Digital BW, The Print

> pr_roark wrote:
> > ... in the real world of 
> > reflections and less than ideal display, good matte papers will 
> > often if not usually appear to have deeper blacks than the 
> > glossy ones.

Bruce Watson <bwyg@...> wrote:

> ... your "real world" doesn't match mine. 

Probably not, but I think mine is rather typical of many homes and 
offices.

> I've got both inkjet prints and silver gelatin prints on my 
> walls, side by side under the same lighting. Framed the same 
> way ...

As do I.

> It's clear to just about anyone who actually 
> looks at these prints that the inkjet prints do not have 
> a solid black where the silver gelatin prints do. 

I took a few photos that I think illustrate what I'm seeing.

One of the silver prints on my wall is this one --
http://paulroark.com/foxtails.html  It depends heavily on the 
blacks.  The silver print was from a digital internegative.  So, I 
could print it easily on matte paper for comparison.  The top left 
corner of the print hits 100% black.

First, before getting to the matte inkjet v. silverprint comparison, 
I printed 2 full frame inkjet versions.  One matte on Premier Art's 
Generations Alise BW (dmax 1.74) and one on Red River's UltraPro 
Satin 2 (dmax 2.35).  I laid them (unframed) on a table in my living 
room at took a photo of them.  It's at 
http://www.paulroark.com/BW-Info/Matte-Glossy-on-table.jpg 
The matte print is on the left.  The difference is obvious.  I see 
about the same thing everywhere I take these 2 prints in my house.  
In the direct sun, the glossy dmax is obviously much better, but 
almost nowhere else does the glossy print look as good as the matte 
print.

I hung the 16x20 silver print on the wall in my living room.  It's a 
bit higher than usual because a larger print was there before, but 
this also puts it closer to the flood lights.  The lighting can be 
seen at http://www.paulroark.com/BW-Info/Lighting.jpg  There is a 
south facing window to the right, with drapes half pulled.  The 
relative lightness of the ceiling and walls is apparent, and I think 
not atypical of most homes. 

A close-up of the 16x20 on the wall shows the seriouness of the 
reflection problem.  See 
http://www.paulroark.com/BW-Info/16x20-on-front-wall.jpg

I printed matte versions of the top right and left corners of this 
print.  These were put under acrylic just like the silver print and 
then, one at a time, taped into place over the silver print.

See http://www.paulroark.com/BW-Info/Matte-on-right.jpg and
http://www.paulroark.com/BW-Info/Matte-on-left.jpg

These shots were all take with the camera on a tripod in the same 
location and with manual exposure, so they are identical.  The Jpegs 
can be pulled into Photoshop to measure the relative depth of the 
blacks -- silver print v. matte print, both under acrylic.

For me, reflections are the enemy -- from the print surface as well 
as from the glazing.  I have not found a solution that is better than 
a good matte paper, and, unfortunately, the anti-reflection acrylics 
are just too expensive for me.

A better display environment would clearly be nice, but light 
ceilings and walls are rather typical, and something I'm not likely 
to be able to change (if I want to stay married).


> ...
> We clearly still need, as we have for a decade or more, 
> a good solid black. 

I totally agree. 

We could also really use affordable optically coated acrylic, but I'm 
not going to hold my breath for that either.

At any rate, I think these photos show one reason I generally stay 
with matte papers.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com