Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Printing: Printers, Papers and Inks => Topic started by: Jane on April 27, 2016, 04:34:02 pm
-
Some time ago I ran an informal and very limited comparison of prints on reflective papers I happened to have on hand, the Harman by Hahnemuhle Gloss Baryta, the Epson Exhibition Fiber and the Ilford Gold Fibre Silk ( all using ImagePrint profiles, which I trust to do well by the papers. ). The Ilford does work very nicely with some black and white images but overall, the Harman came out on top and I've put up with the outrageous curling problems as packaged by Hahnemuhle ever since for the sake of the Harman's superior tonal reproduction ( have to say that there was some improvement on the curling front with the last box I bought ). I recently ( and hopefully ) bought some letter-size Canson Baryta Photographique. It arrived nice and flat in the box, but unfortunately also, to my eye, rendered tones rather flatly. I judge it much inferior to the Harmon, where you get the tonal range on the paper where you put it on the screen.
I do intend to try the new Epson Legacy papers, both the reflective and the matte. I think someone compared the Legacy baryta to the Canson. Has anyone had experience with that paper as well as H by H Gloss Baryta?
And switching to matte papers, my favorite has been the Epson UltraSmooth Fine Art ( as against some of the Hahmemuhle fine art papers ), but I will also try the new Legacy matte papers. I realize that much of this is old hat at this forum, but I hope not stale. Suggestions and opinions would be welcome.
-
Some time ago I ran an informal and very limited comparison of prints on reflective papers I happened to have on hand, the Harman by Hahnemuhle Gloss Baryta, the Epson Exhibition Fiber and the Ilford Gold Fibre Silk ( all using ImagePrint profiles, which I trust to do well by the papers. ). The Ilford does work very nicely with some black and white images but overall, the Harman came out on top and I've put up with the outrageous curling problems as packaged by Hahnemuhle ever since for the sake of the Harman's superior tonal reproduction ( have to say that there was some improvement on the curling front with the last box I bought ). I recently ( and hopefully ) bought some letter-size Canson Baryta Photographique. It arrived nice and flat in the box, but unfortunately also, to my eye, rendered tones rather flatly. I judge it much inferior to the Harmon, where you get the tonal range on the paper where you put it on the screen.
I do intend to try the new Epson Legacy papers, both the reflective and the matte. I think someone compared the Legacy baryta to the Canson. Has anyone had experience with that paper as well as H by H Gloss Baryta?
And switching to matte papers, my favorite has been the Epson UltraSmooth Fine Art ( as against some of the Hahmemuhle fine art papers ), but I will also try the new Legacy matte papers. I realize that much of this is old hat at this forum, but I hope not stale. Suggestions and opinions would be welcome.
None of this makes any sense whatsoever to another reader without a thorough explanation of your testing and printing methodologies and equipment used, kind of test images and display thereof unless standard well-known printet test targets. Reading some paper reviews on this website or other serious ones elsewhere may help you along.
-
None of this makes any sense whatsoever to another reader without a thorough explanation of your testing and printing methodologies and equipment used, kind of test images and display thereof unless standard well-known printet test targets. Reading some paper reviews on this website or other serious ones elsewhere may help you along.
Jane’s post made sense to me.
I share her opinion that the Harman paper has the best image quality of the baryta papers - it’s sharp, it’s smooth, and the ink seems to really sink into the surface. However the curling issue (sheets curl up, rolls curl down) is a major drawback (head strikes, print handling etc).
The Canson Baryta lies much flatter - but I prefer looking at images printed on the Harman.
Canson Platine is worth a look.
-
OK, I suppose if you are just trading personal opinions about papers it's fine as far as it goes, which to my mind is not very, but each to his/her own. I'd be the last one to discourage simply trading undocumented opinions if that is the intent.
Discussions and even formal reviews of papers are admittedly difficult because given what it is, the most effective way to appreciate paper is from directly using it and handling it oneself. But one can't do that with thousands of readers over the internet. That is why a lot of well-structured surrounding information about comparison approach, materials, etc. should help to enhance readers' appreciation of what the writer experiences and is trying to convey.
-
Thank you Elliot, and you, too, Mark, for your responses. I appreciate the value of technical testing, some reported here for different characteristics, and of course the permanency testing by the Wilhelm Institute, but I'm speaking of the artistic impression and tonal fidelity achieved by the paper ( given the certain printer, inkset, profiles, etc. ). I specified an informal and limited comparison, not a 'test'. It's the eye that judges the overall impact of an image and I was putting forward my eye's view. I was wondering what opinions other had about the Harman what they thought of the new Epson Legacy papers in comparison.
PS: will try the Canson Platine.
-
Jane, I appreciate reporting on the artistic impressions - it's fine, but that is of course heavily influenced by what we see and how we see it. If you put yourself in your readers' shoes for a moment, I think you would understand that it's more effective to make these statements about artistic impression if you presented some material on the kind of images you are looking at, how they were printed (printer used, profiles, editing, the illumination conditions in which you are viewing them, perhaps some scans of portions of the prints that show the differences you are alluding to etc. It is possible in the Forum to mention and provide some contextual add-ons that give more "meat and meaning" to your message. I'm not talking here about research involving scientific measurements because it requires instruments and techniques that most people who want to discuss print quality don't have and for the most part don't need, especially for a discussion about impressions alone; so I'm just suggesting to improve the story with more context and background that gives readers a handle on evaluating your message.
-
Mark, I had thought I mentioned the printer, the P800, with the Epson proprietary inkset, but see that I didn't, an oversight. I did say that I used ImagePrint profiles - on the same edited ( slight curve adjustment and sharpening in Photoshop CC ) image. The paper profile could have made a difference, but experience with ImagePrint gives me confidence about getting a reliable result for a given paper. I do thank you for your enumeration of factors to consider in comparing prints. However, the factor in this modest case is my eye, and its judgment is that the image looks a heck of lot better - that is, it's translated more faithfully from screen to paper better - and with a look of more depth, on the Harman than the Canson. I'm interested in other papers that are well thought of.
-
Hi again Jane,
Fair enough. I'm wondering whether the Harman Gloss you are working with is the same as that reviewed in these three articles on this website, quite some years back now.
Baryta papers summer 2008 (https://luminous-landscape.com/new-baryta-paper-summer-2008/)
Battle of Barytas (https://luminous-landscape.com/battle-of-the-barytas/)
Surface of things (https://luminous-landscape.com/the-surface-of-things-ae-part-two/)
-
Jane, I love the Harman by Hahnemuhle Fibre Gloss Baryta. It has a depth to it that reminds me of C prints. I have any prints done with it dry-mounted. It does buckle pretty easily. But I'm having everything on gloss paper mounted now.
Mark, I think personal opinion is fine. I realize it's all subjective, but it helps to hear from "regular" users as well as testers.
Harman is one of my favorite papers.
-
.............
Mark, I think personal opinion is fine. I realize it's all subjective, but it helps to hear from "regular" users as well as testers.
Yes, I think it is too - don't get me wrong; all I'm trying to convey is that opinions carry more meaning and conviction when they are accompanied by more context.
-
I share her opinion that the Harman paper has the best image quality of the baryta papers - it’s sharp, it’s smooth, and the ink seems to really sink into the surface. However the curling issue (sheets curl up, rolls curl down) is a major drawback (head strikes, print handling etc).
The Canson Baryta lies much flatter - but I prefer looking at images printed on the Harman.
This is my experience as well. The Canson(and the apparent Freestyle rebadge of it) has a yellowish color that the HbyH doesn't.
-
Thanks for sharing your impressions, Jane.
Miles
-
Thanks for comments and paper suggestions to Miles, Pluton ( love that moniker! ), Sharon, and, of course, Mark again. I read Michael Reichmann's original article, 'Battle of the Barytas', back in '09 and was turned on to the Harman at that time. I did a print comparison of the same 3 or 4 papers, and I may be badly mis-remembering, but aside from supplying info about the chemical makeup of the papers, I think the bases for Michael's opinions included the venerable methodology of eyeballing.
Mark, I think the Battle of the Narytas took place on Mars and involved John Carter.
-
Thanks for comments and paper suggestions to Miles, Pluton ( love that moniker! ), Sharon, and, of course, Mark again. I read Michael Reichmann's original article, 'Battle of the Barytas', back in '09 and was turned on to the Harman at that time. I did a print comparison of the same 3 or 4 papers, and I may be badly mis-remembering, but aside from supplying info about the chemical makeup of the papers, I think the bases for Michael's opinions included the venerable methodology of eyeballing.
Mark, I think the Battle of the Narytas took place on Mars and involved John Carter.
Ya, I guess there is an element of sci-fi in all this after all! :-). I worked with Michael on the "Battle" article and yes, there was a combination of measurements and careful visual comparison under controlled conditions using known printer test images. So it was a bit more than "eyeballing". No doubt examining prints is fundamental to this work, which we do in two ways: (i) blind tasting and (ii) also knowing a fair bit about what we are examining.
Anyhow, this thread and your views re-tweaked my curiosity so I chatted with the appropriate source and learned that the Harman paper under discussion here is a revamped version of the one we reviewed back in '09, so I shall be having a second look at it. Stay tuned.
Cheers.
-
I've been using it continuously since 2009 and haven't noticed any changes (apart from it now being called Harman by Hahnemuhle, which I don't really understand). It still smells like a B&W silver gelatin paper. I thought it was made in Ilford's factory in Cheshire, but I guess it's only coated there, and the paper itself comes from somewhere else. I'm interested to find out more.
-
Elliott, I thought it was interesting that Harman called the original paper 'Gloss FB AL' - 'Real Photo Baryta with Alumina for Air Dried Gloss Prints', whereas Hahemuhle distributes the paper merely as 'Gloss Baryta', no mention of the alumina component. The paper is the same weight, seems to produce more or less the same quality of print but I couldn't try to interchange profiles because I changed my printers/inkset about the same time that Hahnemuhle took over distribution. The Hahnemuhle representative I corresponded with claimed there was no change whatsoever in the paper, but where, I ask you, is the 'Alumina'?
-
I've been using it continuously since 2009 and haven't noticed any changes (apart from it now being called Harman by Hahnemuhle, which I don't really understand). It still smells like a B&W silver gelatin paper. I thought it was made in Ilford's factory in Cheshire, but I guess it's only coated there, and the paper itself comes from somewhere else. I'm interested to find out more.
The paper industry is pretty secretive about sourcing so you will likely not find out much about where and how it is made (which has more complex elements than sniffing it can inform about); but in any event the important thing is the end-result. It was reformulated at some point, as stated on the back of the box: ".....Harman Technology took over the black and white photo manufacturing element of Ilford in 2005. Since then (ed. they don't say exactly when) new inkjet coatings were developed......" IF the reformulation took place BEFORE we wrote the review back in '09, what we used then and what we have now is the same thing; otherwise not. Anyhow. I'll be having a second look at it with fresh stock.
-
None of this makes any sense whatsoever to another reader without a thorough explanation of your testing and printing methodologies and equipment used, kind of test images and display thereof unless standard well-known printet test targets. Reading some paper reviews on this website or other serious ones elsewhere may help you along.
Jane,
I think sharing and reporting your impressions about materials is just fine without the long winded technical discussions some members relish.
I also loved the Harman FB AL and was quite depressed when it was discontinued. Back in the day when we worked in the traditional darkroom it was always disappointing to find out ones favorite paper had been dropped. I had Ilford Multigrade III dialed in perfectly and then paper manufacturers were forced to removed certain heavy metals from their emulsions like cadmium and BAM we were left high and dry with new emulsions to print on. I rue the day that Kodak quit making Elite and several other papers of the day.
Needless to say we have to move on and it's always rewarding to me to hear about aesthetic responds to new and old inkjet paper configurations. You have to remember much of the population of this forum is comprised of old figs that love to fiddle with MFT & H&D curves and so forth so your post is refreshing to me at least.
Regards,
Don Bryant
-
But Harman FB AL was never discontinued. It was just rebadged as Harman by Hahnemuhle Gloss Baryta. At least that's how I understand it. It seems like the same paper to me. Beautiful image quality, but with a serious curl problem.
-
Thank you, donbga, for the encouraging words. However, I am not inhibited from expressing my opinions and I do actually value the technical stuff, do value detail, and really do appreciate the expertise of those who do the work of analyzing the material substance of the media - after all, we want our images preserved for all time with colors and tones intact ;-) - but once the physical matters are sorted it does comes down to aesthetics and how faithfully our vision on the screen is translated to the entirely different medium of paper. I tried the Canson Baryta because of glowing reports but was disappointed. I couldn't see why anyone would use it in preference to the Harman and was interested in finding out if others shared my opinion. We are a chatty species.
Elliot, I understood the same - just a rebadging, but I am looking forward to Mark's re-anaysis of the paper when he gets the time - I am curious about the alumina - where has it gone? Is it gone?
Re: the curling, I had some boxes that were truly almost unusable for the curling, the newer boxes seem better, though there is still some curl. The P800 seems to deal better with hinky paper than the R3000. I am really rather flabbergasted that a reputable company like Hahnemuhle, so long a leader in the industry, would send a product in such poor condition to its customers.
-
Jane, did you see a huge difference between the Harman and the Canson Baryta? I've used both, and although I prefer the Harman, I think the Canson Baryta does a decent job, and looks quite similar. The Canson paper has a slight surface texture, whereas the Harman seems more smooth and organic. (The Canson Platine I recommended earlier also has a surface texture - more so than the Canson Baryta. I like it for the way it feels in the hands. I believe it's a cotton rag paper with a baryta coating - so quite a different thing from the Harman.)
-
Thank you, donbga, for the encouraging words. However, I am not inhibited from expressing my opinions and I do actually value the technical stuff, do value detail, and really do appreciate the expertise of those who do the work of analyzing the material substance of the media - after all, we want our images preserved for all time with colors and tones intact ;-) - but once the physical matters are sorted it does comes down to aesthetics and how faithfully our vision on the screen is translated to the entirely different medium of paper. I tried the Canson Baryta because of glowing reports but was disappointed. I couldn't see why anyone would use it in preference to the Harman and was interested in finding out if others shared my opinion. We are a chatty species.
Elliot, I understood the same - just a rebadging, but I am looking forward to Mark's re-anaysis of the paper when he gets the time - I am curious about the alumina - where has it gone? Is it gone?
Re: the curling, I had some boxes that were truly almost unusable for the curling, the newer boxes seem better, though there is still some curl. The P800 seems to deal better with hinky paper than the R3000. I am really rather flabbergasted that a reputable company like Hahnemuhle, so long a leader in the industry, would send a product in such poor condition to its customers.
It's of course good and normal that you should not feel inhibited expressing your opinions about what you see; and you have indeed tweaked my curiosity to have another look at this paper. And for avoidance of doubt (Don, etc.), the intent of my initial comment was to suggest that more information on the context and approach to making these comparisons is useful to others and enhances one's opinions. Photo paper is amenable to objective and subjective description and both help readers.This has nothing to do with old figs and curves, thank you very much. :-)
Turning to your question about Alumina in the paper, you may find this article of particular interest: Harman Technology - Inkjet (http://www.harmantechnology.com/Technology/Inkjet/tabid/181/Default.aspx) Based on what they say here (see near the end), my betting - and only that - is that for the Gloss Baryta paper the Alumina is still present in the coating. But in the final analysis, however they make it, what matters most is the end result including its longevity.
As for the curling - I shall of course see whether the material I received suffers from this problem and report my findings. It could be a general problem, or it could be confined to some batches.
-
Elliot, all I can say re the Harman vs Canson Barytas is that I printed the same image on the two papers using ImagePrint profiles with the P800 and that, to my eye ( i.e., subjectively vis-a-vis others; absolutely to me ), the image looked a lot better on the Harman. There was an appearance of greater depth on the Harman - the Canson image seemed more two dimensional, and also the tonal emphasis was as I wanted it on the Harman but dulled on the Canson. I can also say that an artist friend came by and I asked her to take a look and tell me which she thought was better - ( in these cases the instruction is not to try to peer into the image but just wait and let the image come out to your eye ). Pretty quickly and definitely she chose the Harman.
The image I printed was color. It may be that the Canson would show better with black and white - will have to try that. I didn't give it much of a chance, and just possibly the IP profile was not up to their usual fine standard - it does happen, though rarely in my experience, which admittedly is limited to maybe a dozen and a half papers. Once I settled on the Harman Baryta for reflective, with the Ilford Gold Fibre Silk for B & W and the Epson Exhibition Fiber in reserve, and the Epson Ultra-smooth Fine Art for matte prints, again with the Velvet Fine Art for other uses, I was pretty settled in my media habits. I also have some of the Hahnemuhle rags. But there is a whole world of papers out there to experiment with and I look forward to trying some new ones.
Re the curling of the Harman shipped by Hahnemuhle, it's most evident in the letter size, though present in the larger sizes as well. I can envision how it might happen in the manufacturing process when cutting large stacks. I had box after box with serious curling, box before last outrageously so, the last box better.
Mark, I hope you do get around to retesting the paper and can come back from the laboratory with the definitive word on the alumina. As a matter of curiosity as much as anything else, we have to know: did it stay or did it go?
Addition - will read the Harman article - may be that Hahnemuhle has replaced the alumina stratum with something else. I will stay tuned.
-
............
Mark, I hope you do get around to retesting the paper and can come back from the laboratory with the definitive word on the alumina. As a matter of curiosity as much as anything else, we have to know: did it stay or did it go?
Hi Jane,
I shall retest the paper. I received samples, and now need to find the time and get going (recall, this is all voluntary, unpaid, just out of interest), as I shall be doing that paper amongst some others for which we have received expressions of interest. My "laboratory" is a home office, a computer, a number of applications and several printers and scanners. i cannot undertake (and wouldn't know where to start) investigative chemical analyses. Now, could you please tell me: why is it that "we have to know" whether the Alumina remains in this paper? What does it do for you knowing that it is in or out, once you know and like the results obtained with this paper?
-
Mark,
In my wish list for your tests is the Hahnemühle Baryta Satin. It was presented in the last photokina (2014), but the normal supply really started less than one year ago.
Now is one of my to go papers. warm, nice satin surface, no OBAs. I like to print 10x15 (cm; 4 in an A4 sheet), both color and BW. For larger (A4. A3+), mainly BW work. It remainds me a postcard and old bw photopapers. The price settles between the "IGFS/Canson Baryta/HM Silk" family and the priced Hahnemühle rag Baryta, all them in my stock (Silk from Hahnemühle, because i get better price).
I'm in Europe, otherwise i would send you a sample asap. Tell me if you have interest but difficulties to get it
I also have the Harman by Hahnemühle in my stock. I use it mainly for landscape and those pictures that need to pop a bit more. It has OBA, but not as much as the bluish Canon platinum, plus a better base. I don't see it for BW, too glossy for me. And, yes it comes curled in A4 boxes.
As amateur, private consume, my approach to papers is more about surface, feeling, OBAS (preferentially not, but ok if needed) and price. Depending on the picture and the mood, I'll select one or another.
Cheers
-
Mark,..................
In my wish list for your tests is the Hahnemühle Baryta Satin. ............
Cheers
Yes, I have it and will be including it.
-
I'm tempted to try Ilford Prestige Gold Silk. I like the way I can get it in 11x17 inch sheets. Is curling something I should be worried about with these types of paper? Coming from mostly using Luster or Pearl surfaces, I hear that Baryta papers are more delicate. Do they stack well in a portfolio case or do I need tissue paper?
-
I use this paper extensively and it is not at all curly. It does not need tissue paper to be stacked in portfolio boxes provided you let the prints air-dry for at least 12 hours.
-
I have been profiling some baryta papers with a new glossy compatible carbon B&W inkset and was very pleasantly surprised by the performance of Red River Paper's "San Gabriel Semi Gloss Fiber," a baryta paper that is very close to Canson Baryta, but better. It's notable for having a very high dmax and no curl. Particularly in the larger sizes, the price looks very favorable also. See http://www.redrivercatalog.com/browse/san-gabriel-semigloss-fiber-baryta-photo-inkjet-fine-art-paper.html
Paul
www.PaulRoark.com
-
I have been profiling some baryta papers with a new glossy compatible carbon B&W inkset and was very pleasantly surprised by the performance of Red River Paper's "San Gabriel Semi Gloss Fiber," a baryta paper that is very close to Canson Baryta, but better. It's notable for having a very high dmax and no curl. Particularly in the larger sizes, the price looks very favorable also. See http://www.redrivercatalog.com/browse/san-gabriel-semigloss-fiber-baryta-photo-inkjet-fine-art-paper.html
Paul
www.PaulRoark.com
Paul - what printer and what inkset?
-
Out of curiosity I've ordered a pack (A4 size) of H by H baryta (neutral and warm versions) and they both are curly out of the box. Maybe because it's a hard shell box and the papers aren't pressed together so much when stocked?
-
Jane,
I think sharing and reporting your impressions about materials is just fine without the long winded technical discussions some members relish.
I also loved the Harman FB AL and was quite depressed when it was discontinued. Back in the day when we worked in the traditional darkroom it was always disappointing to find out ones favorite paper had been dropped. I had Ilford Multigrade III dialed in perfectly and then paper manufacturers were forced to removed certain heavy metals from their emulsions like cadmium and BAM we were left high and dry with new emulsions to print on. I rue the day that Kodak quit making Elite and several other papers of the day.
Needless to say we have to move on and it's always rewarding to me to hear about aesthetic responds to new and old inkjet paper configurations. You have to remember much of the population of this forum is comprised of old figs that love to fiddle with MFT & H&D curves and so forth so your post is refreshing to me at least.
Regards,
Don Bryant
Excellent approach ...Thank you Don and Jane!
-
I have a box of 17x25 HbH Gloss and in general, I keep it upside down in the box. When I last printed on it a few days ago, the trailing edge was still curled a bit so I used my makeshift deroller but still got a some edges caught. Now trying to use WhiteOut or a white marker to hide the marks.
-
The glossy-compatible black and white (predominantly) carbon inkset I'm testing is similar to the "Eboni Variable Tone" format described here: http://www.paulroark.com/BW-Info/Eboni-Variable-Tone.pdf. It basically puts 100% carbon pigment inks in all positions except for one, which has a light blue toner to offset the carbon warmth when needed. The approach has been very successful for me and many others who prefer a dedicated B&W inkset. The carbon inputs are retailed by MIS Associates (www.inksupply.com), but the toner is based on Canon Lucia blue and cyan pigments. The write-up of the glossy carbon inkset is not complete, but the draft PDF is at http://www.paulroark.com/BW-Info/Glossy-Carbon-Variable-Tone.pdf .
These carbon inksets appeal mostly to what I'd call the former darkroom workers who want to be more involved in their B&W medium. The "Eboni" carbon inksets also appeal to people and institutions based on their extremely low cost (due in no small part to my generic base -- see http://www.paulroark.com/BW-Info/Ink-Mixing.pdf and https://www.inksupply.com/roarkslab.cfm), as well as the carbon's extreme stability. I will not be making a generic glossy base. So, there is a bit of trade off in the cost v. paper compatibility.
Back to the Red River baryta, no curl and a dmax of 2.5 is the best I've seen with those papers. The PK is sold in pints by MIS Associates, but it's coming from the former Image Specialists division of STS Inks. (Contact me off list for more information on this if interested.) It is not a high gloss ink. Rather, it uses a form of gloss optimizer as its base. The trade off there is that there is virtually no bronzing on any medium.
As with all of my projects, they are open source, profiles will be posted, and I have no connection to the involved ink companies.
Paul
www.PaulRoark.com
-
Thanks very much Paul - I shall read your PDFs with interest. BTW, for printers - is it the QTR list or are there others?
-
I have a box of 17x25 HbH Gloss and in general, I keep it upside down in the box. When I last printed on it a few days ago, the trailing edge was still curled a bit so I used my makeshift deroller but still got a some edges caught. Now trying to use WhiteOut or a white marker to hide the marks.
Nice idea to store it upside down in the box. I'll try that.
I buy the HbHGB in A2 sheets (16.5 x 23.5 inch). I size my images to 16x20 inches, add a trim guide (i.e. a 2px black line), print on the A2 paper, and then rotatrim to my trim guides. This saves having to worry about any blobs of ink picked up on the edges of the paper. Prints are stored/presented in a 16x20 inch clamshell portfolio box. The prints curl up slightly (and perhaps curl more with time). I'm not sure if this bothers me. One advantage is that it makes leafing through the prints easier.
-
Thanks very much Paul - I shall read your PDFs with interest. BTW, for printers - is it the QTR list or are there others?
The QTR list <https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/QuadtoneRIP/conversations/messages> and the Digital B&W Printing list <https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/conversations/messages> are where most of the posts regarding these inksets can be found. If a post is just about the inks, the B&W print list is where I'd put it.
Paul
www.PaulRoark.com
-
Thanks, but what I meant is the list of usable printers in the QTR website showing eligible machines. But I see now that most of the models are there.
-
Thanks, but what I meant is the list of usable printers in the QTR website showing eligible machines. But I see now that most of the models are there.
While any Epson printer would work with the B&W inksets I design (need the piezo head, not thermal), I would never, personally, consider serious B&W with a printer that could not use QTR. My first tests of an approach are usually on my Epson WorkForce 1100 (not supported by QTR), using the Epson driver. However, that's mostly because it's the easiest to load and least needed for production if there is a serious problem. For most who are proficient with QTR, profiling for dedicated B&W inksets using Photoshop curves and the Epson driver is more time consuming and less precise than using QTR. So, while I usually try to make inksets compatible with the Epson driver, and I make PS curves & ICCs for them, I use QTR for almost all of my serious printing.
That said, there is a significant user base that favors Epson compatible inksets. Printing with an ICC (made to QTR's Create ICC-RGB) in a "color managed" (Lab L only), Epson driver workflow is very easy and convenient. I know serious pros with wide format printers who use my inksets with the Epson driver. Most of even the QTR users never really master making their own profiles. It's an uphill battle even to get users to correctly re-linearize existing profiles.
Paul
www.PaulRoark.com
-
But Harman FB AL was never discontinued. It was just rebadged as Harman by Hahnemuhle Gloss Baryta. At least that's how I understand it. It seems like the same paper to me. Beautiful image quality, but with a serious curl problem.
My impression too. Same weight, same spectral plots for the papers. Has OBA content so a cooler white. The emphasis on "special" whitening agents in this industry gets boring, whether it is baryta or alumina, like TiO2 they improve the white reflectance. There is no indication or standard how much of each is added and the label Baryta can be put on them if just a trace of BaSO4 is added in a mix of whitening agents.
The Hahnemühle Photo Silk Baryta is today's Felix Schoeller manufactured Ilford G. P. Gold Fibre Silk. Felix Schoeller calls it J23160 True Baryta. All 310 gsm
Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
January 2016 update, 700+ inkjet media white spectral plots
-
Atlex is now selling and promoting "Simply Elegant Gold Fiber" and they say to use the Ilford Gold Fibre profiles as the papers are exactly the same. Of course the prices are quite a bit lower on the Simply Elegant Gold Fiber. Is this just a rebranding of the same Flelix Schoeller paper??
-
Atlex is now selling and promoting "Simply Elegant Gold Fiber" and they say to use the Ilford Gold Fibre profiles as the papers are exactly the same. Of course the prices are quite a bit lower on the Simply Elegant Gold Fiber. Is this just a rebranding of the same Flelix Schoeller paper??
The itSupplies (sister site to Atlex) sure goes out of their way to imply that: "ICC PROFILES: Use your Ilford Gold Fibre profile, you won't see difference!"
-
The itSupplies (sister site to Atlex) sure goes out of their way to imply that: "ICC PROFILES: Use your Ilford Gold Fibre profile, you won't see difference!"
If I get the samples I can measure them. Spectral plots give a good indication whether the paper is unique or resembles other papers. That next to same weight, sharing one profile and identical texture.
Stamps are not that expensive if you can get the same paper for a lower price!
Ernst, op de lei getypt.
-
Ernst, what size sheets would you need?? How many sheets??
-
Ernst, what size sheets would you need?? How many sheets??
I have reduced it to 2x an A5 sheet. Approx. 15x21 cm, 6x8".
Please add the full and exact names + weight in pencil near the edge at the backside of each sheet.
Address in The Netherlands at the bottom of this page: http://www.pigment-print.com
Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
January 2016 update, 700+ inkjet media white spectral plots
-
The Hahnemühle Photo Silk Baryta is today's Felix Schoeller manufactured Ilford G. P. Gold Fibre Silk. Felix Schoeller calls it J23160 True Baryta. All 310 gsm
FWIW, I contacted Felix Schoeller re: J23160 True Baryta, about it's availability for purchase in the USA. Unfortunately Felix Schoeller isn't available for direct purchase by the consumer.