Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Printing: Printers, Papers and Inks => Topic started by: walter.sk on December 03, 2011, 06:21:09 pm
-
I've been printing for close to 4 years with an HP Z3100 and now an Epson 4900. I have a fine, well-calibrated monitor, used home-brew profiles on the HP printer, and have been using the Epson profiles for the 4900. I'm quite adept at softproofing and using adjustment layers to bring the softproofed image back as close to the original as possible. I have a Just Normlicht print viewer which is adjusted so that my prints show no surprises compared with the softproofed versions on my displayMy images usually cover the full tonal range with fairly well saturated color, and I have settled on Epson Luster and Ilford Galerie Smooth Pearl for most of my prints and Canson Baryta Photographique and Ilford Gold Fiber Silk for exhibition and sales. These papers do amazingly well for reproducing the full tonal range of my B&W images as well as the range and degree of saturation in my color images. All this to say that I know how to make prints.
At the Photo Expo Plus exhibition this fall I looked closely at matte paper, and was impressed with the prints I saw there using Epson Hot and Cold Press papers, as well as matte papers of some other manufacturers. What surprised me was that they seemed to have deep blacks and better contrast and saturation, so I picked up some sample packs to try out. I was shocked when softproofing my images, in that for black and whites the contrast was reduced so much, and the blacks seemed much less dark on the B&W images, and the saturation and contrast on the color images were also very diminished compared with my non-matte papers mentioned above. No amount of tweaking the softproofed images was able to bring back enough of the dynamic range of the B&W images or the contrast and saturation of the color images to satisfy me, and the prints simply verified that, matching my softproofed images.
Am I missing something? Or were the sample prints I saw at the Photo Expo chosen with a limited range of blacks, and color that was carefully selected to maximize what the papers could do? I know that if I picked some of my images that called for less contrast and saturation they would probably do well on the matte papers, but in my own test prints of full-range images the results were disappointing.
-
You aren't missing anything. Most matte papers have much lower DMax and reflectance than the papers you are accustomed to using. This shock is normal once you are spoiled by Ilford Gold Fibre Silk or its similar media types.
-
You aren't missing anything. Most matte papers have much lower DMax and reflectance than the papers you are accustomed to using. This shock is normal once you are spoiled by Ilford Gold Fibre Silk or its similar media types.
But then why do I see see more (or at least equal) contrast on Museo Textured Rag than on Hanemühle or Canson Baryta?
That was totally unexpected for me and I now settled on the Museo paper for all my BW stuff.
cheers
afx
-
I corrected a typo in my quote, from "Moat" to "Most".
I haven't worked with the paper you are using, so I can't answer your question. I said "most" and purposely avoided saying "all", because I've heard that one or more matte papers or near-matte papers have much improved DMax than available several years ago. To verify what your eyes are telling you, it may be useful to measure the maximum black and see what you really have.
-
You have only one other alternative to bring "pop" back into a matte print and which was the same technique I had to implement as a graphics camera operator in order to add "pop" to B&W images in the newspaper business.
You have to increase perceived overall contrast starting with the base black shown in the Soft Proof preview which you've found can't be made darker/richer. Of course you must select the right Soft Proof settings (paper white/ink black) to give you an exact preview of the current level of contrast seen on the print you're trying to correct for.
It's just an optical trick that worked VERY convincingly as I adjusted exposure converting continuous tone B&W photos into 75 lpi halftone dot. The finished conversion looked grotesquely high contrast on glossy bright white RC paper but printed beautifully on dull newsprint.
-
I felt the same way until I tried Breathing Color Optica One 300. I just finished a 20' trial roll, 17" wide on a Z3200 44"PS printer. Deep lustrous blacks.
-
Am I missing something?
Getting good results on glossy/lustre papers isn't hard because of their increased contrast and gamut, in other words you'll get acceptable output even if you're a novice and your profiles aren't great. For matte, it's more exacting. I suggest first lowering your monitor luminance and contrast. This way you won't be reliant on adjustment layers because the image displayed will already be a close match to paper output. Soft-proofing (with Simulate Black Ink) is pretty useless for matte papers and isn't required if your monitor luminance range already matches that of the paper. You should be able to get comparable results on matte to what you get on glossy/lustre with the only difference being dMax and depth in the shadows. (I realize this is contrary to accepted practice here, but try it to see if it works for you.)
-
the solution is not to print on matte paper. if someone says he needs matte because he's framing it behind glass, then suggest to him not to use glass. you wouldn't put glass in front of a painting, why do it for photographs. i think a little reflectivity on luster papers is more tolerable than the dullness of matte. i notice younger photograpers agree with me more often than elders regarding the aesthetics of matte.
-
You never mentioned whether you switched to Matte Black ink or not for your prints. That will make a huge difference but the matte papers will never match the d-max of photo papers. I print a lot on Hahnemühle, Epson and other matte papers and while the measured d-max is lower, the perceived d-max is not a problem, that is, that blacks feel black, or at least, black enough. The softproofing for the matte papers is never as accurate perceptually than the photo papers and only rarely do I use full white and black compensation. What I see in a simple convert to profile is much closer to the actual print.
-
I have been printing a lot of BW and color landscapes as well as portraits on Epson Hot Press and Velvet,
with very nice results. Of course that "very nice" feeling it is a very subjective thing to say, but to me
especially the hot press media has beautiful blacks, even when I compare it with Hahnemuhle Baryta.
The Epson Velvet (similar to the old somerset velvet), is a different story. It does have a noticeable D-max drop,
but the smoothness of its tones on color seascapes, along with its unique texture, is something priceless.
I print those on both Epson 4900 and the new R3000, using matt black ink on both and Epson profiles. I also use Quad tone rip
for the BW prints.
Regards,
George
-
I use a lot of Matte Litho Realistic and blacks are just fantastic, overal contrast is somehow lower than on glossy or satin media but if you have a significant part of black only like black background in the studio it is unbeatable. Artistic B&W nude in studio is something that looks the best for me on that paper. A friend of my said that it looks like it is made by soot, machine is Z3100. The only problem is that surface is so sensitive that you see every touch of finger on it.
I use it a lot for color work also, main problem is to get saturated red, but for pictures that do not have histeric colors this is wonderfull paper. Price of paper is unbeatable in its class!
-
Getting good results on glossy/lustre papers isn't hard because of their increased contrast and gamut, in other words you'll get acceptable output even if you're a novice and your profiles aren't great. For matte, it's more exacting. I suggest first lowering your monitor luminance and contrast. This way you won't be reliant on adjustment layers because the image displayed will already be a close match to paper output. Soft-proofing (with Simulate Black Ink) is pretty useless for matte papers and isn't required if your monitor luminance range already matches that of the paper. You should be able to get comparable results on matte to what you get on glossy/lustre with the only difference being dMax and depth in the shadows. (I realize this is contrary to accepted practice here, but try it to see if it works for you.)
My experience with matte papers (lengthy before switching to Ilford Gold Fibre Silk as my standard) is that appropriate display luminance AND softproofing (with BPC and with Simulate Paper White) are BOTH essential to getting predictable results. More often than not a contrast boost with a Curves Adjustment layer is usually necessary.
-
Matte was the obvious choice a few years back to make digital work, since glossy looked cheap and had various weird color problems.
There are some images for which Matte really is superior, but for most images we were just trying to find a way to come up with something sellable out of our digital workflows. Looking back, it is pretty amazing what we collectively accepted to settle for.
As predicted Matte lost ground very quickly when Baryta digital papers showed up.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Matte was the obvious choice a few years back to make digital work, since glossy looked cheap and had various weird color problems.
There are some images for which Matte really is superior, but for most images we were just trying to find a way to come up with something sellable out of our digital workflows. Looking back, it is pretty amazing what we collectively accepted to settle for.
As predicted Matte lost ground very quickly when Baryta digital papers showed up.
Cheers,
Bernard
I agree with this completely. It replicates exactly my migration between matte and baryta. And as far as what one settles for - I wasn't prepared to settle for anything digital until Epson came up with a neat prosumer desktop solution to the print longevity issue - the Epson 2000P printer. Remember the great reviews it got? Well, I thought it was wonderful in its day too, but when I compare those prints made just 12 years ago with what I get from my 4900 and Ilford Gold Fibre Silk now - it's night and day; but we were happy back then! I like being spoiled by technical progress!
-
Matte and Lustre/Glossy papers are simply different and you should exploit the different advantages they have. It's not wise to try a matte paper to look like a baryta one.
If you have a photo with high contrast, deep blacks, very vibrant colors, and you want to maximize in the print these attributes of the shot, then simply go with baryta, or the cheaper lustre and glossy papers, because these shots will probably look dull if printed on matte papers.
But matte papers, espacially the textured ones, may give a tridimensional sensation and a "no-photo" look that is hard to explain. Landscape shots with soft colors and limited contrast may look astonishingly real! The lack of glare is also another fundamental characteristic of matte papers and contributes much to the "real" look they have.
In my livingroom I have a couple of 60x40 cm matte prints on the walls and mounted on 5mm di-bond panel. People are always very impressed by the realistic look of that "strange material" (they think photos are printed directly on the aluminium panel...) and by the "no-photo" look of the image, probably because they are used to think to photos printed on cheap, plastic-look, minilab papers...
So try to print on the best matte papers (Hahnemuehle PhotoRag variants, and Epson above all, since the Epson profiles are the best possible match for your printer) and do not choose the kind of photos that look great on baryta papers. I love both Canson Baryta and Hahnemuehle PR Bright White, but I simply use them for different photos.
Giuseppe
-
Felix,
Is it better or at least comparable to Ilford Gold Fiber Silk.?
I've been looking at the breathing color paper you mentioned,for my Epson 3000.
Mike
-
Matte and Lustre/Glossy papers are simply different and you should exploit the different advantages they have. It's not wise to try a matte paper to look like a baryta one.
Giuseppe
I agree with this. You are raising a matter of taste. Some kinds of images may simply look better on matte than on glossier finishes, and the editing for print they get should be appropriate to the paper and subject matter. However, there is also a matter of measured performance. The DMax of a paper such as IGFS will vastly exceed that of most - if not all - matte papers, which is the issue Walter probably observed, leading to his original post.
-
Walter-
It's all a matter of expectations and comparisons. I also printed on matte cotton rag papers back when I used an Epson 7600, because I really disliked the unpleasant bronzing and metamerism that printer and inkset demonstrated on glossier papers. I printed photographs that looked good on cotton rag paper: images with soft delicate tonalities and subtle colors. Some black & white photographs can look great on cotton rag paper, but not those that depend for impact on intense contrast and deep blacks. Since that time I've switched to baryta-type papers for the extra dynamic range for most of my work.
Really well printed photographs on cotton rag paper can look fabulous. And the complete absence of annoying reflections or gloss differential is great. But they will always look a bit pallid or weak when put side by side with photos printed on semigloss/baryta papers. I'm guessing you saw those matte 'demo' prints in isolation with no comparable prints on glossier stock to hold them against.
-
Am I missing something?
Yep...the difference between a D-Max of 1.7 for matte vs 2.6 for glossy based papers.
What you need to learn is how to both pick images for matte paper–softer less contrasty DR image work better and how to prep images intended for matte papers. Basically, learn how to use the matte paper palette. I'm presuming you are using the Matte K inks in the 4900, right?
In terms of prepping the image, what you need to regain is a lot of lost midtone contrast you loos with a 1.7 D-Max. White will be paper white and black will be max black ink. With a wide dynamic range image, everything in between gets compressed. You can use midtone contrast (also called local area contrast-Mike has an article about it) or dodging and burning areas to enhance the texture and detail of an image so it looks as good as it can on matte.
There really is a fundamental difference in the looks of both glossy and matte papers...some images can work on either but many images will look better on glossy because of the dynamic range the print can handle.
-
As others have said, in the end I think a lot of this comes down to taste. I've recently printed the image linked below on my 3800 on both Baryta and Photo Rag, and although compared side-by-side the Baryta has more 'pop', it is actually the matte print that I prefer - seems to have more 'dimensionality', and I personally prefer the lack of glare.
Ladybower Reservoir from Bamford Edge (http://www.astannard.com/latest_work.php?current_filename=ladybower-reservoir-bamford-edge-peak-district)
Has Jeff has said, there are certain things you can do to help out the matte papers, but ultimately you need to decide as an artist which look you prefer for your images.
-
Well, I read all of the responses so far, and decided to give it another try. Of course, I am aware of the fact that some images will look better on baryta papers and others on matte because of the inherent differences. Several of the posts spoke of ways to maximize the print within the physical limitations of the matte paper, essentially getting the eye to perceiving more apparent contrast and saturation. Jeff's thoughts got me to go back to the softproof and see what I could do. And yes, my softproof includes the paper white simulation and I am using the matte black ink with the 4900.
Usually in my softproofing I have the original image side by side with the softproofed version, and I simply try to get the softproof to look as much like the original as possible before I send it to the printer. On my renewed trials I changed that so the original image was no longer on screen, leaving only the softproof to work on. Then, I just work on getting the picture to look good. I clipped some of the deepest shadows to black, and used a duplicate background layer to open up some shadows more than usual. Then some work with Curves layers and a Hue/Saturation layer were successful in making the image look acceptably good. When I printed the image, adjusted differently for Epson Hot Press Bright White, EpsHPNatural, and EpsCold Press Natural, I was amazed at the results when viewing them in my print viewer. Only when I compared them simultaneously with the baryta prints did I see the difference in the darkest tones, and I also realized that I had actually overcompensated for saturation and contrast. Next round of adjustments was much better. And so is my understanding of how to work with these matte papers.
When I was composing music (decades ago), I put a long silence in a piece, believing it was for emphasis. A wonderful composer that I was working with said it wouldn't work as well as an "apparent" silence to accomplish the same psychological effect, and he was right. Schewe's and Tlooknbill's comments reminded me of that, and it works.
I owe an apology to Epson, and I will order some rolls of the Hot Press Natural (especially with their 3 for the price of 2 offer), and actually look forward to enjoying the use of matte paper for those images I have that would benefit from it.
-
i have never used ilford paper. for non matte surfaces i prefer crane museo silver rag, stunning in my opinion. I use breathing color live canvas and decided to try a trial roll of breathing color optic one.. I have a shot of a leaf against a black background. with matte papers expansive areas of black look lifeless. with breathing color optic one the black looks like suede, very lustrous. tried it with color, same result. I will be buying 44" for larger prints.
-
If you're near a good bookstore, try and check out the new edition of Koudelka's Gypsies, printed on matte paper by Steidl in Germany. It shows what can be achieved by carefully exploiting that 'soot'-like quality mentioned by an earlier poster - not to everyone's tastes, but inspiring if you enjoy the hand-feel of a good cotton paper.
-
I love Baryta papers. I love matte too. I totally agree it depends on the image and your skill level of maximizing for a particular media.
I print about 80% canvas, which although it turns out great, I try to push more art papers. But my customers' customers want canvas, which fortunately is profitable enough to make it worthwhile. And understand the canvas looks great, it just doesn't have the personality of the art papers. I have been holding some fine art printing classes lately and after people become more educated on the subject, they have a much better appreciation. There is absolutely no comparison of a baryta print next to an $8.95 20x30 print from Costco. And they also appreciate that not everything has to look like a glossy snapshot. I show them great samples of of stuff on matte art papers and then they get it. Or at least a lot of them get it. Some still think the Costco print is 'good enough'.
As far as Breathing Color matte papers go, I have found nothing that matches the dmax and gamut. If anyone else has, please let me know. I want to use the best, as long as it is visually better also. The optica is smooth and the elegance is textured. They run about $150/sf if you figure shipping in. And they are very think too, which I love. Oh, breathing color will make custom profiles for you for free, and they are much better than anything I have been able to make, and I used to think I was good at it. But if you are comparing their matte paper with others, their custom profiles might just push theirs up the scale a bit.
While we are on the subject of Breathing Color, after the scratching problems found in Epson Exhibition Fibre with the Canon 8300, I tried a roll of Breathing Color Vibrance Rag, which is very similar in look and price, except I think the Vibrance Rag has a more pleasing texture. So I use it and Gold Fibre Silk as my Baryta choices now. Any body else compare the Vibrance Rag to anything else? Curious what you think.
But, I got off subject. I work almost exclusively with local artist and photographers, and when I have time, I like to do a few test prints on different media and show it to them. It keeps them from getting stuck on their one favorite paper and never experimenting and frequently they will choose a matte art paper when they never would have considered it before. And I don't simulate the blacks while soft proofing matte papers, it just looks dull to me. But soft proofing is great at showing what that paper is going to clip and lets you experiment a bit with if you want to change it.
-
As many posters have said, if it does't work for you then don't use it. You have to feel the emotion from the print. Why matte papers don't do it for you will have more to do with the type of work you are showing and the look you want for it. You have to go with your gut.
I've been printing using a range of papers but have narrowed it down to two, both of which are 100% cotton rag with not OBAs. Neither are glossy but both give excellent D-Max: Canson-Infinity Platine with a "smooth" lustre finish and Moab Entrada Rag Natural with a slightly textured matte finish. I love the way the Moab presents my work. I love the fact that it is not pure white. It has an organic look to it that provides just the right feel to my work.
When I worked in the wet darkroom, I loved the gloss of a Cibachrome and the dull sheen of a dried F surface. At the time, matte papers seemed to lack depth largely due to the lack of D-max. But with these more recent fine art papers for digital printing, my tastes have changed.
-
Talking about Varance Rag Trey.I notice there is 3 versions of it.Can you give a run down on each.Likes and dislikes.
-
As predicted Matte lost ground very quickly when Baryta digital papers showed up.
Once we got a good selection of Baryta a few years ago, I ran tests of color and b&w on 40+ papers.
I settled on all "photo black," no matte, and selected 5 standard papers to stock.
One thin weight for proofing (Epson Premium Semigloss 170). One for every day "final" prints. One every day Baryta for art type images.
One premium Baryta for color, and one premium Baryta for b&w.
I have my own custom profiles for each. Made my life much, much simpler. Usually I am only using 2 very close papers, proof and final image, in rolls.
Good luck!
Michael
-
Michael, this sounds like a very sensible approach. I'm curious to know which baryta papers you normally use for final B&W and colour, if you don't mind revealing, and why you differentiate.
-
FWIW, I too have narrowed down the number of papers that I print on (though I am always on the lookout for new papers that might have something to offer). I have not forsaken matte papers since there are some images that just look good on them. Additionally, whether the print will be framed of handled as part of a folio is also important. I would rather print on rag-based papers for folio prints because there is a difference in how they feel.
Matte papers: Hahnemuhle Photorag Ultra Smooth, Hahnemuhle William Turner (I do some printing for a local painter and she likes the texture and brightness of this paper), Canson Rag Photographique
Gloss papers: Ilford Gold Fiber Silk, Museo Silver Rag
-
Well, so far my paper choices will now include: Ilford Galerie Smooth Pearl for everyday printing: results very much like the Epson Luster, but somewhat more controlled light scatter, and 17" x 100' rolls are very inexpensive and quite handy for my usual 11"x17" prints, right off the roll;
Canson Infinity Baryta Photographique and Ilford Gold Fibre Silk (both superb for color and B&W) for most prints for exhibit, and Epson Exhibition Fiber which gives excellent range and color with somewhat of a visible texture. Of the matte papers I've tried, I now prefer Epson Hot Press Natural for the kind of color images I would want to see on a matte paper, as well as some of the sepia toned pictures I like. For most black & white pictures I still prefer the Epson Luster and Canson Baryta, despite the sheen.
My only complaint about the barytas (Canson and Ilford) is that the surface gets very funky if wet (I really try not to, but it can happen).
I again thank everybody here for their helpful coments.
-
I think one of the things that this thread has highlighted is what a fantastic choice of papers we have to print with in this current day.
Whether you like your paper glossy, matte, lustre, thick, thin, smooth or textured there seems to be something to suit, and you can produce stunning prints right from your own office. Great times to be in!
-
Michael, this sounds like a very sensible approach. I'm curious to know which baryta papers you normally use for final B&W and colour, if you don't mind revealing, and why you differentiate.
Hi Mark,
The short answer is that in 2008, when I did the tests, I settled on Innova Glossy Warm Tone for the B&W, instead of going with any kind of "toned" ink set. For most images, though, colour and B&W, I wanted a very "nuetral", mild textured, premium paper.
I blended my own glossy black ink set along the lines of Paul Roark's ink sets at the time. He was still doing a primarily matte ink set with colored toners, and Cone kept delaying their neutral glossy set. I blended a glossy only, 6K (6 blacks) plus GLOP (gloss optimizer) neutral ink set for glossy paper. I think the Innova smoothness also worked well with the GLOP.
Looking at a post from 2008 on another forum, my proofing paper was Epson Premium Semigloss 170 (thinner.) My main day-to-day paper was Epson Premium Luster.
I went with the Hahnemuhle Fine Art Baryta as my main premium paper. That was a bit of "Goldilocks" decision based on texture and color - too little, too much, just right - among the usual suspects: Epson, Illford, Harman, Hahnemuelle.
After Epson added the Epson Exhibition Fiber in rolls, I added that as my other premium paper. It was my #1 pick in my initial tests, but it was not yet available in rolls.
All of that is very subjective of course, as I ranked the Ilford Gold Silk lowest of the baryta's at the time, behind the Harman Gloss Fiber Al, which was just a little too smooth (according to my notes; I don't have a note on the Ilford.)
Of course, that was the opposite ranking of many here! I have tested newer papers, and I need to decide on and mix a new B&W ink set (dye or pigment? I have the pigments already ..), so I supose things may change a bit.
I think one of the things that this thread has highlighted is what a fantastic choice of papers we have to print with in this current day.
.... Great times to be in!
It really is, isn't it?
When I was doing B&W chemical darkroom in the 1980's, it would take me hours to get one decent 8.5x11 print.
Now I can roll off a few 24"x30" prints as proofs! I could never afford the equipment or materials to print that big back then.
Cheers! Michael
-
Size could have something to do with it. Most prints I make are in the 1 to 2 sq m range and 85% of artists insist on matte. With this sort of size the eye/brain sets it's own white /black points and the technical (instrument read) DMax and gamut differences have reduced influence. There is also a cultural thing. Many of my clients come from painting, etching or 3D arts. They seldom go for satin/gloss, usually rejecting it out of hand as looking "tinny " or cheap. Photographers are more likely to choose satin. Here Silver Rag wins out . I bought a roll of Baryta and can't get rid of it , despite making lots of free test samples. I definitely recommend the mid-tone contrast boost mentioned, particularly for matte. With Epson printers 2880 dpi maximises ink load and very careful custom profiles can make a significant difference , especially to saturation and colour separation in the deep shadows that gives rich , tapestry like colours to the matte papers..
Cheers,
Brian
Pharos Editions
-
85% of artists insist on matte. With this sort of size the eye/brain sets it's own white /black points and the technical (instrument read) DMax and gamut differences have reduced influence.
Yes. Without a side-by-side comparison, psychologically the matte print "lloks like" it has the same DMax as a glossy (with no direct reference.)
Similar to many of the optical illusion "games/tricks" online.
-
Yes. Without a side-by-side comparison, psychologically the matte print "lloks like" it has the same DMax as a glossy (with no direct reference.)
But that does not explain why the same image printed by the same R2880 with stock profiles has at least as rich blacks on Museo textured Rag compared the Canson and Hahnemühle Barytas when viewed next to each other independent of the light used for the comparison.
cheers
afx
-
But that does not explain why the same image printed by the same R2880 with stock profiles
There is an online tool that will let you upload and compare the 3D gamut of 2 different profiles.
You can rotate them, and compare to known standards.
You might be able to find beter profiles, or your work flow could be constrained. Maybe a new thread with the details of your specific printer, workflow, etc?
Quick reply - on my phone. Honestly, I had not looked at your question, just replying to the OP.
-
There is an online tool that will let you upload and compare the 3D gamut of 2 different profiles.
You can rotate them, and compare to known standards.
That will just confirm that the gamut of the matte is smaller (which I can also evident on the few color prints I tried). But I am looking at deep blacks here as stated above. (Probably should have made it clearer that these are BW images)
In that set of test images there where other matte papers like the Hahnemühle William Turner which clearly could not match the blacks of the Barytas.
I guess it just points to the fact hat not all matte papers are equal.
cheers
afx