Jorge,
If you're looking at Dmax, the Epson 130 will lay down blacker blacks than anything you can do with Selenium toning or Platinum. And that, is a FACT!
Jorge,
If you're looking at Dmax, the Epson 130 will lay down blacker blacks than anything you can do with Selenium toning or Platinum. And that, is a FACT!
I dont know how much of a fact it is...what is the reflection density?....More importantly is this mistaken notion that one has to have blacks with reflection densities of 2. 2 or above to have a good print. The important thing is to have convincing blacks, some people say they can get reflection densites in the range of 1.7 with pt/pd, I cant, my Dmax is 1.45 and my blacks are set at 90% of that. Look at the hats picture, the rim around the middle hat "looks" black, yet if you measure the reflection density it is probably at about 1.3.....the trick is to control your materials and understand tone reproduction and tonal relationships.
Here is an example of Oriental Seagull grade 2 selenium toned. The dark right hand side has a reflection density of 2. 45.....what are your numbers?
So, sorry for doubting your word but unless you are going to give me numbers, your "fact" sounds pretty dubious to me.....
Actually Jorge, Charles Cramer summed it up nicely comparing Epson, Ilfochrome, Lightjet, Dye Transfer, and Selenium Toned FB Silver Gel. For the blackest blacks on a scale of 1 thru 10, with 1 being the blacked, Selenium toned FB silver gel came in at 4, with HP Designjet 130 coming in at a 2. This echos the samples I've had done on the designjet as well.
I consider Charles Cramer a pretty good source when it comes to printing. So you see, it's not my word we're dealing with....and there is nothing dubious in it....it is simply a fact. I'm not stopping you from producing silver or Platinum prints....but for the deepest blacks for B&W output, silver is no longer in the game.
Sorry.
Well, unless Cramer provided numbers somewhere I have to say that I doubt him too. Making a visual comparison and number them from 1 to 10 without giving an explanation as to what was the basis of the comparison is not "proof" or "fact"..sorry but I doubt very much ink jet prints have a higher D max than silver paper. You want to prove me wrong post your reflection numbers. If you dont have a densitometer send me a balck patch and I will be glad to read it for you....other wise, I have posted numbers I expect for you to do the same when you make a claim, not value judgements, either yours or Cramer's.
Oh and BTW, if you read carefully you will see I am not looking for the maximum Dmax possible, that was your assumption. I am fully aware pt/pd does not even come close to the Dmax of silver printing. But in my case, I dont need it......
Jorge,
You can review his credentials on pg 47 of this months View Camera Magazine, as well as to how he tested different methods and papers. I suggest you read the article . And as an aside, have you tested the Designjet yourself as I have.? Based on your response, it sounds like you haven't....and as such, what you're offering is nothing more than opinion....which carries no weight. Cramers 1 thru 10 test represents DMax in a scale that is easy to interpret. If you haven't done a test with the Designjet, you really can not offer anything but an uninformed opinion.
I suggest you check out his article, and do a densitometer test with this printer. The Ansel Adams Gallery is now using the printer for their B&W work....you should give it a try.
Regards.
Now Children, this has gone on long enough -- too long, in fact.
Wilhelm (Sarasota)
I'd respond....but I've been sent to my room......
Sorry, but I dont do VC. I really dont care about his credentials, I care about the numbers and testing procedure. YOu are correct that I have not tested the design jet, this is why I was asking you to post the numbers. Since you do not or cannot post the numbers I guess your and Cramer's opinion is just that, an opinion and certainly not a "fact" and carries just as much weight as mine.... I dont understand your reluctance to post a reflection density, if as you say you have "tested" this printer, then you must have numbers...or what? is your testing methodology along the lines of...gee wiz, this looks blacker....
Bill, sorry bubba but if people say " you know, I have switched to digital and my prints have improved 100% and I find I have greater control and enjoy it more" I say good for them, to each his/her own. But it irks me when I read these supposedly "expert" opinions that offer pseudo scientific explanations and offer claims that ink jet prints are "better" than silver or any other process, but you ask them for numbers and all you get is , "well gee wiz.I read it in VC" or "I dont have the time or inclination to prove you wrong. " I say, offer proof or just say "I like ink jet prints better" and move on.
Hmmmm,
You haven't tested it yourself. You haven't read a test on it from someone who I consider to be far more experienced with printing than yourself.....but you're convinced that everyone else is wrong about it and you're right.
I think that about sums it up. While I've tested it, and others much more experienced than I have tested it, and found the same thing.....you must be correct and we must be wrong.
By the way....the numbers are there for ya in the article. But I guess you won't read it because you already know the answer to everything.
LOL. Enjoy.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks