I’ve read every single post of this thread with MUCH (amusement) interest…
I actually don’t think this is true… I believe you feel just as strongly… the problem is, from an outsiders perspective, I think you are losing this battle.
You both have ‘chimed in’ on this. However, Joanna is the only one that has offered to “let’s see if we can get the same results from both programs.”
You continue to post and argue. All the while stating that you’re too busy and not at all interested. That’s actually not helpful to me and others who are trying to figure this stuff out.
I actually DO get the strong impression that you have an issue with Joanna or their work… not so much any program in particular.
@Joanna I would be interested in some higher contrast, dramatic type black and white stuff with FP… in particular in landscape and portraiture.
I’m sure you’re too busy but I was hoping for a little comparison by yourself and @uncoy. But, alas, I don’t think that will happen.
It’s NOT about winning or losing a battle, it’s about using (mastering) the software at your disposal – rather than losing, to imagine what’s worth achieving.
.
Auf Deutsch haben wir ein schönes Sprichwort:
„Sich in etwas zu verbeißen, sollte man den Ratten überlassen."
In German we have a nice saying:
“You should let the rats get their teeth into something.”
Compared to screen reproduction, photo paper as a reflective medium can only display limited contrast. The maximum darkness and brightness depend on the type of paper chosen.
Shadow tones that are still visible on the screen can no longer be separated on paper. On the other hand, bright areas can be distracting on the monitor, while they contribute to the “brightness” on paper.
I think that for convincing B&W the representation needs to be adjusted accordingly.
Indeed. Something I sometimes have difficulty explaining to my clients, who say they want the print to look exactly like the screen on the back of their camera.
For this, I find the Shadow Fine Contrast to be absolutely invaluable, realising that, on screen, things might look a bit “crunchier” than they will appear on the print. That is made a lot easier with PL’s soft proofing. My biggest pain point is when someone complains that their high contrast image looks flat on matt paper, only to realise that their “fluffy” paper is absorbing a lot of the light and further reducing possible contrast.
And I go to the extent of inviting the photographer to present me with sample paper and, even, sitting next to me whilst I work with the image.
Yes of course. And I apologize I probably wasn’t clear what I was asking.
In light of the above comment of MATTE paper dulling out black and white images, is there a type of paper that is better in that respect? IE does glossy present black and white better than matte in how it absorbs and dulls the ink?
So more a technical question vs a personal preference.
The problem with glossy is reflections from any sources of light behind the viewer.
I’ve found satin style papers work best, as long as they are not too shiny or textured.
Which is why I go with Baryta, which tends to also give a more “darkroom” look and feel. I did try Baryta Matte - Personally, I didn’t like it as, once more, it dulled down the contrast and strength of tonality
You don’t need to apologize, I’m just wondering what you did (photographically).
In general, the glossier the paper, the deeper the blacks are – theoretically, because scattered light reduces the available contrast.
The white point of the paper is independent of the gloss … semi … matte surface and can vary from bright white (usually due to optical brighteners) over “natural” to slightly yellowish.
Currently we have two types of inkjet printers. On the one hand, so-called dye inks are used, which supposedly sink into the (coated!) surface, and on the other hand, they are pigment inks. – There are also mixed ink sets like those for my aging Soho office printer, which uses dye inks for color and pigment inks for black to print on uncoated standard copy paper.
If you are interested in printing/have a suitable device available, I recommend starting with paper from your printer manufacturer and getting paper samples if you want to go beyond that.
Stenis
(Sten-Åke Sändh (Sony, Win 11, PL 6, CO 16, PM Plus 6, XnView))
115
I know Joanna and I agree on one thing and that is our dislike for TIFF as an intermediate format when Filmpack is fully integrated with Photolab and supports RAW and NIK is not since DXO still seems to see it primarely as a plug-in to Adobe-products.
I really like Silver EFEX but I think the NIK modules ought to be integrated too with Photolab. Even NIK ought to work directly on RAW-files.
I hope you two can forget about your historical disputes and get on with our new challenges with this new version instead. We will probably need you both to sort out the upcoming problems with version 8
Stenis
(Sten-Åke Sändh (Sony, Win 11, PL 6, CO 16, PM Plus 6, XnView))
116
I started with Epson Semigloss but found a substitute from a local company that gives the same result using Epsons ICC för Semigloss.
Last years I have totally switched to matte papers since my last Epson-printers have got so much better matte black ink. I also had a weak spot for Canson but in my case Infinity Etching Rag. Last year I got irritated of the prices that laded on about 10 U$ per A2 sheet.
I them bought a 100 pack from Scandinavian Photo with their “no name” Matte Pro and started to print them with the ICC for Canson Etching Rag. Both me, my son and a few other including my best photo friend can’t tell the difference.
Of cource the Canson paper has a more exclusive texture and feels different in my hand amd is a little more solid and heavy but printed side by side I just can’t see any difference. I save about 9 dollars per sheet.
I prefer matte a lot because I hate reflexes from both glossy prints and glass so I never use glass any more either.
I agree with the title of this topic.
My point on this topic is the new possibility to select a reference image for comparison. Just tried it out for the first time. Previously this was only possible with virtual copies and therefore only with changes to the same image. Then switched back and forth on the Mac with “D”.
But now I can compare photos from the same series side by side. With 10 frames/sec and fast-moving objects, very useful.
I’d love this to happen too. I first used SFXP way back in 2008 and absolutely loved what it could do, but over the years I found the convert to TIFF stage more and more frustrating. In that time the convert to B&W options in raw processing software (such as FilmPack) became ‘good enough’ to be a viable alternative and allow direct editing of the raw file.
If Nik were fully integrated into PL so the raw files could be used then I would very likely purchase it again.
