Pages: 1 [2] 3   Go Down

Author Topic: change to Canson branding of some papers  (Read 4222 times)

deanwork

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1352
Re: change to Canson branding of some papers
« Reply #20 on: July 07, 2017, 02:01:16 PM »

That is a very good point and one I have contemplated a lot. We should tell our clients up front that if they want a consistent edition it should be done all at once, like a Rembrandt etching edition ( did Rembrandt do that or did he print them on demand when he could sell them? Sometimes we romance the past.

Anyway it has not been a big issue for me up untill now. Now you have these corporations changing their inks every couple of years or so it seems like, and the papers other than Hahnemuhle are not dependable from one season to another. They arent changing things to improve them for the most part. They are changing them so they can say they are new and improved and then get someone on one of these forums to test them as a form of advertising.

 In the recent past the entire idea of print on demand consistency was thought by many of us to be a modern 21st century innovation. A step forward in the digital age. But in the corporate world with all this buying and selling of company shares there is no predictability. I really think Hahnemuhle has done the best job of all of them in maintaining an ethic of craftsmanship, respect for customers, and product pride in this new era. I just hope they dont sell out to somebody .

Iíll say it again here in this threadÖ

The file is not the edition nor the product. The prints are part of the product and itís logical and cost effective to print the entire edition (in the context of limited edition) over a single duration.
[/quote]
« Last Edit: July 07, 2017, 02:08:33 PM by deanwork »
Logged

Sbarroso

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 38
Re: change to Canson branding of some papers
« Reply #21 on: July 07, 2017, 04:08:35 PM »


They arent changing things to improve them for the most part. They are changing them so they can say they are new and improved and then get someone on one of these forums to test them as a form of advertising.


As non professional photographer/printer, it is totally out of the scope to start testing myself new papers, inks, and printers, and their combinations. Not to say the time i would waste on it. I could not consider that "investment". I need a guidance to see where i could better put my money into.

I'm very glad and thankful to those who do the reviews and share them with us. Especially if their (long, noticiable) experience is aligned with my needs and intentions. I very appreciative that, independently of who is providing the printers and supplies to them.

And their reviews are very good ones!

Enviat des del meu E5823 usant Tapatalk

deanwork

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1352
Re: change to Canson branding of some papers
« Reply #22 on: July 07, 2017, 04:28:30 PM »

The only test of any real value is done by someone who is using these products ( especially printers and inks but also media ) over a period of time to see how they function in a variety of circumstancs in the real world and from batch to batch or unit to unit. Unfortunately consistent quality control is the biggest issue these days.

Short controlled tests are only a snapshot. In regard to printers specificly you need like 10-20 or at least 5-10 people using them for a year to determine how reliable they are. And that is what user groups are good for , comparing notes. Everything else is just an advertisment to run out and buy the latest greatest. Good example is the Epson 4000 series that had great reviews but ended up being the worst design anyone ever marketed. And people kept give each iteration a good review. Another good example is the new Epson P 10k . There are already drasticly different user experiences with them,  from good to nightmarish, and this from pros who use them in a business format and really know their stuff.



quote author=Sbarroso link=topic=118824.msg986711#msg986711 date=1499458115]
As non professional photographer/printer, it is totally out of the scope to start testing myself new papers, inks, and printers, and their combinations. Not to say the time i would waste on it. I could not consider that "investment". I need a guidance to see where i could better put my money into.

I'm very glad and thankful to those who do the reviews and share them with us. Especially if their (long, noticiable) experience is aligned with my needs and intentions. I very appreciative that, independently of who is providing the printers and supplies to them.

And their reviews are very good ones!

Enviat des del meu E5823 usant Tapatalk
[/quote]
Logged

mearussi

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 100
Re: change to Canson branding of some papers
« Reply #23 on: July 07, 2017, 09:38:20 PM »

Matte black blotchiness is a problem I've encountered with a few papers. My understand is that many paper companies don't seem to realize that Epson printers put out around 30%-50% more ink than Canon printers do for any given area. So if they test and calibrate their emulsions only to Canon printers they will have problems with Epson. As an example I talked to the Canson U.S. tech rep a few months ago about some of their canvases and he told me that they had to reformulate some of their canvas emulsions because they weren't capable of absorbing all of the ink Epson printers were putting out.

This problem is especially bad with Breathing Color. Many of the matte canvases and papers I've tried from them have difficulty absorbing Epson's matte black ink with the ink easily smeared and never fully drying. On their web site they have a very strong bias towards Canon printers and my guess is that's what they use to calibrate their paper with. My solution is to just use their matte papers with PK, which they actively support by providing PK profiles for their normally MK papers.

I'm also sorry Canson has ruined Rag Photographique as it was my favorite hot pressed paper, though I seldom print on matte paper (their Plantine is my favorite--hope they don't change that).

Have you tried printing the new Rag Photographique using PK ink? By making a profile using it you may find this works.

BTW, if I read your post correctly you're already printing using Canon printers. If you're getting blotchiness with Canon then Epson must be even worse. :(

« Last Edit: July 07, 2017, 09:48:33 PM by mearussi »
Logged

deanwork

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1352
Re: change to Canson branding of some papers
« Reply #24 on: July 08, 2017, 12:06:15 AM »

Too much ink being laid down and that kind of mottling can be a product of poor printer linearization. With the new high density inks being made by Epson and Cone these days it is very important to calibrate the amount of ink being put on the paper to avoid this. This is a separate procedure from making your icc profile for color. Canon and Epson printers do a general printer linearization with their oem software . Hp Z has a separate target and workflow just for that kind of establishment of of ink lmits for each paper before you make your icc profile, which is great for matte media of all kinds . This especially helps if the paper changes from batch to batch. For black and white output Studio Print and Qtr rips do an excellent job. The Hp Vivera inks have had this ultra black MK ink for 10 years now so they developed their ink and software together. The other printers do ink limits through their media settings that you choose.

The Issue with uneven coating on the Rag Photographique and Legacy Fibre rolls is something else entirely. It has nothing to do with linearization or over inking. Its a flawed coating. It brings back memories of some of the early less sophisticated coatings we experienced many many years ago with Sommerset Velvet, Legion matte, Crane, and Innova rag media that just couldnt take pure black very well. In my experience the only two companies that really perfected matte rag inkjet coatings were Hahnenuhle and Canson. But Canson media may very well be in serious trouble. Its sad when great companies deteoriorate but such is life in the times we live in. One day your in and the next day your out.



uote author=mearussi link=topic=118824.msg986743#msg986743 date=1499477900]
Matte black blotchiness is a problem I've encountered with a few papers. My understand is that many paper companies don't seem to realize that Epson printers put out around 30%-50% more ink than Canon printers do for any given area. So if they test and calibrate their emulsions only to Canon printers they will have problems with Epson. As an example I talked to the Canson U.S. tech rep a few months ago about some of their canvases and he told me that they had to reformulate some of their canvas emulsions because they weren't capable of absorbing all of the ink Epson printers were putting out.

This problem is especially bad with Breathing Color. Many of the matte canvases and papers I've tried from them have difficulty absorbing Epson's matte black ink with the ink easily smeared and never fully drying. On their web site they have a very strong bias towards Canon printers and my guess is that's what they use to calibrate their paper with. My solution is to just use their matte papers with PK, which they actively support by providing PK profiles for their normally MK papers.

I'm also sorry Canson has ruined Rag Photographique as it was my favorite hot pressed paper, though I seldom print on matte paper (their Plantine is my favorite--hope they don't change that).

Have you tried printing the new Rag Photographique using PK ink? By making a profile using it you may find this works.

BTW, if I read your post correctly you're already printing using Canon printers. If you're getting blotchiness with Canon then Epson must be even worse. :(
[/quote]
Logged

mearussi

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 100
Re: change to Canson branding of some papers
« Reply #25 on: July 08, 2017, 12:20:22 AM »

Yeah, too bad about Canson QC. One of their newer canvases I tried (they send out 24" x 10' sample rolls), Museum ProCanvas Luster, had rust spots all over it (several dozen in the 10' roll). I contacted the tech rep and he asked me to send him samples and photos, which I did. He mentioned that he used to work in the coatings industry and said these rust spots were the product of poor water filtration. He then sent me another sample which was much better (only one rust spot on the 10' roll). What I don't understand is why their QC didn't spot this in the first place. It's certainly easy to see.

I suppose with their sale to FILA, and with the usually desire to cut costs to help pay for a new acquisition, I can now understand why many of their papers are having problems. I just cringe thinking what they might do to two of my favorite papers, Aquarelle and Plantine. I guess we'll find out. I just hope they don't make everything so bad that they go out of business.
« Last Edit: July 08, 2017, 12:30:33 AM by mearussi »
Logged

deanwork

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1352
Re: change to Canson branding of some papers
« Reply #26 on: July 08, 2017, 08:19:31 AM »

Looks to me like they sold their name and the acess to the nice paper they were producing but something happened with their coating contract wit Felix Scholler in Germany. This is a very specific coating and it is not the same. I cant tell you how many hundreds and hundreds of rolls of it Ive gone through in the last 10 years but it was a lot. Not once did I have a quality control problem.

The other disturbing element to it as I described in the beginning of this post is that the Epson branded version of it is doing the exact same thing. Maybe they will straighten it out, I hope so, but in the meantime i wont be spendinding over $350.00 a roll anymore to find out.






Yeah, too bad about Canson QC. One of their newer canvases I tried (they send out 24" x 10' sample rolls), Museum ProCanvas Luster, had rust spots all over it (several dozen in the 10' roll). I contacted the tech rep and he asked me to send him samples and photos, which I did. He mentioned that he used to work in the coatings industry and said these rust spots were the product of poor water filtration. He then sent me another sample which was much better (only one rust spot on the 10' roll). What I don't understand is why their QC didn't spot this in the first place. It's certainly easy to see.

I suppose with their sale to FILA, and with the usually desire to cut costs to help pay for a new acquisition, I can now understand why many of their papers are having problems. I just cringe thinking what they might do to two of my favorite papers, Aquarelle and Plantine. I guess we'll find out. I just hope they don't make everything so bad that they go out of business.
Logged

mearussi

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 100
Re: change to Canson branding of some papers
« Reply #27 on: July 08, 2017, 08:36:31 AM »

Looks to me like they sold their name and the acess to the nice paper they were producing but something happened with their coating contract wit Felix Scholler in Germany. This is a very specific coating and it is not the same. I cant tell you how many hundreds and hundreds of rolls of it Ive gone through in the last 10 years but it was a lot. Not once did I have a quality control problem.

The other disturbing element to it as I described in the beginning of this post is that the Epson branded version of it is doing the exact same thing. Maybe they will straighten it out, I hope so, but in the meantime i wont be spendinding over $350.00 a roll anymore to find out.
If you're in the U.S. you can always get free samples to test the quality like I did. And I really like their Museum Procanvas Luster and would like to use it for some of my work. I just hesitate because of their QC problems. 
Logged

deanwork

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1352
Re: change to Canson branding of some papers
« Reply #28 on: July 08, 2017, 10:50:30 AM »


Different media may be produced in completely differient places. Like Im using their photo satin premium rc media and it is fine. People report the Platine is fine and that has been my experience .

The problem with ordering sheets  to test rolls is they may or may not be coated in the same place. Even all the rolls may not be coated in the same factory or the same country with the same water.


Quote from: mearussi link=topic=118824.msg986799e #msg986799 date=1499517391
If you're in the U.S. you can always get free samples to test the quality like I did. And I really like their Museum Procanvas Luster and would like to use it for some of my work. I just hesitate because of their QC problems.
Logged

Alan Goldhammer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 2504
    • A Goldhammer Photography
Re: change to Canson branding of some papers
« Reply #29 on: July 09, 2017, 08:22:43 AM »

One of the issues that I see is that we don't have real clarity on who manufactures the paper and who does the coating.  We know that printer manufactures Canon and Epson source all of this out.  Several years ago I did some testing for Museo when they shifted paper suppliers to see if their Silver Rag paper had color differences from the old stock (which I had on hand).  They graciously sent me a whole role of paper when I only needed a few sheets to print some targets out.  My results showed virtually no perceptual difference either by patch measurement or visually through several test prints.  When Museo was established they sourced paper from the American manufacturer Crane but no longer.  I believe they do their own coating.  I believe Hahnemuhle both manufacture the paper and do the coating.  What about everyone else out there?  It might be good for someone to set up a database so comparisons can be made.  Ernst Dinkla has done excellent work through his spectral analyses of papers and we can of course use that to see which papers are similar.  This also gives an indication about who is doing the coating (lots of vendors apparently use Felix Scholler). 

This is turning out to be a moving target which was entirely predictable given the relatively large number of paper vendors out there.  I have a great deal of sympathy for those who do print portfolios (I only do a modest amount of this and they are mostly for gifts though there have been some sales).  I don't see this situation improving much at all.
Logged

Mark D Segal

  • Contributor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10397
    • http://www.markdsegal.com
Re: change to Canson branding of some papers
« Reply #30 on: July 09, 2017, 09:47:55 AM »

One of the issues that I see is that we don't have real clarity on who manufactures the paper and who does the coating.  We know that printer manufactures Canon and Epson source all of this out.  Several years ago I did some testing for Museo when they shifted paper suppliers to see if their Silver Rag paper had color differences from the old stock (which I had on hand).  They graciously sent me a whole role of paper when I only needed a few sheets to print some targets out.  My results showed virtually no perceptual difference either by patch measurement or visually through several test prints.  When Museo was established they sourced paper from the American manufacturer Crane but no longer.  I believe they do their own coating.  I believe Hahnemuhle both manufacture the paper and do the coating.  What about everyone else out there?  It might be good for someone to set up a database so comparisons can be made.  Ernst Dinkla has done excellent work through his spectral analyses of papers and we can of course use that to see which papers are similar.  This also gives an indication about who is doing the coating (lots of vendors apparently use Felix Scholler). 

This is turning out to be a moving target which was entirely predictable given the relatively large number of paper vendors out there.  I have a great deal of sympathy for those who do print portfolios (I only do a modest amount of this and they are mostly for gifts though there have been some sales).  I don't see this situation improving much at all.

I've just about (never say never) given up trying to find out in which facilities papers are manufactured - the various brand name holders consider this akin to "State secrets", for them none of our business and they simply won't divulge; but in the final analysis that in itself may not be the most critical information to have. Four things, listed in no particular order, are all most important in my view of it: (1) quality control - i.e. adherence to the recipe and the standards, (2) whether the papers contain materials predetermining their prospects in regard to various aspects of deterioration, (3) what the prints look like (e.g. dynamic range, paper tone/hue, surface texture, curl, rendition of detail and tonal gradations, etc.) and (4) how they work in our printers. Items (3) and (4) are matters that we consumers can observe or test for, item (1) would fall within the State Secret category we only learn about from experience over time, and likely item (2) as well, but for the efforts of Wilhelm-Reseearch, Aardenburg, SpectrumViz and perhaps others we hear less about.

Much of the discussion here has been about item (1); I think the importance of a Forum like this, and perhaps others, is for consumers to be able to message the brand name holders that their performance is being observed - professionally - and evidence of possible product failure can become public knowledge very quickly. Perhaps this could add an element of discipline to a situation wherein us consumers simply will not be made privy to certain data that would minimize disappointment. Indeed there is a moving target, partly because of what you say - the large number of vendors, and as such, an intensely competitive environment in which the industry structure (ownership et. al.) and associated commercial arrangements have been so changeable; for several reasons I agree this situation could well remain so, if not even intensify. The upside of it is that we get offered all manner of interesting stuff that increases our options to produce art with many different nuances. The cautionary side for those to whom it matters most, is to watch for evidence of product stability, but not get overly dependent on one particular item even though there may be good reasons to prefer it. Ideally, if user Forums can nudge a preferred but apparently failing product back to snuff, that would probably be the best of all worlds, the probability of which is unpredictable. All that said, I think not all is lost - fortunately there are still products that have withstood the test of time and will likely continue to do so.
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

Ferp

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 160
Re: change to Canson branding of some papers
« Reply #31 on: July 09, 2017, 07:32:26 PM »

To those who have experienced the problem:  Is there any way that someone buying Rag Photographique today could tell whether they were lucky enough to get some old stock rather than the new, other than by printing on it?  Any packaging differences, batch numbers etc?
Logged

Mark D Segal

  • Contributor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10397
    • http://www.markdsegal.com
Re: change to Canson branding of some papers
« Reply #32 on: July 11, 2017, 09:54:14 AM »

In reference to replies #5, 7 and 11 above, here is information providing the basis underlying Hahnemuehle's claim for "certified archivability" of its PhotoRag 308gsm paper:

Hahnemuhle Fine Art

LNE 2008 - summary

LNE 2010 summary

Wilhelm-Research-Hahnemuehle/Epson Inks

ISO Standard 9706 - overview (38 Swiss Francs for those who need the details).

and finally:
the "Frankfurter Fordreung" - requirements decided at a Meeting in Frankfurt Germany of people involved in museum, archival and paper manufacturing enterprises, 1990, where the agreed minimum requirements for "archival quality" are:

1. Only bleached fibers without any Lignin;
2. pH value between 7,5 and 9;
3. A buffer of Calcium carbonate at least 3%.

My only intent here is to confirm (much as I expected) that the claim on the PhotoRag packaging has a technical basis including a number of components purporting to define standards of archivability and to test for product adherence to them. Those of you specialized in the subject of longevity will have your views on their qualities and limitations.
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

Alan Goldhammer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 2504
    • A Goldhammer Photography
Re: change to Canson branding of some papers
« Reply #33 on: July 11, 2017, 12:40:16 PM »


and finally:
the "Frankfurter Fordreung" - requirements decided at a Meeting in Frankfurt Germany of people involved in museum, archival and paper manufacturing enterprises, 1990, where the agreed minimum requirements for "archival quality" are:

1. Only bleached fibers without any Lignin;
2. pH value between 7,5 and 9;
3. A buffer of Calcium carbonate at least 3%.

My only intent here is to confirm (much as I expected) that the claim on the PhotoRag packaging has a technical basis including a number of components purporting to define standards of archivability and to test for product adherence to them. Those of you specialized in the subject of longevity will have your views on their qualities and limitations.
The above requirements are relevant only to the paper stock.  One thing that has not been addressed is the stability of the color recipient layer and it's permanence.  What are the affects of aging on the coating?  I'm not sure that this is easily tested for.  In my own area of expertise, pharmaceutical regulation, all new pharmaceuticals have to be studied for stability so that an expiration date can be established.  Companies usually establish a stability date measured in months to a few years under very specific conditions.  For ink jet images we want to think about decades (optimistically thinking our images will still be interesting to somebody).  There could be issues related to coating cracking, peeling, or flaking that would not be picked up in light fast studies.  Just another issue to ponder.
Logged

Mark D Segal

  • Contributor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10397
    • http://www.markdsegal.com
Re: change to Canson branding of some papers
« Reply #34 on: July 11, 2017, 01:15:27 PM »

Sure, good thoughts; it all matters - were you able to detect whether any of that is covered somehow in the other four references?
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

Alan Goldhammer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 2504
    • A Goldhammer Photography
Re: change to Canson branding of some papers
« Reply #35 on: July 11, 2017, 03:00:33 PM »

Sure, good thoughts; it all matters - were you able to detect whether any of that is covered somehow in the other four references?
I don't think anyone studies coating stability.  We certainly know that matte finish papers are very delicate and that some gloss papers scratch more easily than others.  I would expect that low humidity would not be very good for the coating particularly if it causes the paper to dry out.
Logged

MHMG

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1002
Re: change to Canson branding of some papers
« Reply #36 on: July 12, 2017, 10:55:33 AM »


My only intent here is to confirm (much as I expected) that the claim on the PhotoRag packaging has a technical basis including a number of components purporting to define standards of archivability and to test for product adherence to them. Those of you specialized in the subject of longevity will have your views on their qualities and limitations.

The LNE reports are the documents I was alluding to earlier...woefully incomplete and with references to the actual testing methods and failure criteria that are not readily available to the public. When you cite tests such as these as a satisfactory confirmation of a "technical basis" for the manufacturer's claims, you help the industry maintain the status quo. That would be fine if the current industry test methods were up to date for modern digital media and the bar hadn't been set so low.  However, without more endusers challenging the printer and paper manufacturers to be more transparent about their product longevity and the significant interactions which exist between inks and media coatings, the efforts of researchers like myself to point the way to better testing methods for our industry will pretty much continue to go nowhere.

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

Mark D Segal

  • Contributor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10397
    • http://www.markdsegal.com
Re: change to Canson branding of some papers
« Reply #37 on: July 12, 2017, 11:25:30 AM »

When I posted that information, as I was writing it I knew to expect this kind of response from you.

I never said anything about whether the documentation is satisfactory. You used the word "satisfactory".

And I posted reference to more than the LNE reports.

I had and continue to have no intention of getting into any discussion about the qualities and limitations of these reports. I was only trying to make the point that Hahnemuhle is not making baseless claims. Whether you or any one else likes the basis or not is another question, and one which I have no "locus standi" to discuss, so I shall not.

I conclude my participation in this thread noting - with confidence - that nothing I said here will have one iota of influence on how the paper industry manages it's stability testing arrangements - far more determinative factors are involved. I'm not able or willing to respond any further.
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

Richard.Wills

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 88
    • Photofusion Photography Centre
Re: change to Canson branding of some papers
« Reply #38 on: July 13, 2017, 09:23:03 AM »

Well the only bright side I can think of in this is that over the past few months, I was starting to wonder if our 8400 was developing a fault. Despite regular calibrations, I was seeing waving in the paper on heavy prints, as though the printer were chucking down way too much black. We get through tonnes of rag photographique - a go to paper for matt prints - fortunately, most of our client editions are on HPR308 or Canson Platine Rag.

Speaking of CPR, is it my imagination, or has the coating become "sparklier" over the years. Looking back at old prints from editions, the surface sheen seemed to be less visible...
Logged

Gennaro_27

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 36
Re: change to Canson branding of some papers
« Reply #39 on: July 13, 2017, 10:57:21 AM »

Quote
To those who have experienced the problem:  Is there any way that someone buying Rag Photographique today could tell whether they were lucky enough to get some old stock rather than the new, other than by printing on it?  Any packaging differences, batch numbers etc?

Well said Ferp, but it seems that there is only one reference number printed on the box and it's related to the format size !

Ciao
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3   Go Up