Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Printing: Printers, Papers and Inks => Topic started by: feppe on August 12, 2007, 05:00:53 pm
-
I just finished watching the excellent From Paper To Print tutorial - thanks for the non-DRM downloadable format! -, and didn't get an answer to the question I was dying to learn: why would I want to use rag/matter paper? Michael and Jeff touch upon it in the tutorial, but don't offer a "real" answer outside of the tactile feeling rag paper has. Is that it?
When I tried matte papers I was quite disappointed about the muted blacks - many of my photographs are urban night-time long exposures, and really benefit from deep, rich blacks. But obviously a lot of fine art printers use rag paper. What am I missing?
-
It's all a matter of taste, and of application. If your prints are going to be framed behind glass or acrylic then you should likely go with a resin coated paper. If they will be experienced directly, ie: held in the hand, then the look and feel of a fine art rag paper is likely preferable.
A new generation of papers coming this Fall will offer the high Dmax of photo papers with the tradition look and feel of traditional silver gelatin papers. We've had a few attempts before, but a couple of these new papers really seem to have nailed it. Watch for them. There will be reviews here within the next couple of months.
Michael
-
A new generation of papers coming this Fall will offer the high Dmax of photo papers with the tradition look and feel of traditional silver gelatin papers. We've had a few attempts before, but a couple of these new papers really seem to have nailed it. Watch for them. There will be reviews here within the next couple of months.
Michael
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=132863\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
That does sound promising. I really enjoyed the texture and the matte surface of the rag paper samples I got when I was choosing my papers - especially with B&W - but just couldn't deal with the weak blacks.
-
You can find Fine Art papers with satin or pearl coatings which are designed to get photo blacks . Many paper manufacturers have produced this line of Fine Art papers. You need to chose the proper media type for profiling and printing ( and not Fine Art or Matte media type ) in order to let the printer to use photo blacks.
Some examples from Hahnemuhle papers : Photo Rag Satin , Photo Rag Pearl and Fine Art Pearl.
Very nice to hear from Michael that new generation of papers will be introduced soon.
Avalan
-
I just finished watching the excellent From Paper To Print tutorial - thanks for the non-DRM downloadable format! -, and didn't get an answer to the question I was dying to learn: why would I want to use rag/matter paper? Michael and Jeff touch upon it in the tutorial, but don't offer a "real" answer outside of the tactile feeling rag paper has. Is that it?
When I tried matte papers I was quite disappointed about the muted blacks - many of my photographs are urban night-time long exposures, and really benefit from deep, rich blacks. But obviously a lot of fine art printers use rag paper. What am I missing?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=132852\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Another super paper I use which I'd suggest you try is Crane's Museo Silver Rag.
I showed one my prints to a photographer associate of mine who's been shooting and processing film for over 40 years and he couldn't believe how close it resembled a silver print made in a wet darkroom.
-
That does sound promising. I really enjoyed the texture and the matte surface of the rag paper samples I got when I was choosing my papers - especially with B&W - but just couldn't deal with the weak blacks.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=132864\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
What papers and printer were you testing on? Just curious as there is wide selection of matte papers currently available.
-
What papers and printer were you testing on? Just curious as there is wide selection of matte papers currently available.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=132874\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I got samplers of Hahnemühle and Red River papers. Perhaps the issue was - as suggested - that I used matte paper type in printer profile settings. Or perhaps the reason was dye inks of the Canon i9900.
-
2x for Silver Rag.
-
Pardon my ignorance on the subject...when are prints typically handled directly? I just haven't run accross that yet I guess.
-
Pardon my ignorance on the subject...when are prints typically handled directly? I just haven't run accross that yet I guess.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=132983\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
e.g., boxed portfolio prints.
-
Ah! Nope, haven't done that yet.
-
Michaels comment is enigmatic and tantalising. One of the great things about this new technology is new papers. What luxury! The trouble is many are disappointing and don't live up to the hype.
A few points
* Rag papers (any surface) are made from cotton. Most of the rest are made from wood. Cotton is generally regarded as having better archival properties but it depends on how wood is processed. Getting rid of the lignin and other impurities in wood is expensive and not good for environment. No one asks where the wood comes from or how much water and pesticide the cotton uses. There are other fibres, e.g. kozo, gampi, hemp (such as in Awagami papers) and others. For gloss and close to gloss there are also synthetics (as in Pictorico gloss).
* Behind glass on acrylic the difference between photo type and matte type diminishes. All the same the qualities of both can be seen with good glass and framing. A paper with true deckle edges floating behind optically clear glass looks pretty swish.
* I don't care if the new papers look like silver gelatine papers or not. I am interested in if they can reveal fine detail, tonal gradations, wide colour gamut and deep blacks. I want the whites to look white, neutral or warm- not green or fluorescent blue. I want papers that resist scuffing and kinking.
I want papers that look the same under household fluoros , diffuse daylight or gallery lighting.
*An increasing number of prints are not displayed behind glass or plastic. This is especially appicable for prints above 1mx1m. I have printed up to 7.5 squ. meters and the demand for big prints - selling so far up to $15,000- is increasing. These are not framed in the old 19th or 20th century manner, but pinned, held with magnets or adhered to surfaced metals or other materials.
In these cases the surface characteristics of the paper is very important.
* New inks , dithering patterns , nozzle size etc. are all important in determining "look" of prints.
Paper coatings have an enormous influence.
* Individual taste is fascinating. I have papers some artists insist on as without peer, and the same paper is totally rejected by others as complete rubbish.
Cheers,
Brian,
www.pharoseditions.com.au
-
I want papers that look the same under household fluoros , diffuse daylight or gallery lighting.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=133060\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I appreciate what the frustrations I think you're describing, taking great pains to balance and print the image perfectly and then having the future owner exhibit it in murky or inadequate light ! I was at one point thinking I would want someone to take home a range of small test prints and tell me which one looked good in the illumination of their home, before selling them a final print.
But paper that self-adjusts to the white balance of the room lighting ?? That's a fascinating idea.
Andy
-
It's all a matter of taste, and of application. If your prints are going to be framed behind glass or acrylic then you should likely go with a resin coated paper. If they will be experienced directly, ie: held in the hand, then the look and feel of a fine art rag paper is likely preferable.
A new generation of papers coming this Fall will offer the high Dmax of photo papers with the tradition look and feel of traditional silver gelatin papers. We've had a few attempts before, but a couple of these new papers really seem to have nailed it. Watch for them. There will be reviews here within the next couple of months.
Michael
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=132863\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Would one of those new papers that seem to have nailed it be the Hahnemühle Fine Art Baryta that was recently announced?
Michael (new to the forum)
-
I just finished watching the excellent From Paper To Print tutorial - thanks for the non-DRM downloadable format! -, and didn't get an answer to the question I was dying to learn: why would I want to use rag/matter paper? [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=132852\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I know exactly why I use matte paper: I can easily see everything that got printed without glare and reflections. It is fine to measure DMax with a spectrophotometer and observe that non-matte papers have higher DMax readings, but when you look at the prints on most of these non-matte papers you need to do so at an angle which minimizes glare and reflections, otherwise the depth of black that is latent in the image get diluted by glare and reflections. One paper I've tried which is good compromise - because it has the high DMax and a surface texture which minimizes glare and reflection is Innova F Type Gloss Black Max. I know this paper is not to everyone's taste - has been described by one author on this website as "naugahyde" - but I think it is a good solution for those special images that need the really high DMax with a minimum of glare and reflections.
-
I agree, Mark. Other similar papers are Innova FibaPrint White Semi-Matte and Hahnemuehle Photo Rag Pearl (the former has OBAs, the latter doesn't). Both similar to the paper you mentioned, but with slightly less of a sheen.
-
I agree, Mark. Other similar papers are Innova FibaPrint White Semi-Matte and Hahnemuehle Photo Rag Pearl (the former has OBAs, the latter doesn't). Both similar to the paper you mentioned, but with slightly less of a sheen.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=133604\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Eric, yes, I've compared results between Innova F-Type and HPR-Pearl. Subject to the differences you mention they are quite comparable - really a matter of taste whether one uses the one or the other; however on very close inspection I found tonal separation in deep shadow areas is SLIGHTLY (and I mean SLIGHTLY) better revealed in the Innova.
-
Hi Mark,
In addition, I also found that the d-max of the Innova White Gloss (a.k.a. F-Type Gloss) is quite a bit better (both visually and measurably) than the HPR. Naturally, whether this actually matters depends on the image itself ...
-
Hi Mark,
In addition, I also found that the d-max of the Innova White Gloss (a.k.a. F-Type Gloss) is quite a bit better (both visually and measurably) than the HPR. Naturally, whether this actually matters depends on the image itself ...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=133631\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Thanks Eric, that's interesting and confirms my visual observations. "Depends on the image itself." is the key - thank goodness not all images need this extent of DMax - that paper is costly and heavy, not to speak of the cumbersome and expensive business of switching between Matte and Gloss inks in an Epson 4800. Fortunately the 3800 resolves most of that, but I seem to recall seeing material to the effect that there have been reported problems profiling and getting good results with Innova F-Type in the 3800. Have you come accross such issues?
-
Hi Mark,
No issues here with profiling the Innova papers on my 3800. I haven't tried the Innova-supplied profiles, since I usually build custom profiles. When printing on White Gloss on the 3800, I found that the best Media Type in the driver was Premium Glossy for both RGB mode and ABW mode in the driver. I leave the Color Density slider at its default value of 0. For RGB mode, I read a d-max of about 2.2 and in ABW mode it jumps up to about 2.5, which is amazing. Color gamut is about the same as Premium Luster, which is already quite wide.
Two issues that I've seen when printing on glossy stock on the 3800 are:
1. Pizza wheel marks on the ejection rollers. No word from Epson on fixing this. I have found a workaround, though, which involves placing the printing sheet on a thick piece of backing paper of the same size (e.g., 2-ply mat board) and feeding the combo to the Front Feed (instead of the Rear Feed). Yeah it's a pain, and you can't do borderless this way (which doesn't bother me, since I never do borderless), but the plus is that the Front Feed doesn't use the pizza wheel ejection rollers at all, so the results are completely free of pizza wheel marks.
2. Rough transitions in the deep green-yellows and the deep magenta-reds. The print becomes noticeably "grainy" in these specific color ranges when using the Epson driver. I'm not sure whether it's a 3800-specific issue or a driver-specific issue. No solution for this yet. I want to try ImagePrint to see if it makes a difference but the Windows demo version won't print (this is intentional, unfortunately). Some might call the graininess pixel-peeping on my part but frankly it can get pretty bad in some cases ... it affects all glossy stock I've seen so far, some more than others. Never happened to me with the older 2200 and UltraChrome, regardless of whether I was using ImagePrint 6 Lite or the Epson driver.
-
Thanks Eric, that is interesting feedback. I've seen the pizza-wheel business on several 3800s, so your experience with it is not unusual. The rough transitions bit is also disappointing. I hope you have raised this with Epson. They need as much feedback as possible to help them avoid design errors in next generation machines.
-
*An increasing number of prints are not displayed behind glass or plastic. This is especially appicable for prints above 1mx1m. I have printed up to 7.5 squ. meters and the demand for big prints - selling so far up to $15,000- is increasing. These are not framed in the old 19th or 20th century manner, but pinned, held with magnets or adhered to surfaced metals or other materials.
In these cases the surface characteristics of the paper is very important.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=133060\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Hi, Brian,
I'm also interested in displaying prints without glazing (not behind glass or plastic), but I haven't found many resources on this (beside spraying the print and/or using a press). Where can one learn more about the pinning, magnet or other techniques for glass-free presentation?
Thanks in advance,
Brad
-
Thanks Eric, that is interesting feedback. I've seen the pizza-wheel business on several 3800s, so your experience with it is not unusual. The rough transitions bit is also disappointing. I hope you have raised this with Epson. They need as much feedback as possible to help them avoid design errors in next generation machines.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=133662\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Hi Mark,
To be honest I haven't contacted Epson about the rough transitions yet, but I just might do that within the next few days. I don't know whether this can or will be resolved for the 3800 itself, but as you say it will hopefully lead Epson to resolving it for the next-gen.
-
I'm also interested in displaying prints without glazing (not behind glass or plastic), but I haven't found many resources on this (beside spraying the print and/or using a press). Where can one learn more about the pinning, magnet or other techniques for glass-free presentation?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=133721\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Brad, that's what I've been doing for all of my recent prints -- matting and framing but without glass. (One might ask what's the point of a mat when no glass is being used; well, I think it gives the print some space and makes the presentation nice.)
For the most part, I've been matting and mounting exactly as I would for doing a print behind glass -- except that I leave out the glass/acrylic. Specifically, I mount a print using t-hinges to 3/8" foam core, then place a double-mat on top of the print and attach it to the foam core. This works well for thick rag papers which tend to stay flat. Even when they ripple a bit, it's very hard to see in practice because the surface is so diffuse. (Unfortunately my eyes/brain are quite sensitive to not-quite-flat surfaces.)
For thinner papers or for papers which are more prone to curling/rippling, I cold-mount using the CodaMount double-adhesive sheets. Instead of using a press, I just use a long, heavy mailing tube or pipe to apply the pressure over the print from one end to the other. I usually place a big sheet of acid-free tissue paper over the print before using the rolling tube. Here in Boston, the humidity fluctuates like crazy over the summer and even mat board can be prone to warping. Cold-mounting the print keeps it flat and ripple-free.
-
Brad, that's what I've been doing for all of my recent prints -- matting and framing but without glass. (One might ask what's the point of a mat when no glass is being used; well, I think it gives the print some space and makes the presentation nice.)
For the most part, I've been matting and mounting exactly as I would for doing a print behind glass -- except that I leave out the glass/acrylic. Specifically, I mount a print using t-hinges to 3/8" foam core, then place a double-mat on top of the print and attach it to the foam core. This works well for thick rag papers which tend to stay flat. Even when they ripple a bit, it's very hard to see in practice because the surface is so diffuse. (Unfortunately my eyes/brain are quite sensitive to not-quite-flat surfaces.)
For thinner papers or for papers which are more prone to curling/rippling, I cold-mount using the CodaMount double-adhesive sheets. Instead of using a press, I just use a long, heavy mailing tube or pipe to apply the pressure over the print from one end to the other. I usually place a big sheet of acid-free tissue paper over the print before using the rolling tube. Here in Boston, the humidity fluctuates like crazy over the summer and even mat board can be prone to warping. Cold-mounting the print keeps it flat and ripple-free.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=133813\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Thank you, Eric for the tips! I'll definitely be giving this a try.
Best regards,
Brad
-
My reasons for using rag matte papers have been for;
1) concerns over off-gassing once a customer has it framed
2) consistency of appearance in varied room lighting / no glare behind glass
I enjoyed the discussion in the camera 2 print video, but think it left out these two important considerations. And once behind glass and on someone's wall - are the differences in dmax as dramatic as they are when comparing the two side by side in hand?
Mark
-
I feel the differences in d-max between glossy and matte papers are more dependent on the lighting and viewing conditions, rather than whether or not the print is behind glass.
The d-max differences are substantial under some lighting conditions (e.g., a gallery spot placed on the ceiling and angled at roughly 30 degrees from the wall, with little other ambient illumination), whereas they are much less significant in diffuse lighting conditions (e.g., lots of diffused light coming from windows, bouncing off walls, etc.).
This is to be expected, given the very nature of these surfaces: a glossy surface is, well, mirror-like and reflective by definition and hence most of the incident light will be reflected in a particular direction (basic geometric physics). In contrast, a matte surface is diffuse and will scatter light roughly equally (on average) in all directions.
There are even some cases where the lighting and viewing angles are such that the glossy print has a much weaker black than the matte print. This happens when the glare or sheen of the surface gets in the way ... so you end up not really seeing the image at all!