Harmoan Gloss FB AL has washed out prints

[tomb18]

I just tried out the harman baryta paper and I'm not that pleased with my results.
I am printing on an Epson 4800 and if I print according to the settings Harman recomends I get a washed out looking print compared to the original.
If I soft proof the picture, the soft proof also appears washed out and is pretty well what prints.
However, I can't seem to get the right corrections in the softproof (I tried several different curves etc).  Does anyone have any suggestions of which way to approach this?

Thank you in advance.

[colinm]

When did you get the profiles?

I just downloaded the one that's up now and it looks fine to me.

Posting a sample image might also help... it could be you're dealing with colors that aren't going to be easily reproducible, whether it's just on the Harman or on any paper.

[tomb18]

When did you get the profiles?

I just downloaded the one that's up now and it looks fine to me.

Posting a sample image might also help... it could be you're dealing with colors that aren't going to be easily reproducible, whether it's just on the Harman or on any paper.

I just downloaded the profile today.  As to the image, it prints perfectly on epson premium glossy without soft proofing.  On the other hand, the harman seems like there is a piece of tissue paper put over it when you soft proof and the print matches the soft proof perfectly.  However, the print is washed out, and the shadow areas are lighter compared to the original image.  I tried another profile from Coalson, and it looks identical to the Harman print.
I guess what I am saying is that I should match the softproof to the original by curves or som eother means but I seem to be having a tough time doing so.

I don't have a web host at the moment.

[David Sutton]

On the 3800 with the driver set to "premium glossy photo paper" this is the first paper I've used that needs almost no adjustments when softproofing. I'm using my own profile but I don't think it is really much better than the one from the Harman site (http://www.harman-inkjet.com/profiles/page.asp?n=154). Which isn't much help to you. But what I'm suggesting is that you check you have the right profile and your printer preferences are set up correctly. There shouldn't be a problem with this paper.
Good luck, David

[tomb18]

Thanks, however I've checked that it is the right profile.  One can easily see the effect in the soft proof with CS4.
I really can't understand how people like this paper when it is so different from the processed view.
It lacks contrast and shadows are (as a matter of fact everything) are washed out.

[pindman]

This is the best paper I have used in MANY years of printing, including Agfa and Ilford conventional prints and Ilfochrome color as well as many other inkjet papers.  Believe me, it's not the paper that's causing the problem.  If you're doing everything right then you may want to get a custom profile.  They're inexpensive from Cathy's profiles.  Definitely worth the trouble!

Paul

[tomb18]

Well, guess what...I looked around the web a bit and found that some people are using the Epson Premium Glossy profile with this paper, especially previous to the release of the profiles on the harman site.
So I decided to try the epson premium glossy 250 profile.
Result: Perfect.  Far better than the Harman profile.

How can this be possible?
It has much better saturation, the " fog"  has been lifted from the photo and the shadows now have definition that wasn't there before.  Eveddn the soft proof which with real epson premium glossy was not a perfect match for the print, the harman matches perfectly.

Can anyone explain this??

[tomb18]

sorry duplicate post

[madmanchan]

I can't explain it, other than the possibility that you accidentally downloaded and installed the wrong Harman profile, or perhaps there's a temporary glitch on the Harman site where they're feeding you the incorrect profile, even when you click on the correct download link.

[tomb18]

Well, to rule out this possibility I sent them an email.
Is there anyone here with a 4800 using this paper?  If so could you look at the size of the file to see what you have?
Anyhow, the results with the premium glossy profiles are excellent including Bill's test chart.

[tomb18]

The funny thing about proofing is you have to let your eyes and brain rest for a while....
I took a look at the test image printed with the Epson Premium glossy profile and while it seemed ok before, the mid range grays had a distinct green tinge.  I never noticed that before.
So I printed the test pattern using the harman profile and it is much more neutral.
I decided to play around a bit more with the softproof and found I could get it much better by lowering the blacks below 30 and bumping the highlights.  The blacks were lowered by using a selection on the background color range (black) setting the fuzziness to 30 and then copying this selection in to a new layer and setting a multiply on it.
I still needed to use a mild s curve to get the image in line with the original and a bump in saturation of +7
Sigh, why can't the manufacturers get this right from the beginning?

[jjlphoto]

....I decided to play around a bit more with the softproof and found I could get it much better by lowering the blacks below 30 and bumping the highlights...

Creating files for inkjet output is very different than creating files for CMYK offset printing. In the latter, one would typically look at 25 or 30 for black with detail, but same on an inkjet print would have it looking weak. Set 'er right down to 0 if you want. Highlights on a good paper/printer profile will even show detail at 254 where-as for commercial CMYK offset printing, 240 is about the upper limit.

Sounds like you may need a good monitor properly cal/profiled to 100 cd/m2, and a proper viewing environment to evaluate your prints (once the ink has dried).

[tomb18]

Creating files for inkjet output is very different than creating files for CMYK offset printing. In the latter, one would typically look at 25 or 30 for black with detail, but same on an inkjet print would have it looking weak. Set 'er right down to 0 if you want. Highlights on a good paper/printer profile will even show detail at 254 where-as for commercial CMYK offset printing, 240 is about the upper limit.

Sounds like you may need a good monitor properly cal/profiled to 100 cd/m2, and a proper viewing environment to evaluate your prints (once the ink has dried).

Actually the monitor is well calibrated/prof to 100 cd/m2 using Coloryes Pro.  The monitor can actually distinguish between 0 and 1 and 254 and 255 and the dE is typically less than 1.  In addition, the test pattern I printed can distinguish down to 6,6,6 and 254 on the harman paper.  None the less, it seems that the harman profile compresses the dynamic range when it doesn't need to. Doing a softproof seems to show that the image becomes flat.  I wish I could capture what the screen looks like and the actual RGB values of the softproofed image.  Anyone know if this can be done in CS4?

[TomP]

This is the best paper I have used in MANY years of printing, including Agfa and Ilford conventional prints and Ilfochrome color as well as many other inkjet papers.  Believe me, it's not the paper that's causing the problem.  If you're doing everything right then you may want to get a custom profile.  They're inexpensive from Cathy's profiles.  Definitely worth the trouble!

Paul

Hi Paul,
I can understand the conventional papers referance but to add the Ilfochrome products into this discussion did not make a lot of sence to me? I actually prefer the Ilford Products (not Harmon the real Ilford) when it comes to this substrate type. It prints better the profiles are very accurate and the surface suits my taste. The price is better than the Harmon and it is more readily availble in my area at least. I am looking for the Box as I speak but I know its got some weird name like satin fiber.......Gold Fibre (that's right with an "re") Silk. Have you tried this media? I'm just a weekend tinkerer, but after trying both the Harmon and the Ilford media for my taste it was the Ilford by a scosh! Sorry I ramble.....I guess my point was that you can not compare the old chromes to B&W prints as they have a different appeal.

Tom