Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Printing: Printers, Papers and Inks => Topic started by: narikin on September 24, 2018, 06:07:55 pm
-
Saw some prints that knocked my socks off with their deep, deep velvety blacks, on MK paper.
Wha? how? Answer was simply: "I switched to Canon".
Amazing. I had heard something about this, but seeing is believing
Time to investigate more seriously...
-
Which printer model and what paper? I've reported on a lot of this and some of it is indeed impressive. But quite frankly, you can get the same from the new generation of Epson printers too. It depends mainly on the paper and the inkset.
-
Which printer model and what paper? I've reported on a lot of this and some of it is indeed impressive. But quite frankly, you can get the same from the new generation of Epson printers too. It depends mainly on the paper and the inkset.
I enjoy the same quality of black on my HP Z3100 for 11 years. So does my clients ;D
-
I enjoy the same quality of black on my HP Z3100 for 11 years. So does my clients ;D
There's no way of objectively knowing what quality of Black any one has in mind here, so what are you talking about when you say "the same quality......"? Not all "Blacks" are born equal! :-)
-
Which printer model and what paper? I've reported on a lot of this and some of it is indeed impressive. But quite frankly, you can get the same from the new generation of Epson printers too. It depends mainly on the paper and the inkset.
Yes I read your various reports Mark, and thought "Oh that's interesting, good blacks, higher DMax" but it was abstract, and meant little.
But when it was in my face, it was clear there has been a dramatic step !
The photographer wasn't displaying them for this reason, it was me who had to ask.
Don't know the specific printer, I imagined a Pixma-Pro, but that's a guess.
Paper was an MK by MOAB, that's all I know.
(oh, and for the record I've owned Epson printers plus a 44" Canon, for 14 years, from 17 to 64" and make my own profiles, etc, so am not a newbie to this)
-
(oh, and for the record I've owned Epson printers plus a 44" Canon, for 14 years, from 17 to 64" and make my own profiles, etc, so am not a newbie to this)
I had no doubt you're experienced; I just have difficulty with intangible discussions, just as you have trouble with "abstract" reports! :-) Maybe others did too, as you may have noticed your opening post was read 45 times before one person (me) responded to it, looking for detail to anchor your comment in something tangible I could relate to. I know it's hard to convey impressions about prints and printing papers over the internet, which is one of the main reasons why I use numbers, but that too takes some habituation and emotional impact doesn't always convey well by numbers. I get that.
-
Does someone have some dmax numbers for different matte papers to give some objective data in the depth of the blacks being discussed?
Aside from measured dmax, however, there does seem to be more to it. I've had very good photographers/printers comment on the great dmax on some of my prints that were actually MK on Arches Hot Press watercolor paper. While I use two MK positions to get to that paper's needed ink load, the dmax is still barely competitive according to the spectro readings. I suspect different textures or the like might contribute to the real world impression of the depth of the black.
Paul
www.PaulRoark.com
-
Abstract/intangible = something good in theory, but you can't/ haven't seen it in person. That's all.
The propose of the post was to say numbers are one thing, seeing it with your own eyes is another!
I recommend proper get to see the black output of theses Canons. It's very impressive!
-
Did see prints on Canon next to Epson on same fine art paper. I still prefer Epson for impressive blacks.
Impressive blacks on matte fine art is a result of proper calibration and profiling.
-
Does someone have some dmax numbers for different matte papers to give some objective data in the depth of the blacks being discussed?
Aside from measured dmax, however, there does seem to be more to it. I've had very good photographers/printers comment on the great dmax on some of my prints that were actually MK on Arches Hot Press watercolor paper. While I use two MK positions to get to that paper's needed ink load, the dmax is still barely competitive according to the spectro readings. I suspect different textures or the like might contribute to the real world impression of the depth of the black.
Paul
www.PaulRoark.com
Hi Paul, I've been providing minimum L* numbers for Blacks in every article on every matte paper I've reviewed over the past couple of years at least. I realize this is not a dMax statistic but it serves the purpose of identifying depth of possible Black shading appearance; when you see, for example, L* minimum of 13 for one paper and 20 for another, you can generally take it to mean that the former has perceptibly darker Black. I have also commented that comparative numbers and visual appearance can come apart depending on the paper surface and how the ink is absorbed into the paper, so I'm with you on that, but people who know how to interpret the numbers can still use them for guidance and approximate comparisons. There really isn't a perfect substitute for seeing the actual print on paper, which one can't do over the internet, hence reliance - but not over-reliance - on hard data to tell a good part of the story to the extent we can with this medium.
-
Did see prints on Canon next to Epson on same fine art paper. I still prefer Epson for impressive blacks.
Impressive blacks on matte fine art is a result of proper calibration and profiling.
Yes, but very importantly as well - savvy image editing, especially in managing the quartertone portion of the tone curve. All that said, there are basic characteristics of the papers that set limits on how relatively impressive the Blacks can be. Maximum Black from Epson Surecolor and Canon Pro printers using the same paper are generally very close both numerically and visually.
-
Hi Paul, I've been providing minimum L* numbers for Blacks in every article on every matte paper I've reviewed over the past couple of years at least. I realize this is not a dMax statistic but it serves the purpose of identifying depth of possible Black shading appearance; when you see, for example, L* minimum of 13 for one paper and 20 for another, you can generally take it to mean that the former has perceptibly darker Black.
1. You've got to measure. So you're doing this ideally. Viewing a print isn't the way to be doing this for others.
2. There's software that can measure spectral data and convert that to dMax (density). Didn't one of ProfileMaker Pro module do so?
Or:
http://www.babelcolor.com/cta_features.htm
Density: A full featured densitometer which comprises a basic Reflection Density tool and more advanced Dot Area, Apparent Trap, Print Contrast, Hue Error, Grayness, and Saturation measurement tools. The ideal tool to measure your prints Dmax! (Density specifications).
-
The Dmax i measure with i1pro2 and i1profiler on fine art matte Papers are in the range of 1.6 to 1.75 , mostly around 1.7
However visual perception is greatly influenced by the velvet like , microscopically small, structure of the matte black. This adds
a sort of deepness to the back that cannot be fathomed or sounded. Some papers are better in this than others. In the perception or experience of a print, the black elements can be more prominent than when printed on gloss fine art.
Does someone have some dmax numbers for different matte papers to give some objective data in the depth of the blacks being discussed?
Aside from measured dmax, however, there does seem to be more to it. I've had very good photographers/printers comment on the great dmax on some of my prints that were actually MK on Arches Hot Press watercolor paper. While I use two MK positions to get to that paper's needed ink load, the dmax is still barely competitive according to the spectro readings. I suspect different textures or the like might contribute to the real world impression of the depth of the black.
Paul
www.PaulRoark.com
-
However visual perception is greatly influenced by the velvet like , microscopically small, structure of the matte black.
Typically at the expense of scuff resistance. That is one characteristic I'm very curious about with HP's new Z9 printer, that advertises better scuff resistance. Large, solid areas of MK ink, as I am often called upon to print, are inherently more delicate than any other type of printed surface.
-
Typically at the expense of scuff resistance. That is one characteristic I'm very curious about with HP's new Z9 printer, that advertises better scuff resistance. Large, solid areas of MK ink, as I am often called upon to print, are inherently more delicate than any other type of printed surface.
Having used older Epsons (9600 and 9800), an HP Z3100 and the last four generations of Canon printers, I can say the PRO 4000 printer seems to easily beat all others for scuff resistance on matte papers, of which I print a LOT. Not as good as the older dye based Colorspan Giclée Printmaker with dye based inks and uncoated papers, but better than any other pigment printer I've worked with.