Digital BW, The Print

There are diminishing returns to the high dmax numbers, and no matter how high, a good dmax will not transform a poor image into a good one.

A while back I managed to achieve a dmax of over 3.0 according to my meters.  It was a fun exercise, but not really worth much.  With a glossy paper much over 2.3 is virtually indistinuishable.  With a matte paper once the mid 1.60's are reached, I doubt anyone would see the difference in the image.

For glossy papers I think there is a distinct downside in that the more glop and ink on the paper, the more likely you'll get pizza wheel marks. For matte papers I'm suspicious that the highest dmax papers may also be the most susceptible to rub-off and physical damage from touching the black areas.  Avoiding these problems rates rather high on my wish list.

A couple of us are playing with printing on Arches Hot Press Bright White un-coated watercolor paper.  Then we're washing the surface.  Whether this step, which presumeably removes the glycols and glycerol, adds much to longevity is an unknown, but some galleries appear to be impressed.  While I've occasionally seen a 1.61 dmax, usually we're getting about 1.56 - 8.  Here, one of the benefits is that the rub-off is virtually eliminated.  It's a tough, durable print that some think will stand the rigors of time better.

Does this modest dmax affect the "artistic" and "archival" appeal of this paper and approach?  Probably not.  They are generally being compared to the old noble metal processes, where they visually hold up rather well (and some believe may hold up better over time).  For those who want the unique medium -- something different with more of a hand made character -- the modest dmax is rather irrelevant.

But, getting a good dmax is relevant to our medium, and all else being equal, I'd almost always want to have the highest dmax possible.  But all else seldom is equal.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com