Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Printing: Printers, Papers and Inks => Topic started by: Peter Frahm on December 25, 2007, 04:31:03 am
-
I love this paper. I've tried all the first round and recent fiber based gloss offerings, and several of the Barytas. I've also seen some prints made on the Ilford Baryta (seems to be quite a bit of gloss differential there).
Hands down, hands up, whatever those things mean, this is the most useful and elegant paper I've seen yet. For black and white it just sings and for color it's equally good. When you print this stuff large, the surface looks great.
Not something I can say about some of the other papers from this family...Crane Silver Rag looked shaky when pushing it large, the texture just overwhelmed everything. The original, dimply, Innova fibre gloss just can't take a big print. The surface looks awful (much worse at large sizes) and the paper itself won't sit flat without an adhesive.
Great surface on EEF, smooth and subtle and truly elegant. Epson seems to have done their homework on this stuff and didn't trip on their feet to try to get this stuff out to quickly. Major kudos to those involved.
Minimal gloss diff (and I tend to challenge this artifact). It seems to naturally minimize the gloss diff issues and if I know it's going to be a huge factor on certain prints I comfortable knowing that a light hit of spray will solve the problem.
I actually like this paper with one coat of spray. If you take a close look at your old air dried gloss prints you will see that there actually is a fair amount of gloss. For me, the spray unifies everything. That said, I hate spraying.
You don't need to spray it. What pleases me is seeing how gracefully the ink lays down on this sheet.
I cannot see any bronzing going on with this paper.
Brighteners in the paper? I can live with it, wet papers had it.
Comparing prints I've made on EEF to my old graded Ilford Gallery wet prints yields a much more satisfying conclusion, in that, they rank. I'm talking about the original Ilford Gallery...they dumped a lot of silver out of that formula over time. The early stuff could produce incredible blacks. The EEF stacks up strongly across the tonal range in this regard.
What else...it sits perfectly flat. My experience with the Innova fiber gloss, and a few others, always involved considerable prayers to ward off head strikes, lots of them. The EEF just sits flat and stays flat after printing. The addition of ink to one side does not make it curl.
I've had a 16X20 hanging on my wall, taped on the two top corners, for a couple of months and it hasn't changed a bit..flat as the day it came out of the box. This is a big plus if you frame over mattes and don't want to dry/cold mount the print. Just museum tape in a hinged matte, works fine.
It's expensive. Yep, it is, but, I've been tossing money at these other papers for a while now and I'm willing to pay because this paper has everything I've been wanting since I started making inkjet prints. And, I can print color on it, it looks fantastic.
I'm sitting here beaming at a bw 16x20 under glass. I keep walking away from what I'm doing to go look at it.
Improvements? I think these companies will always be moving towards as smooth a surface as can be tolerated by the materials (through the entire print process), manufacturing processes, and their inherent limitations. The EEF is right there and if they try to make it smoother, more power to them. If not, I'm liking it the way it is. These are still a new set of challenges for all of these companies and, no doubt, things will continue to progress.
Happy Holidays
-
I love this paper. I've tried all the first round and recent fiber based gloss offerings, and several of the Barytas. I've also seen some prints made on the Ilford Baryta (seems to be quite a bit of gloss differential there).
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=162986\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
On the Epson stand they showed this new paper on a 3800 and gloss differential was indeed minimal - almost pefect. only pure white areas were a bit standing out when looking under an angle.
I am using a HP Z3100 myself and I am happy to say that the paper also workes on this machine with the gloss enhancer on. But still some gloss differential in the colour prints- the black and white seems perfect.
(The ilford paper does not work at all on the z3100 - the gloss enhancer soaks in the paper - lots of gloss differential there)
Also the gamut seems to be very large. It will be one of my first choice papers - too bad it does not come in rolls .
I also printed a lot of the real wet baryta papers and loved the material. (Agfa multigrade FB)
As for now the EEF is the only paper ( z3100) that gives me that same feeling.
-
I started a thread on this paper several weeks ago when I had a chance to do some test prints on a sample pack. I concur with everything you've said---this paper is awesome. I really like the texture---don't want it any smoother. I think it's elegant. Now we just need it in rolls and in a warm tone too. The paper is near perfection. the icing on the cake is that it's heavy and sits flat. Eleanor
I love this paper. I've tried all the first round and recent fiber based gloss offerings, and several of the Barytas. I've also seen some prints made on the Ilford Baryta (seems to be quite a bit of gloss differential there).
Hands down, hands up, whatever those things mean, this is the most useful and elegant paper I've seen yet. For black and white it just sings and for color it's equally good. When you print this stuff large, the surface looks great.
Not something I can say about some of the other papers from this family...Crane Silver Rag looked shaky when pushing it large, the texture just overwhelmed everything. The original, dimply, Innova fibre gloss just can't take a big print. The surface looks awful (much worse at large sizes) and the paper itself won't sit flat without an adhesive.
Great surface on EEF, smooth and subtle and truly elegant. Epson seems to have done their homework on this stuff and didn't trip on their feet to try to get this stuff out to quickly. Major kudos to those involved.
Minimal gloss diff (and I tend to challenge this artifact). It seems to naturally minimize the gloss diff issues and if I know it's going to be a huge factor on certain prints I comfortable knowing that a light hit of spray will solve the problem.
I actually like this paper with one coat of spray. If you take a close look at your old air dried gloss prints you will see that there actually is a fair amount of gloss. For me, the spray unifies everything. That said, I hate spraying.
You don't need to spray it. What pleases me is seeing how gracefully the ink lays down on this sheet.
I cannot see any bronzing going on with this paper.
Nice choice of brightness, not overly brightened. Brighteners in the paper? I can live with it, wet papers had it.
Comparing prints I've made on EEF to my old graded Ilford Gallery wet prints yields a much more satisfying conclusion, in that, they rank. I'm talking about the original Ilford Gallery...they dumped a lot of silver out of that formula over time. The early stuff could produce incredible blacks. The EEF stacks up strongly across the tonal range in this regard.
What else...it sits perfectly flat. My experience with the Innova fiber gloss, and a few others, always involved considerable prayers to ward off head strikes, lots of them. The EEF just sits flat and stays flat after printing. The addition of ink to one side does not make it curl.
I've had a 16X20 hanging on my wall, taped on the two top corners, for a couple of months and it hasn't changed a bit..flat as the day it came out of the box. This is a big plus if you frame over mattes and don't want to dry/cold mount the print. Just museum tape in a hinged matte, works fine.
It's expensive. Yep, it is, but, I've been tossing money at these other papers for a while now and I'm willing to pay because this paper has everything I've been wanting since I started making inkjet prints. And, I can print color on it, it looks fantastic.
I'm sitting here beaming at a bw 16x20 under glass. I keep walking away from what I'm doing to go look at it.
Improvements? I think these companies will always be moving towards as smooth a surface as can be tolerated by the materials (through the entire print process), manufacturing processes, and their inherent limitations. The EEF is right there and if they try to make it smoother, more power to them. If not, I'm liking it the way it is. These are still a new set of challenges for all of these companies and, no doubt, things will continue to progress.
Happy Holidays
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=162986\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
Are you using MK or PK ink? Thanks.
-
Jecxg,
EEF is made for PK. You won't get near the dmax the paper is capable of using MK.
-
Thanks!
-
Is any one else seeing what look like micro cracks in the blacks of their images? I think it is from the texture of the paper. I've only made a handful of prints on this paper so far, but it is visible on all of them with significant black areas. Also it appears that these micro cracks aren't of the same density across the page, some areas have lots and lots, and others have very few to none.
Maybe I got a bad batch?
Derek
-
I am using a HP Z3100 myself and I am happy to say that the paper also workes on this machine with the gloss enhancer on. But still some gloss differential in the colour prints- the black and white seems perfect.
What calibration settings are you using for the Epson Exhibition Fiber paper on the HP Z3100? I tried the "Fine Art Pearl (more ink)" setting and have encountered roller marks on the paper.
(12-28-07
Since my last post, I have experimented more with printing Epson Exhibition Fiber paper on the HPZ3100 printer. I have eliminated the roller marks I was getting during calibration. My final prints look beautiful on this paper.
Here's what I have done because EEF is not documented on the Z3100 printer:
(I am using Firmware 6008, HP Utility 3.1, and Driver 5.1)
In the HP Print Monitor choose "manage papers."
Click on the plus sign. This brings up the "Add custom paper" dialogue box.
Type in "Epson Exhibition Fiber". Then click on "Paper Type."
Select "Fine Art Material" and under that select "Fine Art Pearl (more ink)".
Then click on "Change Printing Properties" and under Dry Time select "Extended".
Note that when I calibrated the paper with these settings I did get some roller marks on the calibration sheet. However, I then profiled the paper with "Gloss Enhancer" off. I printed out of Lightroom and selected "Best Quality", "GE OFF", "More Passes", and "Application managed color."
The resulting prints are excellent with NO roller marks. There seems to be no need for the gloss enhancer with this paper. The paper looks very much like an air dried fiber based print. Some may think it has a little more shine than they are use to, but when I was fiber printing, I learned from photographer Ruth Bernhard that you could steam fiber based prints to bring out more shine if they dried too dull. She said she steamed many of her prints. These EEF prints look to me like fiber based, air dried prints that have been steamed. They are quite beautiful.
If you have done something different and had good results, please let me know.
-Stewart
-
Is any one else seeing what look like micro cracks in the blacks of their images?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=163227\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I'm not seeing anything like this on prints made on my 3800 but I've only done color prints so far. I've looked pretty closely (held the prints up to my nose but I haven't used a magnifying glass or anything).
What printer are you using? And are you seeing these cracks on color or B&W prints?
-
I'm printing on an Epson 3800. I've tried both B/W and color and see the micro cracks in the blacks of both.
Maybe I have a bad batch.
I'd love to hear if anyone else is having this problem.
I'm not seeing anything like this on prints made on my 3800 but I've only done color prints so far. I've looked pretty closely (held the prints up to my nose but I haven't used a magnifying glass or anything).
What printer are you using? And are you seeing these cracks on color or B&W prints?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=163260\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
What driver settings are you using?
-
Out of curiosity, has anyone used this paper on a 4000? I'd love to try it, but I have so much other "gloss-dried-matte" type paper, the last thing I want or need is yet another paper type in my cabinet.
-
Premium glossy, ABW mode Dark
What driver settings are you using?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=163296\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
Is any one else seeing what look like micro cracks in the blacks of their images? I think it is from the texture of the paper. [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=163227\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I just checked a 16x20 B&W I ran the other day on EEF and no problems with the blacks.
Might it be setting related?
FWIW, I'm using the following settings on my Epson 3800
Paper Type: Premium Glossy
2880 mode, no smoothing, no fast speed.
I'm using the pixel genius supplied profile in relative colorimetric mode (most of the time)
In the adjustments, I'm using +3% ink density, platen gap of "Wide" and paper thickness setting of "5".
Maybe try those and see how it goes? (you can skip the additional ink density - that's just a personal preference of mine)
-m
-
I've tried everything you did except boosting the ink density, and my platen gap was 4.
Printing in ABW mode you don't use a profile, not that a profile could make this type of difference anyway.
I'll try fooling with the ink density, and uping the platen gap.
Why did you feel the need to boost the ink density? I'm already getting really excellent deep blacks on this paper with the default ink density.
...
Well I just ran off a new print of the same image, and those settings made no difference in the "micro cracks", and for whatever reason made the Pizza wheel marks even worse (maybe greater ink density puts out more ink and it hasn't had enough drying time before the pizza wheels?).
-
Is any one else seeing what look like micro cracks in the blacks of their images?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=163227\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I'm just starting to test this paper and have not seen anything like you describe on either B&W or color prints. This is on an Epson R2400 and admittedly on 8.5" x 11" paper.
Paul
-
Haven't had any issues with micro cracking, except when I eat a lot of red meat : (
I've been printing on a 7800 with Imageprint and sometimes using the Epson drivers and their canned profiles.
I just checked a few prints with fairly large, dense black areas and haven't found any micro cracks. God forbid we need more terminology for a new, undesirable artifact on gloss stock.
I'm not familiar with micro cracking but I spose if it was there I would know it. The blacks look great.
NemoPhoto,
I would imagine you would get great results on the 4000. You are missing "light light black" on that printer so you might experience a more noticable gloss differential than with the K3 set..bronzing, im not too sure about that, as said, I see zero bronzing on the prints I've made.
In any case, you can always spray a bit to get rid of it (i know you hate that too). As said in my original post, I have been experiencing almost no need to spray using the 7800 and K3.
Like you Nemo, I've got a quite a bit of gloss fiber from other manufacturers around here, and in all honesty, this Epson EFP is way ahead of the pack. Over the last few years of chasing this stuff, I've learned to admit to myself when I've wasted my money. It's hard to come to terms with dropping big money on stuff and being disappointed, sometimes we lie to ourselves. I'll speak for myself, it took me a while to admit that the prints I made on some of the early "gloss fiber" papers were, in fact, not "the shit" that I thought they were, they were just plain old shit, headed for the trash can because of the same old artifacts and downright maddening textures (IMO). the only one close was the Innova Ultra Smooth (some have said that Epson used this paper as a model for EFP)..not a bad paper but it curls so much and I think the ink lays down much more elegantly on the EFP (my experience and observation). I also exeperienced horrible quality control with many of these other papers, sending many a roll and box back.
That reminds me...I never had any acceptable luck in de-curllng these gloss fibers in roll form. The ones I tried in roll form were just way to delicate to even screw around with that much handling and stress. I took them out of my de-curler, examine and find problems ranging from blemishes, scratching, buckles where the emulsion didn't quite cooperate and uneven de-curling. The papers with more texture..Crane, Hanne fine art Pearl, could camoflauge these problems better than the smooth surfaces. I think Epson is being smart about the limitations in this material. recognizing what it can do and what it can't. Plus, whatever they've done to make it so flat would just be wasted on that notion.
I do wish Epson would make a long cut sheet in a 17" or 24" height for printing long horizontal images..panos, etc. I would buy that. It's the only thing on my wish list right now. I suppose the Innova Ultra smooth in roll form will suffice but I do get stressed when de-curling this stuff.
If Epson would get on board with a tricked out, subtle GLOP scheme, one that causes inkless areas to disappear, seamlessly into the sheen of these papers, I'd gladly wear bright green satin short shorts for an entire summer. I'm pretty much ready to do it right now. Sorry to ramble.
-
I've always been pretty quick to disregard these air dried fiber glossy emulators. I've not yet bought a second package of any of them, and I've tried just about all of them except for the new Ilford Silk baryta.
All of these papers have real drawbacks in one form or another. I really had my hopes up for the EEF. However with the problem I'm having and serious pizza wheel marks those hopes are fading fast also.
In all honesty I just don't believe that any of these papers is producing a truly superior image to Epson Premium Luster. Some have different colored paper, all feel much better in the hand, but are they really better? Most have pretty close to awful surface textures, several are incredibly fragile, all are quite expensive, all have the blasted surface reflections and GD issues, and non have real longevity data published. As a result I still turn to matte papers like VFA and H German Etching first, and only if I can't get my image to work out on the rag papers do I move over and consider glossy.
This paper chase makes me feel like Don Quixote tilting at windmills.
Like you Nemo, I've got a quite a bit of gloss fiber from other manufacturers around here, and in all honesty, this Epson EFP is way ahead of the pack. Over the last few years of chasing this stuff, I've learned to admit to myself when I've wasted my money. It's hard to come to terms with dropping big money on stuff and being disappointed, sometimes we lie to ourselves. I'll speak for myself, it took me a while to admit that the prints I made on some of the early "gloss fiber" papers were, in fact, not "the shit" that I thought they were, they were just plain old shit, headed for the trash can because of the same old artifacts and downright maddening textures (IMO).
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=163318\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
I agree one hundred percent, Dealy, except for the part about this sheet not producing an image better than Premium Luster. I think you might agree once you get past your issues. One of these horses is still in the barn. I'm looking at an older premium luster print next to a EFP print, same image, as we speak. The EFP is in a different league. Something sounds strange about your cracking issue.
You're on a 3800?
Are your pizza wheel marks coming from your feed rollers?
I'm using a paper thickness setting of 6 in a custom paper setup on my 7800.
Are you printing with a lot of ink, 2880? Maybe jump down to a 1440 if you are
Run through everything and perhaps try setting everything loose and wide and work from there.
I noticed you're using a premium glossy setting..try something else.
I believe most folks are setting for luster. Obviously, there is no choice for EFP in the current driver versions.
Are you sure your 3800 is set for PK? Just some thoughts.
As you can tell from my babbling, I've experienced the exact same Don Quixote feelings you have had regarding all these papers.
Perhaps you do have a bad box. I've seen many 3800 users getting happy with this paper.
Stick with it and you may find some joy.
-
Epson recommends the Premium Glossy setting in the enclosed documentation. I've been very happy with the prints on EEF made at that setting. I've got great color, deep blacks, and no "micro-cracking" or other obvious flaws.
-
Teague, There is different info around on that. I was originally instructed to use Luster as the media type. There are many people using this and the Pixel Genius site suggests Luster as the media type as well.
-
Has anyone done any comparisons between the Hahnemuhle Fine Art Baryta 325 and the EEF?
Do they have the same texture or lack thereof?
I want to get some to try but cant decide which one? I print with a 3800.
-
Printing in ABW mode you don't use a profile, not that a profile could make this type of difference anyway.
Actually you can (and I wonder how you like it).
Select Let Photoshop Manage Color. Select sRGB for output space. Then use ABW mode at the defaults (Darker). What do you think?
-
Is any one else seeing what look like micro cracks in the blacks of their images? I think it is from the texture of the paper. I've only made a handful of prints on this paper so far, but it is visible on all of them with significant black areas. Also it appears that these micro cracks aren't of the same density across the page, some areas have lots and lots, and others have very few to none.
Maybe I got a bad batch?
Derek
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=163227\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I am trying my first batch of EEFP with an Epson 4000 and Imageprint. I tried using the
the Epson Premium Glossy profile and an Innova profile. With the Innova profile I definitely
see what you are seeing. With the Epson/Imageprint profile I see banding and "micro cracks".
I am not sure they are really cracks. I tried looking at them with a loupe and they do look like cracked patented leather but I can't really figure out what it is.
All of the "cracks" run the same direction. There are no vertical "cracks." The "cracks" are not just in the blacks. They are across the entire image. Check your prints out with a loupe.
I rushed home to try this paper so I haven't taken the time to profile the paper yet and I am
using an Epson 4000 so any testing I am doing is really off the wall.
I do notice lots of scuffing of the paper surface. Since I don't have a decent print yet I am
not treating the paper very kindly. Printing with my 4000 the prints exhibits major bronzing as well.
I don't want anyone to jump to any conclusions. I am using an older printer not the 3800 or x880 series printers. I haven't made a custom profile for the paper and neither, I don't think, has
Colorbyte. I just wanted Derek to know he isn't alone in seeing these "cracks."
Thom Jackson
-
Thom, How are you feeding this paper on a 4000? Maybe the bending from the sheet feeder is causing an issue? Of course, if you're hand feeding it, never mind.
-
Actually you can (and I wonder how you like it).
Select Let Photoshop Manage Color. Select sRGB for output space. Then use ABW mode at the defaults (Darker). What do you think?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=163462\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Andrew, could you expand on this a little bit please? I'm trying to get a hint of your feelings from the post and can't. I have only used ABW once (print all my monos with RGB/WYSIWYG)--and wasn't thrilled, but are you saying you DO like this--or not---the 'what do you think?' at the end puzzled me.
To others printing with Epson K3 printers (I have 3800)----I've been watching these threads on this paper--I was able to get samples on all the early fiber papers and ended up choosing the Innova Ultrasmooth and am interested in the EEF because others have mentioned its closer to the IUS--but better (correction here---I do not have Ultrasmooth but the F type Semi Matte, so this changes my thinking obviously after I went back and looked at descriptions of the Ultrasmooth). I've tried all the usual sources for samples and haven't found a sample pack of several different baryta papers and/or the Exhibition Fiber--guess I'll have to buy a box of the least amount of several of the more highly praised ones and try for myself. I read Michael's review of the Ilford and thought about trying that one first--but others seem to dislike it quite a lot.
Diane
-
Andrew, could you expand on this a little bit please? I'm trying to get a hint of your feelings from the post and can't. I have only used ABW once (print all my monos with RGB/WYSIWYG)--and wasn't thrilled, but are you saying you DO like this--or not---the 'what do you think?' at the end puzzled me.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=163824\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Normally you'd take your color image (in whatever color space) and print using ABW using No Color Management in the Print tab in Photoshop. I'm suggesting you try Let Photoshop Manage Color, then select sRGB, then use ABW as normal (but you might want to try the default of Darker not Dark).
Its a different print path. It just looks like a different color to gray conversion (cause it is) but the question is, is it preferable to using the older method (No Color Management)?
-
Thom, How are you feeding this paper on a 4000? Maybe the bending from the sheet feeder is causing an issue? Of course, if you're hand feeding it, never mind.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=163815\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I am manually feeding the paper.
Thom
-
Normally you'd take your color image (in whatever color space) and print using ABW using No Color Management in the Print tab in Photoshop. I'm suggesting you try Let Photoshop Manage Color, then select sRGB, then use ABW as normal (but you might want to try the default of Darker not Dark).
Its a different print path. It just looks like a different color to gray conversion (cause it is) but the question is, is it preferable to using the older method (No Color Management)?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=163838\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Thank you. Guess I won't know until I try it.
Diane
-
Has anyone tried Eric Chan's EEFP profile for use with ABW mode in the 3800 driver (in order to use only black inks)? Just looking for comments on the output, while I wait to get my hands on the paper.
http://people.csail.mit.edu/ericchan/dp/Epson3800/index.html (http://people.csail.mit.edu/ericchan/dp/Epson3800/index.html)
-
Has anyone tried Eric Chan's EEFP profile for use with ABW mode in the 3800 driver (in order to use only black inks)? Just looking for comments on the output, while I wait to get my hands on the paper.
http://people.csail.mit.edu/ericchan/dp/Epson3800/index.html (http://people.csail.mit.edu/ericchan/dp/Epson3800/index.html)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=163858\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I hadn't looked at Eric's site for awhile, but was curious about some other things. While I was there I looked at his favorite paper for the 3800 and saw that he cited the VFA in 17 x 22 sheets. Its been one of my favorites for a good while but I went to another paper for larger than 13 x 19 thinking it wasn't available in 17x22 (mainly because one of the vendors I use doesn't carry it in that--surprise) and found, by checking Epson's site that it is. Too bad its not available in 17 x 25--I use Hawks Mts. Condor for those, but I certainly will buy some VFA in 17 x 22 now.
Diane
-
I hadn't looked at Eric's site for awhile, but was curious about some other things. While I was there I looked at his favorite paper for the 3800 and saw that he cited the VFA in 17 x 22 sheets. Its been one of my favorites for a good while but I went to another paper for larger than 13 x 19 thinking it wasn't available in 17x22 (mainly because one of the vendors I use doesn't carry it in that--surprise) and found, by checking Epson's site that it is. Too bad its not available in 17 x 25--I use Hawks Mts. Condor for those, but I certainly will buy some VFA in 17 x 22 now.
Diane
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=163883\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Just got some EFP and tried Eric's ABW profile. It came out very close to the screen image, but a tad on the darker side. I may tweak this the next time. I printed a color image using the Pixel Genius profile, but there was a definite color shift towards yellow and noticeably different than the screen image in Lightroom. The output matched the Preview image from the print driver. I switched to the Epson Premium Glossy profile in Lightroom, and the output matched exactly the screen image! I'm going with Epson profiles from now on. I wonder what's with that??
-
I did try printing with sRGB as Andrew suggested. The print came out very similar to printing with no color management in ABW mode, maybe slightly different midtones. However, I'm not sure that there is much benefit to this as you are unable to simulate the paper color with sRGB so softproofing is a little less than useful.
Normally you'd take your color image (in whatever color space) and print using ABW using No Color Management in the Print tab in Photoshop. I'm suggesting you try Let Photoshop Manage Color, then select sRGB, then use ABW as normal (but you might want to try the default of Darker not Dark).
Its a different print path. It just looks like a different color to gray conversion (cause it is) but the question is, is it preferable to using the older method (No Color Management)?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=163838\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
I did try printing with sRGB as Andrew suggested. The print came out very similar to printing with no color management in ABW mode, maybe slightly different midtones. However, I'm not sure that there is much benefit to this as you are unable to simulate the paper color with sRGB so softproofing is a little less than useful.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=163929\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
This is confusing me. Isn't ABW mode in the driver "color managed" by the driver? You can't select "no color managment" in ABW mode, within the driver. Am I missing something here?
-
This is confusing me. Isn't ABW mode in the driver "color managed" by the driver? You can't select "no color managment" in ABW mode, within the driver. Am I missing something here?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=164089\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
We're talking before you get to the Epson driver. Print (formally Print with Preview) in Photoshop.
-
Sorry if this a little out of topic, but how do you classify this type of paper? Judging by the name it sounds like matte paper, but based on what I have been reading here (PK ink, smooth, saturated colors, etc) it sounds more like glossy.
Or perhaps this paper is a hybrid that includes the heavy textured feeling of matte papers and the shine and saturated colors of glossy paper?
Thanks in advance
-
Sorry if this a little out of topic, but how do you classify this type of paper?
Its like Luster on steroids!
-
Its like Luster on steroids!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=164364\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Digitaldog to the rescue! That was fast
Thanks, maybe its because I never used paper labeled luster, but I don't exactly understand what you mean.
-
Thanks, maybe its because I never used paper labeled luster, but I don't exactly understand what you mean.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=164365\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Epson Premium Luster paper? Its pretty popular. Its used with Photo Blank ink, its not a matt paper.
This new paper is similar but much, much nicer.
-
Epson Premium Luster paper? Its pretty popular. Its used with Photo Blank ink, its not a matt paper.
This new paper is similar but much, much nicer.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=164366\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Got you. Yes, I see allot of people referencing Epson Premium Luster paper in both role and sheets. I take it that its Eposn's best Glossy paper and one of the best glossy papers in the market.
Makes sense now why you would call it luster on steroids. I got to wonder, though, with this paper offering so much is there a point of using matte paper anymore?
Thanks
-
Epson Premium Luster paper? Its pretty popular. Its used with Photo Blank ink, its not a matt paper.
This new paper is similar but much, much nicer.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=164366\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Thank you. That helped classify it for me. I really would like to try samples of the several new papers as I did of the F type that came out earlier. I ended up with the less glossy of the bunch--Innova F type semi matte. Since it seems difficult to find a sample pack of all of them except Epson EEF (I bought the F pack from Jim Doyle at Shadesofpaper before--hoping he will put one of the baryta papers sample packs together also) I've been trying to decide which paper to sample with a 25 pack of 8.5 x 11 to print (the Ilford is available in a 10 pack I think). Michael seems to think one of the baryta papers is the answer for him and no more matte prints (the Ilford Gold Fiber Silk)--and the EEF is quite pricey, but I'd at least like to try it now.
Diane
-
I received EEF paper a few days ago and have made a few prints. It has the same "baryta" smell as the Harman Gloss FB Al (stronger, even), prints about the same, and says "Made in UK." The EEF surface is very slightly rougher than the Harman surface. Sheets from the 8 1/2 x 11 box (batch 700097) have a few pits in the coating, whereas the Harman surface is flawless.
The EEF is a bit cooler in tone than the Harman. Curiously, notwithstanding the cooler tone, softproofing EEF in Photoship CS3 results in a larger image tonal shift than seen with the Harman paper. I do not know if the manufacturers are able to manipulate the degree of tonal shift seen with the softproofing function when they create the profiles.
I notice that neither paper has any "patent pending" notices on the packaging, presumably because the "baryta" technology is old. This is good news for photographer-consumers, because it means that this paper is a non-IP protected commodity whose price will soon drop as all the photo paper companies begin participating. I paid $4.44 per 13" x 19" sheet of the EEF, making it the most expensive of the four brands mentioned in Michael's article. As to the EEF's reportedly significantly higher dMax, for me the jury is still out on that issue until more testing is performed.
Jeff Schewe, Pixel Genius created the Epson profile for EEF and recommends a paper type setting of Premium Luster, while the Epson insert sheet inside the paper package recommends a setting of Pemium Glossy Photo Paper, as previously mentioned in this thread. With your numerous connections, could you please clarify this setting for us?
Thanks,
Bruce
-
Can anyone tell me who is selling EEF in the UK please?
-
Jeff Schewe, Pixel Genius created the Epson profile for EEF and recommends a paper type setting of Premium Luster, while the Epson insert sheet inside the paper package recommends a setting of Pemium Glossy Photo Paper, as previously mentioned in this thread. With your numerous connections, could you please clarify this setting for us?
Thanks,
Bruce
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=164513\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Use Luster. You'll see if you look, the slip in the box describes the wrong paper
-
My question is what is the difference in using the media setting of Luster and glossy? It is ink lay down, dithering or what. I'm using this paper with the PPG profile, it it is excellent by the way! eleanor
Use Luster. You'll see if you look, the slip in the box describes the wrong paper
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=164556\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
My question is what is the difference in using the media setting of Luster and glossy? It is ink lay down, dithering or what.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=164564\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
In Canada and Europe, those Epson divisions have decided to call the paper "Traditional Photo Paper" and their info sheets call for Premium Glossy as a media settings. Why? I don't know, but I think it's because they didn't actually TEST it and simply followed the suggestions of others. At Epson US, the paper was extensively tested and it was decided that the proper media settings to use was Luster 260 (or Luster in current printers). That's the media setting that PixelGenius used to create the PG profiles and that's the media settings you must use if you use our profiles.
As for the differences when changing media settings, the driver adjusts the platten gaps and the ink flow to the heads based on the media settings. Thus, with the EFP you should be using Luster with a platten gap of 5.
-
In Canada and Europe, those Epson divisions have decided to call the paper "Traditional Photo Paper" and their info sheets call for Premium Glossy as a media settings. Why? I don't know, but I think it's because they did actually TEST it and simply followed the suggestions of others. At Epson US, the paper was extensively tested and it was decided that the proper media settings to use was Luster 260 (or Luster in current printers). That's the media setting that PixelGenius used to create the PG profiles and that's the media settings you must use if you use our profiles.
As for the differences when changing media settings, the driver adjusts the platten gaps and the ink flow to the heads based on the media settings. Thus, with the EFP you should be using Luster with a platten gap of 5.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=164598\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Thank you for the clarification, Jeff.
Bruce
-
In Canada and Europe, those Epson divisions have decided to call the paper "Traditional Photo Paper" and their info sheets call for Premium Glossy as a media settings. Why? I don't know, but I think it's because they didn't actually TEST it and simply followed the suggestions of others. At Epson US, the paper was extensively tested and it was decided that the proper media settings to use was Luster 260 (or Luster in current printers). That's the media setting that PixelGenius used to create the PG profiles and that's the media settings you must use if you use our profiles.
As for the differences when changing media settings, the driver adjusts the platten gaps and the ink flow to the heads based on the media settings. Thus, with the EFP you should be using Luster with a platten gap of 5.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=164598\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Jeff:
On both my 9800 and 3800 the platen gap is either standard,wide, widest. ect. So a platen gap of 5 is what?
-
I think he means the paper thickness. Right above the platen gap setting (usually) is the paper thickness setting in units of .1mm. Set that to 5 (which therefore equals .5mm).
Aloha,
Aaron
-
Has anyone tried Eric Chan's EEFP profile for use with ABW mode in the 3800 driver (in order to use only black inks)? Just looking for comments on the output, while I wait to get my hands on the paper.
http://people.csail.mit.edu/ericchan/dp/Epson3800/index.html (http://people.csail.mit.edu/ericchan/dp/Epson3800/index.html)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=163858\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
For me this method has worked very well with EFP, using the instructions provided, with very satisfying screen to print matches. Eric has been most generous in making these profiles (for a range of papers) available with all the expertise and time that must have gone into making the program that generated them. I for one am most appreciative.
-
Can anyone tell me who is selling EEF in the UK please?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=164541\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Try phoning Calumet they have it on order
Robert
08706 03 03 03
website@calumetphoto.co.uk
-
I picked up a box of Exhibition Fiber 8.5 x 11 from Samy's Culver City, CA for my 3800 and am having exactly the same issue you are with the "micro cracks". I'm using the Pixel Genius ICC profile and following all instructions in the box and on the Pixel Genius site. There's a sticker on the back of my box with the number "700119" - who knows, that might be the batch number.
Although the cracks appear in every print I've run on this paper, they appear at slightly different densities and usually on either the left or right side of the image; not both at the same time.
Like dealy's experience, my 3800 prints like a charm on all my other stocks; be they glossy, luster, thick fine art rag, matte, etc. This is either a problem with the paper or instructions on how to print on it. Being I've tried all the suggestions users who aren't having problems with this paper have made and am still getting the cracks... my guess is there's a bad batch out there.
Here's the specs I'm using to print...
Epson Pro 3800 w/ clean print heads, purchased within the last week
8.5 x 11 Exhibition Fiber Paper
Tried both latest and shipped versions of print driver for OSX
Photoshop CS3 AdobeRGB 1998 ICC image profile
2880 Photo Fine
Pixel Genius 3800 EFP ICC Profile
Tried both Premium Lustre and Glossy settings
Tried both manual rear and sheet-feeder settings
Tried both standard and Paper Width of "5" paper types
Tried Black Point Compensation "on" and "off"
Tried Match Print Color "on" and "off"
Have "High Speed" turned off
Not letting the printer control any settings
... What a shame because, as far as I can tell, this would be the most amazing B&W print stock if it weren't for these ruinous cracks. For a moment I thought the artifacts could be intentional however there isn't a trace of them on the print samples at my local shop.
ryan@giantsteps.us
-
Got you. Yes, I see allot of people referencing Epson Premium Luster paper in both role and sheets. I take it that its Eposn's best Glossy paper and one of the best glossy papers in the market.
Makes sense now why you would call it luster on steroids. I got to wonder, though, with this paper offering so much is there a point of using matte paper anymore?
Thanks
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=164368\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
A bit off topic, but Epson Premium Luster has been one of my most used and favorite papers using 2200 and 7600 printers. I just got a 3800 printer and wanted to make 16"x24" prints using K3 inks, so I bought Inkjet Art's 17"x25" Ceramic Luster, and used both the Epson Luster profile, and Inkjet Art's free profile. Hard to tell the difference. In fact comparing 7"x10.5" prints of Epson Luster, and Inkjet Art Luster with the two different prifiles, all three are hard to tell apart, except under my small desk halogen light the Inkjet Art paper surface is noticicably whiter (Optical brighteners?). Again off topic, am I the only one seening value in 17"x25" size?
Dave in NJ
-
In Canada and Europe, those Epson divisions have decided to call the paper "Traditional Photo Paper"
Hi Jeff,
Do you know whether the paper sold in the US and in Europe are manufactured in the same place ? I had reported a couple a weeks ago on this forum how I had found that the ICC profile downloaded from the French Epson website was significantly more accurate for colour work than the PG one when printing on French-bought ""Epson Traditional Photo Paper. Since this was surprising, I was wondering whether there might be a certain level of variation between the US paper and the European one.
Thanks,
Franck
The post was there: http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....topic=21347&hl= (http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=21347&hl=)
Here's the quote:
I just put my hand on a box of "Epson Traditional Photo Paper" in Paris. I thought it would be the same as the "Epson Exhibition Fiber Paper". I tested it with a color image and the profile I downloaded from the Epson website. The soft proof was reasonably accurate (not incredibly great but not bad for a canned profile). I am printing from CS3 and let Photoshop do the color management.
I then printed the same image with the Pixel Genius profile. I was surprised to notice that the result is significantly worst, there is actually quite a strong yellow color cast.
Either I don't know what I am doing (but I have become reasonably competent at this and usually don't have this kind of problem) or maybe the papers are actually different ? The product id on my box is S045050 whereas the product id for the "Epson Exhibition Fiber Paper" on the US website is S045033. My paper was manufactured in Switzerland.
I am puzzled...
-
Do you know whether the paper sold in the US and in Europe are manufactured in the same place ?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=164876\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Nope...not yet. Still waiting for a response from Epson...
-
Hi Jeff,
Do you know whether the paper sold in the US and in Europe are manufactured in the same place ? I had reported a couple a weeks ago on this forum how I had found that the ICC profile downloaded from the French Epson website was significantly more accurate for colour work than the PG one when printing on French-bought ""Epson Traditional Photo Paper. Since this was surprising, I was wondering whether there might be a certain level of variation between the US paper and the European one.
Thanks,
Franck
The post was there: http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....topic=21347&hl= (http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=21347&hl=)
Here's the quote:
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=164876\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Yesterday I tried the profile from the Epson France site for "Traditional Photo Paper" and I would have to concurr that for the particular images I was printing it gave a more accurate screen to print match on my 3800 than the PG profile. This was most apparent for B&W printing where there is a notable color cast using the latter profile, something that surprised me and that ultimately led me to use Eric Chan's ICC profile for the Epson ABW driver which gives really satisfying results. It would be good to know if we are talking about the same paper.
-
Anyone try this or one of the other new next gen papers with an Epson 2200?
Thanks,
gh
-
I spoke to Epson Tech Support today regarding the "micro-cracks" issue on the Exhibition Fiber Paper; which another poster and myself have been experiencing. They said that, while occurrences are rare, they are aware of the problem via prior reports and it is the paper. I've been directed to get a replacement from the retail vendor however Epson said they will replace the product for me in any event the vendor won't honor the transaction.
I don't expect any issue with the replacement, Epson support has been helpful in the matter and I'm just following up to make folks aware of the situation so they don't think there's a problem with their printer or setup.
I'm really forward to printing on this paper without the artifacts; because in absence of them it's the nicest paper (at least for B&W) I've seen 3800 inkjet prints on.
Ryan Thompson
www.giantsteps.us
-
Ryan,
Well its good to hear that Epson is aware of the problem, and at least will make it right be sending us replacements. I hope that this issue doesn't come up again if I by a box of 17x22.
Derek
I spoke to Epson Tech Support today regarding the "micro-cracks" issue on the Exhibition Fiber Paper; which another poster and myself have been experiencing. They said that, while occurrences are rare, they are aware of the problem via prior reports and it is the paper. I've been directed to get a replacement from the retail vendor however Epson said they will replace the product for me in any event the vendor won't honor the transaction.
I don't expect any issue with the replacement, Epson support has been helpful in the matter and I'm just following up to make folks aware of the situation so they don't think there's a problem with their printer or setup.
I'm really forward to printing on this paper without the artifacts; because in absence of them it's the nicest paper (at least for B&W) I've seen 3800 inkjet prints on.
Ryan Thompson
www.giantsteps.us
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=165102\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
Finally, I can confirm the "micro crack" issue was simply a bad batch of paper, as Epson suspected. Samy's Culver City (CA) replaced my box of 8.5 x 11 today and I'm printing gorgeous B&W on it with no artifacts in sight. Now I can say this paper rocks!
BTW - Eric Chan's EEF ABW ICC Profiles at...
http://people.csail.mit.edu/ericchan/dp/Ep...bwprofiles.html (http://people.csail.mit.edu/ericchan/dp/Epson3800/abwprofiles.html)
... produce results damn close to my Macbook Pro LCD; and that's just with my eyeball-setup monitor profile! His FAQ and other material on the 3800 is packed with great info, although the ABW profile printing instructions are a little confusing. I think he might accidentally be linking to a page that forgets to tell you to turn on the ABW driver when using his profile... either that or I made a lucky mistake.
Ryan Thompson
www.giantsteps.us
-
In Canada and Europe, those Epson divisions have decided to call the paper "Traditional Photo Paper" and their info sheets call for Premium Glossy as a media settings. ....
I'm not sure it's the same paper, since the weight of the Traditional Photo Paper is quoted as 330gsm, while the EEP is 325gsm. Maybe an official of Epson can clarify this?
-
I have heard from Jim Doyle at shadesofpaper that Epson is currently testing three ROLLS of the Epson Exhibition Fiber paper to see if it is possible to offer it in rolls. here's hoping! eleanor
-
deleted
-
I'm not sure it's the same paper, since the weight of the Traditional Photo Paper is quoted as 330gsm, while the EEP is 325gsm. Maybe an official of Epson can clarify this?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=165587\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
It would be helpful if this matter could be clarified.