Pages: [1] 2 3   Go Down

Author Topic: change to Canson branding of some papers  (Read 2374 times)

dandaman56

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 27
change to Canson branding of some papers
« on: July 06, 2017, 12:35:48 PM »

This may be old news to some, but I was informed today that as of July 1st Canson will no longer distribute the Infinity line of papers.  The paper will instead be distributed by Legion still using Canson's paper method, per Jennifer Bacon (a Canson customer service rep).  I like their rag photographique and noticed some sizes go unavailable at B&H.
Logged

Mark D Segal

  • Contributor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9959
    • http://www.markdsegal.com
Re: change to Canson branding of some papers
« Reply #1 on: July 06, 2017, 12:43:43 PM »

Canson no longer exists as such. It was acquired by the Italian FILA Group in December of last year. They appear to have made a deal with Legion to carry this line of papers.
Logged
Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml

deanwork

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1299
Re: change to Canson branding of some papers
« Reply #2 on: July 06, 2017, 02:09:43 PM »

Whoever ownes Canson now and who ever is coating the Rag Photographique and Epson Legacy Matte has totally ruined in my opinion the greatest matte rag paper ever made. Its probably Epson that screwed up the coating when they "adaped" it for their new printers or what ever such crap. And Feilix Scholder who coats it went along with it because they were paid to apparently. I have never been as furious as I am right now about what was done to this great paper, and how much money I have wasted on it trying to figure what was wrong.

When you profile it with the Canon, Hp, or Piezography inks the dmax looks and reads normal on your calibration or linearization target such as the Vivera dmax reading 1.82 as usual. But then you go to print anything with a solid black background, like I have to do all the time, and the ink absorption is all blochy and your dmax drops horribly. When you look at smooth black or gray area its just blochy. Its pathetic for such a very expensive paper . I have no choice now but to go back to hah photorag that isn't as sharp, used to have a lower dmax , and doesnt have anywhere near the longevity rating due to the dye brightners. And the original Canson R. Photographique had a better color gamut with all the various inks.

This is not just me by the way. People all over are freaked out and very pissed about what they have done to it. My friend in Seattle was having exactly the same problem at the exact same time as me. His client returned expensive prints because the blacks were blochy and gray. He was using a Canson 44" roll and I was using the Epson Legacy Matte version of it also in roll form. We were using different inksets and printers.  Canson should have stayed with Arches and stayed completely away from Epson. Epson monkeying around with this fantastic coating has now ruined it it seems to me and Canson is over. I have so many editions on this paper and now I have to start over again. Great. I just wish Hahnemuhle would make a smooth oba free bright white paper because they are a much better company than any of them.

I have had no such problems with the Platine but Im just holding my breath that Epson doesnt screw it up too.


John



Canson no longer exists as such. It was acquired by the Italian FILA Group in December of last year. They appear to have made a deal with Legion to carry this line of papers.
« Last Edit: July 06, 2017, 05:56:23 PM by deanwork »
Logged

Mark D Segal

  • Contributor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9959
    • http://www.markdsegal.com
Re: change to Canson branding of some papers
« Reply #3 on: July 06, 2017, 06:24:24 PM »

Whoever ownes Canson now and who ever is coating the Rag Photographique and Epson Legacy Matte has totally ruined in my opinion the greatest matte rag paper ever made. Its probably Epson that screwed up the coating when they "adaped" it for their new printers or what ever such crap. And Feilix Scholder who coats it went along with it because they were paid to apparently. I have never been as furious as I am right now about what was done to this great paper, and how much money I have wasted on it trying to figure what was wrong.

When you profile it with the Canon, Hp, or Piezography inks the dmax looks and reads normal on your calibration or linearization target such as the Vivera dmax reading 1.82 as usual. But then you go to print anything with a solid black background, like I have to do all the time, and the ink absorption is all blochy and your dmax drops horribly. When you look at smooth black or gray area its just blochy. Its pathetic for such a very expensive paper . I have no choice now but to go back to hah photorag that isn't as sharp, used to have a lower dmax , and doesnt have anywhere near the longevity rating due to the dye brightners. And the original Canson R. Photographique had a better color gamut with all the various inks.

This is not just me by the way. People all over are freaked out and very pissed about what they have done to it. My friend in Seattle was having exactly the same problem at the exact same time as me. His client returned expensive prints because the blacks were blochy and gray. He was using a Canson 44" roll and I was using the Epson Legacy Matte version of it also in roll form. We were using different inksets and printers.  Canson should have stayed with Arches and stayed completely away from Epson. Epson monkeying around with this fantastic coating has now ruined it it seems to me and Canson is over. I have so many editions on this paper and now I have to start over again. Great. I just wish Hahnemuhle would make a smooth oba free bright white paper because they are a much better company than any of them.

I have had no such problems with the Platine but Im just holding my breath that Epson doesnt screw it up too.


John

Firstly, there is no such thing as Epson Legacy Matte. In the matte finish Legacy line, there is Legacy Fiber and Legacy Etching. Epson designed these papers and they have them made in third party European mills under their own supervision. They have never divulged which European mills they've contracted to make which paper types, nor will they. There are contributors here who think they know, but unless someone spilled confidential information, it's speculation. And even while it existed, Canson itself did not manufacture every paper it marketed - some yes, some no, and we don't know which where.

Secondly, per the above, you should not commingle Epson with FILA. They are separate companies responsible for their own brands. If FILA has made new production arrangements for the erstwhile Canson papers, this possible change in production arrangements may be responsible for the effects you are seeing - most unfortunate. I don't know what your profiling workflow is, but really surprising (and unusual) that even with custom profiling you are getting such unsatisfactory lower quartertone performance. 

Thirdly, you could switch to Epson Legacy Fiber, which may be closest to the previous Canson product you were using. For the characteristics of interest to you, I would highly recommend the relatively new Canon (NOT Canson, Canon) Premium Fine Art Smooth paper. It's lovely and I think would respond to your requirements. See my Canon Pro-2000 review. If you would be using it in an Epson printer you would of course need to custom-profile it, as Canon does not provide profiles for Epson printers. In the Hahnemuhle line, you may wish to try Photo Rag, 100% cotton, white, "certified archiveability" (lovely paper, which I reviewed, but I have not seen the certification).
Logged
Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml

deanwork

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1299
Re: change to Canson branding of some papers
« Reply #4 on: July 06, 2017, 08:02:11 PM »

Whatever they want to call it , "legacy" fiber is a direct clone of Canson Rag Photographique , complete with pigment brightners, sharpness, gamut, etc. that Epson did not create and that no other company had. I don't need you, someone who is not a professional printmaker ,  to educate me about it because I've actually used it in it's Canson form everday for the last decade and also in its Epson form since that was relased because it was shipped to me faster.  The profile is the same for both and both have screwed up coatings now, whoever is coating them now, ( it was in Germany )  and they are not going to tell you who that is they are contracting out to or how many factories are doing the coating.

 It's possible that they are having temporary quality control problems. It is also possible that it is being coated in more than one place. But it is more than a little odd that the same exact issue is happening at the same exact time with both Canson and Epson versions of the media. ( the same paper with different names on them).

 The Platine is also a Canson product that they cloned. Everybody who is a professional printmaker knows this other than people who believe these Epson salesmen and their hype. Platine is a very distinctive product, also using pigment brighteners and unlike any other paper out there. Epson never had any world class papers with their name on them until this merger or buyout or whatever they did. And no I don't go around changing printers and papers every month because I have, and a lot of other people all over the world have editions on them that need to be consistent.

The only reason I posted this is to let people know this over priced Canson clone "Legacy" Fiber has real problems now and it may or may not ever be resolved. Who knows. Just be careful out there. Its gets very expensive and time consuming.




Firstly, there is no such thing as Epson Legacy Matte. In the matte finish Legacy line, there is Legacy Fiber and Legacy Etching. Epson designed these papers and they have them made in third party European mills under their own supervision. They have never divulged which European mills they've contracted to make which paper types, nor will they. There are contributors here who think they know, but unless someone spilled confidential information, it's speculation. And even while it existed, Canson itself did not manufacture every paper it marketed - some yes, some no, and we don't know which where.

Secondly, per the above, you should not commingle Epson with FILA. They are separate companies responsible for their own brands. If FILA has made new production arrangements for the erstwhile Canson papers, this possible change in production arrangements may be responsible for the effects you are seeing - most unfortunate. I don't know what your profiling workflow is, but really surprising (and unusual) that even with custom profiling you are getting such unsatisfactory lower quartertone performance. 

Thirdly, you could switch to Epson Legacy Fiber, which may be closest to the previous Canson product you were using. For the characteristics of interest to you, I would highly recommend the relatively new Canon (NOT Canson, Canon) Premium Fine Art Smooth paper. It's lovely and I think would respond to your requirements. See my Canon Pro-2000 review. If you would be using it in an Epson printer you would of course need to custom-profile it, as Canon does not provide profiles for Epson printers. In the Hahnemuhle line, you may wish to try Photo Rag, 100% cotton, white, "certified archiveability" (lovely paper, which I reviewed, but I have not seen the certification).
Logged

MHMG

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 977
Re: change to Canson branding of some papers
« Reply #5 on: July 06, 2017, 08:21:44 PM »

.... In the Hahnemuhle line, you may wish to try Photo Rag, 100% cotton, white, "certified archiveability" (lovely paper, which I reviewed, but I have not seen the certification).

Certified archiveability? Mark, you know better! Certified by who? Archival for what?  There is no standardized definition for an "archival" paper, so why propagate the same old marketing BS when in fact by now you should already know better?  Even the cheapest acid-laden lignen-filled wood pulp papers can last well over a century under proper storage conditions. The devil is always in the details. "Certified archiveablity" is market speak that should impress absolutely no one, and definitely not industry influencers such as yourself who appear to have more than average expertise on the subject.
« Last Edit: July 06, 2017, 08:40:51 PM by MHMG »
Logged

deanwork

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1299
Re: change to Canson branding of some papers
« Reply #6 on: July 06, 2017, 09:21:05 PM »

Exactly. Mark Goodhart at Aardenburg archives has spent years and years of real tme consuming  research in an attempt to  demystify all this corporate crap, yet many people without any real knowledge or even real curisoty, other than what the sales guys tell them, keep circulating it.

The reason Mark spent so much time investigating the best papers and inksets in various combinations  is so we could actually pick one or two combinations and stick with them as our primary tools.. When the best media becomes defective, for what ever reason, it is a Big deal to a lot of us. It is at the core of what we do. Its not a matter of jumping to this product or that product without knowing all the ramifications. We all quit believing all the corporate marketing jive long ago. They would like you to believe that every new product is an improvement, when lately it is the best exact opposite.




Certified archiveability? Mark, you know better! Certified by who? Archival for what?  There is no standardized definition for an "archival" paper, so why propagate the same old marketing BS when in fact by now you should already know better?  Even the cheapest acid-laden lignen-filled wood pulp papers can last well over a century under proper storage conditions. The devil is always in the details. "Certified archiveablity" is market speak that should impress absolutely no one, and definitely not industry influencers such as yourself who appear to have more than average expertise on the subject.
Logged

Mark D Segal

  • Contributor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9959
    • http://www.markdsegal.com
Re: change to Canson branding of some papers
« Reply #7 on: July 06, 2017, 09:23:45 PM »

Certified archiveability? Mark, you know better! Certified by who? Archival for what?  There is no standardized definition for an "archival" paper, so why propagate the same old marketing BS when in fact by now you should already know better?  Even the cheapest acid-laden lignen-filled wood pulp papers can last well over a century under proper storage conditions. The devil is always in the details. "Certified archiveablity" is market speak that should impress absolutely no one, and definitely not industry influencers such as yourself who appear to have more than average expertise on the subject.

Of course I know better and that is why I related their term "certified archiveability" in quotation marks and made sure to point out I had never seen the evidence, so you can stop railing against me on this matter. That said, being a German company of considerable repute and standing, you can bet your bottom dollar that somewhere in Germany there is some institute, process and standard they cohered with allowing them to make that claim. The only other explanation for their use of that phrase is that they are lying.

Now turning to more constructive, scientific conversation, have you tested Photo Rag? Anything to contribute? I was only trying to help John identify a substitute product because of the problems he mentioned. Can you advise him between the three alternatives I suggested to him which is likely to have better longevity characteristics based on your research?
Logged
Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml

Mark D Segal

  • Contributor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9959
    • http://www.markdsegal.com
Re: change to Canson branding of some papers
« Reply #8 on: July 06, 2017, 09:47:02 PM »

Exactly. Mark Goodhart at Aardenburg archives has spent years and years of real tme consuming  research in an attempt to  demystify all this corporate crap, yet many people without any real knowledge or even real curisoty, other than what the sales guys tell them, keep circulating it.

The reason Mark spent so much time investigating the best papers and inksets in various combinations  is so we could actually pick one or two combinations and stick with them as our primary tools.. When the best media becomes defective, for what ever reason, it is a Big deal to a lot of us. It is at the core of what we do. Its not a matter of jumping to this product or that product without knowing all the ramifications. We all quit believing all the corporate marketing jive long ago. They would like you to believe that every new product is an improvement, when lately it is the best exact opposite.

Mark McC_G's expertise in the longevity of inkjet papers and inkset combinations is something I have respected and supported going back years.

I fully understand the ramifications of changing products - it invites numerous unwelcome difficulties, but faced with the kind of issue you described I thought I could be helpful to you and others firstly by setting the record straight on the recent changes of industrial structure and recommending some options that I know a few critical things about and may serve your purposes. I should also mention that the latest packages of Epson Legacy Fiber I used (April of this year) behaved very well in the SC-P5000 printer; possibly they predated the bad batches you got, I wouldn't have any idea. Good luck going forward with your professional endeavours.
Logged
Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml

MHMG

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 977
Re: change to Canson branding of some papers
« Reply #9 on: July 06, 2017, 10:06:01 PM »

That said, being a German company of considerable repute and standing, you can bet your bottom dollar that somewhere in Germany there is some institute, process and standard they cohered with allowing them to make that claim. The only other explanation for their use of that phrase is that they are lying.



And I'm saying  it's not possible to lie about the "archival" claim because the there is no "certified" definition. So, companies can say whatever they want about it. The claim, in and of itself, does not help the enduser to figure out which paper or more to the point which printer/ink/paper combination is more longlasting than another. See if you can track down the source of Hahnemuhle's claim, and see if you can download the specific technical report(s) that backs up the claim. When you can do that, you may have some validity in your remarks.




Now turning to more constructive, scientific conversation, have you tested Photo Rag? Anything to contribute? I was only trying to help John identify a substitute product because of the problems he mentioned. Can you advise him between the three alternatives I suggested to him which is likely to have better longevity characteristics based on your research?

No alternative paper recommendation is going to help John complete his editions for artists if the the edition started on Canson Rag PHotographique and the paper has fundamentally changed over the last few years. So much for "print on demand" portfolios. The situation doesn't affect you as a printmaker only printing for yourself. It does affect professional printmakers like John. 

And yes, my company gives pretty good lightfastness scores for Hahanemuhle Photo Rag with a variety of different ink sets because Photo Rag employs OBAs only in the paper core not the image receptor coatings and the coating chemistry plays well with the big three (HP, Epson, and Canon) pigmented ink sets, but you won't see Aardenburg Imaging declaring any paper as "archival" because the term is a slippery mess at best.  Photo Rag is probably the most well represented paper in the Aardenburg Light fade database because it is arguably the "grand daddy" of all fine art papers coated specifically for aqueous inkjet printing. Now, just try to get comparable test results from Hahnemuhle's website. You won't find them, so again, Hanemuhle is a being somewhat disingenous in the marketing claims, because trying to uncover the technical reports backing up Hahemuhle's claims is one giant exercise in futility.

kind regards,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com
« Last Edit: July 06, 2017, 10:49:06 PM by MHMG »
Logged

samueljohnchia

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 448
Re: change to Canson branding of some papers
« Reply #10 on: July 06, 2017, 11:23:35 PM »

Whoever ownes Canson now and who ever is coating the Rag Photographique and Epson Legacy Matte has totally ruined in my opinion the greatest matte rag paper ever made. Its probably Epson that screwed up the coating when they "adaped" it for their new printers or what ever such crap. And Feilix Scholder who coats it went along with it because they were paid to apparently. I have never been as furious as I am right now about what was done to this great paper, and how much money I have wasted on it trying to figure what was wrong.

When you profile it with the Canon, Hp, or Piezography inks the dmax looks and reads normal on your calibration or linearization target such as the Vivera dmax reading 1.82 as usual. But then you go to print anything with a solid black background, like I have to do all the time, and the ink absorption is all blochy and your dmax drops horribly. When you look at smooth black or gray area its just blochy. Its pathetic for such a very expensive paper . I have no choice now but to go back to hah photorag that isn't as sharp, used to have a lower dmax , and doesnt have anywhere near the longevity rating due to the dye brightners. And the original Canson R. Photographique had a better color gamut with all the various inks.

This is not just me by the way. People all over are freaked out and very pissed about what they have done to it. My friend in Seattle was having exactly the same problem at the exact same time as me. His client returned expensive prints because the blacks were blochy and gray. He was using a Canson 44" roll and I was using the Epson Legacy Matte version of it also in roll form. We were using different inksets and printers.  Canson should have stayed with Arches and stayed completely away from Epson. Epson monkeying around with this fantastic coating has now ruined it it seems to me and Canson is over. I have so many editions on this paper and now I have to start over again. Great. I just wish Hahnemuhle would make a smooth oba free bright white paper because they are a much better company than any of them.

I have had no such problems with the Platine but Im just holding my breath that Epson doesnt screw it up too.


John

John, I'm horrified to learn that this has happened to Rag Photographique. I too considered it the greatest matte paper ever made. I've got a bunch of older Hot Press Natural paper with a similar coating problem, and yet Hot Press Bright from a similarly aged batch does not exhibit the same problem. I also have an even older batch of Hot Press Natural which never exhibited these issues. What I've noticed is that the coating is unable to take the ink loads it typically used to be able to, which results in micro-pooling and the visual effect of blotchiness and low frequency mottle of several millimeters wide in smooth dark areas that are almost black in color. Solid black areas do indeed have less density, but I see the profiles reflect this loss of density also. It's most puzzling. What changes to a paper's coating can cause this? It feels almost as if th coating layer is thinner, therefore perhaps less able to handle high ink loads. The assumption would be that thinner coatings save costs for the manufacturer. If it's a batch variation, that would be most unwelcome too. At the prices we are paying, one would hope for better QC and consistency.

I sincerely hope Canson/FILA/Epson will resolve this issue in time. Have you submitted any samples to them and received any response about this quality issue?
Logged

Mark D Segal

  • Contributor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9959
    • http://www.markdsegal.com
Re: change to Canson branding of some papers
« Reply #11 on: July 06, 2017, 11:26:39 PM »



And I'm saying  it's not possible to lie about the "archival" claim because the there is no "certified" definition. So, companies can say whatever they want about it. The claim, in and of itself, does not help the enduser to figure out which paper or more to the point which printer/ink/paper combination is more longlasting than another. See if you can track down the source of Hahnemuhle's claim, and see if you can download the specific technical report(s) that backs up the claim. When you can do that, you may have some validity in your remarks.



No alternative paper recommendation is going to help John complete his editions for artists if the the edition started on Canson Rag PHotographique and the paper has fundamentally changed over the last few years. So much for "print on demand" portfolios. The situation doesn't affect you as a printmaker only printing for yourself. It does affect professional printmakers like John. 

And yes, my company gives pretty good lightfastness scores for Hahanemuhle Photo Rag with a variety of different ink sets because Photo Rag employs OBAs only in the paper core not the image receptor coatings and the coating chemistry plays well with the big three (HP, Epson, and Canon) pigmented ink sets, but you won't see Aardenburg Imaging declaring any paper as "archival" because the term is a slippery mess at best.  Photo Rag is probably the most well represented paper in the Aardenburg Light fade database because it is arguably the "grand daddy" of all fine art papers coated specifically for aqueous inkjet printing. Now, just try to get comparable test results from Hahnemuhle's website. You won't find them, so again, Hanemuhle is a being somewhat disingenous in the marketing claims, because trying to uncover the technical reports backing up Hahemuhle's claims is one giant exercise in futility.

kind regards,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com

It's not clear from your response that you have appreciated what I said. So for avoidance of all doubt, let me repeat, that in relaying Hahn's claim, I did not endorse it - I mentioned it, saying from the get-go I have not seen supporting evidence. Maybe it means something, maybe it doesn't; it depends on whether they have a defensible basis for making that claim. I suggested they may have a basis. You say I'll never find it if I try. You may or may not be right about that. I may just put the question to them. Why not? We'll see if anything comes back. Stay tuned.

Now turning back to "deanwork's" problem, again let us set the context right. To repeat, I do fully appreciate the ramifications of his predicament, because I understand what's involved, so this is not a matter of whether or not I sell professional editions to demanding clients. As well, even for myself I consider long-term consistency and reliability of product to be important. However, I looked at his problem from a straightforward logical perspective: Is it one or two bad batches of paper or a permanent degrading? We don't know. So what are his options: either wait it out (probably impractical and of uncertain evolution), or switch to something else, cumbersome as that may be. So I was simply suggesting some other papers that he may find useful. If they aren't, well sorry about that, I tried. And with this, apart from anything to be learned from Hahn about their "archival" claim, I think it best for me to let the matter rest.
Logged
Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml

samueljohnchia

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 448
Re: change to Canson branding of some papers
« Reply #12 on: July 06, 2017, 11:41:23 PM »



And I'm saying  it's not possible to lie about the "archival" claim because the there is no "certified" definition. So, companies can say whatever they want about it. The claim, in and of itself, does not help the enduser to figure out which paper or more to the point which printer/ink/paper combination is more longlasting than another. See if you can track down the source of Hahnemuhle's claim, and see if you can download the specific technical report(s) that backs up the claim. When you can do that, you may have some validity in your remarks.



No alternative paper recommendation is going to help John complete his editions for artists if the the edition started on Canson Rag PHotographique and the paper has fundamentally changed over the last few years. So much for "print on demand" portfolios. The situation doesn't affect you as a printmaker only printing for yourself. It does affect professional printmakers like John. 

And yes, my company gives pretty good lightfastness scores for Hahanemuhle Photo Rag with a variety of different ink sets because Photo Rag employs OBAs only in the paper core not the image receptor coatings and the coating chemistry plays well with the big three (HP, Epson, and Canon) pigmented ink sets, but you won't see Aardenburg Imaging declaring any paper as "archival" because the term is a slippery mess at best.  Photo Rag is probably the most well represented paper in the Aardenburg Light fade database because it is arguably the "grand daddy" of all fine art papers coated specifically for aqueous inkjet printing. Now, just try to get comparable test results from Hahnemuhle's website. You won't find them, so again, Hanemuhle is a being somewhat disingenous in the marketing claims, because trying to uncover the technical reports backing up Hahemuhle's claims is one giant exercise in futility.

kind regards,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com

Well said, Mark! Such claims should not be popularized in the first place. The companies can say whatever they want, but influencers in this relative niche field should and need to know better not to throw in this detail when they attempt to respond or help others. It simply does not help at all, and in addition there is the risk of implying that a product is equivalently suitable or even superior when in reality it may not be the case at all. It only reflects on how ignorant the perpetrators are. Just because a company is German or any other respected country does not preclude them from suspicion of anything. History has taught us the lessons. We should adopt a healthy skepticism and a scientific mind and seek quantified and qualified data about such otherwise meaningless claims.

Regarding alternatives, even for personal work, there is simply no paper available right now that comes close to what Rag Photographique is able to do. It's surface and visual qualities are singularly unique. Discerning professionals, craftsmen and artists like John are understandably outraged.

Photo Rag contains a small amount of OBAs in the paper core and yet does not have a paper white as bright and neutral as Rag Photographique under illumination with no UV emissions. I'm also not enamored by Photo Rag's eggshell texture as compared to the extremely smooth and organic texture of Rag Pho. The Canson line-up was just wonderful that way. What a tremendous loss if the coatings do not go back to the way they used to behave. And how unusual that the ink density remains the same for profiling targets, but not across a fully inked sheet. What kind of coating change could cause such erratic behaviour?
Logged

MHMG

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 977
Re: change to Canson branding of some papers
« Reply #13 on: July 06, 2017, 11:49:23 PM »

I suggested they may have a basis. You say I'll never find it if I try. You may or may not be right about that. I may just put the question to them. Why not? We'll see if anything comes back. Stay tuned.


Hanemuhle's claims rely on Wilhelm Imaging Research to some extent but even more so with a European testing lab called LNE. You can follow a link from Hahemuhle's website to find LNE documents online with a very nice signed affidavit attesting to certain properties of the Hahnemuhle papers and various ink sets combinations that were tested by LNE. However, those documents are only claims, not actual data nor description on how the tests were conducted, yet they cite the actual technical reports from which the claims are made. When you follow those specific citations in these LNE documents, you will find the original source documents describing the actual test conditions, failure criteria, and full test results are simply not available on the LNE website. So, it's one big circle jerk. You may get further than I did if you have inside contacts at Hanemuhle, but for us mere mortals it's all a big obfuscatory joke.
« Last Edit: July 07, 2017, 12:31:20 AM by MHMG »
Logged

Ernst Dinkla

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3462
Re: change to Canson branding of some papers
« Reply #14 on: July 07, 2017, 05:21:59 AM »

Whatever they want to call it , "legacy" fiber is a direct clone of Canson Rag Photographique , complete with pigment brightners, sharpness, gamut, etc. that Epson did not create and that no other company had. I don't need you, someone who is not a professional printmaker ,  to educate me about it because I've actually used it in it's Canson form everday for the last decade and also in its Epson form since that was relased because it was shipped to me faster.  The profile is the same for both and both have screwed up coatings now, whoever is coating them now, ( it was in Germany )  and they are not going to tell you who that is they are contracting out to or how many factories are doing the coating.

It's possible that they are having temporary quality control problems. It is also possible that it is being coated in more than one place. But it is more than a little odd that the same exact issue is happening at the same exact time with both Canson and Epson versions of the media. ( the same paper with different names on them).

 The Platine is also a Canson product that they cloned. Everybody who is a professional printmaker knows this other than people who believe these Epson salesmen and their hype. Platine is a very distinctive product, also using pigment brighteners and unlike any other paper out there. Epson never had any world class papers with their name on them until this merger or buyout or whatever they did. And no I don't go around changing printers and papers every month because I have, and a lot of other people all over the world have editions on them that need to be consistent.

The only reason I posted this is to let people know this over priced Canson clone "Legacy" Fiber has real problems now and it may or may not ever be resolved. Who knows. Just be careful out there. Its gets very expensive and time consuming.


Before acquiring Canson, FILA also bought St. Cuthberts Mills in the UK, the manufacturer of the Somerset papers. Arches is since 2011 part of a Scandinavian group, Canson the last decade was owned by the Hamelin group (after Arjomari and Arjo Wiggins till 2007) and Canson already had to change brand names of several Arches origin inkjet papers in relation to that before it was acquired by FILA. Then there has been a rumor of a row between Canson - Felix Schoeller, FS aiming at marketing its own inkjet art papers with the same inkjet coatings. Photokina 2014.

My best guess is that Epson buys your Epson Legacy Matte from Canson and the last went to other production sources, in worst case both paper base manufacturing + inkjet coating. When did you notice the changes in the Rag Photographique first?

On the Platine you shouldn't worry. That type of paper from several distributors has in my opinion one source; Felix Schoeller and the samples I measured are over time more and more improving and become more and more identical. Up to the Red River labeled one.

While I have the Hahnemühle certification as a shop I do not add the HM paper certificates with the jobs. Epson started that kind of paper assurances, Hahnemühle followed, Canson did too. Here in The Netherlands some studios created their own ring of certified studios with bogus certification, Cruse scanner required if I recall it correctly. All filled with a lot of air.

On the other hand the Hahnemühle papers so far had the most consistent paper quality of the paper manufacturers I deal with and that for about 15 years. Some glitches in quality control happened with their products too but percent wise less than with the other ones and consistency became better in time. They also were the first to enter this market with cotton art papers coated for inkjet. I recall we first bought the HM papers from Lyson that also added bogus stories about an extra treatment their HM versions got, Hahnemühle denied that. Hahnemühle uses mainly Sihl for coating facilities but some fibre, baryta, papers have the FS character. Sihl sells several inkjet papers too. Ownership of Sihl changed in 2016 as well.

Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst

http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
March 2017 update, 750+ inkjet media white spectral plots




Logged

deanwork

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1299
Re: change to Canson branding of some papers
« Reply #15 on: July 07, 2017, 08:35:22 AM »

Thank you Ernst. That is helpful and useful information from someone who is a expert in this field going  back to pre digital silkscreen era etc, and, a logical thinker. Yes we all started about the same time. The first Hahnemuhle fine art inkjet papers were sold by Lyson, and in the States under the Lumijet name. That was when Lyson was selling their "archival" :-) dyes that were later debunked . Then pigments hit the market and you and I both bought he Epson 10k which was revolutionary for its time. We have been at this a long time.

If the mill that coats Somerset Velvet is now coating Rag Photographique that gives me a sick feeling in my stomach. Reason being, this is exactly the kind of mottling and poor ink absorption that I always had with it 17 years ago before I switched to Hahnemuhle and then to Canson . I experienced the same high density blochy absrption with all of the Innova matte media as well. They tried to clone Hahnemuhle but failed to truely understand their coating methods.. I agree with Ernst that Hahnemuhle has been a very consistent source of fine media since their entrance into this digital arena.

The Hahnemuhle southeast rep came for a visit here in my studio  last month and is a super nice guy and very interested in what actual professional printmakers think of their products. I've always found their reps both from Germany and the US very interested in what we think and do. Quite unlike Epson, they listen and ask questions every time. And I have respect for them. ( they are however intimitaded by Aardenburgs superior data on fade issues) .He is very aware of the significant loss of market share that Canson has cost them in the the last decade. So many of us who used Photorag daily switched to Rag Photographique and didnt go back. I asked him why they dont try to come up a matte media that utilized pigment whiteners and he just said they hadn't been able to do it.

As to a fall out between Felix Schoeller and Canson - that could very well be at the heart of it. Something happened between the time Canson split from Arches and Epson started cloning their media. My friends noticed this over a year ago, the inconsistencies in the Canson line, but it just hit me this month. My own work involves 40x60 prints with total black backgrounds so I would notice it big time. I'll try one more roll of the Epson branded stuff and if that is defective I'll return it. Like I mentioned before, this mottling happens with all three inksets I use - Canon, Hp , and Piezography. Many people might not notice the defects since they are doing color work with no large areas of smooth tonality. When it comes down to it, it is just sloppy coating and is unexceptable in a paper at the very high-end of the price point.
« Last Edit: July 07, 2017, 09:50:03 AM by deanwork »
Logged

Ernst Dinkla

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3462
Re: change to Canson branding of some papers
« Reply #16 on: July 07, 2017, 11:05:48 AM »


 I experienced the same high density blochy absrption with all of the Innova matte media as well. They tried to clone Hahnemuhle but failed to truely understand their coating methods.. \


I do not think Somerset coats itself, at least not the inkjet papers but the inkjet variety of the Bockingford watercolour paper that more likely gets a treatment in the pulp itself for that task. Tested it against a normal Bockingford watercolor paper and could not see the difference :-)  The late John Williams had a hand in that invention, the one of the infamous Nanochrome inks.

Odd, a month ago I used an Innova IFA11 roll 44" 315 grams, cotton. There is no OBA content in it and it is an inexpensive alternative to PhotoRag. It prints nice but this time it were images with heavy shadows. I actually did not notice it but at one side of the 44" roll that mottling in the deep shadows was there, not in the similar image at the other side. Cut a sheet of it and turned 180 degrees the mottling turned as well so no printer issue. Still have to send printed sheets to the distributor for some compensation. Not all I used from Innova is bad though but there have been incidents in the past, wave formation in the coating for example.

From Canson I only used the BFK Rives and a similar thing happened with the first roll of it, along 3/4 of a roll some long scratches in the coating at one side. Probably a harder piece in front of the coater blade.

Is the PhotoRag Ultra Smooth not an alternative for you?


Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst

http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
March 2017 update, 750+ inkjet media white spectral plots
Logged

Alan Goldhammer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2523
    • A Goldhammer Photography
Re: change to Canson branding of some papers
« Reply #17 on: July 07, 2017, 12:41:13 PM »


Is the PhotoRag Ultra Smooth not an alternative for you?


Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst

http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
March 2017 update, 750+ inkjet media white spectral plots
This is a nice paper that I use frequently.  There is excellent days on Aardenburg for the Epson 3880 ink set.  Mark and I collaborated to test the ABW inks including various settings of the toning wheel.  The one problem is that cut sheets do have some curl that needs to be addressed so you don't get head strikes.

Alan
Logged

Stephen Ray

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 45
Re: change to Canson branding of some papers
« Reply #18 on: July 07, 2017, 12:58:34 PM »

This unfortunate issue of a print material provider changing their product is exactly what I called-out recently in another thread in the LULA Pro Business Discussion > Re-Limiting a Limited Edition.

Problems for a print-maker might stem from a notion as to what an “edition” is. Is one producing one-offs (or more-offs) as opposed to producing an entire edition as a single print run?

Keeping in mind the technologies involved and that some of the components are organic and business relationships morph, one might want to re-evaluate their expectations along with their customer’s.

I’ll say it again here in this thread…

The file is not the edition nor the product. The prints are part of the product and it’s logical and cost effective to print the entire edition (in the context of limited edition) over a single duration.
Logged

deanwork

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1299
Re: change to Canson branding of some papers
« Reply #19 on: July 07, 2017, 01:31:18 PM »

I might have to go to the Hahnemuhle Ultra Smooth I've used it and it is a nice paper. I might have no choice . I just wish they could learn to utilize pigment whiteners. I like Hahnemuhle and have always found them the most consistent from year to year, even when they are coated in differient countries. Ive had nothing but trouble out of Innova and I will never go there again. If you look at a lot of these Hahnemule papers under a black light they glow like Chernoble after the meltdown. Thats not good. One of their fiber semigloss papers Fine Art Pearl is a fine media with a robust sharp coating, but it too under a black light will blind you. But I still use it on occasion because I like the texture and the gamut.  If it had pigments instead of dyes to brighten  it I would have used a lot of it over the last few years. I like the photo rag baryta a lot but my clients for the most part consider it dull and warm, which it isn't but what are you gonna do.



quote author=Stephen Ray link=topic=118824.msg986695#msg986695 date=1499446714]
This unfortunate issue of a print material provider changing their product is exactly what I called-out recently in another thread in the LULA Pro Business Discussion > Re-Limiting a Limited Edition.

Problems for a print-maker might stem from a notion as to what an “edition” is. Is one producing one-offs (or more-offs) as opposed to producing an entire edition as a single print run?

Keeping in mind the technologies involved and that some of the components are organic and business relationships morph, one might want to re-evaluate their expectations along with their customer’s.

I’ll say it again here in this thread…

The file is not the edition nor the product. The prints are part of the product and it’s logical and cost effective to print the entire edition (in the context of limited edition) over a single duration.
[/quote]
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3   Go Up