Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Printing: Printers, Papers and Inks => Topic started by: HSakols on May 15, 2017, 10:25:41 am
-
When I first started out printing, I used cheap mat paper from Epson, but later changed to photo paper because I like the blacks better. I'm curious why other photographers prefer using mat paper and inks. Do you find you get a better look to your prints? I'm just curious, especially with all the different flavors of paper out there.
Hugh
-
The latest generation of matte papers and inks have considerably improved the perceptual rendition of Black and shadow tones in general. Some people prefer matte surfaces because of their artistic feel, and because they don't reflect the glare of glossier papers which some people find distracting, but along with that comes a sacrifice of DMax. This is all about personal preference in the "fine art" market, and what looks best for the photo being printed.
-
I don't know how many matte-only inks are left on the market, but with respect to the matte v. glossy black and white inks I use, there are several reasons one might stay with matte only.
First, if one mixes their own B&W inks from stock MK, the cost can be close to two orders of magnitude less than the desktop, small cart cost of OEM inks. The current version of the matte only B&W inks I'm referring to are discussed in this PDF: http://www.paulroark.com/BW-Info/3880-Eboni-Variable-Tone.pdf . They can be installed in any Epson printer that has third party, empty, refillable cartridges available.
Second, matte inks don't need the binder (read "glue") required to stick pigments onto glossy paper. Because of this they don't clog nearly as much as glossy inks.
Third, if you're doing "fine art" where you'll probably want to display the image under acrylic (or museum glass), you can tape hang the artwork as opposed to adhering it to a backing. I think this is both easier and better.
Fourth, on my wall, in actual display settings, the matte under glass often has a better dmax than the glossy inks/papers. It's all about reflections. Our spectros are measuring the dmax under ideal conditions. Normal room lighting is not ideal. Avoiding reflections off the surface of the paper can be important.
For me, the main reason to bother with glossy is for prints that are going to be displayed without glazing (including my gallery brochures). I'll be running my 9800 with the glossy B&W "variable tone" inkset in it today just to keep it from clogging, and once my large canvas show is over at the end of September that inkset is probably going to be pulled and the matte version installed. Keeping big printers running when one does only intermittent printing is a problem.
Paul
www.PaulRoark.com
-
I rarely use matt black and matt papers, but when I do it’s because they offer a character and look that seems to fit the mood of the image I’m printing.
You mentioned you started using “cheap” matt papers then switch to photo black papers. Some of the not so cheap papers have a wonderful look when printed. While the blacks might not be technically as black when measured, because of the dispersion quality of light as reflected from them they have a richness and quality much different than PK papers.
-
I rarely use matt black and matt papers, but when I do it’s because they offer a character and look that seems to fit the mood of the image I’m printing.
You mentioned you started using “cheap” matt papers then switch to photo black papers. Some of the not so cheap papers have a wonderful look when printed. While the blacks might not be technically as black when measured, because of the dispersion quality of light as reflected from them they have a richness and quality much different than PK papers.
My attitude is much like Wayne's.
I now use photo black inks and papers almost exclusively, mainly because of the waste of ink when switching between Photo Black and Matt Black inks, but also because in my darkroom days I always preferred unferrotyped glossy prints to mat prints.
I agree that some images just really seem to look best on a good, non-glossy paper, and I tend to judge my prints with no glass or plexi on them. It is also true that, as Paul said, as soon as you frame a print under glass or acrylic, the paper surface becomes undistinguishable, and the dmax difference vanishes.
-
When I first started out printing, I used cheap mat paper from Epson, but later changed to photo paper because I like the blacks better. I'm curious why other photographers prefer using mat paper and inks. Do you find you get a better look to your prints? I'm just curious, especially with all the different flavors of paper out there.
Hugh
I stock(and use) a lot of matte papers and I and my clients love them. While glossy/luster papers will always have a potential for deeper blacks, it's usually something that only becomes apparent in side by side comparisons. Matte papers have a wider variety of textures that lend their own qualities to the final product. I float my prints in frames with no over mat so the paper characteristics are more apparent.
I do use photo style (glossy) papers, especially when high color saturation is important. But don't cross off good matte papers-they have an more organic look and feel to them. With all the choices available for printing these days, there is a lot to be said for picking a paper to match the image instead of forcing everything into one "look" just because a particular paper has a smidgen deeper black or brighter white.
-
I don't like the double-reflection effect of framing a glossy print under glass.
-
I stock(and use) a lot of matte papers and I and my clients love them. While glossy/luster papers will always have a potential for deeper blacks, it's usually something that only becomes apparent in side by side comparisons. Matte papers have a wider variety of textures that lend their own qualities to the final product. I float my prints in frames with no over mat so the paper characteristics are more apparent.
I do use photo style (glossy) papers, especially when high color saturation is important. But don't cross off good matte papers-they have an more organic look and feel to them. With all the choices available for printing these days, there is a lot to be said for picking a paper to match the image instead of forcing everything into one "look" just because a particular paper has a smidgen deeper black or brighter white.
I agree with most of this, except that the difference of minimum L* (maximum Black) between PK/MK papers is more than a "smidgen" - we're talking moving from a range of L*2~3 for the PK papers to L*13~16 for the matte papers. As a result, it's much easier to bring out detail in the deep quartertones using PK papers, but that said, depending on the photo, some of the matte papers suit the images beautifully.
-
I'm using matte paper (Moab Entrada Rag Natural) and matte black ink for one simple reason: I don't want the gloss or semi-gloss of the paper to get between the viewer and the experience of being "in" landscapes I photograph. I want the viewer to think they are there without being reminded they are looking at a photograph. To me, this is what everything other than matte does; it reminds people they are looking at a reproduction.
-
I look at it like this: Matt papers work well for your Stiegliz-like and glossy papers for your Adams-like images.
(Not that any one of mine are.)
-
I'm using matte paper (Moab Entrada Rag Natural) and matte black ink for one simple reason: I don't want the gloss or semi-gloss of the paper to get between the viewer and the experience of being "in" landscapes I photograph. I want the viewer to think they are there without being reminded they are looking at a photograph. To me, this is what everything other than matte does; it reminds people they are looking at a reproduction.
It depends on how the photo is lit and the angle of viewing.
-
It depends on how the photo is lit and the angle of viewing.
This and your comment earlier re glare from gloss/semi gloss are critical.
Reflections from G/SG surfaces that are not illuminated correctly significantly reduce the print color saturation, washing out colors. Proper display requires flood illumination at an angle, preferably 45 degrees while viewing straight on. Matte prints do not require this and there is no loss of gamut from glare. The downside is that matte gamuts are smaller but if an image is within the matte gamut the colors from a matte print will not deteriorate with diffuse lighting glare.
-
I have used a spot meter to measure black test patches in actual display venues. Often glazed matte is better than glazed glossy. It all depends on the lighting and other circumstances.
For my gallery brochures, direct sun outside is what makes me always keep at least one printer that can output glossy. Direct sun on a matte print is rather unforgiving. What might look like a deep black inside can look simply gray in direct sun. There the high PK dmax shows the differences we see in the measured numbers. Inside under glazing it can be and often is a different story.
Paul
www.PaulRoark.com
-
More "organic" look against "plastic" look of photo papers.
Looks good from all angles.
Many different textures.
Less sensitive to lighting in various exhibiting spaces.
-
Hey All,
Thanks for all the good information. I will have to experiment with a sample pack. Once again I appreciate everyone's collective wisdom and I would love to see the actual prints.
Hugh
-
I have a Z3100 printer that is capable of very intense blacks on matte paper like Hahnemuehle Rag 308.
However it is very sensitive to handling and scratches- you see everything that has gone wrong...
How do the people here deal with that?
I have never tried it behind antireflection glass like Groglass .
does anyone has experience with that?
-
I have a Z3100 printer that is capable of very intense blacks on matte paper like Hahnemuehle Rag 308.
Interesting. Have you measured the L* value of the deepest Black you achieved on that paper? If so what was it ?
-
I print mostly on mat papers with MK ink, by preference. I have nothing against glossy media, and don't at all mind the high quality baryta surfaced fibre papers for example. But I find mat papers possess more variety and often enhance the character of prints in subtle ways that I find very rewarding. Surface textures, the way the ink seems to live within the surface rather than sit upon it, the lack of glare and reflectance... all of these kinds of individually small factors contribute to prints that (to me) feel like they have more depth and dimension.
When I first started with digital print, I favoured glossy papers. Mat papers perhaps were less refined at that time; certainly the printer inksets were less refined. Canned ICC profiles were often mediocre at best. The results of all of this was underwhelming results on mat, while with glossy I could get something that looked good without killing myself in the processing & printing workflow. Now, I have inverted my preferences completely. Many mat papers are amazing, the inksets have come a tremendous way along, profiles are better across the board (though I now create my own to sidestep paper vendor variability), and the net results for me are very much more to my taste for my work and many of my clients' work.
Mat papers under low-reflectance glass in particular can be simply breathtaking.
Yes, the surfaces are delicate, so care must be taken during printing and subsequent handling. But the results are more than worth it, IMO...
-
I print mostly on mat papers with MK ink, by preference. I have nothing against glossy media, and don't at all mind the high quality baryta surfaced fibre papers for example. But I find mat papers possess more variety and often enhance the character of prints in subtle ways that I find very rewarding. Surface textures, the way the ink seems to live within the surface rather than sit upon it, the lack of glare and reflectance... all of these kinds of individually small factors contribute to prints that (to me) feel like they have more depth and dimension.
When I first started with digital print, I favoured glossy papers. Mat papers perhaps were less refined at that time; certainly the printer inksets were less refined. Canned ICC profiles were often mediocre at best. The results of all of this was underwhelming results on mat, while with glossy I could get something that looked good without killing myself in the processing & printing workflow. Now, I have inverted my preferences completely. Many mat papers are amazing, the inksets have come a tremendous way along, profiles are better across the board (though I now create my own to sidestep paper vendor variability), and the net results for me are very much more to my taste for my work and many of my clients' work.
Mat papers under low-reflectance glass in particular can be simply breathtaking.
Yes, the surfaces are delicate, so care must be taken during printing and subsequent handling. But the results are more than worth it, IMO...
I agree with your observation that inks and matte papers have improved tremendously over the years, such that matte has become a very viable option with a character all its own that can be very pleasing. That said, photos with important shadow detail in the deep quartertones, and for which very dense maximum Black is important, or where maximum colour gamut is important, still benefit from PK ink and paper. So in the final analysis, as is so often the case...."it depends", but at the least we have heaps of really good options these days.
-
More "organic" look against "plastic" look of photo papers.
Looks good from all angles.
Many different textures.
Less sensitive to lighting in various exhibiting spaces.
Exactly. Well said.
-
Interesting. Have you measured the L* value of the deepest Black you achieved on that paper? If so what was it ?
I cannot measure it, but when i compare it with my analogue prints it is far deeper black.
Not as black as black velvet but very good.
As you might know the Z3100 is famous for its neutral BW prints.
But the point was about protecting the paper.
Every touch you see a mark.
If you sell it it has to have some protection from dust and liquid for that reason.
-
I cannot measure it, but when i compare it with my analogue prints it is far deeper black.
................
This coheres with my experience comparing - and measuring - B&W prints produced with the latest generation of Epson and Canon printers versus the darkroom prints I have from the 1950s to 1970s. I do know of HPs reputation for B&W but haven't had access to output I could scientifically compare, hence my question. Thanks for getting back on it.
-
I agree with most of this, except that the difference of minimum L* (maximum Black) between PK/MK papers is more than a "smidgen" - we're talking moving from a range of L*2~3 for the PK papers to L*13~16 for the matte papers. As a result, it's much easier to bring out detail in the deep quartertones using PK papers, but that said, depending on the photo, some of the matte papers suit the images beautifully.
Well, instead of a "smidgen" deeper black, maybe I should have said a "tad" deeper black?
-
Well, instead of a "smidgen" deeper black, maybe I should have said a "tad" deeper black?
"Several tads"! :-)
-
It's an interesting question and one I'm regularly asked after printer/paper reviews...
My simple answer is that it looks really good for -some- of my photos.
Matt paper/ink performance has definitely improved over the last few years, but I still find that personal preference and image content make a lot of the decisions for me. Some images just look flat and dull on matte paper and others look too harsh on lustre/gloss.
I'm lucky enough to have a pretty big collection of papers after all my reviews, but still come back to a few types and styles. However, given my iPF8300 was scrapped the other day, I'll have to look at this again some time ;-)
More importantly, I have a basic assumption that there is not any automatic "best" paper for an image. Indeed, once I find a good one I like for an image, the 'numbers' are essentially irrelevant (heresy to some I know ;-) )
Even my B&W, which I've tended to prefer on matte papers has images that simply look better (IMHO obviously) on lustre finish papers. In terms of commercial prints, I'll happily go along with the client's wishes (if they have any).
Epson UK are finally sending me a P5000 for an extended test (yay!) so as well as a detailed review, I'm looking to do a lot more exploration of making prints - The loss of my 8300 means I need to do some serious thinking about what the business needs.
(Oh, and HP - can we have a new big printer to stir things up. The 3200 was good when I tested it, but I'm simply not buying a printer I reviewed in 2009 ;-)
-
There is a new matte paper produced by Red River that is supposed to be able to give darker blacks:
http://www.imaging-resource.com/news/2017/05/24/red-river-papers-new-palo-duro-etching-paper
-
...............
More importantly, I have a basic assumption that there is not any automatic "best" paper for an image. Indeed, once I find a good one I like for an image, the 'numbers' are essentially irrelevant (heresy to some I know ;-) )
............
I agree.
The numbers can provide very useful guidance for some important factors, but in the final analysis this is art and taste is key. Both are valid in their own ways.
-
There is a new matte paper produced by Red River that is supposed to be able to give darker blacks:
http://www.imaging-resource.com/news/2017/05/24/red-river-papers-new-palo-duro-etching-paper
Darker than what?
-
I am one of those who uses mostly matte paper because I like the often "painterly" (sorry, I don't like the word either, it's the best choice to describe what I mean) look it gives for both color and monochrome images. Sometimes I prefer glossy. Looking at the blacks as "inferior" on matter paper is meaningful only if set up side by side with glossy paper. If there's any "rule" for me it is that images with large areas of black, e.g. sea stack rocks backlighted, seem to look better on glossy paper. It would be soooo nice if Epson printers made glossy-matte switching easier, less time and ink wasting. I love my 3880 but would likely get a Canon if only QTR were supported. Roy Harrington, if you're reading this...
Eric
-
I've followed this thread out of curiosity, haven't printed on matte with my 3880 for a long time. Went to the Red River website and downloaded the 3880 profile for their new Palo Duro Etching paper. ColorThink shows the black point, using mk ink, to be L=2, which I found amazing.
The Red River description of the paper states it gains its increased black density using a blocking barrier between the ink receptive coat and the underlying base. So when does a paper quit being a matte and instead becomes a lustre? Non-encapsulated mk ink depends upon soaking into the base for attachment, how well does it stick to this new stuff? And are there any other surface effects normally associated with pigment inks sitting in/on a top layer?
Anybody tried this miracle matte paper?
Richard Southworth
-
I've followed this thread out of curiosity, haven't printed on matte with my 3880 for a long time. Went to the Red River website and downloaded the 3880 profile for their new Palo Duro Etching paper. ColorThink shows the black point, using mk ink, to be L=2, which I found amazing.
The Red River description of the paper states it gains its increased black density using a blocking barrier between the ink receptive coat and the underlying base. So when does a paper quit being a matte and instead becomes a lustre? Non-encapsulated mk ink depends upon soaking into the base for attachment, how well does it stick to this new stuff? And are there any other surface effects normally associated with pigment inks sitting in/on a top layer?
Anybody tried this miracle matte paper?
Richard Southworth
Whether it's "miracle" or not remains to be properly tested. The L*2 reading from the profile may be significant, but it is not determinative. The actual print of a Black patch (L*0 in the reference file) needs to be measured to see what the effective Black point is.
-
Mark,
I'm not claiming miracle status, or anything else, for the RR offering. Mainly asking if anybody has tried it, and given RR's description how can it be classified as a "matte" paper. Regardless of the 0-0-0 patch measurement it's still quite surprising to find its black point given as L=2.
Richard Southworth
-
I agree, it is surprising, and exactly the reason why it needs to be tested from a print. I understand your purpose here, no issue.
-
I agree, it is surprising, and exactly the reason why it needs to be tested from a print. I understand your purpose here, no issue.
I'll give it a test. Red River are closed today for Memorial Day (US Holiday) so I'm unsure about the on-line ordering and they wouldn't ship it today anyway. I'll compare it to William Turner, a textured matte paper by Hahnemuhle, that I do a fair amount of printing on. William Turner has a nice bright finish without any OBAs and I've done so repro work for a local watercolorist who does mostly abstracts. From the description on the RR website, this may not be as textured as William Turner but we'll see. The black point is less important than how colors are rendered with the paper. Time permitting (we have a wedding in London at the end of June and are going to Ireland afterwards), I'll try to report back as soon as I receive the paper.
Alan
-
Darker than what?
From the article:
"The textured matte paper is said to offer deeper blacks than most traditional matte papers thanks to a special barrier coat that is placed between the paper base and the inkjet receiving layer."
So that seems to imply that some D-Max is lost when the ink is absorbed into the substrate. They do say most traditional matte papers so that covers their claims
-
Mk ink loses black density as it is absorbed into the substrate, but the absorption is required to keep the non-encapsulated pigment particles in place. I look forward to Alan's report on the RR paper, and whether or not it can be easily smudged after drying.
Richard Southworth
-
From the article:
"The textured matte paper is said to offer deeper blacks than most traditional matte papers thanks to a special barrier coat that is placed between the paper base and the inkjet receiving layer."
So that seems to imply that some D-Max is lost when the ink is absorbed into the substrate. They do say most traditional matte papers so that covers their claims
OK, that clarifies the context. Thanks.
-
I'll give it a test. Red River are closed today for Memorial Day (US Holiday) so I'm unsure about the on-line ordering and they wouldn't ship it today anyway. I'll compare it to William Turner, a textured matte paper by Hahnemuhle, that I do a fair amount of printing on. William Turner has a nice bright finish without any OBAs and I've done so repro work for a local watercolorist who does mostly abstracts. From the description on the RR website, this may not be as textured as William Turner but we'll see. The black point is less important than how colors are rendered with the paper. Time permitting (we have a wedding in London at the end of June and are going to Ireland afterwards), I'll try to report back as soon as I receive the paper.
Alan
Thanks Alan for offering to try this paper and report back. I use a fair amount of German Etching so it will be interesting to see what you find.
-
The black point I show in my QTR linearization tab for the Red River Palo Duro Satin is Lab L = 4.7, using the MIS Associates (www.inksupply.com) "K4" PK (STS Inks wj1122). This PK is not a particularly good PK for maximum black in that it does not have a high gloss coating. (But it also does not bronze even without a coating.) I have not tested the paper with MK, but I'd be surprised if this or any satin paper works well with MK.
Paul
www.PaulRoark.com
-
Paul,
If you are replying to my previous posts, the paper I was referring to was Palo Duro Etching not Satin. It would be interesting to find out what the readings for the Etching actually are (or is it just marketing hype).
-
Paul,
If you are replying to my previous posts, the paper I was referring to was Palo Duro Etching not Satin. It would be interesting to find out what the readings for the Etching actually are (or is it just marketing hype).
Sorry, I missed that. I'll see if I can get a sample.
Paul
www.PaulRoark.com
-
Mark,
I'm not claiming miracle status, or anything else, for the RR offering. Mainly asking if anybody has tried it, and given RR's description how can it be classified as a "matte" paper. Regardless of the 0-0-0 patch measurement it's still quite surprising to find its black point given as L=2.
Richard Southworth
I know it's a year and half since we had this discussion, but with the passage of time comes additional information and insight that may help to elucidate previous perceptions. Having been through several profiling experiences that involve the creation of profiles using the M3 measurement condition (polarized light, done with a Barbieri spectrophotometer), I believe this is the explanation for the L*=2 maximum Black read from the profile using say ColorThink Pro as the profile analysis software. This does not mean the value of this Black would read as L*2 when reading the outcome on paper with an X-Rite spectrophotometer which is not M3 capable; results from the X-Rite for M0, M1, M2 measurement conditions would show a more usual L* range we habitually expect for matte papers (L*13 to L*20 depending on the paper/ink combination). I've already discussed this matter in one of my Red River paper reviews and it will be explored in further detail again in my forthcoming review of Red River Palo Duro Fine Art Smooth paper.
-
Mark,
I read your Red River paper review, and believe I understand the point you're making wrt the difference in the quarter tone rendition between M2 and M3 profiles for RR Palo Duro Etching, and the example B&W image demonstrates it well. However, I'm still bothered by the apparent misreporting of the black point that results from using the M3 mode. More importantly, soft-proofing suffers even though the final print result may be superior.
So two questions:
1. Do your tests show that the M3 approach is inherently superior in terms of the final print rendering, or do they indicate that the BPC process is lacking? I've never seen a "spec" on BPC, suspect that a more flexible approach to BPC might result in a similar contrast curve, i.e. one that more closely matches the M3 result.
2. How do we get softproofing back?
I look forward to your RR PDFAS paper review.
Richard Southworth
-
I know it's a year and half since we had this discussion, but with the passage of time comes additional information and insight that may help to elucidate previous perceptions. Having been through several profiling experiences that involve the creation of profiles using the M3 measurement condition (polarized light, done with a Barbieri spectrophotometer), I believe this is the explanation for the L*=2 maximum Black read from the profile using say ColorThink Pro as the profile analysis software. This does not mean the value of this Black would read as L*2 when reading the outcome on paper with an X-Rite spectrophotometer which is not M3 capable; results from the X-Rite for M0, M1, M2 measurement conditions would show a more usual L* range we habitually expect for matte papers (L*13 to L*20 depending on the paper/ink combination). I've already discussed this matter in one of my Red River paper reviews and it will be explored in further detail again in my forthcoming review of Red River Palo Duro Fine Art Smooth paper.
Exactly. Profiles are made from printed charts that have no knowledge of what spectro Mn is going to be used to make a profile so the L*13-20 is pretty likely.
The real question is this: What is the reflectance of the blackest black when viewed? And how does that change with the angle or type of light illuminating the paper?
Measuring this can be done by camera RAW capture and using dcraw or any other RAW decoder that outputs a linear image. The image values can be calibrated by placing a ColorChecker's neutral row, together with the paper being tested, along with a light trap. Light traps are made by drilling a small (1/2" or so) hole in a large, solid box that is lined with black felt or painted with a matte black. It's a way of creating a near perfect "black" and one can pretty easily get down to an effective L* of 0.1 or better. This is used to establish, and subtract, the camera glare which is almost always going to be larger than the light trap. The Colorchecker provides an easily established set of known reflectances. Together, these can be used to measure the level of reflected light under conditions other than the readily available M0,1,2 using a spectro which uses an annular, light at 45 degrees.
This can be used to determine the desaturation of colors and reduction of the media black point from light reflected off of anything glass framed and unframed glossy, or semi-gloss images when viewed in evenly distributed, ambient light.
-
I know it's a year and half since we had this discussion, but with the passage of time comes additional information and insight that may help to elucidate previous perceptions. Having been through several profiling experiences that involve the creation of profiles using the M3 measurement condition (polarized light, done with a Barbieri spectrophotometer), I believe this is the explanation for the L*=2 maximum Black read from the profile using say ColorThink Pro as the profile analysis software. This does not mean the value of this Black would read as L*2 when reading the outcome on paper with an X-Rite spectrophotometer which is not M3 capable; results from the X-Rite for M0, M1, M2 measurement conditions would show a more usual L* range we habitually expect for matte papers (L*13 to L*20 depending on the paper/ink combination). I've already discussed this matter in one of my Red River paper reviews and it will be explored in further detail again in my forthcoming review of Red River Palo Duro Fine Art Smooth paper.
Perhaps it's now time for yet one more round of discussion in a new thread on M0, M1, or M2 profiling versus the M3 polarized light condition when measuring matte surface media. Personally, I've been there done that. M3 data sets for ICC profiling may help amateur printmakers get a first initial print they prefer by routinely lifting shadow details when they don't rely on softproofing. Shadow details can also be easily addressed in a proper softproofing environment. However, the M3 polarized light measurements screw the pooch for those of us who do rely on soft proofing. No free lunch, and again, no "extra goodness" I can't achieve in a final print using ICC profiles made with M0 or M2 instrumentation simply by following what my eyes and the M0 or M2 derived lab numbers tell me is happening in the soft proofed image on my calibrated monitor. We can ignore M1 for the purposes of this discussion. It's the one condition that truly is a wild card based solely on how much OBA is in the print media. M0 wins over M1 in almost all viewing conditions other than perhaps direct sunlight, but who looks at prints in direct sunlight?
cheers,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com
-
Richard, Mark, Doug:
The story - at least the story that I have to tell based on the testing I've done - is kind of subtle and it requires a fair number of words, diagrams and illustrations, so since I've written-up pretty much everything I have to say about M3 versus the other Ms in my forthcoming review of Palo Duro Fine Art Smooth, let me for now just "forward reference" that article, not knowing exactly when Kevin will publish it; but I know they are working on converting it into LuLa-ese, so it probably won't be too long from now. As Rachel Maddow likes to say, "hold that thought" and let's revert to the discussion in a new thread dealing with the forthcoming article, where I hope to have provided some "meat" to chew on.
-
Mark,
Re: M3, You might find this post by color scientist John Seymour, aka "John the Math Guy," interesting.
http://johnthemathguy.blogspot.com/2014/10/what-measurement-condition-is-your.html
The second point from the ISO 13655 quote is that M3 reduces dry-back. Measurements made directly after printing on a cold set press will not change as the ink dries. This is true,......
-
As Rachel Maddow likes to say, "hold that thought"
which really means you have to watch 55 minutes of her talking about next to nothing before all is revealed on the final five minutes of the show (I'm an MSNBC watcher but gave up on Ms. Maddow two years ago when it became apparent that this was the way her shows were constructed).
-
Mark,
Re: M3, You might find this post by color scientist John Seymour, aka "John the Math Guy," interesting.
http://johnthemathguy.blogspot.com/2014/10/what-measurement-condition-is-your.html
The second point from the ISO 13655 quote is that M3 reduces dry-back. Measurements made directly after printing on a cold set press will not change as the ink dries. This is true,......
Thanks for the link. Some interesting remarks on M3 but even more ironic to me as I read the article was the M1 versus M0 discussion. Again, revisiting the M0,M1,M2, and M3 discussion undoubtedly belongs in another thread. So, I will close with just one remark. It's ironic that the more FWA/OBA fluorescence-inducing M1 condition is being phased into the graphic arts industry at a time when museums and galleries, indeed most home and office display environments are now moving to adopt energy efficient LED lighting that typically has little or no UV content!
cheers,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com
-
Doug and Mark,
I had been aware of that very good article you referenced Doug, and on reviewing it just now thought to have a second look at M0 versus M1 using an i1Pro2 with i1Profiler and Epson Glossy Photo Paper which is resplendent with FWAs. Please see the attached two screen grabs. First X-Rite's description of these conditions on the GUI itself. As usual for X-Rite, inadequate. They tell us that M1 is D50 but fail to tell us that UV is included, whereas they say this for M0. Those who don't know could be confused into thinking that M1 doesn't include it because it's not mentioned. Anyhow, moving beyond that, the other thing they don't tell you is that it doesn't matter which of those measurement conditions you select when measuring a patch in Measure Chart mode, because the spectro and software return all three measurements at once and they are identical (i.e. the differences between M0, M1 and M2 are the same) regardless of which data parameter we select for making the measurement. This can also confuse people who don't know. Of course none of this confusion would need to occur were it not for the lack of a manual accompanying this kit. To date, as far as I know, neither X-Rite nor any third party have written a manual. Shame.
Turning to the results, as to be expected, John Seymour is correct that M0 and M1 have different sensitivity to FWA presence in the paper. This is evident from the bluer outcome in the b* channel comparing M1 with M0. Not to say, however, that M0 is insensitive to FWAs - it still shows up as -8.03, versus -10.72 for M1, while the M2 UV cut measurement indicates the paper is actually yellowish at b*1.92. You'd never know it looking at the stuff!
Anyhow, I agree with Mark HMG this is OT, but thought it useful just to round-off the discussion looking at this evidence, arising from thoughts rereading the Seymour piece.
-
which really means you have to watch 55 minutes of her talking about next to nothing before all is revealed on the final five minutes of the show (I'm an MSNBC watcher but gave up on Ms. Maddow two years ago when it became apparent that this was the way her shows were constructed).
OK, shouldn't have mentioned that name - we can take this off-line Alan! :-) :-)
-
Doug and Mark,
...Anyhow, moving beyond that, the other thing they don't tell you is that it doesn't matter which of those measurement conditions you select when measuring a patch in Measure Chart mode, because the spectro and software return all three measurements at once and they are identical (i.e. the differences between M0, M1 and M2 are the same) regardless of which data parameter we select for making the measurement.
Ok, perhaps I'm misunderstanding what you mean by "...all three measurements at once and they are identical (i.e. the differences between M0, M1 and M2 are the same) regardless of which data parameter we select for making the measurement".
When making measurements in the strip reading mode, you have the choice of saving an MO reading only, or saving all three (M0, M1, and M2). If I understand it correctly, the i1Pro2 takes the M0 reading on the the first pass of the strip. To measure all three, a second pass is required that activates a UV led. The software then mathematically corrects/combines the two acquired spectra to derive the M1, and M2 conditions. Hence, the final saved M0, M1, and M2 spectral sets for papers that contain OBAs are definitely not the same, and you can also tell this is by selecting a media white patch of any paper that has any amount of OBAs and looking at the reported Lab values for all three conditions. b* will be highest (more yellow) with M2, lowest (more blue) for M1, and somewhere in between for M0. For media with no OBAs or other source of fluorescence the readings are indeed essentially the same.
I was all set to move entirely to the new M1 standard in a new extended Aardenburg testing protocol, and I will be reporting M1 for media whitepoint color along with M0, and M2 results in upcoming published reports. However, I concluded after evaluating a variety of different OBA content papers that M1 overstates the "bluishness" of most media with OBA content in the majority of indoor display conditions. Even when describing "Natural daylight" entering through windows as the lighting source, the UV content is typically attenuated enough by various painted surfaces, carpets, fabrics, etc., that the specified "D50" illuminant objective of a graphic arts viewing booth is not being met. Hence, M1 is assuming too much UV content to represent typical indoor display conditions. And the situation gets worse when framers start recommending conservation grade framing or galleries have already taken steps to cut UV right at the light source. Hence, in my opinion, MO readings still return the most suitable results for OBA-containing media that will be used to make prints and photographs and displayed indoors.
cheers,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com
-
Ok, perhaps I'm misunderstanding what you mean by "...all three measurements at once and they are identical (i.e. the differences between M0, M1 and M2 are the same) regardless of which data parameter we select for making the measurement".
When making measurements in the strip reading mode, you have the choice of saving an MO reading only, or saving all three (M0, M1, and M2). If I understand it correctly, the i1Pro2 takes the M0 reading on the the first pass of the strip. To measure all three, a second pass is required that activates a UV led. The software then mathematically corrects/combines the two acquired spectra to derive the M1, and M2 conditions. Hence, the final saved M0, M1, and M2 spectral sets for papers that contain OBAs are definitely not the same, and you can also tell this is by selecting a media white patch of any paper that has any amount of OBAs and looking at the reported Lab values for all three conditions. b* will be highest (more yellow) with M2, lowest (more blue) for M1, and somewhere in between for M0. For media with no OBAs or other source of fluorescence the readings are indeed essentially the same.
.................
cheers,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com
I think I wasn't complete enough in what I was describing. I was talking about Measure Chart in Spot Measurement Mode, which reads all three M conditions in one click on the patch - not scanning. And yes, as one would expect, the readings are different for each reported M version. Now, when you make that measurement, i1Profiler gives you a choice of three "Measurement Conditions" as I illustrated in my previous post. They are M0, M1 and M2. You can select any of three for reading the patch and they will return the same results; so for avoidance of doubt, an example: let us say you measured using M0 Measurement Condition and the value of b* is reported as -8, -11 and +2 for M0, M1 and M2 respectively; if you repeat that measurement using Measurement Condition M1 or M2, the reported b* values for M0, M1 and M2 will remain unchanged at -8, -11 and +2 respectively. So for sure the values of the 3 Ms differ, but that structure of readings turns out the same no matter which of the Measurement Conditions you select for reading the patch. Sound confusing? Thank X-Rite. :-) The important take-away in relation to the Seymour article is that between M0 and M1 there is a difference of negative b* as he says, but both show aggressive FWA content for a paper that is chock full of them, such as the Epson Glossy I used for the demo.
-
I have a Z3100 printer that is capable of very intense blacks on matte paper like Hahnemuehle Rag 308.
However it is very sensitive to handling and scratches- you see everything that has gone wrong...
How do the people here deal with that?
Same way as pre-digital. Buy yourself some very fine watercolour brushes (down to single hair) a set of inks and work at the art of ‘spotting’. Amusingly, I find that somehow the prints become less computerised, which is nice.