Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Printing: Printers, Papers and Inks => Topic started by: blowery on November 20, 2005, 08:54:44 pm
-
I've been going through a bunch of the current paper reviews in the archives, and I've noticed that the end of many state something along the lines of "this is my new standard for gallery prints." So, I'm just wondering, what are folks favorite papers right now? I'm using a 2200, generally with Epson's Enhanced Matte and Luster papers, and I'd love to hear some opinions on other papers out there, especially the newish Crane Museo II, which I can't seem to find many reviews on. I print about 75% color, so quality color reproduction is a big desire.
I've ordered a bunch of samples of different papers, so I'll post back here what I find.
Also, is it meaninful to compare the ICC profiles that different makers offer for their papers to try and get a sense of the relative performance of the papers? I've been playing around with the icc profiles for some different papers and found some interesting things. For example, it looks like the Epson luster has a substantially bigger gamut and depth than the Enhanced Matte.
Thanks,
--b
[update: added bit about percentage color printing and fixed a spelling mistake]
-
So, I'm just wondering, what are folks favorite papers right now?
I have been quite pleased with Moab papers. For proofing and everyday use, Kayenta Photo Matte (205 gsm) is relatively inexpensive, and is close enough to them to proof for the more expensive Entrada line. I've used their Entrada White and Natural finishes (the latter w/o optical brighteners) in both th 190 gsm and 300 gsm. I will be printing an upcoming show on 300 gsm Entrada Natural finish.
The only complaint I've heard about Moab papers is that they have had in the past a tendency to flake after printing, leaving white spots. I give each sheet a vigorous going-over with a draftsman's camel-hair brush prior to printing to dislodge any loose flakes.
I have also used and liked Arches Infinity Smooth White 230 gsm. It is a lovely paper but soooo expensive.
I print about 98% B&W, and all of that matte. The limited glossy printing I have done has been on Red River Ultra Pro Satin finish. Even with Imageprint RIP, I find that there is just too much bronzing on my Epson 4000. It is not much an issue for the type of printing I do.
-
I'm in the process of trying different papers for my new R2400. At this point looks like Epson Enhanced Matte for everyday use and Moab Entrada for special prints (vacillating between Bright White and Natural). Velvet Fine Art looks interesting for specialized purposes. On the glossy side, have used Epson Premium Luster but will be testing Moab's Kokopelli Gloss and Satin finishes.
Paul
-
Another vote for Moab Entrada natural. I've been going through boxes of the 17x22 190gsm at an alarming rate.
[MikeSeb:] The only complaint I've heard about Moab papers is that they have had in the past a tendency to flake after printing, leaving white spots. I give each sheet a vigorous going-over with a draftsman's camel-hair brush prior to printing to dislodge any loose flakes.
Same here, but to my knowledge this holds for any of the rag matte papers with the kind of coating that keeps the ink on the surface for a better gamut. That surface is also frighteningly easy to scratch.
[Blowery:] Also, is it meaninful to compare the ICC profiles that different makers offer for their papers to try and get a sense of the relative performance of the papers? I've been playing around with the icc profiles for some different papers and found some interesting things. For example, it looks like the Epson luster has a substantially bigger gamut and depth than the Enhanced Matte.
I don't think so because I don't see the profiles created by one person being consistent with those from any other person, even using the same spectrophotometer and software. What I've found after testing a variety of papers on my 4000 is the following:
A) The difference between colour-handling on the best matte papers and RC is mostly in the dark saturated colours and black depth. The mid and light hues are fairly similar.
B) There are even saturated colours in the darker hues that a good matte paper can beat RC at. IOW, if I print a fall scene on both matte and RC, it's not necessarily a given that the RC will show the greater gamut.
C) It is the Dmax (blackness) of the RC papers, as well as their sheen that gives them the appearance of greater vividness of colour. Black depth is the real Achilles heel of matte paper, but this is only an issue for certain images, esp. those with large areas of black and shadow.
Unfortunately, I'm not sure you can translate this directly from the 4000 and K3 machines to the 2200 used with the Epson driver. Although I no longer have a 2200, as I look back on the prints I did with it I find the shadow gamut very disappointing. I think Epson were poring on the matte black ink in order to compensate for the weak Dmax of pigments.
-
Also, is it meaninful to compare the ICC profiles that different makers offer for their papers to try and get a sense of the relative performance of the papers? I've been playing around with the icc profiles for some different papers and found some interesting things. For example, it looks like the Epson luster has a substantially bigger gamut and depth than the Enhanced Matte.
I use the Epson profiles with hwm on my 1280 and em on my 2200 for most of my color prints. But this does not work well with images with deep shadow details or very saturated colors. For these, I have to switch to luster papers. Soft proofing with the ICC profiles will tell me which paper will print better.
I would not mind getting a couple of custom profiles if they can fix the matte paper problems. But I could never get the profile vendors to come up with a straight answer.
-
I would not mind getting a couple of custom profiles if they can fix the matte paper problems. But I could never get the profile vendors to come up with a straight answer.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=52013\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
The straight answer is no they can't. The problems you're experiencing with matte paper are half due to the Epson driver and half are due to intrinsic limitations of pigment ink on matte paper. Even with the better driver in the Epson 4000 there are certain images that I have to print on Luster and certain dark images that I can't print on either.
-
The straight answer is no they can't. The problems you're experiencing with matte paper are half due to the Epson driver and half are due to intrinsic limitations of pigment ink on matte paper. Even with the better driver in the Epson 4000 there are certain images that I have to print on Luster and certain dark images that I can't print on either.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=52014\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Thanks for telling it like it is, rare indeed. Most people will claim that with a calibrated monitor and a custom profile, they can get prints to match closely with the screen images. Their prints may not have shadow details or saturated colors. or they are very forgiving.
In order for prints to match closely to an image, a soft proof(in PS CS) with an ICC profile should look the same as the original to begin with. But the soft proof with an ICC profile of some images (like those with deep shadow details and saturated colors) may look quite different from the original. Further more, soft proofs with two different ICC profiles of the same image may also look quite different. (You can easily see this in soft proofs with the Epson em profile and the luster profile on a 2200.) Even if (and a big if) a print can match closely to a soft proof, it can still be quite different from the original unsoft proofed image. Getting a print to match what is on a monitor is not as simple as what most literature claim.
If the Epson 2200 driver is the problem, that may explain why RIP, which replaces the driver, works so well in b/w and in color. Do other manufacturers' drivers have the same problem?
-
I like Crane Museo for art cards.
For matte papers, I prefer Arches Infinity Smooth, Arches Infinity Textured, Epson Radiant White Watercolor, and Epson Velvet Fine Art. (The Arches are the 355g/m2 versions.)
For a glossier finish, I prefer Epson Premium Luster and Epson Premium Semigloss.
I use ImagePrintRIP to print on these papers with the Colorbyte profiles.
Cheers,
Mitch
-
I'm delighted with Epson's premium luster for black & white and color prints with photoblack ink on the 2400. It really stands up to heavy ink loads, and the pebbled surface seems to work well with my images.
I use matte fine-art papers for my 7600; I've been happy with Somerset velvet, but switched to Epson ultrasmooth fine art paper for gallery-quality prints because it produces a noticeably better D-max with matte black ink. Still nowhere near what you can achieve with glossier papers and photoblack ink, but the luscious texture and delicacy are great for landscape images and portraits.
-
Out of curiousity, for those of you using the RC papers - how are you addressing off-gassing (assuming they are going to be framed)? This is one of the big things that keeps me away from RC papers, though I like the luster/semigloss finish. I know I can treat it with a little soaking in my dry mount press, but it is inconvenient.
Mark
-
One problem I have with the luster paper is the rippling. Unless a print is wet mounted, the ripples are very obvious under glass. Never have this problem with the matte papers. Perhaps it is because they don't have any reflection at all.
-
Out of curiousity, for those of you using the RC papers - how are you addressing off-gassing (assuming they are going to be framed)? This is one of the big things that keeps me away from RC papers, though I like the luster/semigloss finish.
In my case, I tried several papers from different sources - got a sample, printed an image, waited a day for it to dry (under a sheet of plain paper), put it in a clip frame, waited a week, took it out, and looked for fogging on the glass. It seems that most glossy or semigloss papers produce some fogging, but I found one obscure glossy paper that doesn't produce any significant amount. Unfortunately, it's one that noone's ever heard of (Read) that comes from a local printer supply store that gets it in rolls and has it custom-cut, so I doubt you can find it. You might just try several papers from several sources on your own and see what happens, and maybe you'll get lucky like I did. (The several Epson papers I tried were pretty bad for outgassing, so don't bother trying those...)
Lisa
-
Outgassing or gas-ghosting (you can google it) is particularly bad with Epson's premium luster. It is the glycol in the ink which evaporates so slowly, leaving a film on the glass when the print is matted and framed. I eventually found Ilford's Smooth Pearl to be the best for coated papers. I use it with my Epson 2200 and Imageprint's RIP. I usually leave the prints sitting around to air-dry for a day; then frame them, and have found no outgassing.
-
I've been going through a bunch of the current paper reviews in the archives, and I've noticed that the end of many state something along the lines of "this is my new standard for gallery prints." So, I'm just wondering, what are folks favorite papers right now?
I generally prefer lustre finishes to hi-gloss, so most of my prints on non-matte surfaces are on Epson Premium Lustre or Premium Semigloss. I like Ilford Galerie Smooth Pearl a great deal as well. The surface is similar to Premium Lustre, but it's a little whiter and has a little more texture. The biggest drawback I've noticed to the Ilford paper is that large sheets of it crease or ripple VERY easily, so if you make big prints, you need to be careful how you handle them. I think the premium semigloss surface provides slightly deeper blacks than the lustre papers without being as shiny as a true glossy paper.
I have yet to find a very smooth matte paper that I like on my printer (a 2400). I don't like the way Epson Enhanced Matte looks at all. Deep black areas end up with a kind of mottling that I find very unpleasant. I can control it somewhat by dialing the ink density way back in the driver, but this is only somewhat satsifactory. I like the heavyweight matte paper a little more, but it's nothing special. For images that benefit from a textured matte surface, I very much like Epson Velvet Fine Art. I think it's a really beautiful paper for images for which its appropriate. I haven't printed as much on the Watercolor paper.
I found Ilford's fine art paper to be OK, but not as nice as VFA and I didn't manage to produce any acceptable prints at all on their heavyweight matte paper, regardless of the profile/paper type combinations that I tried.
I do significantly more B&W than color (probably 3 or 4 to 1) and I'm using a different ink set than you are, so take this for what it's worth.
If anyone has any recommendations for a very smooth-surfaced matte paper that works well with K3 inks, I'd be interested to hear about it.
-
Sweet, paper samples showed up and I'll be running them through some of my shots this weekend. This run is mostly matte papers, but I think I'll order some of the luster / glossier papers as well and see what I can do. All this talk of how good the K3 inks are on glossy has got me thinking about possibly switching up to the 2400, but I think the wife would kill me...
I also got the Red River sample pack, but I'm not so impressed by the initial quality. Maybe the prints will make up for it.
-
If anyone has any recommendations for a very smooth-surfaced matte paper that works well with K3 inks, I'd be interested to hear about it.
Moab Entrada Fine Art Natural, either 190 gsm or 300 gsm.
Eric
-
Moab Entrada Fine Art Natural, either 190 gsm or 300 gsm.
Eric
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=52701\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I like Entrada as well, but should be noted it isn't as smooth as Epson's Heavy Weight or Enhanced Matte papers.
-
On the glossy side, have used Epson Premium Luster but will be testing Moab's Kokopelli Gloss and Satin finishes.
Paul
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=51836\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Based on my brief tests with these papers on the Epson R2400, they compare very closely to Epson's Premium Gloss and Premium Luster, respectively. Viewed side-by-side, the Moab papers seems very slightly more saturated than Epson.
-
Based on my brief tests with these papers on the Epson R2400, they compare very closely to Epson's Premium Gloss and Premium Luster, respectively. Viewed side-by-side, the Moab papers seems very slightly more saturated than Epson.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=52705\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Has anybody tried the new Moab 285 Semi-Gloss? (It's a dual-sided paper.) I just ordered some samples so I'll be able to try myself, but just curious if any of you have tried yet ...
Eric
-
I have to this date not found a matte paper ( in A3+ )that beats Innova photo smooth high white in overall performance.
The only one that might beat it when it comes to better gamut might be Museo II ,which I haven't tested yet. But by examening the profile (which is not telling the whole story)seems to have a better gamut than Innova
Patrick.
-
I print primarily black-and-white and for the last couple of months I have been using Epson's driver set at Black Ink Only with their enhanced matte using my Epson 2200. This was suggested by an Epson Rep who attended one of my art shows. I actually like the effect, for certain images; reminds me a bit of Ilford Multigrade Warm-tone from the days I hand-printed all day. Imageprint's Tint- I found doesn't work so well with epson's enhanced matte.
-
Hi All,
This is my first post on the new board.
I've been very busy driving my new Epson 9800.
One of the allied projects is testing a much wider range of papers than I was using previously.
This currently includes Awagami Inbe (Japan) and papers from Cartiere Magnani (Italy) and Lana (France).
As results come through I will post if the list is interested.
Cheers,
Brian
Brian Gilkes
Pharos Editions
-
Hi All,
This is my first post on the new board.
I've been very busy driving my new Epson 9800.
One of the allied projects is testing a much wider range of papers than I was using previously.
This currently includes Awagami Inbe (Japan) and papers from Cartiere Magnani (Italy) and Lana (France).
As results come through I will post if the list is interested.
Cheers,
Brian
Brian Gilkes
Pharos Editions
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=52862\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Brian,
Please do post your results. I suspect many of us are frequently looking for new papers.
-Eric
-
I've ordered a bunch of samples of different papers, so I'll post back here what I find.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=51825\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Well I got all the papers. So far, I'm playing with the Moab Entrada Natural 190 and I like the feel of the paper. How are other folks liking the ICC profile that ships from MOAB for the 2200? It seems like it's lacking some punch compared to the same print on EHM using the Epson driver and supplied ICC profile. The Entrada has been able to print out a problematic image with lots of fun greens in it that I could never really do on EHM though. A nice surprise.
More reports as I play.
Also, have anyone tried Pictorio High Gloss Film on the 2200? The ICC profile I got from Pictorio seems to indicate it has an insane gamut, but I'm a little worried about gloss differential. Maybe I'll get some just to see.. Looks like a fun "paper".
-
Where is a good place to purchase the Moab papers from online?
Thanks
Howard
-
Where is a good place to purchase the Moab papers from online?
Thanks
Howard
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=56997\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I get them from B&H ...
Eric
-
Another paper for some of you who are sticking with MK inks due the costs of switching them out - take a look at Hahnemuhle's Photo Rag Satin! I have been printing on this paper with my 4800, and like it a lot.
While this paper is compatible with only MK inks, when printed upon, the image takes on a slight gloss. A nice alternative for those who like something different than the matte finish typically when using MK inks and papers.
It bridges the gap between matte and RC type papers nicely!
-
I would definitely try the Crane Museo Silver Rag paper when is is formerly released the end of February. I have been printing on beta samples of this paper and my guess is that it will become my main paper in the future. After seeing the Dmax (2.46) capabilities of this rag paper it's hard for me to go back to my old standard--epson ultrasmooth. Surely I will continue to print on matte papers, but I think Silver Rag will begin to dominate my print making in the future. eleanor
-
Where is a good place to purchase the Moab papers from online?
Thanks
Howard
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=56997\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
www.inkjetart.com has good prices and "free" shipping for orders over $100. I've bought from them a number of times.
-
Thanks Mike.
BTW, I just tried making some B&W prints on Epson Semi-Gloss and was very impressed with them.
Best
Howard
-
I'm having no luck in aquiring profiles for all these papers for my Epson R800. Since I'm just an amateur, my need for a a larger print is limited and it makes more sense to go to a commercial house for these occasions. I have tried Pictorico HiGloss White Film using the Epson profile and it seems to work well but as a hobbiest I continue to strive to improve. Does anyone have ideas where I can obtain these profiles for all of the high quality papers mentioned in this thread? I suspect there are many members of LL in the same position.
-
I'm having no luck in aquiring profiles for all these papers for my Epson R800. Since I'm just an amateur, my need for a a larger print is limited and it makes more sense to go to a commercial house for these occasions. I have tried Pictorico HiGloss White Film using the Epson profile and it seems to work well but as a hobbiest I continue to strive to improve. Does anyone have ideas where I can obtain these profiles for all of the high quality papers mentioned in this thread? I suspect there are many members of LL in the same position.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=57102\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I guess you'll have to purchase custom printer profiles. Prices are around or starting at $50.
-
francois:
Thanks for your subliminal tip. By "googling" custom profiles for R800, I found that Crane offers free ICC profile for Museo Silver Rag. Now if I can get one for Pictorico I'll be set as I'll stick with Epson papers for the rest of my needs.
-
francois:
Thanks for your subliminal tip. By "googling" custom profiles for R800, I found that Crane offers free ICC profile for Museo Silver Rag. Now if I can get one for Pictorico I'll be set as I'll stick with Epson papers for the rest of my needs.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=57118\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Sorry,
I have no subliminal tip for the Pictorico profiles
-
any kind of update for this thread?
-
I know this is an old thread but I thought I would add my experiences:-
I print on an Epson 2100 (2200 in the US) using Imageprint.
Epson Enhanced Matte My first paper on this printer - very good cheap paper but a little light weight at times. Also not very archival so I tend to keep it for proofs and family snapshots.
PhotoRag 308 Superb paper for both colour and B&W. I have ended up coming back to this paper after all my testing because its so reliable. It also has excellent archival properties. Price is coming down too.
Ilford Smooth Pearl A paper I have used often for club competition prints. Judges tend to frown on Matte papers for some reason! Its a good paper for colour but beware if you intend to use it for B&W as you will get the invitable bronzing and gloss diferential.
Hahn Fine Art Pearl Recently tried this paper - its strange - I like it and I don't like it!! The increase in the DMAX is not that better than the Ilford and not a huge amount above the Matte paperst to be honest. Also the bronzing and gloss differential are not that great. Finaly no one seems to know how long prints will last on this paper at the moment. Strangely though it still has some apeal to me...
Da Vinci Fibre Gloss (also branded as Innova, Permajet and Fotospeed)
This came as a suprise to me. The contrast and DMAX improvements are very noticable. B&W on this paper is very very good. The only downsides - it does have quite a reflective surface. This is not too bad if you intend to mount behind glass but for portfolios it can detract a bit from the picture. Also as above no data on longevity yet.
So which paper is my favourite? Tough one to be honest. At the moment I find myself going back to the matte papers as the reflectiveness of the others does bother me. But I love the increased DMAX of the FBG paper. Epson K3 inks are much better on the non-matte papers but the examples I have seen are not dramtically different (less bronzing and deiferential but its still there a bit)
Choice...Choices......
JD
-
Since I last posted on this thread, I have tried out a lot of papers. At the moment (and aside from using up random things I've purchased) I am printing on just two: Epson Velvet Fine Art and Crane Museo Silver Rag.
--
Daniel Bell
-
I just ran through test prints for several different papers using an Epson R2400 with standard Epson ink and the standard profiles from the paper manufacturer. (I recently upgraded from a 1280.)
The standouts for both color and B&W were:
1. Moab Kokopelli Semigloss
2. Epson Semigloss
3. Moab Kokopelli Gloss
The gloss papers really bring out deeper blacks than the matte. But, the better matte papers were:
1. Moab Entrada Fine Art Bright White
2. Moab Entrada Fine Art Natural (warmer than the Bright White)
3. Moab Kayenta
Depending on the viewing light for color prints... I preferred the matte papers for color when viewed under a balanced viewing light. When viewed under indirect natural light, I preferred the glossy. It's a toss up under tungsten. (for B&W, there wasn't a significant difference.)
I tested all of the usual Epson papers, an Ilford sampler pack, and a Moab sampler pack. After going through this, I encourage everyone to do their own testing like this. Preferences vary!
David
-
On my 1280 with dye inks, I was using Epson Premium Lustre, Premium Glossy Photo Paper, and Matte Paper Heavyweight. I also used Hahnemuhle Photo Rag 308, Torchon and Albrect Drurer. I really began to become annoyed at the scuffing issues with the Hahnemuhles.
I now have a 3800, and it seems I need to switch my basic matte Epson stock to Epson Enhanced Matte as there is no Matte Paper Heavyweight selection in the driver. I guess I could make a profile, any comments on either of those basic Epson mattes with K3 inks?
I also just bought some 8-1/2 x 11 packs of Crane Museo Silver Rag and Innove FibaPrint F-Type Gloss in Briliant White. I am anxious to make some profiles and run some test prints as time allows. I will report back as soon as I get some test prints made.
-
According to Epson, the Heavyweight Matte is not compatible with pigment inks.
-
A little known fact about Hahnemuehle Photo Rag paper is that the Duo variety apart from being printable on both sides as its name implies is actually quite smoother than the plain Photo Rag and Photo Rag Satin and Bright White.
So if anyone has tried Photo Rag and found it to his liking but would prefer a smoother surface, it would be a good idea to try the Duo.
I wonder why HM do not make this distinction clear in their documentation.
-
I would definitely try the Crane Museo Silver Rag paper when is is formerly released the end of February. I have been printing on beta samples of this paper and my guess is that it will become my main paper in the future. [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=57019\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
?? I thought this paper had been out since summer or so. I just bought an 8-1/2 x 11 pack from Adorama. Didn't know it is beta paper. Anyone care to elaborate on this?
-
?? I thought this paper had been out since summer or so. I just bought an 8-1/2 x 11 pack from Adorama. Didn't know it is beta paper. Anyone care to elaborate on this?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=89876\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Was beta in 2005;) this is old thread with some new messages
everything is ok with your paper;)
-
Happy new year to you all.
Is anyone familiar with Permajet paper ( permajet.com), how "archival" it is, Dmax etc.
I have been using an Epson 2100 for the last three years, mostly printing with the matt black on matt paper ( bonzing problems on glossy and semiglossy paper) Have been taking a good look at the new Epson 3800.
ITB
-
One of the allied projects is testing a much wider range of papers than I was using previously.
This currently includes Awagami Inbe (Japan) and papers from Cartiere Magnani (Italy) and Lana (France).
As results come through I will post if the list is interested.
Cheers,
Brian
Brian Gilkes
Pharos Editions
[excerpt/quote]
Well it's over a year, so about time I posted something.
At the time I wrote the above I was trying various papers with the photo black in the Epson K3 . inkset. None of the above came out well , with DMax quite low. The matte black ink improves approx 0.3 n DMax. Of coated matte papers I am currently using, DMax is between 1.5 and 1.6 for Hahnemuhle Photo Rag; Crane Museo, Museo II, Max; Awagami Bezan and Okawara;and Lana Lanajet In general the smoother the paper the wider the gamut, but once profiled the differences are really only apparent with files wider than Adobe GRB (1998). Okawara is a beautiful random fiber handmade paper with a pronounced texture (not pattern, like the machine made papers), yet it still comes in at 1.54, with a white only 0.03 darker than HPR, which has OBAs.
Somerset Velvet comes in around 1.4 which is not too hot. What impressed me, and Les Walkling who did the hard sensitometry , was how well many of these papers came out. Most of the profile modification was necessary in the cool colours , especially cyan. This is an ink problem, not a paper one, thoughit should be said Hahnemuhle Photo Rag performs very well and currently forms the technical standard for matte papers. I hope to test on a HP Z printer to see if this assists in the cyans. The fourth black may push the DMax further.
We have also tested other papers such as Schutt and Buxton , but these are special purpose papers, and not really of interest to most people on this forum.With dynamic range and colour gamut comparable for many papers, and here I also include Arches, BreathingColor and Moab, the choice will be often on how a particular surface complements an image. Cost is also a signficant factor with handmade papers running around 8x good machine made papers.
It's like everything else really...
Cheers
Brian,
www.pharoseditions.com.au
-
Brian,
I am getting dmax of 1.68-1.70 with Epson K3 pigments with Crane Museo Max and only 1.58 with H Photo Rag, printing a step wedge. The visual difference is great too. As matter of fact amongst mat papers the only one with a higher dmax than CMM is Velvet Fine Art. I suppose there may be an issue with densitometer calibration or how the inks are layed down via profiles (or how test is done). I am curious, what is your testing method?
Thanks
-
Kirk,
Very interesting. I can provide more details off line as I am not priveleged to generally release my methods in detail.
I can say I use a custom made test chart, read with a Spectroliner and interpret with modified software including Profile Maker and Profile Editor. I try to lay as much ink as possible whilst retaining maximum shadow tonal seperation. It may be that this concentration on deep tones has pulled the CMM DMax back. I will definitely look into this further. Further the profiles aim to clarify colours, making them more luminous.
I have quite a bit of experience with HPR , having used it for 2 1/2 years and created around 6 specialised profiles for it. I have only been printing on CMM seriously for couple of months, so am not confident I have extracted it's full potential yet. I would say though, that prints on CMM with the current profile are visually producing some of the most accurate renderings I have seen. B&W using all 8 K3 inks (not Advanced B&W, which clips) is absolutely neutral.
Cheers,
Brian,
www.pharoseditions.com.au