Luminous Landscape Forum
Site & Board Matters => About This Site => Topic started by: Lisa Nikodym on October 08, 2007, 05:01:37 pm
-
In Richard Lohmann's recent review of Harmon Gloss paper, he noted that it scratches very easily. I'm wondering whether you have noticed yet whether the new Epson Exhibition Fiber paper also suffers from this drawback, or is it more typical in its resistance to scratches?
Thanks,
Lisa
-
Hi Lisa,
I just noticed there are no replies to this post yet. I have a sample pack of this paper which I received from Epson at Photo Plus Expo in NYC last month - they were handing out sample packs of 5 letter-size sheets. I just did a test for you on a target print I ran a few days ago - and yes - if one runs anything sharp on it, like a finger-nail or the corner of another piece of heavy-ish photo paper it does show the mark. But is't a bit more resistant than Innova F-Type Gloss.
By the way, my print of Bill Atkinson's printer test target on this new EFP is quite stunning. The paper also looks and feels nice. I'm anxious for it to hit the market.
-
Mark,
Have you compared it to the Harman FB Gloss Al?
--John
-
John, no I don't have the paper.
-
I'll have a comparison review here of several of the new papers, including Exhibition Matte, Harmon FB Gloss AI and Ilford Gold Fiber Silk before Christmas.
Michael
-
What is "Exhibition Matte"?
-
Have you compared it to the Harman FB Gloss Al?
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=155377\")
Hi John, you've probably already seen this, but I put up some early impressions on EEF vs. HG on my 3800 site here:
[a href=\"http://people.csail.mit.edu/ericchan/dp/Epson3800/index.html]http://people.csail.mit.edu/ericchan/dp/Epson3800/index.html[/url]
(Obviously the print quality comments are specific to the K3 inks on the 3800.)
-
I meant Exhibition Fiber. To many papers, not enough brain cells.
Michael
-
Aw darn, thought it might have been a new matte paper from Epson.
-
Hi John, you've probably already seen this, but I put up some early impressions on EEF vs. HG on my 3800 site here:
http://people.csail.mit.edu/ericchan/dp/Epson3800/index.html (http://people.csail.mit.edu/ericchan/dp/Epson3800/index.html)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=155488\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
No, I missed that. Guess it is due to the fact that I don't currently own an Epson printer
Thanks, very helpful.
--John
-
Choosing the right kind of paper for photo printing is the key to getting great looking prints. Using professional photo paper will give you the best results as they are especially designed for this purpose.
I have compared various type of photo papers and found that
Photo paper (http://freephotopaper.com/ink/can_ink_cartridges.htm) offered at freephotopaper.com is excellent and useful.
-
Choosing the right kind of paper for photo printing is the key to getting great looking prints. Using professional photo paper will give you the best results as they are especially designed for this purpose.
I have compared various type of photo papers and found that
Photo paper (http://freephotopaper.com/ink/can_ink_cartridges.htm) offered at freephotopaper.com is excellent and useful.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=159804\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I think the world just shifted to a new axis or something.
Are you SERIOUSLY suggesting, on a forum frequented by some of the industries leaders in digital photographic printing, in a thread about the very latest in high quality papers, that people should look at 'compatible' inks, and no-name papers ?
The mind boggles.
On a related note: I just finished reading an interview with Henry Wilhelm. (in "Australian Photographer" mag). Very interesting read, but one thing that stood out was his utter canning of the 'non-genuine' inks. He is refering to longevity measured in spans of months.
Whilst this result is not much of a surprise to anyone on this forum, It is disapointing (but unfortnatly, not surprising) that makers of these products actually get away with selling some of these items, and with outright lies in advertising them.
Regards
Marlyn.
-
I was also a bit taken aback by this post when I visited the linked website. The first thing that crossed my mind is whether the OP was simply bringing this option to our attention, or whether he also has an interest in the vendor. People with commercial interests in the products they recommend to others should declare it on principle. Then, whether those messages are allowed here is not my area.
Setting that aside and turnig to the technical aspect of the issue, there are many people using third party materials some of which make claims to considerable longevity and come from trusted sources. For example, I don't think for a moment any one would question the quality and integrity of Jon Cone's products. On the other hand, Henry Wilhelm has written pointedly on the potential risks of using variious third party materials, and any one who doesn't take the results of that research into account will get what they get and shouldn't be surprised if some time down the road they end-up disappointed. Another case of caveat emptor, and where it can be expensive to buy cheap.
(Note I edited this post just after posting it to clarify the distinction between trusted third party materials and others which Henry Wilhelm warns about.)