Digital BW, The Print

Hi All,

I have another beginner's question:

When discussing B&W, everybody cares about the dmax a paper/ink
combination is able to achieve.

I did understand this part OK (I think)

However, I saw somebody praise a certain paper because he was able to
obtain dmax=2.7 with that one.

Now, With the Epson Luster and the R2880, with ABW drivers, I do get a
Dmax = 2.45 or 2.5, depending on the setting.

What puzzles me is:

The DeltaE94 between a black with D=2.7 and a black with D=2.52 is in
the range of 0.9, which I understand is barely, if ever noticeable to
the human eye.

What am I missing ?

Thanks, Marco.

All you are missing is an obsession with darker blacks.

C. D. Tobie
WW Product Technology Mngr.
Digital Imaging & Home Theater
DataColor.com
CDTobie@DataColor.com

On Dec 27, 2008, at 11:13 PM, "the_mark_pv" <QTRIP_grp@hairyotter.com>  
wrote:

> Hi All,
>
> I have another beginner's question:
>
> When discussing B&W, everybody cares about the dmax a paper/ink
> combination is able to achieve.
>
> I did understand this part OK (I think)
>
> However, I saw somebody praise a certain paper because he was able to
> obtain dmax=2.7 with that one.
>
> Now, With the Epson Luster and the R2880, with ABW drivers, I do get a
> Dmax = 2.45 or 2.5, depending on the setting.
>
> What puzzles me is:
>
> The DeltaE94 between a black with D=2.7 and a black with D=2.52 is in
> the range of 0.9, which I understand is barely, if ever noticeable to
> the human eye.
>
> What am I missing ?
>
> Thanks, Marco.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> 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 “OWNE 
> R” 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, DA 
> MAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS, GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE L 
> OSSES (EVEN IF THE  “OWNER” AND “MODERATORS” OF DIGITAL BW,  
> THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH D 
> AMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY TO USE THE DIG 
> ITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR ALTER 
> ATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF  
> ANY THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) AN 
> Y OTHER MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Marco, Not everyone is obsessed with the pursuit of Dmax as the most
important aspect of their print. What a good strong Dmax does for you is
give you the ability to expand the tonal scale. Does it really matter to the
quality of the print? Some yes, some not.  So while it can be a worthwhile
part of  the workflow and printing process, I believe that there are many
other issues that need to be addressed ahead of an absolute Dmax goal. 

 

Eric

 

 

Eric Neilsen Photo

4101 Commerce Street, Suite 9

Dallas, TX 75226

214 827-8301

 

http://ericneilsenphotography.com

SKype ejprinter

 


>
> When discussing B&W, everybody cares about the dmax a paper/ink
> combination is able to achieve.
>
>
> What am I missing ?
>
> Thanks, Marco.





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

> All you are missing is an obsession with darker blacks.

Well, I am en engineer, I certainly do not need yet another obsession ;)

Jokes apart, do people really see a difference between dmax 2.5 and 2.7 ?

Or maybe it is that, as Eric was explaining, it does not really matter
that you can really see the difference between the two blacks, but
what really matters is that it allows you to "spread" more the
intermediate greys ?

Thanks again.
Marco.

Hi Eric and Marco:

I totally agree re: Dmax. I think that it is easy to get hung up on  
numbers instead of the look of the image on paper or other surface.  
Glass and lighting (spot vs. more flat light) can also have different  
effects on different papers. Some of the most beautiful prints I've  
seen were platinum and other contact prints on hand-coated art  
papers. They probably had a Dmax of about 1.5.

Even more interesting is the effect of comparing two prints side by  
side. I often do that when testing different papers, but in reality,  
I think that an argument can be made against doing that. If I like a  
print by itself, comparing it to another print might make me change  
my opinion of it, just because I'm seeing it side by side. It is a  
bit like seeing a glossy magazine cover and then the same image on an  
uncoated or less glossy paper. Both may look great, but side by side,  
the one on matte paper may look lifeless. Or a historic movie before  
and after restoration. All interesting food for thought.

All the best,

Andrew
---------------------------------------------------
Andrew Darlow
Editor, The Imaging Buffet
http://www.imagingbuffet.com
Author, 301 Inkjet Tips and Techniques:
An Essential Printing Resource for Photographers - http:// 
www.inkjettips.com


On Dec 28, 2008, at 8:25 PM, E Neilsen wrote:

> Marco, Not everyone is obsessed with the pursuit of Dmax as the most
> important aspect of their print. What a good strong Dmax does for  
> you is
> give you the ability to expand the tonal scale. Does it really  
> matter to the
> quality of the print? Some yes, some not. So while it can be a  
> worthwhile
> part of the workflow and printing process, I believe that there are  
> many
> other issues that need to be addressed ahead of an absolute Dmax goal.
>
> Eric
>
> >
> > When discussing B&W, everybody cares about the dmax a paper/ink
> > combination is able to achieve.
> >
> >
> > What am I missing ?
> >
> > Thanks, Marco.
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
> __._






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

> What am I missing ?
> 
> Thanks, Marco.

With gloss and numbers like that, nothing at all.

With matte papers and a choice between 1.55 and 1.7 Dmax it 
makes a difference and whether you need that depends on the 
content or what you have to reproduce. I think the quest on 
this list for higher Dmax was directed to matte papers and 
surfaces that came close to analogue air dried papers. Over 
the last 18 months or so the analogue like surfaces with 
high Dmax became available in several choices. There's 
little chance that matte papers will ever get close to Dmax 
numbers like that, they are not available in other and/or 
older printing methods either. So this may be a closed 
subject anyway. Till someone writes that he can make a 
better Dmax with dye inks on matte paper.


-- 
Met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst


|  Dinkla Grafische Techniek  |
|     www.pigment-print.com    |
|             ( unvollendet )            |

I think the matte and glossy dmaxs are not entirely comparable.  
Reflections in typical display conditions significantly reduce the 
effective depth of glossy blacks.  In typical display, a good matte 
print under glass looks very similar to a glossy print under glass (and 
it's a lot easier to tape hang a matte print than it is to dry mount a 
glossy one).

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

On Dec 29, 2008, at 11:32:48 AM, pr_roark <pr_roark@...> wrote:

I think the matte and glossy dmaxs are not entirely comparable. 
Reflections in typical display conditions significantly reduce the 
effective depth of glossy blacks. In typical display, a good matte 
print under glass looks very similar to a glossy print under glass
---
Yes, there is a gloss/matte differential when glazed. I keep intending to use a spectroradiometer to take measurements of gloss and matte prints under glass and determine what the differential value, or formula, is, but I never seem to have the time. But the short story is that the difference virtually disappears when framed under glass.
--
C. David Tobie
WW Product Technology Manager
Digital Imaging & Home Theater
Datacolor
CDTobie@...
www.datacolor.com/spyder3


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

CDTobie wrote:

...
> Yes, there is a gloss/matte differential when glazed. 
> I keep intending to use a spectroradiometer to take 
> measurements of gloss and matte prints under glass 
> and determine what the differential value, or formula, 
> is, but I never seem to have the time. But the short 
> story is that the difference virtually disappears when 
> framed under glass.

I'm not sure how a "spectroradiometer" works.  Is is like a very 
accurate spot meter that can read at a distance?

I think the problem might be that the amount of reflections is too 
dependent on the particular environment, for example, how much light is 
behind the viewer.

Very roughly, I've used as my "minimum acceptable" dmax figures 1.6 for 
matte and 2.0 for glossy.


Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

> I keep intending to use a spectroradiometer to take measurements of 
> gloss and matte prints under glass and determine what the 
> differential value, or formula, is, but I never seem to have the 
> time. But the short story is that the difference virtually disappears 
> when framed under glass.

David,

I think you may have a problem with a typical spectrophotometer when
reading through glass.  I was trying to help a friend create profiles
for the Diasec process, (image physically and chemically bonded to the
back of plexiglass), and reading through the thickness of the plexi or
glass definitely skewed readings, sometimes significantly.  The
thicker the glass or Plexi, the bigger the error.  It affected not
only color, but density readings.  A very thin glass is less
noticeable.  In this respect, a spectro doesn't seem to act like a
spot meter.  

I agree with most of the statements people have made about matte vs.
glossy papers.  How they are displayed, whether under glass or not,
lighting, reflections, angle of lighting, and even the image, seem
make a big difference.  The readings are not, in my opinion,
indicative of how a matte print will appear compared to a glossy
print.  I have some matte prints with a Dmax of 1.65 which appear much
blacker than the same print on glossy substrates with a Dmax of 2.2 or
higher.  As the viewing environment changes, so do the relationships.
 Pretty interesting.  

I do find, however, that I prefer matte papers with a Dmax above 1.6,
and preferably above 1.65-1.7.  When the Dmax of matte papers drop
into the 1.5's, they typically tend to look a little weak to me.  But,
I even use them on certain images, especially if the image doesn't
live or die based on deep blacks.  Also, some matte papers just "look"
blacker than other matte papers, even if their Dmax reading is a
little lower.  Museo Max, for example doens't have the best Dmax, but
prints on it look deep and rich to me.  

Of course, color gamut is another issue, though it may not be as
relevant to most people on this forum.  I find that for color work,
the smaller gamut of matte papers tends to be a bigger issue than even
the Dmax.  

Lou

Yes, the idea was simply to see what a reading device which can take  
measurements at a distance would say about the difference, given  
similar lighting, etc. My assumption is that, like the eye, it would  
find a matte print with a lower D-max equivalent to a gloss print with  
a higher D-max, once both were glazed.

C. D. Tobie
WW Product Technology Mngr.
Digital Imaging & Home Theater
DataColor.com
CDTobie@...

On Dec 29, 2008, at 1:19 PM, "pr_roark" <pr_roark@...> wrote:

> CDTobie wrote:
>
> ...
>> Yes, there is a gloss/matte differential when glazed.
>> I keep intending to use a spectroradiometer to take
>> measurements of gloss and matte prints under glass
>> and determine what the differential value, or formula,
>> is, but I never seem to have the time. But the short
>> story is that the difference virtually disappears when
>> framed under glass.
>
> I'm not sure how a "spectroradiometer" works.  Is is like a very
> accurate spot meter that can read at a distance?
>
> I think the problem might be that the amount of reflections is too
> dependent on the particular environment, for example, how much light  
> is
> behind the viewer.
>
> Very roughly, I've used as my "minimum acceptable" dmax figures 1.6  
> for
> matte and 2.0 for glossy.
>
>
> Paul
> www.PaulRoark.com
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> 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 “OWNE 
> R” 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, DA 
> MAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS, GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE L 
> OSSES (EVEN IF THE  “OWNER” AND “MODERATORS” OF DIGITAL BW,  
> THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH D 
> AMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY TO USE THE DIG 
> ITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR ALTER 
> ATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF  
> ANY THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) AN 
> Y OTHER MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

As well it should. Just as it makes a huge difference if one varnishes
or glossy coats a matt print.  I believe , I think rightly, that
trying to compare matt vs glossy prints d'max via the common 45 degree
instruments is futile. It's like comparing apples and oranges.
These instruments take apparent density measurements, not actual
absorbed light measurements. That's not much of a problem with matt
surfaces, except for those with extreme textures, but takes on a whole
different character when, as with glossy surfaces, much of the
impinging light is being bounced off of the surface before it ever
gets near any ink to be absorbed.

Try reading a high d'max glossy print with both a 45degree instrument
and an integrating sphere instrument in specular included mode where
it attempts to read All of the reflected light from every angle, and
one will quickly see the vaunted high d'max number drop into the
proximate range of the apparent instrument. 

Everyone knows if one tries to look at a glazed print from the wrong
angle to it's lighting that not only will it appear washed out, it
might even disappear totally from sight. So it is with glossy prints,
as Paul has hinted.

Regards,
Duane



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

>
> I think the matte and glossy dmaxs are not entirely comparable.  
> Reflections in typical display conditions significantly reduce the 
> effective depth of glossy blacks. 
> Paul
> www.PaulRoark.com
>