be matte papers. Pearl, to my eye, has the 
most promising surface, but once you apply ink, the gloss differential, 
while not bad, is still quite distracting.

So yes, I guess I would agree with the Luminous Landscape article.

Patrick Carr

Carr Imaging
patcarr@...

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Jim Goshorn
<jgoshorn@...> wrote:
>
I replied to this a bot ago but it's not showing up. In fact, the
Yahoo groups seem remarkably unresponsive and bogged down at ltimes
lately. I hope this does not turn aout to be a double post.

> Has anyone here tried all three papers on a K3 printer?

Yes, and you will find a lot of posts on this list about them all. A
very good article is here-
http://www.booksmartstudio.com/services.php?section=8&SID=33
My results were similar and preferences the same.

> If so, are  
> you finding the same results as the luminous landscape article?
> 
> Last favorite darkroom papers I used were Ilford Gallerie and Zone IV  
> Brilliant. Still using Epson Premium Luster...

I'll make this brief, the other post mauy appear. You should try them.
I have yet to see anything on them that rises to some magical level
and perhaps they don't have that in them or I haven't found it yet.
Frankly color has been more impressive than B&W so far, but I'm in my
first year with them...
They do not look exactly like a master silver print, big suprise, but
look orders of magnitude better than Premium Luster.
Tyler

Hello, I have used Da Venci, FAP and Silver rag too with Epson R800 and 9800. I think that 
the Silver Rag is alot better than the two otheres. The surface problem is something wich 
haven�t been a problem for me at all. I like it very much and think that the Silver Rag prints 
are miles better than any of my earliger Potriga or Racord Rapid or any other brayte paper 
used earliger. The tonal control is simpel so much better that I cannot imagen to go back to 
the darkroom agen. I even could make more beutiful prints on the arfull looking Lamda prints 
with kodak paper. I think peopel should consentrate on the emotion in the prints and not 
teckinal about how near or not it resampel any earliger brayte paper. In oder to create the 
feeling in the prints I come much neaer now with the digital mediom and espeacely with 
Silver Rag wich I find the most beutifull paper until date. My main problem is the diffence in 
reflection wich is gone with a lack coting a bit like the final toning.

The FAP has too low Dmax comepared to Silver Rag and DA Venci. I have compered FIA with 
lack and with Silver Rag without lack and the Dmax and feel is much better than FAP. 

Joakim

Thanks to all who passed on their experiences and references to  
articles to read on the papers!

Guess a tryout is due...

Jim

What I have found is about the same as Tyler. The Innova F is easier
paper to adapt to than the Silver Rag, which works best with large
things to me. But, I don't really like black and white with any of
them, compared to PiezoTone on Photo Rag and stuff like that. But when
it come s to color the Innova can be pretty cool, especially with
small things. It actually is kind of nice solution for say 5x7 sizes
on up. But we all know color photogaphy isn't art anyway.

John

Apologizes for reviving an older post...trying to catch up on a lot of stuff.
   
  Jim, if you find anything in the IJ realm that even comes *close* to the original graded (white box) ZVI Brilliant toned in dilute selenium, lmk.  Call collect!  I actually have a few boxes frozen to be used lovingly.  That was one of the nicest and most "malleable" papers I have ever used.
   
  The follow-up versions, both graded and VC were ok (some of it was Ilford MG IV if my Calumet sources are truthful), but that first run was something special.
   
  OK, now back to digital<g>.
   
  Peace,
   
  Karissa

Jim Goshorn <jgoshorn@...> wrote:
  
Last favorite darkroom papers I used were Ilford Gallerie and Zone IV 
Brilliant.
 		
---------------------------------
Talk is cheap. Use Yahoo! Messenger to make PC-to-Phone calls.  Great rates starting at 1¢/min.

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

Actually, I thought the Silver Rag prints were pretty close to Ilford MG
fiber (same neg scanned and compared to darkroom print), behind glass  --
though that was not my absolute first choice in a fiber paper.  I threw away
a bunch of old Z6 graded (black box) last week while cleaning up.  I didn't
think it was that great.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of KE
> Campbell
> Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2006 9:00 PM
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] FibaPrint and Silver Rag not good enough?
> 
> Apologizes for reviving an older post...trying to catch up on a lot of
> stuff.
> 
>   Jim, if you find anything in the IJ realm that even comes *close* to the
> original graded (white box) ZVI Brilliant toned in dilute selenium, lmk.
> Call collect!  I actually have a few boxes frozen to be used lovingly.
> That was one of the nicest and most "malleable" papers I have ever used.
> 
>   The follow-up versions, both graded and VC were ok (some of it was
> Ilford MG IV if my Calumet sources are truthful), but that first run was
> something special.
> 
>   OK, now back to digital<g>.
> 
>   Peace,
> 
>   Karissa
> 
> Jim Goshorn <jgoshorn@...> wrote:
> 
> Last favorite darkroom papers I used were Ilford Gallerie and Zone IV
> Brilliant.
> 
> ---------------------------------
> Talk is cheap. Use Yahoo! Messenger to make PC-to-Phone calls.  Great
> rates starting at 1¢/min.
> 
> [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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>