Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Printing: Printers, Papers and Inks => Topic started by: Alistair on January 13, 2012, 10:12:32 am
-
I like this paper very much -a lower price, higher contrast, more saturated version of Hahn Photo Rag Pearl. However like other Canson papers, the Canson profile is not very nice. Does anyone have a good profile for this combo they can share?
-
Your best option is to hire someone who will prepare a custom profile for your printer and environment. Using someone elses profile will probably give you worse results than cansons profile. Although I admit - platine is a great paper and canson did poor job profiling it.
-
Did you try the HM Photorag Pearl 7880 profile for the Canson? And was it way off?
met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst
330+ paper white spectral plots:
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
-
Did you try the HM Photorag Pearl 7880 profile for the Canson? And was it way off?
met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst
330+ paper white spectral plots:
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
Yes, I did. Funnily enough it gave me a similar result to the Canson one. Very different from the result when using that profile to print on HM Photorag Pearl which gave a much less saturated and less contrasty result. Quite surprising as the base color and texture of the two papers are very similar and I suspected they were the same paper under different brands - but they are clearly not.
-
The same media presets used when you compared the papers/profiles? My claim is not that the papers are the same but I see that the spectral plots of the coating side overlap one another quite good so at least the paper white reflectance is similar. The Pearl paper base however is less reflective than the Platine base is. That all does not tell anything about the coating behaviour when printed but if you used different media presets with the same profile you also applied different ink loads.
met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst
330+ paper white spectral plots:
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
-
The same media presets used when you compared the papers/profiles?
met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst
330+ paper white spectral plots:
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
Well, I am pretty sure that I used the same settings but it is possible I used +10% extra ink load on the Platine. The HM PRP prints I made a year or two ago and I cannot be sure whether I was doing +10% back then. I will reprint on the Canson without the extra 10% but using the HM PRP profile and see if it is better. Thanks for the responses.
-
I would not trust my memory on print jobs. Then there are paper batch differences and not everyone has a printer that can be calibrated. Two or more images on the same print page and by that going through the same pipeline at the same time but each image having its own profile or rendering choice is ideal for this kind of jobs. Qimage Ultimate allows that. You could do something similar for both the normal media preset + the one with more ink. In my opinion that is more a gamma increase than an actual ink load increase on most RGB drivers.
met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst
330+ paper white spectral plots:
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
-
I love Platine and use it almost exclusively both for B&W and color work. I had custom profiles made by Eric Chan that are far superior to the canned profiles from Canson. Eric can even make ABW profiles, if you happen to use that mode very much. The cost is very reasonable.
Coincidentally, I have just requested samples of Photo Rag Pearl, which I want to compare to Platine. I suspect that they are quite similar, but PRP may have slightly less shine, which I would prefer. PRP is a bit more expensive, but not prohibitively so, IMO. Your comments suggest that Platine prints have more punch, so I will bear that in mind.
Rob
-
I love Platine and use it almost exclusively both for B&W and color work. I had custom profiles made by Eric Chan that are far superior to the canned profiles from Canson. Eric can even make ABW profiles, if you happen to use that mode very much. The cost is very reasonable.
Coincidentally, I have just requested samples of Photo Rag Pearl, which I want to compare to Platine. I suspect that they are quite similar, but PRP may have slightly less shine, which I would prefer. PRP is a bit more expensive, but not prohibitively so, IMO. Your comments suggest that Platine prints have more punch, so I will bear that in mind.
Rob
Yes, definitely more punch. The coating is very much like their Baryta paper but on a cotton base with no OBA's. The HPRP may be a tad less glossy but only minimally so, if at all.
-
I would not trust my memory on print jobs. Then there are paper batch differences and not everyone has a printer that can be calibrated. Two or more images on the same print page and by that going through the same pipeline at the same time but each image having its own profile or rendering choice is ideal for this kind of jobs. Qimage Ultimate allows that. You could do something similar for both the normal media preset + the one with more ink. In my opinion that is more a gamma increase than an actual ink load increase on most RGB drivers.
met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst
330+ paper white spectral plots:
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
Me too, I cannot remember what I did this morning let alone a year or two ago. Unfortunately I do not have Qimage, I only print from LR.
Regards
-
Out of curiosity and with too much time on my hands, I acquired several sheets of Photo Rag Pearl for comparison with Canson Platine. The two papers are very similar, but not identical. Platine is slightly whiter and has tad more stipple to its surface. It may also be a bit glossier, but not enough to be meaningful. Both are cotton rag papers, but PRP seems a bit stiffer. I made several prints using ImageNest on my Epson 3880. Color prints on both papers look quite similar, but Platine shows a bit more fine detail, sharpness and saturation. For this color comparison, I used Hahnemuhle's canned profile and a custom Platine profile, which might have something to do with the color saturation difference, but not with detail and sharpness. I also made some ABW prints, which are again quite similar, but Platine continues to be superior in terms of fine detail and sharpness.
So, my take is that both Platine and Photo Rag Pearl are beautiful papers with many of the same properties, but, at least in my hands and on my printer, Platine is slightly superior. The fact that it is a little less expensive is nice, but it did not influence my verdict.
Rob
-
Out of curiosity and with too much time on my hands, I acquired several sheets of Photo Rag Pearl for comparison with Canson Platine. The two papers are very similar, but not identical. Platine is slightly whiter and has tad more stipple to its surface. It may also be a bit glossier, but not enough to be meaningful. Both are cotton rag papers, but PRP seems a bit stiffer. I made several prints using ImageNest on my Epson 3880. Color prints on both papers look quite similar, but Platine shows a bit more fine detail, sharpness and saturation. For this color comparison, I used Hahnemuhle's canned profile and a custom Platine profile, which might have something to do with the color saturation difference, but not with detail and sharpness. I also made some ABW prints, which are again quite similar, but Platine continues to be superior in terms of fine detail and sharpness.
So, my take is that both Platine and Photo Rag Pearl are beautiful papers with many of the same properties, but, at least in my hands and on my printer, Platine is slightly superior. The fact that it is a little less expensive is nice, but it did not influence my verdict.
Rob
Just noticed your reply Rob. Did you by any chance print with the Canson profiles downloaded from their website?
-
Just noticed your reply Rob. Did you by any chance print with the Canson profiles downloaded from their website?
No, I used a custom Platine profile from Eric Chan. Canson's profile is awful. I might mention that in doing the ABW comparison, I used the standard method for both papers. However, I also have a custom ABW profile for Platine from Eric Chan. It gives significantly better results than straight ABW. This was the first time that I had taken the time to compare the two methods, and I was surprised by the results.
Also, for those using Macs, ImageNest 3.5 Beta is a superb printing program--better than CS5 for sure. I presume that this is the result of a superior uprezzing algorithm and better color management. Those who need image nesting will love it. The Beta version is now final and completely usable. The finished program will probably be released in the very near future. I have heard so much praise for Qimage on the Windows OS, and I think that ImageNest may be its equivalent on the Mac OS, althought that is complete speculation on my part.
Rob
-
Thanks Rob, yes Cansons on-line profiles are terrible. I emailed them about their baryta profiles which were also rubbish and they sent me some new much improved ones so I think I will try that route first and if no luck then will get some custom ones done locally.
-
Interesting because from what I have read, booksmartstudio did Canson's profiles (or maybe someone else did the originals which s*k and booksmartstudio made these new, improved ones). What profiles did they send to you? For just the 7900? I've already had EricC make me a Baryta/3800 profile and it's great but interestingly, barely different from a gamut volume (via Colorsync Utility output) than the stock than my ColorMunki created one.
-
Interesting because from what I have read, booksmartstudio did Canson's profiles (or maybe someone else did the originals which s*k and booksmartstudio made these new, improved ones). What profiles did they send to you? For just the 7900? I've already had EricC make me a Baryta/3800 profile and it's great but interestingly, barely different from a gamut volume (via Colorsync Utility output) than the stock than my ColorMunki created one.
Well, isn't that one of the main reasons for getting ColorMunki--making your own paper profiles? Now that you have validated the device's accuracy with a professional profile, you can rely on it in the future for all of your papers. I don't use many different papers, so it makes economic sense for me to have someone else do the work. Eric does a great job, and there are others on this forum who perform a similar service.
Eric's ABW profile for my 3880 makes a noticeable difference over standard ABW. I don't know if this would hold true for the latest generation of Epson printers, as the ABW driver may have been improved.
Rob
-
Eric's ABW profile for my 3880 makes a noticeable difference over standard ABW. I don't know if this would hold true for the latest generation of Epson printers, as the ABW driver may have been improved.
Rob
You can only use profiles for ABW if you are printing on a Windows computer. The new Epson driver and MacOS will not allow you to do this; you must send an unprofiled image. There was a thread on this a month or so ago. The issue is that the ABW driver is not completely linear in response and the function of the profile is to smooth it out (and also allow softproofing).
Alan
-
You can only use profiles for ABW if you are printing on a Windows computer. The new Epson driver and MacOS will not allow you to do this; you must send an unprofiled image. There was a thread on this a month or so ago. The issue is that the ABW driver is not completely linear in response and the function of the profile is to smooth it out (and also allow softproofing).
Alan
Alan,
Are you referring to the _880 series or to the _900 series? I feel quite certain that Eric's ABW profile has a positive effect on my ABW prints from a 3880, and I am on a Mac.
Rob
-
Alan,
Are you referring to the _880 series or to the _900 series? I feel quite certain that Eric's ABW profile has a positive effect on my ABW prints from a 3880, and I am on a Mac.
Rob
See Eric's note (http://people.csail.mit.edu/ericchan/photos/profiles.html) on this. I'm on a Win7 computer and current unaffected but my understanding is that anyone who has updated to the newest Epson driver and MacOS can no longer use ABW profiles since the driver will not permit it. This LuLa thread (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=58778.0) also discusses it.
-
See Eric's note (http://people.csail.mit.edu/ericchan/photos/profiles.html) on this. I'm on a Win7 computer and current unaffected but my understanding is that anyone who has updated to the newest Epson driver and MacOS can no longer use ABW profiles since the driver will not permit it. This LuLa thread (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=58778.0) also discusses it.
I have looked at that thread and at Eric's website. It just so happens that I am not using the latest Epson driver, so I still have the ability to use Eric's ABW profile. Also, I have been printing out of ImageNest rather than CS5, but I don't know if that has any bearing on the matter.
My question is: Does the latest Epson ABW driver give equal or better results than the previous one with an ABW profile?
Rob
-
I have looked at that thread and at Eric's website. It just so happens that I am not using the latest Epson driver, so I still have the ability to use Eric's ABW profile. Also, I have been printing out of ImageNest rather than CS5, but I don't know if that has any bearing on the matter.
My question is: Does the latest Epson ABW driver give equal or better results than the previous one with an ABW profile?
Rob
I don't know anything about ImageNest since I print out of Lightroom but I would doubt that there would be any difference between the two drivers but have not done the test. I updated my driver back in December and have printed a number of ABW prints which look just like the ones I printed prior (I make all my own ABW profiles using QTR).
Alan
-
I don't know anything about ImageNest since I print out of Lightroom but I would doubt that there would be any difference between the two drivers but have not done the test. I updated my driver back in December and have printed a number of ABW prints which look just like the ones I printed prior (I make all my own ABW profiles using QTR).
Alan
That's encouraging, as it suggests that Epson has improved the ABW driver.
Regarding ImageNest, you might have fun with v3.5 Beta, if you are on a Mac. It is fully functional and virtually bug-free. When I have compared it to printing from CS5, there is no question that the ImageNest prints have more detail and are sharper, and I'm certain that the same would apply to Lightroom. It would be interesting to see how it compares to the latest Epson drivers, but my guess is that IN would come out on top. My understanding is that it completely bypasses the Epson driver for uprezzing of the image. You can even choose to apply sharpening in the uprezzing process, which makes a substantial difference in the final print, but even with no additional sharpening at this level, the print quality is definitely superior to what I get out of CS5.
Rob
-
I don't know anything about ImageNest since I print out of Lightroom but I would doubt that there would be any difference between the two drivers but have not done the test. I updated my driver back in December and have printed a number of ABW prints which look just like the ones I printed prior (I make all my own ABW profiles using QTR).
Alan
Interesting. Just out of curiosity, why do you not just print from QTR?
-
Interesting. Just out of curiosity, why do you not just print from QTR?
Just didn't feel the need to do so. My workflow was already incorporated into LR and when I had an Epson 2880, I had some ABW profiles done for me by Eric Chan. When I began doing my own profiles last year I found it was really easy to do ABW profiles.