With the exception of the comments about LensWork, to which I still subscribe and find very interesting, I am going to take the unusual stance and express my total agreement with Lenny about matte papers for inkjet prints and the misplaced focus on sharpness and Dmax. I think he is exactly right in that a rich print is made in the mid-tones, and sometimes with just a bit of highlight or shadow detail.

Sandy King



Quote Originally Posted by Lenny Eiger View Post
You can't knock PhotoRag and suggest that Harmon's whatever is "better." They are very different mediums. They are as different as black and white is from color. I have done as much profiling of PhotoRag as anyone - probably about 40-50 different profiles of this same paper over the last few years. It is a superb paper. It has exceptional richness. I just went and looked at my profile test print. I have just made a new profile for PhotoRag Baryta. My PhotoRag print of the exact same image (actually set of images) is at least as sharp as the Baryta coated paper. In some cases it looks sharper, but this is likely a minor difference in contrast. The matte surfaces allow for more richness and deeper tonality.

I would also suggest that great prints are made by great printers, as in humans, not machines. The machines are just there as support. I think a focus on sharpness is misplaced, as is the focus I often hear, of dmax. I think a rich print is made with the midtones, and how they interact with each other. It is also about the entire balance of tones, and not one side of the spectrum or the other.

Of course, these are my opinions, not intended to be a statement of fact. Everyone is welcome to disagree.


Lenny