Digital BW, The Print

A couple of things to add to my post of a couple of days ago - below.  
The bronzing is almost non existent on both of my sample prints.  I also 
noted on a separate post that they both pass my ink / thumbnail test - 
but, I have now noticed that when I wiped over the two prints with a 
cloth (very firmly in a circular motion) the PermaJet Fibre Glossy 
showed definite signs of light abrasion compared with the Crane Museo 
Silver Rag.  This was 24 hours after I made the prints.  So, first 
impression here is that the surface of the PFBG is more susceptible to 
abrasion than the CMSR.  But again these are NOT scientific tests - just 
how very firm is very firm!?

Having had the prints for a couple of days now I definitely prefer the 
warm tone and the finish of the Silver Rag compared to the Permajet.  
It's gorgeous.  But that's preference.  If the surface is genuinely 
tougher then that's a bonus.

Steve Gledhill ----- http://www.virtuallygrey.co.uk/

--------------------------------------------------------

Steve Gledhill wrote:

>Comparison of PermaJet Fibre Base Gloss (aka DaVinci Fibre Gloss \ufffd so 
>we\ufffdre led to believe) side by side with Crane Museo Silver Rag
>
>Today I acquired two new papers - a box of the PermaJet Fibre Base Gloss 
>and just 4 sheets (letter size) of Crane Museo Silver Rag (don\ufffdt ask). 
>So the first thing I wanted to do was try them out to compare them side 
>by side.
>
>Here\ufffds what I did:
>Profiled both papers with my i1 and QTR-Create-ICC \ufffd hair dryered for speed.
>Chose a B&W image with lots of shadow and highlight detail and a full 
>range of tones.
>Printed the same image (size 16cm x 20 cm) on each paper on my 4800 with 
>K3 (PK) inks using \ufffdLet Photoshop Determine Colors\ufffd using Rendering 
>Intent = Perceptual and Black Point Compensation. ABW settings were for 
>Premium SemiGloss Photo Paper (250) at 2880dpi, Neutral, Darker \ufffd no tints.
>
>Results:
>
>The paper bases are very different. The PFBG (295gsm) is a bright white 
>compared to the pale cream CMSR (300gsm). The surfaces are very 
>different too. The PFBG is to my eye much more like a silver fibre paper 
>\ufffd smoother than the CMSR - but still with a very light random-ish 
>texture (although there is a faint longitudinal texture too - not so 
>nice). The CMSR has a finer more even texture. Both very attractive \ufffd 
>PFBG is whiter and smoother compared with fine textured creamy CMSR. 
>Neither looks like an RC type texture. Comparing the gloss from both I\ufffdd 
>say the PFBG looks a little more glossy \ufffd the finer texture of the CMSR 
>seems to diffuse the gloss just a little more. It\ufffds nice to have a 
>choice. Both papers were sheets from A4 or letter size boxes and both 
>papers curl slightly \ufffd coated side in. Both feel hefty and stiff.
>
>I have been told \ufffd but cannot verify - that the CMSR is 100% cotton rag 
>with no optical brighteners and that the PFBG is \ufffdfibre based\ufffd but not 
>cotton and it contains optical brighteners.
>
>DMax for PFBG is 2.6, DMax for CMSR is 2.5, both measured with my i1.
>
>Both images exhibit a similar degree of gloss differential. As far as 
>bronzing is concerned it appears to be present but as it is now evening 
>in the UK and I don\ufffdt have access to daylight (real or artificial) I\ufffdll 
>have to wait until tomorrow to get a better view. In fact everything I 
>have to say from here on is based on fresh-off-the-printer prints viewed 
>in bright tungsten light.
>
>So what do images look like? The image is one I like a great deal and 
>know very well so I am very critical when viewing it. Both are superb 
>and both satisfy my critical examination. They are both sharp, both 
>render all of the details in the shadows and highlights just as I see 
>them on my fully profiled monitor. There is a very slight difference in 
>contrast in the two images with the CMSR having just perceptibly higher 
>contrast \ufffd but given my rush to see the results of the two papers I\ufffdm 
>happy to get these results so quickly. I anticipate further tweaking to 
>get everything just the way I want.
>
>I have absolutely no knowledge or information about that other critical 
>factor \ufffd longevity and fade resistance.
>
>I can\ufffdt say yet which I prefer \ufffd but it\ufffds great for there to be a 
>further significant step in the choice of papers available to us. And I 
>must say that it\ufffds great to hold some of my work on papers that at least 
>remind me of my darkroom days printing with Ilford MG FB and the like. 
>They\ufffdre not the same, and I don\ufffdt want them to be, but there is 
>something of that look and feel about them.
>
>Steve Gledhill
>http://www.virtuallygrey.co.uk/
>

		
___________________________________________________________ 
To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new Yahoo! Security Centre. http://uk.security.yahoo.com