About Epson legacy paper

[koonyue]

Hi all,

I have been printed on ilford paper and just love it. Now I feel a bit bored and would like to try a new paper, wondering if anyone have experience on those Epson legacy paper?

Thanks

[texshooter]

https://epson.com/pro-photo-legacy-papers-request-print-samples-form-ad

[Mark D Segal]

Hi all,

I have been printed on ilford paper and just love it. Now I feel a bit bored and would like to try a new paper, wondering if anyone have experience on those Epson legacy paper?

Thanks

Did it occur to you to do a search on this website before opening this topic? There has been plenty of discussion in both the Forum and review articles, the latter written by me and others.

[koonyue]

Actually I have read everything related to this paper on this website, and google, but it still give me little clues on how this will compare to ilford.

However, I feel silly after making this post because the quality of paper cannot describe easily on words, so I have bought legacy baryta and fiber and they will come on next Monday.

Thanks

[Mark D Segal]

OK, great, you've done your homework and no need to feel silly, because you are raising an important point. You are correct that there's a serious limit to what a paper review over the internet can do for potential users. So much of this is subjective that you really do need to actually have the media in hand and work with it to understand whether it is right for you. I have struggled with this issue since I started preparing these paper reviews for LuLa. I had to ask myself, and always review in my own mind, what things can we say on the internet to provide useful objective assistance to those who are curious about the product. There are tangible, measurable aspects of the papers that we can present by using appropriate analytical techniques - for example, gamut volume, the shape of the gamut, how accurately the paper can be profiled, how deep the Blacks are, whether it facilitates the printing of smooth tonal gradations and good separation of shadow detail, what the hue of the paper white is, whether it has OBA content, how well it handles in the printers we test it with. We can also site from the manufacturers' descriptions the paper texture, weight and thickness. Beyond that, this gets subjective very quickly and a reviewer can only provide his/her subjective judgment about the paper, which may be no better than that of other experienced paper users, and will not necessarily find universal agreement. So yes, all that to say as you've concluded: "just try and see!" :-)

[Alan Goldhammer]

Mark's point is really good.  Another huge issue is that a lot of us are still printing on machines that have older technology or inksets.  In my case it's an Epson 3880 which has never had a clog and it's sometimes been idle for a couple of months at a time.  I know that I cannot get the same gamut volumes as with new printers but there is also no economic justification for investing in a new one when the one I have works fine. I don't sell enough to rationalize the added expense nor do I print anything bigger than 17x25 (and then only rarely at that size).  I have to look at the recent paper reviews in this context. 

I have found that the best course of action following reviews of new papers is to get a sample pack and then a box of 25 letter size if I'm really interested in the paper.  One can go crazy testing out new papers and IMO it's always best to standardize on a limited number of papers for ongoing work.  One also has to be cognizant about changes in manufacturing (the Ilford 'bankruptcy' problem, recent issues with Canson) and be able to adapt if necessary.

[unesco]

Another huge issue is that a lot of us are still printing on machines that have older technology or inksets.  In my case it's an Epson 3880 which has never had a clog and it's sometimes been idle for a couple of months at a time.  I know that I cannot get the same gamut volumes as with new printers but there is also no economic justification for investing in a new one when the one I have works fine.

I would say it in a different way (just my personal perspective), sometimes it is even good that someone has old technology. I have both, old 3880 and new P800 with the new ink technology.

P800 has the same gamut as the 3880, usually a few % smaller on the same papers. I love P800 MK black, but I dislike its PK black since it gives non-homogeneous surface on paper compared to grays and other colours - it looks as coke in total dark areas. I prefer K3VM PK black, which is not record braking in terms of dMax but gives consistent  rendering on paper. My best fine art rpints on barytas (especially on Harman) are still done using 3880.

[Mark D Segal]

In my case it's an Epson 3880 which has never had a clog and it's sometimes been idle for a couple of months at a time.  I know that I cannot get the same gamut volumes as with new printers ........ IMO it's always best to standardize on a limited number of papers for ongoing work.  One also has to be cognizant about changes in manufacturing (the Ilford 'bankruptcy' problem, recent issues with Canson) and be able to adapt if necessary.

Hi Alan, your general point about being mindful of what may be gaining or not gaining by upgrading printers is a good one. Statistically, the P800 inkset is capable of delivering a slightly deeper Maximum Black than a 3880. Statistically, the gamut volume differences between a 3880 and a P800 for the same paper aren't very large, a bit more or less depending on the paper. But this raises another factor worth mentioning - we can compare differences of data between this and that paper/printer combination, and we notice the differences on a spreadsheet, but so what? How much of it do we notice in prints? How big does a statistical difference need to be before it hits you in the face when looking at prints? For instance - the gamut king of all these 17" printers is the Epson SC-P5000 and its forerunner the SP-4900. I've compared numerous prints between these printers, the SC-P800 and the Canon Pro-1000. More often than not, for the same paper and sometimes even different papers of the same general category, one can't tell the difference of print quality, because the photos don't have the kind of "at the margin" characteristics that help distinguish one machine or similar kind of paper from the other. Differences between matte and luster papers are of course glaringly obvious, but once you get into the fine points within each of these paper classes, it becomes increasingly challenging. Just to underscore the point that comparative data, of which there is now quite a bit on this website, can take one only so far. And yes, at the end of the day I agree it is good to standardize on several papers and get to know them well.

The change of ownership arrangements in the paper industry doesn't present an unambiguous or terribly predictable set of outcomes. In the case of Ilford, at least IGFS being one I can speak of, very little change from one ownership arrangement to another. Canson may be another story, I have no recent first-hand experience using Rag Photographique, but others have reported problems. But yes, it's a highly competitive industry - probably too much stuff competing for a market that may not be particularly dynamic, so change will likely continue to occur and your observation about the usefulness of being adaptable is well taken.

[texshooter]

A printing expert at my local photo store said that the new line of Epson Legacy papers are nothing different than Canson papers rebranded.  For example,  Epson Legacy Platine is actually Canson Platine but marked up in price and marketed as an Epson breakthrough.  Is this true?

[koonyue]

It arrived, let me test it out.

Really no idea why the legacy line of paper are available in US only, not even Japan.

[texshooter]

It arrived, let me test it out.

Really no idea why the legacy line of paper are available in US only, not even Japan.

Let us know how the Fiber and Etching compare.  The Etching is suppose to have more texture than the Fiber, but I can't tell one apart from the other.

[koonyue]

Hi guys,

Without waiting, I printed an image last night using legacy fiber on my p800.

The same image was printed on ilford gold cotton rig, I did not modify anything under lightroom between those 2 print except icc profile and media type.

Sorry I cannot give a professional and technical review like Mark's review on this website, the following is base on what I feel using my eyes and hands.

The following is base on Epson Legacy Fiber VS ilford gold cotton rig.

The paper, ilford is thicker and heavier.

The surface, ilford has more texture, epson is more white and smooth.

The print, I thought the ilford print was really good and near perfect, until I saw the print from legacy fiber, the ilford look a little bit "noisy" in some fine detail area, (due to more texture surface?) its like the ink is not perfectly align and some dot are bigger, some are smaller.

Compare to legacy fiber, it is perfect, a hair is a hair, straight line is straight, round is round, oval is oval.

Contrast is higher for ilford, tone transition is smoother for epson, but I think this can be fixed in post.

Smell, ilford paper has a smell which I think due to the inkjet coating, the epson paper do not. Personally I really like to smell the paper although it seems like a really sick behaviour.

I attached the 2 prints captured using my phone with flash, as you can see those black line at upper left corner is extremely sharp in the epson print.

The differnece is very very small but it is there, not saying which one is better because difference paper is meant to be difference, and I will keep using both in future.

Thanks

[koonyue]

The epson print

[tonyrom]

@texshooter.

The Canson and the Epson papers are super close to each other and I have heard they are both made by Canson.  However, if you create print profiles for each of the paper, there are slightly different.  Not saying one is better than the other but they are different when I made them on my P7000.  The same source that told me they are made by Canson also stated that Epson modified the recipe for the coatings.  Can you see the difference when you print a photo.  I can't.  I buy which ever is the most cost effective.  Best of luck.

[deanwork]

Look I am doing a job right now that I've been working on for the last two days .  A well known photographer  came to work with me for a couple of days from out of state on some work that is museum quality and he is one of the pickiest photographers I've ever printed for.  He used to print all his own work on c prints are we are drum scanning his archive then matching the old prints etc. I have done all his color work on Platine for years.

I proofed all the work on a roll of Epson " Legacy " Platine I bought from Shades Of Paper (strange how it has the same unusual name , Platine, huh) and then proofed it again from the same exact files a day later on a roll of Canson Platine that I bought from B&H. , which I made the final large prints from. Guess what,  all 5 of these color prints on both papers were 100 % identical . All the different scans had totally different hues and contrast situations and they all matched up identically with both papers - Canon Lucia inks.

Similarly I've used the Epson "Legacy Fiber" side by side with the Canson Rag Photographique on jobs last month and guess what again - exactly the same result.

So just as I thought in the beginning, all that bullshit these people were propagating about Epson creating this new "legacy" line is just that, bullshit. They bought the right to use Canson media and the same coating and put their name on it.

Now we may see differences in batches of both media over time, being coated in differient locations or even differient countries, but the essential product is the same.




The Canson and the Epson papers are super close to each other and I have heard they are both made by Canson.  However, if you create print profiles for each of the paper, there are slightly different.  Not saying one is better than the other but they are different when I made them on my P7000.  The same source that told me they are made by Canson also stated that Epson modified the recipe for the coatings.  Can you see the difference when you print a photo.  I can't.  I buy which ever is the most cost effective.  Best of luck.
[/quote]

[Mark D Segal]

.... They bought the right to use Canson media and the same coating and put their name on it.........

Do you have evidence of this contractual transaction, or is this primarily a supposition based on observation of printed results, interchangeability of profiles etc.?

In any case, who cares? Suppose you're right - what difference does it make to anything or anybody? All it does is expand paper options, and if they are so close in terms of physical appearance and results,  one can buy either based on which is cheaper. Epson had special rebates on these papers here in Canada that lasted for many months and they were a real bargain (three for the price of two). I'm not complaining. Rebates are over, so I'm back to other stuff that does about the same thing for considerably less. The more the options for really similar products, the more it's a buyer's market. As a consumer I can rejoice over that. Bring it on folks!

[texshooter]

Ron Martinsen concludes: "The Epson Legacy Baryta and Platine are simply the best papers I’ve ever tested"

http://www.ronmartblog.com/2016/02/epson-legacy-papers-reviews-tutorials.html

[Wayne Fox]

@texshooter.

The Canson and the Epson papers are super close to each other and I have heard they are both made by Canson.  However, if you create print profiles for each of the paper, there are slightly different.  Not saying one is better than the other but they are different when I made them on my P7000.  The same source that told me they are made by Canson also stated that Epson modified the recipe for the coatings.  Can you see the difference when you print a photo.  I can't.  I buy which ever is the most cost effective.  Best of luck.

I doubt if either company makes the paper they sell.   very few companies that sell inkjet papers actually make and coat their own papers.

It's not surprising to me that the two papers are extremely similar.  In fact both companies might be sourcing the paper from the same place.  Both companies probably have ask for  "baryta" paper, so the creation is similar.  There are subtle differences in the spectral plots of Ernst's database, as well as in the profiles and information provided by Mark in his extensive reviews to show the Epson paper isn't Canson paper rebranded.  If that were the case this information would be indentical.

But it certainly isn't surprising they are very close ...

[Alan Goldhammer]

The Canson and the Epson papers are super close to each other and I have heard they are both made by Canson.  However, if you create print profiles for each of the paper, there are slightly different.  Not saying one is better than the other but they are different when I made them on my P7000.  The same source that told me they are made by Canson also stated that Epson modified the recipe for the coatings.  Can you see the difference when you print a photo.  I can't.  I buy which ever is the most cost effective.  Best of luck.

It's no surprise that profiles would be different if there is a slight difference in the papers.  Clearly if one looks at the spectral response data, there is a significant difference in the 525-625nm range according to Ernst Dinkla's database.  The Canson paper shows a dip in response unlike the Epson paper.  Theoretically, one should see a slight difference in the green to yellow shades.

[Mark D Segal]

I doubt if either company makes the paper they sell.   very few companies that sell inkjet papers actually make and coat their own papers.

It's not surprising to me that the two papers are extremely similar.  In fact both companies might be sourcing the paper from the same place.  Both companies probably have ask for  "baryta" paper, so the creation is similar.  ................

This is correct Wayne, according to what various people in the industry have told me. Canson of course doesn't exist as an independent company any longer, but even before the buyout they made some of their papers and contracted out for some of their papers. I haven't been told which are which, but just confirms the general point you are making. There are far fewer large scale paper manufacturing facilities than there are brands of papers, so many brands end-up at the same places to get their work done. And to add to the fun, the three main phases of manufacture - substrate, coating and conversion - may all be done in different facilities in different places for the same piece of paper. I do know the companies I talk with have their own in-house paper specialists and/or contracted specialists to manage the detailed specifications and quality control of their brands and to work with the manufacturing facilities with which they contract to make the products.

And yes, I agree, there are *at least* several papers in both the matte and luster categories that are very similar to each other. As it has been put to me by one major industry player: "similar but different". How finely this can be sliced and diced is actually quite remarkable, because the differences between some of them can be very subtle and only noticeable on some kinds of photos but not others. I'm constantly intrigued - and have done some empirical work that I haven't gotten around to writing up yet - about what kind of differences in profile measurements or patch value measurements it takes before I notice the impact of such differences on paper; for some tones and colours it is very little, and for others it is more, and of course becomes more complex in a composite multi-colour or multi-tone photograph. Data differences do, as you suggest, indicate variances of formulas/fabrication, but how significant on paper (no pun intended) is another matter altogether, and to my mind the most important one. It's really immaterial, to me at least, who contracts with whom to manufacture what aspects of the papers we use. It's the end result that counts in terms of specifications, characteristics, quality and quality control.