Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Printing: Printers, Papers and Inks => Topic started by: Lewis_Levin on January 28, 2008, 11:47:31 pm
-
Like everyone else, I’ve been looking forward to the new baryta papers (and Epson’s non-baryta work alike). I waited until I could get all five of the new papers to try them. To cut to the chase, the Harman Gloss FB outclasses the pack, especially if you like a low-sheen completely smooth paper—a refined glossy, in so many words. If you prefer the slight stipple of “luster” or “semigloss,” then look no further than Ilford Galerie Gold Fibre Silk. The oft-maligned Innova Fibaprint Ultasmooth Glossy delivers a surprisingly decent 3rd place performance. Epson Exhibition Fiber can’t hold a candle to the best two baryta papers. And Hahnemuhle Fineart Baryta 325 is even worse than Epson.
It’s interesting how enamored the “fine art” printers have been of these papers. While wonderful warmth and texture have been achieved on the specially coated matte papers with rag (cotton) or non-lignin fiber bases, many photographers seem to have turned up their noses at printing on plastic sheets—the coated resin-based papers. Some of the astonished remarks from “fine art” printers about these papers may reflect their prior rejection of any resin-based glossy papers. There have been glossy papers with paper bases in the past, but until now these lacked the sharpness and color gamut of the RC papers.
New coatings with baryta (barium hydroxide) or aluminum oxide can match the RC papers, but on a real paper base. Now that glossy is newly acceptable, it is interesting to compare the new coatings to the most interesting of the “old” RC papers: Epson Premium Semigloss (or Semimatte roll, but I was too lazy to do all the prints on roll paper) and Pictorico Photo Glossy Paper—one of the few ceramic particle coated papers on a paper base (this is not the ultra high gloss Pictorico Film with the Cibachrome-like gloss). The best of the new papers—Harman and Ilford—are wonderful, but not so astonishing when you go back to look at Epson Premium Semigloss—if only it didn’t have “Epson” water-marked on the back.
I only profiled 3 of the papers myself with an Eye-One and Gretag ProfileMaker 5. I compared the gamut of Harman Gloss, Ilford Gold, and Innova Ultrasmooth to Epson Semigloss and Epson Luster. Visually, Harman Gloss has a larger gamut overall, especially in highlights and a bit in the deepest shadows. Ilford covers slightly more of the dark end of L (in L*a*b ). The RC papers extend marginally further into cyan and magenta (and Luster covers marginally more light yellow), but otherwise have smaller gamuts. Epson Exhibition Fiber, based on Pixel Genius’s profile, has the smallest of all the gamuts. Actually, Hahnemuhle’s gamut appears even smaller, but I attribute that to a poorly made profile supplied by the manufacturer.
What follows is an impressionistic evaluation of the 5 papers based on printing the same images on all five papers using the manufacturer provided profiles for the Epson 4800.
1. Harman Gloss FB Al
- Very white: not as white-blue as Epson and somewhat more white than Ilford
- Smooth “flat” sheen: no stipple, some just discernible smoothed texture
- Even, low-glare sheen: less reflective than Epson, but smooth without stipple so more like a true glossy but without the hard mirror shine of some RC glossies
- Least glare from light at an angle
- Just about completely indiscernible gloss differential
- Sharpest even printing at 1440 “Superfine” setting (except compared to resin-based papers): no detail lost through ink spread
- US$1.56 / sheet: 50 8.5x11” sheets for US$77.95 (Atlex)
2. Ilford Galerie Gold Fibre Silk
- Natural white: a mimimal “parchment” coloration, but only when compared directly to papers containing optical brightening agents (OBA)
- Very fine, evenly distributed stipple
- Subdued sheen, not reflective—close to Epson Semigloss with slightly less sheen
- Some glare from light at an angle, but not objectionable because of the fineness of the texture and subdued sheen
- Some gloss differential in areas of paper white within images, just this side of indiscernible in blacks
- 2nd sharpest (printed at 2880 printer settting)
- US$.80 / sheet: 50 8.5x11” sheets for US$39.95 (BH Photo)
3. Innova Fibaprint Ultrasmooth Gloss
- Very bright white, but slightly green compared to Epson (it’s not green—just marginally towards green when placed next to Epson)
- Not exactly a stipple and not as evenly smooth as Harman: like a stipple that has been partially “rolled” smooth
- Just as reflective and shiny as Epson but with less stipple, so “glint” is marginally less noticeable than Epson
- Glare less than Ilford
- Gloss differential less than Ilford
- Tied with Ilford for sharpness
- US$1.91 / sheet: 25 8.5x11” sheets for US$47.81 (BH Photo)
4. Epson Exhibition Fiber Paper
- Bright white: the most “blue white” of all of these papers
- Fine, even distributed stipple: less than Premium Luster and more than Premium Semigloss
- Very reflective sheen—like a mirror glossy but with stipple, unlike Luster and Semigloss; “reflective with bumps”
- Glare from light at an angle equivalent to Ilford, but more uneven
- Gloss differential equivalent to Harman
- Pixel Genius’ profile reveals amazing shadow detail because the darks don’t load up
- US$1.75 / sheet: 25 8.5x11” sheets for US$43.80 (Atlex)
5. Hahnemuhle FineArt Baryta 325
- Very bright white, 2nd only to Epson
- Evenly distributed stipple, but bumpier than Epson and much bumpier than Ilford
- Ink on the paper makes the paper look almost like a microscopic canvas because the layer of ink exaggerates the bumpiness
- Thickest of all the papers
- Worst glare from light at an angle
- Gloss differential equivalent to Harman in paper white, but somewhat more in blacks
- Mfgr. supplied profile is minutely lighter than the others, which improves shadows with no disadvantage to mids and highs (despite smaller gamut)
- Hahnemuhle recommends 1440 printing “resolution”: through 10X loupe this reduces sharpness but even staring closely from 10” this isn’t noticeable
- US$1.49 / sheet: US$29.70 for 20 8.5x11” sheets (BH Photo)
6. The RC comparison
- Pictorico Photo Glossy Paper and Epson Premium Semigloss are sharper yet than Harman, but only negligibly—there’s not much farther to go—after all, it’s ink on paper.
- Epson Premium Semigloss is almost a dead heat with #2 ranked Ilford; Ilford is slightly warmer and has slightly less sheen
Over the years, I’ve tried nearly any paper that promised some distinct benefit—and I’ve then cut way back to using only 2 or 3 papers that represent best of a certain class of paper because it’s just not worth the cost and difficulty to frequently switch papers for marginal or no benefit. So many people looked forward to the Epson and Hahnemuhle papers, but I find myself very disappointed in them. They just don’t look good to me--the problem is the surface. The combination of highly reflective surface with pronounced texture seems unlike any other photo surface--and not in a good way.
Harman Gloss FB Al is the best paper in this evaluation. It really is unprecedented. It offers the gamut and sharpness of rc papers with less gloss differential than rc glossies. It has a wonderfully muted sheen that offers the impact of a glossy print without the mirror brashness of rc glossies. Ilford Gold Fibre Silk is the best value of the lot and is nearly a dead ringer for Epson Semigloss, with a slight warmth and reduced sheen. These are both really superb papers. These are the two for me.
-
Thanks for taking the time to post your impressions of these papers. I have used the Harman and the Ilford papers (with an Epson R1800) and have been pretty impressed by both of them. For surface appearance, the Harman paper gets my vote...and how I wish its pricing were more like Ilford's. Both of them bring back that darkroom experience for a moment (they really do smell like enlarging papers -- the Ilford, especially.
I found to my surprise that the Gold Fiber Silk produced noticeably more vibrant reds and yellows than the Harman paper. I made a custom profile (X-Rite Pulse system) for the Harman gloss but haven't yet been able to make a custom profile for the Ilford paper -- more about that below. Perhaps the difference I'm seeing is due to my Harman profile not being good enough (I'm new to do-it-yourself paper profiling and I don't know yet how best to evaluate how good a job I've done...or how to correct errors afterward via profile editing).
My impression of how image detail is rendered with the papers is the reverse of what you observed. This surprised me because I would have thought that the Ilford surface would reduce rather than enhance the effect. Prints on the Gold Fiber Silk seem to be ever so slightly sharper (the sharpening-for-print settings are identical in all these tests).
So far I've been able to make only a few prints successfully on the Ilford paper due to its having a very strong curl toward the back side. The trailing 1/3 of the paper bows upward enough to come into contact with the print heads, and there's smearing and streaking. The prints are ruined. I was able to get a few prints in which this didn't happen, though -- otherwise, I'd have simply given up on the Ilford paper altogether.
I did give up profiling it for now -- there were simply too many prints ruined due to the paper-curl problem. With that strong a reverse curl, printing on 13x19 paper would be a disaster, every time. Recently I complained to Ilford's tech support department about this. They replied, saying they were aware of the paper-curl problem and said they were working on a fix. I asked afterward if they had an ETA for the fix -- alas, they didn't reply.
With printers having an adjustable gap, this might not be a problem at all. The R1800 doesn't seem to provide such an adjustment, so no joy there. This kind of paper-curl problem would be utterly unacceptable in an enlarging paper! The easel blades would not be able to hold the paper flat and focusing the projected image would be impossible (short of using a vacuum easel).
Another problem with the Ilford paper has been that it is highly susceptible to finger-marks -- more so than any other inkjet paper I've used. Of course it's a good idea to handle paper extra-carefully, including handling it while wearing cotton gloves. But still -- the paper seemed abnormally easy to mar this way. I got around it, sort of, by having the R1800 coat the entire surface with its gloss optimizer. (The trade-off is that this "knocks down" the highlights ever so slightly.) I have wondered about how the delicacy of the surface can be worked around if someone is using a printer whose inks have the gloss-optimizer chemistry within the ink droplets themselves (thus, no coating for the entire surface at print-time). Would all prints have to be sprayed to protect them? Opinions vary about the need for such sprays...IAC I would be irritated if I had to spray every print to avoid this problem.
If I can figure out how to improve the vibrance of reds and yellows on the Harman paper, I'd be glad to standardize on it. But despite the finger-mark problem with the Gold Fiber Silk -- if Ilford really can solve that unpleasant reverse-curl problem, it will also be one I'll want to use.
Who knows -- maybe competition between these companies will drive down the price of the Harman paper a bit.
-
So far I've been able to make only a few prints successfully on the Ilford paper due to its having a very strong curl toward the back side. The trailing 1/3 of the paper bows upward enough to come into contact with the print heads, and there's smearing and streaking. The prints are ruined. I was able to get a few prints in which this didn't happen, though -- otherwise, I'd have simply given up on the Ilford paper altogether.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=170517\")
Hi!
Have you tried straightening the curl before printing? I had the same problem when printing on Ilford Smooth Fine Art paper but solved it simply by de-curling it with a similar device that Michael reviewed in [a href=\"http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/accessories/d-roller.shtml]http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/.../d-roller.shtml[/url]
Cheers,
J
-
Regarding the lack of vibrance in the yellows and reds on the Harman Gloss FB Al paper ... I found that's an issue when using the original Harman profile provided on their own website. I downloaded another profile from Booksmart Studio for my printer (which is an Epson Stylus Pro 3800; see http://www.booksmartstudio.com/) (http://www.booksmartstudio.com/)), and that yields more vibrant yellows and reds---and thus, more vivid (but still natural) skin tones, for example. However in very saturated areas, the Booksmart Studio profile will yield slightly less differentiated hues.
Bottom line, generally I prefer the Booksmart Studio profile over the Harman profile; it has better shadow rendition too (albeit by a very small margin). Some of the Booksmart Studio printer ICC profiles are free, some cost a few bucks---the one for Harman Gloss FB Al on Epson 3800, for instance, is $4.00 US. See their "Canned ICC profiles" section.
-- Olaf
-
Thanks for all of the comments.
Interesting POV about Ilford detail. I didn't see the curling problem or the fingerprint problem. Wonder if batches are different.
I saw terrible curling on the Moab colorado baryta paper--wouldn't even print, but other posters said that they have subsequently fixed it.
Profiling is hard and very dependent on both the software and the target. I have used Bill Atkinson's 1728 patch target (he admits that the bigger target is only essential for problem situations) with ProfileMaker and produced really good profiles. The 1728 [atch target resulted in larger gamut profile than the mfgr. supplied profile.
-
I'm surprised at your assessment of the Harman paper, I found it to be the glossiest and most reflective fiber paper I've tried, which combined with the extremely smooth surface gives a look and feel very similar to RC glossy paper.
The sharpness of prints on the Harman is pretty amazing, I just don't like the feel and surface of the paper.
-
Have you tried straightening the curl before printing? I had the same problem when printing on Ilford Smooth Fine Art paper but solved it simply by de-curling it with a similar device that Michael reviewed in http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/.../d-roller.shtml (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/accessories/d-roller.shtml)
I did try something rudimentary -- it didn't involve using an anti-curl device -- but didn't succeed in removing the curl enough to prevent the problem within the printer. I can wait a while ... perhaps Ilford will be able to fix the manufacturing defect.
-
Regarding the lack of vibrance in the yellows and reds on the Harman Gloss FB Al paper ... I found that's an issue when using the original Harman profile provided on their own website.
Hmm. I saw this difference when I was using the profile I'd made. I guess it indicates that I haven't made a good profile. (Making them is fairly easy with this equipment. But how to customize them later on and improve them...no clue...)
I've noticed some slight improvements in shadow detail with the profiles I've made myself, but no matter -- I'll download the Booksmart profile you're talking about and give it a try. Thanks for mentioning it.
-
Lewis,
Thank you for the long post. I appreciate your observations.
You have to realize though that your conclusions are rather subjective. I have not tried the Ilford yet. My ranking in terms of my preference, though, would be the Epson first, Hahnemuhle second, then the Harman, and finally the Innova. I find the Harman too smooth, flat, and "dead", while the texture of the Epson and Hahnemuhle brings some life to the image.
I agree on limiting and standardizing on your materials. I printed for at least 3 year using only Epson Preumium Luster and Epson Premium Semi-Matte in rolls. The Luster, for me, has just a bit too much surface texture, but the Semi-matte is not available in smaller sizes. The papers you mentioned above do offer significant, if subtle, improvements over those media.
I just printed the same image on at least 22 different surfaces to test a new printer (7880), inks, profiles, etc. When you have all of those image together the differences between most become subtle! (Plus there are a few dogs where you still wonder how you screwed up even after profiling and testing with both blacks. )
Best,
Michael
-
Interesting POV about Ilford detail. I didn't see the curling problem or the fingerprint problem. Wonder if batches are different.
Considering differences reported here w.r.t. paper curl, I'd have to guess there is noticeable variation between batches.
Profiling: I suppose the only way to get a clue about the effects of profile editing is to load one of them into the editor, boost the reds and yellows (if that is possible; I haven't been brave enough to dive into the editor yet) and see what happens.
-
Lewis -- I noticed your mentioning Pictorico's high-gloss white film. I used that product with huge satisfaction when I had a printer that used dye inks. Though I once hated ferrotyped photographic papers, I could live with the Pictorico surface in trade for the fascinating way in which it "took" the image (and the superior d-max, which I have yet to produce in other papers -- that Pictorico black was black, not dark-dark grey). But when I switched to a pigment-ink printer, the effect I would see with the dye-based ink was lost in the gloss film. Have you used the film successfuly with pigment-ink printers?
After Pictorico moved under Mitsubishi's umbrella, the film got the word "Pro" in its name and the cut sheets doubled in price -- was $20/20 sheets of 8.5x11; now about $40/20 sheets. It was expensive before...but 2X is a BIG jump. Pictorico has done a strange thing, too: they have withdrawn all of their profiles (that I know of). It's a strange approach to marketing professional inkjet material -- double the price...and yet no profiles (not even a starting-point).
Pictorico claims on its site that Wilhelm labs rates the film at "100 years" with Epson pigment inks*. I have yet to find a report (or one-liner, or whatever) to that effect on Wilhelm's site. The short blurb about this on the Pictorico site doesn't provide a URL for the report. When I have asked Pictorico for more information, they have not replied...
* www.pictorico.com/articles/Wilhelm3.pdf
-
Lewis, if I read your notes correctly, it seems that the 2 papers you did not craete a custom profile for are ranked at the bottom of your list.
I wonder if that (probably) small difference in quality was enough to influence the rankings? Just a thought.
Best,
Michael
-
Lewis, if I read your notes correctly, it seems that the 2 papers you did not craete a custom profile for are ranked at the bottom of your list.
I wonder if that (probably) small difference in quality was enough to influence the rankings? Just a thought.
Best,
Michael
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=170777\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Certainly my impressions are entirely subjective.
No, my subjective ranking has little to do with the profiles. Image quality is very good on all of these papers. My reaction is based primarily on the surface, which is the most subjective element of all.
-
Interesting reading, thanks for taking the time to write it up.
I've used the Ilford Gold with my Epson R1800 and had the same issue with the head strikes at the end of the print. It seems to me that the issue is the amount of ink being laid down towards the end of the print that is causing it to curl up. I had a wedding print I was trying to do at 13x19 and it kept hitting. I set the printer for thick paper and it still hit. I finally turned the photo upside down in PS and got a successful print out of it. The guys in black suits were on the right side of the picture so I had them print out first instead of last. The women were in light colored dresses so not as much ink was laid down and the head didn't hit anymore. De-curling first might help also but the paper was flat going into the printer and didn't show any curl before printing. YMMV
-
I use an Epson 3800 for non-matte printing so I don't know the 1800. I'm having no curl or head-strike problems with Ilford GFS in the 3800 whatsoever; however, for a paper of the thickness of Innova Fibragloss Type F, it is necessary to adjust the platen gap from Standard to Wide. If the 1800 has such a platen gap adjustment this may be the solution. By the way, I don't notice curl in the Ilford GFS sheets (13*19 inch) going through the printer. Once printed, I let them cure standing in wire racks for 24 hours after printing, where they develop a slight curl which flattens as soon as they stored in a portfolio box. As for fingerprints - yes it is an issue and requires handling them at the edges. It is also quite sensitive to minor abrasions. In this regard, I think the Hahn-325 has a tougher surface, but at amost twice the price I'll use the Ilford and handle it a bit carefully.
Lewis, these Baryta papers are made with Barium Sulphate, not Barium Hydroxide.
The interesting thing about all this discussion of paper surface and gloss differential is that when you look at the prints under an angle of lighting that maximizes image detail and minimizes sheen, you see neither the paper texture nor the gloss differential - only the image, which is as it should be. Then all which matters is gamut, paper tone and retention of image detail. As I don't examine prints under a loupe, differences of the latter between these papers is moot. I think Michael's comments on dMax and gamut differentials (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/printers/baryta.shtml) are correct. As for tone, people who like a slight warm bias will really like the Ilford GFS, while those who prefer a slightly cooler look would opt for the Hahn-325, Epson EFP, or Harman.
-
I don't think the R1800 has a platen gap adjustment. If it does then shame on me -- a RTFM problem on my part.
As for fingerprints - yes it is an issue and requires handling them at the edges.
As with the paper-curl problem, it's interesting that some people have reported no problems with finger-marking, which again suggests possible considerable variation from batch to batch. The R1800's gloss-optimizer, if laid down over the entire sheet, seems to help with this. No such coating available with printers using K3 inks (as I understand it). Break out the cotton gloves, then...
The interesting thing about all this discussion of paper surface and gloss differential is that when you look at the prints under an angle of lighting that maximizes image detail and minimizes sheen, you see neither the paper texture nor the gloss differential
Agreed. A fine-art printer I know cannot stand to work with papers whose surfaces he despises. I mentioned that when a print is framed and under glass -- how noticeable is the surface -- or the gloss differential (if slight)? In the end, do these things matter a lot? This got no "traction," though. When I used a printer with dye-based inks, I could even tolerate Pictorico's super-high-gloss film surface in trade for the gratifyingly strong black- and the unusual -- in a good way -- appearance of the image on the film -- once the print was framed, that is. (In a previous incarnation I loathed ferrotyped surfaces with a passion.)
- Best I've seen so far. No other inkjet media I've used even come close.
-
I don't think the R1800 has a platen gap adjustment. If it does then shame on me -- a RTFM problem on my part.
As with the paper-curl problem, it's interesting that some people have reported no problems with finger-marking, which again suggests possible considerable variation from batch to batch. The R1800's gloss-optimizer, if laid down over the entire sheet, seems to help with this. No such coating available with printers using K3 inks (as I understand it). Break out the cotton gloves, then...
Agreed. A fine-art printer I know cannot stand to work with papers whose surfaces he despises. I mentioned that when a print is framed and under glass -- how noticeable is the surface -- or the gloss differential (if slight)? In the end, do these things matter a lot? This got no "traction," though. When I used a printer with dye-based inks, I could even tolerate Pictorico's super-high-gloss film surface in trade for the gratifyingly strong black- and the unusual -- in a good way -- appearance of the image on the film -- once the print was framed, that is. (In a previous incarnation I loathed ferrotyped surfaces with a passion.)
- Best I've seen so far. No other inkjet media I've used even come close.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=172085\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I've read this about the Ilford GSF--the fingerprinting, but though I've only printed the sample pack, mine have cured pretty well and I don't seem to have that problem. Nor did I have a 'curl' problem with 8.5 x 11 and the 3800 while printing--no head strikes, etc. I did set my platen gap wider as well as increased the paper thickiness however.
The EEF and Ilford are the least flat (as opposed to the Harman and my older Innova White Semi Matte)---but its so slight its hardly noticeable and if I put them in a portfolio box, I don't think you would ever notice it. Its the paper I'm leaning toward now--I prefer the slightly warmer tone and find the GD almost a nonissue under glass (at least for the samples I've printed--mono and color), no bronzing, and I like the surface and weight (and price LOL).
Diane
-
Well, once again it seems like a Varies From Batch To Batch sort of thing. I just got e-mail from a friend whose experiences with paper curling were the opposite of mine -- the Ilford paper is nice and flat, and it's the Harman paper that has quite a curl. Here the Harman paper lies almost flat as a board. It's a "go figure" kinda world.
> I like the surface and weight (and price LOL).
I'm not crazy for the Ilford surface -- but under glass, it'd be a non-issue. With both the Harman and Ilford papers there's slight gloss differential, and slight bronzing -- add some gloss optimizer and all that seems to disappear. But again, under glass -- both seem to be non-issues.
I do appreciate the lower price of the Ilford paper. Of course if I printed for exhibition this would not be such a factor. But nope. I print mostly to irritate myself. :-)
-
Well, once again it seems like a Varies From Batch To Batch sort of thing. I just got e-mail from a friend whose experiences with paper curling were the opposite of mine -- the Ilford paper is nice and flat, and it's the Harman paper that has quite a curl. Here the Harman paper lies almost flat as a board. It's a "go figure" kinda world.
> I like the surface and weight (and price LOL).
I'm not crazy for the Ilford surface -- but under glass, it'd be a non-issue. With both the Harman and Ilford papers there's slight gloss differential, and slight bronzing -- add some gloss optimizer and all that seems to disappear. But again, under glass -- both seem to be non-issues.
I do appreciate the lower price of the Ilford paper. Of course if I printed for exhibition this would not be such a factor. But nope. I print mostly to irritate myself. :-)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=172103\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I think the K3 inks on even the Epson luster papers show a lot less GD and really no bronzing than the Ultrachrome (my 2200)--may be why I'm seeing less than the 1800. Then again, maybe this is some of the differentiation in the papers--different inks, gloss optimizer with some printers, etc. Who knows--interesting though. Sometimes I read this forum and others about these papers and think we aren't even talking about the same papers.
Diane
-
I gave up on trying to print color photographic images on these papers with K3-photo black ink, just too much differential reflection and dichroic bronzing. I'm printing with an Epson 1400 with Claria ink now, and prints look like real color photographic prints.
I've found the Innova Ultrasmooth gloss to have the whitest base, actually a tiny bit red, but the Harman gloss has the nicest surface, though a little yellowish, which is worrisome for the long term. Another negative is that it takes a lot of ink to get sufficient contrast with the Harman, which increases printing costs.
The Hahnemühle Fine Art surface is awful, looks like it's spatter sprayed! I haven't tried the Epson Exhibition Fiber, it's way too expensive. Epson's not a paper company anyway.
No perfect papers for me yet, and I'm uncertain as to whether Epson will get a brain and introduce a larger printer for the Claria ink, and leave paper to paper companies. They remind me of Microsoft, trying to get their fingers in everything, even areas outside of their expertise.
-
You may be interested to know that Epson does not manufacture its own paper. This is done by specialist paper manufacturers.
Furthermore, if a paper is specified to work particularly well with the K3 inkset, that is not an assurance it will work equaly well with Claria or other inks - Claria is a dye-based ink and these papers have most likely been optimized for pigmented inks. If you are finding the results with Claria unsatisfactory, you should bring this to the attention of Ilford or Hahn's tech support and see what they say about it.
-
I don't think the R1800 has a platen gap adjustment. If it does then shame on me -- a RTFM problem on my part.
It has a thick paper setting, is that similar to a platen gap adjustment?
-
MarkDS, interesting that you mention that. I emailed Epson's support about why they didn't mention Claria ink for their paper, but of course got no response. The bottom line is that pigment inks were introduced a few years ago because dye inks at the time were not very stable. Now with the Claria ink, which uses complex dye molecules rated at 98 years on display by Henry Wilhelm, better than pigment inks, there is finally the answer for color photographic printing that pigment ink printers can't satisfy. Pigment inks are good for fine art reproduction of paintings and watercolors, the colorants of which use pigments, and even black and white photographs with Epson's Advanced black and white (small gamut), as silver prints are made up of silver particles similar to pigments, but they don't work for color photographic prints.
Actually Mark I said that prints made with Claria inks are way better than prints made with pigment inks. How did you miss that? Perhaps I forgot to mention that the image on the Hahnemühle looked fine, but the surface of the paper sucked, no matter how it was printed. I never mentioned Ilford either. Obviously Epson's papers are made by other companies, I don't know what that has to do with the exorbitant cost for the Exhibition Fiber. Try reading posts and understanding what's being said, so your replies make sense.
-
I said that prints made with Claria inks are way better than prints made with pigment inks.
I know nothing yet about this new line of Claria inks. For a while there it was pigmentpigmentpigmentpigment. Dye-based inks -- no, not for professionals, not for people who take print longevity seriously. That's kid's-stuff. Thing of the past! Think pigmentpigmentpigmentpigment! And now, "suddenly": dye-based ink again. And what does it offer? "Rich, vibrant colors." "Long print life." (Or whatever the ad copy du jour says.)
And of course that's the claim for the pigment-based inks, too.
Ok, why? What is this about, anyway? Does the new ink offer some significant advantage over pigment-based inks? Are the printers that use the Claria ink somehow "better"? If every road leads to "rich, vibrant colors" and "long print life," then why one over the other? Five years from now, will the Epson printers that are the size (and price) of a compact car all be using dye-based inks again? Is this new ink just some kind of marketing gimmick, or a serious leap forward?
Though the Epson 1280 was a huge pain in the neck (endless head-clogging) there were times when I got d-max, especially on Pictorico gloss film -- better than anything I've seen with the Ultrachrome ink (I haven't used K3 inks, though). And that despite the endless published figures for d-max with this, that, and the other paper/pigment-ink combination. Numbers, schmumbers -- there it was in front of me: honest-to-godfrey _black_ in the shadows. Wow, just like a "real" print.
So the black was deep and intense with that film product. And then again, there were crappy batches of dye-based inks that caused the prints to turn orange-y in a short time (it was no urban legend -- saw it with me own eyes). I have no idea how well the Claria inks work with the film but it would certainly be rewarding to get that dense a black in prints again. (Although Pictorico's having _doubled_ the price of the film, overnight, pretty well knocks it out of the ballpark for me.)
In what respects have the prints made with Claria ink seemed better than prints made with Epson's current crop of pigment inks? Brighter colors? Larger gamut? Better blacks? Cheaper by the picoliter? And then there's can we really know at this point what kind of print life we'll have with the new non-Epson papers, and any type of ink, when there aren't yet any published figures (per Wilhelm or whoever else)?
-
The stability of prints made with Claria inks on papers Wilhelm has not published tests of yet will in my estimation be quite good. After all, the papers we are discussing here aren't specifically rated for pigment inks either. Prints look better than Crystal Archive prints, for example, image wise, but on much better paper, and more long lasting also.
Canon also has a high stability dye inkset probably (Wilhelm is testing) called ChromaLife100. If enough people put pressure on Epson and Canon to market larger printers using these new high stability dye inks, we'll finally have the ideal solution for color photographic prints. No more bronzing, no more differential reflection, just beautiful prints.
-
I know nothing yet about this new line of Claria inks. For a while there it was pigmentpigmentpigmentpigment. Dye-based inks -- no, not for professionals, not for people who take print longevity seriously. That's kid's-stuff. Thing of the past! Think pigmentpigmentpigmentpigment! And now, "suddenly": dye-based ink again. And what does it offer? "Rich, vibrant colors." "Long print life." (Or whatever the ad copy du jour says.)
And of course that's the claim for the pigment-based inks, too.
And then there's can we really know at this point what kind of print life we'll have with the new non-Epson papers, and any type of ink, when there aren't yet any published figures (per Wilhelm or whoever else)?
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=172653\")
[a href=\"http://www.wilhelm-research.com/epson/WIR_EpR280_2008_01_16.pdf]http://www.wilhelm-research.com/epson/WIR_..._2008_01_16.pdf[/url]
http://www.wilhelm-research.com/epson/WIR_..._2007_12_28.pdf (http://www.wilhelm-research.com/epson/WIR_Ep_R2400_2007_12_28.pdf)
and where you read "now in test" or "still in test" it can be "not fit for publishing". Ozone tests tend to be filled with those terms. Ozone fading is more prone to happen in unframed matte prints and (much) less in RC papers unframed. If you read the Epson docs on Claria it is not always that clear it is a dye, more likely a pigment ink with particles that are so small and open that they are close to dye. Inkjet dye and pigment are quite related so there's no hard boundary at the categories.
There's no test yet of any of the Fiber/Baryta papers with any ink other than some vague manufacturer's numbers.
Image Engineering in Germany has some other independent tests but no Claria yet.
Ernst Dinkla
try: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/ (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/)
-
It has a thick paper setting, is that similar to a platen gap adjustment?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=172625\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Most likely - try it and see what happens - only a bit of time and a sheet of paper.
-
Try reading posts and understanding what's being said, so your replies make sense.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=172646\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Sorry, I don't respond to keyboard warriors spewing out blanket generalizations to attack the general credibility of any members. That kind of attitude may have a home in some other forums, but not here. However, I'll limit this to two observations: (1) the intent of my suggestion in this thread is simply to point out that not all inksets and media are necessarily well-mated to eachother and (2) the question raised about the relative merits of Claria vs. K3 is an interesting one in its own right and deserves some intelligent FACT-finding, to the extent feasible.
-
I know nothing yet about this new line of Claria inks. For a while there it was pigmentpigmentpigmentpigment. Dye-based inks -- no, not for professionals, not for people who take print longevity seriously. That's kid's-stuff. Thing of the past! Think pigmentpigmentpigmentpigment! And now, "suddenly": dye-based ink again. And what does it offer? "Rich, vibrant colors." "Long print life." (Or whatever the ad copy du jour says.)
And of course that's the claim for the pigment-based inks, too.
Ok, why? What is this about, anyway? Does the new ink offer some significant advantage over pigment-based inks? Are the printers that use the Claria ink somehow "better"? If every road leads to "rich, vibrant colors" and "long print life," then why one over the other? Five years from now, will the Epson printers that are the size (and price) of a compact car all be using dye-based inks again? Is this new ink just some kind of marketing gimmick, or a serious leap forward?
Though the Epson 1280 was a huge pain in the neck (endless head-clogging) there were times when I got d-max, especially on Pictorico gloss film -- better than anything I've seen with the Ultrachrome ink (I haven't used K3 inks, though). And that despite the endless published figures for d-max with this, that, and the other paper/pigment-ink combination. Numbers, schmumbers -- there it was in front of me: honest-to-godfrey _black_ in the shadows. Wow, just like a "real" print.
So the black was deep and intense with that film product. And then again, there were crappy batches of dye-based inks that caused the prints to turn orange-y in a short time (it was no urban legend -- saw it with me own eyes). I have no idea how well the Claria inks work with the film but it would certainly be rewarding to get that dense a black in prints again. (Although Pictorico's having _doubled_ the price of the film, overnight, pretty well knocks it out of the ballpark for me.)
In what respects have the prints made with Claria ink seemed better than prints made with Epson's current crop of pigment inks? Brighter colors? Larger gamut? Better blacks? Cheaper by the picoliter? And then there's can we really know at this point what kind of print life we'll have with the new non-Epson papers, and any type of ink, when there aren't yet any published figures (per Wilhelm or whoever else)?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=172653\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Hi Mike,
It is very interesting that the same developer of both Claria and K3 has chosen to stick with K3 for their most recent and most-likely forthcoming crop of professional printers (the x800s and x880s or xx880s), and left Claria for their lesser expensive printers. Of course, those of us at the consumer end don't have an insider's comprehension of why Epson has made these choices. Usually, such strategies result from a combination of technical and commercial considerations.
On the technical side, you may recall from his article "Battle of the Barytas" that Michael Reichmann measured the dMax of three baryta papers and Epson Exhibition Fibre all printed using the K3 inkset. Of the latter, coming in at 2.25 (versus about 2.15~2.17 for the barytas tested) he said "even a casual comparison shows it to be a deeper and richer black than any of the other papers tested here. Quite astonishing actually – possible the richest black I've ever seen on any paper, traditional or inkjet." I don't think Michael has tested Claria inks.
Anyone doing this one would need a printer using these inks, a decent spectrophotometer, and a program for showing gamut plots; then using the same test image for Claria as for K3, one could make the necessary measurements and plots using the same three barytas and Exhibition Fiber papers. This would go a long way to complementing opinions and observations with a technical basis.
I'm not able to do this as I don't own either a Claria-based printer or a spectro, but if any other readers of this thread are so equipped, a contribution along these lines would be really insightful.
I print with Epson 4800 and 3800 printers. By now I have produced about 50 13*19 prints using Ilford GFS (baryta) in my 3800 - both B&W and colour - and I am impressed with the results. The blacks are very rich and I have seen no evidence of bronzing. There is some gloss differential because of blown highlights (e.g. some very bright snow in day-time and street lights at night-time which get clipped). Some people are very sensitive to gloss differential, others not. I'm not, because when when a print is viewed at an angle which maximizes image and minimizes glare, the g-d is not visible.
Another observation about "black", which was true in the film era and true now - blacks come in a range from cooler to warmer with "neutral" in-between. What black one prefers for a particular image is a matter of taste.
-
Mark
I agree with you about gloss differential on Ilford GFS. It is most noticeable as it is coming off my HP B9180 and viewed at a very acute angle on the tray. But when it has dried and is viewed at a perpendicular angle or behind UV plexiglas it is negligible to unnoticeable.
Ken
-
Mark
I agree with you about gloss differential on Ilford GFS. It is most noticeable as it is coming off my HP B9180 and viewed at a very acute angle on the tray. But when it has dried and is viewed at a perpendicular angle or behind UV plexiglas it is negligible to unnoticeable.
Ken
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=172708\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Hi Ken, that's interesting, coming from another printer and inkset completely. What do you think of the overall quality of the blacks and colour you are getting from the B9180/GFS combination?
-
Anyone doing this one would need a printer using these inks, a decent spectrophotometer, and a program for showing gamut plots;
I'd prefer to see the results on paper with an image printed on several kinds of paper with the pigment ink and then again with the Claria ink. No idea where that could be done, though. (I could have gotten a rough idea how a print on the Pictorico film would look with Epson 1280 dye ink by reading about it somewhere, but there's no way the written description could have had the impact of seeing the results in the flesh, as it were.)
From Epson's web site, I see that the Claria cartridges hold more ink and cost much more than those I use in the R1800. So why not, I wonder, make a printer like the R1800 with the capability to use similarly larger-capacity cartridges of pigment-based ink? Size limitations? The R1800 and other more expensive printers along those lines have more cartridges, after all. In a page devoted to the Claria ink, Epson makes a pretty big deal out of the ink's resistance to smudges, scratches, and damage due to moisture. So is this basically a "consumer" item, for people who expect that their 4x6s will be drooled-upon by the baby or used as a chew-toy by the dog? (Note: "resists tooth-marks" is not among the claims.:-) Their claims for print longevity are: Claria -- 98 years on display, 200 in an album. Ultrachrome -- 250 years. Oh, yes, and while the Claria-ink-using Epson 1400 is recommended for "beginning scrapbookers," the R1800 is recommended for "dedicated scrapbookers." Having seen this, I do feel better about my choice of printer. :-)
(www.epson.com/cgi-bin/Store/Landing/Compare1400R1800.jsp)
At the same time that I admire Epson for its obvious Great Leaps Forward inkjet-printing-wise, I find the whole enterprise confounding. Somewhat unkindly-like, some days I think the company should rename itself "Churn." Presentation Matte. Premium Presentation Matte. ULTRA Premium Presentation Matte. What's next, Semi-Ultra-Premium Presentation Matte? Almost-But-Not-Quite-Premium Presentation Matte? Decidedly-Premium-And-Probably-Close-To-Ultra Presentation Matte? Two, three years down the road: "Hey! Let's change the names of all the papers again, and save tons of money by having to re-do all of our packaging, plus confuse our customers with the new names! Push the envelope! Fabulous!" Yeah, churn...
Then there's the business of having a gazillion printer models, each with its own cartridges that aren't compatible with those of the previous or next models. Obviously you aren't going to have a lot of luck using dye-based inks in a pigment-ink printer, so no point making those cartridges interchangeable. And yet, why SO many different incompatible cartridge designs, even for printers that are using the same kinds of inks? Is there some rule of manufacturing dictating that they have to do this? I doubt it. No, as with the camera manufacturings ensuring that no two models produce the same RAW Format: they want to. It must increase their engineering and manufacturing costs, add to their QA/testing costs, and it surely puts retailers into the position of having to decide which customers to irritate by carrying only some inks and not others. (Only the biggest stores could possibly keep all those different inks in stock.)
T'is a puzzlement.
-
I'm uncertain as to whether Epson will get a brain and introduce a larger printer for the Claria ink, and leave paper to paper companies. They remind me of Microsoft, trying to get their fingers in everything, even areas outside of their expertise.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=172527\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
The've done great with cameras, right? Oh wait, nevermind . . .
-Ron H.
-
The've done great with cameras, right? Oh wait, nevermind . . .
-Ron H.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=172906\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I'd like to ask you guys where you think the world of fine-art archival ink-jet printing would be today were it not for the R&D and manufacturing initiatives that the Seiko-Epson Corporation took upon itself from back in the 1990s? I'd also ask you to consider whether the solutions they developed to get us where we are did not require an integrated technological approach including inksets, papers to receive the inks and the printer hardware to lay it down - precisely; it all needs to work together. In a discussion thread about the merits of baryta-based papers working with current inksets from the major printer manufacturers, whether or not Epson was successful with cameras is hardly relevant; I could remind you they've produced some highly succesful models of scanners, projectors, flat panel screens and digital storage devices, but that is also not relevant.
-
Could someone suggest which of these papers has a surface most similiar to unglazed, air dried glossy fibre?
-
Mark
Sorry for the delay in response to your question. It's been a long time since I did my own B&W enlargements so it was difficult to get a reference. That why I fell back to my usual consultant to confirm my impressions - my wife! To say I was astounded by the Ilford GFS, would be an understatement. I had used the Harmon the week before and was overjoyed. But on the basis of MR's article and the sheer economics of the 2 papers, I cajoled the Canadian importer to get a retailer to carry the product for me. I'm using the canned icc profile and find it to produce a very neutral grey. I have no equipment to measure the Dmax but the range of tonality together with the controls available in LR seem to give me better output than I remember from a wet darkroom. To me the pictures seem to jump of the paper. I know this is all subjective, but what the heck, so is photography.
Ken
-
Mark
Sorry for the delay in response to your question. It's been a long time since I did my own B&W enlargements so it was difficult to get a reference. That why I fell back to my usual consultant to confirm my impressions - my wife! To say I was astounded by the Ilford GFS, would be an understatement. I had used the Harmon the week before and was overjoyed. But on the basis of MR's article and the sheer economics of the 2 papers, I cajoled the Canadian importer to get a retailer to carry the product for me. I'm using the canned icc profile and find it to produce a very neutral grey. I have no equipment to measure the Dmax but the range of tonality together with the controls available in LR seem to give me better output than I remember from a wet darkroom. To me the pictures seem to jump of the paper. I know this is all subjective, but what the heck, so is photography.
Ken
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=172999\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Hi Ken,
Yeah, my wife is often my consultant as well. Fresh eyes untainted with "a prioris". Wonderful. Maybe you are responsible for the fact that we can now get Ilford GFS at a reasonable price here in Toronto. I was just checking with CCBC, my usual source for papers andf inks yesterday. He sells the 13*19 50 sheet package for 134, versus 112 from B&H, but the stuff is heavy so shipping costs a lot. A bulk order reduces per unit shipping cost drastically and on this basis CCBC is just about competitive with B&H delivered. It's good to know we can now buy it locally without being skinned. As for image quality - yes - colour vibrancy and blacks are superb. I printed Bill Atkinson's test image - always the first thing to start out with a new medium - and those red strawberries just pop off the page, not to speak of the greyscale ramp which is lovely smooth from black to white. I am also using Ilford's profile (from LOGO GmBH) in an Epson 3800.
Mark
-
Could someone suggest which of these papers has a surface most similiar to unglazed, air dried glossy fibre?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=172998\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I think the Harman would be the closest to what you are looking for. Of the three baryta papers it has the least textured surface.
-
I have to agree with most of what you say here, thanks for being so detailed!
There is however one paper that you didn't mention that to me is the best of them all, it is the Innova Satin fiber ( called Innova Semi-Matte) in the US. I've used this paper a lot with Ultrachrome inks for color and it has for me the positive qualities of the Epson Fiber and Innova Ultrasmooth Gloss, but with a much more appealing texture. Personally I haven't seen any black and white work that I like on any of these emulsions because they just don't get to where a metallic silver print can, but for color my favourites are the Innova Satin, and the Ilford Gold. I'll probably use more of the Gold because it is TWO TIMES CHEAPER. It is a tad too warm for most things, but I'm not complaining.
john
Like everyone else, I’ve been looking forward to the new baryta papers (and Epson’s non-baryta work alike). I waited until I could get all five of the new papers to try them. To cut to the chase, the Harman Gloss FB outclasses the pack, especially if you like a low-sheen completely smooth paper—a refined glossy, in so many words. If you prefer the slight stipple of “luster” or “semigloss,” then look no further than Ilford Galerie Gold Fibre Silk. The oft-maligned Innova Fibaprint Ultasmooth Glossy delivers a surprisingly decent 3rd place performance. Epson Exhibition Fiber can’t hold a candle to the best two baryta papers. And Hahnemuhle Fineart Baryta 325 is even worse than Epson.
It’s interesting how enamored the “fine art” printers have been of these papers. While wonderful warmth and texture have been achieved on the specially coated matte papers with rag (cotton) or non-lignin fiber bases, many photographers seem to have turned up their noses at printing on plastic sheets—the coated resin-based papers. Some of the astonished remarks from “fine art” printers about these papers may reflect their prior rejection of any resin-based glossy papers. There have been glossy papers with paper bases in the past, but until now these lacked the sharpness and color gamut of the RC papers.
New coatings with baryta (barium hydroxide) or aluminum oxide can match the RC papers, but on a real paper base. Now that glossy is newly acceptable, it is interesting to compare the new coatings to the most interesting of the “old” RC papers: Epson Premium Semigloss (or Semimatte roll, but I was too lazy to do all the prints on roll paper) and Pictorico Photo Glossy Paper—one of the few ceramic particle coated papers on a paper base (this is not the ultra high gloss Pictorico Film with the Cibachrome-like gloss). The best of the new papers—Harman and Ilford—are wonderful, but not so astonishing when you go back to look at Epson Premium Semigloss—if only it didn’t have “Epson” water-marked on the back.
I only profiled 3 of the papers myself with an Eye-One and Gretag ProfileMaker 5. I compared the gamut of Harman Gloss, Ilford Gold, and Innova Ultrasmooth to Epson Semigloss and Epson Luster. Visually, Harman Gloss has a larger gamut overall, especially in highlights and a bit in the deepest shadows. Ilford covers slightly more of the dark end of L (in L*a*b ). The RC papers extend marginally further into cyan and magenta (and Luster covers marginally more light yellow), but otherwise have smaller gamuts. Epson Exhibition Fiber, based on Pixel Genius’s profile, has the smallest of all the gamuts. Actually, Hahnemuhle’s gamut appears even smaller, but I attribute that to a poorly made profile supplied by the manufacturer.
What follows is an impressionistic evaluation of the 5 papers based on printing the same images on all five papers using the manufacturer provided profiles for the Epson 4800.
1. Harman Gloss FB Al
- Very white: not as white-blue as Epson and somewhat more white than Ilford
- Smooth “flat” sheen: no stipple, some just discernible smoothed texture
- Even, low-glare sheen: less reflective than Epson, but smooth without stipple so more like a true glossy but without the hard mirror shine of some RC glossies
- Least glare from light at an angle
- Just about completely indiscernible gloss differential
- Sharpest even printing at 1440 “Superfine” setting (except compared to resin-based papers): no detail lost through ink spread
- US$1.56 / sheet: 50 8.5x11” sheets for US$77.95 (Atlex)
2. Ilford Galerie Gold Fibre Silk
- Natural white: a mimimal “parchment” coloration, but only when compared directly to papers containing optical brightening agents (OBA)
- Very fine, evenly distributed stipple
- Subdued sheen, not reflective—close to Epson Semigloss with slightly less sheen
- Some glare from light at an angle, but not objectionable because of the fineness of the texture and subdued sheen
- Some gloss differential in areas of paper white within images, just this side of indiscernible in blacks
- 2nd sharpest (printed at 2880 printer settting)
- US$.80 / sheet: 50 8.5x11” sheets for US$39.95 (BH Photo)
3. Innova Fibaprint Ultrasmooth Gloss
- Very bright white, but slightly green compared to Epson (it’s not green—just marginally towards green when placed next to Epson)
- Not exactly a stipple and not as evenly smooth as Harman: like a stipple that has been partially “rolled” smooth
- Just as reflective and shiny as Epson but with less stipple, so “glint” is marginally less noticeable than Epson
- Glare less than Ilford
- Gloss differential less than Ilford
- Tied with Ilford for sharpness
- US$1.91 / sheet: 25 8.5x11” sheets for US$47.81 (BH Photo)
4. Epson Exhibition Fiber Paper
- Bright white: the most “blue white” of all of these papers
- Fine, even distributed stipple: less than Premium Luster and more than Premium Semigloss
- Very reflective sheen—like a mirror glossy but with stipple, unlike Luster and Semigloss; “reflective with bumps”
- Glare from light at an angle equivalent to Ilford, but more uneven
- Gloss differential equivalent to Harman
- Pixel Genius’ profile reveals amazing shadow detail because the darks don’t load up
- US$1.75 / sheet: 25 8.5x11” sheets for US$43.80 (Atlex)
5. Hahnemuhle FineArt Baryta 325
- Very bright white, 2nd only to Epson
- Evenly distributed stipple, but bumpier than Epson and much bumpier than Ilford
- Ink on the paper makes the paper look almost like a microscopic canvas because the layer of ink exaggerates the bumpiness
- Thickest of all the papers
- Worst glare from light at an angle
- Gloss differential equivalent to Harman in paper white, but somewhat more in blacks
- Mfgr. supplied profile is minutely lighter than the others, which improves shadows with no disadvantage to mids and highs (despite smaller gamut)
- Hahnemuhle recommends 1440 printing “resolution”: through 10X loupe this reduces sharpness but even staring closely from 10” this isn’t noticeable
- US$1.49 / sheet: US$29.70 for 20 8.5x11” sheets (BH Photo)
6. The RC comparison
- Pictorico Photo Glossy Paper and Epson Premium Semigloss are sharper yet than Harman, but only negligibly—there’s not much farther to go—after all, it’s ink on paper.
- Epson Premium Semigloss is almost a dead heat with #2 ranked Ilford; Ilford is slightly warmer and has slightly less sheen
Over the years, I’ve tried nearly any paper that promised some distinct benefit—and I’ve then cut way back to using only 2 or 3 papers that represent best of a certain class of paper because it’s just not worth the cost and difficulty to frequently switch papers for marginal or no benefit. So many people looked forward to the Epson and Hahnemuhle papers, but I find myself very disappointed in them. They just don’t look good to me--the problem is the surface. The combination of highly reflective surface with pronounced texture seems unlike any other photo surface--and not in a good way.
Harman Gloss FB Al is the best paper in this evaluation. It really is unprecedented. It offers the gamut and sharpness of rc papers with less gloss differential than rc glossies. It has a wonderfully muted sheen that offers the impact of a glossy print without the mirror brashness of rc glossies. Ilford Gold Fibre Silk is the best value of the lot and is nearly a dead ringer for Epson Semigloss, with a slight warmth and reduced sheen. These are both really superb papers. These are the two for me.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=170473\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
Mark
No need for shipping charges. I got my Ilford GFS at Downtown Camera on Queen St. The 50 sheet packs of 13x19 were 125 & 8x10 were 46. Seems like the loonie is starting to flex its muscle.
Ken
-
Mark
No need for shipping charges. I got my Ilford GFS at Downtown Camera on Queen St. The 50 sheet packs of 13x19 were 125 & 8x10 were 46. Seems like the loonie is starting to flex its muscle.
Ken
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=173093\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Even better than CCBC!
-
Any experience out there using the baryta papers in HPs with Vivera inks? Most of the posts in this thread deal with Epsons if a printer is mentioned at all. Considering that I use an HP, I am curious as to others experience.
Thanks, Pat
-
Check the Yahoo! Group on the B9180. Some people have tried them.
I've only used the Harman. Both the glossy and the matt. They look wonderful. But there can be some issues with the paper curling while going through the printer. This can cause head strikes (or similar) around the edges. Which isn't so great.
There are some suggestions for fixing this at the Yahoo! group.
-
"Could someone suggest which of these papers has a surface most similiar to unglazed, air dried glossy fibre?"
Nigel, for the Claria dye ink printers, the Harman Gloss is very close. For K3 printers, Innova Semi Matte. However, the printed image on the Innova paper is glossier than the paper because of the gloss optimiser incorporated in the inks, which leads to dull-looking spots in specular highlights (not enough ink = not enough gloss optimiser). Also, light blue areas bronze dichroically (reflect red), which is an annoying bronzing problem with the light cyan ink, maybe cyan too.
The Innova Semi Matte/K3 combo works best for black and white prints, using Epson's Advanced B&W.