Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/07/25
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]In a more serious vein, it is actually quite rare that a good photograph on traditional silver gelatin paper will exhibit the maximum black that it is theoretically capable of. I can recall a photo teacher telling us to expose a piece of paper to bright light for about 10 minutes, and then develop it for another 10 minutes. We were to keep a piece of this pure black print with us to make sure that the deepest blacks in our prints matched the black of our reference print. I think this was a big mistake. Shadow detail will suffer if we insist on getting that deep black in our prints. So for most normal photographs, the lesser DMAX of Epson prints is not a real factor. They certainly LOOK very black in my prints, and I believe that this is all that matters. The Epson Premium Glossy, inspite of its other problems, is capable of very dense *looking* blacks, densitometer readings notwithstanding. Dan C. At 06:17 PM 25-07-00 -0400, John Brownlow wrote: > > ><irony> > >Oh, don't start banging on about that again, PLEASE, Dan. > >As if that mattered. > ></irony> > > >on 25/7/00 4:56 pm, Dan Cardish at dcardish@microtec.net wrote: > >> But they LOOK so nice!! >> >> Dan C. >> >> At 09:13 PM 25-07-00 +0200, imx wrote: >>> An intriguing topic, this one about the image quality of a digital print. >>> I did some densitometric measurements on digital prints, made by Epson. >>> These were promotional and of very high quality. Measuring white gave >>> D=0.04, which is as good as the best BW papers I have tested. But measuring >>> black gave a D=1.42, which is very good for a colour neg print, but far >>> below what you can get with a BW print, which can handle easily D=2.30. > >-- >Johnny Deadman > >http://www.pinkheadedbug.com > > > >