Dynamic range of RA4 vs digital pigment print

[paulr]

I pointed out that inkjet now is further in this field than RA4 and I doubt the paper manufactures (Kodak and Fuji ) are going to research and develop an emulsion that will enhance any ends of the spectrum that inkjet has dug deeper in.

And it's hard to imagine any amount of R&D overcoming the limitations of 3 dyes. Inkjet manufacturers always have the ability to add another ink, whether to improve gamut, highlight smoothness, linearity, or dynamic range.

[bob carnie]

Well those layers of colour mixed properly can produce an astounding amount of colour range using light exposure.

The current inkjets ability to lay down more colour are in really defined areas at extreme ends...and or variations of some colours. One example would be the green range, I see more flexibility there in ink prints.

Also for example, CMYK is a smaller colour gamut than Adobe 1998, but it does indeed extend into areas that Adobe 1998 cannot produce with RA4 . If you use the right inks on press you will see them.I am thinking the Yellow/Blue complimentary colour range.


My position is that we are in a pretty good place as it is with Adobe 1998 and RA4 papers.. We have been happy with combination for quite awhile..( my whole career has been done this way) .
It has just been recently that we are able to see on paper more variations.
As time moves on we will see subtle changes and improvements in inkjet technology but if one works with subduded colours , rather than hugely saturated , then one would not see any improvement in their prints with be newwest , bestest , fastest ink sprayer.

I am truly waiting for the day where a pure(heavy load) pigment layer is laid down on a flat bed device , and one can build up colour density, and contrast by multi layering. ( I am doing this now by hand , but it would be the cats ass to see this happen in my working life.) - Does anyone here remember Chromalins... the proffing device of the 80's.

Right now the heavy hitters have no need to be influenced to make such a device as most of the general photographic population, I would say 97% are happy with dyes and small pigment load and call it a day. I am in the smaller group , I am going to call us the 3%ers.

[paulr]

Also for example, CMYK is a smaller colour gamut than Adobe 1998, but it does indeed extend into areas that Adobe 1998 cannot produce with RA4 .

True, of course, but I don't know if that's really a relevant comparison. Adobe RGB is a working space, while CMYK (in Photoshop) is a generic space that kinda sorta mimics the device space of a 4-color press.

The gamut of an RA4 print, while it happens to use red and green and blue inks, is still a subtractive medium and so is only loosely related to the Adobe RGB working space. And the gamut of an inkjet print, while it is based on CMYK inks, is only loosely related to the CMYK color space. This is due to higher purity colors (epson's vivid magenta and vivid cyan), and additional colors (epson's green and orange; canon's red, green and blue ...)

And then there's the dynamic range issue brought up by the OP. That's something we've seen improved with additional inks ... both the absolute range, and the smoothness of gradations, especially in the highlights.

My position is that we are in a pretty good place as it is with Adobe 1998 and RA4 papers.. We have been happy with combination for quite awhile..( my whole career has been done this way) .
It has just been recently that we are able to see on paper more variations.
As time moves on we will see subtle changes and improvements in inkjet technology but if one works with subduded colours , rather than hugely saturated , then one would not see any improvement in their prints with be newwest , bestest , fastest ink sprayer.

Agree 100%. I have more colors than I know what to do with most of the time.