Epson no longer supporting MK on Exhibition Canvas Satin

[garyclow]

In spite of what the printed insert says that comes in the Exhibition Canvas Satin box and in spite of what Epson's own Marketing Manager (Dano) says on this forum, Epson has removed the Exhibition Canvas Satin MK profile and accompanying PDF from their website.  When I inquired to their tech support people, the response I got was that MK is "not recommended" and I "should be using Photo Black" ink.

When I got the new Exhibition Canvas Satin, I tried a couple of prints with the PK ink and the specular reflections from the coarse weave and coating combined with the lower Dmax convinced me to try the Matte Black.  I was much happier with the results I got from the Matte Black, especially on the images I was printing, which had a lot of black negative space.

I had deleted the PDF for the MK profile (but luckily not the profile itself), so I went to the Epson website to download it again, only to be surprised to learn that the profile and PDF were gone!

[Peter Le]

     Like so many companies today....changed it....ended up worse. I moved on a while ago.....BC makes much better canvas anyway.....

[garyclow]

I'd like to hear from others who have tried the new Exhibition Canvas media from Epson.  I bought 3 44" rolls of the Satin, have gone through one, and I'm not sure I did the right thing buying 3.  (Now I know why they are running the buy 2 -- get 1 free promotion.)

I commend Epson for trying to come out with a canvas that is pre-coated to avoid top-coating, but...

- I'm very disappointed that they don't have support for the new canvas in their printer firmware.
- I'm even more disappointed that their workarounds for the lack of support are inconsistent in their documentation (backtracking on MK usages is but one example, contradictory recommendations in their documentation is another).
- I'm disappointed with the quality of the coating.  I don't think I had one print out of the roll that didn't have a big hole in the coating.  The coating on the edge is a disaster (of course that gets wrapped around the back of the stretchers if you're stretching instead of mounting, but the flaws I see are unacceptable).
- The specular reflections from the coating combined with the deep texture make it impossible to find a light angle that doesn't make the print shimmer like a sequined dress (that's why I went to MK ink, to cut down not the reflectivity).

I'm disappointed.  It looks like I'm going back to top-coating matte canvas.  I was willing to pay the premium to avoid the hassle of spraying.

Am I missing something, or are there others who have come to this same conclusion?  The others I have spoken to haven't even gotten around to trying the new canvas yet, and don't seem to be in any hurry to do so.

[bill t.]

Do you have the correct media type?

I've been testing glossy canvases lately.  On Exhibition Canvas Gloss I definitely get stronger blacks with the photo black ink, versus matte black.  But that's on an 8300.  Looking at the inkload tests for both matte and photo black I don't see much difference in the specular reflections, although after more than a week the matte test still smears slightly with rubbing whereas the photo black does not.

But as you mentioned the pebbly, bumpy texture is a little over the top for general use.  I assume the Satin texture is similar to the Gloss.  That's really too bad, IMHO.  The gamut and dynamic range of Exhibition Canvas Gloss is pretty spectacular and it invites use outside the wedding and portraiture areas where pebbly is acceptable.

You might also want to take a look at the "new improved" BC Crystalline canvas.  It's very punchy stuff.  There is some surface texture, but it is much smoother than you see on ECG, and you do not get the sense of seeing a zillion little stars when you view it under hard lighting.  I recently put a test print up against some Peter Lik facemount prints in bright spotlight illumination.  It easily competed with Peter's best efforts where he had shown no mercy on the saturation and contrast sliders.  It was hard to believe it was canvas.

A thin coat of GlamourII over Crystalline takes it from high gloss to something a little on the matte side of satin, and a thick coat takes it down to about satin.  But it's spray-on only, GlamourII acts like a solvent and I'm certain rolling would be an instant disaster.  If you apply coating over a local touch up, you have to be careful not to drag the brush, unless the print has been coated.

Am currently printing for two shows in June.  Just started the 5th, 44 inch roll of Crystalline and have lost only one print to surface defects, and that was a small patch of high spots that got planed off by the heads.  Other than that maybe 1 or 2 very small flaked off spots per roll that were easily fixed with pencils and markers.  Am very gratified that there have been no varicose vein weave errors or wart bumps, which make me crazy.  Generally the cleanest canvas I have used so far.

[garyclow]

I never thought about it, but I think you are right -- Epson must be going for the higher volume wedding market with these two new Satin and Gloss canvas products.  Can't blame them.  Less discerning customer and more volume.

Yes, I'm using the media type that Epson says to use and the profile Epson says to use.  Both vary with ECS depending on whether you are using MK or PK ink.

[Don Libby]

I used to use nothing but Epson canvas - that is until they changed it to make it "better".  While I didn't have problems on the printing side I did however find it horrible to stretch anything beyond 40x30.   Replace it with BC Lyve and haven't looked back. 

[Landscapes]

My 2 cents is that when I used the MK on the satin exhibition canvas, areas that pure pure black (a 2 inch black border all around for stretching) never dried.  Took a while to figure out that I was using the wrong black.  Perhaps when just a bit of the black is used to mix in with other colors it doesn't come off as bad, but pure MK ink on the satin canvas with my Canon iPF6100 was rubbing off with just a finger. 

I do love the matte canvas though and of course spray it with Timeless (mix of maybe 10-15% gloss and 85% matte).  This produces gorgeous results and is soooo easy to stretch.  I have seen the BC lyve canvas in the lovely book they sent me with samples, but nothing jumps out at me that makes it better.  Oh.. the Epson is also a good $20 cheaper per roll from what I remember... so its my only canvas.  I do kind of think that a canvas that doesn't have to be coated is a pipe dream.  Sure its much faster to not have to coat, but I can't imagine it standing up to years of display or even scuff and such.  If a customer is paying enough for the canvas, I think coating to ensure that they aren't pissed off in a few years is a good investment.

[bill t.]

The tiniest speck of spray cleaner will put a white hole is every one of the gloss canvas surfaces that claim to not need coating.  And that's just for starters.  The good news is, they coat really well and dry fast and you need only about 1/2 the amount of coating required for matte canvas.  Spray only, of course.

The other good news is, gloss canvas coming out of the printer looks pretty much the way it will look when dry.  Proofing is oh so much faster because of that, and oh so much easier because the wide gamuts mean there are very few agonizing screen->print compromises required.

[JohnHeerema]

I've been using the exhibition gloss canvas with the MK profile, and have been quite happy with it, although as previously noted, it does have to be coated if you use black borders. I seem to have been fortunate with the rolls that I have: the coating is mostly OK. Now that the PK profile is out, I'm planning to run some comparative tests, but haven't had the time to do so yet. It seems odd that Epson would remove the perfectly good MK profile from their web site, as there are bound to be times when people would prefer to use MK.

I do notice an error in the PDF for the PK profile.
Comparing the MK profile with the newer PK profile, I see higher Dmax and lower L for the MK profile, but both profiles show identical gamut volumes (1,593,059), which I don't believe is possible. I assume that the gamut volume wasn't updated when the new profile was built.