Pages: [1] 2 3   Go Down

Author Topic: Big difference between (good) proofing paper and final print paper!  (Read 13652 times)

narikin

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1371

Just want to share how surprised I was by the difference between my prints on my proofing paper (Epson Proofing Semi-Matte) and the final exhibition print paper -Legacy Platine or Canson Platine.  Both were accurate, this is not about color shifts, or anything like that, but there is a remarkable difference in color depth between the two, it is really quite shocking to see them side by side.

Both profiles are very good, same printer/inks of course, and Epson Proofing SM has a reputation of having the widest gamut of any Epson RC paper, but... to repeat: it is really surprising how much better the color, blacks and dynamic life of the image is on the Platine. I thought the Epson RC print was good, until i switched to final paper!

Is it simply the amount of ink laid that can be down causing this, or... ? 
Logged

Mark D Segal

  • Contributor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12512
    • http://www.markdsegal.com
Re: Big difference between (good) proofing paper and final print paper!
« Reply #1 on: October 10, 2017, 08:02:45 pm »

Not seeing the difference or knowing what printer you are using it's hard to say, but looking at the SC-P5000 profiles with ColorThink Pro, the first things that come to mind would be differences of gamut volume and maximum White/Black (Platine has more of all). That said, these profile-derived differences are not very large. It's designed for proofing offset printing processes which would have a narrower gamut than inkjet prints on Platine type papers, so however the paper is reflecting this purpose, it may help explain the difference you're seeing.
Logged
Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....."

Farmer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2848
Re: Big difference between (good) proofing paper and final print paper!
« Reply #2 on: October 10, 2017, 10:01:49 pm »

Ummm, proofing paper is for proofing before going to press.  It's not even remotely comparable to fine art or photo quality media in regards to the performance for photo printing.
Logged
Phil Brown

Alan Goldhammer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4344
    • A Goldhammer Photography
Re: Big difference between (good) proofing paper and final print paper!
« Reply #3 on: October 11, 2017, 08:16:11 am »

There is also a perceptual bias when one compares the same image printed on two different papers.  this is most commonly seen when one compares a matte print with a glossy print (the glossy print is often preferred).  Does this mean that one print is better than the other?  No, it just means that they are different.
Logged

narikin

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1371
Re: Big difference between (good) proofing paper and final print paper!
« Reply #4 on: October 11, 2017, 09:08:18 am »

Well, they are both low-gloss type finishes, not that big a difference, from that aspect. Printed on a P20000, Ultrachrome Pro, with PK inkset.

As I said before the Epson Proofing is said to have the largest gamut of any paper in Epsons RC lineup, so its not to be knocked. And I believe low or no OBAs. Ernst Dinkla of SpectraViz fame certainly recommends it a lot.

I know I should not be surprised, but I was taken aback just how much better the same image printed on Platine were, than on the Proofing. Again - is it simply the ink limits are far higher in Platine, giving deeper colors? Or some other quality of the paper base?

Alas what that means is we have to spend the $ on the good stuff, (100ft of 60" Proofing or PLU is ~$250; 100ft of 60" Platine (2x50ft) is $750+ !!) But the cheaper RC paper just doesn't deliver the goods. At least I know the money is buying a clear improvements in the final prints.
« Last Edit: October 11, 2017, 09:14:14 am by narikin »
Logged

Mark D Segal

  • Contributor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12512
    • http://www.markdsegal.com
Re: Big difference between (good) proofing paper and final print paper!
« Reply #5 on: October 11, 2017, 09:15:14 am »

There is also a perceptual bias when one compares the same image printed on two different papers.  this is most commonly seen when one compares a matte print with a glossy print (the glossy print is often preferred).  Does this mean that one print is better than the other?  No, it just means that they are different.

Definitely different. But taking your point further, once we get into "better" it is of course necessary to define "better"; such a definition should have objective characteristics (e.g. higher measurable accuracy, deeper Maximum Black, smoother grayscale), as distinct from the subjective that "I like this one more than that one". Seen from this perspective of course, it's perfectly understandable that some would prefer that which is not "better"! If I read into it correctly, Phil's point is that we shouldn't even be comparing these products, which is consistent with what I suggested in my previous post, insofar as the two papers are very differently purposed. But what's technically interesting here is that the DATA for them is not so terribly far apart, which seems to suggest that other aspects of the papers' construction which contributes to their different appearances do not get picked-up in this information.
Logged
Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....."

Mark D Segal

  • Contributor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12512
    • http://www.markdsegal.com
Re: Big difference between (good) proofing paper and final print paper!
« Reply #6 on: October 11, 2017, 09:27:44 am »

Well, they are both low-gloss type finishes, not that big a difference, from that aspect. Printed on a P20000, Ultrachrome Pro, with PK inkset.

As I said before the Epson Proofing is said to have the largest gamut of any paper in Epsons RC lineup, so its not to be knocked. And I believe low or no OBAs. Ernst Dinkla of SpectraViz fame certainly recommends it a lot.

I know I should not be surprised, but I was taken aback just how much better the same image printed on Platine were, than on the Proofing. Again - is it simply the ink limits are far higher in Platine, giving deeper colors? Or some other quality of the paper base?

Alas what that means is we have to spend the $ on the good stuff, (100ft of 60" Proofing or PLU is ~$250; 100ft of 60" Platine (2x50ft) is $750+ !!) But the cheaper RC paper just doesn't deliver the goods. At least I know the money is buying a clear improvements in the final prints.

I don't think the difference would be in the paper substrate. Most likely in the composition of the coating. The difference of gamut volume is 954K for Platine versus 877K for the Semi-Matte - less than 10% different and not likely to result in much if any visible difference for a wide variety of prints. Maximum Black is 3 for Platine, 4 for Semi-matte, again, nothing remarkable. White point 98 Platine versus 97 Semi-matte. Again nothing remarkable. So the factors causing the perceptual difference are elsewhere. And it is intentional because the semi-matte is designed to proof a press. But, when I make an inkjet print I expect a print with more dynamic range, more gamut and deeper blacks than presently achievable on most presses. So yes, it means I may well be paying more for it. But if I'm looking for the characteristics of Epson Platine rendered in less expensive products, I'd want to keep my eyes on the pricing for similarly purposed products and see which meets my requirements at least cost. While each paper is in some way unique, some are similar enough that substitution could depend mainly on comparative prices, which do vary over time. We have lots of choice these days.
Logged
Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....."

Ernst Dinkla

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4005
Re: Big difference between (good) proofing paper and final print paper!
« Reply #7 on: October 11, 2017, 12:06:38 pm »

Ummm, proofing paper is for proofing before going to press.  It's not even remotely comparable to fine art or photo quality media in regards to the performance for photo printing.

Yet Epson used the Proofing White paper in advertising to boast the wide gamut of the Epson x900 printers generation, not another RC or baryta photo quality paper. The ads were not aimed at prepress customers but at the photographer's market. And that gamut was wide at the time. An Epson representative could not point to another difference to the usual photo quality RC papers but the very low OBA content.

One thing you do not want in a proofing paper is a gamut that is too small for the press gamuts it has to simulate. The prepress device link profile creates the presses profile within the proofing paper gamut. The proofing paper gamut should in theory be able to cover several presses profiles.

What separates the Epson Proofing White Semi-Matte from the other proofing papers is a very low OBA content, a straight neutral white reflectance spectral curve and its 256 gsm weight. It is a fine alternative photo quality RC paper as there is no other photo quality RC paper that near neutral. Warm to many as they only know the OBA content papers. With that low OBA content comes an impressive paper white stability in time.

Off Topic; I doubt we will see an improved EPWSM that can match the improved baryta etc photo papers of today. That paper fills in a proofing paper niche for OBA free papers on conventional printing presses. Today's prepress color management and proofing seem far more directed to the high OBA content papers used on most presses. Hence all the M0 M1 measurement requirements for spectrometer hardware, new viewing lights and new proofing papers. All very nice within the standards of the prepress and printing industry but the printed product in the end will show less color constancy when it is viewed indoors by different light sources, on the porch and day and night outdoors. The proofing papers with high OBA content will keep their paper white stability long enough for the prepress, printer's and customer's approvals, both press paper and proofing paper will discolor but there's no guarantee it will be in the same direction and to the same degree. A printing company in London, quite aware of that, asked me to measure their press papers so they could print photo books that stand time better and show less color inconstancy in use.

Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst

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

Logged

Doug Gray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2197
Re: Big difference between (good) proofing paper and final print paper!
« Reply #8 on: October 11, 2017, 01:20:54 pm »

There is also a perceptual bias when one compares the same image printed on two different papers.  this is most commonly seen when one compares a matte print with a glossy print (the glossy print is often preferred).  Does this mean that one print is better than the other?  No, it just means that they are different.

This effect is particularly common when printing with perceptual intent or relative intent with BPC. Largely, this is due to the reduced contrast from mapping higher black points typical of matte paper.

Interestingly, the opposite is true when printing images using relative intent when the image is within gamut. Especially images that don't have any low key parts that can't be reached by the paper because ot matte's higher black point.

These prints are perceived as more colorful than when printed on glossy or luster. Even though exactly the same intent (relative) is used. Ambient light has the effect of reducing color saturation in addition to dynamic range with glossy type papers. This doesn't occur with matte paper.

OTOH, if you illuminate both papers at 45 degrees and view them in a relatively low lux environment, the prints will look the same, aside from possible white point variation, unless you are close enough to see texture variations.

Also, glossy prints typically look better in the hand because you automatically move them to minimize reflected glare.
« Last Edit: October 11, 2017, 01:26:14 pm by Doug Gray »
Logged

Garnick

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1229
Re: Big difference between (good) proofing paper and final print paper!
« Reply #9 on: October 11, 2017, 03:32:12 pm »

Definitely different. But taking your point further, once we get into "better" it is of course necessary to define "better"; such a definition should have objective characteristics (e.g. higher measurable accuracy, deeper Maximum Black, smoother grayscale), as distinct from the subjective that "I like this one more than that one". Seen from this perspective of course, it's perfectly understandable that some would prefer that which is not "better"! If I read into it correctly, Phil's point is that we shouldn't even be comparing these products, which is consistent with what I suggested in my previous post, insofar as the two papers are very differently purposed. But what's technically interesting here is that the DATA for them is not so terribly far apart, which seems to suggest that other aspects of the papers' construction which contributes to their different appearances do not get picked-up in this information.

Oh my, here I go again.  What can I say, it's a slow day  ::)  "it's perfectly understandable that some would prefer that which is not "better!".  Keeping the former in mind, how do we define "Better"?  It would seem that perhaps there are only two ways of arriving at such a definition.  "Better" is defined as a combination of measurements and analyzing the accompanying numbers, or, Better is defined as "Taste".  Is it not possible that in some situations both are equally relevant?  In a sort of roundabout way, that's how I decipher the previous quote from Mark, although of course I may be misinterpreting his meaning.  Obviously the measurements and numbers are very important, for various reasons, a lot of which have been mentioned in this thread.  However, I have given up the practice of occasionally sitting with a customer at the computer and pointing out some of the negative aspects of an image I'll be printing for them, only to have said customer revert to the original file, simply because to he/she determines it to be "better".  At this point in my many years of printing images on a variety of materials; "C"Prints, Reversal Prints, Display Transparency, Dye Transfer(very few), Etc., I believe I have, by necessity, developed a pretty good eye for what goes into making a good print - colour balance, density, contrast, etc., etc.  But even with that degree of experience, I have on occasion had to back off and let the customer govern what is "Better".  Therefore, who am I to say which definition is "totally" correct?  Obviously I tend toward the first one, while also blending it with a conservative helping of the second.

Gary                   


« Last Edit: October 11, 2017, 04:04:10 pm by Garnick »
Logged
Gary N.
"My memory isn't what it used to be. As a matter of fact it never was." (gan)

kers

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4388
    • Pieter Kers
Re: Big difference between (good) proofing paper and final print paper!
« Reply #10 on: October 11, 2017, 04:38:00 pm »

it is really surprising how much better the color, blacks and dynamic life of the image is on the Platine. I thought the Epson RC print was good, until i switched to final paper!
I had the same experience using my standard proofing paper- the cheap HP everyday pigment gloss- and Canson Platine...
Once printed on Platine it got that extra that makes is fit for hanging in a museum. A far more delicate image with a sense of depth.
Logged
Pieter Kers
www.beeld.nu/la

Wayne Fox

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4237
    • waynefox.com
Re: Big difference between (good) proofing paper and final print paper!
« Reply #11 on: October 11, 2017, 04:52:55 pm »

I proof on either Epson Premium Semigloss or Epson Premium Luster, final prints are Epson Legacy baryta.  both are custom profiled. Match is quite close, visually close enough to be a valid proof and trust printing on the baryta.
Logged

Farmer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2848
Re: Big difference between (good) proofing paper and final print paper!
« Reply #12 on: October 11, 2017, 05:47:31 pm »

Yet Epson used the Proofing White paper in advertising to boast the wide gamut of the Epson x900 printers generation, not another RC or baryta photo quality paper. The ads were not aimed at prepress customers but at the photographer's market. And that gamut was wide at the time. An Epson representative could not point to another difference to the usual photo quality RC papers but the very low OBA content.

And I know people who do use it for making photos.  That's not the point.  The paper is proofing paper designed for proofers.  Sure, it does highlight the very wide gamut of the printers, but we shouldn't be surprised if someone finds a paper made specifically for photography (and costing a lot more, and heavier) looks better to them.
Logged
Phil Brown

Farmer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2848
Re: Big difference between (good) proofing paper and final print paper!
« Reply #13 on: October 11, 2017, 05:49:54 pm »

If I read into it correctly, Phil's point is that we shouldn't even be comparing these products, which is consistent with what I suggested in my previous post, insofar as the two papers are very differently purposed. But what's technically interesting here is that the DATA for them is not so terribly far apart, which seems to suggest that other aspects of the papers' construction which contributes to their different appearances do not get picked-up in this information.

It's OK to compare them, but no one should be surprised by the results.  Try attempting FOGRA certs on the platine.  Apart from massively increasing costs, it won't carry the pre-press proofs in the same way.  Proofing in this context is specific.

As I just said to Ernst - I know people who use it for photos and they look great, because they've chosen the media for particular look and feel, as we all do.  Nothing wrong with that, but as you say Mark there's more to it than just the underlying statistics, just as two perfectly exposed images of the same subject can be miles apart in aesthetic appeal.
Logged
Phil Brown

Mark D Segal

  • Contributor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12512
    • http://www.markdsegal.com
Re: Big difference between (good) proofing paper and final print paper!
« Reply #14 on: October 11, 2017, 07:52:06 pm »

Oh my, here I go again.  What can I say, it's a slow day  ::)  "it's perfectly understandable that some would prefer that which is not "better!".  Keeping the former in mind, how do we define "Better"?  It would seem that perhaps there are only two ways of arriving at such a definition.  "Better" is defined as a combination of measurements and analyzing the accompanying numbers, or, Better is defined as "Taste".  Is it not possible that in some situations both are equally relevant?  In a sort of roundabout way, that's how I decipher the previous quote from Mark, although of course I may be misinterpreting his meaning.  Obviously the measurements and numbers are very important, for various reasons, a lot of which have been mentioned in this thread.  However, I have given up the practice of occasionally sitting with a customer at the computer and pointing out some of the negative aspects of an image I'll be printing for them, only to have said customer revert to the original file, simply because to he/she determines it to be "better".  At this point in my many years of printing images on a variety of materials; "C"Prints, Reversal Prints, Display Transparency, Dye Transfer(very few), Etc., I believe I have, by necessity, developed a pretty good eye for what goes into making a good print - colour balance, density, contrast, etc., etc.  But even with that degree of experience, I have on occasion had to back off and let the customer govern what is "Better".  Therefore, who am I to say which definition is "totally" correct?  Obviously I tend toward the first one, while also blending it with a conservative helping of the second.

Gary                 

I have no problem (as you know) with statistical parameters of quality, but in the final analysis the crunch issue is what rendition of the print appeals most to me or to a customer, and that of course often depends not only on the paper but also the subject matter. Sometimes the objective and subjective converge, sometimes they don't. In general, I personally prefer the depth and gamut of the higher quality luster/baryta papers, but I've produced some prints I and others liked very much on matte, especially of late the Canon Premium Fine Art Smooth.
Logged
Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....."

Ernst Dinkla

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4005
Re: Big difference between (good) proofing paper and final print paper!
« Reply #15 on: October 12, 2017, 07:28:22 am »

And I know people who do use it for making photos.  That's not the point.  The paper is proofing paper designed for proofers.  Sure, it does highlight the very wide gamut of the printers, but we shouldn't be surprised if someone finds a paper made specifically for photography (and costing a lot more, and heavier) looks better to them.

Sorry but I still do not see in what the Epson Proofing White Semi-Matte 256 gsm makes different compared to photo quality RC papers but the OBA content. A lot of proofing papers, among them the Tecco EFI types, are just copies of photo quality RC papers. If they pass the Fogra certification they become proofing papers, it is not more than that. Papergraphics has similar proofing papers. Add the device-link profiles and they can be used. That the EPWSM is quite unique and might be developed for proofing only does not mean it is that different in composition. 

Using the Epson Proofing White Semi-Matte as a proof paper for a high quality baryta etc inkjet paper is another matter. The gamut of the last can be wider and/or differ in gamut shape. So I am not surprised that Narikin does not get a 1:1 match. Making a device-link profile or a Photoshop CM simulation of a device-link profile will not help either to overcome the gamut differences.

The Platines in general are a moving target, from the first version to the last I see an increase in white reflectance going from Lab L 97.0 to L 99.1. There is more gain in dynamic range with Lab L steps in white reflectance than in Dmax but Mark already mentioned a better black Lab L 4.0 versus the L 3.0 for the EPWSM. Based on the profiles data. Whether the Platine profile still represents the last batches of Epson Platine is one uncertainty.

I have used an inexpensive paper like the Innova IFA24, neutral, matte, to make proofs for papers more expensive like Arches BFK. Sometimes even taking the BFK profile and paper preset. For precise reproductions of originals it simply does not work and one is bound to proof on the paper that has to be used for the final print. That is a pity if there goes more paper in proofs than in the final print.

The EPWSM has a typical surface shine that I am not so happy with. I do not think that the almost neutral paper white and its surface will make it a popular RC photo quality paper.


Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst

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

Logged

GrahamBy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1813
    • Some of my photos
Re: Big difference between (good) proofing paper and final print paper!
« Reply #16 on: October 12, 2017, 07:44:26 am »

And I know people who do use it for making photos.  That's not the point.  The paper is proofing paper designed for proofers.  Sure, it does highlight the very wide gamut of the printers, but we shouldn't be surprised if someone finds a paper made specifically for photography (and costing a lot more, and heavier) looks better to them.

Would it still look better to them if they didn't know?

It would seem from Mark's data that the measurements we have don't explain the "nothing like" difference perceived by the OP.

That leaves two possibilities: something is being missed by the measurements, or the difference is mostly imaginary. Which is why any serious tests of perception need to be done blind (so to speak).
Logged

Garnick

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1229
Re: Big difference between (good) proofing paper and final print paper!
« Reply #17 on: October 12, 2017, 08:43:05 am »

This is interesting, and somewhat confusing as well.  Now the fact that I am easily confused is probably obvious, but I digress.  The confusing part of this thread, for me at least, is the seemingly overlapping use of the term "proof", and or "proofing paper".  This thread started with a comparison of the differences between an Epson "Proofing Paper" and another Epson Paper on which the final print would be produced.  As the thread progressed it touched on the difference between "Pre-Press" proofing and proofing for InkJet Printing.  Since I have no need for Pre-Press proofing I will concentrate of the posts that referred to the procedure of what I will call "InkJet Print Proofing", since that would seem to be what it is.  Perhaps I'm reading these posts incorrectly, it is early morning and my java hasn't kicked in yet.  However, I do believe I have more or less nailed it, and it seems to me that the word "Proofing" here in some instances does directly apply to InkJet Printing.  In other words, one would create a "proof" print on a particular paper, view that print(proof) under proper lighting conditions, and then decide whether or not it is ready to go to a final print on another paper, or perhaps the same paper.  Now, if I have indeed not grasped the basic premise of the original post, as well as various others, please set me straight.  However, if I have "nailed it", on any level, that "proof print" could easily fall under the umbrella of what has been called "hard proofing", or that much maligned word, "testing".  Otherwise, what is the reason for a "Proof Print" when referring to "in house" inkjet printing?  I mention this only because I have, on several occasions, made reference to my workflow, which includes a small test of a particular area of an image, to make sure that what I am seeing on my display will transfer properly to the final printed image.  And on many occasions I have been reminded that if my display is properly calibrated and profiled, along with a colour managed workflow, there should be no need for a test strip.  Therefore, the following question.  What is the difference between a test strip and a "proof print".  The only difference I can determine is size.  My test strip is of a small, but critical section of the image, whereas the "proof print" is the full image.  And I also, to some extent, test(proof) on a paper other than the one on which I will produce a final print.  Case in point - when printing on Breathing Color Canvas(Chromata White Matte) I test on Epson Enhanced Matte paper.  The latest iteration of that paper is a dead match for the canvas, at least to my eye, and a much more economical method of testing.  However, if I'm not totally certain, I will run a section of the image on a 17" roll before committing to a final print.  The previous versions of EnhMatte were not as close as the latest one, so I had an adjustment action for them.  And by the way, that's the only use I have for EnhMatte. 

Once again, please let me know if and how I have misinterpreted the OP, and or other replies.  But not until your morning java has kicked in  ;) 

Gary       

                 
« Last Edit: October 12, 2017, 09:16:54 am by Garnick »
Logged
Gary N.
"My memory isn't what it used to be. As a matter of fact it never was." (gan)

Mark D Segal

  • Contributor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12512
    • http://www.markdsegal.com
Re: Big difference between (good) proofing paper and final print paper!
« Reply #18 on: October 12, 2017, 09:00:31 am »

Would it still look better to them if they didn't know?

It would seem from Mark's data that the measurements we have don't explain the "nothing like" difference perceived by the OP.

That leaves two possibilities: something is being missed by the measurements, or the difference is mostly imaginary. Which is why any serious tests of perception need to be done blind (so to speak).

Well, yes, a number of things to ponder here.

It does make a perceptual and judgmental difference whether you look at prints side by side or in isolation. Seen in isolation we are very prone to miss characteristics that become obvious in comparison viewing. That is why I have often arranged "blind tastings" for a number of my paper reviews, wherein experienced readers of prints look at a matrix of prints without knowing what they are and give me feedback.

"Nothing like" differences are hard to relate to without seeing them oneself. But I'm assuming from Narikin's wording that if I were to look at the same pair of photos he's looking at, I too would see large, obvious differences between them. I would expect to see for example that one is just overall duller, less contrasty, less punchy than the other. So if all that's true, then I'd be very inclined to believe that the main cause of the differences is not being captured by the measurements I provided, because I know from experience of comparing lots of prints with lots of numbers that those differences in the numbers I reported don't add up to my assumption about the extent of the perceptual differences being reported. So yes, it's quite possible that something is being missed by the measurements, but I'd be hard-pressed to think the differences are imaginary, as I can't question such an experience that I haven't been able to observe myself.
Logged
Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....."

Mark D Segal

  • Contributor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12512
    • http://www.markdsegal.com
Re: Big difference between (good) proofing paper and final print paper!
« Reply #19 on: October 12, 2017, 09:06:00 am »

This is interesting, and somewhat confusing as well.  Now the fact that I am easily confused is probably obvious, but I digress.  The confusing part of this thread, for me at least, is the seemingly overlapping use of the term "proof", and or "proofing paper".  This thread started with a comparison of the differences between an Epson "Proofing Paper" and another Epson Paper on which the final print would be produced. 

Gary       

               

Gary, the key point is that the paper was designed for proofing press output. Phil made that clear. If anyone wants to use it for proofing inkjet prints to be made on another type of media they do so at their own risk, because RELIABLE proofing for a press or for a professional inkjet printer requires that the proofing papers are bespoke to the intended output device/paper.
Logged
Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....."
Pages: [1] 2 3   Go Up