Digital BW, The Print

I will be there on the exhibition floor with two interesting experimental
Piezography processes.

One is a dual PiezoTone (Selenium/CarbonSepia) ink system sharing one black and
using two different curves per paper in conjunction with the curve blending
options of QTR. Its very subtle but effective in maximizing visual contrast.

The other is Piezography Glossy Selenium MPS system with GO and a new very high
dMax MPS black. This new black is a technological breakthrough as it uses a new
type of macro-molecular modification that is not normally applied to ink making.
The black without GO is typically about L*5. With GO at L*1.75 to L*1.5 and I
have not yet bottomed it out in curve designing.

This is still in progress and the inks are designed around heated paper. But the
prints are very good. dMax is 2.45 or better on the 5 papers I am bringing. I
think with time I can get more dmax but I do not know if anyone can really tell
how black black gets visually after 2.50. The linearization on these prints is
very open. The shadow detail is extraordinary considering the dMax. I personally
have not see anything like this before. They look very much like silver prints
with a palladium linearization (straight line). The expectation of the silver
toe and shoulder are missing.

I plan to perfect the surface sheen and offer several GO options and this will
become the heart of the Piezography B&W Printing Labs. The next phase will be
split-tone Gloss.

I hope you can venture out to Dallas and make some comments and critiques.

http://www.spenational.org/conference/conf2009/index.html

Jon Cone

It's an open question for me and I would like to see some comments on it.

Quotes from different threads:

The other is Piezography Glossy Selenium MPS system with GO and a new 
very high
dMax MPS black. This new black is a technological breakthrough as it 
uses a new
type of macro-molecular modification that is not normally applied to ink 
making.
The black without GO is typically about L*5. With GO at L*1.75 to L*1.5 
and I
have not yet bottomed it out in curve designing.

This is still in progress and the inks are designed around heated paper. 
But the
prints are very good. dMax is 2.45 or better on the 5 papers I am 
bringing. I
think with time I can get more dmax but I do not know if anyone can 
really tell
how black black gets visually after 2.50. The linearization on these 
prints is
very open. The shadow detail is extraordinary considering the dMax. I 
personally
have not see anything like this before. They look very much like silver 
prints
with a palladium linearization (straight line). The expectation of the 
silver
toe and shoulder are missing.

I plan to perfect the surface sheen and offer several GO options and 
this will
become the heart of the Piezography B&W Printing Labs. The next phase 
will be
split-tone Gloss.

Jon Cone

The 1400
with HP PK on Crane Silver Rag hits a dmax of 2.72, not 1.72 as
written in the original post.  The 2.72 100% QTR patch has now
dropped to 2.61 after over a week of drying.  Needless to say, this
is outstanding.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

end of quotes



-- 
Met vriendelijke groeten,   Ernst


New: Dinkla Canvas Wrap Actions

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

I wrote about this sometime in the past, but could not find the post...


All of the current measuring devices have an limit of 2.5D for the dmax accuracy. It takes an extremely expensive device to measure past 2.5D from a reflected target. Once upon a time someone at Xrite explained exactly how little light is reflected at 2.5D, so it takes a far brighter source that we currently have in any current devices unless I missed a change in the last year or so. My memory is a little vague here, but I seem to remember it was less than 0.1 percent reflected light for a 2.5D and something like 0.01 percent reflected for a 3.0D, but I might have the decimal in the wrong place. Mr. Tobie can probably correct this for me when he reads it as it might be 0.01 for 2.5D and 0.001 for 3.0D.

What I'm saying is that any value that approaches 2.5D automatically gets taken with a grain of salt.

Just my opinion, but the high dMax prints have not really done that much for me visually. I really like open (palladium type linear) shadows which is probably very obvious at this point.

So for me, being able to create a perfect linearization from L*1.5 to L*96.5 is something I have never visually seen before - and this is an impact I am responding to.  The monster black does not take on all the "meaning" - rather the depth of the darkness before it is what I find very visually compelling. To me it's like giving steroids to Piezography. The dMax is not an "accessory" to call attention to the outfit.

dMax for dMax sake is a vestige of silver print (IMHO). Silver gets very black and photographers like "very black". But it does not get there gradually. The gradual of silver is through the middle and then it darkens fast.  

So for me, dMax without all the wonderful detail leading up to it is imitative. I think as we move the medium further that the bar should also be raised.  I don't think it's enough to say one is almost as good as silver print, or as good as silver print... I prefer to try and make processes that become their own level, and that necessarily means adding something that is not familiar. And also, may not be everyone's cup of tea.

I do not know that others will agree with my opinion on dMax, until they see open linearization just up to dMax. Most of the digital b&w glossy that I see is very closed shadow. I also do not know what will be gained by going deeper. I just know that I have not yet come up against the point at which I can not get it "blacker". I think it will only make the dynamic range more expansive - rather than punchier. If I were to release this system in some way that could be used on Epsons, I would have no doubt that most users would prefer to force more of the 3/4 range into blackness and go for the "punch". To me that reduces "image quality", but might enhance the "wow" factor for the photographer.

SO my question to you Ernst, is "What is image quality?"

best,

Jon


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Ernst Dinkla <edinkla@...> wrote:

>
> It's an open question for me and I would like to see some comments on it.
> 
> Quotes from different threads:
> 
> The other is Piezography Glossy Selenium MPS system with GO and a new 
> very high
> dMax MPS black. This new black is a technological breakthrough as it 
> uses a new
> type of macro-molecular modification that is not normally applied to ink 
> making.
> The black without GO is typically about L*5. With GO at L*1.75 to L*1.5 
> and I
> have not yet bottomed it out in curve designing.
> 
> This is still in progress and the inks are designed around heated paper. 
> But the
> prints are very good. dMax is 2.45 or better on the 5 papers I am 
> bringing. I
> think with time I can get more dmax but I do not know if anyone can 
> really tell
> how black black gets visually after 2.50. The linearization on these 
> prints is
> very open. The shadow detail is extraordinary considering the dMax. I 
> personally
> have not see anything like this before. They look very much like silver 
> prints
> with a palladium linearization (straight line). The expectation of the 
> silver
> toe and shoulder are missing.
> 
> I plan to perfect the surface sheen and offer several GO options and 
> this will
> become the heart of the Piezography B&W Printing Labs. The next phase 
> will be
> split-tone Gloss.
> 
> Jon Cone
> 
> The 1400
> with HP PK on Crane Silver Rag hits a dmax of 2.72, not 1.72 as
> written in the original post.  The 2.72 100% QTR patch has now
> dropped to 2.61 after over a week of drying.  Needless to say, this
> is outstanding.
> 
> Paul
> www.PaulRoark.com
> 
> end of quotes
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Met vriendelijke groeten,   Ernst
> 
> 
> New: Dinkla Canvas Wrap Actions
> 
> |      Dinkla Grafische Techniek      |
> |         www.pigment-print.com        |
> |                 ( unvollendet )                 |
>

a good point!

I think also, we come up against human visual systems that will have trouble differentiating.

Put a human into deep space, and their brain will still be transmitting the perception of light. People who meditate frequently realize how much of an illusion or phenomena is "darkness".

interesting stuff in the shadows...


Jon






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

>
> I wrote about this sometime in the past, but could not find the post...
> 
> 
> All of the current measuring devices have an limit of 2.5D for the dmax accuracy. It takes an extremely expensive device to measure past 2.5D from a reflected target. Once upon a time someone at Xrite explained exactly how little light is reflected at 2.5D, so it takes a far brighter source that we currently have in any current devices unless I missed a change in the last year or so. My memory is a little vague here, but I seem to remember it was less than 0.1 percent reflected light for a 2.5D and something like 0.01 percent reflected for a 3.0D, but I might have the decimal in the wrong place. Mr. Tobie can probably correct this for me when he reads it as it might be 0.01 for 2.5D and 0.001 for 3.0D.
> 
> What I'm saying is that any value that approaches 2.5D automatically gets taken with a grain of salt.
>

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Jon Cone" <jon@...> wrote:
>
> a good point!
> 
> I think also, we come up against human visual systems that will have trouble differentiating.
> 
> Put a human into deep space, and their brain will still be transmitting the perception of light. People who meditate frequently realize how much of an illusion or phenomena is "darkness".
> 
> interesting stuff in the shadows...
> 
> 
> Jon
> 


It goes a little deeper than just the measurement limitations... It takes a certain amount of light to be reflected for the eye to be able to see the detail. Since the trend in display conditions is to have less light on the print to help prevent fading, at what point can a human with average vision see the details in a gallery lit print?

As far as the tonal curves go, I would prefer a linear graduation from the blackest to the lightest, because I do not like to see the detail get all plugged up in the shadows.

Jon Cone wrote:
> I do not know that others will agree with my opinion on dMax, until they see open linearization just up to dMax. Most of the digital b&w glossy that I see is very closed shadow. I also do not know what will be gained by going deeper. I just know that I have not yet come up against the point at which I can not get it "blacker". I think it will only make the dynamic range more expansive - rather than punchier. If I were to release this system in some way that could be used on Epsons, I would have no doubt that most users would prefer to force more of the 3/4 range into blackness and go for the "punch". To me that reduces "image quality", but might enhance the "wow" factor for the photographer.
>   
> best,
>
> Jon

What I'm looking for from an inkset that can deliver an actual black 
isn't the black itself. It's the increase in local contrast in the 
shadows that said black will enable. By having an actual black as the 
bedrock of the visual you have something that the 3/4 tones can use to 
improve separation. Thus, the shadows can open a bit, which is really 
what I'm after.

I don't disagree with your conclusion that "most users" will compress 
the 3/4 tones even farther. But I'm not one of those users. I want a 
serious black so that I can uncompress the 3/4 tones some and open up 
the shadows. I can't do that and make it work for my images when the 
darkest I can go is a dark gray (Dmax of 1.6).

So, I encourage you to continue to work in this direction. I would love 
to see this capability in a current wide format printer. Doesn't have to 
be Epson.
--
Bruce Watson

There are diminishing returns to the high dmax numbers, and no matter how high, a good dmax will not transform a poor image into a good one.

A while back I managed to achieve a dmax of over 3.0 according to my meters.  It was a fun exercise, but not really worth much.  With a glossy paper much over 2.3 is virtually indistinuishable.  With a matte paper once the mid 1.60's are reached, I doubt anyone would see the difference in the image.

For glossy papers I think there is a distinct downside in that the more glop and ink on the paper, the more likely you'll get pizza wheel marks. For matte papers I'm suspicious that the highest dmax papers may also be the most susceptible to rub-off and physical damage from touching the black areas.  Avoiding these problems rates rather high on my wish list.

A couple of us are playing with printing on Arches Hot Press Bright White un-coated watercolor paper.  Then we're washing the surface.  Whether this step, which presumeably removes the glycols and glycerol, adds much to longevity is an unknown, but some galleries appear to be impressed.  While I've occasionally seen a 1.61 dmax, usually we're getting about 1.56 - 8.  Here, one of the benefits is that the rub-off is virtually eliminated.  It's a tough, durable print that some think will stand the rigors of time better.

Does this modest dmax affect the "artistic" and "archival" appeal of this paper and approach?  Probably not.  They are generally being compared to the old noble metal processes, where they visually hold up rather well (and some believe may hold up better over time).  For those who want the unique medium -- something different with more of a hand made character -- the modest dmax is rather irrelevant.

But, getting a good dmax is relevant to our medium, and all else being equal, I'd almost always want to have the highest dmax possible.  But all else seldom is equal.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

"Greg" <dfaprinting@...> wrote:

> ... It takes a certain amount of light to be reflected for the
> eye to be able to see the detail....
 
> As far as the tonal curves go, I would prefer a linear 
> graduation from the blackest to the lightest, because I 
> do not like to see the detail get all plugged up in the shadows.

I had a negative reaction to the non-linear Gray Gamma 2.2 space at first too, mostly based on coming from the 8 bit world where we started out some years ago.  The compressed shadows seemed a real waste of precious steps.  

However, I've changed my mind.  With 16 bit now being standard, we have enough steps to not worry about it.  And, what I've found is that the GG 2.2 space combined with high dmax glossy paper allows one to pack a lot of information in those deep shadows.  While this deep shadow detail may be invisible inside, if I go out into the bright outside light, I can "see into" the shadows rather well.  There is detail down there.  With a matte paper or linear space, they are more likely to lack much detail or look smokey gray.  So, for my brochures I now use glossy paper, and I think the images look better when people take them into very bright sunlight.  (At least that's my theory, for what it's worth.)


Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

This is a very interesting discussion. 

I've just started to experiment with b/w gloss and I would agree that the expanded dynamic range is one of the most attractive aspects. 

My comment on the "wow" fact provided by the extra DMax is that it's potential benefit will vary, image to image. As a parallel, I just finished a number of colour prints for a customer, most on gloss. Her feedback was that she generally preferred the matte prints. She saw little benefit in terms of increased gamut or Dmax, and did not like the glare. However, the gamut of many of her images would fit within matte and as a proper test I should select those that exceed the gamut of matte, and print them on both media. Then we'll truly know if she prefers matte.

>"Jon Cone" <jon@...> wrote:
>
> I think also, we come up against human visual systems that will have trouble differentiating.
> 
> Put a human into deep space, and their brain will still be transmitting the perception of light. People who meditate frequently realize how much of an illusion or phenomena is "darkness".
> 
> interesting stuff in the shadows...

This is somewhat of an aside, but. . .  Light and sound are simply different parts of the frequency spectrum, one being composed of low frequencies, the other composed of a higher set of frequencies. I suffer from Tinnitus, a condition where I hear a high pitched "ringing" or "hissing" all the time (~6Khz). I'm in a Tinnitus Retraining Program, and my audiologist told me that if someone with normal hearing (i.e. no tinnitus) sit in room with no sound, such as an anechoic chamber, they will "hear" sounds. 

Interesting stuff in the silence...

Terry.

Coming from a photographic background, I have to say that I am  
partial to the D-Max of the glossy papers. However, I can't deny that  
there is a beauty to the tonal range of a matte print. As was said  
before, the shadows seem more open on matte papers. The only way to  
get a similar effect with glossy is to display the print under really  
bright light.

Currently, I am trying to decide which I prefer more and it is a very  
tough choice to make. For color, the lower D-Max doesn't seem as  
objectionable as it does for BW and most times the pastel effect of  
the matte paper on the colors is actually more pleasing. The biggest  
downside for matte paper is when it is displayed under bright light  
and the shadow tones just lose their visual depth which detracts from  
the impact of the image.

Jim

On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 3:18 PM, Terry Ritz <t.ritz@...> wrote:

> I'm in a Tinnitus Retraining Program,

I had never heard of such and just did a quick Google search...is this
working for you?

As a musician, I have a number of friends with Tinnitus...I'm pretty
lucky, I don't, or it's very mild.

Interesting.

-- 
Lee Hiers
"Have Dobro Will Travel"

Arrrrgh....sorry, I meant for this to be off-list!

On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 3:51 PM, Lee Hiers <lee.hiers@...> wrote:

> I had never heard of such and just did a quick Google

-- 
Lee Hiers
"Have Dobro Will Travel"

Jon Cone schreef:
> Just my opinion, but the high dMax prints have not really done that much for me visually. I really like open (palladium type linear) shadows which is probably very obvious at this point.
> 
> So for me, being able to create a perfect linearization from L*1.5 to L*96.5 is something I have never visually seen before - and this is an impact I am responding to.  The monster black does not take on all the "meaning" - rather the depth of the darkness before it is what I find very visually compelling. To me it's like giving steroids to Piezography. The dMax is not an "accessory" to call attention to the outfit.
> 
> dMax for dMax sake is a vestige of silver print (IMHO). Silver gets very black and photographers like "very black". But it does not get there gradually. The gradual of silver is through the middle and then it darkens fast.  
> 
> So for me, dMax without all the wonderful detail leading up to it is imitative. I think as we move the medium further that the bar should also be raised.  I don't think it's enough to say one is almost as good as silver print, or as good as silver print... I prefer to try and make processes that become their own level, and that necessarily means adding something that is not familiar. And also, may not be everyone's cup of tea.
> 
> I do not know that others will agree with my opinion on dMax, until they see open linearization just up to dMax. Most of the digital b&w glossy that I see is very closed shadow. I also do not know what will be gained by going deeper. I just know that I have not yet come up against the point at which I can not get it "blacker". I think it will only make the dynamic range more expansive - rather than punchier. If I were to release this system in some way that could be used on Epsons, I would have no doubt that most users would prefer to force more of the 3/4 range into blackness and go for the "punch". To me that reduces "image quality", but might enhance the "wow" factor for the photographer.
> 
> SO my question to you Ernst, is "What is image quality?"
> 
> best,
> 
> Jon

Jon,

That subject line had to be short. What I actually was thinking off is 
already mentioned in some of the messages. It is more like: Can you use 
the extra Dmax in the gloss picture so it does add to the image quality 
? More in the physical sense than that of taste or convention. I agree 
with you that inkjet printing shouldn't be kept within the boundaries of 
what we are used to in analogue photography. It already has a wider 
choice of media, it can resemble textures from other graphic arts, we 
shouldn't be shy to adopt from the sign industry what suits us, etc. In 
that sense I'm unconventional while at the same time I can appreciate 
the subtle grades in the low contrast of a gum print by Berssenbrugge 
(to throw in one of the Dutch pioneers :-)

Greg mentioned the limitation of the measuring instruments. I didn't 
think of that right away but it has been mentioned before when Dmax was 
discussed. It is a valid point, right now it is already at the edge of 
the methods we used so far. I mean the theory of extending the range and 
get the shadow grades better separated and with more detail is of course 
appealing but in practice it has to be achieved and controlled as well.

I was actually thinking of a more fundamental aspect. The difficulty to 
get a good gloss print displayed properly. With a higher Dmax and the 
longer Dynamic range possible (suitable content of course) there's a lot 
of light needed and at the same time a good distribution of that light 
to get that Dynamic range working. The print has to be mounted extremely 
flat, the size limited due to that aspect and the lighting conditions. 
Diasec or similar mounting methods show that it can work but I also 
observed there that it works to a certain size. Too large and the viewer 
can't get the whole image evenly captured, too small and the image's 
"natural" perspective is compromised. (I know that an unnatural 
perspective can work too). The mirror that shows the viewer, more on the 
black parts than the white etc. Other methods like framing behind glass 
destroy the dynamic range effect, you can't get enough light in the 
frame and reflected to make it work.

I expect there's a kind of diminishing return on increasing gloss Dmax 
and solutions like prints on light boxes will achieve a better result 
then. But in that case the black ink has to be opaque, block the light, 
instead of absorbing the light, another physical aspect of inks. Not to 
mention the much harder to achieve homogene ink load and the use of 
transmissive densitometers for calibration.
I'm not so pessimistic about the human eye, it can bridge more levels in 
nature.

-- 
Met vriendelijke groeten,   Ernst


New: Dinkla Canvas Wrap Actions

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

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Lee Hiers <lee.hiers@...> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 3:18 PM, Terry Ritz <t.ritz@...> wrote:
> 
> > I'm in a Tinnitus Retraining Program,
> 
> I had never heard of such and just did a quick Google search...is this
> working for you?
> 
> As a musician, I have a number of friends with Tinnitus...I'm pretty
> lucky, I don't, or it's very mild.

I will start by saying that the reason I got back into photography a few years ago, after a long absence, was because my tinnitus had increased to such a level that I dropped out of music entirely. Music is very important to me, and that was a very difficult thing to do.

I've had Tinnitus for about 13 years, and it's become progressively worse over that time. I began wearing hearing protection soon after it began, and that too has increased over the years. I was up to using 32dB Wal Mart foamy ear plugs when I played on stage and foamy plugs PLUS airport runway style 28db ear muffs OVER those for when I travel on the highway. I would not even drive in the city without wearing hearing protection. 

For many years I have avoided listening to music, even at low levels, I've had to avoid even small crowds and I've not been to a movie theater for years.

A huge problem with Tinnitus is the misinformation. The Tinnitus Retraining Program (TRT) corrects this. Because my ringing would increase anytime I was exposed to even moderate sounds, I had assumed my ears were at risk. This was incorrect. Early on I had a custom molded earplugs made, and this misconception was reinforced by the vendor (wear these all the time!). Indeed my ringing did get worse. However, not for the reasons I thought.

My ears are no more at risk than anyone else's. That is truth #1. By wearing plugs I was causing my brain to focus on the ringing. THIS is why the ringing became worse. You see, the brain has a built in mechanism designed to filter out certain sounds and give prominence to others. That's why you only hear the hum of a new refrigerator for a few minutes, yet you clearly hear your name quietly spoken over the buzz of conversation in a crowded room or an ambulance in the distance over traffic noise.

Wearing earplugs caused a second condition, hyperacussis. Wearing plugs all the time caused my brain to "turn up the gain", so I could still hear. That means the gain is up with, or without, earplugs in. Eventually, it got so bad that being in a kitchen with 2 or 3 people talking and a TV playing was painful and agitating. It was just too loud for me. Put another way, the dynamic range of my ears was very, very small. 

The first step in the TRT program is to address the hyperacussis. I'm 5 months in, and I no longer wear earplugs. I've been on an 8 hour highway trip and back without discomfort. Earlier this week I was at a conference with 50 people all taking in a bright room and I had no discomfort. I'm listening to music again, and at levels that are enjoyable. The foamy plugs and earmuffs are gone, and life is so much more enjoyable! At 3 months I had my Loudness Discomfort Levels re-tested and the improvement was measurable. It's even better now, and I know the number will be very positive when I'm tested again in a month.

Once the hyperacussis is addressed the tinnitus itself (ringing) will be targeted. I wear sound generators (pink noise) in my ears all the time, and listen to an ambient noise unit when I sleep. After my next visit I expect the level for these device to be turned up. By listing to a friendly sound at close to the same level as my tinnitus, the brain will begin to associate this "friendly" sound with my tinnitus and "habituate" the tinnitus. Just as the refrigerator hum goes away on it's own, so too will my tinnitus. Given the results to date, I have every confidence this will occur. 

This is a one to two year program. It is EXTREMELY important that it be administered by a professional who is training in the therapy. For example, wearing the sound generators at too high a level will not only be counter productive, but it could cause the opposite outcome to occur. My audiologist was trained by the man who invented the therapy, and you can check his website for practitioners.

I hope this helps. I wrote this long (and off-topic! ;-) post because I like to take every opportunity I can to help others. I suffered for 13 years, and it was all unnecessary.

Best,

Terry.

It's an interesting topic and one I've considered from all the way back into the late fifties in the old darkroom. I never have come to a complete resolution of the issues.With silver gelatin prints I always hated the ordinary matt papers with a yellowish greenish look to the image unless they were toned and I really didn't, and still don't, like the slick mirror finish of ferrotyped and super gloss papers. That left pretty much the air dried gloss look as the way to go with the exception of one or two velvet matt papers with cold tone images that I liked for some things. I suspect my tastes weren't all that uncommon given all the current interest in the air dried look for inkjet papers.

Even going down to the air dried look is a loss in the apparent d'max from that of the supergloss. At some point other image characteristics take precedence over that aspect IMHO. Today's matt choices offer what I believe are vastly improved opportunity with pigment prints. It also may well be that we will see nanocarbon inks with huge d'max potential on all papers in the not too distant future.

Ernst, your comments and similar ones from Paul at other times that refer to display conditions and the uncertainty of their suitability for a print are well taken in my view. Once they leave our hands there is pretty much zero control over that. For me, that issue causes a predisposition to use matt papers simply because they will hold up far better in less than ideal conditions than will gloss surfaces that absolutely must have very specific lighting angles and viewer placement in order to show properly.

One thing I do find curious in most discussions on this topic is all of the various comments talking about shadow detail loss with matt papers. It's been my experience that any detail I have available to me in the captured image can be visibly placed, if I wish it to be, on any paper that I choose to use. The tools we have available to us offer vast control over just such placement. I think it is more a matter of craft than degree of gloss that determines this and, yes, I do know about dynamic range and bit depths and so on. I just don't believe we are as limited as we once were with silver emulsions where there was little to be done beyond very expensive and difficult masking that required even more expertise than today's methods. 

Regards,
Duane



--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Ernst Dinkla <edinkla@...> wrote:

> 
> I was actually thinking of a more fundamental aspect. The difficulty to 
> get a good gloss print displayed properly. With a higher Dmax and the 
> longer Dynamic range possible (suitable content of course) there's a lot 
> of light needed and at the same time a good distribution of that light 
> to get that Dynamic range working. The print has to be mounted extremely 
> flat, the size limited due to that aspect and the lighting conditions. 
> Diasec or similar mounting methods show that it can work but I also 
> observed there that it works to a certain size. Too large and the viewer 
> can't get the whole image evenly captured, too small and the image's 
> "natural" perspective is compromised. (I know that an unnatural 
> perspective can work too). The mirror that shows the viewer, more on the 
> black parts than the white etc. Other methods like framing behind glass 
> destroy the dynamic range effect, you can't get enough light in the 
> frame and reflected to make it work.
> 
> I expect there's a kind of diminishing return on increasing gloss Dmax 
>
> 
> -- 
> Met vriendelijke groeten,   Ernst
> 
> 
> New: Dinkla Canvas Wrap Actions
> 
> |      Dinkla Grafische Techniek      |
> |         www.pigment-print.com        |
> |                 ( unvollendet )                 |
>

Ernst,

I may change my mind - and I do plan to put the next 2-3 months into glossy formulations to try and see if I can't dig up something that feels like new ground to me. I am definitely in an ink formulation mood and very excited about working in this direction for an extended period. But right now, the only thing I am liking about my process is the extension of tones in the shadow areas - it's very illuminous - and on some papers is moving into the warmer associations of selenium, and I believe it is a direct result of extending the dMax, but not the dMax itself. Hope that makes sense.

And yes, as its been better stated here already - we really do need a certain amount of light to reflect off of black to actually see "black".

I just do not want to make prints that seem to be shouting BLACKKKKK!!!!  I prefer the subtle bits just up to that ear-splitting scream and I am blessed with the ability to linearize that as well as curve it up or down within my linearization process. It seems like a richer area with the extension of dMax. The obviousness is that the space between the points is now lengthier. With matte Piezography profiles I can separate 256 gray levels easily, but the shadow points though open, are a little difficult to discern. With the glossy/dMax profiles, its like prying every thing open in these shadows - so the dMax becomes the enabler.

On the other hand, I went to the Dallas Museum of Art today to look at the exhibition of Piezography prints that John Dean printed from the original Harry Burton glass plates when Howard Carter and Lord Carnarvon discovered the tomb of Tutankhamun. These plates were apparently taken before the artifacts were removed and some immediately after they were removed. I saw masterful printing and extraordinarily beautiful prints. These are made with PiezoTone CarbonSepia inks and the blacks are totally appropriate for the work. dMax does not enter into it. Dean's control of the process is gorgeous. 

So the image quality really is about craftsmanship married to the intent of the photographer. The absence of reflection on the print surface allowed us to see them without any visual interference whatsoever. The original plates are (I assume) appropriately exposed, but the printing in any event, and the control by Dean, created extraordinary image quality. I believe in this case, glossy dMax would have been distracting. And dMax without the gloss would not have added a thing. These prints were lit at about 50 - 75 lux. The blacks were perfect.

So, when is gloss and its associated dMax appropriate? And if we define that criteria, are we penning it in in some sort of genre? Why does matte work always get away with "everything"? Is it the spoiled child?  lol

Jon




--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Ernst Dinkla <edinkla@...> wrote:

>
> Jon Cone schreef:
> > Just my opinion, but the high dMax prints have not really done that much for me visually. I really like open (palladium type linear) shadows which is probably very obvious at this point.
> > 
> > So for me, being able to create a perfect linearization from L*1.5 to L*96.5 is something I have never visually seen before - and this is an impact I am responding to.  The monster black does not take on all the "meaning" - rather the depth of the darkness before it is what I find very visually compelling. To me it's like giving steroids to Piezography. The dMax is not an "accessory" to call attention to the outfit.
> > 
> > dMax for dMax sake is a vestige of silver print (IMHO). Silver gets very black and photographers like "very black". But it does not get there gradually. The gradual of silver is through the middle and then it darkens fast.  
> > 
> > So for me, dMax without all the wonderful detail leading up to it is imitative. I think as we move the medium further that the bar should also be raised.  I don't think it's enough to say one is almost as good as silver print, or as good as silver print... I prefer to try and make processes that become their own level, and that necessarily means adding something that is not familiar. And also, may not be everyone's cup of tea.
> > 
> > I do not know that others will agree with my opinion on dMax, until they see open linearization just up to dMax. Most of the digital b&w glossy that I see is very closed shadow. I also do not know what will be gained by going deeper. I just know that I have not yet come up against the point at which I can not get it "blacker". I think it will only make the dynamic range more expansive - rather than punchier. If I were to release this system in some way that could be used on Epsons, I would have no doubt that most users would prefer to force more of the 3/4 range into blackness and go for the "punch". To me that reduces "image quality", but might enhance the "wow" factor for the photographer.
> > 
> > SO my question to you Ernst, is "What is image quality?"
> > 
> > best,
> > 
> > Jon
> 
> Jon,
> 
> That subject line had to be short. What I actually was thinking off is 
> already mentioned in some of the messages. It is more like: Can you use 
> the extra Dmax in the gloss picture so it does add to the image quality 
> ? More in the physical sense than that of taste or convention. I agree 
> with you that inkjet printing shouldn't be kept within the boundaries of 
> what we are used to in analogue photography. It already has a wider 
> choice of media, it can resemble textures from other graphic arts, we 
> shouldn't be shy to adopt from the sign industry what suits us, etc. In 
> that sense I'm unconventional while at the same time I can appreciate 
> the subtle grades in the low contrast of a gum print by Berssenbrugge 
> (to throw in one of the Dutch pioneers :-)
> 
> Greg mentioned the limitation of the measuring instruments. I didn't 
> think of that right away but it has been mentioned before when Dmax was 
> discussed. It is a valid point, right now it is already at the edge of 
> the methods we used so far. I mean the theory of extending the range and 
> get the shadow grades better separated and with more detail is of course 
> appealing but in practice it has to be achieved and controlled as well.
> 
> I was actually thinking of a more fundamental aspect. The difficulty to 
> get a good gloss print displayed properly. With a higher Dmax and the 
> longer Dynamic range possible (suitable content of course) there's a lot 
> of light needed and at the same time a good distribution of that light 
> to get that Dynamic range working. The print has to be mounted extremely 
> flat, the size limited due to that aspect and the lighting conditions. 
> Diasec or similar mounting methods show that it can work but I also 
> observed there that it works to a certain size. Too large and the viewer 
> can't get the whole image evenly captured, too small and the image's 
> "natural" perspective is compromised. (I know that an unnatural 
> perspective can work too). The mirror that shows the viewer, more on the 
> black parts than the white etc. Other methods like framing behind glass 
> destroy the dynamic range effect, you can't get enough light in the 
> frame and reflected to make it work.
> 
> I expect there's a kind of diminishing return on increasing gloss Dmax 
> and solutions like prints on light boxes will achieve a better result 
> then. But in that case the black ink has to be opaque, block the light, 
> instead of absorbing the light, another physical aspect of inks. Not to 
> mention the much harder to achieve homogene ink load and the use of 
> transmissive densitometers for calibration.
> I'm not so pessimistic about the human eye, it can bridge more levels in 
> nature.
> 
> -- 
> Met vriendelijke groeten,   Ernst
> 
> 
> New: Dinkla Canvas Wrap Actions
> 
> |      Dinkla Grafische Techniek      |
> |         www.pigment-print.com        |
> |                 ( unvollendet )                 |
>

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Ernst Dinkla <edinkla@...> wrote:

> and solutions like prints on light boxes will achieve a better result 
> then. But in that case the black ink has to be opaque, block the light, 
> instead of absorbing the light, another physical aspect of inks. Not to 
> mention the much harder to achieve homogene ink load and the use of 
> transmissive densitometers for calibration.
> I'm not so pessimistic about the human eye, it can bridge more levels in 
> nature.

I was about to bring this up when read your remark. A few weeks ago I was at the Wildlife Photographer of the Year in the London Natural History Museum. All photos were presented as prints on light boxes. As the ambient lighting was fairly subdued the perceived dynamic range was just stunning. It really made me consider to start experimenting with it. Most photos were in color though, there was too little B&W material to get sufficient evidence how well it works for B&W. Frankly, the B&W prints were not the ones that stuck in my mind, but that could very well be due to the images themselves.

Joost

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Joost Horsten" <j.h.j.h@...> wrote:
>
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Ernst Dinkla <edinkla@> wrote:
> 
> > and solutions like prints on light boxes will achieve a better result 
> > then. But in that case the black ink has to be opaque, block the light, 
> > instead of absorbing the light, another physical aspect of inks. Not to 
> > mention the much harder to achieve homogene ink load and the use of 
> > transmissive densitometers for calibration.
> > I'm not so pessimistic about the human eye, it can bridge more levels in 
> > nature.
> 
> I was about to bring this up when read your remark. A few weeks ago I was at the Wildlife Photographer of the Year in the London Natural History Museum. All photos were presented as prints on light boxes. As the ambient lighting was fairly subdued the perceived dynamic range was just stunning. It really made me consider to start experimenting with it. Most photos were in color though, there was too little B&W material to get sufficient evidence how well it works for B&W. Frankly, the B&W prints were not the ones that stuck in my mind, but that could very well be due to the images themselves.
> 
> Joost
>

Yes, I must agree with you that that exhibition looked fantastic presented on light boxes. It was on at the same time as the Landscape Phhotographer of the Year exhibition (printed on an Epson 7900); the print quality of which, in my view, was somewhat mediocre.

Ironically, the image that left the most impact on me was Carlos Virgili's Black and White image, 'Sun Jelly' of the backlit jelly fish. Each to his own...

On Mar 27, 2009, at 5:37 AM, Joost Horsten wrote:

>  All photos were presented as prints on light boxes.

Do you mean transparent chromes on light boxes, or paper prints in  
lighting booths, or some other variation? Chromes on lightboxes offer  
an unequaled dynamic range, that no other method can match, hence the  
disappointment they cause to customers who view images that way in the  
photographers studio, then try in vain to get a similar result in  
reproductions from them...

C. David Tobie
Global Product Technology Manager
Digital Imaging & Home Theater
CDTobie@...


  ----------



Datacolor
www.datacolor.com/Spyder3




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

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "hp9180profile" <owens@...> wrote:
>
> Ironically, the image that left the most impact on me was Carlos Virgili's Black and White image, 'Sun Jelly' of the backlit jelly fish. Each to his own...
>

Ah, yes you're right, I forgot. That one was marvellous indeed!


Furthermore, I just realized I've ordered a box of Agfa Copyjet film, (reportedly similar to Pictorico OPH) for digital negative/photo-intaglio purposes. But I just may give it a try to see how it works out if I use it for a B&W transparency.

Joost

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, C D Tobie <CDTobie@...> wrote:
>
> 
> On Mar 27, 2009, at 5:37 AM, Joost Horsten wrote:
> 
> >  All photos were presented as prints on light boxes.
> 
> Do you mean transparent chromes on light boxes....?

Yes, that is correct.

On 26 Mar 2009, at 6:56 AM, Jon Cone wrote:

> So for me, dMax without all the wonderful detail leading up to it is  
> imitative. I think as we move the medium further that the bar should  
> also be raised.  I don't think it's enough to say one is almost as  
> good as silver print, or as good as silver print... I prefer to try  
> and make processes that become their own level, and that necessarily  
> means adding something that is not familiar. And also, may not be  
> everyone's cup of tea.

I'm glad you wrote this.

I had an interesting experience recently where a tight deadline for an  
upcoming show plus a failing black channel led to me to simply  
reprofile the working 5-tone, black-less inkset (Eboni6 on a 7500).   
By treating the darkest channel (cyan, if I recall) as "black," I  
ended up with quite a wonderful set of calmer tones.  Certainly the  
contrast was lower, but given the natural warmth of the ink, plus the  
additional warmth of the underlying Hahnemuhle Bamboo paper, I thought  
the prints were quite nice.  So did the folks who saw the show.

--John

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Jon Cone" <jon@...> wrote:
...
> On the other hand, I went to the Dallas Museum of Art today to look at the exhibition of Piezography prints that John Dean printed from the original Harry Burton glass plates when Howard Carter and Lord Carnarvon discovered the tomb of Tutankhamun. These plates were apparently taken before the artifacts were removed and some immediately after they were removed. I saw masterful printing and extraordinarily beautiful prints. These are made with PiezoTone CarbonSepia inks and the blacks are totally appropriate for the work. dMax does not enter into it. Dean's control of the process is gorgeous. 
> 

Jon, I'm very happy you had the opportunity to see these prints. They are stunning. As well as an artistic experience of the kind only masterful photography can provide, as a whole, they are also testament to the accomplishments of the skilled and committed individual involved in steps along the way. Harry Burton of course, but also your process and inks, and John's experience, high level of talent, and commitment to craft.

In this cultural and economical environment that tends to kill the individual innovators that drive us forward, with things like ghost posting etc. in our very midst, it's important for us to be screaming the many accomplishments of this niche community from the rooftops.
I have a lot of thoughts on this, but hopefully it's some food for thought for now.

For those of you how can hop the rails or hitchhike there, go see that exhibition. This is not possible out of the box, and that's a fact jack.
Let's add this one too while we're at it-
http://www.umbragegallery.com/
printed by the too humble Mark Savioa, here helping with monitors instead of touting his work.

Tyler
http://www.custom-digital.com/