Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Printing: Printers, Papers and Inks => Topic started by: Tony Klimo on September 05, 2006, 01:21:59 am
-
Thank you Michael for posting Richard Lohmann's essay. Though, I am at loss for words.
I even consulted my callendar. It was still September. So, it was not an April's Fools joke.
We always had to contend with the technical nature of photography. But to atempt to fool mature and established artist with marketing hype is just way too funny!
I hope they will be able to re-cycle or re-process the wearhouses full of these mentioned "fine art" papers for something more useful, like warhead casings in bombs and sold for good profit to starving third and second world nations. Can we all just weake-up from this collective nightmare?
TonyK
-
I also appreciate you posting Mr. Lohmann's essay Michael. I had the same reaction when I tried Innova FibaPrint Gloss. In spite of the things I liked about the dmax and tonality, the surface was a deal breaker. I won't be using it.
-
I was so pleased to read this article. After reading the recent rave reviews of Crane Museo and Innova FibaPrint, I struggled for many weeks to find somewhere to buy and try these papers. In the end I found a UK mail order place who shipped them to me, so I had great expectations.
At first, I thought that my expectations were too high, and that others more experienced and successful than I couldn't be that wrong, but frankly I thought the papers fell way short of their stated mark.
So now I have two half-full boxes of these duds, and agree completely with Mr Lohmann - manufacturer's claims that these new papers rival the best that came out of the darkroom are greatly misleading.
-
I am another photographer who agrees wholeheartedly with the sentiments expressed in Richard Lohmann's essay on the new crop of wonder papers from companies who should know better. Perhaps Richard could apply his expertise to testing Ilford Photo's new Gallerie paper designed for digital output via Lamba and Lightjet printers.
I am based in England but the product I'm sure is (or will be) available in the US and Canada
Here a link for anyone who hasn't heard of it:-
http://www.ilfordphoto.com/products/produc...+Papers+Digital (http://www.ilfordphoto.com/products/product.asp?n=61&t=Photographic+Papers+Digital)
And thread on this subject on the Large Format Photography Forum:-
http://www.largeformatphotography.info/for...ead.php?t=19253 (http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=19253)
-
A good review and a timely cry of "The Emporer's not wearing any clothes!" When these new papers came out I was also caught up in the enthusiasm, however Richard Lohmann's points are well made, the surfaces are intrusive and we shouldn't kid ourselves otherwise.
However, let's keep things in perspective, this latest generation of papers is still a formidable stride in the right direction, offering a richer tonality than I've previously seen with an inkjet. I'm optimistic that the surfaces will be progressively refined with future papers, which will take us closer and closer to marrying the control of digital with the sumptious look of silver.
-
I get two main points from Richard Lohmann's essay. First, it is clear that one cannot depend too heavily on reviews for a decision like which paper to use. His essay nicely balances the earlier raves, and tells me I need to test some of these papers and make my own choice (I suspect I will come pretty close to Lohmann's assessment.)
More subtly, I notice that while Crane and Innova get thoroughly roasted, Hahnemuele gets only a brief mention, and that suggests that it shows some promise. Perhaps HFAP represents at least a (small) step in the right direction and might be usable in the interim, while waiting for a serious silver-gelatin replacement.
I am one of those who has stayed with matte papers so far (generally displayed under glass), but with over forty years of darkroom work behind me I would love to find a paper that matched the best of the traditional black-and-white papers in surface.
I am optimistic that we are starting to see improvements in paper that are similar to the improvements in printers and inks that have happened over the past few years. If so, we may not have to wait too long.
-
Mr. Lohmann states up front what he has a preference for, and these papers don't meet that expectation. It certainly doesn't help matters that the paper manufacturers trumpet the papers' qualities as equivalent to traditional fiber-based prints. It just heightens the offense.
My experience with the Crane paper is entirely the opposite. I don't find the surface of Crane Museo Silver Rag at all annoying (in fact, I'm fond of it), and nor do the people who have bought prints from me, and I love the tonal quality of the prints using the Epson 4800 (which even Mr. Lohmann admits are good). But I don't have a history with the traditional printing process, so I haven't developed an aesthetic that demands the qualities (note that I didn't say "quality") that that process provides.
Does that mean that next year another, better paper will come out and I will refuse to use it? Of course not.
Does that mean that his view is invalid? Of course not! The only point I'm really trying to make here is that there are those coming from the traditional printmaking process, and those of us that are not, and we have utterly different expectations. I'm happy with the Crane paper, I imagine that I would be even happier still with the Hahnemuhle FAP, and I suspect that next year or the year after I'll be happier still with the next batch of printers/papers that arrive. I'm happy enough not to have to toil in a darkroom. I'm happy with incremental improvements. Do they occur any other way?
My guess is that in a few years digital printing will surpass every expectation placed upon it by the traditional printmaking process. Because I'm also certain that the people creating these printers, papers, and inks will not be satisfied with less than the best that they can create.
-
I am one of those who has stayed with matte papers so far (generally displayed under glass), but with over forty years of darkroom work behind me I would love to find a paper that matched the best of the traditional black-and-white papers in surface.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=75546\")
The following article describes the problems with matte paper pretty well:
[a href=\"http://daystarvisions.com/Docs/Rvws/EpsonPaper/pg1.html]http://daystarvisions.com/Docs/Rvws/EpsonPaper/pg1.html[/url]
But even with their shortcomings, I also stay with mattes for most of my color prints. I just cannot stand the other papers' surfaces.
The images that work well with matte papers tend to steer away from the problems. They tend to be without true blacks, or deep shadow details, or saturated colors. IOW, they hit the papers' "sweet spot". As examples, the images in Lohmann's article are stunning, but they don't have true blacks. I see lots of such digital prints, color or b/w, in galleries.
-
Well, I don't have a wet darkroom background, and have never handled an air-dried fiber gloss darkroom print. So my impression of these new papers is from a different perspective than the author's. I think these new papers are a definite improvement over the RC alternatives, even if they're not perfect. I've evaluated the Crane Silver Rag and Innova F-Type so far, and I prefer the latter.
There does seem to a bit of surface variability with the Innova paper though; one of the boxes I got had noticely more "stippling" texture to use Reichman's description. The other boxes this was less pronounced and I prefer the smoother batches. But I find it's a really nice paper when I need the DMax and/or gamut of a semi-gloss paper. It seems to have less gloss differential than the Silver Rag, and the paper itself doesn't feel like posterboard.
I haven't looked at the Fine Art Pearl because descriptions in the comparison reviews I've read have it being smoother and "brighter" (almost bluish) compared to the other two so I don't think I'd like it as much.
I still prefer the rag papers when they suit the image type though, because the result is just really unique and it's something that sets the prints apart not only from traditional analog prints but also from what people can get from the photo lab.
-
While I agree that the marketing hype of "just like a darkroom paper" is overblown (btw my carton of orange juice says it prevents heart disease) I think it's worth noting that for many photographers there are other features which make these new papers desireable.
The ability to use photo K on a paper with decidedly superior longevity potential over RC offerings is one. And for most photographers without platinum printing experience, the move to a matte paper was a stretch from their notion of a photographic print. Others simply want higher DMax than rag papers allow. Compared with the rapid pace of development in capture, edit and display devices as well as ink formulations, these new papers represent uncommon advancement with regard to print media. Certainly not the end of the line (I hope) but it's nice to see the chains move every once and awhile.
Both Crane and Innova are currently producing stock with different surface texture characteristics (ie smoother) than the initail batches that were released. Perhaps the rush to market allowed for slips in QC, but this may help explain widely differing opinions on the surface.
I would finally like to amplify a point briefly alluded to in Richard's piece. One of the least helpful aspects of digital photography is that due to the technology involved, most consumers get their advice exclusively from marketing materials and company-sponsored "photo tours". Over time, as digital photography matures (we're talking about well under a decade of mainstream adoption) more standards and objective quantifications of products will emerge.
We must not lose sight of the art and craft of photography. No one product will ever be sufficient to allow for the expression of each and every photographers' creative vision on paper. And thank goodness for that. If we forget this from time to time I am less inclined to blame product marketing departments than the "magic bullet" mind-set we allow to take the focus away from where it should be--developiong our unique voice in this art.
-
I'll agree that there's too much hype and that the vendors have gotten way too fast and loose with their wordsmithing. There's not much about Innova Fibaprint that reminds me of the F-surface papers I used in the darkroom. Similarly, Silver Rag is closer (in my mind) to a lustre surface than to an "air-dried fibre print" or whatever the marketing claims.
That said, these papers ARE incremental improvements over what came before. I prefer either of them to any of the "RC" inkjet papers I've used or to struggling to get deep blacks out of MK ink on matte papers. Prior to using Fibaprint/Silver Rag, my standard for prints where I needed serious dynamic range was Pictorico Hi-Gloss White Film. I still use that paper, but it's nice to have other options for prints where a mirror-like surface is not appropriate. Silver Rag or Fibaprint are at least in the right idiom (I haven't tried Fine Art Pearl).
I agee with Mr. Lohmann that it's important that we not let our standards slip just because we're using a new or different technical approach. It's up to us to keep the pressure on the vendors to provide products that meet our needs.
--
Daniel Bell
-
I'm the first to admit that overall I'm getting better prints digitally than I ever did in the darkroom, and that with the lower end of the printer market. I'm also not a fan of exclusive use of matt paper to avoid the problems inherent with ink printing on glossy media - the loss of gamut, contrast and D-Max for me, after many years of darkroom printing, is just not acceptable. BTW I'm not a great lover of the high gloss surface - I find it distracting and often difficult to view properly due to reflections, but it's the only way to deliver the greater gamut and contrast. These are the reasons I have never bought a 'professional' printer, and nor will I until there exists a printer / ink / paper combination that delivers on this promise.
So when three reputable paper companies (backed by rave reviews from reputable artists) hype their latest offerings as rivalling and matching traditional fibre papers, I was excited at the prospect. What a disappointment.
Eric made the point that printing technology and quality is improving all the time and that the direction is right - I agree with him and I share his confidence that we'll get there, hopefully soon. In the meantime, the advertising claims of some of these paper manufacturers is nothing short of dishonest. It's all very well dismissing their claims as inevitable overblown marketing hype, but this sort of misrepresentation is illegal in many countries.
-
Over the last few weeks I’ve made several prints using Crane Silver Rag (13x19) from an Epson 4000 with a custom profile from CathysProfiles-dot-com. Very happy with the results. Borderline joyous! Crane’s factory profiles are crap. Must use a high quality custom printer profile.
I have the good fortune of no experience with traditional dark room processing. Life is so much more pleasant when you have not lost the privilege of naiveté.
paul
ps: I have also learned that a “less is more” approach to Photoshop is best.... for me.
-
Good article and I agree with the author and hope that photographers reject "just good enough"
An earlier poster suggested looking at the new Ilford digital paper, but because its a silver gelatin paper I'm sure that it would blast inkjet prints to hell... if you want something which looks like a silver gel print.
I just entered a competition using a paper available in the UK called Da Vinci Gloss Fibre, I suspect that its similar to the Crane paper.
I printed the photos using Quadtone RIP on an Epson 4000 and just printed with a few different profiles till I found one which looked good. No, not just good, pretty excellent. In terms of contrast, DMax and pure impact it blew the ones on Hahnemule Photo Rag out of the water... in a sense.
As I put the prints in the box to send off, I noticed that I wasn't really happy with the surface texture (and a little bronzing, though that really depends on viewing conditions). I'll certainly try the Hahnemule alternative, it sounds like the best bet of the current crop of papers.
A though occurred to me looking at the prints. While the HPR print, lacked the depth and impact of the Da Vinci print, its a somewhat more honest medium.
When you put ink onto HPR, there is a clear relationship with ink based printing techniques like photogravure. Clearly there is a difference, but in a sense, its a valid form of ink based photo printing. In the case of these pseudo silver gelatin prints there is a sense in which they are pretending to be something which they are not... that makes it difficult to get them right.
But... I'm not so much of a purist that this bothers me. As long as the print looks beautiful, then I don't get fixated on how it was made. Lets just make sure that the manufacturers keep competing as I think that the next generation of both paper and inks might finally be as satisfying as more conventional materials.
My latest printer is an Epson R1800 and I have to say, this now pretty much surpasses most lab based resin coated colour printing. With the right post production and the gloss switched on these prints can have the impact of cibachromes. My only wish is that Epson bring out a printer capable of larger format output than A3+ with these inks.
Its an exciting time for printing as its getting close. I currently exhibited 18 inkjet prints alongside 2 lightjet prints. No one was complaining about the printing.
-
Hi,
What really made me respond to the essay posted was the credible point of view, this inkjet stuff is for the birds if you display them side by side to chemical prints.
These respected manufacturers want to sell the best and latest in inkjet paper coating, fine! But do not mix Fiber based and Ciba, the real stuff, not the RC alias, with these emerging technologies. Who are they kidding?
Unfortunatly if one wants to produce digital images, there are not very many commonly available off the shelf products to choose from. That is the number one problem. In my case the shipping charges through mail order is equal or higher than the actual paper cost...
Second, these new and improved papers are nearly obsolite by the time mass marketing occures.
It is true, one may be able to produce inkjet prints in a more "convinient way" than through wet chemistry...or is it???Clearly, what went before the latest inksets and paper coatings are useless as an artistic media since the latest and greatest is "superior" or is it?
Aside from the subjective opinions, the development and distribution cycle does not allow any credebility, following or "worship" and legend bulding to any part of the inkjet chain.
Can all this used for artistic expression, as the flavor of the month perhaps...
What I also object to is, a viewer should respond to the content of the image and to the harmony of technical delivery, therefore their acceptance of an injet print from an R1800 or R800 or the 4800 should not be used to vindicate the technology. Specially, using other historically established and credited materials and processes thrown in as a credible background.
I also wonder about the teachings of our masters, use the best possible materials to express your vision. So, who had thrown out this very sensable advice, when inkjet printing remains inferior in colour gamut and in use of B&W printing. Hiding inpurities with b&w inkjet printing with "toning" is not an artistic choice, it is a necessity.
TonyK
-
Honestly, I don't necessarily think we should be so hung up on the past that we define the ultimate inkjet paper as one that looks just like air-dried fiber prints. Why not aim for something even better?
Granted, the paper manufacturers are marketing these papers with those terms so I understand why people are disappointed when the papers don't live up to the marketing claims.
If nothing else these papers show that there is a market for fiber-base gloss inkjet papers, so even if the first three brands don't make everybody happy as far as the surface goes, somebody's bound to get it right as I'm sure we'll be seeing more manufacturers come out with their own versions. Just look at how many "rag" papers there are on the market, with different characteristics to suit different tastes.
-
Very interesting article and discussions, I was about to buy one of these papers to try them out on my Epson 4000...
I guess that this story raises several questions:
- To what extend does a paper match a printer? it seems that Michael did mostly use them on his new Canon,
- What is the amount of variation between paper batches? A similar question was raised but never answered about the Canon 5000's heads/inks,
- Are paper reviews online really useful? It is good to be informed about new stuff, but considering the above, what are the odds that you manage to get in the same conditions as the reviewer, or worse, that your taste and experience match?
The only reasonnable conclusion is that non pros that can afford to wait should probably not embark on using new product like these until months after their release. It seems better to wait until a reasonnable concensus emerges about the conditions in which these products should be used, and what can truly expect beyond the hype associated to new things.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
My personal experience with these papers includes only the Crane Museo Silver Rag and the Innova offering, printing on an Epson 4000. I was aware that bronzing would be a problem with its older UC inkset, and this has proven true. Bring on the Premier Art spray! This has mostly mitigated that issue.
Like others here I rejected the Crane paper due to its shirt-cardboard-like feel and its highly textured surface. It did have some mighty fine black density, however. It just felt plastick-y and cheap to me in an absolute sense, not in comparison with traditional silver papers.
I then tried the Innova and liked its surface better, enough to jump in with both feet on a box of 17x22 sheets. So I'm in for a pound! I have rethought that decision somewhat, because there does seem to be some inconsistency in the surface coating of this paper. It is smoother overall, but has linear imperfections that are annoying at times especially when they don't catch the ink properly.
Neither of these two inkjet papers puts me in mind of any of the traditional silver papers I've known and loved. I have tried to appreciate them for what they are and not constantly compare them with materials from another age. I'm committed to digital printing and have no nostalgia for the old days of hours hunched over an easel in the dark.
Definitely try before you buy, reviews be damned.
-
... What really made me respond to the essay posted was the credible point of view, this inkjet stuff is for the birds if you display them side by side to chemical prints... ... therefore their acceptance of an injet print from an R1800 or R800 or the 4800 should not be used to vindicate the technology...[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=75619\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Tony, as a long-standing darkroom printer I have watched the development of the new printers with a very great deal of interest, and a couple of years ago decided to make the switch as I thought we had reached that inflection point where digital was starting to exceed film. In my view we're not quite at the point where we can turn out completed pieces digitally to match the very best of darkroom printing made by a master printer (esp B&W), but we're darn close. I am personally producing better prints from my consumer-grade printer than I did in the darkroom, with the caveat that the output material isn't up to scratch yet.
I'm not a master printer (but I was pretty good according to my mum ), but I have digitally re-printed some of my old stuff and I can honestly say I've made significant improvements over every one of them. Side by side the new ones look better - shame about the medium.
The thing that has got my bile rising is that these claims by the manufacturers were enthusiatically supported by respected reviewers and we were led to believe that the inevitable day had arrived. No more matt v gloss arguments, no more ink-swapping madness - finally a paper that could truly match what we old-timing, grumpy old farts were used to. If we were told that the new papers were an incremental improvement, a forward step on the road to this nirvana, then I'm sure we would be accepting them for what they are and there wouldn't be as much bad feeling. We were told the journey was over, and it plainly isn't.
-
Nothing like a good lively discussion on the merits. Mr. Lohmann's informed skepticism is bracing in the face of industry hype. However, I would argue that he overstates the case for the æsthetic superiority of traditional gelatin silver printing over newer media. For color work, current inkjets clearly have reached a level of print quality exceeding that of traditional media. Compare the subtlety and depth of color available from a K-3 printer (or Canon's i5000) against any darkroom print. The Cibachrome/Ilfochrome process requires laborious contrast masking to avoid blocked up shadows, yet still produces a plasticky print that compares unfavorably (at least to my eye) to a well crafted print on Epson's premium luster paper. Pete Turner's retrospective exhibit now hanging at George Eastman House is entirely composed of Epson K3 prints on this paper, and it looks terrific.
Black and white is trickier, but even here there's a strong artistic case to be made for finely crafted inkjet prints. No, they're not identical to traditional silver gelatin prints. But do they serve the æsthetic needs of the image? I've seen some pretty shabby darkroom prints from master photographers, and plenty of gorgeous monochrome inkjet prints on both matte/fine art and glossy/semigloss surfaces. By all means, push manufacturers to come up with papers that better serve the needs of photographers. Yes, let's hold their feet to the fire when it comes to the hype. But let's not blind ourselves to new possibilities. Who knows? Some images may look great on Naugahyde.
-
I don't even know what naugahyde is - is it matt or glossy? I guess we luddites aren't stating our case very clearly - I for one am not demanding exact replicas of the 'old' fibre papers. What I'm looking for is an output media that feels more organic than plastic, and does not intrude on the image. The media should permit good contrast, high D-Max and wide DR. Richard Lohmann talks about passivity of the surface, and that hits the nail on the head.
Recently I reprinted 20 images I made of the English Lake District and Tanzania, which I originally shot on MF in about 1988-89. Originally I had the transparencies professionally printed on CibaChrome at very high cost and, until I discovered CFL in Aus, were the best prints I'd had made. My reprints on the lowly R1800 are without exception better. Sharper, better DR, better highlight and shadow detail. The paper is also not that different to CibaChrome (never really liked that media).
True, much of the improvement was because I was able to make the improvements in DR and sharpness in PhotoShop, but that's all part of the digital darkroom too. Now, I want to print these improvements on a media with a less plasticky feel, which looks and feels like good quality. We mustn't forget the tactile component to the printed output. It's that 'blink' experience - does it feel like a 'real' photo?!
-
I like the Innova F type gloss! It took me a week to get over the "alligator skin" But then I tried it and for some images a very classy, quality and a 3 dimensional look. Like the view you get through binoculars (images are thin and stacked for and aft) an interesting effect. Marc
-
I just entered a competition using a paper available in the UK called Da Vinci Gloss Fibre, I suspect that its similar to the Crane paper.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=75604\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Free1000,
The Da Vinci is the same, exact paper as the Innova F gloss...it is also being sold by Lexjet in the U.S. A. as Sunset Air Dried Gloss.
I would say that there are major differences between Da Vinci Gloss and Crane Silver Rag. The Silver Rag is a much warmer base...no optical brighteners in a cotton base...The Crane also has a much more pronounced texture or stipple to it.
-
I should have read the posts here: http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....t=0&#entry75665 (http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=12036&pid=75665&st=0&#entry75665) before I said anything, as everything I wrote had already been said, and better
The only part I've kept is this:
So the papers aren't what everyone hoped for, okay. But when something closer to traditional materials comes along we can think of the current papers as additional choices in media, which is always a good thing (especially for those of us who are mixed media artists and/or print things other than photographs)
-
Tony K: You mentioned something about "fine art" in your first post. Would you say printing on these materials excludes an image from being considered "fine art?"
Hi,
What really made me respond to the essay posted was the credible point of view, this inkjet stuff is for the birds if you display them side by side to chemical prints.
These respected manufacturers want to sell the best and latest in inkjet paper coating, fine! But do not mix Fiber based and Ciba, the real stuff, not the RC alias, with these emerging technologies. Who are they kidding?
Unfortunatly if one wants to produce digital images, there are not very many commonly available off the shelf products to choose from. That is the number one problem. In my case the shipping charges through mail order is equal or higher than the actual paper cost...
Second, these new and improved papers are nearly obsolite by the time mass marketing occures.
It is true, one may be able to produce inkjet prints in a more "convinient way" than through wet chemistry...or is it???Clearly, what went before the latest inksets and paper coatings are useless as an artistic media since the latest and greatest is "superior" or is it?
Aside from the subjective opinions, the development and distribution cycle does not allow any credebility, following or "worship" and legend bulding to any part of the inkjet chain.
Can all this used for artistic expression, as the flavor of the month perhaps...
What I also object to is, a viewer should respond to the content of the image and to the harmony of technical delivery, therefore their acceptance of an injet print from an R1800 or R800 or the 4800 should not be used to vindicate the technology. Specially, using other historically established and credited materials and processes thrown in as a credible background.
I also wonder about the teachings of our masters, use the best possible materials to express your vision. So, who had thrown out this very sensable advice, when inkjet printing remains inferior in colour gamut and in use of B&W printing. Hiding inpurities with b&w inkjet printing with "toning" is not an artistic choice, it is a necessity.
TonyK
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=75619\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Tony, I see this "inkjet is junk" attitude quite often and I don't think you can back any of that up except with opinions and personal preferences. I don't understand why a person would bother making posts that show such overall disdain for inkjet printing in the "Printers, Papers, and Inks" section, and among photographers who print in such media.
-
Hi,
What really made me respond to the essay posted was the credible point of view, this inkjet stuff is for the birds if you display them side by side to chemical prints.
These respected manufacturers want to sell the best and latest in inkjet paper coating, fine! But do not mix Fiber based and Ciba, the real stuff, not the RC alias, with these emerging technologies. Who are they kidding?
...
Aside from the subjective opinions, the development and distribution cycle does not allow any credebility, following or "worship" and legend bulding to any part of the inkjet chain.
Can all this used for artistic expression, as the flavor of the month perhaps...
What I also object to is, a viewer should respond to the content of the image and to the harmony of technical delivery, therefore their acceptance of an injet print from an R1800 or R800 or the 4800 should not be used to vindicate the technology. Specially, using other historically established and credited materials and processes thrown in as a credible background.
I also wonder about the teachings of our masters, use the best possible materials to express your vision. So, who had thrown out this very sensable advice, when inkjet printing remains inferior in colour gamut and in use of B&W printing. Hiding inpurities with b&w inkjet printing with "toning" is not an artistic choice, it is a necessity.
Tony, you're going to have a tough time selling the "inkjet is crap" idea around here. Michael switched from darkroom/chemical to inkjet years ago, specifically because of the improvements in control over the print process, overall print quality, archival longevity, and gamut afforded by inkjets. Many other master level photographers, like Alain Briot and Bill Atkinson have done so as well, for the same reasons. If you like the surface look and texture of Cibachrome better than inkjet papers, that is merely your personal preference, not categorical proof inkjet prints are inferior. Inkjet surface texture is somewhat different than chemical prints, but well-made inkjet prints can compete well against traditional media in color gamut, dynamic range, color fidelity, longevity, and image clarity.
-
"Blind Photographer", Johnathan
Actually, reading the essay shocked me. It clearly outlined the past and present situation with inkjet printers. In the past to sell the technology, the word "photo like" was coined. To most it meant photo quality... when clearly the continous tone, emulsion based phographic reproduction it was not. It had to do much more with offset printing.
I got into inkjet printing because it offered different media based printing such as canavas for one, on fabricks etc...
I have had very positive experience with watercolor and fine art papers, the "improvement" over the years has been positive. The advancement of B&W reproduction is very positive as well.
The essay however brought home the point to me once again, that there should never have been any referance made to chemistry based image reproduction in marketing the digital printing alternatives. Since they do not match, look alike or even come close.
Even though at present this "difference" is diminishing, the essay did indicate the danger of not having any base to compare future advancements due to the lack of traditional supplies.
Choice is slowly removed and very little is being said about it. Save the essay mentioned.
I will go out on the limb, there was a famous Canadian painter who for lack of better financing had to paint on cardboard.
I thin it answers your question.
TonyK
-
Hello Jonathan,
The irony is that it was Michael who introduced me to the simplicity of Cibachrome printing. Even though my darkroom was very basic and was set up for B&W printing, I have had no problems printing consistent high quality Ciba prints.
The same could not be said about my venture to print digitally.
The essay did mention the questionable association of these new papers to traditional photo chemical materials.
Your point is well taken, however personal choices are being stripped away by false association of these new products as viable replacements. If the chemical darkroom work is so horrid, the digital printing is so liberating, why is there a need for this insecure association. Clearly, FB papers and Ciba/Ilfochrome represent trusted quality, yet have nothing to do with these new papers or thechnology. No question, these maybe "better" than what was before, yet they could only mimick the brilliance of the Cibachromes dyes. It is not an opinion, it is a fact. Otherwise the papers would be called XYZ Cibachrome dye enbeded fine art inkjet papers.
Point is we sold out the technology of the past for close enough and quality mimiking vaporwear.
Can the present crop of inkjet papers and printers used for fine art reproduction, I answered that one above. By no means did I wish to convert you all back to darkroom work, since I use present technology as well. The candid and opposing point of view by a credible artist who had no problems calling these papers false was refressing to read.
All the best!
TonyK
-
Tony,
yeah, but the point about having nothing to compare advancements to is moot unless you are like, 6 years old. There are going to be plenty of reference points to traditional materials for a long time. This thing is happening right now and of course everyone's looking for that something that made them schwing in the darkroom. Expected, normal, it's ok and all that. We have the reference right now, that's all that really counts.
Soon there will be a decent gloss. You are correct, the manufacturers should never have opened there big mouth...or should they have? They had to because they need to be able to describe what they are doing and make familiar references. People have been bitching about wanting this type of product for a while and now that k3 inks are mostly eliminating gloss problems, they are scrambling to get our hearts and dollars. The companies that have put forth on this subject are saying...man, we got your air dried fiber base gloss photo like ink jet paper, right here, right now...sorta.
Whatever, they should learn to temper their statements and, more importantly, not be so damn impatient about getting these products on the market until they are ready. That's really the bottom line. Unrealistic, money to be made. Of course, they are making money off of all of our wants. When the stuff is REALLY there and ready, they can compare it to what they are imitating, cardboard, air dried muck. Restless consumer, I try not to be that but im pretty much that.
Choice is being removed because people aren't buying the old stuff. Im very much enjoying the potential of the inkjet print but im getting frustated and would like to get a little bit of a groove happening here so I can work without looking over my shoulder or over the fence.
I have to say that this whole process of waiting is really screwing me up in the creative sense. I feel like things are popping up from holes all around me/us and im lunging at them, getting them...but then another thing pops up that looks like what i really wanted, so, i lunge for that...on and on, printers and inks (especially), papers (especially too). c'est la...think Ill go down to the corner and get a reeses peanut butter cup, that's nice and steady.
The thing that gets me is when reviewers say...truly the death of the darkroom. jeez, c'mon guys. the darkroom is having a few final giggles before the last spasm that knocks over the bucket.
-
It does sometimes seem like the market is in constant ferment, everyone being compelled to chase the latest fashion or notional advance. On the other hand, no one is holding a gun to our heads, demanding that we buy the newest paper. I've been printing on the same cotton rag papers for several years with complete satisfaction. I do check out a sample pack of newer papers now and then to see if it fits my needs; if not, I've only lost a little time and $20 or so. I'm not quite sure if I like the Innova f-type gloss surface, but the d-max and tonality are fabulous. I have to live with it for a while.
-
Hi,
Actually, what holds a gun to my preverbial head about digital, is the succesful or near succesful extintion of "traditional" supplies from my corner photo store. And the full erasure of proofing and printing from film without the "degrading" scanning step.
The present essay in question is only interesting because the process of extintion occured at the time, when we did not have the present day "quality" capture and output.
TonyK
-
Actually, what holds a gun to my preverbial head about digital, is the succesful or near succesful extintion of "traditional" supplies from my corner photo store. And the full erasure of proofing and printing from film without the "degrading" scanning step.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=75899\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
So coat your own paper and do contact prints. I have friends that shoot 8x10 and do this and I love their stuff. Even in the latter days of the darkroom, there were diminishing options for quality B&W papers. Most everybody seemed to prefer (or at least use) Ilford Multigrade RC (or its ilk) ... though this wasn't to my taste. I don't expect to see a viable replacement for either silver-gelatin or CibaChrome anytime soon. But this doesn't mean that inkjet isn't a viable medium in its own right ... and maybe even *better* in many respects. Also, it's great to see a move away from plastic. There's a lot to be said for learning where and how to use what's currently available rather than pining after the good old days. There's no way I would go back to traditional media for colour output. There's also a number of interesting options for combining digital and traditional B&W media. Personally, I don't understand the indignation from the original article. It just sounds like posturing to me.
-
Hi guys (why is it almost always guys?)
I enter this fray with a little hesitation because though I have been active in photography since my teens and a professional since 1960, the digital revolution, which is really what it has been, has changed all the rules, if not the expectations and my own views on the matter are somewhat mixed.
Take the matter of black/white printing. I feel little false modesty in saying that I was a damn good printer up until the start of the 80s at which time I left the UK and the course of my career changed from being a fair mix of colour and b/w to exclusively colour transparency, and above all, Kodachrome 64. Velvia didn't play much of a role because I was involved mainly in model shots and not so much landscape. However, even by that time, RC paper had more than started to eat away at fibre material. I never liked RC paper because from the start, the very first tests I made, it felt and looked a very inferior product and nothing I tried later changed my mind about it. Ciba was great if you had two close tones...
As all my printing was professional in a non-social photography context - I did stuff for advertising and PR and so forth, not weddings etc. - my experience was almost totally with gloss paper. My out and out favourite was Kodak's WSG, either single or double weight, single for press and double for other, more permanent uses. And I always glazed it. That the repro industry required unglazed would appear to have been a myth of its time. My few attempts with matte papers were horrid; I hated them with a vengeance (the papers more than the attempts).
And then, surprise, surprise, I started to have ideas about how my transparencies might look as print. So, in came a scanner and also a little printer, and turning SOME of those old trannies into b/w revealed a whole new life for them. I too was unhappy about using matte paper at that time, basing the fear on my wet experiences of matte. I shouldn't have worried. Epson Matte Paper Heavyweight is all I have ever used for the past few years and in my opinion, what it comes down to is this: if you do have good traditional darkroom experience you will find an affinity with Photoshop in that you understand brightness and contrast. Sticking to a single basic type of paper and a simple printer teaches you, if expensively, how to get the best out of what's available - 'twas ever so. And, importantly, you must not forget that for exhibition or sale, that print is going to live behind glass, at which point the matte print effect vanishes and the picture is transformed into an excellent high gloss one. I have both on my wall at home: an original gloss on fibre and a matte via digital. You would have to see them with the glass off to tell which was which.
Oddly, it seems that my humble printer using Durabrite ink produces finer black and whites than do the 2100 and 2400 models...
I think that to chase a new paper every time one is announced is a hell of a waste of effort, unless, of course, your business is making reviews.
As with film, learn to use few very well and you have little need for anything else.
Ciao - Rob C
-
It's been interesting reading all the postings about peoples impressions on these "new" papers. I was the photographer that Richard mentioned in his article. At my artists reception I asked Richard to look at a series of b&w images I had hung together. They were a mixture of traditionaly printed and digitaly printed (on museo silver rag), I asked if he could pick out which was on the silver rag. Without hesitation he was able to pick all 3 prints. I must say that I was hopeful, that they would blend in. I asked him to do this because I wanted to see if he could see the same thing that I saw. The ruff abrasive surface of the museo rag, even behind glass.
I had taken Richard's digital class this past year after many years of putting the digital world aside. I really wanted to make my life easier, the idea of working and printing at home without my wet darkroom was so enticing. So when Richard read the reviews about this new paper that was equal to traditional fibre-based papers, he was excited. So the program ordered a roll of museo silver rag. Some of us in the class had come from traditional printing and were expecting the same results. That excitement was soon shattered. This paper is not a replacement for the beautiful fibre based papers that I've printed on traditionally.
Saying all this - I do hope that the photographic world will keep on these paper makers to strive for better end results. I know that there are different levels of what people expect from digital output, however this photographer has not yet seen the final outcome of how I wish my prints to look like.
-
The following article describes the problems with matte paper pretty well:
http://daystarvisions.com/Docs/Rvws/EpsonPaper/pg1.html (http://daystarvisions.com/Docs/Rvws/EpsonPaper/pg1.html)
But even with their shortcomings, I also stay with mattes for most of my color prints. I just cannot stand the other papers' surfaces.
I have been using a variety of matte papers for awhile now, and have never seen the extent of the dramatic differences shown in the above article about matte surfaces. I tend to use them to avoid offgassing issues normally associated with RC finish papers, and that it is costly for me to switch on my 4800.
-
A number of the larger prints I make are colour closeups of flowers, and these very saturated colours are a challenge for any printer's gamut. Put a matt paper in the mix and so much detail is lost...
-
Interesting discussion. I've actually been on 'Epson strike' since I bought my 4000. I decided that it had simply got too expensive to chase this technology on to K3 just to find out it wasn't quite good enough.
I have to say that the Innova gloss seems to have cracked the problem of tonality and produced nice deep blacks. I have been comparing some prints made with QTRip and the 4000 against some lightjet prints onto Agfa traditional fibre based paper. The inkjet prints compare very favourably indeed.
Apart from the problems with the surface texture, and the bronzing etc that comes with the older Ultrachrome inks, I think that this generation of papers is getting awfully close to the quality of traditional papers.
I don't think that the issue is for me about copying the look of traditional papers in itself. Its not nostalgia in my case. Its just that a traditional darkroom print still sets the benchmark for certain quality parameters, dMax, tonality, surface texture, archival qualities and that inkjet papers havent quite hit this mark yet. I think that one more iteration of technology will probably do it though.
On the other hand, a gloss print on the R1800 surpasses my older Cibachrome prints (though I did like the slightly metallic look of the cibas). The R1800 prints look different, but are every bit of a match for the cibachrome. This is my proof of the conjecture that many of us aren't just hankering after the old, but just waiting for B&W inkjet to surpass silver.
-
sorry to disagree -
i'm sure there will be lots of disagreement with my opinion, but i found the article rather hilarious. why do the NEW crop of papers have to imitate the OLD papers? he implied that the old papers were the "gold standard"; something that needed to be strived towards with the new papers.
i've been a photographer for over 30 years, so i grew up with fiber based papers and wet darkrooms. i've been shooting digital exclusively for nearly 5 years and have never looked back. since every photo ever made has been an interpretation of the actual scene in one respect or another, why can't papers with different characteristics from what was available previously be a part of that interpretation?
i agree that positioning these papers as modern replacements for silver based fiber papers was a bad marketing ploy, but thats to be expected from marketing, isn't it?
-E
-
Early Man,
Are you against the attempt to try to create a paper like this or are you having problems with marketing issues? I don't understand your argument enough to disagree at this point.
These papers were designed to fill a niche and they came up a little short. Not really bad marketing here, they just plopped them onto the market a little too soon and the actual quality didnt measure up to what they had hoped for. That's how I see it.
BUT, they are the closest thing to a decent gloss up until now. Hopefully, soon, they will improve on these products and we can all go about our business, printing on whatever paper floats the boat.
Heck, just about every paper out there in the glossy arena has been designed to imitate a set of characteristics that were previously available in the traditional, chemical paper world..why not this old favorite?
-
I'd like to quote from an LL journal interview with someone that I consider to be a master photographer...actually a legend - Clyde Butcher.
......'If it looks good and it lasts, who cares how you get there'
I think that this is one of the best comments I have heard in a while. People can argue unitl they are blue in the face whether a paper looks like a traditional fibre print.....if that is what you are trying to acheive that's ok. But stuff moves on - if you put a traditional print and an inket print on good paper and show them to a person who has never seen either - which one will they choose? Its all down to personal preference.
I personally like the new range of papers - no they are not perfect but I think they are light years ahead of some of the current RC papers. The biggest problem with them all in my opinion at the moment is that there are no permanence figures available for any of them.
But what I will say is that a B&W print, printed in QTR, Epson 2200, Da Vinci Fibre Gloss (same as Innova just different branding) with a few coats of printguard (for gloss diff) gives me the best B&W prints I have had digitally so far. Period.
And yes they look different to my old silver prints - but who care's - they look good and that's the bit that matters to me.
One thing I do agree on though is that the manufacturers should not be selling them as 'close to traditional paper' as this is likley to cause som friction as this thread has proved. They could also do with dropping the price a touch to prevent divorce happening
JD
-
Yikes!
I'm so depressed. I just ordered an Epson 4800 ($2,400 CDN plus
$900 in spare 220ml ink) because I wanted a better printer to produce
longer lasting prints for my customers versus my 1270/1280 prints on
Matte EHW paper.... and to print larger than Super B size.
I print reproductions of my paintings/artwork.
After reading most of the replies here in this thread, I wonder
if I should stop the order? Is there a good matte paper that will
print as well as the 1280 on Matte HW Enhanced???????
I ordered a 17" roll of 50' "Ultra Smooth Fine Art" to start with
to get my feet wet with this new printer.
But now I have many questions after reading this thread from the
"experts" about the 4800 and finding a good art inkjet paper... it
seems hopeless!
Regards,
Marq.
=================
UPDATE....
Well, I just answered my own worried questions after getting
my own 4800 and giving it a test run. It's simply amazing, when
the right Black is used for the **appropriate paper stock**.
I never expected a pigment ink ink-jet printer to come close
to the dye-based 1280 on certain papers. Lots of "Gotcha's"
that Epson dosen't make clear when researching, even here
in Luminous... ie: the fact that the cutter does not work
on certain true fine art papers and canvases!... or that the
amazing 220ml cartridges protrude outwards of the printer like...
Mine was delivered on a wooden skid. The box itself is enormous.
Like a mini Heidleberg offset printer arrived. It's a two-person
printer to move, seriously. The UPS guy was NOT happy.
If you don't have a good solid stand for it, the $400 Epson stand
might be an option but please don't waste the bucks if doesen't have
to look good (ie: in a printing store). It MUST have
a solid/level structure to sit/work on. I used an old steel rolling
cabinet that was used for HD photocopying gear... I bolted on a
3/4" piece of plywood on the top to fit.. and voila. A solid and
moveable base for this 90lb beast for almost free.
My biggest beef with the 4800 so far is that Epson did not include the
Ninth colour with the printer... Matte Black.
I print on matte papers and I skip the resin coated papers.
I had to go and get a matte black cartridge and do a full
colour flush/black conversion "waste of ink" thing. Pissed me
off bigtime.
(Why do all the other colours need to be re-charged when just
changing the main black, Epson???)
Anyway, after getting the correct black into the printer, it's
like a different printer and it prints almost everything properly
if you take the time to edit and select the right printing settings
for the paper stock.
The 4800 is truly an amazing printer, even with it's flaws.
Marq.
Ps...
It's internal paper-suction fan blasts out some serious jet-streams
to keep you cool depending on where it's back is pointed to... or
acts as good room air-mover. ;-)
-
Yikes!
I'm so depressed. I just ordered an Epson 4800 ($2,400 CDN plus
$900 in spare 220ml ink) because I wanted a better printer to produce
longer lasting prints for my customers versus my 1270/1280 prints on
Matte EHW paper.... and to print larger than Super B size.
I print reproductions of my paintings/artwork.
After reading most of the replies here in this thread, I wonder
if I should stop the order? Is there a good matte paper that will
print as well as the 1280 on Matte HW Enhanced???????
I ordered a 17" roll of 50' "Ultra Smooth Fine Art" to start with
to get my feet wet with this new printer.
But now I have many questions after reading this thread from the
"experts" about the 4800 and finding a good art inkjet paper... it
seems hopeless!
Regards,
Marq.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=79162\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Marq,
Cheer Up - the printer you ordered should do a very good job for you, but...
Printing is a craft - much like the technical aspects required to produce your orginal artwork, so take a little time to learn and practice the craft of printmaking. The 4800 is most capable, but only as capable as the hands that guide it.
As for medium, there are many, many fine products. You will just need to experiment a little and determine which best suits your style of art. It seems that you have done that with respect to previous use of matte papers. The Ultra Smooth Fine Art is a fine product, if that suits your style, however, it is a touch warmer than the enhanced matte. If you truly want the best results, you may want to invest in a good custom profile for your printer and paper combination. So, be prepared for a little learning curve, practice, have patience, and all will be well with your new printer.
Good Luck,
Ed
-
Marq48,
Im getting the drift that you would like to continue printing on matte paper? Is that correct?
If so, you're fine...I believe the 1280 is a dye based printer , no? The pigment inks are certainly different and it took me a while to get used to them but, im fairly satisfied at this point.
If you want to use one of the new fiber gloss papers that are the subject of this thread (this thread was based on an article that was written about the emergence of several new gloss, fiber base paers) you will also do fine. These papers have many exceptional qualites, the author of the original article was griping about the fact that they look nothing like the surface of a traditional black and white printing paper. I agree with him but also have to say that you can make some fairly amazing prints on these papes.
You should be fine with your 4800.
-
Thanks Ed for the hints.
I got the 4800 and will post something later, if I can figure out how
to use this friggin board...
Why do they make it so difficult? Sheesh!
Marq4800.
-
Marq,
Cheer Up - the printer you ordered should do a very good job for you, but...
Printing is a craft - much like the technical aspects required to produce your orginal artwork, so take a little time to learn and practice the craft of printmaking. The 4800 is most capable, but only as capable as the hands that guide it.
As for medium, there are many, many fine products. You will just need to experiment a little and determine which best suits your style of art. It seems that you have done that with respect to previous use of matte papers. The Ultra Smooth Fine Art is a fine product, if that suits your style, however, it is a touch warmer than the enhanced matte. If you truly want the best results, you may want to invest in a good custom profile for your printer and paper combination. So, be prepared for a little learning curve, practice, have patience, and all will be well with your new printer.
Good Luck,
Ed
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=79186\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Thanks Ed.
I've done a lot of printing, actually. Mostly lithography. "Punch up" that
black s'more...
Marq.