PDA

View Full Version : Best maximum black with matte papers



sanking
12-Nov-2010, 11:10
In another thread Bob McCarthy remarked.

"I'm still seeking the holy grail of ink/printer/paper for max black, max sharp, with a matte ink setup (to avoid overspraying)."

I wonder about this also. Has anyone measured the reflective Dmax with their printer/matte paper to determine the actual maximum black?

Sandy King

Bruce Watson
12-Nov-2010, 11:43
In another thread Bob McCarthy remarked.

"I'm still seeking the holy grail of ink/printer/paper for max black, max sharp, with a matte ink setup (to avoid overspraying)."

I wonder about this also. Has anyone measured the reflective Dmax with their printer/matte paper to determine the actual maximum black?

Sandy King

This has been discussed to death and then some in the yahoo groups "Digital B&W the Print (http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/?yguid=276055793)", "EpsonWideFormat (http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/EpsonWideFormat/?yguid=276055793)", and "Piezography3000 (http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/piezography3000/?yguid=276055793)". Was a seriously hot topic several years ago.

Bottom line is that pigment inks and matte papers don't give you a great Dmax. Think 1.6 - 1.8 or so (I don't remember any of the details, so do some searching to get the "real scoop"). You can do a lot better with dye-based inks. But they aren't available in the big printers any more, so it's a moot point.

There are some reasons for the rise of glossier papers in the last few years. One of them is improved Dmax.

Bob McCarthy
12-Nov-2010, 12:40
I've noticed some semi mattes that have a non-textured surface that utilize matte inks.

Do any of these change the old dynamic?

Cone requires overspray to use Glossy inks (or GLOP)!

MIS has the Eboni system that is matte black only!

I've bought in to the idea it requires many dilutions of ink to get great highlights.

What fills the gap? Was hoping it was latest matte (semi) paper.

All ears!

bob

Nathan Potter
12-Nov-2010, 14:38
I can see where a maximum black would be a holy grail for inkjet prints. Science tells us that the equivalent would be a perfect black body absorber. The principle is that one needs to absorb all of the incident radiation (light) falling on the print. I suppose such a structure could be engineered into the paper but of course then the whole print would look black. Such structure would need to be engineered into the ink and only into the deepest shadow areas. For pigment inks one would need a "deep black" dedicated ink cartridge where the structure of the pigments, after application to the paper, would be such that near total internal reflection would be achieved. Software would be required to control the flow of ink from the dedicated "deep black" cartridge above reflective densities of, say log 1.5. I wonder if some current carbon inks actually have properties of black body absorbers.

I think I remember that a nickel surface oxidized in a particular way produces a black nickel oxide that was nearly a perfect black body absorber due to the orientation of the oxide grains at the surface. Could certain structured, carbon pigments be used to take advantage of near total internal reflection? Or, in fact, nickel oxide particles, or any of a plethora of nanoparticles currently being produced.

Nate Potter, Austin TX.

Tyler Boley
13-Nov-2010, 10:32
To my knowledge the highest Dmax with ink on matte papers is from the HP Z printers. 1.8 or so.
Tyler

neil poulsen
13-Nov-2010, 11:46
I got what I thought was a good black on a Hahnemuhle Fine Art Pearl, a semi-gloss paper, by using K2 Matte Black ink. It looked like a deeper black to me than using K2 Photo Black on that Paper. I used a ColorBurst RIP to specify the matte black ink. I did the linearization, made the custom profile, etc.

But, I don't have the means to accurately measure the reflectance. So, the only description I can offer is qualitative.

JeffKohn
13-Nov-2010, 12:02
I've gotten DMax in the 1.6-1.7 range with Epson K3 and Canon Lucia and Lucia Ex. I don't have experience with the HPZ, but have seen others report numbers that agree with Tyler's 1.8 estimate. I've not heard anything about what can be achieved on matte papers with the 3rd-party quadtone/piezotone inksets.

I've come to the conclusion that for images where DMax really matters, matte papers are an exercise in futility. Nothing you can do will allow you to come even remotely close to what can be achieved with photo-black compatible papers. If you really want deep blacks, take a look at the newer generation of fiber-gloss/baryta papers. I've measured DMax values over 2.6, eg L*=2.5 or so. A matte print's blacks will look like dingy gray in a side-by-side comparison.

Brian Ellis
13-Nov-2010, 12:34
I've always liked Dick Arentz's statement to the effect that you don't need a maximum black, you just need a convincing black.

PViapiano
14-Nov-2010, 10:08
I've always liked Dick Arentz's statement to the effect that you don't need a maximum black, you just need a convincing black.

Agreed. It may have been Minor White who originally said that...

ljsegil
15-Nov-2010, 09:07
After several years printing on the various new Baryta Glossy papers with an Epson 3800, I've become a convert back to my earlier days of matte printing since trying Hahnemuhle Museum Etching (not a new paper at all). I can not give you a Dmax measurement (though a silhouetted black looks very black to my eye), but I do love the look, texture, and feel that the paper yields for my prints, both color and B&W, and have largely abandoned making prints with the glossy papers. I find my results with Museum Etching to be qualitatively different (better to my taste, obviously) than the results I had previously obtained with a variety of other Hahnemuhle, Museo, and Epson matte papers. Of course YMMV, as might our tastes and goals in printmaking.
May your quest for your holy grail bring you satisfaction as well.
Larry

Bob McCarthy
15-Nov-2010, 09:34
I've started the slow process of comparing papers. So far I'm using the basic Epson "Enhanced Matte" as the benchmark.

With Epson driver it's pretty bad, with QTR it improves a bit.

Ran Hahn Photo Rag - better but looks soft in high detail areas.

Have some German Etching to try tonight.

This would go faster with a densitometer and test file, uggg.

Any suggestions on papers to test?

bob

sanking
15-Nov-2010, 10:55
If you are printing on matte papers a reflective Dmax of 1.6 to 1.8 is not bad at all. It is important to remember that a value this high is impossible to get with pt/pd on art papers without double printing with registration procedures. With regular pt/pd printing a Dmax of even 1.5 looks really great.

I personally don't care much at all for the high gloss look, either with inkjet prints or with regular silver gelatin. That is one of the main reasons I switched from silver to alternative printing some two decades ago.

So to some extent the quest for very high Damx is somewhat akin to a fool's errand.

Sandy King

Bob McCarthy
15-Nov-2010, 12:17
The major issue I have with some matte papers is the surface can diminish the fine details either through ink "spread" or being overly textured.

Why I'm testing with an image rather than just printing a file which is a fill at 256.

Having a good black really best works when there are large areas of "graphic" black, (to me anyway)! I freely acknowledge it's just my opinion.


bob

Lenny Eiger
15-Nov-2010, 13:15
If you are printing on matte papers a reflective Dmax of 1.6 to 1.8 is not bad at all.Sandy King

Sandy,
I only print on matte papers for myself. I don't like the slinky stuff. I am quite familiar with getting a good black.

I've gotten the best black from Cone inks and Hahnemuhle PhotoRag. I have all sorts of tests and profiles that I have done for the shiny papers as some photographers like that stuff and so I print on it for them.

When you look directly at it, the black on the shiny stuff appears darker. However, if you place two prints, matte and shiny, on the ground, you will see that the black of the matte paper is darker, and more rich and velvety. (It depends on the light source - and how you want to look at it.)

Lenny

Jay DeFehr
15-Nov-2010, 14:13
Lenny,

How do you normally view your prints; by looking directly at them, or by laying them on the ground?;)

I'm sorry, I couldn't resist. Thank you all for sharing your experience and expertise; it's a real education following your conversation.

onnect17
15-Nov-2010, 16:47
Sandy,

I currently have a 7600 dedicated to B&W using QTR and the Epson Matte. The paper is 24" roll black and Harman Warmtone Baryta Matte. During QTR calibration I tried to use as much ink as possible without bleeding in the top values 98, 99 of 100 and still dries with a sort of reflective surface, visible in certain angles and forcing me to use the densitometer in transmission mode instead of reflective. The max black I’m getting is in the order of 2.1 to the zero and I have to use indirect sunlight to fine tune it.

Of course, with those density values the output print needs a lot of light in the showroom for the average human eye to really being able to discriminate between the darkest shades and unfortunately most museums and galleries are not able to offer much light power so I'm guessing 1.6-1.8 or so is a good target for the most common available room light conditions.

In my case it does not matter, I’m just an amateur. I can choose how to show my prints. :)

PViapiano
15-Nov-2010, 17:49
I think we have to ask ourselves, are we in search of a great looking print or are we in search of a number?

Comparing glossy to matte papers, or gelatin silver processes to pt/pd are setting us up to fail because there is no absolute in creative printmaking/art. Our eyes will almost always see the greater contrast/deeper black/whiter white as "better", initially.

When the viewing of a final print is isolated from other versions of the same print, it is allowed to stand on its own and create a "convincing" black and "convincing" contrast, and to create its own special magic even if its measured density ranges and dMax are not the highest that can be achieved "clinically".

Lenny Eiger
15-Nov-2010, 18:22
I think we have to ask ourselves, are we in search of a great looking print or are we in search of a number?

This is a fair question.

Personally, I could give a hoot about black. When I look around me, there is almost no black at all. All the black surfaces reflect a great deal of light. Black in a print looks to me like a hole in the universe - and there are no holes in my universe. Black can also be "scratchy" to me and create a print I don't want to walk into. This is all just personal photographic philosophy, however, and not an answer to this question.

The answer, in my experience, is that a deep black means that the ink absorption is working properly, that the balance between ink and coating is managed properly (one needs good paper). Ink is very dark. It gets limited by the software. If it limits too much (or incorrectly), it gives an anemic black AND anemic midtones AND the shadows may not have the subtlety the should. The effect goes across the whole tonal range.

OTOH, if the limiting is dialed, it means that you have a chance to have your software spread the ink densities along the whole gray ramp evenly. Crossovers, the places where two inks are blended can also work, without which you can get vertical banding.

When you have a RIP that gives you control over way too much of this, you end up having to learn way too much about things which ultimately you wish would just work...

A great black with a good number leads to a full spread of tones, larger than any other medium so far. It's great to have such tools. Of course, in the end, great prints come from great printmakers, and not technology.


Lenny

sanking
15-Nov-2010, 20:17
Black in a print looks to me like a hole in the universe - and there are no holes in my universe.
Lenny

Lenny,

Most astronomers would disagree with you on that point. Black holes that capture all light (and everything else) seem to be a very common phenomenon in the universe.

Sandy

D. Bryant
15-Nov-2010, 21:47
I think we have to ask ourselves, are we in search of a great looking print or are we in search of a number?

Comparing glossy to matte papers, or gelatin silver processes to pt/pd are setting us up to fail because there is no absolute in creative printmaking/art. Our eyes will almost always see the greater contrast/deeper black/whiter white as "better", initially.

When the viewing of a final print is isolated from other versions of the same print, it is allowed to stand on its own and create a "convincing" black and "convincing" contrast, and to create its own special magic even if its measured density ranges and dMax are not the highest that can be achieved "clinically".

Paul,

When I matt my prints I place little Post-It notes on the dark values with the log density values written, saves me tons of time answering questions from people about the value of the DMAX, density range and so on.:D

Don

PViapiano
15-Nov-2010, 22:42
I think it was HCB who said something like "Sharpness is a bourgeois concept."

I think that translates well to this discussion as well...

One of our great contemporary printers, Bob Carnie, once said something like forget all the numbers, temp controls, dilutions, tech stuff...just make the print! What does it look like, what does it feel like?

Wait...I just checked my notes. Bob said he felt that too many people are trying to make the perfect print, the perfect neg, etc. He said good printing is a frame of mind, not a series of notes and temperature checks.

I have to agree with him, whether you're in the darkroom or using an inkjet printer.

gnuyork
16-Nov-2010, 07:20
I get great blacks with the baryta papers and the glossy K3 inks. Before that I used hahnemhule satin rag and that was very good too, but the new baryta papers are better.

I did not do any scientific measuring, but I am pretty stunned by the quality of a good paper printed on an epson with a properly prepared image file.

gnuyork
16-Nov-2010, 07:23
The major issue I have with some matte papers is the surface can diminish the fine details either through ink "spread" or being overly textured.

Why I'm testing with an image rather than just printing a file which is a fill at 256.

Having a good black really best works when there are large areas of "graphic" black, (to me anyway)! I freely acknowledge it's just my opinion.


bob

I re-printed on Hahnemhule's baryta paper an image I originally printed on the their Satin rag. There were more fine details that came through in the baryta papers.

Try some of it. Ilford makes a good baryta paper as well, and it's a lot less expensive than the Hahnemhule. If you are using Epson enhanced matte as your benchmark, you will be blown away.

dangerber
16-Nov-2010, 17:46
I'm getting great deep blacks on Epson Ultra Premium Presentation Matte (enhanced matte) after coating them with three coats of shellac. :D

Takes the matte surface away, but adds a luscious depth.

sanking
17-Nov-2010, 16:09
One of our great contemporary printers, Bob Carnie, once said something like forget all the numbers, temp controls, dilutions, tech stuff...just make the print! What does it look like, what does it feel like?

.

You gotta watch what Bob Carnie says and don't do it. You can bet your butt that he is out there always trying to make a perfect print.

I figure it this way. If I try to make a perfect print with a little luck I may make a pretty good one. If I don't try, for sure it will be pretty mediocre.

You pay your money, place yours bets, and see what happens.

I like good Dmax, but it is ridiculous to compare Dmax on mate surface papers and on glossy baryta papers. Same way it is absurd to compare a pt/pd print to a glossy silver gelatin print. Totally different media.

Sandy King

D. Bryant
17-Nov-2010, 21:05
One of our great contemporary printers, Bob Carnie,

I thought he was a fugitive now, seen somewhere near Philli this week.:)

Don

Bob McCarthy
18-Nov-2010, 08:14
I'm still working on the paper test. Again, I was testing a sampling of high end, fine art matte papers.

Early results are pointing this way

-Highlights are to taste, all papers performed well, tone, contrast & sharpness are excellent amongst all papers I tested

-Mid tones are equally effervescent, It was more a matter of picking one that met your vision

-shadows were very much where matte papers fell apart. It was not the issue of maximum black. In fact in isolation most were acceptable. What blew me out was low zone details. Most matte papers were mushy with details just not coming through. I found Photo Rag to be the best of the 4 papers I tried, but not equivalent to the screen.

I think its more of a flattening of contrast in the lower zones.

I threw in a sheet of Galleria Gold Silk into the printer

WOW, the dark zones came in loud and clear, lots of low level detail emerged and was the only print that matched my vision.

Now I will have to offer, the test print had a wealth of detail in the lower zones, for a image with a different spread of tones, the result would have been likely different.

But Ilford Gold Silk has really rung my bell. And I see no metamerism or bronzing with this 3880 + QTR test, though I should test more before claiming that.

What to do with the 7600 now?? Cone glossy inks? but he claims it requires overspray. The 3880 doesn't appear to need it??

bob

gnuyork
18-Nov-2010, 09:37
I threw in a sheet of Galleria Gold Silk into the printer

WOW, the dark zones came in loud and clear, lots of low level detail emerged and was the only print that matched my vision.

Yup, that's one of the papers I was recommending. It's one of the Baryta papers. Night and day from the Enhanced matte.

The Hahnemhule Baryta papers are very nice as well, but quite a bit more expensive. I'm fine with the Ilford.

Peter De Smidt
18-Nov-2010, 11:34
Bob, could you use glop in printer, perhaps in another printer for a second pass? Or perhaps Renaissance Wax?

Lenny Eiger
18-Nov-2010, 11:46
I'm still working on the paper test. Again, I was testing a sampling of high end, fine art matte papers.
-Highlights are to taste, all papers performed well, tone, contrast & sharpness are excellent amongst all papers I tested
-Mid tones are equally effervescent, It was more a matter of picking one that met your vision
-shadows were very much where matte papers fell apart. It was not the issue of maximum black. In fact in isolation most were acceptable. What blew me out was low zone details. Most matte papers were mushy with details just not coming through. I found Photo Rag to be the best of the 4 papers I tried, but not equivalent to the screen.

I think its more of a flattening of contrast in the lower zones.

I threw in a sheet of Galleria Gold Silk into the printer

WOW, the dark zones came in loud and clear, lots of low level detail emerged and was the only print that matched my vision.
bob

Bob, I'm glad you found a paper you like. I am not trying to jump on you here - but while the results you offer may be interesting, they are not particularly scientific - or even useful. I have done a lot of comparisons and the one thing you have to do it balance the paper for the environment you are working in. Paper, ink, driver or rip and printer. Not to mention chosen print resolution, and many other factors. I can even change the dot sizes, the spread of small medium and large dots, the offset of print lines and the speed of the printer. I use StudioPrint, but QTR also has numerous controls some which are the same in StudioPrint and others that aren't. There is also the issue of directional alignment, making sure the heads go where they're supposed to. For each different setup, I have to adjust.

Whether you call it a profile or a linearization or something else, you have to tune the system separately for each test. You can't simply suggest that one paper does one thing and another falls apart. I can assure you that my shadows are quite separated, for instance. I have a gray ramp that is perfectly smooth from end to end. It took a lot of work.

Further each printer is different. We all imagine that a profile for a paper will work the same on one printer as another. This is simply not the case in real life. Canned profiles were made on someone else's printer. They are better than not having one, but if you want to really dial something in, you have to use a custom profile, and better if you learn to make one for yourself.

Without a custom profile, you can't really say what the characteristics of the shadows of one paper vs another are.

Once again I don't mean to sound harsh.... I'm just busy...

Lenny

Peter De Smidt
18-Nov-2010, 12:06
Bob, I'm glad you found a paper you like. I am not trying to jump on you here - but while the results you offer may be interesting, they are not particularly scientific - or even useful. <snip>

Perhaps to some extent, but they are useful for him. And it might be useful for others if they found the same qualities lacking in their matte prints. You're right that a lot of fine tuning can be done, but one must start somewhere, and it makes sense to pick a media that one finds attractive.

Lenny Eiger
18-Nov-2010, 13:08
Perhaps to some extent, but they are useful for him. And it might be useful for others if they found the same qualities lacking in their matte prints. You're right that a lot of fine tuning can be done, but one must start somewhere, and it makes sense to pick a media that one finds attractive.

If you are talking about look and feel, mainly color and surface textures, then sure, they're useful. However, I've profiled dozens of papers, canvas, wallpaper and tyvek. Some had better DMax, they were all a little different, but almost all had the ability to reproduce (and separate) a full spread of tones.

Lenny

Bob McCarthy
18-Nov-2010, 13:47
Lenny, I am a physicist so I am familiar with scientific method. But I never claimed to be providing the last word in what paper to use. Just my experiences so others may build on the process.

Start with a standard was the first approach.

I used QTR and the supplied profiles with QTR for a number of reasons.

-one was the profiles were very well matched to the printer, ink and paper and produced far better blacks than the epson driver. This was confirmed in both my 3880 and 7600 Epson printers.

-secondly the 7600 was a weak sister (on the first test many months back) and is the sole reason I bought the 3880. I dumped my HP9180 at the same time. I thought I could reclaim use of the 7600 with an all black ink set ie. cone or MIS.

-additionally testing QTR many months ago (again 7600) told me the printer with 2 blacks could NOT produce a smooth black (the appearance of dark areas was very mottled).

So my methodolgy was to simple take a good quality B&W file and produce a print that I hoped met my idea of an excellent print. I had hoped this was possible with matte paper as there are a number of good solutions for multi-ink printing. The bias was matte only.

Test was scanning a well exposed sheet of 8x10 B&W film on my Cezanne scanner at 1440 dpi. Some minor editing in photoshop, then printing with QTR at same resolution (1440) as the negative was scanned at. I call this a digital contract print.

Using the same printer, same RIP, with supplied proven profiles I did my tests as I described before.

Honestly Lenny, I have no doubt your a very good studio, but it doesn't mean you get the last word, you get an opinion. Harsh, yepper you can be. I too am busy and don't have the time to publish all the methodology and data points. I'm sharing impressions, I'll agree. But I'll bet dollars to donuts you get the same result.

bob

Bob McCarthy
18-Nov-2010, 13:57
Bob, could you use glop in printer, perhaps in another printer for a second pass? Or perhaps Renaissance Wax?

I will freely admit I don't know why overspraying is necessary. The print directly off the 3800 is free of the defects I saw with my 7600.

Wish I knew why. I tested Ilford Gold Silk many months ago with the 7600 and had to overcoat to remove the last vestage of bronzing. Why is that not necessary now???

I'm all ears as to a reason why.

bob

Lenny Eiger
18-Nov-2010, 14:04
Honestly, I have no doubt your a very good studio, but it doesn't mean you get the last word, you get an opinion. Harsh, yepper you can be. I too am busy and don't have the time to publish all the methodology and data points. I'm sharing impressions, I'll agree. But I'll bet dollars to donuts you get the same result.
bob

Bob - I don't need to have the last word. There is always more to learn and I don't have to be right all the time. Part of my problem is that I had to pay dearly, as everyone else has who has researched this stuff, for the things I've learned - and so I think, as a group, we get stuck on them - I know I certainly do. Just because one has concluded something (from not enough data points) doesn't mean its right... but of course, I end up speaking authoritatively nonetheless. I apologize for pissing you off... unnecessarily.

Let's get simpler here. I think its very reasonable to suggest that you can compare papers by tonality and surface. I think its harder to compare them by how much shadow detail each one has (and no, I'm not on Hahnemuhle's payroll). It's certainly harder without making one's own profiles.

FWIW, if I had to do it again, I would probably be a physicist. My daughter is likely going to be one as well - she has quantum physics on the brain at 13. I think its a fascinating field.

Lenny

Bob McCarthy
18-Nov-2010, 15:08
If you are talking about look and feel, mainly color and surface textures, then sure, they're useful. However, I've profiled dozens of papers, canvas, wallpaper and tyvek. Some had better DMax, they were all a little different, but almost all had the ability to reproduce (and separate) a full spread of tones.

Lenny

I'm trying to understand why you believe this.

Of all the papers tested, all were printed with the profile being gamut 2.2. All the QTR profiles reference this common standard.

The same was true with the original file as it was also profile - gamut 2.2

Only the glossy file matched the screen (calibrated of course). If the lower zones - basically 1-2-3 were flat, muddy and low contrast with the matte papers and the glossy was contrasty and one could differentiate between zones, then why is that not a valid observation??

Glenn, feel free to jump in.

I had a fellow large formatter with me during the final evaluation process.

I'm not trying to be right or wrong here, just not being depreciated for not being you.

bob

JeffKohn
18-Nov-2010, 15:50
My experience matches Bob's, even when using custom profiles. The problem with the matte papers is not just DMax/black, but the total contrast range from DMax to paper white. There's just not enough range on these papers to reproduce an image with a full tonal range, meaning from black to white with discernible detail throughout the range (say, L* from 2 to 97 or so). You have to compromise somewhere; either the shadows get blocked up, or if you open up the shadows you end up with thin/weak mid-tones.

Lower-contrast images can look wonderful on matte papers, especially ones where texture is important. And a really good printer can get a pretty decent result even for high-contrast images. But IMO the high-contrast images reproduce much better on the fiber-gloss/baryta papers; these papers are capable of a depth that just isn't there with the matte papers.

BTW the problem becomes even worse for color images, where it's not just a matter of contrast range, but also the limited gamut in the darker colors with matte papers.

Lenny Eiger
18-Nov-2010, 17:32
I'm trying to understand why you believe this.

Fair enough.



Of all the papers tested, all were printed with the profile being gamut 2.2. All the QTR profiles reference this common standard.

Profiling software uses patches that one prints. These are not patch images, but generated by the software, based on "known" numeric values. When those are read back into the software, specific values are assigned to each patch, and the difference from what it should read to what it actually reads is stored in a table. In RGB it might say R is short by 2, G is more G by 15 and B is more by 5. Then a profile is created which not only can refer to this table, but plots the whole thing an a curve and plenty of other more complicated things.

When it sees a pixel in an image that has, for example, the same RGB value as the patch, it says "I know what to do with that." All it has to do is reverse the values, add 2 to R, take away 15 from G, etc. It's like printing thru a mathematical sieve. I am oversimplifying this to the max, but that's basically what it is.

When working in b&w, it isn't generally rgb values, but tonal numbers, basically reflective density. I use about 80 patches in my final set, going from black to white. When the software reads it, it can analyze the 18th patch, for example, and decide whether it ought to be lighter or darker. I can specify crossover points (where two inks meet) and I can specify how much ink is dispersed over the bridge between the two. I can also set the top end DMax limit os it uses exactly what it needs and no more. I can also change the output Gamma, which does different. I do multiple runs of this, often making adjustments on the first one for limiting, and it ultimately spreads a beautiful gray ramp smoothly from edge to edge.

The profile I get from all of this can lighten or darken a shadow area, for a more perfect spread. There is a lot of control. It is this control that makes up my opinion about this.




Only the glossy file matched the screen (calibrated of course). If the lower zones - basically 1-2-3 were flat, muddy and low contrast with the matte papers and the glossy was contrasty and one could differentiate between zones, then why is that not a valid observation??

It is my opinion that nothing matches the screen. I think this is a very subjective experience. I notice that when I start printing b&w after not having done so for a while, that the first prints are awful. Then my eyes get tuned to "match" what I am seeing to what I am printing and everything gets more predictable. But I would still say that a reflective medium will not match a transmissive one.

That said, I think the answer to your question is that the paper simply had a different response.

There are plenty of differences, some papers are certainly better than others. However, the question of whether or not a paper "blocks up" is something that I can generally control, certainly with my favorite papers.

My only point is that you can't really compare fairly unless you profile each one. This can be either time consuming, expensive, or both, which is why most people try and choose something they like and go with it...


I'm not trying to be right or wrong here, just not being depreciated for not being you.

Not my intention and certainly hope I've gotten anything that could be seen as such out of the post....

Lenny

Lenny Eiger
18-Nov-2010, 17:41
My experience matches Bob's, even when using custom profiles. The problem with the matte papers is not just DMax/black, but the total contrast range from DMax to paper white. There's just not enough range on these papers to reproduce an image with a full tonal range, meaning from black to white with discernible detail throughout the range (say, L* from 2 to 97 or so). You have to compromise somewhere; either the shadows get blocked up, or if you open up the shadows you end up with thin/weak mid-tones.


I'm sorry, this is simply untrue. What you are describing is the result of poor profiling. Good matte papers can be rich, and have a very even spread.

It may take some doing, some creative profiling and you may or may not the look and feel, but what you are saying is just not correct.

Lenny

EigerStudios

gnuyork
18-Nov-2010, 22:19
My experience, and very unscientific (canned paper profiles)...

I used to get great prints with matte papers (both B&W and color)...
I then tried the Barytas. All was better. Much better. Richer prints, deeper blacks.

I will no longer use matte papers.

JeffKohn
18-Nov-2010, 22:58
I'm sorry, this is simply untrue. What you are describing is the result of poor profiling.

It's simply math, is what it is. When you have to compress the range from L* = 0 to 100 into a range from 17 to 97, something has to give. If you compress the tonal range in a completely linear way (mapping black to 17, white to 97, with straight-line interpolation in-between) you will indeed get a linear result with good detail in the shadows. The problem is, the mid-tones will be too high. Maybe you like the look of such a print, but I don't.

The other alternative is a tone curve that compresses the shadow tones, so that the mid-tones are closer to where they should be (this is what ICC profiles will typically do). This results in a better looking print overall (IMHO), and for some images the compromise to the shadow tones may be minimal or a non-issue. Other images will be more problematic; with a good profile and soft-proofing, you can ensure that there's still some separation in the important shadow tones; but to me the result is still disappointing compared what can be achieved with the newer baryta papers. The latter are capable of prints that have far more depth and contrast.


Good matte papers can be rich, and have a very even spread.I know what you mean about richness, and I love the texture of a nice matte paper for some images. But for images where depth and contrast are important, matte papers come up short of what I want.


It may take some doing, some creative profiling and you may or may not the look and feel, but what you are saying is just not correct.If you're happy with the results you're getting on matte papers with high-contrast images with lots of shadow tones that's great, I'm really happy for you. Doesn't make me incorrect for preferring the greater tonal range of the baryta papers.

bob carnie
19-Nov-2010, 06:31
I think Jeff has hit on the right answer or at least to my thinking. But I am not saying others are wrong saying they see complete tones in the papers they use. end points are only end points and if the ramping of shadow, quarter tone, mid tone , three quarter tone and highlight tone is done with care , IMO it really is insignificant whether you are viewing matt or gloss prints. It all depends on which one you or your clients prefer.
Reading Dmax and D min is a great exercise , but I think the more practical measure is knowing where your significant detail are and will they print as you want.

I use the L readings extensively to set my end points. (very simply I want to know with each paper what density point do I set for highlight with detail, and what density point do I set for shadow with detail) I guess some would say this is like Zone Talk.

I work with canvas, Inkjet matt and gloss, Ra4 matte, gloss, metal, super gloss, backlight, as well the harmon fibre gloss paper which is really galerie G4 with red sensitivity.

The highest range (I was taught the term was gamma and I may have been taught wrong) is with three paper types.
Highest - fibre gloss wet print, second would be fujiflex super gloss, third would be inkjet gloss, and so on down the range with our matte canvas having the lowest gamma range.

Approximate Aim Points for significant detail before clogging up Shadows or blowing out the highlight detail ..**and this is in my shop and may differ in any one of yours**

fibre gloss wet print L shadow- 4 L highlight- 96
fuji flex super gloss - L shadow - 4/5 highlight - 95/96
Inkjet gloss, lambda luster - L shadow - 6/7 highlight 93/94
Canvas matt - L shadow 8/9 highlight 91/92

As you can see for my prints the gloss print has a higher range than a matt canvas.
but the practical person in me says ( so what} but rather which print do I like better,

It depends on your tastes, for a very large project that I am working on I have tested gloss paper and matt paper, toned them and shown various EYES that I trust the results including my own taste and have concluded I and the majority of others prefer the matt paper.
I seems to allow the view to enter the photograph better than the gloss which though a much more robust image , seems to repel the viewer from staying awhile.
Other projects I gravitate to gloss.


Profiles are a whole different can of worms that each printer , ink, dyes will create their own vocabulary and one needs to balance them out first , or at least know what is going to happen to your screen image when it is sent to a printer and put on a specific paper.
What happens when your image hits different paper, does it change, does it look alright, can you live with the change and make slight mental adjustments at the screen when you are sending to this paper, can you work with the change or is the change so significant that you need to profile so that your screen setup can give you a complete picture of what is going to happen when using a specific paper.

Some papers change a lot , some don't , if you are like me you will consider profiling in specific cases, and in others not bother because you know what is going to happen, so you adjust.

**when you are making a enlarger print, and then toning , we all have been trained to visualize what is going to happen and then at time of making the print we may or may not make adjustments** nothing different in digital printing I say.

msk2193
19-Nov-2010, 08:32
For two very busy people there is a lot of time being spent on notes to each other :D

Lenny Eiger
19-Nov-2010, 10:55
It's simply math, is what it is. When you have to compress the range from L* = 0 to 100 into a range from 17 to 97, something has to give. If you compress the tonal range in a completely linear way (mapping black to 17, white to 97, with straight-line interpolation in-between) you will indeed get a linear result with good detail in the shadows. The problem is, the mid-tones will be too high. Maybe you like the look of such a print, but I don't.

I think its easy to articulate the tones wherever the top and bottom end up. I =would not imagine a straight line interpolation. You and I are speaking in a different language in most areas, which is common in this arena. You have certain assumptions and I have others. I have used StudioPrint's color engine, ColorGPS, to profile and it has specific tools that influence my assumptions.

However, I can get a print with as much "juice" on PhotoRag as any other paper. It is different, but there is tons of color saturation and plenty of separation. I have a color test sheet in from of me with 20 different images done on Hahnemuhle baryta and Hahnemuhle photorag. Each one was used to validate the profile. They both show identical separation in all tonal areas, identical color ability, etc. The different surface makes for a different effect, but the tones are all there. This was a lot of work - PhotoRag is not easy to profile.


If you're happy with the results you're getting on matte papers with high-contrast images with lots of shadow tones that's great, I'm really happy for you. Doesn't make me incorrect for preferring the greater tonal range of the baryta papers.

We are certainly all free to print on what we like. I'm happy you are happy as well.

Lenny

Brian Ellis
19-Nov-2010, 11:52
My experience matches Bob's, even when using custom profiles. The problem with the matte papers is not just DMax/black, but the total contrast range from DMax to paper white. There's just not enough range on these papers to reproduce an image with a full tonal range, meaning from black to white with discernible detail throughout the range (say, L* from 2 to 97 or so). You have to compromise somewhere; either the shadows get blocked up, or if you open up the shadows you end up with thin/weak mid-tones.

Lower-contrast images can look wonderful on matte papers, especially ones where texture is important. And a really good printer can get a pretty decent result even for high-contrast images. But IMO the high-contrast images reproduce much better on the fiber-gloss/baryta papers; these papers are capable of a depth that just isn't there with the matte papers.

BTW the problem becomes even worse for color images, where it's not just a matter of contrast range, but also the limited gamut in the darker colors with matte papers.

With all these problems it's amazing that matte papers are made at all.

Bob McCarthy
19-Nov-2010, 11:57
This as been an interesting discussion. A couple of thoughts

"patches, don't need no stink in' patches" (Sierra madre' photographique)



The file I chose to test with is a very challenging file with large areas of trees in deep shadow, with a hint of detail to provide the feeling of depth. It is not a typical file but a difficult one chosen to evaluate the printing/paper process.

Secondly, in B&W where color gamut is not really in play, I believe it is very doable to get a good match between paper and screen. Before Lenny responds, let me clarify that I believe I can reliably bridge the gap between transmitted light on the screen and the reflected light from the paper. I can see the screen and reasonably know what to expect off the printer. Easier than judging dry down in the wet darkroom days. I also admit I have looked at a ton of screen/print match ups over the past 10 years. (The photoshop era)


I believe editing belongs in Photoshop, not in profiles. Once I understand what the printer will do with certain input I can adjust level, curves, local contrast, etc to provide me with a print. The profiles supplied with QTR provide me with a complete range of tones black to white

Much like the darkroom days this is a process of refinement and multiple prints are made until my vision is on paper . But this is not a printer/profile issue (to me)

My original goal was to explore the limits of matte paper as I wanted to dedicate a printer to one dedicated ink set. Matte is the standard of the MIS and Cone systems. While glossy is available, it appears to require overspray or glop, neither appeals to me.


BTW I'll put up the file later this evening so you can see what I'm referring to.

My one question is, why does my Epson3880/QTR combo not demonstrate near the surface color issues of the 7600. UC vs. K? .???

Bob

Peter De Smidt
19-Nov-2010, 12:28
My one question is, why does my Epson3880/QTR combo not demonstrate near the surface color issues of the 7600. UC vs. K? .???



Drop size? Different dithering?

Bruce Watson
19-Nov-2010, 12:30
My one question is, why does my Epson3880/QTR combo not demonstrate near the surface color issues of the 7600. UC vs. K?

Several generations of ink technology separate the two. The extra gray ink alone makes for a more consistent and controllable neutral axis. It allows for more and better GCR, where color inks are replaced with the gray inks to make gray shades. If nothing else, you should get less metamerism from the newer machines because of this.

The newer inks have newer encapsulations too. They should bind to the substrate a little better, and present less surface reflectivity problems, especially on non-matte surfaces. Remember, when the 7600 was introduced, there were hardly any non-matte papers available. Much has changed in the last few years.

Bob McCarthy
19-Nov-2010, 12:47
Is the Cone ink setup for B&W glossy, perhaps an older generation that still requires an over-spray?

I prefer the baryta look w/o the spray, spray makes it a bit too RC looking for me.

bob

Peter De Smidt
19-Nov-2010, 13:05
Bob, maybe they can send you some samples?

Bob McCarthy
19-Nov-2010, 13:58
here is original file, original is 13,700 x 6850 pixels, reduced to 650 x XXX pixels

Plenty of dark detail in dark areas

bob

Bob McCarthy
19-Nov-2010, 17:01
Because of the massive compression, its not telling the story,

here is a crop

Comes through just fine with the Galleria Silk, with Photo Rag not very well.

bob

Lenny Eiger
19-Nov-2010, 19:25
Because of the massive compression, its not telling the story,
here is a crop
Comes through just fine with the Galleria Silk, with Photo Rag not very well.
bob

I don't have this problem at all. I can only say that there is something wrong with your system that it produces a thoroughly blocked up shadow area. I would be upset as well, but it isn't the paper, I'm sure of it...

Lenny

Peter De Smidt
19-Nov-2010, 19:32
I agree with Lenny. My guess is the linearization (sp?) of the profile wasn't ideal. Papers change, for instance, and so what worked earlier might no longer be ideal. Bob, if you have a spectrophotometer, then you could print out a test strip with, say, 20 equal steps from black (0,0,0) to white (100, 100, 100) on both papers. Chart the response. For a quick check, you could use a curve adjustment layer to even out the spacing on matte papers. Of course if you're going to go that way for good, it'd be better to redo the linearization in QTR.

Or maybe Lenny would make a print for you for a reasonable fee. I know Paul Roark would, as he's done so for me. If you still like the Ilford glossy print better, then it would be pretty clear which way you should go.

Bob McCarthy
19-Nov-2010, 20:08
peter,

I'm all for following your suggestion, but note, I didn't say blocked up but a flattening of the lower tones so the ample detail looks "mushy" and not crisp like the baryta paper.

In the interest of seeing how far it can be improved, I'll have a print made on H photo rag. I would love pulling the 7600 out of retirement.

Bob

Peter De Smidt
19-Nov-2010, 20:39
I'm all for following your suggestion, but note, I didn't say blocked up but a flattening of the lower tones so the ample detail looks "mushy" and not crisp like the baryta paper.


Does that mean a loss of contrast in the darker print tones, or something else?

Bob McCarthy
19-Nov-2010, 21:48
I think that's a fair way to describe it. The detail is kinda there but the local contrast in the lower tones is lessened. Most of the detail may be more illusion created by contrast than gritty detail ie zone 2 vs. Zone 3.

B

Peter De Smidt
20-Nov-2010, 07:13
It still sounds like a profile issue.

Bob McCarthy
21-Nov-2010, 14:32
Or maybe Lenny would make a print for you for a reasonable fee. I know Paul Roark would, as he's done so for me. If you still like the Ilford glossy print better, then it would be pretty clear which way you should go.

Are you using the Eboni 6 (carbon on cotton) approach?

Bob

Peter De Smidt
21-Nov-2010, 19:18
Not at the moment. I'm going to switch my 4880 to a BW inkset, but I haven't decided which one. I'd like to able to make digital negatives, and Eboni 6 won't allow that. Plus, I'm not too keen on the settling issue, since even if I shake the cartridges regularly, the pigment could settle in the lines to the heads. Right now I'm leaning to using HP MK, PK, dilutions of PK, and Mis's LK and LLK to warm things up a bit if needed.

Bob McCarthy
21-Nov-2010, 20:48
Chatted with PR about it back a bit and he offered that with a printer on a stand, he just agitated the ink by agitating the whole units on the rollers.

He used a 7500 I believe.

Bob