Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Printing: Printers, Papers and Inks => Topic started by: Brad_Stiritz on September 15, 2006, 01:24:47 pm
-
Hi everyone,
This is my first post here. Sorry that it has to be a complaint about the current state of things. I had been hoping to find a better high-end paper to use in my Epson 4800, with matte black (MK) ink. I've been using Epson Enhanced Matte (EEM) paper thus far, and have been generally satisfied (contrary to some of the bad talk I've read in this forum about EEM).
Recently, I was printing a night scene, in which the blacks of the sky are deep black with a hint of color: typical value = Lab (1,-6,2) = RGB (0,8,0). I'm using a custom Dry Creek Photo profile, which is quite good. Unfortunately, my image's dark tones print with severe oversaturation of ink. Wide ripples in the paper took days to absorb. Worse, there's a continuing "water-stained" appearance in the dark tones, which I presume is basically ink sitting on top of ink.
I did several hours of research in this forum and elsewhere, which led me to the Hahnemuhle Photo Rag 310 Bright White (PR-310-BW) Paper as a good candidate to replace EEM for my expositions and prints for sale. I went over to Calumet Photo in Chicago this morning, and was deeply disappointed to find that the PR-310-BW is just too rough of a paper for printing faces. Skin doesn't render in a pleasing and acceptable manner except on ultra-smooth paper. The technical salesman at Calumet tried to steer me to the Hahnemuhle Fine Art Pearl 285 with Photo Black ink. I'm really not sure though that I'm ready to give up matte ink and paper.
For goodness' sake, isn't there a heavyweight paper (over 250 g/m2) for MK which is ultra-smooth and bright white (over 100 ISO)? I do understand that this is a forum for "landscape" enthusiasts, and that textured papers probably tend to enhance landscape photos. I was just hoping that maybe someone here might have a helpful suggestion for me.
Thanks,
Brad
-
Hi everyone,
This is my first post here. Sorry that it has to be a complaint about the current state of things. I had been hoping to find a better high-end paper to use in my Epson 4800, with matte black (MK) ink. I've been using Epson Enhanced Matte (EEM) paper thus far, and have been generally satisfied (contrary to some of the bad talk I've read in this forum about EEM).
Recently, I was printing a night scene, in which the blacks of the sky are deep black with a hint of color: typical value = Lab (1,-6,2) = RGB (0,8,0). I'm using a custom Dry Creek Photo profile, which is quite good. Unfortunately, my image's dark tones print with severe oversaturation of ink. Wide ripples in the paper took days to absorb. Worse, there's a continuing "water-stained" appearance in the dark tones, which I presume is basically ink sitting on top of ink.
I did several hours of research in this forum and elsewhere, which led me to the Hahnemuhle Photo Rag 310 Bright White (PR-310-BW) Paper as a good candidate to replace EEM for my expositions and prints for sale. I went over to Calumet Photo in Chicago this morning, and was deeply disappointed to find that the PR-310-BW is just too rough of a paper for printing faces. Skin doesn't render in a pleasing and acceptable manner except on ultra-smooth paper. The technical salesman at Calumet tried to steer me to the Hahnemuhle Fine Art Pearl 285 with Photo Black ink. I'm really not sure though that I'm ready to give up matte ink and paper.
For goodness' sake, isn't there a heavyweight paper (over 250 g/m2) for MK which is ultra-smooth and bright white (over 100 ISO)? I do understand that this is a forum for "landscape" enthusiasts, and that textured papers probably tend to enhance landscape photos. I was just hoping that maybe someone here might have a helpful suggestion for me.
Thanks,
Brad
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=76459\")
Brad
I suggest you try the Red River Dourian Art. It is a 260 gsm paper that gives excellant results for portraits. Can be used with the matte black ink and it also gives excellant results with black and whites. See
[a href=\"http://www.redrivercatalog.com/browse/art.php]http://www.redrivercatalog.com/browse/art.php[/url]
Clayton uses the Red River dourian Art on an Epson 4000 and he has evaluated numerous papers at his site.
http://www.cjcom.net/articles/digiprn5.htm (http://www.cjcom.net/articles/digiprn5.htm)
After reading his comments I tried a box of the Dourian Art for B & W. I then tried it for color prints and was very pleased the way portraits came out.
It certainly is worth a try and i would order a box of 81/2x11 and give it a go.
One benefit is that it prints on both sides also.
Highly regarded.
They also have profiles for the 4800 available at there web site.
Jim A.
See the review by Calton Jones at:
-
I agree for skin tones a lot of matte rag media are too dimpled. HP's new Hahnemuhle is a smoother whiter surface at 265g/m2. It works very well on skin and beauty photos.
It should work well on any Epson. It's called HP Smooth Fine Art.
-
Hi Jim,
I suggest you try the Red River Dourian Art. It is a 260 gsm paper that gives excellant results for portraits. Can be used with the matte black ink and it also gives excellant results with black and whites.
Thanks very much for this recommendation. I spoke to Red River's rep Drew for a bit just now. He feels that the Dourian won't be bright enough for my taste, but is sending samples of a couple of other papers that he feels may suit me. Drew is a deeply knowledgeable rep, which was a really nice experience for a change; I'm hoping one of their papers will work out.
I'll report back next week with my initial impressions.
Thanks again for your help, very appreciated! :-)
Brad
-
Hi Neil,
HP's new Hahnemuhle is a smoother whiter surface at 265g/m2... It's called HP Smooth Fine Art.
Thanks for the suggestion, but the paper specs say ISO brightness 90, which won't work me unfortunately. ISO 100 is the lowest value I would be satisfied with.
Brad
-
Hi everyone,
<snip>
For goodness' sake, isn't there a heavyweight paper (over 250 g/m2) for MK which is ultra-smooth and bright white (over 100 ISO)? I do understand that this is a forum for "landscape" enthusiasts, and that textured papers probably tend to enhance landscape photos. I was just hoping that maybe someone here might have a helpful suggestion for me.
Thanks,
Brad
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=76459\")
Might try Moab Entrada 300 BW. Not sure what iso brightness is for it, but worth taking a look.
[a href=\"http://www.moabpaper.com/index.asp?PageAction=VIEWCATS&Category=39]Moab Paper[/url]
-
Hi Danamr,
Might try Moab Entrada 300 BW. Not sure what iso brightness is for it, but worth taking a look.
Thanks for the suggestion. Unfortunately for me Entrada 300 bright is only 95 brightness..
Brad
-
Hi everyone,
This is my first post here. Sorry that it has to be a complaint about the current state of things. I had been hoping to find a better high-end paper to use in my Epson 4800, with matte black (MK) ink. I've been using Epson Enhanced Matte (EEM) paper thus far, and have been generally satisfied (contrary to some of the bad talk I've read in this forum about EEM).
Recently, I was printing a night scene, in which the blacks of the sky are deep black with a hint of color: typical value = Lab (1,-6,2) = RGB (0,8,0). I'm using a custom Dry Creek Photo profile, which is quite good. Unfortunately, my image's dark tones print with severe oversaturation of ink. Wide ripples in the paper took days to absorb. Worse, there's a continuing "water-stained" appearance in the dark tones, which I presume is basically ink sitting on top of ink.
The technical salesman at Calumet tried to steer me to the Hahnemuhle Fine Art Pearl 285 with Photo Black ink. I'm really not sure though that I'm ready to give up matte ink and paper.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=76459\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Epson Enhanced Matte paper is actually quite good at what it can do (and wonderful for the price), but there are certain things it has trouble doing, simply because it is matte paper. There is no coincidence that you started being dissatisfied when it came to the reproduction of blacks. Despite all the great qualities of matte paper - for which I continue to use it in my 4800 - it does NOT have the richness of blacks that you would get in a paper such as the Hahnemuhle Fine Art Pearl or the Innova FibaPrint Gloss Type F. So if you really want those rich smooth blacks, the recommendation you got from the guy at Calumet was well-advised.
Now turning to the issue of "ink sitting on ink", I do not get that problem. But I don't use a Dry Creek profile. I use the Epson Pro4800 MKP profile that came bundled with the printer. I've had three other custom profiles made for this same paper and the canned Epson profile works just as well as all of the others. It is possible that the profile you are using is part of the problem.
You may also want to check the paper configuration settings in the Epson driver to make sure they are at their default values. (Go to "Advanced" and click on Paper Config". ) I am also assuming that you have Printer Color Management turned OFF, and that you are controlling color only through Photoshop's Print with Preview. This is really important.
A reason why you may be getting a stained appearance in the dark tones could be that the printer is reproducing noise from the image file. You may wish to verify that the image file - especially in the deep tonal areas is quite clean of noise. It is, however, normal for these blacks to take somewhat longer to dry than the other inks, and until they dry quite completely (approximately over-night) you do not see the true quality of the black - it looks somewhat "glazed".
IF after checking all your settings, image file quality and trying the Epson profile you are still having these problems of excessive black ink, it may be appropriate to drop an email to Epson's on-line tech support and ask them for advice. They are usually quite responsive and helpful.
-
Hi Mark,
Thanks for your detailed response.
>if you really want those rich smooth blacks, the recommendation you got from the guy at Calumet was well-advised..
Yes, maybe; but at the same time, Hahmemuhle only supplied Calumet with one giant sample print on Fine Art Pearl 285: a B&W glamour shot of a female model. There were no large-format color photo samples, nor any prints of standard test images. So as of now, I really can't be swayed too much by one great print.
>there is no coincidence that you started being dissatisfied when it came to the reproduction of blacks. Despite all the great qualities of matte paper - for which I continue to use it in my 4800 - it does NOT have the richness of blacks that you would get in a paper such as the Hahnemuhle Fine Art Pearl or the Innova FibaPrint Gloss Type F.
I'm sorry, I feel you may be overgeneralizing about matte papers. I've done my own ink density tests, and I and others can see significant differences in the "richness" of deep blacks between Epson Enhanced Matte (EEM) and much heavier papers like Hahnemuhle Torchon 285. My initial conclusion is that heavy cotton papers are simply able to absorb ink and present a flat, saturated appearance better than thinner coated papers like EEM (192 gsm), at least when you get down to Lab values below L=5.
As you imply, though, there are different asthetics to matte vs. glossy, and I guess "richness" is in the eye of the beholder. In my own opinion, the Hahnemuhle Photo Rag papers present quite rich and satisfying blacks. Unfortunately, the highly textured surfaces are deal-breakers for me.
>Now turning to the issue of "ink sitting on ink", I do not get that problem. But I don't use a Dry Creek profile. I use the Epson Pro4800 MKP profile that came bundled with the printer. I've had three other custom profiles made for this same paper and the canned Epson profile works just as well as all of the others. It is possible that the profile you are using is part of the problem.
Always possible. When Ethan Hansen at Dry Creek Photo (DCP) made my profile, he did say that he likes to tweak for maximum gamut. Perhaps the profile simply exceeds EEM's ink limits in the extremely dark tones. Overall, however, I have to say that my custom DCP profile is outstanding in its rendition of both highly nuanced test images as well as challenging real-world photos. I and others see significant differences between prints of the same images through DCP and through Epson's web site profiles.
(FWIW, I'm personally saddened by the widely reported problems at Dry Creek Photo that have led to their moratorium on taking new profile orders. I'm going to get my next custom profile(s) from Digital Dog.)
>You may also want to check the paper configuration settings in the Epson driver to make sure they are at their default values. (Go to "Advanced" and click on Paper Config". ) I am also assuming that you have Printer Color Management turned OFF, and that you are controlling color only through Photoshop's Print with Preview. This is really important.
Check. I agree 100% that printer config is extremely critical, and I believe I have this configured correctly.
>A reason why you may be getting a stained appearance in the dark tones could be that the printer is reproducing noise from the image file. You may wish to verify that the image file - especially in the deep tonal areas is quite clean of noise. It is, however, normal for these blacks to take somewhat longer to dry than the other inks, and until they dry quite completely (approximately over-night) you do not see the true quality of the black - it looks somewhat "glazed".
Points well taken, thanks. I tested your hypothesis with my nighttime image by applying an extreme shift on-screen to the Levels gray-point slider in Photoshop. This washed out the entire image and revealed blotches within the dark areas very clearly. On first glance, though, there doesn't appear to be a direct correspondence between "ink staining" / "glazing" in the print and the dark blotches in the source image. I'll have to do a more careful examination sometime.
However, even if there should prove to be a direct cause-and-effect relationship between intense black in a screen image and ink-staining on print, this wouldn't change the fact that at least some heavier, all-cotton matte papers seem to better absorb and present intense blacks-- i.e. *do not* glaze & stain like EEM-- at least to my eyes. As for adequate drying / curing time, I see that same glazed look in EEM prints made 6-12 months ago, which have been in archival portfolio sleeves the whole time.
>If after checking all your settings, image file quality and trying the Epson profile you are still having these problems of excessive black ink, it may be appropriate to drop an email to Epson's on-line tech support and ask them for advice. They are usually quite responsive and helpful.
Thanks for the suggestion. As you know, Epson 4800 owners enjoy "pro" support, and I have discussed various issues with the techs from time to time.
Brad
-
Inteersting Brad, especially your comment about the ink absorption capability of alternative matte papers. Like you, I once thought the problem may be the quality of EEM, so I experimented with several non-brightened heavy matte rag papers and found the results they produced on the same problem files were MUDDIER. I also tried ImagePrint with EMM at a reatiler's to test for driver problems, and the results from that were just about identical to what I was getting at home using the Epson driver without ImagePrint, so I saved myself that 1000 dollars. It was after all this that I came to two provisional conclusions: (1) matte papers just don't have the D-Max of non-matte papers, and (2) EEM is actually quite a nice compromise between gloss and matte because the brightener actually helps to improve D-Max relative to those mattes without it. It was all this background that led me to think something in either your profile or printer settings, or maybe the hardware itself are causing too much ink to be sprayed - because with the same printer and paper what you are describing "just ain't normal"! It sounds as if you have managed to rule-out several issues and will probably land on the cause soon enough - keep us informed - an interesting case.
-
Hi Mark,
Thanks for your additional comments.
>It was all this background that led me to think something in either your profile or printer settings, or maybe the hardware itself are causing too much ink to be sprayed..
Yes, definitely I agree, too much ink is being sprayed. No question there. IMO, it's probably an over-tweaked profile. Unfortunately, as I said, the profile is excellent in general, so I don't really have good reason to throw it out.
>I came to two provisional conclusions: (1) matte papers just don't have the D-Max of non-matte papers, and (2) EEM is actually quite a nice compromise between gloss and matte because the brightener actually helps to improve D-Max relative to those mattes without it.
Agreed with both points. In the same spirit, my provisional observations are that (1) the increased ability to deal with ink allows some thicker matte papers to produce deeper blacks than EEM, and (2) many of those thicker matte papers also have optical brighteners.
My hope is that when I find a paper that has the qualitative features I'm looking for, detailed testing and profiling will prove that it's an overall step up from EEM. I've attached a PNG of a test image I like to use, which I've created from several sources. In the course of my paper chase, I've been studying prints of this image alongside the Gretag-Macbeth chart. It's given me some ability to infer paper qualities without even profiling.
Brad
[attachment=954:attachment]
-
Hi Mark,
IMO, it's probably an over-tweaked profile. Unfortunately, as I said, the profile is excellent in general, so I don't really have good reason to throw it out.
My hope is that when I find a paper that has the qualitative features I'm looking for, detailed testing and profiling will prove that it's an overall step up from EEM.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=76537\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Brad,
A profile can't be excellent in general if is causing that kind of trouble. Once you are sure that's the problem, which should be easily detectable by printing the same image with say the Epson profile or another custom profile to see whether the same thing happens, you may well decide to chuck it and use another one.
I have no doubt there should be papers that demonstrate higher quality in certain respects relative to EEM - and you can bet it will also cost a bundle more - but it's all for art's sake, so............onward and upward.
-
Profiles are not the cause of overinking. It's the Epson media setting that controls the amount of ink laid down, not the profile.
What media setting did you use when you had Ethan make the profile? Did you use his eval target to determine this? Even doing this and using the lowest ink setting (wc-rw) I have overinking problems with some papers and the only solution I found is to use a RIP where I can dial in ink reduction.
Or does a 4800 provide for linearization?
- DL
-
Hi Neil,
Thanks for the suggestion, but the paper specs say ISO brightness 90, which won't work me unfortunately. ISO 100 is the lowest value I would be satisfied with.
Brad
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=76478\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
i1 reading on the paper white 96.5 0.6 -0.8. There are some brighter papers out there but none that aren't too enriched with OBA.
I can see though that rag papers won't make your contrast as the EEM would. I don't see any matte rag media getting much below L15 whereas you note an L5 further on.
-
Don, profiles can cause such problems but the media setting and the ink setting are most likley more determinative. When you dial down the ink, you may also sacrifice some dynamic range, but that could be the lesser of two evils in some cases.
Neil - true, most matte papers, especially with no OBAs, start having problems differentiating tones below L = 15. I find EEM can differentiate between 12 and 15, but below 12 it struggles.
-
Mark, Neil, Don,
Thanks for your all your respective comments.
Mark--
>A profile can't be excellent in general if is causing that kind of trouble [overinking of deep blacks]...
Sorry, I think you're overgeneralizing again here; plus I disagree with your semantics. To say that something or someone "can't be excellent in general" if it/she/he breaks down in extreme circumstances is pretty harsh IMO. In any case, my prints to date with the Dry Creek Profile *have* been excellent in general. Most of my work doesn't have broad regions of dense black. Of course, your work and your needs may be different.
Don--
>Profiles are not the cause of overinking. It's the Epson media setting that controls the amount of ink laid down, not the profile.
Point well taken, "in general"
>What media setting did you use when you had Ethan make the profile?
Enhanced Matte
>Did you use his eval target to determine this?
Yes, I did print the eval target for EEM; but no, I didn't print several targets with a variety of media settings.
>Even doing this and using the lowest ink setting (wc-rw) I have overinking problems with some papers and the only solution I found is to use a RIP where I can dial in ink reduction.
Thanks for mentioning. Hopefully I won't have to get into RIP printing; we'll see how things go.
Neil--
>i1 reading on the paper white 96.5 0.6 -0.8. There are some brighter papers out there but none that aren't too enriched with OBA.
Thanks for mentioning your readings; sorry, I don't have a spectrophotometer myself, and don't know the scales or interpretation. As for OBA's, IMO they're a necessary evil, if in fact they are evil. I haven't seen the evidence yet that they need to be avoided at all costs.
>I can see though that rag papers won't make your contrast as the EEM would. I don't see any matte rag media getting much below L15 whereas you note an L5 further on.
I guess we'll see. Again, I'm only doing subjective ink limit tests currently, so you might be right. However, Hahne. Torchon 285 at least appears to show separation well below L10 (where I'm defining printed L10 relative to the printed "L0" patch).
Brad
-
>What media setting did you use when you had Ethan make the profile?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=76594\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I found that watercolor-radiant white works best with almost all third-party rag papers, including hahnemuehle. Others overink. If you print Ethan's eval you can see this in the small "+"s.
- DL
-
Mark--
>A profile can't be excellent in general if is causing that kind of trouble [overinking of deep blacks]...
Sorry, I think you're overgeneralizing again here; plus I disagree with your semantics. To say that something or someone "can't be excellent in general" if it/she/he breaks down in extreme circumstances is pretty harsh IMO. In any case, my prints to date with the Dry Creek Profile *have* been excellent in general. Most of my work doesn't have broad regions of dense black. Of course, your work and your needs may be different.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=76594\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
It's not a matter of semantics, but more of "strategy". As often the case, it is perhaps an instance of one shoe not fitting all. There is no harm using different profiles for different images, depending on which works best with which. If you find the Dry Creek profile excellent for everything except the problem you brought to this Forum, I'd be the last one to suggest that anyone shouldn't use what works well for them, but why not try another profile for the troubled images?
-
Brad, as a simple test why not try the printing the problem image using Ethan's profile and WC/RW media setting? This isn't ideal (profile should be made from same media setting) but I find that it works within reason, and might tell you if it's worth getting another profile made.
- DL
-
Mark, Don,
Thanks for your respective comments and suggestions. I'm starting to think that the issue I'm dealing with here is either gloss differential or gloss artifact, as defined here:
http://www.incits.org/tc_home/w11htm/2001d...differential%22 (http://www.incits.org/tc_home/w11htm/2001docs/w1101014.pdf#search=%22define%20gloss%20differential%22)
"Gloss artifacts include such items as streaks and banding that are one-dimensional in nature, and patches that are a form of two-dimensional, possibly sparse, mottle. Gloss bands, streaks and mottle are most easily evaluated in flat fields of uniform density."
I see mottled or "water-stain" artefacts in EEM/4800/MK most easily under strong incident light at a 45 degree angle. Previously I had said that this effect was restricted to the darkest of dark tones, but now looking more carefully at my entire test chart (see attachment in previous post), I can see significant reflective mottling in several of the Gretag Macbeth Color Chart patches (e.g. moderate red, purple, red, neutral 3.5), and less significant but still clearly visible mottling in several other patches-- again, when the print is held at an angle.
These facts lead me to believe that my original gripe about EEM is an ink-density-dependent effect that isn't going to go away unless ink density is measureably reduced. This brings us to the points & suggestions you each made (and thanks for those, BTW):
Mark>When you dial down the ink, you may also sacrifice some dynamic range, but that could be the lesser of two evils in some cases.
Don>as a simple test why not try the printing the problem image using Ethan's profile and WC/RW media setting? This isn't ideal (profile should be made from same media setting) but I find that it works within reason, and might tell you if it's worth getting another profile made.
For my experiment, I printed my composite test image via the Dry Creek EEM profile, on EEM paper, but with the "singleweight matte" media setting in the Epson driver, rather than the EEM setting. I found much less severe (but not eliminated) gloss artefacts, as well as significant shifts in the lighter Gretag Macbeth hues.
Mark>why not try another profile for the troubled images?
My experience has been that really good custom profiles produce significantly better prints than non-custom profiles. Having read "Real World Color Management", I'm not inclined to get into profile tweaking / editing. It's unclear to me at this point whether it would be preferable to get a new custom EEM paper profile for the EEM media setting, or for another setting, e.g. Singleweight Matte. There are risks of dissatisfaction and wasted money either way.
OTOH, gloss mottling is evident at 45 degrees in the Hahne. Torchon 285 test image print as well, so there are a number of variables to sort out... ay yi yi! My next step well may be to get a can of Premier Art spray and see if that can even out the surface finish.
Brad
p.s. Don, FWIW, I don't see immediately why WC/RW would lay down less ink than EEM. It makes much more sense to me that the first set of paper types listed in the Epson driver would be ordered by increasing ink density: Photo Quality Ink Jet paper, Singleweight Matte, Enhanced Matte, Archival Matte, Watercolor.
-
Brad, this is the firt I hear of gloss differential or gloss artifacts affecting matte paper. In principle it cannot happen with matte paper. Gloss differential happens most usually in highlight areas, where the printer lays little or no ink on the paper. This creates a difference in the appearance of the finish between those parts of the paper surface that are more inked and those that are less or not inked (as suggested in item (4) of the paper you reference). But there is no gloss to differentiate on EEM. Just this afternoon I churned out another batch of prints from my 4800 on EEM and for the life of me, whether the hues are bright or dark there simply is no trace of the problem you started this thread with. If you've checked that all your settings in the printer driver and Photoshop are correct, it strongly leads me to believe that you have a hardware problem and should contacrt Epson Tech Support for help.
-
p.s. Don, FWIW, I don't see immediately why WC/RW would lay down less ink than EEM. It makes much more sense to me that the first set of paper types listed in the Epson driver would be ordered by increasing ink density: Photo Quality Ink Jet paper, Singleweight Matte, Enhanced Matte, Archival Matte, Watercolor.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=76725\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I tried most (not all) of the media settings both with canned profiles and with Ethan's density target and WC/RW was the only one that didn't overink. Other's have also reported that they find it best for most any non-epson rag paper. Try it.
- DL
-
Mark, Don,
Thanks for your further comments & suggestions.
Mark--
>Just this afternoon I churned out another batch of prints from my 4800 on EEM and for the life of me, whether the hues are bright or dark there simply is no trace of the problem you started this thread with.
Thanks very much for doing that evaluation. Very helpful info. I'll definitely get in touch with Epson and see what they think.
>this is the first I hear of gloss differential or gloss artifacts affecting matte paper. In principle it cannot happen with matte paper...
I hear what you're saying, but please, let's not get into a semantics debate. I agree that with matte paper, it can be confusing to speak of "gloss" - anything. Certainly, it's not meaningful to speak of apparent differences between paper and ink "glossiness". But going back to my original post, though, I believe I was careful to indicate that the problem was limited to the inked regions, not including paper highlights.
dark tones print with severe oversaturation of ink. Wide ripples in the paper took days to absorb. Worse, there's a continuing "water-stained" appearance in the dark tones, which I presume is basically ink sitting on top of ink.
Maybe a better description of my problem would be to say there's a visibly mottled appearance to the ink surface (reminiscent of water staining) when the print is viewed at an angle to strong incident light.
Don--
>I tried most (not all) of the media settings both with canned profiles and with Ethan's density target and WC/RW was the only one that didn't overink. Other's have also reported that they find it best for most any non-epson rag paper. Try it.
Thanks for the additional encouragement. I did print my test image on EEM via the WC/RW setting, and compared to EEM prints using SW and EEM settings. As far as the goal of achieving minimal ink surface "mottling", I prefer the SW print, with WC/RW in 2nd place, and EEM last. An additional critical factor of course is the density of jet black, and here as well I find SW preferable to WC/RW.
I'll query Epson about all of this on Monday, and will report back once I have a definite response. I'm hoping that I won't end up having to give up the Epson driver for a RIP. I was browsing around the ColorBurst site this afternoon, and kind of bumming out to see how much additional detail and complexity I'd have to get into and get competent with.
Brad
-
I'm hoping that I won't end up having to give up the Epson driver for a RIP.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=77439\")
Brad, a long time ago I switched to using ImagePrint. My primary motivation was not overinking issues with some images, but rather the horrible PS/Epson print setup rigamarole.
In general, with custom profiles, I see little or no difference between the Epson driver prints and IP prints. However, for images with lots of black, IP allows ink reduction which solved the problem. After IP came out with the black slider, I found that I could solve the problem with this slider without resorting to ink reduction. The slider affects only the blacks as opposed to ink reduction which affects everything.
I was only having a problem on a very small number of prints, such as [a href=\"http://www.lashier.com/home.cfm?dir_cat=23544]this one[/url]. The black rock actually has detail (doesn't show on the web quickproof either), but without IP's black slider (or ink reduction) it printed as one black mass and overinked to the point of being shiny (on matte rag).
- DL
-
Brad, a long time ago I switched to using ImagePrint. My primary motivation was not overinking issues with some images, but rather the horrible PS/Epson print setup rigamarole.
In general, with custom profiles, I see little or no difference between the Epson driver prints and IP prints. However, for images with lots of black, IP allows ink reduction which solved the problem. After IP came out with the black slider, I found that I could solve the problem with this slider without resorting to ink reduction. The slider affects only the blacks as opposed to ink reduction which affects everything.
I was only having a problem on a very small number of prints, such as this one (http://www.lashier.com/home.cfm?dir_cat=23544). The black rock actually has detail (doesn't show on the web quickproof either), but without IP's black slider (or ink reduction) it printed as one black mass and overinked to the point of being shiny (on matte rag).
- DL
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=77503\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Don, firstly gorgeous photograph - I really like it. Congrats.
Secondly, I agree with your observation that for most situations there is no noticeable difference of print quality whether using IP or the Epson Driver with good profiles.
Thirdly, the PS-Epson set-up rigamarole you refer to is a well-known problem on O/S X; on a Windows platform it is a piece of cake - the height of simplicity and works reliably. For once, something to say for Windows! (OK let's not get into another one of those.........)
-
Thirdly, the PS-Epson set-up rigamarole you refer to is a well-known problem on O/S X; on a Windows platform it is a piece of cake - the height of simplicity and works reliably. For once, something to say for Windows! (OK let's not get into another one of those.........)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=77507\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I'm on windows - maybe it's improved with CS2 and newer epson driver. My issue was that I had to check all the epson settings everytime I printed lest something had reverted. I wasted enough paper failing to do this to pay for ImagePrint. I also had issues controlling the positioning of the print with PS/Epson and although it was a bit arcane figuring this out with IP, once I had it figured out it works reliably and consistently. I also like the fact that it's easy with IP to print multiple proof images (on the same sheet) with different rendering intents and/or profiles. I suppose you may be able to do this in PS also but not nearly so directly I suspect.
- DL
-
I'm on windows - maybe it's improved with CS2 and newer epson driver. My issue was that I had to check all the epson settings everytime I printed lest something had reverted. I wasted enough paper failing to do this to pay for ImagePrint. I also had issues controlling the positioning of the print with PS/Epson and although it was a bit arcane figuring this out with IP, once I had it figured out it works reliably and consistently. I also like the fact that it's easy with IP to print multiple proof images (on the same sheet) with different rendering intents and/or profiles. I suppose you may be able to do this in PS also but not nearly so directly I suspect.
- DL
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=77513\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I've had no reversion problem on WIndows XP with either CS or CS2 on either the Epson 4000 or the 4800, so I'm a bit surprised to hear you've had that experience. Print positioning was an issue with the Epson 4000 due to a technical error in one firmware up-grade. This was fixed with the subsequent firnware up-grade and thank goodness hasn't come back to haunt us again. I don't believe what you describe about multiple proofs can be done with the Epson driver through PS. There are lots of extra features you get with IP that one does not have otherwise - so IP makes alot of sense for people who find these features useful.
-
Hey everyone,
Mark and Don, thanks again for your interest and many comments. I have some new findings and progress to report. To recap, I had an on-going problem with overinking on Epson Enhanced Matte paper--
>I see mottled or "water-stain" artefacts in EEM/4800/MK most easily under strong incident light at a 45 degree angle. Previously I had said that this effect was restricted to the darkest of dark tones, but now looking more carefully at my entire test chart (see attachment in previous post), I can see significant reflective mottling in several of the Gretag Macbeth Color Chart patches (e.g. moderate red, purple, red, neutral 3.5), and less significant but still clearly visible mottling in several other patches-- again, when the print is held at an angle.
I thought that a good solution might be to switch to a heavier, all-cotton paper: ink would absorb better, and I might even get wider gamut / improved Dmax. Unfortunately, Hahnemuhle papers (which seemed a consensus premium favorite) are too rough / not bright enough. Based on recommendations to try one of the Red River papers, I got samples of their Aurora bright white, as well as the GC (greeting card) paper. Unfortunately, the Aurora has too much texture for my taste, and the GC is non-archival.
So it looks like I'm "stuck" with EEM for the foreseeable future, and it's up to me now to solve the overinking problem. Epson "pro" support was no real help, unfortunately. The guy knew that overinking (which they call "caukelling") can happen, and all he could suggest was to adjust the color control params in the driver, or switch to their Ultrasmooth Fine Art paper. Unfortunately, there are just too many variables in the color control dialog to optimize over; and UFA paper isn't bright enough for me.
I've corresponded with Andrew Rodney about some of my problems, and he's suggested considering a RIP in order to have finer control over inking. Because this would be quite an expensive step, I'm checking out the docs carefully. Interestingly, I found that my "water-staining" problem appears to be described in ColorBurst's documentation as "inkjet reversal"--
When the channel ink limits are not set correctly for a particular media, a wide range of problems can occur. If the ink limits are too low, your prints may show banding or you may end up with low ink densities. If your ink limits are too high, your prints may be too wet or you may experience inkjet reversal. Inkjet reversal is a phenomenon that occurs when an optimal ink limit has been exceeded—as more ink is laid down on the media, less color saturation and/or density is achieved.
http://www.colorburstrip.com/windows/Spect..._Win_Layout.pdf (http://www.colorburstrip.com/windows/SpectralVision_Pro_Win_Layout.pdf)
I would feel more confident pursuing this RIP path if I knew chances were high that a fully optimized RIP print would be noticeably "superior" in some visible way over a fully optimized "Epson driver" print from the same system.
Any comments appreciated,
Thanks,
Brad
-
Brad, I think the primary issue is whether or not your printer is working properly. If it is not working properly on the Epson driver, it could mean there is a hardware problem or a firmware problem that could also prevent it from working properly with a RIP; so there is no point spending alot of money on a RIP until you've drilled down further on what is causing the over-inking. If the printer is still under warranty, you need to get very serious with Epson about servicing the machine. If it is out of warranty, you should find out who is their authorized service facility nearest to you, and just pay for having the printer completely checked and adjusted as needed. Then test it on the Epson driver. If the over-inking problem is thereby solved, you can think further about the idea of a RIP, but until then, I would not throw good money into a software add-on that may not resolve the issue.
-
Mark,
Thanks for your response.
>I think the primary issue is whether or not your printer is working properly...
Sorry, I'm not clear on why exactly you feel my printer may not be working properly, other than that you have the same model, and you're not suffering from overinking. Don, Andrew, Epson support, and ColorBurst all indicate that overinking does happen, and that people can deal with it in different ways. I'm not ruling out a hardware problem, but I just don't see the smoking gun. The evidence seems to be leading towards profile + driver settings.
>If it is out of warranty, you should find out who is their authorized service facility nearest to you, and just pay for having the printer completely checked and adjusted as needed.
Yes, in my case, unfortunately it's out of warranty. Checking and adjusting, plus two-way shipping, will almost certainly add up to a significant expense, plus the loss of my printer for a period time. If there's nothing to be fixed or adjusted, as I suspect, that would be a "lot" of inconvenience for nothing . And I still would have the inking problem.
Brad
-
Neither of us would see a smoking gun because we aren't printer mechanics, and the same goes for Don and Andrew. Colorburst has a product to sell. I suggested there MAY BE a mechanical problem because you have already done quite a bit to get to the bottom of it and not yet succeeded. Epson is another story: if they acknowledge this problem they should also send you a detailed check list of the things to do about it that don't require a technician's intervention. With sending the machine for a check-up the kind of inconvenience you say it is, then you should get such a list from Epson, try the items on the list, and if one of them solves the problem, you're done; if not, all the more reason to suspect a malfunction.
-
Have you tried printing the image using epson's canned profile. If you have a profile that is laying down too much ink you are going to run into problems.
If you use the epson's profile and get the same result, then you may have a problem with your printer. If not then there is a good chance that your profile is not as good as you thought it wasm especially for dark areas.
-
Don,
A little bit of topic, but you said you are able to print different profiles/rendering intents using Imageprint. How do you achieve this? I would like to do this, but Imageprint always comes up with the notice that the same profiles have to be used.
Jochem
Have you tried printing the image using epson's canned profile. If you have a profile that is laying down too much ink you are going to run into problems.
If you use the epson's profile and get the same result, then you may have a problem with your printer. If not then there is a good chance that your profile is not as good as you thought it wasm especially for dark areas.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=79267\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
Don,
A little bit of topic, but you said you are able to print different profiles/rendering intents using Imageprint. How do you achieve this? I would like to do this, but Imageprint always comes up with the notice that the same profiles have to be used.
Jochem
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=79292\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Jochem, I've printed on one sheet using different rendering intents and just assumed different profiles could be used also. Perhaps I'm wrong - I'll check this out later tonight.
- DL
-
Don
Which version of ImagePrint are you using ? I had v5.5 with an Epson 2100 and I could use different profiles on the one sheet as you describe.
I presently use v6.1 with an Epson 7800 and it does seem that this feature is no longer supported. i.e. all images on a particular sheet must now use the same profile.
Regards
Frank
-
Which version of ImagePrint are you using ? I had v5.5 with an Epson 2100 and I could use different profiles on the one sheet as you describe.
I presently use v6.1 with an Epson 7800 and it does seem that this feature is no longer supported. i.e. all images on a particular sheet must now use the same profile.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=79389\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Frank, I'm still using IP v5.6. That probably explains the discrepency. I find the capability very useful - you can two-up or four-up small proofs on one sheet to evaluate profiles and/or rendering intents.
- DL
-
I am on 6.1 (9800) as well, explains the difference. Wonder what the reason is that they took this feature out?!
Jochem
Frank, I'm still using IP v5.6. That probably explains the discrepency. I find the capability very useful - you can two-up or four-up small proofs on one sheet to evaluate profiles and/or rendering intents.
- DL
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=79512\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
Hi everyone,
I got a recent PM from a fellow forum member, asking for an update on my investigation. Here's what I've worked out over the last two months:
I decided to take the plunge into RIP printing, rather than continue working within the Epson driver framework. I purchased (as a bundle) the entry-level ColorBurst X-Photo RIP ("CB") & X-Rite DTP-20 spectrophotometer. I then chose to put in considerable time & effort to sort out all the various choices and trade-offs that one can make in CB using its low-level controls over the 8 inks in the Epson K3 class printer. It's cool and fascinating to be able to experiment with the various controls, but the discovery process is iterative & time-consuming. print-measure-adjust settings-reprint. And there's a lot of ICC color science basics that have to be considered in order to make sense of everything: Lab values, CMYK values, Lab space vs. CMYK, etc.
Whether this will ultimately turn out to be "progress" is still an open question, as I still haven't made any image prints yet! But at least I feel like I've resolved the over-inking issue. To respond to Jonathan's remark--
If you have a profile that is laying down too much ink you are going to run into problems... If you use the epson's profile and get the same result, then you may have a problem with your printer. If not then there is a good chance that your profile is not as good as you thought it was especially for dark areas.
--well, yes, in the last couple of months, I've learned that in fact my Dry Creek custom profile wasn't as good as I thought! But at the same time, I already knew that the Epson profile isn't any better. I'm definitely not facing a printer problem, as speculated by a few writers in this discussion thread. This is basically a question of asthetics. In creating any given printer setting and/or profile "XYZ", one question that has to be answered is, how much of the various CMYK inks are "too much"? Apparently the profile makers at Epson & Dry Creek have a higher tolerance for ink-on-paper than I do. I'm willing to sacrifice a touch of maximum density in each of the primary inks in order to reduce unsightly build-up when several inks are combined, as they are in the deepest darks. As one professional color technology consultant told me about printer profiling, "there isn't one right answer. you have to make choices."
So getting back to the initial thread topic-- how I was feeling envious of the awesome ink-soaking ability of heavy rag papers like Hahnemuhle's, and at the same time disappointed with their ragged surfaces-- I'm hopeful now that I'll be super-happy again with my Epson Enhanced Matte (now called Ultra Premium Presentation Paper Matte), because I'll soon have a super-optimized printer driver environment for my personal taste in photographic prints I should have some further results to report before the holidays.
Brad
-
Hmmm. I never really understood what a RIP was until I read this thread and as a result went and looked at the Colorbyte Software site and Imageprint. If the profiles offered are as good as people say they are, and with the cost competitive with a good spectrophotometer unnecessary, it almost seems like a no brainer. Am I misunderstanding the technology?
-
Hmmm. I never really understood what a RIP was until I read this thread and as a result went and looked at the Colorbyte Software site and Imageprint. If the profiles offered are as good as people say they are, and with the cost competitive with a good spectrophotometer unnecessary, it almost seems like a no brainer. Am I misunderstanding the technology?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=89782\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
The point you may be missing is that these profiles are generic for the paper and printer model, not your specific printer. You are depending on your printer performing identically to the one they used for making the profile. Quality control starts with whether you are using a professional printer that is individually calibrated to a common standard before it leaves the factory and stays that way thereafter. If you are only going to be using several paper types it isn't worth buying either a spectrophotometer or Image Print for the profile advantage alone. It would be far cheaper to get a few custom profiles made from a reputable profile-making service.
-
Quality control starts with whether you are using a professional printer that is individually calibrated to a common standard before it leaves the factory and stays that way thereafter.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=89792\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
So, the Epson 3800 (and all their "pro" printers) use PreciseColor technology in the factory to calibrate the printers. Can you really rely on any printer staying in spec? If not, then the only way to really be certain your color management is accurate is to periodically create custom profiles for your combination(s), and make sure the RIP you use accomodates custom profiles. Would that be a fair statement?
-
[
For goodness' sake, isn't there a heavyweight paper (over 250 g/m2) for MK which is ultra-smooth and bright white (over 100 ISO)? I do understand that this is a forum for "landscape" enthusiasts, and that textured papers probably tend to enhance landscape photos. I was just hoping that maybe someone here might have a helpful suggestion for me.
Thanks,
Brad
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=76459\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
[/quote]
First of all, your ICC profile is obviously wrong! And I don't know what the preoccupation is about the ISO. If you insist in printing with matte black ink, then look at the fine art German Etching paper, William Turner or better the Museum Etching paper. Hahnemühle papers are the finest I have found for making fine art prints.
I have two 4800s, one loaded with photo black and the other with Matte black inks. The only anomaly I discovered with printing on the Museum Etching 17 X 22" sheet stock is I needed to make an slight adjustment with curves in Photoshop to darken the mid to dark grays.
Contact Hahnemühle USA and ask for a free sample pack of 8 x 10 sheets of all their papers. Download their suggested ICC profiles for the Epson 4800 from their Web site. Select ONE image and print on each of the sample papers. Then make a decision.
If the ISO is so critical, then switch to photo black ink and use resin coated (RC) papers such as the Epson Premium Photo Luster paper.
Gene
-
So, the Epson 3800 (and all their "pro" printers) use PreciseColor technology in the factory to calibrate the printers. Can you really rely on any printer staying in spec? If not, then the only way to really be certain your color management is accurate is to periodically create custom profiles for your combination(s), and make sure the RIP you use accomodates custom profiles. Would that be a fair statement?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=89805\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Epson are probably the only ones who know how they calibrate their printers in the factory. How long a printer will remain in a steady state probably depends on a number of variables so there is no single answer to that question.
Ask yourself what you need a RIP for apart from profile provision, then ask yourself how many profiles a year you are likely to need and based on those answers you can work out for yourself whether a RIP makes sense for your particular needs.
-
If you can relax your restriction about >100% whiteness for a fine art matte ink paper, then you can find lots of papers to suit your needs. PhotoRag Bright White itself is less than 100% (99% per Hahn. spec sheet).
PhotoRag Duo for one, is quite smoother than PhotoRag and PhotoRag Bright White. Epson UltraSmooth is also another one, resembling EEM in its surface smoothness.
I'm a bit puzzled by your insistance with bright white. Bear in mind that any cotton based paper of such whiteness will have a large amount of OBA's added. These are bound to fade in time returning the paper to a much lower whiteness level.
The EEM paper that you insist on using is quite well known to loose its whiteness in quite a short time, and is generally accepted that it is not of archival quality (although much better than other non-archival papers).
Relaxing your criteria for brighness, will help you solve the problem with EEM overinking as well. EEM i found to be good for proofing, too thin for much else.
-
The EEM paper that you insist on using is quite well known to loose its whiteness in quite a short time, and is generally accepted that it is not of archival quality (although much better than other non-archival papers).
Relaxing your criteria for brighness, will help you solve the problem with EEM overinking as well. EEM i found to be good for proofing, too thin for much else.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=89850\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I don't know what you mean by "quite a short time" and then there is a question of the storage conditions. It is necessary to be more precise in discussing these things otherwise people can misunderstand.
EEM like other matte papers is relatively short on D-Max and can block detail in deep three-quarter-tones, but it is an eminently useful paper depending on the purpose. I use it extensively, but I don't sell my work. If I sold my work I would prefer to use a heavier stock.
Getting back to its properties, if I post these prints on the fridge door, within a year they lose a bit of their original whiteness. When they are kept in dark storage or in bound books as I described in my recent article on this website, the difference in whiteness is hardly noticeable after two years and somewhat noticeable after five years. I am printing as I write and I just made the comparison of a print fresh out my 4800 with stuff on my bookshelf this minute, under D-50 illumination.
As for over-inking, this depends on printer settings and adjustments, not on the paper. I see no evidence of over-inking from my 4800; I do not consider the deep quarter-tone issue a matter of over-inking, based on similar results I've seen from other printers on the same files - be it with the Epson driver or ImagePrint - unless all of them over-ink regardless of what one does - perhaps not likely.
-
I am refering to findings by the Wilhelm Research Institute and to the actual reasons Epson decided to rename their Archival matte paper to Enhanced matte in the US market. According to them yellowing in EEM will happen under dark storage conditions also.
I print images for display in household conditions (under glass) and not for dark storage or just for gallery tungsten viewing.
With regards to inking, I have had regular problems with EEM warping due to excessive ink when printing images with high ink coverage both on my 2200 and now on my 3800. I have to routinely adjust the driver ink settings for this.
-
I'm completely familiar with Wilhelm's data - which also includes specific information on "yellowing" - but it is not actually yellowing we are talking about, rather it is a fading of the brightener, which then reveals the base colour of the paper. I wasn't saying this doesn't happen - only that one needs to be careful about describing the conditions and the extent.
-
I don't want this thread to deteriorate to an EEM discussion, but wasn't OBA fading what I refered to in my post to which you responded with your objections?
-
I don't want this thread to deteriorate to an EEM discussion, but wasn't OBA fading what I refered to in my post to which you responded with your objections?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=89861\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
True, but you mentioned "yellowing" two posts back . And no harm discussing EEM in as thread like this - it is such a widely used medium we should understand clearly what it does and doesn't do either alone or compared with media being discussed here as well.
-
Hey everyone,
I'm a bit puzzled by your insistance with bright white. Bear in mind that any cotton based paper of such whiteness will have a large amount of OBA's added. These are bound to fade in time returning the paper to a much lower whiteness level.
The EEM paper that you insist on using is quite well known to loose its whiteness in quite a short time, and is generally accepted that it is not of archival quality (although much better than other non-archival papers).
Maybe it would be helpful to bring the actual Wilhelm data into this discussion--
Display Permanence Ratings and Album/Dark Storage Permanence Ratings (Years Before Noticeable Fading and/or Changes in Color Balance Occur)
Epson Enhanced Matte Paper > 110 years
http://www.wilhelm-research.com/epson/WIR_..._2005_09_03.pdf (http://www.wilhelm-research.com/epson/WIR_Ep4800_2005_09_03.pdf)
So we're talking about 3-4 human generations here. I honestly think this length of time meets any reasonable standard of ethics for the sale of prints, at least person-to-person. OK, if you're selling to a museum or some other institution, then it's probably fair to question EEM's longevity. Personally, though, I'm not quite at that point yet. I do have one client who is pretty fanatical about collectability, and he hasn't questioned my choice of EEM.
**For my personal taste** the archival rag papers are just too yellow for general use. **To me** it doesn't matter whether they last 200 or 1000 years. I'm choosing to go with a brighter paper that will look great for 2-3 generations. Of course, if a particular project or sale comes up where longevity is a requirement, and the image is predominantly warm-tone, then I would absolutely take the time to make a proper print on the UltraSmooth Fine Art paper. Until then, I'm choosing to work with EEM.
Brad
-
Brad, this is useful input, but let us be clear what the Wilhelm rating means. If you read the language carefully, there appears to be a distinction between what appears to be yellowing caused by fading of the brightener (footnote 10 in the Wilhelm data) and yellowing of the paper itself (footnote 6) and there also appears to be no specific commitment on the question about the extent to which the optical brightener fades over time revealing the underlying colour of the paper (footnote 10). You could well have a less *brightened* print whch is still "WIlhelm-stable" (footnote 6) if I can put it that way - in the sense that the colour balance hasn't been affected and it hasn't faded. I'm not sure whether Wilhelm or anyone else knows over how many years the OBA effect will disappear completely. In footnote 10 he does recommend using papers that do not contain OBAs if you wish to absolutely insure against the OBA itself being a source of yellow staining.
-
For goodness' sake, isn't there a heavyweight paper (over 250 g/m2) for MK which is ultra-smooth and bright white (over 100 ISO)? I do understand that this is a forum for "landscape" enthusiasts, and that textured papers probably tend to enhance landscape photos. I was just hoping that maybe someone here might have a helpful suggestion for me.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=76459\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
You may want to try Moab Entrada BW, or Innova FibaPrint Ultrasmooth. Myself, I do not find a subtle texture (like Photo Rag) to be objectionable when rendering skin. Clearly your preference is for a smoother sheet, so I would look at those two papers. A thicker paper than EEM won't buckle like that.
-eric-
-
First of all, your ICC profile is obviously wrong! And I don't know what the preoccupation is about the ISO. If you insist in printing with matte black ink, then look at the fine art German Etching paper, William Turner or better the Museum Etching paper. Hahnemühle papers are the finest I have found for making fine art prints.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=89808\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
If he did not like the texture of Photo Rag, then he will absolutely hate William Turner! Etching is nice, but also has more texture than Photo Rag.
-eric-
-
Brad,
It's your work and you can do whatever you want with it. I was just suggesting that your whiteness criterion limits you in using a paper with inferior handling characteristics (and a smaller gamut by the way, but this might be irrelevant for your kind of images), which in a not a very long time under normal household display conditions will return itself to the colour of the papers you refuse to use. BTW, exactly due to the large amount of OBAs added to EEM, it will appear much colder when displayed under UV rich lighting (for example diffused daylight) than under gallery standard tungsten illumination. To me EEM and UltraSmooth appear quite similar under D50 tungsten (Solux) illumination, and even more similar under household tungsten.
To each his own.
-
Hi Nikos,
Thanks for your comments. May I ask please, do you have a scientific reference for your statement--?
in a not a very long time under normal household display conditions [EEM] will return itself to the colour of the papers you refuse to use
Regarding your comment about viewing conditions--
To me EEM and UltraSmooth appear quite similar under D50 tungsten (Solux) illumination, and even more similar under household tungsten
-- I can imagine you're completely right. To my eyes, D50 & household tungsten are really yellow. I evaluate all my prints under daylight. As you may know, Phillips and others are now marketing broader-spectrum lighting to the masses. From the point of view of longevity, counting on D50 illumination to be the prevailing standard well into the future might be a little short-sighted, if you'll pardon the expression. We'll have to see!
But the paper wars will probably go on forever!
Brad
-
To my eyes, D50 & household tungsten are really yellow.
Brad
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=90036\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
To each his/her own eyes - but in my case Solux D50 is VISIBLY much cooler than household tungsten.
If you intend to look at your photographs mainly in daylight, that is the standard to judge them by, but otherwise an interior lighting standard would be more appropriate. D50 is now the industry standard. I think it makes sense to standardise to something that is generally accepted, real, and generally relevant to one's viewing conditions. Whether D50 will change to something else at some unknown future time is perhaps a consideration, but doesn't strike me as particularly operational in the here and now.
-
Hi Nikos,
Thanks for your comments. May I ask please, do you have a scientific reference for your statement--?
Regarding your comment about viewing conditions--
-- I can imagine you're completely right. To my eyes, D50 & household tungsten are really yellow. I evaluate all my prints under daylight. As you may know, Phillips and others are now marketing broader-spectrum lighting to the masses. From the point of view of longevity, counting on D50 illumination to be the prevailing standard well into the future might be a little short-sighted, if you'll pardon the expression. We'll have to see!
But the paper wars will probably go on forever!
Brad
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=90036\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
As I said, to each his own. I find daylight a very inexact and unrepeatable light to proof my prints under. Having said that, I always examine my prints under daylight as well to get an idea how they look under non-standard conditions. But not for proofing. My daylight is very different depending on the window I'm close by, time of day and year and weather conditions, and I'm sure it is very different to yours (unless we live in the same latitude and altitude).
Regarding EEM, no scientific evidence. My eyes only (which btw can differentiate between D50 and household tungsten really well and even between Solux D50 and GTI fluorescent D50 for what it's worth). If you just want scientific evidence that OBA's will fade, I think you can find plenty in the public domain.
I'm not sure I understand your comments about D50, future prevailing standards and short-sightedness. Would you care to elaborate?
-
Hi Nikos,
I'm not sure I understand your comments about D50, future prevailing standards and short-sightedness. Would you care to elaborate?
I was trying to highlight your own point that standards can change. We were discussing what will happen to EEM decades down the line, and how EEM looks in daylight and under D50 compared to an ISO-90-brightness type of paper. In that context, your show of support for D50--
If you intend to look at your photographs mainly in daylight, that is the standard to judge them by, but otherwise an interior lighting standard would be more appropriate. D50 is now the industry standard. I think it makes sense to standardise to something that is generally accepted, real, and generally relevant to one's viewing conditions. Whether D50 will change to something else at some unknown future time is perhaps a consideration, but doesn't strike me as particularly operational in the here and now.
--seem to me a tiny bit unfair. After all, if we're only going to talk about the here and now, then why shouldn't the debate end with me saying that I feel my prints look and sell better on EEM than on archival rag whatever? Whether the color balance of EEM prints "will change to something else at some unknown future time is perhaps a consideration.." etc etc
Also, note that D50 is just one of the CIE reference illuminants, which to my knowledge are all less than 75 years old; i.e. not really too established yet, at least by the light of your presumed 200-year archival rag lifespan.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_illuminant (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_illuminant)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_point (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_point)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International...on_Illumination (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Commission_on_Illumination)
This is all I was trying to get at with my previous comments.
Brad
-
--seem to me a tiny bit unfair. After all, if we're only going to talk about the here and now, then why shouldn't the debate end with me saying that I feel my prints look and sell better on EEM than on archival rag whatever? Whether the color balance of EEM prints "will change to something else at some unknown future time is perhaps a consideration.." etc etc
Also, note that D50 is just one of the CIE reference illuminants, which to my knowledge are all less than 75 years old; i.e. not really too established yet, at least by the light of your presumed 200-year archival rag lifespan.
Brad
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=90257\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Well, as long as its only a tiny bit unfair, that's fine - I was neither trying to debate nor to be fair or unfair; I was only suggesting an approach that I think makes logical sense in the current context, which I believe is the normal context in which one sells prints. In the final analysis, when it gets down to paper choices, longevity standards and viewing conditions, these are all largely a matter of personal taste and preference, so it's whatever floats the boats of you and your customers. There are no right or wrong answers.