Looking for a sharp paper?

[nilo]

Hi,

While doing my tests and research, I was wondering about sharpness. My own tests on some new papers, for which I got samples, revealed considerable differences among them. I tested a few Baryta papers from Epson, Canson, Hahnemuehe, Harman, Harman by Hahnemuehle and also the Epson Premium Glossy and SemiGloss papers. Harman Gloss FB Al Warmtone (as well as the same Harman by Hahnemuehle) together with Canson's Baryta Photographique where by very far the sharpest papers. I could say when holding them one next to the other, all printed with the same file, in identical conditions, that they are the only sharp papers.

Isn't there a really sharp RC Hi-gloss paper out there? (Unfortunately I could not test any Ilford, as they are not available in my region.)

cheers
nino

[Ernst Dinkla]

Hi,

While doing my tests and research, I was wondering about sharpness. My own tests on some new papers, for which I got samples, revealed considerable differences among them. I tested a few Baryta papers from Epson, Canson, Hahnemuehe, Harman, Harman by Hahnemuehle and also the Epson Premium Glossy and SemiGloss papers. Harman Gloss FB Al Warmtone (as well as the same Harman by Hahnemuehle) together with Canson's Baryta Photographique where by very far the sharpest papers. I could say when holding them one next to the other, all printed with the same file, in identical conditions, that they are the only sharp papers.

Isn't there a really sharp RC Hi-gloss paper out there? (Unfortunately I could not test any Ilford, as they are not available in my region.)

cheers
nino

While you separate the paper properties in different threads here they should not be checked/measured that way. Dmax, dynamic range, resolution, gloss differential, etc are a result of the used inkset + printer, the media preset selected (weaving, ink limit, black generation, speed/drying time, etc), the selected printer resolution in dpi and more. What you observed isn't universal for other printers and media presets and may compromise on Dmax, chroma, etc even on your printing system.

It is a hell of a job but creating MTF charts of papers with different combinations of printers and presets and including the gamut + dynamic range + gloss differential properties in the test would give paper selections more base. It doesn't end there as surface texture, paper white, behaviour in the printer transport, framing qualities, fade resistance, etc are often as important.

You have been around here for 5 weeks or so and you are eager to learn. That's good. I didn't read yet what printer you use but I didn't check all your messages. It could give the discussions more value for yourself and the members if you also added more information about your printing practice. Now it is becoming a fragmented list of good and bad without much context.


met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst Dinkla

spectral plots of +100 inkjet papers:
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm

[Czornyj]

From my epirence with Epson K3 - paper type doesn't really matter that much. Pigment ink is not prone to bleeding, so the prints are razor-sharp, no matter what paper I'm using. So maybe it's not a matter of paper, but image resolution and sharpening technique? Try using 360dpi resolution to avoid drivers interpolation, and diferent sharpening levels, or try Qimage, that just takes care of that.

[Jack Flesher]

In my case (Epson 7900) I find regular RC papers more than sharp enough and I can certainly adjust sharpening to the point where the output is too sharp -- not technically over-sharpened, but still too sharp for my preferences.  But, I agree that if I print the same file on a Baryta paper -- specifically Harman Gloss FBAL -- the result is definitely too sharp. So as routine, I dial output sharpening back a bit for the Harman...  That said, I do not find that all Baryta papers carry that same trait; like for example Epson's Exhibition Fiber, where I use the same output sharpening for it as I do for RC papers.

[uaiomex]

I second that on FbAl but only tested myself in 7600 and 7880. I find EPPL to be sharper than Ilford's "Pearls", but FbAl makes it look a little lame.
Eduardo

In my case (Epson 7900) I find regular RC papers more than sharp enough and I can certainly adjust sharpening to the point where the output is too sharp -- not technically over-sharpened, but still too sharp for my preferences.  But, I agree that if I print the same file on a Baryta paper -- specifically Harman Gloss FBAL -- the result is definitely too sharp. So as routine, I dial output sharpening back a bit for the Harman...  That said, I do not find that all Baryta papers carry that same trait; like for example Epson's Exhibition Fiber, where I use the same output sharpening for it as I do for RC papers.

[JeffKohn]

For the most part of not noticed much difference between different papers within a subcategory (such as smooth matte, fiber-gloss, etc).

The one exception was the original Harman FB-AL, which was noticeably sharper than any other paper I'd seen. It also had by far the smoothest surface, with the worst surface glare, and seemed to be one of the more fragile gloss surfaces. So while the prints were very sharp, I didn't much care for other qualities of the paper. I understand the newer 'Harman by Hahnemuhle' paper is a slightly different base and not quite as smooth, so it may be different in this regard (I'm not interested enough to try it).

[nilo]

While you separate the paper properties in different threads here they should not be checked/measured that way. Dmax, dynamic range, resolution, gloss differential, etc are a result of the used inkset + printer, the media preset selected (weaving, ink limit, black generation, speed/drying time, etc), the selected printer resolution in dpi and more. What you observed isn't universal for other printers and media presets and may compromise on Dmax, chroma, etc even on your printing system.

It is a hell of a job but creating MTF charts of papers with different combinations of printers and presets and including the gamut + dynamic range + gloss differential properties in the test would give paper selections more base. It doesn't end there as surface texture, paper white, behaviour in the printer transport, framing qualities, fade resistance, etc are often as important.

You have been around here for 5 weeks or so and you are eager to learn. That's good. I didn't read yet what printer you use but I didn't check all your messages. It could give the discussions more value for yourself and the members if you also added more information about your printing practice. Now it is becoming a fragmented list of good and bad without much context.


met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst Dinkla

spectral plots of +100 inkjet papers:
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm

Thank you all for your posts!

Sorry, I should have been more specific about how I obtained this significant differences between papers. I did not do any scientific testing via MTF charts. I simply printed out one and the same file on a number of small little samples with their respective canned  profiles. I used the 3880 for that task with the standard k3 + vivid magenta. Experience with Epson learned me to print only at 360dpi, so that's what I use (In case of need I'll resize but always keep that 360dpi). Also, I used 1440ppi, as I can't see any difference to 2880ppi. Some papers reportedly behave better at that setting. Its also half the ink, time and head consumption. I am aware of the fact that a paper can get sharp by applying different degrees of sharpening, only now I left the file unchanged at one lower than usual level of sharpening, in order to judge the different capabilities more easily. And they where indeed easily visibly. No need for a magnifying glass here.

As I had already gone through some new papers, and used up what samples I had at hand, I figured, from there on, I prefer to inquire about other peoples experiences.

I started a new topic, because..., well, its a new topic. Certainly related and even interdependent, but still a thread seams most of the time to surf only one wave. And I had to take that other wave too .

regards

nino

[robgo2]

While you separate the paper properties in different threads here they should not be checked/measured that way. Dmax, dynamic range, resolution, gloss differential, etc are a result of the used inkset + printer, the media preset selected (weaving, ink limit, black generation, speed/drying time, etc), the selected printer resolution in dpi and more. What you observed isn't universal for other printers and media presets and may compromise on Dmax, chroma, etc even on your printing system.

All I can say is that there is so much more to making a good print than sharpness.  I would hope that everyone on this forum appreciates that fact.

Rob

[nilo]

All I can say is that there is so much more to making a good print than sharpness.  I would hope that everyone on this forum appreciates that fact.

Rob

I do.