Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Printing: Printers, Papers and Inks => Topic started by: dandaman56 on July 06, 2017, 12:35:48 pm
-
This may be old news to some, but I was informed today that as of July 1st Canson will no longer distribute the Infinity line of papers. The paper will instead be distributed by Legion still using Canson's paper method, per Jennifer Bacon (a Canson customer service rep). I like their rag photographique and noticed some sizes go unavailable at B&H.
-
Canson no longer exists as such. It was acquired by the Italian FILA Group in December of last year. They appear to have made a deal with Legion to carry this line of papers.
-
Whoever ownes Canson now and who ever is coating the Rag Photographique and Epson Legacy Matte has totally ruined in my opinion the greatest matte rag paper ever made. Its probably Epson that screwed up the coating when they "adaped" it for their new printers or what ever such crap. And Feilix Scholder who coats it went along with it because they were paid to apparently. I have never been as furious as I am right now about what was done to this great paper, and how much money I have wasted on it trying to figure what was wrong.
When you profile it with the Canon, Hp, or Piezography inks the dmax looks and reads normal on your calibration or linearization target such as the Vivera dmax reading 1.82 as usual. But then you go to print anything with a solid black background, like I have to do all the time, and the ink absorption is all blochy and your dmax drops horribly. When you look at smooth black or gray area its just blochy. Its pathetic for such a very expensive paper . I have no choice now but to go back to hah photorag that isn't as sharp, used to have a lower dmax , and doesnt have anywhere near the longevity rating due to the dye brightners. And the original Canson R. Photographique had a better color gamut with all the various inks.
This is not just me by the way. People all over are freaked out and very pissed about what they have done to it. My friend in Seattle was having exactly the same problem at the exact same time as me. His client returned expensive prints because the blacks were blochy and gray. He was using a Canson 44" roll and I was using the Epson Legacy Matte version of it also in roll form. We were using different inksets and printers. Canson should have stayed with Arches and stayed completely away from Epson. Epson monkeying around with this fantastic coating has now ruined it it seems to me and Canson is over. I have so many editions on this paper and now I have to start over again. Great. I just wish Hahnemuhle would make a smooth oba free bright white paper because they are a much better company than any of them.
I have had no such problems with the Platine but Im just holding my breath that Epson doesnt screw it up too.
John
Canson no longer exists as such. It was acquired by the Italian FILA Group in December of last year. They appear to have made a deal with Legion to carry this line of papers.
-
Whoever ownes Canson now and who ever is coating the Rag Photographique and Epson Legacy Matte has totally ruined in my opinion the greatest matte rag paper ever made. Its probably Epson that screwed up the coating when they "adaped" it for their new printers or what ever such crap. And Feilix Scholder who coats it went along with it because they were paid to apparently. I have never been as furious as I am right now about what was done to this great paper, and how much money I have wasted on it trying to figure what was wrong.
When you profile it with the Canon, Hp, or Piezography inks the dmax looks and reads normal on your calibration or linearization target such as the Vivera dmax reading 1.82 as usual. But then you go to print anything with a solid black background, like I have to do all the time, and the ink absorption is all blochy and your dmax drops horribly. When you look at smooth black or gray area its just blochy. Its pathetic for such a very expensive paper . I have no choice now but to go back to hah photorag that isn't as sharp, used to have a lower dmax , and doesnt have anywhere near the longevity rating due to the dye brightners. And the original Canson R. Photographique had a better color gamut with all the various inks.
This is not just me by the way. People all over are freaked out and very pissed about what they have done to it. My friend in Seattle was having exactly the same problem at the exact same time as me. His client returned expensive prints because the blacks were blochy and gray. He was using a Canson 44" roll and I was using the Epson Legacy Matte version of it also in roll form. We were using different inksets and printers. Canson should have stayed with Arches and stayed completely away from Epson. Epson monkeying around with this fantastic coating has now ruined it it seems to me and Canson is over. I have so many editions on this paper and now I have to start over again. Great. I just wish Hahnemuhle would make a smooth oba free bright white paper because they are a much better company than any of them.
I have had no such problems with the Platine but Im just holding my breath that Epson doesnt screw it up too.
John
Firstly, there is no such thing as Epson Legacy Matte. In the matte finish Legacy line, there is Legacy Fiber and Legacy Etching. Epson designed these papers and they have them made in third party European mills under their own supervision. They have never divulged which European mills they've contracted to make which paper types, nor will they. There are contributors here who think they know, but unless someone spilled confidential information, it's speculation. And even while it existed, Canson itself did not manufacture every paper it marketed - some yes, some no, and we don't know which where.
Secondly, per the above, you should not commingle Epson with FILA. They are separate companies responsible for their own brands. If FILA has made new production arrangements for the erstwhile Canson papers, this possible change in production arrangements may be responsible for the effects you are seeing - most unfortunate. I don't know what your profiling workflow is, but really surprising (and unusual) that even with custom profiling you are getting such unsatisfactory lower quartertone performance.
Thirdly, you could switch to Epson Legacy Fiber, which may be closest to the previous Canson product you were using. For the characteristics of interest to you, I would highly recommend the relatively new Canon (NOT Canson, Canon) Premium Fine Art Smooth paper. It's lovely and I think would respond to your requirements. See my Canon Pro-2000 review. If you would be using it in an Epson printer you would of course need to custom-profile it, as Canon does not provide profiles for Epson printers. In the Hahnemuhle line, you may wish to try Photo Rag, 100% cotton, white, "certified archiveability" (lovely paper, which I reviewed, but I have not seen the certification).
-
Whatever they want to call it , "legacy" fiber is a direct clone of Canson Rag Photographique , complete with pigment brightners, sharpness, gamut, etc. that Epson did not create and that no other company had. I don't need you, someone who is not a professional printmaker , to educate me about it because I've actually used it in it's Canson form everday for the last decade and also in its Epson form since that was relased because it was shipped to me faster. The profile is the same for both and both have screwed up coatings now, whoever is coating them now, ( it was in Germany ) and they are not going to tell you who that is they are contracting out to or how many factories are doing the coating.
It's possible that they are having temporary quality control problems. It is also possible that it is being coated in more than one place. But it is more than a little odd that the same exact issue is happening at the same exact time with both Canson and Epson versions of the media. ( the same paper with different names on them).
The Platine is also a Canson product that they cloned. Everybody who is a professional printmaker knows this other than people who believe these Epson salesmen and their hype. Platine is a very distinctive product, also using pigment brighteners and unlike any other paper out there. Epson never had any world class papers with their name on them until this merger or buyout or whatever they did. And no I don't go around changing printers and papers every month because I have, and a lot of other people all over the world have editions on them that need to be consistent.
The only reason I posted this is to let people know this over priced Canson clone "Legacy" Fiber has real problems now and it may or may not ever be resolved. Who knows. Just be careful out there. Its gets very expensive and time consuming.
Firstly, there is no such thing as Epson Legacy Matte. In the matte finish Legacy line, there is Legacy Fiber and Legacy Etching. Epson designed these papers and they have them made in third party European mills under their own supervision. They have never divulged which European mills they've contracted to make which paper types, nor will they. There are contributors here who think they know, but unless someone spilled confidential information, it's speculation. And even while it existed, Canson itself did not manufacture every paper it marketed - some yes, some no, and we don't know which where.
Secondly, per the above, you should not commingle Epson with FILA. They are separate companies responsible for their own brands. If FILA has made new production arrangements for the erstwhile Canson papers, this possible change in production arrangements may be responsible for the effects you are seeing - most unfortunate. I don't know what your profiling workflow is, but really surprising (and unusual) that even with custom profiling you are getting such unsatisfactory lower quartertone performance.
Thirdly, you could switch to Epson Legacy Fiber, which may be closest to the previous Canson product you were using. For the characteristics of interest to you, I would highly recommend the relatively new Canon (NOT Canson, Canon) Premium Fine Art Smooth paper. It's lovely and I think would respond to your requirements. See my Canon Pro-2000 review. If you would be using it in an Epson printer you would of course need to custom-profile it, as Canon does not provide profiles for Epson printers. In the Hahnemuhle line, you may wish to try Photo Rag, 100% cotton, white, "certified archiveability" (lovely paper, which I reviewed, but I have not seen the certification).
-
.... In the Hahnemuhle line, you may wish to try Photo Rag, 100% cotton, white, "certified archiveability" (lovely paper, which I reviewed, but I have not seen the certification).
Certified archiveability? Mark, you know better! Certified by who? Archival for what? There is no standardized definition for an "archival" paper, so why propagate the same old marketing BS when in fact by now you should already know better? Even the cheapest acid-laden lignen-filled wood pulp papers can last well over a century under proper storage conditions. The devil is always in the details. "Certified archiveablity" is market speak that should impress absolutely no one, and definitely not industry influencers such as yourself who appear to have more than average expertise on the subject.
-
Exactly. Mark Goodhart at Aardenburg archives has spent years and years of real tme consuming research in an attempt to demystify all this corporate crap, yet many people without any real knowledge or even real curisoty, other than what the sales guys tell them, keep circulating it.
The reason Mark spent so much time investigating the best papers and inksets in various combinations is so we could actually pick one or two combinations and stick with them as our primary tools.. When the best media becomes defective, for what ever reason, it is a Big deal to a lot of us. It is at the core of what we do. Its not a matter of jumping to this product or that product without knowing all the ramifications. We all quit believing all the corporate marketing jive long ago. They would like you to believe that every new product is an improvement, when lately it is the best exact opposite.
Certified archiveability? Mark, you know better! Certified by who? Archival for what? There is no standardized definition for an "archival" paper, so why propagate the same old marketing BS when in fact by now you should already know better? Even the cheapest acid-laden lignen-filled wood pulp papers can last well over a century under proper storage conditions. The devil is always in the details. "Certified archiveablity" is market speak that should impress absolutely no one, and definitely not industry influencers such as yourself who appear to have more than average expertise on the subject.
-
Certified archiveability? Mark, you know better! Certified by who? Archival for what? There is no standardized definition for an "archival" paper, so why propagate the same old marketing BS when in fact by now you should already know better? Even the cheapest acid-laden lignen-filled wood pulp papers can last well over a century under proper storage conditions. The devil is always in the details. "Certified archiveablity" is market speak that should impress absolutely no one, and definitely not industry influencers such as yourself who appear to have more than average expertise on the subject.
Of course I know better and that is why I related their term "certified archiveability" in quotation marks and made sure to point out I had never seen the evidence, so you can stop railing against me on this matter. That said, being a German company of considerable repute and standing, you can bet your bottom dollar that somewhere in Germany there is some institute, process and standard they cohered with allowing them to make that claim. The only other explanation for their use of that phrase is that they are lying.
Now turning to more constructive, scientific conversation, have you tested Photo Rag? Anything to contribute? I was only trying to help John identify a substitute product because of the problems he mentioned. Can you advise him between the three alternatives I suggested to him which is likely to have better longevity characteristics based on your research?
-
Exactly. Mark Goodhart at Aardenburg archives has spent years and years of real tme consuming research in an attempt to demystify all this corporate crap, yet many people without any real knowledge or even real curisoty, other than what the sales guys tell them, keep circulating it.
The reason Mark spent so much time investigating the best papers and inksets in various combinations is so we could actually pick one or two combinations and stick with them as our primary tools.. When the best media becomes defective, for what ever reason, it is a Big deal to a lot of us. It is at the core of what we do. Its not a matter of jumping to this product or that product without knowing all the ramifications. We all quit believing all the corporate marketing jive long ago. They would like you to believe that every new product is an improvement, when lately it is the best exact opposite.
Mark McC_G's expertise in the longevity of inkjet papers and inkset combinations is something I have respected and supported going back years.
I fully understand the ramifications of changing products - it invites numerous unwelcome difficulties, but faced with the kind of issue you described I thought I could be helpful to you and others firstly by setting the record straight on the recent changes of industrial structure and recommending some options that I know a few critical things about and may serve your purposes. I should also mention that the latest packages of Epson Legacy Fiber I used (April of this year) behaved very well in the SC-P5000 printer; possibly they predated the bad batches you got, I wouldn't have any idea. Good luck going forward with your professional endeavours.
-
That said, being a German company of considerable repute and standing, you can bet your bottom dollar that somewhere in Germany there is some institute, process and standard they cohered with allowing them to make that claim. The only other explanation for their use of that phrase is that they are lying.
And I'm saying it's not possible to lie about the "archival" claim because the there is no "certified" definition. So, companies can say whatever they want about it. The claim, in and of itself, does not help the enduser to figure out which paper or more to the point which printer/ink/paper combination is more longlasting than another. See if you can track down the source of Hahnemuhle's claim, and see if you can download the specific technical report(s) that backs up the claim. When you can do that, you may have some validity in your remarks.
Now turning to more constructive, scientific conversation, have you tested Photo Rag? Anything to contribute? I was only trying to help John identify a substitute product because of the problems he mentioned. Can you advise him between the three alternatives I suggested to him which is likely to have better longevity characteristics based on your research?
No alternative paper recommendation is going to help John complete his editions for artists if the the edition started on Canson Rag PHotographique and the paper has fundamentally changed over the last few years. So much for "print on demand" portfolios. The situation doesn't affect you as a printmaker only printing for yourself. It does affect professional printmakers like John.
And yes, my company gives pretty good lightfastness scores for Hahanemuhle Photo Rag with a variety of different ink sets because Photo Rag employs OBAs only in the paper core not the image receptor coatings and the coating chemistry plays well with the big three (HP, Epson, and Canon) pigmented ink sets, but you won't see Aardenburg Imaging declaring any paper as "archival" because the term is a slippery mess at best. Photo Rag is probably the most well represented paper in the Aardenburg Light fade database because it is arguably the "grand daddy" of all fine art papers coated specifically for aqueous inkjet printing. Now, just try to get comparable test results from Hahnemuhle's website. You won't find them, so again, Hanemuhle is a being somewhat disingenous in the marketing claims, because trying to uncover the technical reports backing up Hahemuhle's claims is one giant exercise in futility.
kind regards,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com
-
Whoever ownes Canson now and who ever is coating the Rag Photographique and Epson Legacy Matte has totally ruined in my opinion the greatest matte rag paper ever made. Its probably Epson that screwed up the coating when they "adaped" it for their new printers or what ever such crap. And Feilix Scholder who coats it went along with it because they were paid to apparently. I have never been as furious as I am right now about what was done to this great paper, and how much money I have wasted on it trying to figure what was wrong.
When you profile it with the Canon, Hp, or Piezography inks the dmax looks and reads normal on your calibration or linearization target such as the Vivera dmax reading 1.82 as usual. But then you go to print anything with a solid black background, like I have to do all the time, and the ink absorption is all blochy and your dmax drops horribly. When you look at smooth black or gray area its just blochy. Its pathetic for such a very expensive paper . I have no choice now but to go back to hah photorag that isn't as sharp, used to have a lower dmax , and doesnt have anywhere near the longevity rating due to the dye brightners. And the original Canson R. Photographique had a better color gamut with all the various inks.
This is not just me by the way. People all over are freaked out and very pissed about what they have done to it. My friend in Seattle was having exactly the same problem at the exact same time as me. His client returned expensive prints because the blacks were blochy and gray. He was using a Canson 44" roll and I was using the Epson Legacy Matte version of it also in roll form. We were using different inksets and printers. Canson should have stayed with Arches and stayed completely away from Epson. Epson monkeying around with this fantastic coating has now ruined it it seems to me and Canson is over. I have so many editions on this paper and now I have to start over again. Great. I just wish Hahnemuhle would make a smooth oba free bright white paper because they are a much better company than any of them.
I have had no such problems with the Platine but Im just holding my breath that Epson doesnt screw it up too.
John
John, I'm horrified to learn that this has happened to Rag Photographique. I too considered it the greatest matte paper ever made. I've got a bunch of older Hot Press Natural paper with a similar coating problem, and yet Hot Press Bright from a similarly aged batch does not exhibit the same problem. I also have an even older batch of Hot Press Natural which never exhibited these issues. What I've noticed is that the coating is unable to take the ink loads it typically used to be able to, which results in micro-pooling and the visual effect of blotchiness and low frequency mottle of several millimeters wide in smooth dark areas that are almost black in color. Solid black areas do indeed have less density, but I see the profiles reflect this loss of density also. It's most puzzling. What changes to a paper's coating can cause this? It feels almost as if th coating layer is thinner, therefore perhaps less able to handle high ink loads. The assumption would be that thinner coatings save costs for the manufacturer. If it's a batch variation, that would be most unwelcome too. At the prices we are paying, one would hope for better QC and consistency.
I sincerely hope Canson/FILA/Epson will resolve this issue in time. Have you submitted any samples to them and received any response about this quality issue?
-
And I'm saying it's not possible to lie about the "archival" claim because the there is no "certified" definition. So, companies can say whatever they want about it. The claim, in and of itself, does not help the enduser to figure out which paper or more to the point which printer/ink/paper combination is more longlasting than another. See if you can track down the source of Hahnemuhle's claim, and see if you can download the specific technical report(s) that backs up the claim. When you can do that, you may have some validity in your remarks.
No alternative paper recommendation is going to help John complete his editions for artists if the the edition started on Canson Rag PHotographique and the paper has fundamentally changed over the last few years. So much for "print on demand" portfolios. The situation doesn't affect you as a printmaker only printing for yourself. It does affect professional printmakers like John.
And yes, my company gives pretty good lightfastness scores for Hahanemuhle Photo Rag with a variety of different ink sets because Photo Rag employs OBAs only in the paper core not the image receptor coatings and the coating chemistry plays well with the big three (HP, Epson, and Canon) pigmented ink sets, but you won't see Aardenburg Imaging declaring any paper as "archival" because the term is a slippery mess at best. Photo Rag is probably the most well represented paper in the Aardenburg Light fade database because it is arguably the "grand daddy" of all fine art papers coated specifically for aqueous inkjet printing. Now, just try to get comparable test results from Hahnemuhle's website. You won't find them, so again, Hanemuhle is a being somewhat disingenous in the marketing claims, because trying to uncover the technical reports backing up Hahemuhle's claims is one giant exercise in futility.
kind regards,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com
It's not clear from your response that you have appreciated what I said. So for avoidance of all doubt, let me repeat, that in relaying Hahn's claim, I did not endorse it - I mentioned it, saying from the get-go I have not seen supporting evidence. Maybe it means something, maybe it doesn't; it depends on whether they have a defensible basis for making that claim. I suggested they may have a basis. You say I'll never find it if I try. You may or may not be right about that. I may just put the question to them. Why not? We'll see if anything comes back. Stay tuned.
Now turning back to "deanwork's" problem, again let us set the context right. To repeat, I do fully appreciate the ramifications of his predicament, because I understand what's involved, so this is not a matter of whether or not I sell professional editions to demanding clients. As well, even for myself I consider long-term consistency and reliability of product to be important. However, I looked at his problem from a straightforward logical perspective: Is it one or two bad batches of paper or a permanent degrading? We don't know. So what are his options: either wait it out (probably impractical and of uncertain evolution), or switch to something else, cumbersome as that may be. So I was simply suggesting some other papers that he may find useful. If they aren't, well sorry about that, I tried. And with this, apart from anything to be learned from Hahn about their "archival" claim, I think it best for me to let the matter rest.
-
And I'm saying it's not possible to lie about the "archival" claim because the there is no "certified" definition. So, companies can say whatever they want about it. The claim, in and of itself, does not help the enduser to figure out which paper or more to the point which printer/ink/paper combination is more longlasting than another. See if you can track down the source of Hahnemuhle's claim, and see if you can download the specific technical report(s) that backs up the claim. When you can do that, you may have some validity in your remarks.
No alternative paper recommendation is going to help John complete his editions for artists if the the edition started on Canson Rag PHotographique and the paper has fundamentally changed over the last few years. So much for "print on demand" portfolios. The situation doesn't affect you as a printmaker only printing for yourself. It does affect professional printmakers like John.
And yes, my company gives pretty good lightfastness scores for Hahanemuhle Photo Rag with a variety of different ink sets because Photo Rag employs OBAs only in the paper core not the image receptor coatings and the coating chemistry plays well with the big three (HP, Epson, and Canon) pigmented ink sets, but you won't see Aardenburg Imaging declaring any paper as "archival" because the term is a slippery mess at best. Photo Rag is probably the most well represented paper in the Aardenburg Light fade database because it is arguably the "grand daddy" of all fine art papers coated specifically for aqueous inkjet printing. Now, just try to get comparable test results from Hahnemuhle's website. You won't find them, so again, Hanemuhle is a being somewhat disingenous in the marketing claims, because trying to uncover the technical reports backing up Hahemuhle's claims is one giant exercise in futility.
kind regards,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com
Well said, Mark! Such claims should not be popularized in the first place. The companies can say whatever they want, but influencers in this relative niche field should and need to know better not to throw in this detail when they attempt to respond or help others. It simply does not help at all, and in addition there is the risk of implying that a product is equivalently suitable or even superior when in reality it may not be the case at all. It only reflects on how ignorant the perpetrators are. Just because a company is German or any other respected country does not preclude them from suspicion of anything. History has taught us the lessons. We should adopt a healthy skepticism and a scientific mind and seek quantified and qualified data about such otherwise meaningless claims.
Regarding alternatives, even for personal work, there is simply no paper available right now that comes close to what Rag Photographique is able to do. It's surface and visual qualities are singularly unique. Discerning professionals, craftsmen and artists like John are understandably outraged.
Photo Rag contains a small amount of OBAs in the paper core and yet does not have a paper white as bright and neutral as Rag Photographique under illumination with no UV emissions. I'm also not enamored by Photo Rag's eggshell texture as compared to the extremely smooth and organic texture of Rag Pho. The Canson line-up was just wonderful that way. What a tremendous loss if the coatings do not go back to the way they used to behave. And how unusual that the ink density remains the same for profiling targets, but not across a fully inked sheet. What kind of coating change could cause such erratic behaviour?
-
I suggested they may have a basis. You say I'll never find it if I try. You may or may not be right about that. I may just put the question to them. Why not? We'll see if anything comes back. Stay tuned.
Hanemuhle's claims rely on Wilhelm Imaging Research to some extent but even more so with a European testing lab called LNE. You can follow a link from Hahemuhle's website to find LNE documents online with a very nice signed affidavit attesting to certain properties of the Hahnemuhle papers and various ink sets combinations that were tested by LNE. However, those documents are only claims, not actual data nor description on how the tests were conducted, yet they cite the actual technical reports from which the claims are made. When you follow those specific citations in these LNE documents, you will find the original source documents describing the actual test conditions, failure criteria, and full test results are simply not available on the LNE website. So, it's one big circle jerk. You may get further than I did if you have inside contacts at Hanemuhle, but for us mere mortals it's all a big obfuscatory joke.
-
Whatever they want to call it , "legacy" fiber is a direct clone of Canson Rag Photographique , complete with pigment brightners, sharpness, gamut, etc. that Epson did not create and that no other company had. I don't need you, someone who is not a professional printmaker , to educate me about it because I've actually used it in it's Canson form everday for the last decade and also in its Epson form since that was relased because it was shipped to me faster. The profile is the same for both and both have screwed up coatings now, whoever is coating them now, ( it was in Germany ) and they are not going to tell you who that is they are contracting out to or how many factories are doing the coating.
It's possible that they are having temporary quality control problems. It is also possible that it is being coated in more than one place. But it is more than a little odd that the same exact issue is happening at the same exact time with both Canson and Epson versions of the media. ( the same paper with different names on them).
The Platine is also a Canson product that they cloned. Everybody who is a professional printmaker knows this other than people who believe these Epson salesmen and their hype. Platine is a very distinctive product, also using pigment brighteners and unlike any other paper out there. Epson never had any world class papers with their name on them until this merger or buyout or whatever they did. And no I don't go around changing printers and papers every month because I have, and a lot of other people all over the world have editions on them that need to be consistent.
The only reason I posted this is to let people know this over priced Canson clone "Legacy" Fiber has real problems now and it may or may not ever be resolved. Who knows. Just be careful out there. Its gets very expensive and time consuming.
Before acquiring Canson, FILA also bought St. Cuthberts Mills in the UK, the manufacturer of the Somerset papers. Arches is since 2011 part of a Scandinavian group, Canson the last decade was owned by the Hamelin group (after Arjomari and Arjo Wiggins till 2007) and Canson already had to change brand names of several Arches origin inkjet papers in relation to that before it was acquired by FILA. Then there has been a rumor of a row between Canson - Felix Schoeller, FS aiming at marketing its own inkjet art papers with the same inkjet coatings. Photokina 2014.
My best guess is that Epson buys your Epson Legacy Matte from Canson and the last went to other production sources, in worst case both paper base manufacturing + inkjet coating. When did you notice the changes in the Rag Photographique first?
On the Platine you shouldn't worry. That type of paper from several distributors has in my opinion one source; Felix Schoeller and the samples I measured are over time more and more improving and become more and more identical. Up to the Red River labeled one.
While I have the Hahnemühle certification as a shop I do not add the HM paper certificates with the jobs. Epson started that kind of paper assurances, Hahnemühle followed, Canson did too. Here in The Netherlands some studios created their own ring of certified studios with bogus certification, Cruse scanner required if I recall it correctly. All filled with a lot of air.
On the other hand the Hahnemühle papers so far had the most consistent paper quality of the paper manufacturers I deal with and that for about 15 years. Some glitches in quality control happened with their products too but percent wise less than with the other ones and consistency became better in time. They also were the first to enter this market with cotton art papers coated for inkjet. I recall we first bought the HM papers from Lyson that also added bogus stories about an extra treatment their HM versions got, Hahnemühle denied that. Hahnemühle uses mainly Sihl for coating facilities but some fibre, baryta, papers have the FS character. Sihl sells several inkjet papers too. Ownership of Sihl changed in 2016 as well.
Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
March 2017 update, 750+ inkjet media white spectral plots
-
Thank you Ernst. That is helpful and useful information from someone who is a expert in this field going back to pre digital silkscreen era etc, and, a logical thinker. Yes we all started about the same time. The first Hahnemuhle fine art inkjet papers were sold by Lyson, and in the States under the Lumijet name. That was when Lyson was selling their "archival" :-) dyes that were later debunked . Then pigments hit the market and you and I both bought he Epson 10k which was revolutionary for its time. We have been at this a long time.
If the mill that coats Somerset Velvet is now coating Rag Photographique that gives me a sick feeling in my stomach. Reason being, this is exactly the kind of mottling and poor ink absorption that I always had with it 17 years ago before I switched to Hahnemuhle and then to Canson . I experienced the same high density blochy absrption with all of the Innova matte media as well. They tried to clone Hahnemuhle but failed to truely understand their coating methods.. I agree with Ernst that Hahnemuhle has been a very consistent source of fine media since their entrance into this digital arena.
The Hahnemuhle southeast rep came for a visit here in my studio last month and is a super nice guy and very interested in what actual professional printmakers think of their products. I've always found their reps both from Germany and the US very interested in what we think and do. Quite unlike Epson, they listen and ask questions every time. And I have respect for them. ( they are however intimitaded by Aardenburgs superior data on fade issues) .He is very aware of the significant loss of market share that Canson has cost them in the the last decade. So many of us who used Photorag daily switched to Rag Photographique and didnt go back. I asked him why they dont try to come up a matte media that utilized pigment whiteners and he just said they hadn't been able to do it.
As to a fall out between Felix Schoeller and Canson - that could very well be at the heart of it. Something happened between the time Canson split from Arches and Epson started cloning their media. My friends noticed this over a year ago, the inconsistencies in the Canson line, but it just hit me this month. My own work involves 40x60 prints with total black backgrounds so I would notice it big time. I'll try one more roll of the Epson branded stuff and if that is defective I'll return it. Like I mentioned before, this mottling happens with all three inksets I use - Canon, Hp , and Piezography. Many people might not notice the defects since they are doing color work with no large areas of smooth tonality. When it comes down to it, it is just sloppy coating and is unexceptable in a paper at the very high-end of the price point.
-
I experienced the same high density blochy absrption with all of the Innova matte media as well. They tried to clone Hahnemuhle but failed to truely understand their coating methods.. \
I do not think Somerset coats itself, at least not the inkjet papers but the inkjet variety of the Bockingford watercolour paper that more likely gets a treatment in the pulp itself for that task. Tested it against a normal Bockingford watercolor paper and could not see the difference :-) The late John Williams had a hand in that invention, the one of the infamous Nanochrome inks.
Odd, a month ago I used an Innova IFA11 roll 44" 315 grams, cotton. There is no OBA content in it and it is an inexpensive alternative to PhotoRag. It prints nice but this time it were images with heavy shadows. I actually did not notice it but at one side of the 44" roll that mottling in the deep shadows was there, not in the similar image at the other side. Cut a sheet of it and turned 180 degrees the mottling turned as well so no printer issue. Still have to send printed sheets to the distributor for some compensation. Not all I used from Innova is bad though but there have been incidents in the past, wave formation in the coating for example.
From Canson I only used the BFK Rives and a similar thing happened with the first roll of it, along 3/4 of a roll some long scratches in the coating at one side. Probably a harder piece in front of the coater blade.
Is the PhotoRag Ultra Smooth not an alternative for you?
Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
March 2017 update, 750+ inkjet media white spectral plots
-
Is the PhotoRag Ultra Smooth not an alternative for you?
Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
March 2017 update, 750+ inkjet media white spectral plots
This is a nice paper that I use frequently. There is excellent days on Aardenburg for the Epson 3880 ink set. Mark and I collaborated to test the ABW inks including various settings of the toning wheel. The one problem is that cut sheets do have some curl that needs to be addressed so you don't get head strikes.
Alan
-
This unfortunate issue of a print material provider changing their product is exactly what I called-out recently in another thread in the LULA Pro Business Discussion > Re-Limiting a Limited Edition.
Problems for a print-maker might stem from a notion as to what an “edition” is. Is one producing one-offs (or more-offs) as opposed to producing an entire edition as a single print run?
Keeping in mind the technologies involved and that some of the components are organic and business relationships morph, one might want to re-evaluate their expectations along with their customer’s.
I’ll say it again here in this thread…
The file is not the edition nor the product. The prints are part of the product and it’s logical and cost effective to print the entire edition (in the context of limited edition) over a single duration.
-
I might have to go to the Hahnemuhle Ultra Smooth I've used it and it is a nice paper. I might have no choice . I just wish they could learn to utilize pigment whiteners. I like Hahnemuhle and have always found them the most consistent from year to year, even when they are coated in differient countries. Ive had nothing but trouble out of Innova and I will never go there again. If you look at a lot of these Hahnemule papers under a black light they glow like Chernoble after the meltdown. Thats not good. One of their fiber semigloss papers Fine Art Pearl is a fine media with a robust sharp coating, but it too under a black light will blind you. But I still use it on occasion because I like the texture and the gamut. If it had pigments instead of dyes to brighten it I would have used a lot of it over the last few years. I like the photo rag baryta a lot but my clients for the most part consider it dull and warm, which it isn't but what are you gonna do.
quote author=Stephen Ray link=topic=118824.msg986695#msg986695 date=1499446714]
This unfortunate issue of a print material provider changing their product is exactly what I called-out recently in another thread in the LULA Pro Business Discussion > Re-Limiting a Limited Edition.
Problems for a print-maker might stem from a notion as to what an “edition” is. Is one producing one-offs (or more-offs) as opposed to producing an entire edition as a single print run?
Keeping in mind the technologies involved and that some of the components are organic and business relationships morph, one might want to re-evaluate their expectations along with their customer’s.
I’ll say it again here in this thread…
The file is not the edition nor the product. The prints are part of the product and it’s logical and cost effective to print the entire edition (in the context of limited edition) over a single duration.
[/quote]
-
That is a very good point and one I have contemplated a lot. We should tell our clients up front that if they want a consistent edition it should be done all at once, like a Rembrandt etching edition ( did Rembrandt do that or did he print them on demand when he could sell them? Sometimes we romance the past.
Anyway it has not been a big issue for me up untill now. Now you have these corporations changing their inks every couple of years or so it seems like, and the papers other than Hahnemuhle are not dependable from one season to another. They arent changing things to improve them for the most part. They are changing them so they can say they are new and improved and then get someone on one of these forums to test them as a form of advertising.
In the recent past the entire idea of print on demand consistency was thought by many of us to be a modern 21st century innovation. A step forward in the digital age. But in the corporate world with all this buying and selling of company shares there is no predictability. I really think Hahnemuhle has done the best job of all of them in maintaining an ethic of craftsmanship, respect for customers, and product pride in this new era. I just hope they dont sell out to somebody .
I’ll say it again here in this thread…
The file is not the edition nor the product. The prints are part of the product and it’s logical and cost effective to print the entire edition (in the context of limited edition) over a single duration.
[/quote]
-
They arent changing things to improve them for the most part. They are changing them so they can say they are new and improved and then get someone on one of these forums to test them as a form of advertising.
As non professional photographer/printer, it is totally out of the scope to start testing myself new papers, inks, and printers, and their combinations. Not to say the time i would waste on it. I could not consider that "investment". I need a guidance to see where i could better put my money into.
I'm very glad and thankful to those who do the reviews and share them with us. Especially if their (long, noticiable) experience is aligned with my needs and intentions. I very appreciative that, independently of who is providing the printers and supplies to them.
And their reviews are very good ones!
Enviat des del meu E5823 usant Tapatalk
-
The only test of any real value is done by someone who is using these products ( especially printers and inks but also media ) over a period of time to see how they function in a variety of circumstancs in the real world and from batch to batch or unit to unit. Unfortunately consistent quality control is the biggest issue these days.
Short controlled tests are only a snapshot. In regard to printers specificly you need like 10-20 or at least 5-10 people using them for a year to determine how reliable they are. And that is what user groups are good for , comparing notes. Everything else is just an advertisment to run out and buy the latest greatest. Good example is the Epson 4000 series that had great reviews but ended up being the worst design anyone ever marketed. And people kept give each iteration a good review. Another good example is the new Epson P 10k . There are already drasticly different user experiences with them, from good to nightmarish, and this from pros who use them in a business format and really know their stuff.
quote author=Sbarroso link=topic=118824.msg986711#msg986711 date=1499458115]
As non professional photographer/printer, it is totally out of the scope to start testing myself new papers, inks, and printers, and their combinations. Not to say the time i would waste on it. I could not consider that "investment". I need a guidance to see where i could better put my money into.
I'm very glad and thankful to those who do the reviews and share them with us. Especially if their (long, noticiable) experience is aligned with my needs and intentions. I very appreciative that, independently of who is providing the printers and supplies to them.
And their reviews are very good ones!
Enviat des del meu E5823 usant Tapatalk
[/quote]
-
Matte black blotchiness is a problem I've encountered with a few papers. My understand is that many paper companies don't seem to realize that Epson printers put out around 30%-50% more ink than Canon printers do for any given area. So if they test and calibrate their emulsions only to Canon printers they will have problems with Epson. As an example I talked to the Canson U.S. tech rep a few months ago about some of their canvases and he told me that they had to reformulate some of their canvas emulsions because they weren't capable of absorbing all of the ink Epson printers were putting out.
This problem is especially bad with Breathing Color. Many of the matte canvases and papers I've tried from them have difficulty absorbing Epson's matte black ink with the ink easily smeared and never fully drying. On their web site they have a very strong bias towards Canon printers and my guess is that's what they use to calibrate their paper with. My solution is to just use their matte papers with PK, which they actively support by providing PK profiles for their normally MK papers.
I'm also sorry Canson has ruined Rag Photographique as it was my favorite hot pressed paper, though I seldom print on matte paper (their Plantine is my favorite--hope they don't change that).
Have you tried printing the new Rag Photographique using PK ink? By making a profile using it you may find this works.
BTW, if I read your post correctly you're already printing using Canon printers. If you're getting blotchiness with Canon then Epson must be even worse. :(
-
Too much ink being laid down and that kind of mottling can be a product of poor printer linearization. With the new high density inks being made by Epson and Cone these days it is very important to calibrate the amount of ink being put on the paper to avoid this. This is a separate procedure from making your icc profile for color. Canon and Epson printers do a general printer linearization with their oem software . Hp Z has a separate target and workflow just for that kind of establishment of of ink lmits for each paper before you make your icc profile, which is great for matte media of all kinds . This especially helps if the paper changes from batch to batch. For black and white output Studio Print and Qtr rips do an excellent job. The Hp Vivera inks have had this ultra black MK ink for 10 years now so they developed their ink and software together. The other printers do ink limits through their media settings that you choose.
The Issue with uneven coating on the Rag Photographique and Legacy Fibre rolls is something else entirely. It has nothing to do with linearization or over inking. Its a flawed coating. It brings back memories of some of the early less sophisticated coatings we experienced many many years ago with Sommerset Velvet, Legion matte, Crane, and Innova rag media that just couldnt take pure black very well. In my experience the only two companies that really perfected matte rag inkjet coatings were Hahnenuhle and Canson. But Canson media may very well be in serious trouble. Its sad when great companies deteoriorate but such is life in the times we live in. One day your in and the next day your out.
uote author=mearussi link=topic=118824.msg986743#msg986743 date=1499477900]
Matte black blotchiness is a problem I've encountered with a few papers. My understand is that many paper companies don't seem to realize that Epson printers put out around 30%-50% more ink than Canon printers do for any given area. So if they test and calibrate their emulsions only to Canon printers they will have problems with Epson. As an example I talked to the Canson U.S. tech rep a few months ago about some of their canvases and he told me that they had to reformulate some of their canvas emulsions because they weren't capable of absorbing all of the ink Epson printers were putting out.
This problem is especially bad with Breathing Color. Many of the matte canvases and papers I've tried from them have difficulty absorbing Epson's matte black ink with the ink easily smeared and never fully drying. On their web site they have a very strong bias towards Canon printers and my guess is that's what they use to calibrate their paper with. My solution is to just use their matte papers with PK, which they actively support by providing PK profiles for their normally MK papers.
I'm also sorry Canson has ruined Rag Photographique as it was my favorite hot pressed paper, though I seldom print on matte paper (their Plantine is my favorite--hope they don't change that).
Have you tried printing the new Rag Photographique using PK ink? By making a profile using it you may find this works.
BTW, if I read your post correctly you're already printing using Canon printers. If you're getting blotchiness with Canon then Epson must be even worse. :(
[/quote]
-
Yeah, too bad about Canson QC. One of their newer canvases I tried (they send out 24" x 10' sample rolls), Museum ProCanvas Luster, had rust spots all over it (several dozen in the 10' roll). I contacted the tech rep and he asked me to send him samples and photos, which I did. He mentioned that he used to work in the coatings industry and said these rust spots were the product of poor water filtration. He then sent me another sample which was much better (only one rust spot on the 10' roll). What I don't understand is why their QC didn't spot this in the first place. It's certainly easy to see.
I suppose with their sale to FILA, and with the usually desire to cut costs to help pay for a new acquisition, I can now understand why many of their papers are having problems. I just cringe thinking what they might do to two of my favorite papers, Aquarelle and Plantine. I guess we'll find out. I just hope they don't make everything so bad that they go out of business.
-
Looks to me like they sold their name and the acess to the nice paper they were producing but something happened with their coating contract wit Felix Scholler in Germany. This is a very specific coating and it is not the same. I cant tell you how many hundreds and hundreds of rolls of it Ive gone through in the last 10 years but it was a lot. Not once did I have a quality control problem.
The other disturbing element to it as I described in the beginning of this post is that the Epson branded version of it is doing the exact same thing. Maybe they will straighten it out, I hope so, but in the meantime i wont be spendinding over $350.00 a roll anymore to find out.
Yeah, too bad about Canson QC. One of their newer canvases I tried (they send out 24" x 10' sample rolls), Museum ProCanvas Luster, had rust spots all over it (several dozen in the 10' roll). I contacted the tech rep and he asked me to send him samples and photos, which I did. He mentioned that he used to work in the coatings industry and said these rust spots were the product of poor water filtration. He then sent me another sample which was much better (only one rust spot on the 10' roll). What I don't understand is why their QC didn't spot this in the first place. It's certainly easy to see.
I suppose with their sale to FILA, and with the usually desire to cut costs to help pay for a new acquisition, I can now understand why many of their papers are having problems. I just cringe thinking what they might do to two of my favorite papers, Aquarelle and Plantine. I guess we'll find out. I just hope they don't make everything so bad that they go out of business.
-
Looks to me like they sold their name and the acess to the nice paper they were producing but something happened with their coating contract wit Felix Scholler in Germany. This is a very specific coating and it is not the same. I cant tell you how many hundreds and hundreds of rolls of it Ive gone through in the last 10 years but it was a lot. Not once did I have a quality control problem.
The other disturbing element to it as I described in the beginning of this post is that the Epson branded version of it is doing the exact same thing. Maybe they will straighten it out, I hope so, but in the meantime i wont be spendinding over $350.00 a roll anymore to find out.
If you're in the U.S. you can always get free samples to test the quality like I did. And I really like their Museum Procanvas Luster and would like to use it for some of my work. I just hesitate because of their QC problems.
-
Different media may be produced in completely differient places. Like Im using their photo satin premium rc media and it is fine. People report the Platine is fine and that has been my experience .
The problem with ordering sheets to test rolls is they may or may not be coated in the same place. Even all the rolls may not be coated in the same factory or the same country with the same water.
If you're in the U.S. you can always get free samples to test the quality like I did. And I really like their Museum Procanvas Luster and would like to use it for some of my work. I just hesitate because of their QC problems.
-
One of the issues that I see is that we don't have real clarity on who manufactures the paper and who does the coating. We know that printer manufactures Canon and Epson source all of this out. Several years ago I did some testing for Museo when they shifted paper suppliers to see if their Silver Rag paper had color differences from the old stock (which I had on hand). They graciously sent me a whole role of paper when I only needed a few sheets to print some targets out. My results showed virtually no perceptual difference either by patch measurement or visually through several test prints. When Museo was established they sourced paper from the American manufacturer Crane but no longer. I believe they do their own coating. I believe Hahnemuhle both manufacture the paper and do the coating. What about everyone else out there? It might be good for someone to set up a database so comparisons can be made. Ernst Dinkla has done excellent work through his spectral analyses of papers and we can of course use that to see which papers are similar. This also gives an indication about who is doing the coating (lots of vendors apparently use Felix Scholler).
This is turning out to be a moving target which was entirely predictable given the relatively large number of paper vendors out there. I have a great deal of sympathy for those who do print portfolios (I only do a modest amount of this and they are mostly for gifts though there have been some sales). I don't see this situation improving much at all.
-
One of the issues that I see is that we don't have real clarity on who manufactures the paper and who does the coating. We know that printer manufactures Canon and Epson source all of this out. Several years ago I did some testing for Museo when they shifted paper suppliers to see if their Silver Rag paper had color differences from the old stock (which I had on hand). They graciously sent me a whole role of paper when I only needed a few sheets to print some targets out. My results showed virtually no perceptual difference either by patch measurement or visually through several test prints. When Museo was established they sourced paper from the American manufacturer Crane but no longer. I believe they do their own coating. I believe Hahnemuhle both manufacture the paper and do the coating. What about everyone else out there? It might be good for someone to set up a database so comparisons can be made. Ernst Dinkla has done excellent work through his spectral analyses of papers and we can of course use that to see which papers are similar. This also gives an indication about who is doing the coating (lots of vendors apparently use Felix Scholler).
This is turning out to be a moving target which was entirely predictable given the relatively large number of paper vendors out there. I have a great deal of sympathy for those who do print portfolios (I only do a modest amount of this and they are mostly for gifts though there have been some sales). I don't see this situation improving much at all.
I've just about (never say never) given up trying to find out in which facilities papers are manufactured - the various brand name holders consider this akin to "State secrets", for them none of our business and they simply won't divulge; but in the final analysis that in itself may not be the most critical information to have. Four things, listed in no particular order, are all most important in my view of it: (1) quality control - i.e. adherence to the recipe and the standards, (2) whether the papers contain materials predetermining their prospects in regard to various aspects of deterioration, (3) what the prints look like (e.g. dynamic range, paper tone/hue, surface texture, curl, rendition of detail and tonal gradations, etc.) and (4) how they work in our printers. Items (3) and (4) are matters that we consumers can observe or test for, item (1) would fall within the State Secret category we only learn about from experience over time, and likely item (2) as well, but for the efforts of Wilhelm-Reseearch, Aardenburg, SpectrumViz and perhaps others we hear less about.
Much of the discussion here has been about item (1); I think the importance of a Forum like this, and perhaps others, is for consumers to be able to message the brand name holders that their performance is being observed - professionally - and evidence of possible product failure can become public knowledge very quickly. Perhaps this could add an element of discipline to a situation wherein us consumers simply will not be made privy to certain data that would minimize disappointment. Indeed there is a moving target, partly because of what you say - the large number of vendors, and as such, an intensely competitive environment in which the industry structure (ownership et. al.) and associated commercial arrangements have been so changeable; for several reasons I agree this situation could well remain so, if not even intensify. The upside of it is that we get offered all manner of interesting stuff that increases our options to produce art with many different nuances. The cautionary side for those to whom it matters most, is to watch for evidence of product stability, but not get overly dependent on one particular item even though there may be good reasons to prefer it. Ideally, if user Forums can nudge a preferred but apparently failing product back to snuff, that would probably be the best of all worlds, the probability of which is unpredictable. All that said, I think not all is lost - fortunately there are still products that have withstood the test of time and will likely continue to do so.
-
To those who have experienced the problem: Is there any way that someone buying Rag Photographique today could tell whether they were lucky enough to get some old stock rather than the new, other than by printing on it? Any packaging differences, batch numbers etc?
-
In reference to replies #5, 7 and 11 above, here is information providing the basis underlying Hahnemuehle's claim for "certified archivability" of its PhotoRag 308gsm paper:
Hahnemuhle Fine Art (https://www.hahnemuehle.com/en/digital-fineart/longevity.html)
LNE 2008 - summary (https://www.hahnemuehle.com/fileadmin/user_upload/pdf/dfa/43_produkte_digital_fineart_alterungsbestaendigkeit_lne.pdf)
LNE 2010 summary (https://www.hahnemuehle.com/fileadmin/user_upload/pdf/dfa/lne_longevity_test_dfa_collection-1.pdf)
Wilhelm-Research-Hahnemuehle/Epson Inks (https://www.hahnemuehle.com/fileadmin/user_upload/pdf/dfa/42_produkte_digital_fineart_alterungsbestaendigkeit_wilhelm_imaging_research.pdf)
ISO Standard 9706 - overview (https://www.iso.org/standard/17562.html) (38 Swiss Francs for those who need the details).
and finally:
the "Frankfurter Fordreung" - requirements decided at a Meeting in Frankfurt Germany of people involved in museum, archival and paper manufacturing enterprises, 1990, where the agreed minimum requirements for "archival quality" are:
1. Only bleached fibers without any Lignin;
2. pH value between 7,5 and 9;
3. A buffer of Calcium carbonate at least 3%.
My only intent here is to confirm (much as I expected) that the claim on the PhotoRag packaging has a technical basis including a number of components purporting to define standards of archivability and to test for product adherence to them. Those of you specialized in the subject of longevity will have your views on their qualities and limitations.
-
and finally:
the "Frankfurter Fordreung" - requirements decided at a Meeting in Frankfurt Germany of people involved in museum, archival and paper manufacturing enterprises, 1990, where the agreed minimum requirements for "archival quality" are:
1. Only bleached fibers without any Lignin;
2. pH value between 7,5 and 9;
3. A buffer of Calcium carbonate at least 3%.
My only intent here is to confirm (much as I expected) that the claim on the PhotoRag packaging has a technical basis including a number of components purporting to define standards of archivability and to test for product adherence to them. Those of you specialized in the subject of longevity will have your views on their qualities and limitations.
The above requirements are relevant only to the paper stock. One thing that has not been addressed is the stability of the color recipient layer and it's permanence. What are the affects of aging on the coating? I'm not sure that this is easily tested for. In my own area of expertise, pharmaceutical regulation, all new pharmaceuticals have to be studied for stability so that an expiration date can be established. Companies usually establish a stability date measured in months to a few years under very specific conditions. For ink jet images we want to think about decades (optimistically thinking our images will still be interesting to somebody). There could be issues related to coating cracking, peeling, or flaking that would not be picked up in light fast studies. Just another issue to ponder.
-
Sure, good thoughts; it all matters - were you able to detect whether any of that is covered somehow in the other four references?
-
Sure, good thoughts; it all matters - were you able to detect whether any of that is covered somehow in the other four references?
I don't think anyone studies coating stability. We certainly know that matte finish papers are very delicate and that some gloss papers scratch more easily than others. I would expect that low humidity would not be very good for the coating particularly if it causes the paper to dry out.
-
My only intent here is to confirm (much as I expected) that the claim on the PhotoRag packaging has a technical basis including a number of components purporting to define standards of archivability and to test for product adherence to them. Those of you specialized in the subject of longevity will have your views on their qualities and limitations.
The LNE reports are the documents I was alluding to earlier...woefully incomplete and with references to the actual testing methods and failure criteria that are not readily available to the public. When you cite tests such as these as a satisfactory confirmation of a "technical basis" for the manufacturer's claims, you help the industry maintain the status quo. That would be fine if the current industry test methods were up to date for modern digital media and the bar hadn't been set so low. However, without more endusers challenging the printer and paper manufacturers to be more transparent about their product longevity and the significant interactions which exist between inks and media coatings, the efforts of researchers like myself to point the way to better testing methods for our industry will pretty much continue to go nowhere.
kind regards,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com
-
When I posted that information, as I was writing it I knew to expect this kind of response from you.
I never said anything about whether the documentation is satisfactory. You used the word "satisfactory".
And I posted reference to more than the LNE reports.
I had and continue to have no intention of getting into any discussion about the qualities and limitations of these reports. I was only trying to make the point that Hahnemuhle is not making baseless claims. Whether you or any one else likes the basis or not is another question, and one which I have no "locus standi" to discuss, so I shall not.
I conclude my participation in this thread noting - with confidence - that nothing I said here will have one iota of influence on how the paper industry manages it's stability testing arrangements - far more determinative factors are involved. I'm not able or willing to respond any further.
-
Well the only bright side I can think of in this is that over the past few months, I was starting to wonder if our 8400 was developing a fault. Despite regular calibrations, I was seeing waving in the paper on heavy prints, as though the printer were chucking down way too much black. We get through tonnes of rag photographique - a go to paper for matt prints - fortunately, most of our client editions are on HPR308 or Canson Platine Rag.
Speaking of CPR, is it my imagination, or has the coating become "sparklier" over the years. Looking back at old prints from editions, the surface sheen seemed to be less visible...
-
To those who have experienced the problem: Is there any way that someone buying Rag Photographique today could tell whether they were lucky enough to get some old stock rather than the new, other than by printing on it? Any packaging differences, batch numbers etc?
Well said Ferp, but it seems that there is only one reference number printed on the box and it's related to the format size !
Ciao
-
I knew that the agreement between Arches and Canson ended about a year ago and also knew that Somerset delivers Aquarelle paper, but does anyone know who supplies paper to Velin Museum Rag?
Have not heard of the new paper supplier Rag Photographique so it came somewhat as a surprise to me that there is problems with the coating. Too bad for an excellent piece of paper.
I am correct reading that Canson Rag Photographigue contains OBA. Canson writes that it's OBA free?
-
No the primarily reason that I have used it all these years is that it Doesn't contain dye brighteners, nor does the edition etching or Platine. If you don't believe that put them under a black light. The dont glow.
It is only one of a few products that uses pigment whiteners and unfortunately Hahnemühle has nothing yet with them. The only other one I know of is Breathing Color canvas and their Optica paper that I don't like the coating on and it has not been independently tested like the Canson media. The other reason I like these papers is their sharpness. I used to get the best dmax wit CRP but not anymore.
I knew that the agreement between Arches and Canson ended about a year ago and also knew that Somerset delivers Aquarelle paper, but does anyone know who supplies paper to Velin Museum Rag?
Have not heard of the new paper supplier Rag Photographique so it came somewhat as a surprise to me that there is problems with the coating. Too bad for an excellent piece of paper.
I am correct reading that Canson Rag Photographigue contains OBA. Canson writes that it's OBA free?
-
Canson no longer exists as such. It was acquired by the Italian FILA Group in December of last year. They appear to have made a deal with Legion to carry this line of papers.
Indeed, we were just hit with the paper changes as Canson was purchased by the FILA group. The papers are no longer the same at all. There is a small round grey QC stickers on the new boxes. The paper is only the same by name. The paper itself is completely different, and shouldn't even be called the same thing. We noticed right away.
At Bellevue Fine Art we use the Canson Velin and the Canson Aquarelle a LOT. But with these changes we're looking for a replacement for both papers.
First, the Canson Velin is visibly warmer now than it was. We immediately noticed when running a large job and we changed paper rolls in the middle of the job. Not the same paper at all. Not only is it warmer, but the texture is visibly different. The new Canson Velin has more texture. It's like the Crane Museo as if it was flattened out more, but it's got that same weird machine made slight texture. The new Velin is also more curly and the prints don't flatten out as well if you use rolls. And lastly, the makeup of the paper itself is different, and our 9900's have a hard time cutting it. We've had our printers give us cut errors numerous times in the first week of use.
As for the Canson Aquarelle, which was our standard watercolor paper for a long time, it's not at all the same as before. The texture is very different, and not at all appealing. We're looking for a replacement. Previously to this we used the Magiclee Arches Infinity and were happy with it. Then due to availability we switched to the Canson Aquarelle adn liked it a lot. Good consistent color and great texture. When reproducing watercolor paintings it was great. But now we have this thing that looks and acts like Crane Museo, which we also used to use, but it had massive cutting issues and was very very curly and wouldn't flatten well.
What the FILA group has done to the Canson branded papers is a travesty. They were good papers, but now they're just not interesting at all. The sudden change is causing confusion, and the quality and feel of the papers has degraded.
Anybody have suggestions for similar papers?
PS - who is the genius at Luminous Landscapes that wants me to answer THREE questions to post this, including the square root of 81 AND 7x8+10 divided by 3?????? REALLY? Because if every time I want to post, if I have to answer math questions like that then this forum is not going to be in my list of places to go.
-
I have used Hahnemuhle textured papers for like 16 years and not only find them consistent but actually nicer that those textured Canson media you mentioned.
I did use the Canson Edition Etching because of the pigment whiteners made it a bit brighter but Hahnemühle Museum Etching is a great human looking texture with excellent overall characteristics overall and does not scuff like the German Etching can. Though both are great papers.
The media I have always used for the heavy texture is Hahnemuhle William Turner . It may be the single most beautiful inkjet media I've ever used and unlike the Canson highly textured but doesn't look like it was run through a texture machine. The downside to William Turner is its vulnerability to scuffing when a lot of black is laid down. I spray it.
My recent experience with the Canson Rag Photographique and Platine is that they have not changed, except for a mottling in the pure black areas in some batches on Rag Photographique and the Epson variety Legacy Fiber as well. I haven't tried the Edition Etching since the company transition so can't comment on that. A lot of people like the Moab Entrada. I haven't tried it for many years. The early versions flaked badly but that seems to have been fixed.
John
quote author=bellevuefineart link=topic=118824.msg1000855#msg1000855 date=1506020855]
Indeed, we were just hit with the paper changes as Canson was purchased by the FILA group. The papers are no longer the same at all. There is a small round grey QC stickers on the new boxes. The paper is only the same by name. The paper itself is completely different, and shouldn't even be called the same thing. We noticed right away.
At Bellevue Fine Art we use the Canson Velin and the Canson Aquarelle a LOT. But with these changes we're looking for a replacement for both papers.
First, the Canson Velin is visibly warmer now than it was. We immediately noticed when running a large job and we changed paper rolls in the middle of the job. Not the same paper at all. Not only is it warmer, but the texture is visibly different. The new Canson Velin has more texture. It's like the Crane Museo as if it was flattened out more, but it's got that same weird machine made slight texture. The new Velin is also more curly and the prints don't flatten out as well if you use rolls. And lastly, the makeup of the paper itself is different, and our 9900's have a hard time cutting it. We've had our printers give us cut errors numerous times in the first week of use.
As for the Canson Aquarelle, which was our standard watercolor paper for a long time, it's not at all the same as before. The texture is very different, and not at all appealing. We're looking for a replacement. Previously to this we used the Magiclee Arches Infinity and were happy with it. Then due to availability we switched to the Canson Aquarelle adn liked it a lot. Good consistent color and great texture. When reproducing watercolor paintings it was great. But now we have this thing that looks and acts like Crane Museo, which we also used to use, but it had massive cutting issues and was very very curly and wouldn't flatten well.
What the FILA group has done to the Canson branded papers is a travesty. They were good papers, but now they're just not interesting at all. The sudden change is causing confusion, and the quality and feel of the papers has degraded.
Anybody have suggestions for similar papers?
PS - who is the genius at Luminous Landscapes that wants me to answer THREE questions to post this, including the square root of 81 AND 7x8+10 divided by 3?????? REALLY? Because if every time I want to post, if I have to answer math questions like that then this forum is not going to be in my list of places to go.
[/quote]