Eight papers

[howardm]

Andrew Rodney incorporated the 14ball version of 'Bill's Balls' on his printer gamut test file....
http://www.digitaldog.net/files/Gamut_Test_File_Flat.tif

or here for the original 14 ball image:
https://app.box.com/s/4u6k36muy22ap0ipcofvletn8ix28zgu

I know there is/was a 28 ball version and I think I have it on some disk.

After looking at the 99% identical output between RedRiver new rag paper and Epson Platine via SpectrumViz, I would be hesitant to spend $130 for the Epson vs. $78 for RR (in 13x19 size).

[Mark D Segal]

Hey Mark, Excellent review (as usual)...  I've been following your articles since LULU went online.  I also enjoyed the great number of responses and your personal responses to the commenters.  I'm still stuck in the Hot Press and Exhibition Fiber generation. I've tried many of the newer papers, but none for the last few years.  It looks like I'm going to have to give some of your recommendations a try, including the Legacy papers. 
Thank you for your reviews.
Neil Rennie

Hi Neil,

Thanks - glad you are finding these reviews useful - that's the whole purpose. And yes, it could be worthwhile trying some of the newer papers to see whether it's worthwhile changing your mainstays. Exhibition Fiber makes vibrant prints, but it's also on the cool side and heavy in OBA content. Hot Press/Cold Press can be nice papers, but I think some of the newer matte products we've been showing here are well worth considering.

[Mark D Segal]

Andrew Rodney incorporated the 14ball version of 'Bill's Balls' on his printer gamut test file....
http://www.digitaldog.net/files/Gamut_Test_File_Flat.tif

or here for the original 14 ball image:
https://app.box.com/s/4u6k36muy22ap0ipcofvletn8ix28zgu

I know there is/was a 28 ball version and I think I have it on some disk.

After looking at the 99% identical output between RedRiver new rag paper and Epson Platine via SpectrumViz, I would be hesitant to spend $130 for the Epson vs. $78 for RR (in 13x19 size).

Not denying of course the usefulness of targets and measurements - I'm in that world a good part of the time too, but to complement it, would your conclusions change if you made some real world comparison prints?

[howardm]

Of course the two (real world & test) play off each other, unless you're the type of person to hang test charts around the house

Some papers may 'test' well but they may not give desired artistic output 'feel' in the real world.  I just did something like a 10way bake-off (not test images) of matte papers and in the end, I still would consistently pick Epson HotPress over most other mattes but YMMV and like partners, there's something/someone for everyone.

[JRSmit]

At the end of the day it is what the paper with its charter adds to an image. Testing only assures the proper print quality, nothing more. But has little to do with the charter of a paper.

[Mark D Segal]

At the end of the day it is what the paper with its charter adds to an image. Testing only assures the proper print quality, nothing more. But has little to do with the charter of a paper.

By "charter" I assume you mean "character", and if so I agree, but without the word "only". At least to my mind, print quality is paramount, and the measurements we make can indicate the potential for some aspects of print quality, even though they aren't uniquely determinative. And there is so much subjectivity in all of this. For example, I could care less what the back of the paper feels like, but for quite a few people this is an important aspect of "character"; I'm not too keen about the unferrotyped look of Harman Gloss Baryta, yet I am reliably informed it is a very popular paper; then there is the big divide between those who prefer matte versus those who prefer gloss/luster, and on it goes...........

[DavidPalermo]

Mark's excellent article on 8 papers has inspired me to try Ilford's Cotton Artist Textured paper but I cannot for the life of me find the correct media type setting for my Epson 3800 printer!  I am imagining it will be Velvet Fine Art but I want to know what Ilford recommends and it's virtually impossible to find it on their website.  I print B/W so I don;'t need the profile.  Just the media type setting. 

Anyone?  Anyone?  ; )

Thanks!

David

[schertz]

Mark's excellent article on 8 papers has inspired me to try Ilford's Cotton Artist Textured paper but I cannot for the life of me find the correct media type setting for my Epson 3800 printer!  I am imagining it will be Velvet Fine Art but I want to know what Ilford recommends and it's virtually impossible to find it on their website.  I print B/W so I don;'t need the profile.  Just the media type setting. 

Anyone?  Anyone?  ; )

Thanks!

David

What is the name of the icc profile they sent you? Along with the profile in the zip there should be a read-me file called "ReadMe1st_GALERIE PRESTIGE.pdf" which deciphers the codes in the name of the profile. Specifically look in table 3 of Appendix A on page 11 in the read-me to get the media type settings to use with the profile. if you don't need the profile and didn't download it, I'm not sure where else this info is listed....

ie. USFAPn = Ultra Smooth Fine Art Paper,    n = “Off”(No Color Adjustement) for Epson printers [sic]

MS

[DavidPalermo]

When I select my printer etc...  they don't list a profile.  That's because my 3800 isn't supported any longer I guess.  So, many of us who own this printer struggle to find media types. I could try a few different media types but I don't really want to waste paper.

I am very familiar with the PDF you mention and they do have a "generic printer settings" guide but Cotton Artist Textured is not listed.  It's frustrating.

; (

[schertz]

When I select my printer etc...  they don't list a profile.  That's because my 3800 isn't supported any longer I guess.  So, many of us who own this printer struggle to find media types. I could try a few different media types but I don't really want to waste paper.

I am very familiar with the PDF you mention and they do have a "generic printer settings" guide but Cotton Artist Textured is not listed.  It's frustrating.

; (

I looked up the profile for the 3880 and it has EMP listed as the media setting, for Enhanced Matte Paper. Indeed, there is no profile available for the 3800. The P800 profile indicates USFAPn... So you could try one of those or wait for Mark to chime in on the settings he used (although I would assume USFAP, since he tested on a P800).

MS

[DavidPalermo]

I have thought of using the media type for the 3880 too but I have heard the 3800 and 3880 are pretty different.  I would think Media Type for a paper would be consistent across printers though.

USFAP works with the Ilford Gold Cotton Smooth and that is a possibility with the Cotton Textured Artist I suppose.  The Cotton Texture Artist is has a similar feel to German Etching by Hahnemuhle or the Cold Press Natural.

Thanks!

David

[Mark D Segal]

The Media Type guides the platen gap, the head adjustment (viz standard, wide, etc.) and the ink laydown; it also affects profile behaviour in the sense that the Media Type you print with should be the same as the Media Type specified for the profile, but in this case, understood you have none. Cotton Artist Textured (ICAT) has no OBA content and it's a thick, heavy paper, while Enhanced Matte is loaded with OBA and is a much thinner, lighter product. USFAP has no OBA, a tint closer to that of ICAT and a weight and thickness closer to those of ICAT. So, all told, you would probably be better off starting with USFAP as the Media Type in your 3800 and see what it produces. But if you are using application colour management (LR or PS manages colour) you still need to load a profile in the printer driver. You could start with the P800 profile for ICAT and see how it performs. It would differ from a 3800 profile for the same paper to the extent of the main difference in the inksets between the two printers.

I think you are in a situation where if you want to use papers that no longer cohere with your printer because the printer is no longer being supported, and this fix of using the P800 profiles doesn't work well, you will need to either get custom profiles made for the papers you will be using, or upgrade your printer. 

[DavidPalermo]

Thanks Mark.  I'll try the USFAP with Gold Cotton Smooth and get very nice results so I will try that since it seems very similar to Cotton Artist Textured (No OBA's).

; )

Thanks,

David

[peene.biber]

This so called test of 8 papers is impressive by showing the formula. The idea behind that may be to give this writing a scientific touch. I am missing the results. May be - if there were results other than numbers - that a printer series with the Canon Pro 1000 will give other results. Since printing and development of pictures is mainly a subjective process it may be difficult to perform.
Anytime for me this comparison is without result so worthless.

[Mark D Segal]

This so called test of 8 papers is impressive by showing the formula. The idea behind that may be to give this writing a scientific touch. I am missing the results. May be - if there were results other than numbers - that a printer series with the Canon Pro 1000 will give other results. Since printing and development of pictures is mainly a subjective process it may be difficult to perform.
Anytime for me this comparison is without result so worthless.

No, the idea behind explaining the methodology isn't to give anything a "touch" - it's there for readers to understand what I did, and this article, along with that on the Epson Legacy papers I do explain the purposes of the whole approach. I think you are correct that you are missing the results. I have explained the physical characteristics of the papers as well. I don't know what else to convey over the internet because you are correct that there is a large subjective element to evaluating paper. Does it help you for me say that the papers feel nice, or that prints look good to me? I can't think of anything more useless, because what feels and looks good to me may not feel or look good to someone else - exactly because it is subjective. So the more we can describe in a legitimately objective manner with meaningful data, the more useful it is to more people, assuming of course that the readers who aren't familiar with these concepts take the time to read the provided explanations of what the data is telling them. As for the Canon Pro-1000, yes you are correct, this paper review said nothing about how these papers perform in that printer because I don't have one; Canon loaned one to me for the period of time I was preparing the review of that printer and afterward I returned to them. This whole effort is a completely voluntary undertaking so I don't buy equipment for doing it. But I agree it would be nice to have such comparisons.

[rdonson]

This so called test of 8 papers is impressive by showing the formula. The idea behind that may be to give this writing a scientific touch. I am missing the results. May be - if there were results other than numbers - that a printer series with the Canon Pro 1000 will give other results. Since printing and development of pictures is mainly a subjective process it may be difficult to perform.
Anytime for me this comparison is without result so worthless.

Mark's reviews are excellent technical reviews that remove subjective opinions.  They likely appeal most to very serious printers who want to know the technical aspects of each paper on a given printer. 

If you're looking for subjective opinions on papers you'll have to look elsewhere to put all the pieces together.

I'm thinking this is an example of a "review" that might appeal to you.  It does NOT include the same papers or printers though.

http://www.imaging-resource.com/news/2016/03/09/epson-legacy-paper-review-premium-paper-at-a-premium-price

[JRSmit]

By "charter" I assume you mean "character", and if so I agree, but without the word "only". At least to my mind, print quality is paramount, and the measurements we make can indicate the potential for some aspects of print quality, even though they aren't uniquely determinative. And there is so much subjectivity in all of this. For example, I could care less what the back of the paper feels like, but for quite a few people this is an important aspect of "character"; I'm not too keen about the unferrotyped look of Harman Gloss Baryta, yet I am reliably informed it is a very popular paper; then there is the big divide between those who prefer matte versus those who prefer gloss/luster, and on it goes...........

Hi Mark, Yes i did mean character, and yes the print quality you as a printer dial in is paramount.
The print quality you achieve is in part achieved using tools like x-rite i1pro2 and in part visual by looking for inkbleed etc. That part you have to do for each paper to the best you can achieve, at least that is what i do.
Yet when printing the same image and print it on two different papers, optimized via softproof for each, the experience you get when looking at the result can be dramatically different. It is then not the technical print quality that makes the difference, but this "character". Highly subjective for sure, but from my point of view also very learning, rewarding and enjoyable.

[Mark D Segal]

Yet when printing the same image and print it on two different papers, optimized via softproof for each, the experience you get when looking at the result can be dramatically different. It is then not the technical print quality that makes the difference, but this "character". Highly subjective for sure, but from my point of view also very learning, rewarding and enjoyable.

Yes I largely agree, and also something that doesn't really convey convincingly over a website - one really needs to hold the actual prints and look at them to appreciate these character differences properly. Description can only go so far. But underlying every print, if the technical quality is not optimized relative to the subject matter, something is lost. So it's good to know the achievable parameters. Here it is more the profiles than the i1Pro, which is only a measurement device. However we technically define and use these papers, it is through profiles, so it's important to understand what the combination of the paper, the profiles, the inks and the printer algorithms are capable of delivering and how correctly they do so. From that point onward, "character" and subjective evaluation of results take over.

[JRSmit]

I agree. I was too short on the technical stuff. Choice of mediatype and parameter settings in the media type etc all do matter to get the best possible print quality technically speaking.

[NickXavi]

Hi Mark,

Thank you for a stimulating review, I have had occasion to check now on my holidays.

I have one question, from where you obtained the reference values of ColorChecker?

Thanks!