Which Z3100 preset for HPR Baryta?

[Geoff Wittig]

I just got a pack of Hahnemuhle Photo Rag Baryta paper to print with an HP Z3100. Any users out there know what the appropriate paper preset is? I don't want to waste too many of these expensive sheets creating a good profile. I was planning to try the fine art pearl and HP Baryte satin presets, but if someone's already figured it out, I'd love to know.

[Thomas Krüger]

Profiles and handling instructions for HP from the Hahnemuehle website:

Photo Rag Baryta
Settings: Custom Paper: HP Fine Art Paper Pearl (less ink), Quality: highest (fine), see Handling Instruction

http://www.hahnemuehle.com/index.php?mid=1...mp;lng=en#icc23

[Geoff Wittig]

Profiles and handling instructions for HP from the Hahnemuehle website:

Photo Rag Baryta
Settings: Custom Paper: HP Fine Art Paper Pearl (less ink), Quality: highest (fine), see Handling Instruction

http://www.hahnemuehle.com/index.php?mid=1...mp;lng=en#icc23

Thanks so much. Hahnemuehle's profiles in my past experience were quite variable in quality so I hadn't thought to look on their site.

[William Morse]

I wuold take this with a grain of salt. While the HP branded Hahn. papers and profiles are quite good, the Hahn. supplied info and profiles are suspect, IMO.

Bill

Thanks so much. Hahnemuehle's profiles in my past experience were quite variable in quality so I hadn't thought to look on their site.

[Geoff Wittig]

I wuold take this with a grain of salt. While the HP branded Hahn. papers and profiles are quite good, the Hahn. supplied info and profiles are suspect, IMO.

Bill

Point taken. I wasn't planning on using Hahnemüle's profile per se. I was just going to use their recommendation regarding the appropriate HP media preset to use for generating my own profile.

I know others on this site have had mixed experiences, but for me the plain vanilla Z3100 has generated consistently excellent profiles for most 3rd party papers if used with the right preset. The only issue I've had has been the widely observed mediocre reds on matte/rag papers with the built-in spectro profiles. On luster/gloss/satin papers they've been reliably good enough for my landscape work.

[William Morse]

the salt was thrown at the Hahn rec'd  preset, not the profiles (which are also suspect).  The "less ink" rec may simply be a CYA position- less likely to cause problems, but not necessarily the best.

Related to this, does anyone know the ink characterisics of the HP Baryte preset?

Bill

Point taken. I wasn't planning on using Hahnemüle's profile per se. I was just going to use their recommendation regarding the appropriate HP media preset to use for generating my own profile.

I know others on this site have had mixed experiences, but for me the plain vanilla Z3100 has generated consistently excellent profiles for most 3rd party papers if used with the right preset. The only issue I've had has been the widely observed mediocre reds on matte/rag papers with the built-in spectro profiles. On luster/gloss/satin papers they've been reliably good enough for my landscape work.

[Colorwave]

does anyone know the ink characterisics of the HP Baryte preset?

I wish I did.  I downloaded the newer paper presets and had them when I profiled the HP Satin Barite paper.  Later, when I went to add the Hahnemuhle PR Baryta, it wasn't there anymore as a paper preset.  I tried reinstalling the presets twice, to no avail.  

I called HP and their tech support was unable to help me get the paper presets to show up again.  I've had nothing but troubles with the paper list and the Printer Utility since several firmware upgrades back.  At the moment, the paper list is working otherwise, except for some of the presets not showing up.  FWIW:  I'm on a Mac and have a PS version of the printer.  

I went ahead and profiled the Hahnemuhle paper using Hahnemuhle's recommended setting of Pearl (less ink) and am happy with the results, but would love to know what parameters are different with the Pearl preset vs. the Barite preset.  When I asked the HP tech support person if they had access to a more recent list than the year old one that lists ink load and the other variables for each preset, he looked into it and got back to me a day or two later saying that they have NO documentation, internally or available to users that specifies the differences for any of the newer paper presets.  That, and the fact that they only have one Mac in large format tech support (and it was "not available" to my tech) are just a couple of good examples as to how uneven their tech support can be at times.  No documentation at all?  Do they write the paper presets and then throw away their notes?

[Avalan]

Bill is right on the money. Hahnemule's recommendations for media settings in above link, are not accurate and are not necessarily the best choice. These are the ink limits for some of Hahnemuhle papers. These numbers are provided in data sheets by Hahnemule for all of their media:

Ink limits for PR Baryta, FA Baryta, PR Pearl, FA Pearl : 280
Ink limits for PR Satin : 235
For 3100, Hahnemuhle recommends FA Pearl-less ink for all above papers.

If you check the ink limit for their Matte papers , you will find the same inaccuracy for paper setting.
The ink limit for most of their Matte papers 245, with these exceptions:
Bamboo : 235, Natural art Duo : 250, PR ultra smooth 280.

Although the above papers have different ink limit and thickness, They have recommended Fine Art paper >250 for all the above.

Their recommendation for media setting for Z-3200 is not a help either and looks more like a joke! For every single paper, the setting is "Import as new media to the printer"!!

Not tried PR Baryta myself , so don't have the proper answer, but it will worth to try some other settings with a bit higher ink limit.

Avalan  

[Colorwave]

Hmmmm . . . just went to look up what the ink limits were for the Fine Art Pearl (less ink) preset on HP's site.  That's when I saw that the HP Barite paper had been added to the bottom of the chart.  

The page still lists an August 2007 date at the bottom and November 2007 date at the top, even though the paper came out much more recently than either.  I'm not sure when they sneaked it in, but I take back my complaint about that documentation, HP.  

As for the ink limits, HP seems to measure them differently than Hahnemuhle.  I'm not sure what the measure is for Hahnemuhle, but HP says that theirs is rated as picoliters per 1/600" x 1/600" area.  For their scale, they show both the Barite and the Pearl (less ink) at a relatively low ink load of 32.  Fine Art Paper >250gsm's preset gets a whopping ink limit of 60 by comparison.  I may try the Pearl (more ink) preset, which has an ink limit of 42, for another test with the Hahnemuhle paper to see what happens.  I'm sure that it would not work with the HP Barite, as it has has buckling problems for me at a limit of only 32, but the Hahnemuhle PR Baryta is appreciably thicker than HP's version.

[Thomas Krüger]

Here is a pdf from the Hahnemühle Support that I got this morning. Probably the same as on the website.

[neil snape]

The ink loads can be less for photo papers vs matte. It depends on the paper's absorption first and on the paper's base resistance to cockle. I don't find too much fault in the listed numbers above. Also for the 3200 it is true that they are downloaded as an OMS file, hence you don't need the numbers as they are in that xml file.
Problem with third party papers, is the inks can pool, or leave a haze. If you reduce the inking you can reduce or eliminate this haze, and reduce cockle as well.
The fine art papers should be more resistant to cockle so the ink loads can be higher, but if they are photo surfaces this is questionable. For the matte media it makes sense , the numbers above.