Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Printing: Printers, Papers and Inks => Topic started by: JohnBrew on June 10, 2011, 03:07:01 pm
-
It's a fine recommendation from Mark on this paper. However, I went to the Canson site to check on the technical aspects. At the bottom of the page there is a pdf download to click on. The pdf contains the identical info as the website page which is no help whatsoever. I really would like to see technical data on this paper much in the same manner that Hahnemuhle supplies with their papers.
I do agree with Mark about the optical brighteners which is why I've dropped Hahnemuhle Photo Rag Baryta (Hahnemuhle is quite vague on the amount admitting it has some OBA's) in favor of Photo Rag Pearl. But the Canson is certainly on my list to try next time I place an order for paper.
-
Just to be clear, I don't think you are talking about this "Mark", because I don't recall recommending this paper. I have recommended Canson Baryta Photographique and Ilford Gold Fibre Silk because they are virtually the same thing and I use them.
-
It's a fine recommendation from Mark on this paper. However, I went to the Canson site to check on the technical aspects. At the bottom of the page there is a pdf download to click on. The pdf contains the identical info as the website page which is no help whatsoever. I really would like to see technical data on this paper much in the same manner that Hahnemuhle supplies with their papers.
I do agree with Mark about the optical brighteners which is why I've dropped Hahnemuhle Photo Rag Baryta (Hahnemuhle is quite vague on the amount admitting it has some OBA's) in favor of Photo Rag Pearl. But the Canson is certainly on my list to try next time I place an order for paper.
In my book (SpectrumViz) the 3 are all in the same class = little or no FBAs.
met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst
New: Spectral plots of +250 inkjet papers:
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
-
Platine is different than Baryta Photographique. It's doesn't have a baryta coating, it's OBA free and it's a cotton rag paper (vs. alpha-cellulose).
I just brought a roll in to start working with. I can check the container to see if the information it comes with is any different than the web site (likely not). Beyond that, I could measure the paper base with my spectro if that would be helpful.
Terry.
-
I do agree with Mark about the optical brighteners which is why I've dropped Hahnemuhle Photo Rag Baryta (Hahnemuhle is quite vague on the amount admitting it has some OBA's) in favor of Photo Rag Pearl.
What do you mean vague? The PDF data sheet (http://www.hahnemuehle.com/media/photoragbaryta_rev02.pdf) for Photo Rag Baryta says "none" under OBA Content, I'm not sure how they could be more clear than that...
But the Canson is certainly on my list to try next time I place an order for paper.
I've given Platin Fibre Rag a look. It's very similar in look, feel to Photo Rag Baryta, despite not actually being a baryta paper. Hold a sheet of each in your hand, and you'd be hard-pressed to tell the difference, aside from the HPRB being just a tiny bit warmer. The only real substantial difference I've found, and the reason I still prefer Photo Rag Baryta despite the higher price, is that the dmax and gamut of Platine Fiber Rag are not quite as good with Lucia EX inks. It probably wouldn't be an issue for monochrome, but for color images with deep/saturated colors the difference is enough for me to prefer the Hahnemuhle paper.
Assuming you're not after the cool-white look, I've yet to find a paper that is as good of an all-around performer has HPRB.
-
I have been using this paper since it came out and it does not contain any optical brighteners according to Canson. It's a pleasure to work with whether in sheet or roll. I am lucky to have a Charles Cramer print on this paper so that I can see, under my conditions, exactly what it will do in the hands of a master. It is definitely worth giving it a trial, it might even surprise some on how well it handles saturation.
I had wondered how long it would take Michael to get to this paper after his review of Canson Infinity Baryta Photographique.
-
The only real substantial difference I've found, and the reason I still prefer Photo Rag Baryta despite the higher price, is that the dmax and gamut of Platine Fiber Rag are not quite as good with Lucia EX inks. It probably wouldn't be an issue for monochrome, but for color images with deep/saturated colors the difference is enough for me to prefer the Hahnemuhle paper.
Jeff, which Canon driver setting(s) did you use with Platine on your Canon?
Terry.
-
Jeff, which Canon driver setting(s) did you use with Platine on your Canon?
I tried several base media types and could never get a maximum black better than about L* = 4.3 or so. In the end I created a custom media type based on Photo Paper Plus SG which seemed to give the best overall results.
I'm not saying the gamut/DMax is bad by any means; it's probably perfectly fine for a lot of images. HPRB is just a little better, and for some images it shows.
-
Thanks Jeff.
Terry.
-
I have used all the papers mentioned above. I ignore the 'feel' of them, as my work is framed, and thats that - its a distraction.
Surface DOES matter however, and for me this is Platine's weakness. It has too much stipple, and I certainly would not call it air dried gloss.
Frame a Platine print and put it in a gallery, catch the light and you will see fine micro-stipple texture all over your photo. for me thats a deal breaker. And sadly Canson Baryta is only a little better. I end up back with Harman FBAL due to that having a truly smooth surface, and great longevity.
I go to a lot of care and expense to have ultra sharp images and I do not want to throw that away on a paper that looks ok dead on, but stipples at any other angle.
-
Recently I went back and watched the entire video interview with Henry Wilhelm and Michael R, . In the end you must really listen to the insistance of traditional BW prints on alpha cellulose. As well the use of OBA is a user choice as there is still not enough information about it's decay over time with or without light, how composite inkjet inks will affect OBA etc. Henry also said the discussions on this will go on with vigor.
Some manufacturers use OBA to control the white point of the appearance in a certain lighting condition more than try to add value* to the image by making a bright white paper it wasn't intended to be. OF course the papers that are labelled bright white are intended to be such>
Depending on the destination of the prints , using papers with limited OBA or alpha cellulose might not be such a bad thing after all.
-
Recently I went back and watched the entire video interview with Henry Wilhelm and Michael R, . In the end you must really listen to the insistance of traditional BW prints on alpha cellulose. As well the use of OBA is a user choice as there is still not enough information about it's decay over time with or without light, how composite inkjet inks will affect OBA etc. Henry also said the discussions on this will go on with vigor.
Some manufacturers use OBA to control the white point of the appearance in a certain lighting condition more than try to add value* to the image by making a bright white paper it wasn't intended to be. OF course the papers that are labelled bright white are intended to be such>
Depending on the destination of the prints , using papers with limited OBA or alpha cellulose might not be such a bad thing after all.
Neil, what is the source of the interview that you note? I would be interested in seeing it. With respect to rag versus alpha-cellulose as a paper stock there really is not difference at all from a chemical perspective. The major constituent of paper is alpha-cellulose and the reason rag is held up as the "gold" standard is probably more an accident of paper making history than anything else (though one could make the argument for papyrus though we don't seem to have any inkjet papers made from this source ;)). Alpha-cellulose from traditional wood sources is cheaper than cotton rag but has higher lignin concentrations and processing is required to get rid of the lignin which can cause permanency problems down the line. Thus, I don't believe that we should automatically discard alpha-cellulose papers.
I think there is a significant body of data at this point in time regarding OBAs (the Aardenburg site has much more publicly available data than does Wilhelm) and clearly that research shows some problems with certain popular papers. Studies on decay of OBAs in the absence of light are meaningless from my perspective since ultimately we want our prints to be viewed (though maybe for certain folios where the prints would only be exposed to light for short times it might be useful to have such data).
Alan
-
What do you mean vague? The PDF data sheet (http://www.hahnemuehle.com/media/photoragbaryta_rev02.pdf) for Photo Rag Baryta says "none" under OBA Content, I'm not sure how they could be more clear than that...
Sorry, Jeff. I seem to have confused H Baryta FB (the new one) with PRB. Strange that the new one would have OBA's. Anyway, I still have a lot of HPRB on hand so I won't be getting rid of it anytime soon. I just printed ten prints for an exhibition in Italy, used the H PR Pearl and was quite satisfied with the results. I like the Pearl for color the Baryta for BW & toned prints.
-
Alan, it was in 2009 I think , and is a video interview on LL. The type of interview that means a lot to most, and those on the trails of these topics a lot more.
Agreed Mark is taking this much further. Yet it has to be done in na way that doesn't step on toes, as Mark knows all too well.
Dark storage is an important part of permanence testing, but of course you're right if the purpose of display permanence is to be exposed to light , dark storage and possible auto-catalytic decay would/should be a moot issue. That is until it is put back in storage, LOL.
I read the entire book by Henry. While I thought why would I read about film no longer sold, it actually said something . That something is research sometimes finds the unexpected. That is where the real devil may be in OBA.
BTW I only followed the video , and remembered what Henry said about alpha cellulose being different than wood pulp in being that lignin are removed chemically. Whereas coton fibre ( is it a hemp plant?) has none to begin with.
-
Just to be clear, I don't think you are talking about this "Mark", because I don't recall recommending this paper. I have recommended Canson Baryta Photographique and Ilford Gold Fibre Silk because they are virtually the same thing and I use them.
The Mark that is referenced is co-owner of Luminous Landscape, Mark Dubovoy.
-
Cotton plant delivers cotton. 90 to 95% cellulose
Flax delivers linen (after retting).
Hemp plant delivers hemp as used in ship rope.
Jute plant delivers jute for sacks etc.
Wood you know, there are different processes to extract the cellulose though. 40% cellulose
The amount of cellulose in the raw material is decreasing from top to bottom of this list.
There are more fiber plants that can deliver cellulose for example Kenaf and several grasses. Algea can be used to make cellulose.
There are some Japanese inkjet papers based on Kenaf.
met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst
New: Spectral plots of +250 inkjet papers:
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
-
The Mark that is referenced is co-owner of Luminous Landscape, Mark Dubovoy.
OK - a number of "Marks" around!
-
agreed, there are more Marks than Mark Segal!
-
Of course.
Cheers,
Mark (S) :-)
-
Cotton plant delivers cotton. 90 to 95% cellulose
Flax delivers linen (after retting).
Hemp plant delivers hemp as used in ship rope.
Jute plant delivers jute for sacks etc.
Wood you know, there are different processes to extract the cellulose though. 40% cellulose
The amount of cellulose in the raw material is decreasing from top to bottom of this list.
There are more fiber plants that can deliver cellulose for example Kenaf and several grasses. Algea can be used to make cellulose.
There are some Japanese inkjet papers based on Kenaf.
met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst
Paper can be made from any of the sources that Ernst mentions above and additionally bamboo and sugar cane (which are used by Hahnemuhle to make commercial inkjet papers; I've used the bamboo paper quite effectively when a warm matte paper is desired). All plant products contain lignin at various levels with cotton having the least. Cotton can also be mechanically processed quite easily to produce extremely high quality paper while other alpha-cellulose based materials need stronger processing. A paper with a good table of lignin quantities is here (http://www.paperandwood.com/services/pdf/FIber%20of%20Nonwood.pdf).
-
I go to a lot of care and expense to have ultra sharp images and I do not want to throw that away on a paper that looks ok dead on, but stipples at any other angle.
Hmmm, who really looks at a print except from dead on? I might walk up to a print from an angle, but I really only look at a print dead on. And frankly the Canson Plantine is superb-my favorite paper for glossy inks. The new glossy b&w work in my last two shows (I also print mat Piezography) were printed on it, hung side by side with some of my best silver prints, and they held their own.
-
Alan,
I see that Tobacco is on the list for Nonwood Fibers.
How about Marlboro Photo Semigloss? ;D
Interesting reading, though....
/Sven
-
Alan,
I see that Tobacco is on the list for Nonwood Fibers.
How about Marlboro Photo Semigloss? ;D
Interesting reading, though....
/Sven
Yes, and I also recently saw a paper about using milkweed as a paper source as well. A lot of years ago I fooled around with paper making but it takes a good bit of skill as well as trial and error to get things right. We are blessed with an abundant supply of papers in today's inkjet world (far more than I ever remember in the darkroom days).
-
............. We are blessed with an abundant supply of papers in today's inkjet world (far more than I ever remember in the darkroom days).
We are indeed, and when you think of the manufacturing processes and scale that must be required to do this eonomically, I keep wondering when the big shake-out will occur and which ones will survive. Of course it's notanswerable in a straightforward way, for one thing because the size of the world market is subject to a number of contradictory tendencies. On the one hand we hear that printing is giving way to other kinds of digital display vehicles for sharing photographs, while on the other hand the key manufacturers keep churning out more and better printers, and beyond the struggling economies of North America and Europe, the major growth areas in Asia and South America must represent major growth opportunities.
-
Hmmm, who really looks at a print except from dead on? I might walk up to a print from an angle, but I really only look at a print dead on. And frankly the Canson Plantine is superb-my favorite paper for glossy inks. The new glossy b&w work in my last two shows (I also print mat Piezography) were printed on it, hung side by side with some of my best silver prints, and they held their own.
This is a good point Kirk, and your observations about the comparative merits of high-quality B&W inkjet versus silver are very consistent with others. I recall similar discussion in an interview some years ago between Michael Reichmann and Clyde Butcher http://www.luminous-landscape.com/search/?q=clyde+butcher&Search=Search&area=all.
As for how one looks at the prints - indeed - generally straight-on; but I thought it would be fun putting this to the test. I have my Toronto panorama (done with a Phase One P40+) hanging on a wall (no glass) - that copy printed on Canson Baryta Photographique in an Epson 7900. I wanted to see first of all at how much of angle I could view it while still seeing the image properly, and next, whether the paper finish interferes with the apparent acuity of image detail. It's well-lit for viewing, which I think is a useful starting condition. This of course is totally unstructured and anecdotal as a method of determining any thing; however, for what it's worth, unsurprisingly, I found that the greater the viewing angle the less of the photo I could see properly, but while I was still in reasonable enough alignment to see the detail, the paper finish didn't interfere at all. It's always a compromise. One can avoid all risk of surface texture interference by using high gloss, but then there are reflections to deal with. And short of Luster, there is Matte, with its lower black density. Etc.
-
A bigger issue in my mind is the use of glazing. It's funny you mention your panorama being displayed with no glazing. I was talking with a good photographer friend just prior to leaving for Europe two weeks ago and he is framing things without glazing these days. His comment to me, "I can always reprint if need be." I have some problematic lighting in my house and normal good acrylic is a poor chose in some locations because of glare. I haven't yet tried the anti-reflecting acrylic such as the Tru Vue brand which seems to be pretty cost effective to see what the trade off is in lack of resolution. Maybe I will also mount some without glazing to see what the impact of normal environment is on the print.
-
A bigger issue in my mind is the use of glazing. It's funny you mention your panorama being displayed with no glazing. I was talking with a good photographer friend just prior to leaving for Europe two weeks ago and he is framing things without glazing these days. His comment to me, "I can always reprint if need be." I have some problematic lighting in my house and normal good acrylic is a poor chose in some locations because of glare. I haven't yet tried the anti-reflecting acrylic such as the Tru Vue brand which seems to be pretty cost effective to see what the trade off is in lack of resolution. Maybe I will also mount some without glazing to see what the impact of normal environment is on the print.
Hi Alan - I said no glass, but you're right, also no glazing. No matter what I read about the merits, I'm just afraid to use the stuff and I don't know whether it's worth the high cost. It's also not completely clear to me (perhaps with your background in chemistry you have informed insight) what the long-term effects could be of the interactions between the glazing chemicals and the paper/ink surfaces. I have prints of the grand-children tacked on the fridge door since a good four years ago printed on "lowly" Epson Enhanced Matte, no protection whatsoever and they look fine. The OBA has faded very evenly to the point that the paper white is quite close to the back-side of a new sheet of Epson Enhanced Matte (or whatever they call it these days) but the images still look fine. And indeed, if the time comes that it seems necessary, one will be able to reprint - perhaps on yet better papers and in better printers than we are now using.
-
Hi Alan - I said no glass, but you're right, also no glazing. No matter what I read about the merits, I'm just afraid to use the stuff and I don't know whether it's worth the high cost. It's also not completely clear to me (perhaps with your background in chemistry you have informed insight) what the long-term effects could be of the interactions between the glazing chemicals and the paper/ink surfaces.
I don't think there is any danger of interaction with acrylic glazing. The polymerization process is complete so that there would not be any reactive chemicals left. The cost is a factor with good acrylic costing between $3-8(US) per square foot depending on whether you want UV protection or not. We purchased an Ansel Adams Yosemite print several years ago and they use acrylic in framing them and I know that in his book "The Print" this was Adams's recommendation.
-
Well, if it's good enough for Ansel and you, it should be good enough for me :-). Cost-wise, this price range makes it almost a toss-up between reprinting on high quality paper or glazing.
-
A problem that you rarely see mentioned is that almost all glass has a slight bluish-green tint, and this does cool the image a fraction. It's a very minor effect, but it does trouble me sometimes with my B/W prints.
John
-
A problem that you rarely see mentioned is that almost all glass has a slight bluish-green tint, and this does cool the image a fraction. It's a very minor effect, but it does trouble me sometimes with my B/W prints.
John
John, do you notice this same effect with the highest quality museum glass? I've seen prints under such glass, and of all the glass solutions it looked the best to me, but of course very costly. Colour cast didn't strike me in the face, but then again I wasn't looking for it, so could have by-passed me.
-
John, do you notice this same effect with the highest quality museum glass? I've seen prints under such glass, and of all the glass solutions it looked the best to me, but of course very costly. Colour cast didn't strike me in the face, but then again I wasn't looking for it, so could have by-passed me.
Mark, I have not been able to compare samples over a plain white background, which of course one would need to do. However, we have a professional framer just down in the village, so next time I see him I will ask his opinion. I was just thinking that acrylic should not suffer from this effect. Ansel started using it because of the problems he was having with shipping his prints for exhibition, notably weight and breakages en route. I don't think archival qualities were foremost in his mind.
John
-
A problem that you rarely see mentioned is that almost all glass has a slight bluish-green tint, and this does cool the image a fraction. It's a very minor effect, but it does trouble me sometimes with my B/W prints.
John
I've always used acrylic so have not noticed this at all. The Ansel Adams print that we have is here: http://www.anseladams.com/Merced_River_Cliffs_Autumn_p/5010116-u.htm and we had the studio frame it for us. I've not noticed any color cast at all but don't know whether they use UV-protecting acrylic or what. The print looks stunning and it's a relative cheap way to have an Adams on the wall!!
-
I've always used acrylic so have not noticed this at all. The Ansel Adams print that we have is here: http://www.anseladams.com/Merced_River_Cliffs_Autumn_p/5010116-u.htm and we had the studio frame it for us. I've not noticed any color cast at all but don't know whether they use UV-protecting acrylic or what. The print looks stunning and it's a relative cheap way to have an Adams on the wall!!
That was John's point. Glass, if not Museum standard, gives a green tint and acrylic is pure transparent, with no tint.
I'm going to exhibit later this year, in Oct, and I'm leaning more and more to try with no glazing at all.
It looks a bit odd, but when getting used to it, it's feels actually more "natural" and "neutral". One really downside is that
the artwork isn't protected at all.
1. Standard glass; low cost, green tint, fragile, high weight, reflections, artwork protected
2. Acrylic; medium cost, no tint, not fragile, low weight, easily scratched, reflections, artwork protected
3. No glazing at all;..............no protection of artwork
/Sven
-
If I were to make the effort of getting some work accepted for an exhibit I think I would select the no glass- no glaze option. People who go to galleries and the gallery owners themselves are usually well-behaved in how they handle or don't handle the art, so the risk of damage is probably quite low, while the native image quality impact would be quite high.
-
There is a problem with acrylic, and that's static. The stuff just seems to have a magnetic attraction for dust and fluff. It is also very easily scratched when handling in transit.
We can note that in the wider world of the visual arts, oil paintings are never glazed. But of course they are usually finished with a protective varnish layer. Whereas water colours and drawings, prints and engravings, all of which are more akin to photographs, are almost always glazed when framed for their own protection. This I fear is a conundrum which we will never truly solve - I hate reflections in the glass which wreck the viewer's appreciation of the picture, but I have tried unprotected prints and they really do suffer as a result from cooking fumes, fire ash, cat hairs and all the other noxious pollution in my cottage. Not to mention the evil damp, which today stood at 85% RH indoors ;)
John
-
Yes, but as Mark put it, within an exhibition condition (art gallery) the effect from not protecting will be minimal.
If I (hopefully) sell some pieces of art, I probably have to glaze-protect them.
I remember in the good-old-days in the 70-80's, people thought it was to "arty" to frame a photograph :D
/Sven
-
A problem that you rarely see mentioned is that almost all glass has a slight bluish-green tint, and this does cool the image a fraction. It's a very minor effect, but it does trouble me sometimes with my B/W prints.
John
There is Water White Glass, a low iron content glass.
http://www.waterwhiteglass.com
There are more companies that can supply it.
It is for example the glass in flatbed scanners.
met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst
Dinkla Gallery Canvas Wrap Actions for Photoshop
http://www.pigment-print.com/dinklacanvaswraps/index.html
-
I hate reflections in the glass which wreck the viewer's appreciation of the picture
But this is not a problem so much with the glass as where they are hung and how they are lit.
-
Provide the gallery visitors with Polaroid Glasses ;)
/Sven
-
I have all my prints hanging for me to judge for exhibition in my home, unglazed.
Mounted onto a Diabond style substrate.
Four different brands and Lustre to matt papers printed by me. Some have OBA, not something I like but try avoiding it.
It is a large high ceiling space in Dorset half a mile from the sea.
Oldest prints mounted this way, about 20 months or so.
The prints are perfect, just like the day I mounted them. The prints with OBA's printed and only hanging for six months so far.
I intend to exhibit them like this as I prefer the look and so do most of my visitors so far.
Transport is an issue as they are prone to damage, so may box frame them to protect the edges.
Foam and framed prints and canvas stretch mounted prints in the same environment had some failures with warping.
I don't spray or coat anything or avoid direct lighting. Well, there is not much of that in the UK anyway.
I know this is not a long time for judging longevity but it is an alternative to bulky, costly framing with an optically clear glass, the only alternative for me as all other glass I have tried very obviously showed colour shifts when looking at the art work. Just to expensive and laminates hot or cold available here are not archival so why bother.
If I bought a sculpture I would not want to knock it over, so why would I spill handle or whatever a hanging picture?
It also nice for people to see the paper if you have been selective in the printing process.........................!
Regards
-
I'd like to know definitively whether this paper is intended for Photo Black, or Matte Black ink.... to some extent I don't suppose it matters and you could use either, but the recent review (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/the_paper_that_almost_got_away.shtml) by Mark Dubovoy suggests this paper is intended for Photo Black ink. However, Michael also mentioned this paper way back in January 2010 (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/printers/tale.shtml) as a side note in his evaluation on Infinity Baryta Photographique, only Michael believed that the Platine Fiber Rag was intended for Matte Black inks.
Looking at the technical information on Canson's site, I'm none the wiser. :-\
-
I'd like to know definitively whether this paper is intended for Photo Black, or Matte Black ink.... to some extent I don't suppose it matters and you could use either, but the recent review (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/the_paper_that_almost_got_away.shtml) by Mark Dubovoy suggests this paper is intended for Photo Black ink. However, Michael also mentioned this paper way back in January 2010 (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/printers/tale.shtml) as a side note in his evaluation on Infinity Baryta Photographique, only Michael believed that the Platine Fiber Rag was intended for Matte Black inks.
Looking at the technical information on Canson's site, I'm none the wiser. :-\
Concerning the Canson Platine Fiber Rag, I posted about this back in February:
"And therein lies the rub. We have forever been told that descriptions that state things like "100% cotton" and "Fibre Rag" are terms synonymous with Matte Black ink. And terms like "Photo" and "Glossy" use Photo Black. Why can't the people that market this stuff, LABEL it as to which ink is recommended for the type of paper that it is. A simple "For best results it is recommended that Photo Black(or Matte Black) ink be used for this paper". I had been looking at samples of the Canson line at a local dealer(the ONLY dealer locally that actually has a WIDE variety to look at and compare side by side) but the 100% cotton and Rag convinced me that I could not use it since I use PK. Unfortunately, the only person that I could ask at the time was someone(not his area of expertise) that didn't know if the Platine FR was PK or MK compatible.
Thank you Kirk for your answer! Next time I'm by that store(no one else in town carries it) I'll take another close look at the Canson line:"
I did get to go back to that store and looked at the samples and bought a package to try. As it says on the Canson website it is for use with Photo Black, which is what I use. It does say "Glossy" on the package, which indicates PK ink, but I find the surface to be softer, almost like a semi-matte, which is what I prefer.
-
Canson advises Premium Luster as the paper type, so Photo Black ink is the appropriate ink for their Platine Fibre Rag.
@KeithR - Museo's Silver Rag and Hahnemuhle's Photo Rag Baryta are two examples of 100% cotton paper that use Photo Black on their 'gloss' printing surface. Cotton does not indicate that Matte Black is the correct choice.
-
@KeithR - Museo's Silver Rag and Hahnemuhle's Photo Rag Baryta are two examples of 100% cotton paper that use Photo Black on their 'gloss' printing surface. Cotton does not indicate that Matte Black is the correct choice.
Randy is correct; it is the surface coating and not the paper stock that determines which black ink to use. When in doubt prior to purchase always check the manufacturer's website. I have always found that they provide the correct information.
-
As for how one looks at the prints - indeed - generally straight-on; but I thought it would be fun putting this to the test. I have my Toronto panorama (done with a Phase One P40+) hanging on a wall (no glass) - that copy printed on Canson Baryta Photographique in an Epson 7900. I wanted to see first of all at how much of angle I could view it while still seeing the image properly, and next, whether the paper finish interferes with the apparent acuity of image detail.
Hmmm, who really looks at a print except from dead on? I might walk up to a print from an angle, but I really only look at a print dead on. And frankly the Canson Plantine is superb-my favorite paper for glossy inks.
ok - for the sake of a good humored disagreement: take Mark's panorama, you stand in front of a part of it and that looks ok dead-on, turn your head slightly to the left or right (it is a panorama, after all) and you are going to be hit by surface stipple.
A line of prints on a gallery wall, as you walk along you don't have blinkers on that only allow you to see one at a time, you view the one in front of you, and the others lining out from there. Sometimes they are not in a neat line - higher/lower, or there may be a window that catches them at a rake. In all those cases you are hit primarily by the texture, the surface stipple, before you get to see the image itself dead on, and: "First Impressions", etc. In such cases the stipple of (e.g.) Platine interferes with the image.
My point is this: why have it there at all? Who said, ok, lets take this amazing high tech coating with a perfect smooth surface carefully laid on our top range all cotton paper... and... put a texture on it? Why? I just don't understand why Canson (or Hahnemuhle with PRB) add stipple texture to their surface. ???
-
If I were to make the effort of getting some work accepted for an exhibit I think I would select the no glass- no glaze option. People who go to galleries and the gallery owners themselves are usually well-behaved in how they handle or don't handle the art, so the risk of damage is probably quite low, while the native image quality impact would be quite high.
I did this at the Venice Biennale a few years back. Everything came back ruined. Every. Single. Print.
It isn't worth the risk, except maybe in your own home. It took 3 years and an Italian lawyer to get back a modest % of the insurance value.
-
Hi Narikin: OK, understood. On the matter of the texturized coatings - I think the point of it is very simple - a compromise trying to get the high DMax without the distraction of the gloss reflections. This has been around for many decades. I remember using Velvet Stipple paper when I was a kid in my darkroom back in the 1950s. So the basic idea has a sustained market for a reason - many people like it. Others including you find it distracting so they don't. That's fine, but only to make the point that there is a reason for it. Now, my pano is a bit of an outlier as a general case in hand, but I mentioned it simply to emphasize that at least - I - (and by implication I'm assuming many others), can still resolve the fine detail of the images in our brains while looking at mildly textured papers from a range of angles; but usually to appreciate the "art" we do tend to view it straight-on, and in that condition the texture is much less of an issue.
On the question of protection, when I made that comment, it was in the context of locally produced work going to and from a local gallery under my supervision. When you are shipping stuff and have no control over the handling, that is a completely different ball-game and in that circumstance I expect surface coating plus a lot else is well-advised. Collecting from insurance companies is a "legendary process" world-wide I think.
-
Now, my pano is a bit of an outlier as a general case in hand, but I mentioned it simply to emphasize that at least - I - (and by implication I'm assuming many others), can still resolve the fine detail of the images in our brains while looking at mildly textured papers from a range of angles; but usually to appreciate the "art" we do tend to view it straight-on, and in that condition the texture is much less of an issue.
Mark,
Both gloss difference and bronzing are surface issues we hardly can detect while viewing prints straight-on, yet it is seen as a quality defect. In practice viewing straight on is not that simple :-)
met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst
New: Spectral plots of +250 inkjet papers:
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
-
Mark,
Both gloss difference and bronzing are surface issues we hardly can detect while viewing prints straight-on, yet it is seen as a quality defect. In practice viewing straight on is not that simple :-)
met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst
New: Spectral plots of +250 inkjet papers:
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
Ernst, with all due respect, perhaps there is a misunderstanding, but this isn't what I'm talking about. The issue raised in this thread that I'm addressing is whether the presence of the surface texture on the paper interferes with the viewers' appreciation of image detail. I believe this is not comparable to bronzing and gloss differential. And maybe I'm missing something, but when I look at a print straight-on, it seems like a pretty straightforward process to me. I position my eyes perpendicular to the print surface from a normal viewing distance, which is the normal way prints are meant to be looked at, and I see what I see.
-
Personally, I don't like any surface texture on a print, or at least as little as possible. It's not like a pencil or charcoal drawing on cartridge paper, where the texture becomes part of the artist's intent. I don't want to see a texture, or reflections, or bronzing or gloss diff - I want to see the picture.
In that respect, Harman's original Matt FB mp baryta paper was ace - matt and dead smooth. But obviously nobody else thought so, because they have discontinued it. And it was terribly delicate.
John
-
Canson advises Premium Luster as the paper type, so Photo Black ink is the appropriate ink for their Platine Fibre Rag.
@KeithR - Museo's Silver Rag and Hahnemuhle's Photo Rag Baryta are two examples of 100% cotton paper that use Photo Black on their 'gloss' printing surface. Cotton does not indicate that Matte Black is the correct choice.
What I was referring to was that before papers such as Museo's Silver Rag or the Baryta papers came along, most papers that were labeled as cotton or rag were being sold(and talked about on many forums) as being for MK ink only. Many of the sales people that I came in contact with, said the same thing. When I picked up a package of the Canson Platine(last week), the salesman asked when I switched to MK. So as one that preferred the look from the PK inks, I had to stay with surfaces that used PK, that stated RC, or luster, or satin. I just plain didn't know any different because that was what was being said at that time. In my original post(back in February, all I really asked for was why couldn't the paper companies just make note on the package as to which ink is recommended instead of having to doing all kinds of research for such a simple piece of info, and not everyone has their computer with them(to do a search) when they stop in a store to check out what the paper actually looks like. And as I found out last week, not all the sales personnel are fully knowledgeable. I come across a lot of people that are new to digital and trying to doing their own printing and they ask the same questions. I've gained a lot of very helpful info here on LuLa and pass it along when I come across it, but I don't necessarily get to read all the posts so forgive me if I missed info along the way. ::)
-
In my original post(back in February, all I really asked for was why couldn't the paper companies just make note on the package as to which ink is recommended instead of having to doing all kinds of research for such a simple piece of info, and not everyone has their computer with them(to do a search) when they stop in a store to check out what the paper actually looks like. And as I found out last week, not all the sales personnel are fully knowledgeable.
I totally agree on that.
It shouldn't be that hard for the manufacturers.
/Sven
-
has anyone bothered noticing that the NAME of the ICC profile includes that information? 'P_BK'
vs. the fine arts papers which are (as expected) M_BK
-
has anyone bothered noticing that the NAME of the ICC profile includes that information? 'P_BK'
vs. the fine arts papers which are (as expected) M_BK
That may be true and that info might be on the website. But lets say that you happen into a store that happens to have a new paper in stock(maybe some sample prints provided by the company) and you want to know which black is used. Do you think the store would allow you to access their computer to look for that info? I don't know how well stocked the stores you frequent are, but around here in the metro area of Minneapolis there is only ONE store that has a multitude of the top brands with samples to look at/compare and only one salesperson that has knowledge of the stock and he's not always around when I can get into that store. All I'm saying is that the info could be put on the packaging to make it easier for the customer to make an informed decision.
-
dont get me wrong, I agree w/ you. But, when I look at samples at the shop, I have to expect that the mfgr used the same ink that the profile wants. Those swatch packs w/o any image at all are somewhat useless (ala Epson)
-
If a paper is to use Matte Black the word matte should be in the paper name or somewhere on the box. I agree that it is sometimes difficult to tell if a paper has a gloss (gloss, semi-gloss, luster, satin, etc,) because the names don't always include that info, but most matte papers say so on the package.
-
I did a lot on plexiglas, but switched to glas again. I never liked how plexiglas bends, yellows over time and just scratches to easily. My current solution is, Schott Mirogard plus. Personally I think there is nearly no better glass out there. However, the downside is that it is very expsnive.
I would never frame a print without protection, but that's only me.
-
HP documents on what different media presets use of Z3100 inks and HP documents on the use of its media presets for third party papers make it easy to see what black, grey, ink combinations are used for a specific paper. And it does not matter much as all the inks are available on that model without any switch needed.
Then there is the great divide between all Baryta/Fiber/RC/Foil/Film qualities set against all matte Fine Art/plain matte coated inkjet/uncoated papers if is about MK or PK. With few exceptions.
met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst
New: Spectral plots of +250 inkjet papers:
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
-
Ernst, with all due respect, perhaps there is a misunderstanding, but this isn't what I'm talking about. The issue raised in this thread that I'm addressing is whether the presence of the surface texture on the paper interferes with the viewers' appreciation of image detail. I believe this is not comparable to bronzing and gloss differential. And maybe I'm missing something, but when I look at a print straight-on, it seems like a pretty straightforward process to me. I position my eyes perpendicular to the print surface from a normal viewing distance, which is the normal way prints are meant to be looked at, and I see what I see.
I think what Ernst was pointing out, was simply that Bronzing or Gloss Differential is not a problem head on, but is a real problem at an angle. Everyone spends a lot of time and energy minimizing/ complaining/ fixing that. But when it comes to surface stipple, which is not a problem head on, but is a real problem at an angle. some folks are deciding that it doesn't matter.
Differing standards, to accommodate our bias - that is his point, I believe. And a good one too!
-
Then there is the great divide between all Baryta/Fiber/RC/Foil/Film qualities set against all matte Fine Art/plain matte coated inkjet/uncoated papers if is about MK or PK. With few exceptions.
Very much agree. It is deeply frustrating that the new Ultrasmooth Matt Papers have all the qualities I like, zero reflection/bronzing; look good from any angle; very smooth surface; can be pure cotton; can be no OBA's, but... they are Matte Black, so have poor black density, compared to a Baryta's.
Is there a reason why we can't have a PK Ultrasmooth Matt Surface?
-
Is there a reason why we can't have a PK Ultrasmooth Matt Surface?
narikin, it's all comes down to physics. The deeps blacks and vivid colours that gloss surfaces produce happen because they are efficient light reflectors. The surface is smooth, and light striking a smooth surface at 90 degrees is directly reflected back. It's coherent light. This is also why there is glare, for when you view a gloss image at an angle the light is also efficiently reflected. Well positioned lighting is critical for viewing a gloss image at it's best.
A matte surface conversely, is designed to scatter light. It's "bumpy" or irregular, and and there is less light reflected directly back, and less coherent light. That's the reason that matte black is less punchy and the colours have a smaller gamut. It's also why there is no glare, for the same light scattering properties hold true when you view the image at an angle.
Bottom line, we can't have out cake and eat it too!
Terry.
-
Yes, true.
And you will find the deepest black from black solid glass, with 45˚ light angel.
/Sven
-
There is actually much more going on, and much of ithas to do with coating technology.
-
I just tried the Harmon Gloss Baryta on the IPF 8300 yesterday and there is no bronzing and no gloss differential. There is not even the necessity to apply a couple of coats of uv spray unless you want greater surface protection. It just works.
john
-
I just tried the Harmon Gloss Baryta on the IPF 8300 yesterday and there is no bronzing and no gloss differential. There is not even the necessity to apply a couple of coats of uv spray unless you want greater surface protection. It just works.
Could not agree more. It works great in an 8300, but not quite so well in Epsons, due to pressure marks on the paper when the roll rests between prints. Canon does not do this.
and you are not mentioning its large Gamut and very long life in Aardenberg, excellent stability.
it has stubborn curl, that is my only criticism. Oh and it doesn't come in 60" rolls. Great Paper otherwise.
-
narikin, it's all comes down to physics. The deeps blacks and vivid colours that gloss surfaces produce happen because they are efficient light reflectors. The surface is smooth, and light striking a smooth surface at 90 degrees is directly reflected back. It's coherent light. This is also why there is glare, for when you view a gloss image at an angle the light is also efficiently reflected. Well positioned lighting is critical for viewing a gloss image at it's best.
A matte surface conversely, is designed to scatter light. It's "bumpy" or irregular, and and there is less light reflected directly back, and less coherent light. That's the reason that matte black is less punchy and the colours have a smaller gamut. It's also why there is no glare, for the same light scattering properties hold true when you view the image at an angle.
Bottom line, we can't have out cake and eat it too!
Terry.
Damn somedays you hate science.
I want a matte cake!
-
When I tested the fiber gloss Harmon when it first came out a few years ago it was super glossy and looked no different than an rc plastic print so I never thought twice about it again. But they totally redesigned it and now it can pass for Ilfobrome silver paper. It is even great for very small prints which is the first I've found that was not too textured. It has the best gloss characteristics of all the fiber gloss papers I've used with the Z3100 also, but if you look closely there is a tiny bit of bronzing than can give you a rainbow effect. But the Canon is perfect. This is the very first time I've been totally happy with these kinds of papers with pigments. I have to say I haven't tested the Platine yet with this printer but have seen it from an Epson 9880 and the Z and there were still some slight issues, but it's a nice paper.
j
-
When I tested the fiber gloss Harmon when it first came out a few years ago it was super glossy and looked no different than an rc plastic print so I never thought twice about it again. But they totally redesigned it and now it can pass for Ilfobrome silver paper. It is even great for very small prints which is the first I've found that was not too textured. It has the best gloss characteristics of all the fiber gloss papers I've used with the Z3100 also, but if you look closely there is a tiny bit of bronzing than can give you a rainbow effect. But the Canon is perfect. This is the very first time I've been totally happy with these kinds of papers with pigments. I have to say I haven't tested the Platine yet with this printer but have seen it from an Epson 9880 and the Z and there were still some slight issues, but it's a nice paper.
Agree.
IMHO - Harman Gloss Baryta (ex FBAL) has the true air-dried low gloss surface out there - no stipple - works well at angles and in small prints. I wish for the love of god that Canson had copied that surface with Platine.
Similar great surfaces are Epson Exhibition Fiber, (aka Innova IFA49 Fibaprint UltraSmooth) where they got it dead right too, BUT... filled the things with bad OBA's so it has terrible longevity. Avoid.
-
I want a matte cake!
For many years I had matte cake, but the gloss cake has been getting better and better. ;)
Terry.
-
IMHO - Harman Gloss Baryta (ex FBAL) has the true air-dried low gloss surface out there - no stipple - works well at angles and in small prints. I wish for the love of god that Canson had copied that surface with Platine.
I like that Platine has a bit of texture, but I have also been enjoying the smooth surface of Epson Exhibition Fiber (but not the OBA's). The old Harman had a pretty delicate surface. How is Harman Gloss Baryta in that regard?
Terry.
-
Greatly improved. The original Harmon was the only paper that I ever had roller marks on the Z with. None of that with the Z or the Canon on this Gloss Baryta. Can't comment on the Epsons. They also offer a warmer version that is perfect for those warm toned gloss prints that mimic Portriga. They deserve an award for nailing both of these. I'm standardizing on this as my only fiber gloss media from now on. Damn it's about time. I've wasted thousands on all these others over the years with mediocre results at best for black and white.
j
-
I'm standardizing on this as my only fiber gloss media from now on. Damn it's about time. I've wasted thousands on all these others over the years with mediocre results at best for black and white.
John. . . . what media setting have you settled on for the 8300 and the Harman paper? I'm going to pick up some sheets to try.
Are you as happy with the warmtone version as you are with the regular one?
Thanks.
Terry.
-
They deserve an award for nailing both of these. I'm standardizing on this as my only fiber gloss media from now on. Damn it's about time. I've wasted thousands on all these others over the years with mediocre results at best for black and white.
j
They got an award:
http://harman.hahnemuehle.com/news/en/822/398/harman-by-hahnemuehle-series-honoured-as-world-best-fine-art-inkjet-paper-by-tipa.html
and well deserved too imho
-
IMHO - Harman Gloss Baryta (ex FBAL) has the true air-dried low gloss surface out there - no stipple - works well at angles and in small prints. I wish for the love of god that Canson had copied that surface with Platine.
Similar great surfaces are Epson Exhibition Fiber, (aka Innova IFA49 Fibaprint UltraSmooth) where they got it dead right too, BUT... filled the things with bad OBA's so it has terrible longevity. Avoid.
The IFA49, and the other weight variants of it, does that have the same benefits of greatly reduced or missing gloss differential and bronzing as the Harman Gloss Baryta, now taken over by Hahnemühle?
-
They got an award:
http://harman.hahnemuehle.com/news/en/822/398/harman-by-hahnemuehle-series-honoured-as-world-best-fine-art-inkjet-paper-by-tipa.html
and well deserved too imho
Link does not work. Maybe the award was withdrawn! ;D
-
...Damn it's about time. I've wasted thousands on all these others over the years with mediocre results at best for black and white.
j
How about Photo Rag® Baryta for BW ?
like that a lot on my Z3100
-
This is a really old thread (2011!) reactivated, so its no surprise that that link is now broken
Harman Baryta remains an excellent paper, many people put it #1. It does really well on Aardenberg readings, despite having some OBA in there. go figure. One issue is it has a truly overpowering curl on it in roll form. Really difficult to work with. Wish they could fix that for people who print big...
Cut sheet is of course not a problem.
-
This is a really old thread (2011!) reactivated, so its no surprise that that link is now broken
Harman Baryta remains an excellent paper, many people put it #1. It does really well on Aardenberg readings, despite having some OBA in there. go figure. One issue is it has a truly overpowering curl on it in roll form. Really difficult to work with. Wish they could fix that for people who print big...
Cut sheet is of course not a problem.
Unless you leave an opened box out for a long time in a humid room--you'd be surprised what will curl after a while (I was--I buy a lot of sample packs and don't always use up all the sheets).
Paper curl along with an easily scratched surface are the two main reasons I don't like to print using Barytas. I've using the Canson Platine as the best substitute so far, but a Canson tech rep I know said their new paper has improved both of those problems:
http://www.canson-infinity.com/en/products/baryta-prestige
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AQVWB6l6Jko
I sent off for a sample roll so I'll see, but I'm hoping he's correct.
-
Well, don't believe the hype.
Baryta Prestige has some OBAs in it, for starters. That is not a deal breaker for everyone, but its not a great sign.
Harman Baryta is a rarity with some OBAs, but still good longevity. Very few papers achieve this, maybe this is one, maybe not.
I'll stick to Platine till the longevity test results are in.
-
Well, don't believe the hype.
Baryta Prestige has some OBAs in it, for starters. That is not a deal breaker for everyone, but its not a great sign.
Harman Baryta is a rarity with some OBAs, but still good longevity. Very few papers achieve this, maybe this is one, maybe not.
I'll stick to Platine till the longevity test results are in.
I don't like OBAs either, and I also don't like Alpha-Cellulose papers as they feel like cardboard to me. But I'm also open to new technologies and don't mind experimenting, and I absolutely hate paper curl which is why I usually only print any paper using cut sheets (the only "paper" I print using rolls anymore is canvas), so I'm really hoping this works.
-
The relatively new Canson Baryta Prestige is a heavy paper. Any heavier and the built-in cutter might be an issue. I buy rolls only, and even in roll form, this paper is surprisingly flat after printing. (I use the Epson P9000).
ken
-
The relatively new Canson Baryta Prestige is a heavy paper. Any heavier and the built-in cutter might be an issue. I buy rolls only, and even in roll form, this paper is surprisingly flat after printing. (I use the Epson P9000).
ken
Good to know. Have you have any problem with edge curl?
-
I have not experienced problems with curl with Canson Baryta Prestige. I do keep the vacuum on high (P9000) to make sure the paper is held in place---it is a heavy paper. The only issue I have seen is a couple times where the cutter stopped, but keeping the paper taught resolved the issue.
ken