Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Printing: Printers, Papers and Inks => Topic started by: FrankStark on June 26, 2016, 05:08:19 pm
-
Thank you, Mark, for this informative review.
Is your specialist in Toronto a source for these papers? If not, where in Toronto might one buy them?
Thanks
F.
-
Hi Frank, yes he is in the distribution chain but the company he is with does not sell retail any product that a retailer is willing to procure from them. We've discussed this issue, because some of these papers are not advertised on the websites of our key retail outlets at least here in Toronto. So the correct approach is to find out from a retailer whether they would bring the product in for you to purchase.
-
What retailers would you suggest?
Thanks
F.
-
CCBC-Club, Henrys, Vistek, Downtown Camera (all in Toronto), to name the most prominent that come to mind.
-
Hi Mark,
First off let me complement you on an excellent review. It was very informative, striking a good balance between technical details and real world information and examples of the differences in paper colour and Dmax. This site and your work are truly a great resource to this community.
It's interesting that you note the curl of the Harman papers; I wonder if this is a general property of baryta, wood-fibre type papers. I find that the Canson Baryta photographique has a bit of curl coming out of the printer (convex shape, relative to the printed side), and the Epson Legacy Baryta has even more curl (so much so that I constantly got head strikes in the centre of the sheet near the start and end, which was quite frustrating). The Platines by comparison tend to have a bit of a convex curve once inked...
How did you find the quality control/cleanliness of the papers? I find with the Canson BP that I need to wipe off the surface gently before printing otherwise there is a risk of coating bits (dust) that is stuck on and coming off afterwards leaving white spots. The Canson Platine has been fine for this. The Epson Legacy platine is full of white dust/coating however and I have found a one or two dark inclusions in some of the paper itself.
If you would be willing to entertain some suggestions:
1) Many of the images are rather small, it would be nice to see some of the Atkinson test prints up close for example, to compare the papers more closely, although perhaps as separate links/downloads so as to not clutter up your review.
2) While the average deltaE measures are quite useful for getting a general sense of profile accuracy, a posting of the colours with the greatest difference for each would be useful as well. In many ways a profile is only as good as its weakest link (perhaps posting the standard deviation as well as the average of the deltaE). A profile with inaccurate blues might be perfectly fine for those printing portraits for example, while landscape photographers might prefer to have the expense of a custom profile made. Of course there is nothing stopping one from obtaining test packs and checking how the profile performs oneself.
3) It would be great is a lot of this information could be put into a database of sorts, to allow searching and comparisons between these papers and others from your previous reviews.
Again, none of this is to take away from the fact that this is likely one of the best and most thorough paper reviews available on the web (an area of photographic output for which there is sadly a lack of good info on the web). Thanks again.
To FrankStark:
I have been a frequent customer of a few Toronto Camera Shops and might provide some insight.
Vistek: I shop here most frequently for paper/inks because they have the widest selection of papers with good inventory. You can find a full range of Canson and Moab papers here, and they have all the Epson papers including stock of the the new Legacy papers in cut-sheets. Their prices are generally bit better than Henry's. They generally don't have as much Canon, Hahn and Ilford stuff on the shelves. They will special order stuff for you as well. The three employees on the ground floor are very helpful and courteous in my experience. I really like the Canson range of paper which is why I shop here the most, and I recently got a bunch of the Epson Legacy paper here because it's still on rebate (but is otherwise a bit too expensive IMHO).
Henry's: Another good choice, but with a much much smaller selection (based on Downtown and an uptown store). They will price match. The service people I have dealt with were friendly, but there are no personnel specific to the printers and paper, unlike Vistek. They do have an ongoing deal where when you purchase $250 of ink and/or paper you get a $20 gift card. This is like a loyalty program, where it builds up over time/ multiple purchases. Their on-line offerings are greater than those in store.
Downtown Camera: The camera people here are really nice and helpful, probably the most so of the stores, but their inkjet section and papers is quite small. Overall the store is small but sometimes they have the best price on things.
Aden: Don't bother.
Hahnemule in Canada distributes through a retailer up in Markham called Amplis. They have a web presence but I don't think any stores. They seem to have a full range of Hahn papers and products, better than any of the competitors, but I have never shopped there myself...
The value of the Canadian dollar is not doing us any favours in terms of ink/paper pricing up here. :( I tried ordering some Epson ink carts from B&H but Epson won't let them ship to Canada...
MS
-
Thank you, Mark and MS. That information is very helpful.
F.
-
Hi Mark,
First off let me complement you on an excellent review. It was very informative, striking a good balance between technical details and real world information and examples of the differences in paper colour and Dmax. This site and your work are truly a great resource to this community.
It's interesting that you note the curl of the Harman papers; I wonder if this is a general property of baryta, wood-fibre type papers. I find that the Canson Baryta photographique has a bit of curl coming out of the printer (convex shape, relative to the printed side), and the Epson Legacy Baryta has even more curl (so much so that I constantly got head strikes in the centre of the sheet near the start and end, which was quite frustrating). The Platines by comparison tend to have a bit of a convex curve once inked...
How did you find the quality control/cleanliness of the papers? I find with the Canson BP that I need to wipe off the surface gently before printing otherwise there is a risk of coating bits (dust) that is stuck on and coming off afterwards leaving white spots. The Canson Platine has been fine for this. The Epson Legacy platine is full of white dust/coating however and I have found a one or two dark inclusions in some of the paper itself.
If you would be willing to entertain some suggestions:
1) Many of the images are rather small, it would be nice to see some of the Atkinson test prints up close for example, to compare the papers more closely, although perhaps as separate links/downloads so as to not clutter up your review.
2) While the average deltaE measures are quite useful for getting a general sense of profile accuracy, a posting of the colours with the greatest difference for each would be useful as well. In many ways a profile is only as good as its weakest link (perhaps posting the standard deviation as well as the average of the deltaE). A profile with inaccurate blues might be perfectly fine for those printing portraits for example, while landscape photographers might prefer to have the expense of a custom profile made. Of course there is nothing stopping one from obtaining test packs and checking how the profile performs oneself.
3) It would be great is a lot of this information could be put into a database of sorts, to allow searching and comparisons between these papers and others from your previous reviews.
Again, none of this is to take away from the fact that this is likely one of the best and most thorough paper reviews available on the web (an area of photographic output for which there is sadly a lack of good info on the web). Thanks again.
To FrankStark:
I have been a frequent customer of a few Toronto Camera Shops and might provide some insight.
Hi M Schertz,
Thanks very much for your thoughtful post - really appreciated and I am pleased you find these articles useful; that is our primary purpose.
Firstly, on paper sources here in Toronto, I would suggest to Frank giving CCBC-Club (http://www.ccbc-club.com/) a try. They are compact and agile enough to really go out of their way for customers and their pricing is very competitive. Amplis is the wholesale distributor for Hahn. Ilford and Harman and they do not sell to the public unless no retailer they deal with is prepared to order what the customer wants.
Secondly, on paper curl, my experience has been different. The two Harman papers are the only ones I've used or tested where the paper curl actually posed a handling issue. I do not think it endemic to all Baryta/alpha-cellulose products. A very low level arc can be observed with various papers, is relatively innocuous and different from curl.
Thirdly, on paper dust, the only one that ever gave me headaches with this was Canson Platine used in an Epson 4900. Very nice paper, but the declogging was painful.
Fourthly, on consistency of product - impossible to say unless one has been using a paper routinely for a certain period of time. I can relate that Ilford Gold Fibre Silk has been a consistent performer because it is the one paper I have used the most ever since we reviewed it here way back when. For the others, testing/reviewing is very much a sample of one pack and that certainly doesn't allow reliable findings on this matter. That said, the main name brands I think can be relied upon - on the whole - for consistent standards over time.
Fifthly, on the Atkinson test print, yes, I agree, those images are small, unless they are printed on a large sheet. The target itself is one image with all those photos laid-out in it as shown. However, what I am showing in those particular illustrations isn't print quality, but screen captures of softproofs of the target file, just to show readers what the test material is; it won't help much over the internet for accurately seeing how the papers perform. That is difficult in a web article, because in any event a printed page would need to be scanned, rendered into a JPEG and reduced to internet dimensions. The only REAL RELIABLE way to see print quality is to see the print, unfortunately.
Sixthly, on the question of profile performance, yes I agree - there is variance in the accuracy of colour reproduction between hues, and it may be useful for the most inaccurate ones to illustrate the differences between the correct colours and the printed outcomes. However, I'm now working on something even better than that, which explicitly deals with this whole general issue in a very systematic manner. It will take some time complete this research, but once it's done it could be interesting, and if it turns out that way I shall approach Kevin to publish it.
Finally, your idea of the database is a future project Kevin and I have been discussing. I'm at the very early stages of thinking about how it would be designed and implemented. Apart from those already reviewed on this website, there are umpteen other papers out there we haven't touched yet, so if we are to make this a comprehensive exercise it would be a very considerable undertaking. More on that anon if we get something up and running.
-
Thanks for the response Mark,
I hope to see your project come to fruition and am looking forward to your upcoming piece on the Hahn pano paper and book kits which piqued my interest...
Of course a database comprising the menagerie of papers would be quite an undertaking, but even if it were not fully complete, would still be a tremendous resource to the photographic community.
Until today, I had never heard of CCBC-club, I'll have to wander over and check them out
MS
-
Thanks for this excellent and useful article, Mark. You provide enough information for me to tell quite well which of those papers I will personally like.
I will be trying a couple that I haven't yet. The base paper I also compare all others to is Gold Fibre Silk.
-Eric
-
You are welcome Eric, glad it's useful to you.
Mark
-
Great article, Mark. I'm one of those who love the Harman FB Gloss Baryta. I don't have issues feeding the paper but I always have prints on this paper dry mounted.
I wondered what you thought about Hahnenuhle photo silk baryta. I have been using it lately in place of the Ilford gfs. Mainly because the place that prints my larger prints switched to it when Ilford originally went out of business.
Thanks again for the great review.
Sharon
-
Hi Sharon, glad you liked the article. I did review the Hahn Photo Silk Baryta previously (though less detailed); you may find it here: Another two Barytas (https://luminous-landscape.com/another-two-barytas-in-the-neighbourhood/). It's good.
-
Mark,
Just want to chime in with the others that I found your article informative and I will be looking at trying several of the papers you so thoroughly reviewed for different types of images. I have recently started using HAHNEMUHLE FineArt Baryta as my paper of preference as I like the surface texture and it is heavier and has a nicer feel to the touch than CANSON INFINITY Baryta Photographique. Are these the same HFABS and HNGB as you have reviewed?
Articles such as yours make the very modest subscription to LL a true bargain.
Bob
-
Thanks Robert, glad you found it useful. FineArt Baryta is not quite the same as FineArt Baryta Satin. The Satin is 25gsm lighter weight, both are alpha-cellulose substrate, the Satin has what they call a "white satin gloss", while the FineArt Baryta they describe as "bright white high-gloss". I don't have this latter paper to compare with the Harman.
-
Mark,
As always, great review; the effort is much appreciated. I have a bit of an aside question regarding the Hahne pano paper:
Most of my panos are between 9:4 (2.25:1) and 3:1. I always thought most of us are within that same range somewhere. Hahnemuhle’s pano paper size of 8.27x23.39 seems really odd to me. If we assume a 1” border around the print for handling and/or mounting, then that leaves a 6.27x21.39 print area, or a 3.41:1 ratio.
If I simply take a 17x22” sheet and cut it in half I get a much more usable space, 8.5x22. Minus the 1” each side equals 6.5x20, or 3.07:1.
Is everyone else printing wider panos, or am I missing something else? Maybe they found a way to sell some wasted cut ends? :P
Dave
-
Hi Dave,
I shall be reviewing this product in the near future - haven't started into it yet, as the current article has just been published. I agree the aspect ratio is "different" and does raise a question about the kind of photos that can be easily adapted to these dimensions. That is a matter to look into anon.
-
Thanks very much for this. I am a new owner of a P800, and a newbie to home printing, although I have been around a lot of printers in pre press shops. This is all quite informative. And, you can put me in the camp that appreciates the technical vs the aesthetic/perceptual method of testing.
Two things. How does one acquire the Atkinson test image, but, if that's not possible, what would you recommend as an alternative? And, Am I correct in assuming that there isn't enough difference between the custom profiles and the paper manufacturers profiles to be significant enough to bother with, especially for a novice like myself?
Thanks
-
Hi Benny,
Thanks - glad you find the reviews useful.
On the Atkinson target - Bill used to have this on the public portion of his website for free download. He took this down quite a while ago, so we asked his permission to use this target for our articles, which he granted us. However, there is a close alternative that remains in the public domain: it is the Outback target which you can find here: Outback Photo Target (http://www.outbackphoto.com/printinginsights/pi048/essay.html)
On the profiles, as you are starting out I recommend that you begin with the manufacturers' profiles and see whether you think they are delivering adequately reliable results. The key thing is to make sure that your colour management set-up is correct, and in particular that your monitor is not too bright, otherwise you will be tempted to adjust your photos in a manner that will make the prints come out looking too dark. See Andrew Rodney's article on this website "Why Are My Prints Too Dark."
If after a while you become persuaded that you need custom profiles, there are a number of good providers of this service who can make them for you. You should probably focus on learning to use no more than two or three papers really well, and if you need custom profiles for one or more of those, ordering them from a profiling service will be much cheaper than buying comparable quality profiling equipment to make them yourself.
-
Thanks
-
Hey Mark, Excellent review (as usual)... I've been following your articles since LULU went online. I also enjoyed the great number of responses and your personal responses to the commenters. I'm still stuck in the Hot Press and Exhibition Fiber generation. I've tried many of the newer papers, but none for the last few years. It looks like I'm going to have to give some of your recommendations a try, including the Legacy papers.
Thank you for your reviews.
Neil Rennie
-
Andrew Rodney incorporated the 14ball version of 'Bill's Balls' on his printer gamut test file....
http://www.digitaldog.net/files/Gamut_Test_File_Flat.tif
or here for the original 14 ball image:
https://app.box.com/s/4u6k36muy22ap0ipcofvletn8ix28zgu
I know there is/was a 28 ball version and I think I have it on some disk.
After looking at the 99% identical output between RedRiver new rag paper and Epson Platine via SpectrumViz, I would be hesitant to spend $130 for the Epson vs. $78 for RR (in 13x19 size).
-
Hey Mark, Excellent review (as usual)... I've been following your articles since LULU went online. I also enjoyed the great number of responses and your personal responses to the commenters. I'm still stuck in the Hot Press and Exhibition Fiber generation. I've tried many of the newer papers, but none for the last few years. It looks like I'm going to have to give some of your recommendations a try, including the Legacy papers.
Thank you for your reviews.
Neil Rennie
Hi Neil,
Thanks - glad you are finding these reviews useful - that's the whole purpose. And yes, it could be worthwhile trying some of the newer papers to see whether it's worthwhile changing your mainstays. Exhibition Fiber makes vibrant prints, but it's also on the cool side and heavy in OBA content. Hot Press/Cold Press can be nice papers, but I think some of the newer matte products we've been showing here are well worth considering.
-
Andrew Rodney incorporated the 14ball version of 'Bill's Balls' on his printer gamut test file....
http://www.digitaldog.net/files/Gamut_Test_File_Flat.tif
or here for the original 14 ball image:
https://app.box.com/s/4u6k36muy22ap0ipcofvletn8ix28zgu
I know there is/was a 28 ball version and I think I have it on some disk.
After looking at the 99% identical output between RedRiver new rag paper and Epson Platine via SpectrumViz, I would be hesitant to spend $130 for the Epson vs. $78 for RR (in 13x19 size).
Not denying of course the usefulness of targets and measurements - I'm in that world a good part of the time too, but to complement it, would your conclusions change if you made some real world comparison prints?
-
Of course the two (real world & test) play off each other, unless you're the type of person to hang test charts around the house :D
Some papers may 'test' well but they may not give desired artistic output 'feel' in the real world. I just did something like a 10way bake-off (not test images) of matte papers and in the end, I still would consistently pick Epson HotPress over most other mattes but YMMV and like partners, there's something/someone for everyone.
-
At the end of the day it is what the paper with its charter adds to an image. Testing only assures the proper print quality, nothing more. But has little to do with the charter of a paper.
-
At the end of the day it is what the paper with its charter adds to an image. Testing only assures the proper print quality, nothing more. But has little to do with the charter of a paper.
By "charter" I assume you mean "character", and if so I agree, but without the word "only". At least to my mind, print quality is paramount, and the measurements we make can indicate the potential for some aspects of print quality, even though they aren't uniquely determinative. And there is so much subjectivity in all of this. For example, I could care less what the back of the paper feels like, but for quite a few people this is an important aspect of "character"; I'm not too keen about the unferrotyped look of Harman Gloss Baryta, yet I am reliably informed it is a very popular paper; then there is the big divide between those who prefer matte versus those who prefer gloss/luster, and on it goes...........
-
Mark's excellent article on 8 papers has inspired me to try Ilford's Cotton Artist Textured paper but I cannot for the life of me find the correct media type setting for my Epson 3800 printer! I am imagining it will be Velvet Fine Art but I want to know what Ilford recommends and it's virtually impossible to find it on their website. I print B/W so I don;'t need the profile. Just the media type setting.
Anyone? Anyone? ; )
Thanks!
David
-
Mark's excellent article on 8 papers has inspired me to try Ilford's Cotton Artist Textured paper but I cannot for the life of me find the correct media type setting for my Epson 3800 printer! I am imagining it will be Velvet Fine Art but I want to know what Ilford recommends and it's virtually impossible to find it on their website. I print B/W so I don;'t need the profile. Just the media type setting.
Anyone? Anyone? ; )
Thanks!
David
What is the name of the icc profile they sent you? Along with the profile in the zip there should be a read-me file called "ReadMe1st_GALERIE PRESTIGE.pdf" which deciphers the codes in the name of the profile. Specifically look in table 3 of Appendix A on page 11 in the read-me to get the media type settings to use with the profile. if you don't need the profile and didn't download it, I'm not sure where else this info is listed....
ie. USFAPn = Ultra Smooth Fine Art Paper, n = “Off”(No Color Adjustement) for Epson printers [sic]
MS
-
When I select my printer etc... they don't list a profile. That's because my 3800 isn't supported any longer I guess. So, many of us who own this printer struggle to find media types. I could try a few different media types but I don't really want to waste paper.
I am very familiar with the PDF you mention and they do have a "generic printer settings" guide but Cotton Artist Textured is not listed. It's frustrating.
; (
-
When I select my printer etc... they don't list a profile. That's because my 3800 isn't supported any longer I guess. So, many of us who own this printer struggle to find media types. I could try a few different media types but I don't really want to waste paper.
I am very familiar with the PDF you mention and they do have a "generic printer settings" guide but Cotton Artist Textured is not listed. It's frustrating.
; (
I looked up the profile for the 3880 and it has EMP listed as the media setting, for Enhanced Matte Paper. Indeed, there is no profile available for the 3800. The P800 profile indicates USFAPn... So you could try one of those or wait for Mark to chime in on the settings he used (although I would assume USFAP, since he tested on a P800).
MS
-
I have thought of using the media type for the 3880 too but I have heard the 3800 and 3880 are pretty different. I would think Media Type for a paper would be consistent across printers though.
USFAP works with the Ilford Gold Cotton Smooth and that is a possibility with the Cotton Textured Artist I suppose. The Cotton Texture Artist is has a similar feel to German Etching by Hahnemuhle or the Cold Press Natural.
Thanks!
David
-
The Media Type guides the platen gap, the head adjustment (viz standard, wide, etc.) and the ink laydown; it also affects profile behaviour in the sense that the Media Type you print with should be the same as the Media Type specified for the profile, but in this case, understood you have none. Cotton Artist Textured (ICAT) has no OBA content and it's a thick, heavy paper, while Enhanced Matte is loaded with OBA and is a much thinner, lighter product. USFAP has no OBA, a tint closer to that of ICAT and a weight and thickness closer to those of ICAT. So, all told, you would probably be better off starting with USFAP as the Media Type in your 3800 and see what it produces. But if you are using application colour management (LR or PS manages colour) you still need to load a profile in the printer driver. You could start with the P800 profile for ICAT and see how it performs. It would differ from a 3800 profile for the same paper to the extent of the main difference in the inksets between the two printers.
I think you are in a situation where if you want to use papers that no longer cohere with your printer because the printer is no longer being supported, and this fix of using the P800 profiles doesn't work well, you will need to either get custom profiles made for the papers you will be using, or upgrade your printer.
-
Thanks Mark. I'll try the USFAP with Gold Cotton Smooth and get very nice results so I will try that since it seems very similar to Cotton Artist Textured (No OBA's).
; )
Thanks,
David
-
This so called test of 8 papers is impressive by showing the formula. The idea behind that may be to give this writing a scientific touch. I am missing the results. May be - if there were results other than numbers - that a printer series with the Canon Pro 1000 will give other results. Since printing and development of pictures is mainly a subjective process it may be difficult to perform.
Anytime for me this comparison is without result so worthless.
-
This so called test of 8 papers is impressive by showing the formula. The idea behind that may be to give this writing a scientific touch. I am missing the results. May be - if there were results other than numbers - that a printer series with the Canon Pro 1000 will give other results. Since printing and development of pictures is mainly a subjective process it may be difficult to perform.
Anytime for me this comparison is without result so worthless.
No, the idea behind explaining the methodology isn't to give anything a "touch" - it's there for readers to understand what I did, and this article, along with that on the Epson Legacy papers I do explain the purposes of the whole approach. I think you are correct that you are missing the results. I have explained the physical characteristics of the papers as well. I don't know what else to convey over the internet because you are correct that there is a large subjective element to evaluating paper. Does it help you for me say that the papers feel nice, or that prints look good to me? I can't think of anything more useless, because what feels and looks good to me may not feel or look good to someone else - exactly because it is subjective. So the more we can describe in a legitimately objective manner with meaningful data, the more useful it is to more people, assuming of course that the readers who aren't familiar with these concepts take the time to read the provided explanations of what the data is telling them. As for the Canon Pro-1000, yes you are correct, this paper review said nothing about how these papers perform in that printer because I don't have one; Canon loaned one to me for the period of time I was preparing the review of that printer and afterward I returned to them. This whole effort is a completely voluntary undertaking so I don't buy equipment for doing it. But I agree it would be nice to have such comparisons.
-
This so called test of 8 papers is impressive by showing the formula. The idea behind that may be to give this writing a scientific touch. I am missing the results. May be - if there were results other than numbers - that a printer series with the Canon Pro 1000 will give other results. Since printing and development of pictures is mainly a subjective process it may be difficult to perform.
Anytime for me this comparison is without result so worthless.
Mark's reviews are excellent technical reviews that remove subjective opinions. They likely appeal most to very serious printers who want to know the technical aspects of each paper on a given printer.
If you're looking for subjective opinions on papers you'll have to look elsewhere to put all the pieces together.
I'm thinking this is an example of a "review" that might appeal to you. It does NOT include the same papers or printers though.
http://www.imaging-resource.com/news/2016/03/09/epson-legacy-paper-review-premium-paper-at-a-premium-price
-
By "charter" I assume you mean "character", and if so I agree, but without the word "only". At least to my mind, print quality is paramount, and the measurements we make can indicate the potential for some aspects of print quality, even though they aren't uniquely determinative. And there is so much subjectivity in all of this. For example, I could care less what the back of the paper feels like, but for quite a few people this is an important aspect of "character"; I'm not too keen about the unferrotyped look of Harman Gloss Baryta, yet I am reliably informed it is a very popular paper; then there is the big divide between those who prefer matte versus those who prefer gloss/luster, and on it goes...........
Hi Mark, Yes i did mean character, and yes the print quality you as a printer dial in is paramount.
The print quality you achieve is in part achieved using tools like x-rite i1pro2 and in part visual by looking for inkbleed etc. That part you have to do for each paper to the best you can achieve, at least that is what i do.
Yet when printing the same image and print it on two different papers, optimized via softproof for each, the experience you get when looking at the result can be dramatically different. It is then not the technical print quality that makes the difference, but this "character". Highly subjective for sure, but from my point of view also very learning, rewarding and enjoyable.
-
Yet when printing the same image and print it on two different papers, optimized via softproof for each, the experience you get when looking at the result can be dramatically different. It is then not the technical print quality that makes the difference, but this "character". Highly subjective for sure, but from my point of view also very learning, rewarding and enjoyable.
Yes I largely agree, and also something that doesn't really convey convincingly over a website - one really needs to hold the actual prints and look at them to appreciate these character differences properly. Description can only go so far. But underlying every print, if the technical quality is not optimized relative to the subject matter, something is lost. So it's good to know the achievable parameters. Here it is more the profiles than the i1Pro, which is only a measurement device. However we technically define and use these papers, it is through profiles, so it's important to understand what the combination of the paper, the profiles, the inks and the printer algorithms are capable of delivering and how correctly they do so. From that point onward, "character" and subjective evaluation of results take over.
-
I agree. I was too short on the technical stuff. Choice of mediatype and parameter settings in the media type etc all do matter to get the best possible print quality technically speaking.
-
Hi Mark,
Thank you for a stimulating review, I have had occasion to check now on my holidays.
I have one question, from where you obtained the reference values of ColorChecker?
Thanks!
-
Hi Mark,
Thank you for a stimulating review, I have had occasion to check now on my holidays.
I have one question, from where you obtained the reference values of ColorChecker?
Thanks!
I obtained them from a colleague who is a professional colour management consultant; however I believe he obtained them from Bruce Lindbloom's website. You may also find digital versions of the ColorChecker on the internet and measure the values using the eyedropper set to L*a*b* in Photoshop.