Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Printing: Printers, Papers and Inks => Topic started by: Alistair on January 20, 2009, 07:46:12 am
-
I have been taking a close look at some of the Hahnemuhle PK papers to arrive at a personal PK paper choice and to see what the fuss about baryta coatings is. I wanted to try both warmer and cooler toned papers.
Their warmer toned PK papers use a cotton fibre base with no OBA's and come in one baryta coated and two non-baryta coated versions. They are (at least here in the UK) branded 'Photo Rag X' and are called Photo Rag Baryta, Photo Rag Pearl and Photo Rag Satin. The surface of the Photo Rag Satin is not so much to my liking so I only purchased and evaluated Photo Rag Baryta (PRB) and Photo Rag Pearl (PRP).
Their cooler toned PK papers use an Alpha Cellulose base, contain OBA's and come in one baryta coated and one non-baryta version. They are (at least here in the UK) branded 'Fine Art X' and are called Fine Art Baryta (FAB) and Fine Art Pearl (FAP) respectively. I purchased and evaluated both Fine Art Baryta (FAB) and Fine Art Pearl (FAP).
I am using a custom BW inkset in an R1800 (I still favour these 1.5pl printers) and complete the print with a second and sometimess third pass to give it a full clear-coat on PK papers which is the only way I have found to get rid of bronzing and gloss differential to my satisfaction on this type of paper.
To cut a long story short, all these papers are georgous (in my opinion). On a standalone basis they all make lovely prints.
However, when compared closely alongside each other (and to be honest in rather an overly obsessive way) clear differences emerged. To my eye the non-baryta versions produced a better print than the baryta versions. The non-barytas had better blacks, contrast and shadows. (Density and LAB value readings taken with a colorvision tool). The surface of the cooler tone papers (FAB and FAP) I find indistinguishable and the weight feels similar. The surface of the warmer tone papers (PRB and PRP) show a few more differences with the PRP having more texture than the PRB but that texture is more random giving the paper an almost handmade look which appeals to me. PRP also feels heavier than PRB.
So, as far as Hahnemuhle's PK offerings go, I have chosen Fine Art Pearl (FAP) as my cooler toned paper and Photo Rag Pearl (PRP) as my warmer toned paper. I will leave their baryta-coated siblings Fine Art Baryta (FAB) and Photo Rag Baryta (PRB) on the shelf.
I was surprised by this, as given the excitement on these and other forums over baryta coated papers I fully expected to be bowled over by them.
Does anyone else share these findings or have I lost the plot?
Regards
Alistair
-
Hmmm. Your results are interesting in that you are using two or three passes to achieve what is acceptable to you. I would consider that aspect alone to be a deal breaker. What really grabbed me though is what you went through in your testing because I'm at that point myself. I currently use the Harman FB Al Gloss as my paper. It gives the highest dmax I've encountered and is just gorgeous. However, it's a giant pain to work with - scratches and dents easily and has to be dry mounted. As I use up my existing stock of Harman I wanted to give the new Hahnemuhle Photo Rag Baryta a test as it was hailed on this forum as the greatest thing since sliced bread. I would like to find a paper that prints like Harman without the problems. So, next week I'll be carrying out a similar test to yours. However, I am prepared to put up with the deficiencies of the Harman if no other paper measures up.
Thanks for bringing up this subject.
Regards,
John
www.johnbrewton.zenfolio.com
-
Why not try the Epson Traditional Photo Paper, it's my main fine art paper now.
-
I was surprised by this, as given the excitement on these and other forums over baryta coated papers I fully expected to be bowled over by them.
Does anyone else share these findings or have I lost the plot?
Regards
Alistair
There are excellent whiteners like TiO2 that deliver excellent inkjet papers. What mix of whiteners is used in papers is often not written in the specs and a paper that is called Baryta doesn't have to be and most likely isn't made with 100% barite. To me it is more a reference to non-RC analogue papers of the past and they try to have that appeal. I actually suspected that the shortage of whiteners in the past hectic years has played a role in the Baryta revival. Of the few fade etc tests done on fiber papers there's no evidence that they are inferior. Tastes differ so an extra choice is welcome.
Ernst Dinkla
Try: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/ (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/)
-
Hmmm. Your results are interesting in that you are using two or three passes to achieve what is acceptable to you. I would consider that aspect alone to be a deal breaker. What really grabbed me though is what you went through in your testing because I'm at that point myself. I currently use the Harman FB Al Gloss as my paper. It gives the highest dmax I've encountered and is just gorgeous. However, it's a giant pain to work with - scratches and dents easily and has to be dry mounted. As I use up my existing stock of Harman I wanted to give the new Hahnemuhle Photo Rag Baryta a test as it was hailed on this forum as the greatest thing since sliced bread. I would like to find a paper that prints like Harman without the problems. So, next week I'll be carrying out a similar test to yours. However, I am prepared to put up with the deficiencies of the Harman if no other paper measures up.
Thanks for bringing up this subject.
Regards,
John
www.johnbrewton.zenfolio.com
Hi John, the Harman does have some strengths. The shadow detail in particular is very impressive. For my tastes though the surface is a little on the smooth and glossy side but that is purely a personal taste thing. If you like that Harman paper you might also like the Ilford Gold as it has similar gloss (maybe a bit less) but also has a little more characterful surface (though not as much as the Hahnemuhle papers) and is heavier/thicker.
The second pass thing is not as big a deal as it sounds. It is just a clear coat so does not need careful alignment or anything like that. In fact I just batch 'em up and put them through in a pile.
-
Why not try the Epson Traditional Photo Paper, it's my main fine art paper now.
I will try that soon. The store was out of stocks of the Epson Traditional Photo Paper when I purchased the others. 4 papers was enough at one time anyway. More than that at any one time and the will to live starts to ebb.
-
Not sure if I would say the latest Baryta media from Hahnemuhle or others are or have the same wow factor as Harman AL FA.
That is just the point, the wow factor wears thin after you start to look in different lighting conditions, see the effect so much OBA has, have experienced the printing problems and handling problems too.
Visually I find H PRB and Crane to be the best compromise all around.
The Dmax on H PR B is as good as Harman, or any other media I've tried with the inks I used.
The inks change everything, as if you look at the new profile for the 79+9900 Epson on Epson Exhibition/Tradition no other printer comes close to depth , colour, graduation.
I can imagine on the same printer Harman should slightly outdo Tradition, but not by much.
-
The second pass thing is not as big a deal as it sounds. It is just a clear coat so does not need careful alignment or anything like that. In fact I just batch 'em up and put them through in a pile.
Just curious -- what product are you using for your clear coat(s)? How does it change the appearance of the paper? I'm thinking it should change both the texture and sheen level. Does it?
-
I just did some similar testing Alistair and my findings were the same as yours. From a personal taste perspective I just prefer the look and feel of the pearl papers over the Baryta papers. Everyone's mileage varies though.
-
.......................Visually I find H PRB and Crane to be the best compromise all around.
The Dmax on H PR B is as good as Harman, or any other media I've tried with the inks I used.
The inks change everything, as if you look at the new profile for the 79+9900 Epson on Epson Exhibition/Tradition no other printer comes close to depth , colour, graduation.........................
I do like the H PR B but I find the H PR P to have a noticably deeper dmax which really helps my BW work and the extra weight and surface character do no harm either.
I would love to see some prints made from a 7/9900 by someone who knows what they are doing. The only output I have seen from that printer is the Landscape Photographer of the Year 2008 exhibition at the National Gallery in London. I confess to being underwhelmed. They were printed on Epson Premium Glossy with some sort of plastic looking satin overlay and seemed to be to be printed excessively large for the file sizes available. I feel these issues were the fault rather than the printer itself or the inkset.
-
Just curious -- what product are you using for your clear coat(s)? How does it change the appearance of the paper? I'm thinking it should change both the texture and sheen level. Does it?
I use the GLOP from MIS. It is not like the Epson GLOP - not nearly as glossy. It does accentuate texture and introduces a little more sheen. More like Premier Art Shield than what might be envisaged as a GLOP. It has a minimal effect on paper white, something like +0.33a and -0.33b.
-
I do like the H PR B but I find the H PR P to have a noticably deeper dmax which really helps my BW work and the extra weight and surface character do no harm either.
I would love to see some prints made from a 7/9900 by someone who knows what they are doing. The only output I have seen from that printer is the Landscape Photographer of the Year 2008 exhibition at the National Gallery in London. I confess to being underwhelmed. They were printed on Epson Premium Glossy with some sort of plastic looking satin overlay and seemed to be to be printed excessively large for the file sizes available. I feel these issues were the fault rather than the printer itself or the inkset.
I am just about to measure a Billl Atkinson 5202 patch profile chart printed on Photo Rag Pearl with my Epson 7900 Pk. These charts take a while to measure with an Eye One Pro but I will then produce three profiles with different rendering intents (LOGO Chroma, Colorful and Classic). I will update this thread when I have something more to say so stay tuned...
Cheers,
Ryan
-
I am just about to measure a Billl Atkinson 5202 patch profile chart printed on Photo Rag Pearl with my Epson 7900 Pk. These charts take a while to measure with an Eye One Pro but I will then produce three profiles with different rendering intents (LOGO Chroma, Colorful and Classic). I will update this thread when I have something more to say so stay tuned...
Cheers,
Ryan
I apologize for getting off topic ... curioius if you are using MeasureTool? I can't get my system to reliably read Bill's charts, just wondering if I'm alone in this.
-
I am just about to measure a Billl Atkinson 5202 patch profile chart printed on Photo Rag Pearl with my Epson 7900 Pk. These charts take a while to measure with an Eye One Pro but I will then produce three profiles with different rendering intents (LOGO Chroma, Colorful and Classic). I will update this thread when I have something more to say so stay tuned...
Cheers,
Ryan
Would be very interested to hear your thoughts once done.
-
I apologize for getting off topic ... curioius if you are using MeasureTool? I can't get my system to reliably read Bill's charts, just wondering if I'm alone in this.
Yes I am using the Measure Tool. I have a Rev B standard Eye One Pro.
I don't have access to either the UV Cut Eye One or an I1 IO.
The PhotoRag Pearl 5202 chart measured very easily unlike Epson Water Resistant canvas which has been very problematic. I also learnt the hard way not to use the Mac version of PhotoShop CS4 for printing the charts.
So far I have created a LOGO Chroma profile using i! Match. Viewing with the Apple ColorSync Utility, this profile has a close appearance to the Epson 7900 canned profiles for papers like Premium Glossy. (On the other hand I have previously found that LOGO Colorful profiles have quite a different appearance to the canned Epson 7900 profiles.) As I don't currently have a copy of ColorThink, I don't know how the volumes compare but assuming I am interpreting the ColorSync Utility correctly, the HPRP profile does seem to extend further down into the shadows.
I will print an A4 test print tomorrow and compare with various other 7900 prints I have been making with the same image.
I hope this is useful?
Cheers,
Ryan
Update1: I have downloaded the Epson profile for Exhibition Fibre Paper and compared it with my custom profile for HPRP. Again, I don't know the precise gamut volumes but the HPRP seems to be pushing further into the shadows and appears to my eyes to have a larger gamut size overall. As I have a few blank sample sheets of Hahnemuehle PhotoRag Baryta and Ilford Gold Fibre Silk I may also print some 918 test charts and create some further profiles for comparison over the next few days.
-
Yes I am using the Measure Tool. I have a Rev B standard Eye One Pro.
I don't have access to either the UV Cut Eye One or an I1 IO.
The PhotoRag Pearl 5202 chart measured very easily unlike Epson Water Resistant canvas which has been very problematic. I also learnt the hard way not to use the Mac version of PhotoShop CS4 for printing the charts.
So far I have created a LOGO Chroma profile using i! Match. Viewing with the Apple ColorSync Utility, this profile has a close appearance to the Epson 7900 canned profiles for papers like Premium Glossy. (On the other hand I have previously found that LOGO Colorful profiles have quite a different appearance to the canned Epson 7900 profiles.) As I don't currently have a copy of ColorThink, I don't know how the volumes compare but assuming I am interpreting the ColorSync Utility correctly, the HPRP profile does seem to extend further down into the shadows.
I will print an A4 test print tomorrow and compare with various other 7900 prints I have been making with the same image.
I hope this is useful?
Cheers,
Ryan
Update1: I have downloaded the Epson profile for Exhibition Fibre Paper and compared it with my custom profile for HPRP. Again, I don't know the precise gamut volumes but the HPRP seems to be pushing further into the shadows and appears to my eyes to have a larger gamut size overall. As I have a few blank sample sheets of Hahnemuehle PhotoRag Baryta and Ilford Gold Fibre Silk I may also print some 918 test charts and create some further profiles for comparison over the next few days.
Are you printing the charts out of eye 1? i am having a lot of problems with my mac and printing test charts. whatever program i print out of they come out different. very saturated in cs3 compared to eye 1 match. if you print out of eye 1 and then print again out of cs3 do your charts show up different? i don't know which ones to beleive. i am printing to a 7900 also.
thanks
chris
-
Are you printing the charts out of eye 1? i am having a lot of problems with my mac and printing test charts. whatever program i print out of they come out different. very saturated in cs3 compared to eye 1 match. if you print out of eye 1 and then print again out of cs3 do your charts show up different? i don't know which ones to beleive. i am printing to a 7900 also.
thanks
chris
I am using Mac PhotoShop CS(1) to print my charts with colour management disabled both within PhotoShop and the Epson print driver. Although I have Mac PhotoShop CS4, it is not currently possible to print accurate test charts with this version when used with MacOSX 10.5 and the latest Epson printer drivers for any Pro Epson printer since the ESP7800/9800. Although there is a workaround - which is to change the default profile from within ColorSync Utility - I don't like this approach as it is yet another setting to have to remember every time a print job is run. I have tried printing small colour test strips with PhotoShop CS(1), CS4 and i1Match on MacOSX 10.4 and 10.5; PhotoShop CS2 and i1Match on Windows XP and with an Epson SP9600 and Epson SP7900. After all of this I made a decision to use MacOSX 10.5, set my default printer to my Epson SP9600 to avoid the "dark print problem" and to use PhotoShop CS(1) for all of my test charts. This testing involved a consultation with X-rite in the UK and few weeks to figure out but I am now getting consistent and reliable results at last.
By the way, various Mac PhotoShop CS4 difficulties have been discussed elsewhere most notably regarding ABW by Eric Chan on the Adobe forums.
I hope this helps!
Ryan
Edit1: Clarified the Adobe forum reported problems.
-
Although I have Mac PhotoShop CS4, it is not currently possible to print accurate test charts with this version when used with MacOSX 10.5 and the latest Epson printer drivers for any Pro Epson printer since the ESP7800/9800. Although there is a workaround - which is to change the default profile from within ColorSync Utility - I don't like this approach as it is yet another setting to have to remember every time a print job is run. I have tried printing small colour test strips with PhotoShop CS(1), CS4 and i1Match on MacOSX 10.4 and 10.5; PhotoShop CS2 and i1Match on Windows XP and with an Epson SP9600 and Epson SP7900. After all of this I made a decision to use MacOSX 10.5, set my default printer to my Epson SP9600 to avoid the "dark print problem" and to use PhotoShop CS(1) for all of my test charts. This testing involved a consultation with X-rite in the UK and few weeks to figure out but I am now getting consistent and reliable results at last.
By the way, these PhotoShop CS4 difficulties have been discussed elsewhere most notably by Eric Chan on the Adobe forums.
I hope this helps!
Ryan
I"m not seeing this at all, and tried searching the Adobe forums to find some information from Eric Chan about this as mentioned in your post. All I can find is discussion of challenges with CS4 and older Epsons (4000, 2200 so perhaps this is affecting only your 9600 and not the 7900), and the challenge of using ABW requiring workarounds to get the image data converted to 2.2. gamma. I haven't seen any problems with targets with all color management disabled, nor profiles made from those targets when profiling my 7900 or my 11880. Can you post a link to the information you are referring to?
-
I"m not seeing this at all, and tried searching the Adobe forums to find some information from Eric Chan about this as mentioned in your post. All I can find is discussion of challenges with CS4 and older Epsons (4000, 2200 so perhaps this is affecting only your 9600 and not the 7900), and the challenge of using ABW requiring workarounds to get the image data converted to 2.2. gamma. I haven't seen any problems with targets with all color management disabled, nor profiles made from those targets when profiling my 7900 or my 11880. Can you post a link to the information you are referring to?
Indeed, the PhotoShop ABW CS4 problems reported on the Adobe forums inspired me to perform my extensive tests. I found by experiment that the only way to get my charts to print correctly from CS4 was to change the default profile in ColorSync Utility to match the selected media setting. I have decided to play it safe and stick to PhotoShop CS1 for printing my test charts and my profiles and prints are now fine at last.
My version of MacOSX is 10.5.6. What version of MacOSX and PhotoShop are you using with your Epson 9900?
I wonder if this subject would benefit from a new separate thread?
Ryan
-
Indeed, the PhotoShop ABW CS4 problems reported on the Adobe forums inspired me to perform my extensive tests. I found by experiment that the only way to get my charts to print correctly from CS4 was to change the default profile in ColorSync Utility to match the selected media setting. I have decided to play it safe and stick to PhotoShop CS1 for printing my test charts and my profiles and prints are now fine at last.
My version of MacOSX is 10.5.6. What version of MacOSX and PhotoShop are you using with your Epson 9900?
I wonder if this subject would benefit from a new separate thread?
Ryan
I suppose we've gotten pretty far off topic ... feel free to start up a new thread. It sounds like you are determining the targets are "incorrect" because they don't match the ones you print from CS1. So you are assuming the CS1's are correct, and you have found a "work around" to make the CS4 targets match the CS1.
I guess my question is how do you know the CS1 targets aren't the incorrect ones and the work around is actually invalidating the CS4 targets?
I'm using 10.5.6 and CS4. I am having problems getting my i1 Pro Rev. A device to read Bills targets so am curious to find out more about this issue as it may be causing some of my problems, but I'll admit once I get a target read, my profiles seem to be performing very well.
-
Should we start a new thread? cause i would be interested in knowing if you get different results from printing out of cs1,cs3,cs4 and or match 1. all three give me different results.
-
I suppose we've gotten pretty far off topic ... feel free to start up a new thread. It sounds like you are determining the targets are "incorrect" because they don't match the ones you print from CS1. So you are assuming the CS1's are correct, and you have found a "work around" to make the CS4 targets match the CS1.
I guess my question is how do you know the CS1 targets aren't the incorrect ones and the work around is actually invalidating the CS4 targets?
I'm using 10.5.6 and CS4. I am having problems getting my i1 Pro Rev. A device to read Bills targets so am curious to find out more about this issue as it may be causing some of my problems, but I'll admit once I get a target read, my profiles seem to be performing very well.
I have started a new thread under Colour Management.
http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....showtopic=31410 (http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=31410)
Cheers,
Ryan
-
Would be very interested to hear your thoughts once done.
Returning to the original topic of this thread I have now created custom i1Match Chroma + profiles for the following papers. All profiles were created using 918 charts and under the same software settings.
Hahnemuhle PhotoRag Pearl
Hahnemuhle PhotoRag Bayrta
Epson Traditional Photo Paper (I think this is the same as Exhibition Fibre Paper)
Ilford Gold Fibre Silk
I have viewed all four used the comparison option in the Apple ColorSync Utility. They all seem very close but Pearl seems to have the largest volume followed very closely by Gold Fibre Silk. To my eye the custom Traditional Photo Paper seems to extend into the shadows just slightly more than the others and the Hahnemuehle Baryta just slightly weaker than the other three. I am sorry that I can't be more objective than this but unfortunately I don't currently have access to ColorThink.
From my own personal perspective, I have found this exercise very useful. Most of the time my clients prefer matte papers but I like to keep a roll of at least one resin style paper just in case. I now feel comfortable continuing with PhotoRag Pearl for these rare occasions and I no longer feel a pressing need to experiment further with the Baryta papers.
Edit1: There is one last thing I forgot to mention. I produced two A4 copies of a test print on Hahnemuehle PhotoRag Pearl, one using a LOGO Chroma + profile and the other using a LOGO Colorful profile. For this print the LOGO Colorful profile resulted in a print with visually deeper blacks, more overall contrast and a very pleasing result to my eyes.
Cheers,
Ryan
-
Returning to the original topic of this thread I have now created custom i1Match Chroma + profiles for the following papers. All profiles were created using 918 charts and under the same software settings.
Hahnemuhle PhotoRag Pearl
Hahnemuhle PhotoRag Bayrta
Epson Traditional Photo Paper (I think this is the same as Exhibition Fibre Paper)
Ilford Gold Fibre Silk
I have viewed all four used the comparison option in the Apple ColorSync Utility. They all seem very close but Pearl seems to have the largest volume followed very closely by Gold Fibre Silk. To my eye the custom Traditional Photo Paper seems to extend into the shadows just slightly more than the others and the Hahnemuehle Baryta just slightly weaker than the other three. I am sorry that I can't be more objective than this but unfortunately I don't currently have access to ColorThink.
From my own personal perspective, I have found this exercise very useful. Most of the time my clients prefer matte papers but I like to keep a roll of at least one resin style paper just in case. I now feel comfortable continuing with PhotoRag Pearl for these rare occasions and I no longer feel a pressing need to experiment further with the Baryta papers.
Edit1: There is one last thing I forgot to mention. I produced two A4 copies of a test print on Hahnemuehle PhotoRag Pearl, one using a LOGO Chroma + profile and the other using a LOGO Colorful profile. For this print the LOGO Colorful profile resulted in a print with visually deeper blacks, more overall contrast and a very pleasing result to my eyes.
Cheers,
Ryan
Thanks for letting us have your results Ryan. Your findings seem to be consistent with mine and others. As an aside and somewhat tongue in cheek, you could offer Epson a good price to reprint the Landscape Photographer exhibition at the National. They may want you to do it on Epson Traditional Photo Paper though.
-
The Colorful option which is default for i1Match BTW is going to punch up the contrast, darken the blacks and move some saturation areas around. In theory it should be only in perceptual mode but if you look closely in relative there are some hints to differences there too.
It isn't a good for press though , but is designed to render problem areas in ink jet printers with more life.
It seems that X-Rite have been taking far to long to marry Monaco and Profile Maker. Both have good or great things in them, blending both would be a better solution for us in inkjet printing.
-
The Colorful option which is default for i1Match BTW is going to punch up the contrast, darken the blacks and move some saturation areas around. In theory it should be only in perceptual mode but if you look closely in relative there are some hints to differences there too.
It isn't a good for press though , but is designed to render problem areas in ink jet printers with more life.
It seems that X-Rite have been taking far to long to marry Monaco and Profile Maker. Both have good or great things in them, blending both would be a better solution for us in inkjet printing.
By making three copies of the i1Match application and editing the config file in each to produce different LOGO versions I am now able to quickly and easily produce three profiles for each set of measurement data.
By using soft proofing I am already finding that some artworks look better (to my eye) with LOGO Colorful and some look better with LOGO Colorful Chroma+.
It is great to have these choices but I agree that it would be even better if I could also produce perceptual profiles with the Monaco Profiler rendering. If Xrite merged Profile Maker and Profiler I would buy it today.
-
Thanks for letting us have your results Ryan. Your findings seem to be consistent with mine and others. As an aside and somewhat tongue in cheek, you could offer Epson a good price to reprint the Landscape Photographer exhibition at the National. They may want you to do it on Epson Traditional Photo Paper though.
I went to see the Landscape Photographer exhibition last weekend and I also thought that some of the prints didn't seem quite right. In particular, some of them seemed over-saturated and I wondered if this had been done artificially. One possible answer was only a few steps away in the book shop. Every photograph in the exhibition has also been reproduced in a catalogue and none of them had the same level of super saturation. Having said that, I still enjoyed looking at the images some of which I felt were worthy of comparison to photographers such as Joe Cornish. I particularly liked the winning photograph but partly because of the dog in the foreground. However, from a purist point of view I didn't feel that it was the best landscape photograph. I suppose it depends on how a 'landscape photograph' is defined but I don't recall seeing any significant foreground animals featuring in the works of Joe Cornish, Charlie Waite etc.
The tongue in cheek is appreciated but I don't think Epson UK would respond even if I did contact them. I twice logged an intermittent ESP 7900 fault with Epson UK back in late November and about a week ago my dealer said they would mention my outstanding fault to an Epson account manager. So far Epson haven't even responded with so much as a phone call.
-
I went to see the Landscape Photographer exhibition last weekend and I also thought that some of the prints didn't seem quite right. In particular, some of them seemed over-saturated and I wondered if this had been done artificially. One possible answer was only a few steps away in the book shop. Every photograph in the exhibition has also been reproduced in a catalogue and none of them had the same level of super saturation.
I've had the same experience at several recent exhibitions. There's an absurd trend toward hyper-saturated neon color landscape prints that I guess appeals to the unwashed masses, but leaves me cold. John Gavrilis's work is typical, and I daresay Alain Briot's images often have saturation punched up past the point of believability. As I get older I find myself leaning more toward Stephen Johnson's position. He argues that digital tools provide the means to get very accurate and realistic color, certainly compared to the limitations inherent to transparency film, and that color faithful to nature (rather than cartoonish) is a worthwhile goal. Especially in large prints I find myself liking subtle natural color more than punched-up hyper-reality.
Of course, that's just me.
-
I think a trend I'm seeing is the fact the new printers are so much more capable of printing more colours than ever before. MAny of the expo prints seen actually were edited on monitors that weren't always capable of showing all the colours in the image on screen.
It could also just be a trend, don't know for sure. I wouldn't call Stephen's prints not saturated though, so if that is a reference then the other's must be pretty strong in chroma and or saturation.
-
... that color faithful to nature (rather than cartoonish) is a worthwhile goal. Especially in large prints I find myself liking subtle natural color more than punched-up hyper-reality.
Of course, that's just me.
No it's not. It's also me. There's more of us than you'd think.
-
No it's not. It's also me. There's more of us than you'd think.
Me, too! I like landscapes to be at least plausible.