What is a Giclée print?

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

This test has already been covered Jorge. It appears the problem is in your testing methods and not having control over the output. As it is not you making the print, and as you appear to not understand the measurement technicalities, the shutting up best come from you. Many who have more knowledge of test methods and of inkjet printing than you, disagree with you. It appears you have no interest in the true outcome....you just have a burning desire to think you are right....no matter what evidence is apparent to the contrary.

The best and most well known printers don't agree with you....nuff said!

LOL...trust me David, it is you who does not understand the measurements necessary, and the reason why you cannot come up with a test yourself and have to trust what you read even if it is wrong. Of all here, it is you the one who really should shut up since you are the one who seems to lack even the smallest understanding of what is going on. I keep saying, show me your work, show me your results, I am at least willing to design an experiment and then publish the results whatever they are, you in your great open mindedness have dismissed what I am doing without even seeing the methodology and the results, who has the "burning desire to be right" now, huh? I am producing facts, you are only spouting bullshit you read somehwere...way to go! I am astounded at your scientific knowledge.... LOL.

As to the best and well known printers.....lol...do you really think I care? Of course they wont like it, it will expose their bs...

[sanking]

I have to disagree with this, I doubt you are getting a Dmax of 1.8 from your digital negatives in pt/pd. The only way I have seen high Dmax reflection densities is from multiple passes, digital or traditional. I think this is another of the myths, I asked Dan Burkholder this question, I asked "since you can control your curves I guess you only need one contrast grade for your pt/pd printing?"... his answer.. "In theory".....

So making beleive that PS is the one solution for all that ails photography is IMO bs...

It was never suggested that I get a Dmax of 1.8 from Pt/Pd. About the most I can get with single coating and one pass is 1.6, and that is with the best of conditions. But, I believe that is about the most the process allows with one pass, and that was my point about the use of curves. The curve allows you to get the maximum possible Dmax out of any process, be it Pt/Pd, kallitype or carbon, while still keeping a fun range of tones. That is true with in-camera negatives and digital negatives, but with digital negatives you have the capability to adjust the curve at both ends to optimize potential.

I think of maximum Dmax in terms of what the process gives with one printing, not in terms of multiple passes. And to get maximum Dmax, you have to know how to optimize the process itself. In other words, you may have the best digital negative in the world but if you don't know how to optimize results with paper, sensitizer mix, coating, humidity, etc. it will not be possible to get the most from the process.

Sandy King

[sanking]

Sandy,

With respect to carbon, do I understand you to mean that if I have a traditional negative with a DR that matches the exposure scale of my sensitized tissue, that it will be difficult to make a full scale print with *maximum* black? I think I'm making full scale prints with a *convincing* black, but I honestly can't say that I know how close to maximum black it is. I just recieved Mark Nelson's CD today, so I'm looking forward to learning how to make digital negatives for carbon printing.

Eric.

Eric,

Yes, that is correct, because the negative has a toe and shoulder that makes it impossible to use 100% of the curve. You can get the maximum Dmax by cheating the highlights, or you can cheat the shadows to favor the highlights, but you can not get an optimum tonal scale and maximum Dmax at the same time. What the digital negative will do, with the *correct* adjustment curve, is allow you to use every single bit of the tonal values of the process.

Sandy King

[tim atherton]

You dont like this and come up with the patches thing and how there must be a black reference because not everybody can get a black.... This is stupid! Even the most inept person printing in silver can get a max black without having to resort to special knowledge and settings, now you guys tell me that for anybody to get the wild claims of 2.4 the person doing the printing has to have special knowledge? This is typical of digital users! Tell me, what happened with the final product is what matters? Are you guys the only ones holding the secret to the holy grail and nobody else out there doing ink jet prints is privy to this special knowledge? Rememeber, I did not make these prints, these are mady by people selling them. Of course, you are welcome to send me one of your super duper 2.4 Dmax prints to prove your point, other wise, please give me numbers from prints you have purchased. As they say put up or shut up!

you do however seem to miss the point. In order to ensure that any areas in your final print really are true "max" backs (if that is what you want) all it takes is one or two simple clicks (and you may not even need to do that) - just a normal part of the editing process. No special arcane knowledge, no unused steps, no extraordinary multiple additions to the process. It's simple and straightforward

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

It was never suggested that I get a Dmax of 1.8 from Pt/Pd. About the most I can get with single coating and one pass is 1.6, and that is with the best of conditions. But, I believe that is about the most the process allows with one pass, and that was my point about the use of curves. The curve allows you to get the maximum possible Dmax out of any process, be it Pt/Pd, kallitype or carbon, while still keeping a fun range of tones. That is true with in-camera negatives and digital negatives, but with digital negatives you have the capability to adjust the curve at both ends to optimize potential.

I think of maximum Dmax in terms of what the process gives with one printing, not in terms of multiple passes. And to get maximum Dmax, you have to know how to optimize the process itself. In other words, you may have the best digital negative in the world but if you don't know how to optimize results with paper, sensitizer mix, coating, humidity, etc. it will not be possible to get the most from the process.

Sandy King

It seemed to me you implied that by manipulating the curves and making your digital negatives that you can get better results than an optimized traditional work method assuming that the rest of the variables in the procedure are contast, to which David rapidly chimed in that it was true.

This is wht you said:

Actually, it is not "entirely" the process that requires multiple exposures/passes/coatings to produce maximum black. This is the result of working with traditional in-camera negatives that have curves that prevent one from utilizing the full Dmax of the process.

This, to me, implies that the reason we cannot get a higher Dmax is because of the negative, and this IMO is absurd.

[Eric_Scott]

Eric,

Yes, that is correct, because the negative has a toe and shoulder that makes it impossible to use 100% of the curve. You can get the maximum Dmax by cheating the highlights, or you can cheat the shadows to favor the highlights, but you can not get an optimum tonal scale and maximum Dmax at the same time. What the digital negative will do, with the *correct* adjustment curve, is allow you to use every single bit of the tonal values of the process.

Sandy King

Sandy,

What if you use a film like Tmax400 and expose so that everything is on the straight line portion of the curve?

Eric.