Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Printing: Printers, Papers and Inks => Topic started by: jerryw on August 05, 2015, 12:17:59 pm
-
I have an Epson 7900 that I have been using for a few years now. I use Ultra Premium Luster (260) most of the time.
I recently decided to do a few test prints with Exhibition Fiber (13x19 sheets), so I printed a couple of D800 landscape images on both papers (from LR 6.1).
I confess my eyes aren't what they used to be, but I really couldn't see any difference worth noting.
Question: have any of you run this same experiment and, if so, what sort of differences do your eyes see, if any? (Maybe I am going blind...)
Thanks
Jerry
-
Well, they both have a similar luster-type finish, so assuming proper profiles for each, they're going to look very much the same.
They're very different types of paper, of course, with the EEF being much heavier and quite a bit brighter. The tactile qualities are very different. But with that similar finish, the actual image area is a pretty close match. Having printed on both, I can confirm that.
-
The finish on Exhibition Luster to me is a bit more grainy than the Luster on Epson 260W. But the paper also seems to suffer just a bit less from bronzing issues.
However, the Exhibition Luster is a fibre based paper, so you will not out-gas to the front of the print and onto the glass as any RC paper will like Epson Luster 260W.
The only issue I have with any RC paper is the outgassing issue which if you frame under glass, will cause you problems over time.
Paul
-
The paper surface textures look very different to me. EEF has a more random and IMO nicer texture, not to mention being heavier. Luster has a more regular surface with more specular highlights from the bumps if you look at it very closely. I believe EEF has a wider color gamut also, but you'd have to check that.
-
Premium Luster 260 is my "everyday" paper for my 7900. It makes very nice prints and is not expensive. Ex Fiber is what I consider a "premium" paper, it is quite a bit more expensive IIRC. I use it for display prints once the image printed on the 260 has passed muster. I find it a bit more vibrant, with deeper colors and darker blacks without quite so much "shine" to the surface. Subtle differences, to be sure, but they are visible to me.
-
Premium Luster 260 is my "everyday" paper for my 7900. It makes very nice prints and is not expensive. Ex Fiber is what I consider a "premium" paper, it is quite a bit more expensive IIRC. I use it for display prints once the image printed on the 260 has passed muster. I find it a bit more vibrant, with deeper colors and darker blacks without quite so much "shine" to the surface. Subtle differences, to be sure, but they are visible to me.
+1. Exactly my method.
However, I will admit I'm concerned with the OBA's in EEF and lately have begun looking for a similar alternative.
-
+1. Exactly my method.
However, I will admit I'm concerned with the OBA's in EEF and lately have begun looking for a similar alternative.
Where the appearance of image color and tone qualities on long term display matters, both of these papers need to be avoided. Both have serious light-induced media discoloration issues that go well beyond the simple loss of OBA fluorescence as the OBAs fade over time.
The word "archival" is a very loosely used word in the industry and has no standardized technical definition at this time, but even when applying very liberal allowances for its meaning, neither paper deserves to be mentioned in context with the term "archival".
cheers,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com
-
The paper surface textures look very different to me. EEF has a more random and IMO nicer texture, not to mention being heavier. Luster has a more regular surface with more specular highlights from the bumps if you look at it very closely. I believe EEF has a wider color gamut also, but you'd have to check that.
Yes, I agree re: the texture, I observed this as well. What I cannot see (perhaps I should have been a bit more specific in my intro) is any empirical/ visible improvement in gamut.
-
However, the Exhibition Luster is a fibre based paper, so you will not out-gas to the front of the print and onto the glass as any RC paper will like Epson Luster 260W.
The only issue I have with any RC paper is the outgassing issue which if you frame under glass, will cause you problems over time.
Paul
Interesting... a point I did not know & had not considered. Thanks for the comment.
-
Ex Fiber ... I find it a bit more vibrant, with deeper colors and darker blacks without quite so much "shine" to the surface. Subtle differences, to be sure, but they are visible to me.
Perhaps I just need to do more prints and look harder. But, so far, I can't see more vibrance and darker blacks. Again... maybe its my aging eyes...
-
Where the appearance of image color and tone qualities on long term display matters, both of these papers need to be avoided. Both have serious light-induced media discoloration issues that go well beyond the simple loss of OBA fluorescence as the OBAs fade over time.
The word "archival" is a very loosely used word in the industry and has no standardized technical definition at this time, but even when applying very liberal allowances for its meaning, neither paper deserves to be mentioned in context with the term "archival".
cheers,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com
There is a lot of stuff to wade through on your web site... would you be kind enough to supply a more specific link that provides the data behind your assertion? (Not a challenge - just looking for info - thanks for the reply.)
-
There is a lot of stuff to wade through on your web site... would you be kind enough to supply a more specific link that provides the data behind your assertion? (Not a challenge - just looking for info - thanks for the reply.)
click the link in his signature. lots of test info.
-
Where the appearance of image color and tone qualities on long term display matters, both of these papers need to be avoided. Both have serious light-induced media discoloration issues that go well beyond the simple loss of OBA fluorescence as the OBAs fade over time.
agreed. the Luster is used only to make sure the print is perfect before printing upon more the expensive EEF, never for final product.
Perhaps I just need to do more prints and look harder. But, so far, I can't see more vibrance and darker blacks. Again... maybe its my aging eyes...
I have made custom profiles using 4000 patch targets on an Isis, and while the epson provided profiles show differences between the two papers, with my profiles I get pretty much identical results. I'm comfortable using the luster for perfecting the file, knowing when moving to EEF I won't have to do any further tweaking because of the paper types.
to me the difference is in the surface characteristics, the EEF has a more subtle pebble texture, and a very nice sheen. Very reminiscent of some of the old B&W papers.
-
There is a lot of stuff to wade through on your web site... would you be kind enough to supply a more specific link that provides the data behind your assertion? (Not a challenge - just looking for info - thanks for the reply.)
Just filter on Exhibition in the test results after you enlist.
No need to worry about the inks used in the tests, the paper is the worst component in the tests.
Image of search attached.
Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
December 2014 update, 700+ inkjet media white spectral plots
-
Where the appearance of image color and tone qualities on long term display matters, both of these papers need to be avoided. Both have serious light-induced media discoloration issues that go well beyond the simple loss of OBA fluorescence as the OBAs fade over time.
agreed. the Luster is used only to make sure the print is perfect before printing upon more the expensive EEF, never for final product.
Hi Wayne - Your comment on MHMG's comment seems a bit inconsistent in that: You appear to agree with his assertion on Luster, and then go on to say you do all your exhibition prints on Fiber, even though Mark made the same comment about Fiber as he did about Luster. If I didn't misread you, can you please clarify? Thanks.
I have made custom profiles using 4000 patch targets on an Isis, and while the epson provided profiles show differences between the two papers, with my profiles I get pretty much identical results. I'm comfortable using the luster for perfecting the file, knowing when moving to EEF I won't have to do any further tweaking because of the paper types. To me the difference is in the surface characteristics, the EEF has a more subtle pebble texture, and a very nice sheen. Very reminiscent of some of the old B&W papers.
This matches what my aging eyes are seeing. So, at least I know I am not completely and totally alone in the world. :) (While acknowledging that some here seem to see diffs other than texture.)
-
Just filter on Exhibition in the test results after you enlist.
No need to worry about the inks used in the tests, the paper is the worst component in the tests.
Image of search attached.
Thanks - that's the info I was looking for.
-
There is a lot of stuff to wade through on your web site... would you be kind enough to supply a more specific link that provides the data behind your assertion? (Not a challenge - just looking for info - thanks for the reply.)
See the attached graphs which show white point stability for both papers. That's some of the data behind my assertion, but these graphs probably call for a little explanation as well, so here goes:
Re: EEF - If we measure the CIELAB b* value (which tracks the blue-yellow component of the color ) then UV included versus UV excluded measurements can give us insight into the initial flourescence of the media and thus indirectly how much OBA is present. Exhibition fiber has a very high initial fluorescence factor with ∆b* = 6.7 for the UVinc-UVexc measurements (i.e, it's a very cool-white paper to begin with due to high OBA content). When that OBA totally burns out, we should expect to see the whitepoint stability graph leveling out at around 6.7 units of change in the ∆b value. But EEF keeps going higher as you can see in the plot which means it's yellowing more than we can explain merely by loss of fluorescence. Better papers will have lesser amounts or even no OBA, and will stay within 1 or 2 b* units of their initial value over the entire length of the test.
re: EPPL - the Epson Premium Luster paper has a different but still OBA related yellowing problem that's harder to track in accelerated light fade tests and thus has gone largely under reported in the published literature (including what I've published to date, sorry to say, but I'm working on fixing this accelerated testing issue). If you look at the whitepoint stability graph for EPPL, its ∆b* value is more erratic as the testing proceeded, but again shows very high amounts of yellowing at the end of the test which cannot be explained by mere loss of OBA fluorescence. Additional staining is occurring and it needs a dark storage or low intensity illumination condition added to the testing cycle in order to bring about the additional stain. The sample I have graphed here was allowed to stay in dark storage for several months after the 140Mlux hour exposure, and that amount of time was enough to induce the spike in the b* value you see at that point on the graph. Likewise, for the smaller bumps in the plot at the 50 and 90 Mlux hour marks. In those instances, the sample was not measured immediately after the exposure dose interval was completed. The dark storage time allowed more stain to grow in the sample, and subsequent high intensity illumination was able to bleach that stain back somewhat so the b* value went down again in successive measurements, hence the erratic nature of this plot. This is a complex phenomenon I have taken to calling the LILIS effect (stands for low intensity light induced staining), but suffice to say that it will definitely occur in a more steady manner with this product under real world display conditions over time because most display conditions are typically not intense enough to suppress the yellowing with light bleaching that counteracts this stain growth in higher intensity accelerated light fade tests. BTW, I'm now detecting this LILIS problem with essentially all of today's popular RC photo papers, not just Epson RC paper and not just RC inkjet media, either. That said, the Epson RC papers do tend to exhibit the problem more severely than other RC media, and that indicates there is much room for improvement of RC media if the manufacturers begin to pay attention to this problem. Anyway, it's part of my ongoing research. I don't have all the answers yet, but I'm working on ways to better characterize the problem so that printmakers who care about print longevity can make more informed choices.
lastly, if you want to check out the full reports for these samples, they are ID #s 210 and 225 in the AaI&A database. You need to log in to the AaI&A website to be able to download the full reports, but registration is free.
best,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com
-
Geez, Mark, thanks for all the detail. I don't have time to read it at the moment, but I surely will. Thanks!
-
Not to derail Jerry's thread, but since it affects both papers in the question he raised, I'll throw it out...
Mark McCormick-Goodhart (MHMG), to my knowledge you were the first researcher to identify the LILIS phenomenon; and are still the only one investigating its effects. Between that research and your more general testing of inkjet papers and inks - a targeted testing that is far more relevant to serious photographic artists, IMHO, than the similar work that Wilhelm Institute does - we all owe you a huge round of thanks. I wish the Smithsonian or Library of Congress would support your work with grant monies.
My question... in advance of the formal conclusions I expect you'll reach at some point with respect to LILIS, can you give us any kind of preliminary hint of which papers seem to avoid or better resist that effect? If you're uncomfortable with that, can you perhaps at least share what your own personal favorite papers are today?
Thanks...
-
Not to derail Jerry's thread, but since it affects both papers in the question he raised, I'll throw it out...
My question... in advance of the formal conclusions I expect you'll reach at some point with respect to LILIS, can you give us any kind of preliminary hint of which papers seem to avoid or better resist that effect? If you're uncomfortable with that, can you perhaps at least share what your own personal favorite papers are today?
Hey, derail-away... I had the same question. :)
-
Hi Wayne - Your comment on MHMG's comment seems a bit inconsistent in that: You appear to agree with his assertion on Luster, and then go on to say you do all your exhibition prints on Fiber, even though Mark made the same comment about Fiber as he did about Luster. If I didn't misread you, can you please clarify? Thanks.
In an earlier post I stated that I am currently looking for a worthy EEF replacement because of the OBA content.
However “archival” has no standard and really has no definition, and while EEF may have OBA issues that make it less of an “archival” choice, it still performs very well and the finished prints have a beautiful look to them, even under glass. They will still last a long time if taken care of (outlasting many of the images I created for decades using chemical processes). The decision at what point the print “fails” and becomes unacceptable from fading is very subjective, because while compared to an original it may be obviously different, it may be perfectly acceptable on its own. Also the OBA concerns seem to be a moving target, something which Mark is working hard to try and understand and quantify. His tests comparing the unprinted paper patches of different tests on EEF show significantly different results.
I see many photographers who have expressed concerns about longevity jumping onto the Aluminum dye sub process, although it has shown to be inferior in these regards to most pigment inkjet solutions. But they are physically very durable which is the greater enemy of print longevity. So maybe the tradeoff makes sense?
So I do struggle with the conflict between immediate visual gratification and the possible tradeoff’s of longevity. I haven’t decided for sure whether to switch away from EEF, but am exploring options.
-
In an earlier post I stated that I am currently looking for a worthy EEF replacement because of the OBA content.
However “archival” has no standard and really has no definition, and while EEF may have OBA issues that make it less of an “archival” choice, it still performs very well and the finished prints have a beautiful look to them, even under glass. They will still last a long time if taken care of (outlasting many of the images I created for decades using chemical processes). The decision at what point the print “fails” and becomes unacceptable from fading is very subjective, because while compared to an original it may be obviously different, it may be perfectly acceptable on its own. Also the OBA concerns seem to be a moving target, something which Mark is working hard to try and understand and quantify. His tests comparing the unprinted paper patches of different tests on EEF show significantly different results.
I see many photographers who have expressed concerns about longevity jumping onto the Aluminum dye sub process, although it has shown to be inferior in these regards to most pigment inkjet solutions. But they are physically very durable which is the greater enemy of print longevity. So maybe the tradeoff makes sense?
So I do struggle with the conflict between immediate visual gratification and the possible tradeoff’s of longevity. I haven’t decided for sure whether to switch away from EEF, but am exploring options.
Ok, got it - thanks for the clarification - makes sense.
As pragmatic matter, I simply want a reasonable assurance that my prints won't fade substantially while (a) I am still alive and (b) my constituents are still alive. After that, I don't much care. Heck, most of the people on this planet don't care about my prints while I am still alive. For sure even more won't care after I am dead.
So, although I do have some interest in the theoretical limits of some papers (and hence will definitely read Mark's papers), to the extent that any of my work exists after my death and the death of my constituents, I expect it to be in electronic format, not on paper.
Just trying to keep things in personal perspective! :)
-
Also BTW - hit your site today. You have some spectacular images in your landscape gallery. Very much enjoyed the visit.
-
...
Mark McCormick-Goodhart (MHMG), to my knowledge you were the first researcher to identify the LILIS phenomenon; and are still the only one investigating its effects. Between that research and your more general testing of inkjet papers and inks - a targeted testing that is far more relevant to serious photographic artists, IMHO, than the similar work that Wilhelm Institute does - we all owe you a huge round of thanks. I wish the Smithsonian or Library of Congress would support your work with grant monies.
Actually, AFAIK, Henry Wilhelm wrote about this light-induced and light bleachable yellowish stain formation phenomenon (what I call LILIS) in a paper published in an IS&T conference proceedings in 2003. That paper is available on the Wilhelm website
http://www.wilhelm-research.com/ist/WIR_ISTpaper_2003_09_HW.pdf
Henry didn't know what caused it, but speculated it might be related to OBAs, and then never published any followup studies that I'm aware of. I was working closely with Henry at the time, and it just didn't come up in our many long and involved print longevity conversations, so I assumed (seriously wrong I should add) that it was a rather obscure issue affecting only a small number of papers on the market at the time. It was only after I was going through many retired samples I now have in the Aardenburg Archives, that I was struck with the reality about how common this problem really is. Why Wilhelm never followed up on it and why the Wilhelm ratings for Epson Premium luster, glossy, and other RC papers are as high as they are is only something he can answer. They don't deserve these good ratings, but IMHO, the entire print permanence research community, myself included, all missed the significance of this problem. It doesn't show up in a typical accelerated light fade testing because the high intensity illumination masks the issue very well by keeping the degraded by-products bleached to a more colorless state, but let the sample go back into a much lower illumination level or a full dark storage condition and the stain rather rapidly reappears. Now that I know what to look for, I'm seeing it in real world examples as well. It's not just a laboratory curiosity.
As for funding for this research, it's definitely a catch 22. No one has a good answer on how this work should best be funded. AaI&A is not elligible for those museum and archive community type of grants, and the classical independent fee-for-service laboratory testing model brings its own set of constraints as well, so AaI&A does not pursue the manufacturers to help support this research. I do the best I can do on a very limited budget.
My question... in advance of the formal conclusions I expect you'll reach at some point with respect to LILIS, can you give us any kind of preliminary hint of which papers seem to avoid or better resist that effect? If you're uncomfortable with that, can you perhaps at least share what your own personal favorite papers are today?
Thanks...
I'm working through a huge "data mining" study at this time involving more measurements on many of the retired test samples to seek out which ones have the LILIS issue and which ones don't. It's slow going, but I"m getting there. One thing is very obvious. The LILIS problem is hugely manifested in the RC photo media. The combination of OBAs incorporated in the TiO2-PE layers accounts for the vast majority of the LILIS problem and it's not pretty! There are some non RC media like ilford Gold Fibre Silk that also display some LILIS effect as well because they also have TiO2 and OBAs in proximity even if they don't have the PE layers. The stain levels are lower. however, so the TiO2-PE layers in RC media seem to be a particularly bad match.
Favorite papers? I primarily use Hahnemuhle Photo Rag Pearl as my main "traditional fiber' photo paper. Beautiful low gloss luster/pearl surface without much distracting bi-directional grain orientation, and it takes protective sprays like Premier Print Shield really well which I use because I hate bronzing and differential gloss. All the glossy/luster type papers exhibit some bronzing with any of the major OEM pigmented ink sets on the market these days. Being a cotton base paper, HN PhRagPearl also has less stiffness that lets me bind it in books in either long or short grain direction although it's probably always better to try to work with the right grain direction when book binding. For RC, I'm using Epson Proofing Paper White SemiMatt because, so far it seems to be largely free of the LILIS effect (but testing is ongoing). There's a positive clue in this result! EpPPWSM does not have any OBA's embedded in the TiO2-PE layers. See the connection?
For fine art matt papers, I use any number of media having little or no OBA. Presently in stock here at AaI&A I have HN Museum Etching and Moab Entrada Natural (because it's a great print-both-sides option at reasonable price and in a wide variety of cut sheet sizes). Most matt media with low OBA content only in the paper core like HN Photo Rag appears to have reasonable whitepoint stability as well. The key there is that the OBAs are not in the coatings, only in the paper base sheet where they seem to remain colorless and not exhibit LILIS after they fade. That's my tentative conclusion at this time.
For folks who really like EEF, there really aren't any dead ringers to substitute for it in terms of both cool-white color and surface texture as well, and to get to a cool white appearance the media will have to have some OBAs. Harman Gloss Baryta has medium OBA content that does fade out over time, but also appears to be free of LILIS, so the yellowing will be confined only to the loss of fluorescence. I think it's a far better outcome than what happens to EEF which is why I don't recommend using EEF. Harman Gloss Baryta, IMHO, also comes closest of all modern inkjet papers to the traditional "F" surface darkroom papers of yesteryear, IMHO, so it appeals to me on that visceral level very much even though I wish Harman would produce a more neutral, i.e. less OBAs, version of this paper. Harman does indeed make a warmtone version, but it's too warm for my taste except possibly for specific B&W images. it's also a very weird paper because it's quite warm yet ironically still has a medium amount of OBAs. I know of no other papers like that. Usually sufficiently warm toned papers are easily made simply by leaving out all OBA.
I hope this helps.
best,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com
-
Thanks, Mark. Yes, indeed, very helpful...
-
Also BTW - hit your site today. You have some spectacular images in your landscape gallery. Very much enjoyed the visit.
I appreciate the kind words.
-
Regarding Jerry's original question, re: the difference between these two papers... I shot a wedding last weekend and earlier this week printed off a set of proofs using Ultra Premium Luster. Today, I printed one particular image using EEP. The version on Ultra Premium Luster exhibits a modest amount of gloss differential in the detail on the bride's dress. The EEP version is notably free of it.
Not that EEP is free of gloss differential - I've seen it in other images. But I did find it interesting given that, other than that difference, the two prints, set side by side in my viewing station, look very similar to my eyes.
-
Regarding Jerry's original question, re: the difference between these two papers... I shot a wedding last weekend and earlier this week printed off a set of proofs using Ultra Premium Luster. Today, I printed one particular image using EEP. The version on Ultra Premium Luster exhibits a modest amount of gloss differential in the detail on the bride's dress. The EEP version is notably free of it.
Not that EEP is free of gloss differential - I've seen it in other images. But I did find it interesting given that, other than that difference, the two prints, set side by side in my viewing station, look very similar to my eyes.
Thanks for the input Jeff - appreciated!