Baryta Coated Papers

[hjscm]

Should we start a new thread?  cause i would be interested in knowing if you get different results from printing out of cs1,cs3,cs4 and or match 1.  all three give me different results.

[Ryan Grayley]

I suppose we've gotten pretty far off topic ... feel free to start up a new thread.  It sounds like you are determining the targets are "incorrect" because they don't match the ones you print from CS1.  So you are assuming the CS1's are correct, and you have found a "work around" to make the CS4 targets match the CS1.

I guess my question is how do you know the CS1 targets aren't the incorrect ones and the work around is actually invalidating the CS4 targets?

I'm using 10.5.6 and CS4.  I am having problems getting my i1 Pro Rev. A device to read Bills targets so am curious to find out more about this issue as it may be causing some of my problems, but I'll admit once I get a target read, my profiles seem to be performing very well.

I have started a new thread under Colour Management.
http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....showtopic=31410

Cheers,

Ryan

[Ryan Grayley]

Would be very interested to hear your thoughts once done.

Returning to the original topic of this thread I have now created custom i1Match Chroma + profiles for the following papers. All profiles were created using 918 charts and under the same software settings.

Hahnemuhle PhotoRag Pearl
Hahnemuhle PhotoRag Bayrta
Epson Traditional Photo Paper (I think this is the same as Exhibition Fibre Paper)
Ilford Gold Fibre Silk

I have viewed all four used the comparison option in the Apple ColorSync Utility. They all seem very close but Pearl seems to have the largest volume followed very closely by Gold Fibre Silk. To my eye the custom Traditional Photo Paper seems to extend into the shadows just slightly more than the others and the Hahnemuehle Baryta just slightly weaker than the other three. I am sorry that I can't be more objective than this but unfortunately I don't currently have access to ColorThink.

From my own personal perspective, I have found this exercise very useful. Most of the time my clients prefer matte papers but I like to keep a roll of at least one resin style paper just in case. I now feel comfortable continuing with PhotoRag Pearl for these rare occasions and I no longer feel a pressing need to experiment further with the Baryta papers.

Edit1: There is one last thing I forgot to mention. I produced two A4 copies of a test print on Hahnemuehle PhotoRag Pearl, one using a LOGO Chroma + profile and the other using a LOGO Colorful profile. For this print the LOGO Colorful profile resulted in a print with visually deeper blacks, more overall contrast and a very pleasing result to my eyes.

Cheers,

Ryan

[Alistair]

Returning to the original topic of this thread I have now created custom i1Match Chroma + profiles for the following papers. All profiles were created using 918 charts and under the same software settings.

Hahnemuhle PhotoRag Pearl
Hahnemuhle PhotoRag Bayrta
Epson Traditional Photo Paper (I think this is the same as Exhibition Fibre Paper)
Ilford Gold Fibre Silk

I have viewed all four used the comparison option in the Apple ColorSync Utility. They all seem very close but Pearl seems to have the largest volume followed very closely by Gold Fibre Silk. To my eye the custom Traditional Photo Paper seems to extend into the shadows just slightly more than the others and the Hahnemuehle Baryta just slightly weaker than the other three. I am sorry that I can't be more objective than this but unfortunately I don't currently have access to ColorThink.

From my own personal perspective, I have found this exercise very useful. Most of the time my clients prefer matte papers but I like to keep a roll of at least one resin style paper just in case. I now feel comfortable continuing with PhotoRag Pearl for these rare occasions and I no longer feel a pressing need to experiment further with the Baryta papers.

Edit1: There is one last thing I forgot to mention. I produced two A4 copies of a test print on Hahnemuehle PhotoRag Pearl, one using a LOGO Chroma + profile and the other using a LOGO Colorful profile. For this print the LOGO Colorful profile resulted in a print with visually deeper blacks, more overall contrast and a very pleasing result to my eyes.

Cheers,

Ryan

Thanks for letting us have your results Ryan. Your findings seem to be consistent with mine and others. As an aside and somewhat tongue in cheek, you could offer Epson a good price to reprint the Landscape Photographer exhibition at the National. They may want you to do it on Epson Traditional Photo Paper though.

[neil snape]

The Colorful option which is default for i1Match BTW is going to punch up the contrast, darken the blacks and move some saturation areas around. In theory it should be only in perceptual mode but if you look closely in relative there are some hints to differences there too.

It isn't a good for press though , but is designed to render problem areas in ink jet printers with more life.

It seems that X-Rite have been taking far to long to marry Monaco and Profile Maker. Both have good or great things in them, blending both would be a better solution for us in inkjet printing.

[Ryan Grayley]

The Colorful option which is default for i1Match BTW is going to punch up the contrast, darken the blacks and move some saturation areas around. In theory it should be only in perceptual mode but if you look closely in relative there are some hints to differences there too.

It isn't a good for press though , but is designed to render problem areas in ink jet printers with more life.

It seems that X-Rite have been taking far to long to marry Monaco and Profile Maker. Both have good or great things in them, blending both would be a better solution for us in inkjet printing.

By making three copies of the i1Match application and editing the config file in each to produce different LOGO versions I am now able to quickly and easily produce three profiles for each set of measurement data.
By using soft proofing I am already finding that some artworks look better (to my eye) with LOGO Colorful and some look better with LOGO Colorful Chroma+.

It is great to have these choices but I agree that it would be even better if I could also produce perceptual profiles with the Monaco Profiler rendering. If Xrite merged Profile Maker and Profiler I would buy it today.

[Ryan Grayley]

Thanks for letting us have your results Ryan. Your findings seem to be consistent with mine and others. As an aside and somewhat tongue in cheek, you could offer Epson a good price to reprint the Landscape Photographer exhibition at the National. They may want you to do it on Epson Traditional Photo Paper though.

I went to see the Landscape Photographer exhibition last weekend and I also thought that some of the prints didn't seem quite right.  In particular, some of them seemed over-saturated and I wondered if this had been done artificially. One possible answer was only a few steps away in the book shop. Every photograph in the exhibition has also been reproduced in a catalogue and none of them had the same level of super saturation. Having said that, I still enjoyed looking at the images some of which I felt were worthy of comparison to photographers such as Joe Cornish. I particularly liked the winning photograph but partly because of the dog in the foreground. However, from a purist point of view I didn't feel that it was the best landscape photograph. I suppose it depends on how a 'landscape photograph' is defined but I don't recall seeing any significant foreground animals featuring in the works of Joe Cornish, Charlie Waite etc.

The tongue in cheek is appreciated but I don't think Epson UK would respond even if I did contact them. I twice logged an intermittent ESP 7900 fault with Epson UK back in late November and about a week ago my dealer said they would mention my outstanding fault to an Epson account manager. So far Epson haven't even responded with so much as a phone call.

[Geoff Wittig]

I went to see the Landscape Photographer exhibition last weekend and I also thought that some of the prints didn't seem quite right.  In particular, some of them seemed over-saturated and I wondered if this had been done artificially. One possible answer was only a few steps away in the book shop. Every photograph in the exhibition has also been reproduced in a catalogue and none of them had the same level of super saturation.

I've had the same experience at several recent exhibitions. There's an absurd trend toward hyper-saturated neon color landscape prints that I guess appeals to the unwashed masses, but leaves me cold. John Gavrilis's work is typical, and I daresay Alain Briot's images often have saturation punched up past the point of believability. As I get older I find myself leaning more toward Stephen Johnson's position. He argues that digital tools provide the means to get very accurate and realistic color, certainly compared to the limitations inherent to transparency film, and that color faithful to nature (rather than cartoonish) is a worthwhile goal. Especially in large prints I find myself liking subtle natural color more than punched-up hyper-reality.

Of course, that's just me.

[neil snape]

I think a trend I'm seeing is the fact the new printers are so much more capable of printing more colours than ever before. MAny of the expo prints seen actually were edited on monitors that weren't always capable of showing all the colours in the image on screen.
It could also just be a trend, don't know for sure. I wouldn't call Stephen's prints not saturated though, so if that is a reference then the other's must be pretty strong in chroma and or saturation.

[Bruce Watson]

... that color faithful to nature (rather than cartoonish) is a worthwhile goal. Especially in large prints I find myself liking subtle natural color more than punched-up hyper-reality.

Of course, that's just me.

No it's not. It's also me. There's more of us than you'd think.

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

No it's not. It's also me. There's more of us than you'd think.

Me, too! I like landscapes to be at least plausible.