Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Printing: Printers, Papers and Inks => Topic started by: nilo on June 29, 2010, 09:06:47 pm
-
As some time did already go by since the announcement of "Harman by Hahnemuhle", I wondered if anyone did do some testing on the replacement of my favorite paper, the FB AL warmtone.
nino
-
As some time did already go by since the announcement of "Harman by Hahnemuhle", I wondered if anyone did do some testing on the replacement of my favorite paper, the FB AL warmtone.
nino
I've just a couple of samples, and I know that the big release is coming at PhotoKina (Köln/Cologne) in September.
/Sven
-
I've just a couple of samples, and I know that the big release is coming at PhotoKina (Köln/Cologne) in September.
/Sven
I also got a few small samples, not enough to run a real test. And meanwhile the paper is already discontinued here and there!
-
I'm waiting for samples so I'll post after I get them
-
I'm waiting for samples so I'll post after I get them
looking forward to hear from you. I am very interested in is Gloss Baryta Warmtone for color.
-
I was told by Hahnemühle that these are identical to the Harman papers. I do have some samples but never used the Harman papers before so i can't compare.
-
I was told by Hahnemühle that these are identical to the Harman papers. I do have some samples but never used the Harman papers before so i can't compare.
If you compare side-by-side, they're far from identical.
The new H/H Baryta Gloss Warmtone is not so "pinkish" as the former WT Harman, and the "normal" H/H Baryta is a bit warmer.
/S
-
I just took a look at ATLEX.COM to re-stock on the Harman Gloss FB AL paper and to my surprise it looks like this paper is being discontinued and replaced by the new Harman/Hahnemuhle Gloss Baryta paper. I also checked Shades of Paper and B&H and neither one is showing the "old" Harman FB AL paper any longer except in a few limited sizes (probably remaining stock).
Can this be correct? I remember the press announcements about the H/H "partnership" but I must have completely missed that the FB AL paper was being discontinued!! I'm really amazed, considering how successful the FB AL paper has been in the market. And I'm a bit unhappy since I was just getting to really like the FB AL paper and was planning on doing quite a bit of printing with it.
Can anyone provide any more background on this move by Harman? Is the H/H paper really different?
Dave
-
Datro,
We've checked, and, no, the Harman Al Gloss Baryta is not discontinued. And the new Harman by Hahnemuhle is the same exact paper, still made by Harman, but marketed by Hahnemuhle. There is one "catch." The 17"x25" is replaced by the 17"x22" size (Hahnemuhle's decision).
The latter is a big disappointment, and deserves some letters of encouragement to reinstate the 17"x25" for those folks who still use the 35mm format or similar ratios.
Aloha,
Aaron Dygart, Honolulu
-
I just took a look at ATLEX.COM to re-stock on the Harman Gloss FB AL paper and to my surprise it looks like this paper is being discontinued and replaced by the new Harman/Hahnemuhle Gloss Baryta paper. I also checked Shades of Paper and B&H and neither one is showing the "old" Harman FB AL paper any longer except in a few limited sizes (probably remaining stock).
Can this be correct? I remember the press announcements about the H/H "partnership" but I must have completely missed that the FB AL paper was being discontinued!! I'm really amazed, considering how successful the FB AL paper has been in the market. And I'm a bit unhappy since I was just getting to really like the FB AL paper and was planning on doing quite a bit of printing with it.
Can anyone provide any more background on this move by Harman? Is the H/H paper really different?
Dave
Hi, I've been unable to get the old Harman Gloss FB AL in the uk and Harman are selling their remaining papers off at reduced prices. So it looks like its all being replaced by the Harman/Hanhemule logo
and I'm very doubtful that the papers will be indentical. So its back to testing and new ICC profiles.
Good luck
Cheers
Anthony
-
We just received the new Harman by Hahnemuhle sample packs. They contain 2 sheets each of the seven substrates in the product line. We also have stock on all sizes of sheets and rolls escept the 44" rolls, which sold out before we got our first shipment.
-
Hi, I've been unable to get the old Harman Gloss FB AL in the uk and Harman are selling their remaining papers off at reduced prices. So it looks like its all being replaced by the Harman/Hanhemule logo
and I'm very doubtful that the papers will be indentical. So its back to testing and new ICC profiles.
Good luck
Cheers
Anthony
Anthony and all:
I've received the new Harman by Hahnemuhle paper in 8-1/2" x 11" and 17" x 22" and tested it for ink reception the same way that I tested the previouis versions of the paper. They've obviously tinkered with the paper since its introduction. I've compared all three versions (yes, three). Here's what I found with my Epson 3800 and K3 pigment inks.
The first Harman Al Baryta that I measured had a very nice smooth set of curves, with a maximum black density of 2.46. It also used very little brightener, producing a Lab "b" number of -.09, and the uninked paper surface density was .02.
Then, when they put out the Warm Tone paper, with a better black, they also improved the regular Al Baryta to get a Dmax of 2.52, virtually matching the curves of the warmtone version.
More brighteners were used in the revised Harman Al Baryta, producing a Lab "b" number of -1.42, and the uninked paper surface density was .03
Now, with the black ink curve starting out the same as the latest version of the previous Harman Al, the Harman by Hahnemuhle skates up to a killer Dmax of 2.62 (unless it's going to drop as it drys more). Lab "b" number is -1.35, (a little less brightener) and the uninked paper surface density is still .03. At first glance, the black ink curve is a little bumpier near the top, but I'll give it a week before I do my final curves.
From an appearance standpoint, the new paper looks very much the same and prints made with the profile from the latest version of the Harman branded paper look virtually identical (it's hard to see the difference in blacks once you get up past 2.5 or thereabouts). You could easily get away without retesting and not see the difference, though there is a slight one in the measurements. If your profile is made based on the original version, or if you don't know, then I'd advise that you reprofile the Hahnemuhle marketed version. Hahnemuhle says there are profiles avaliable on their website, but I can't vouch for their quality.
There's one big improvement - the packaging. The boxes are typical strong Hahnemuhle construction. They are much better than the Harman boxes, and are far more likely to arrive without dings or dents in the paper.
Despite the usual cautions about scratching, and a new warning about contact with solvents like tape and other materials containing solvents or plasticizers (this should be a warning for all inkjet papers), the paper surface and appearance are identical. The new paper still has a tendency to warp with changes in humidity, and when the ink wets the surface.
The paper should be stored upside down, and it needs to be flattened before putting it in the machine, or you will likely get head strikes. I haven't run the large sheets, yet, but I anticipate having to use my water spray on the backs of the 17" sheets and letting them dry almost, but not quite, flat before putting them in my GPH (Great Printer from Hell). My friend who has a 3880 does not have scratching problems, but others in dryer climates do have problems with that printer. I tried to help a guy in New Mexico with my procedure on this forum, but he wound up solving the problem by going to matte papers.
The lack of the 17"x25" size is a big disappointment. If you agree, please drop Hahnemuhle an email.
Aloha,
Aaron
-
Thanks for the review. I am so disappointed about the paper size, though. I will send Hahnemuhle and email now.
Sharon
Thanks, Sharon. There are some people at Harmon trying to convince Hahnemuhle to reinstate that size. The more people they hear from, the more likely the chances of getting the 17"x25" back into production.
Meanwhile, some more information. As their press release and announcements refer to Harman's coating expertise and Hahnemuhle's expertise with the paper backing, I thought I'd test the backs of the three version of the Gloss Al:
1) original version L = 97.10, a = 1.29, b = 0.52
2) improved version by Harman L = 97.02, a = 1.27, b = -0.34
3) new Harman by Hahnemuhle version L = 97.17, a = 1.31, b = 0.15
These numbers are average readings. In short, it looks like the second version had some brighteners added to the paper base to compensate for a slightly darker paper, but the new paper is a little lighter than the other two, with fewer brighteners (if any) than the second version.
These numbers are very close, but the back of the new Harman by Hahnemuhle appears whiter to the eye without indicating a lot of brightener, so I'd say it's an improvement.
Aloha,
Aaron
-
Anthony and all:
I've received the new Harman by Hahnemuhle paper in 8-1/2" x 11" and 17" x 22" and tested it for ink reception the same way that I tested the previouis versions of the paper. They've obviously tinkered with the paper since its introduction. I've compared all three versions (yes, three). Here's what I found with my Epson 3800 and K3 pigment inks.
The first Harman Al Baryta that I measured had a very nice smooth set of curves, with a maximum black density of 2.46. It also used very little brightener, producing a Lab "b" number of -.09, and the uninked paper surface density was .02.
Then, when they put out the Warm Tone paper, with a better black, they also improved the regular Al Baryta to get a Dmax of 2.52, virtually matching the curves of the warmtone version.
More brighteners were used in the revised Harman Al Baryta, producing a Lab "b" number of -1.42, and the uninked paper surface density was .03
Now, with the black ink curve starting out the same as the latest version of the previous Harman Al, the Harman by Hahnemuhle skates up to a killer Dmax of 2.62 (unless it's going to drop as it drys more). Lab "b" number is -1.35, (a little less brightener) and the uninked paper surface density is still .03. At first glance, the black ink curve is a little bumpier near the top, but I'll give it a week before I do my final curves.
From an appearance standpoint, the new paper looks very much the same and prints made with the profile from the latest version of the Harman branded paper look virtually identical (it's hard to see the difference in blacks once you get up past 2.5 or thereabouts). You could easily get away without retesting and not see the difference, though there is a slight one in the measurements. If your profile is made based on the original version, or if you don't know, then I'd advise that you reprofile the Hahnemuhle marketed version. Hahnemuhle says there are profiles avaliable on their website, but I can't vouch for their quality.
There's one big improvement - the packaging. The boxes are typical strong Hahnemuhle construction. They are much better than the Harman boxes, and are far more likely to arrive without dings or dents in the paper.
Despite the usual cautions about scratching, and a new warning about contact with solvents like tape and other materials containing solvents or plasticizers (this should be a warning for all inkjet papers), the paper surface and appearance are identical. The new paper still has a tendency to warp with changes in humidity, and when the ink wets the surface.
The paper should be stored upside down, and it needs to be flattened before putting it in the machine, or you will likely get head strikes. I haven't run the large sheets, yet, but I anticipate having to use my water spray on the backs of the 17" sheets and letting them dry almost, but not quite, flat before putting them in my GPH (Great Printer from Hell). My friend who has a 3880 does not have scratching problems, but others in dryer climates do have problems with that printer. I tried to help a guy in New Mexico with my procedure on this forum, but he wound up solving the problem by going to matte papers.
The lack of the 17"x25" size is a big disappointment. If you agree, please drop Hahnemuhle an email.
Aloha,
Aaron
Aaron, thank you very much for the test info.
Cheers
Anthony
-
I just got a pack of the H by H gloss baryta warmtone yesterday, and did some preliminary testing. Ever since it was introduced, I have used the Harman Gloss FB Al as my paper of choice for finished prints, and I have printed several hundred photographs on it, so I am quite used to the look and feel of the old paper.
Printing B/W last night to my Epson using the K3 inkset in the ABW mode via Lightroom and Eric Chan's ABW profiles, the prints are as near as dammit identical on the old and new papers. I have no sophisticated measuring equipment other than my eyes, but the weight, feel, tonal range and hue of the two papers exhibits so little difference that if I hadn't pencilled their IDs on the reverse it would be easy to confuse them under both tungsten light and my 6500 kelvin bulb.
I might be imagining it, but the one thing I did notice was that it seems to me that the new paper shows a little bit more gloss differential in the highlight areas.
It would be interesting to know how others get on printing in colour using the new Harman profiles.
John
-
Curious that some think the Harman by Hahnemuhle is the same as the original Harmam FB Al. It absolutely is not! I used up the last of my Harman FB Al and received a new 30 sheet package from the Hahnemuhle facility in Illinois, USA, yesterday. The gloss differential is greater on this new paper. The surface has slightly more texture. The white is slightly warmer in tone.
But, the most glaring problem is that this box of sheets had absolutely the worst curl of any cut sheets that I have ever used from any manufacturer. I tried decurling a couple of sheets before printing on my Epson 3800. No luck, though, as I had a number of head strikes at the beginning, causing the paper to slew slightly and double print for the first inch or so. Regardless, I did a couple of prints, enough to see the differences others have also observed. I have left the rest of the box on a decurling tube I used in the past when cutting roll paper into sheets, but even then it looks rather resistant to decurling.
Come on Hahnemuhle. Quality control needs to be better, and this should not be passed off as the original Harman FB Al. It clearly is not. Very disappointing, as I thought the original Harman FB Al was a very superior paper.
Mike Bailey
-
But, the most glaring problem is that this box of sheets had absolutely the worst curl of any cut sheets that I have ever used from any manufacturer.
Mike Bailey
Mike
That's very odd. My pack of A4 was dead flat, better than the original Gloss FB.
John
-
I am hoping the curl problem was an anomaly. Your experience with flat sheets might indicate this. I sent the batch number and reference number on the box to Hahnemuhle to see if they have a response to the problem, but since this was yesterday, it's a little soon for me to expect a response yet.
Mike
-
To elaborate a little on this problem of paper curl -
The original Harman FB Gloss was certainly very prone to this. The new Harman by Hahnemule may be less so, or the same, I don't know. But I have mitigated the problem by adopting the following strategy -
* Always store the boxes flat. I know it is terribly tempting to store them vertically, like books, because it saves space, but just don't do it.
* The plastic bag inside the box I am sure does help to protect the paper from environmental contaminents, but it also makes the paper curl up because the bag gets folded and scrunched up in the corner of the boxes. So the first thing I do is strip the outer shrink-wrap off, open the box and remove the paper from the inner bag.
* Then replace the paper carefully in the box, without the bag, but the opposite way up, glossy side down. The way it is despatched (glossy side up) contributes to curl.
* When you are about to make a print, remove the box lid, tilt one end of the paper stack out of the box (carefully!) and remove the bottom sheet of paper for the print. This is the flattest sheet, obviously, because of the weight of paper above it.
* I forgot the most important part of the cunning plan. We always have two boxes of paper on the go, not just one. As you remove sheets from the printing box, you add new sheets to the top from box 2. That way you always have a good weight of paper on the lowest sheet, which is nice and flat when you come to use it. When box 2 runs out, you buy another, and carry on.
I know many of you will already have all of this figured out, but I think at least some of the folks reading these threads may be just starting on their journey . . . .
John
-
I have also heard the papers are the same exact paper as before. Eleanor
Hi, I've been unable to get the old Harman Gloss FB AL in the uk and Harman are selling their remaining papers off at reduced prices. So it looks like its all being replaced by the Harman/Hanhemule logo
and I'm very doubtful that the papers will be indentical. So its back to testing and new ICC profiles.
Good luck
Cheers
Anthony
-
Well, I've just got home and I have now checked my sample B/W prints from last night in good daylight (which is always forensically revealing). And so far as my eyes can see, there is absolutely zero difference between the old and the new warmtone paper. Perhaps, as I mentioned, just slightly more gloss differential, but even then you have to look hard to see it. The actual image on the paper looks just the same.
So now I am really puzzled. Why are others seeing (and measuring) quite marked differences between old and new? I was so worried about this change that I brought up large stocks of the original paper to see me through in case the new stuff was no good (I got it at a great price, though).
John
-
Thanks for the tips John!
- Marco.
To elaborate a little on this problem of paper curl -
The original Harman FB Gloss was certainly very prone to this. The new Harman by Hahnemule may be less so, or the same, I don't know. But I have mitigated the problem by adopting the following strategy -
* Always store the boxes flat. I know it is terribly tempting to store them vertically, like books, because it saves space, but just don't do it.
* The plastic bag inside the box I am sure does help to protect the paper from environmental contaminents, but it also makes the paper curl up because the bag gets folded and scrunched up in the corner of the boxes. So the first thing I do is strip the outer shrink-wrap off, open the box and remove the paper from the inner bag.
* Then replace the paper carefully in the box, without the bag, but the opposite way up, glossy side down. The way it is despatched (glossy side up) contributes to curl.
* When you are about to make a print, remove the box lid, tilt one end of the paper stack out of the box (carefully!) and remove the bottom sheet of paper for the print. This is the flattest sheet, obviously, because of the weight of paper above it.
* I forgot the most important part of the cunning plan. We always have two boxes of paper on the go, not just one. As you remove sheets from the printing box, you add new sheets to the top from box 2. That way you always have a good weight of paper on the lowest sheet, which is nice and flat when you come to use it. When box 2 runs out, you buy another, and carry on.
I know many of you will already have all of this figured out, but I think at least some of the folks reading these threads may be just starting on their journey . . . .
John
-
Thanks for the tips John!
- Marco.
Marco, you are welcome. If anyone finds it helpful, that makes my day.
John
-
For those wishing to see a comparison of the three versions of the Harman Gloss Al Baryta (I only have the latest original Harman Warm Tone Glossy Al at this time), as well as other paper comparisons, please see the link below to view my Inkjet Paper Ink Reception Test by the Comparative Method.
This test was devised by me to provide an accurate way of comparing and measuring the way papers respond to ink. In my opinion, that’s by far the most important factor in paper selection, and the test has been an extremely reliable indicator of paper quality.
1) The test is not influenced by, and does not use, profiles, linearization, curves, rendering intents, or actual test images. (that can be done later)
2) The only selections are
a. Paper type
b. Matte or glossy black ink
c. Dots per inch
Those parameters assure that the papers may be directly compared, numerically and visually, for their responses to ink under the same exact conditions. The test image produces ramps of each ink cartridge at 5% intervals from 5% to 100%, using Roy Harrington’s QTR calibration page. All that the page does is push ink in those increments. I use the black, light-black, and light-light black ramps only for this test. The color ramps are not used for this numerical evaluation.
All the charts are to the same size and scale for direct comparison.
In the charts, the top of the highest curve is the maximum black. The bottom of the lowest curve is the lowest 5% grey, but not minimum ink. If the curves are smooth with no reversals and no leveling out before the final increase or decrease, and relatively evenly spaced, then linearizing or profiling will be able to effectively produce a smooth range of tones. If not, it is sometimes possible with some ink limiting to produce a satisfactory profile if some other aspect of the paper is worth the effort. The best curves in this test set reveal themselves very quickly.
Other observations are included, such as bronzing observations, paper color and indications of the presence of brighteners, surface reflectance (gloss differential). An important number is the difference between paper white and maximum useful black density (Dmax). That number has a box around it, as it is an important indication of perceived potential contrast.
A few odd tests were made to prove or disprove some suggested deviations from the normal way of printing on certain papers. Other tests were made to compare response at 1440 vs. 2880 dpi settings where it seemed that results might improve. This was done for the Harman by Hahnemuhle Gloss Al, and seems to indicate a better response at the lower setting.
For more information, go to http://www.dygartphotography.com/papertestmethod.html (http://www.dygartphotography.com/papertestmethod.html) and read about the paper test method. Then, you should be able to easily read and interpret the spreadsheets found in the next page listed in the upper menu as “Paper Test Charts.”
Aloha,
Aaron
-
Aaron
That is really good stuff. Thank you very much.
Your photography is drop-dead stunning, too.
John
-
For more information, go to http://www.dygartphotography.com/papertestmethod.html (http://www.dygartphotography.com/papertestmethod.html) and read about the paper test method. Then, you should be able to easily read and interpret the spreadsheets found in the next page listed in the upper menu as “Paper Test Charts.”
Aloha,
Aaron
Aaron,
If you could convince Roy to implant the greyscale wedges I made you would also get better information on bleeding and detail loss at that stage. An aspect I do not see much reference to in your method.
http://www.pigment-print.com/Quad%20QTR/Index.html (http://www.pigment-print.com/Quad%20QTR/Index.html)
Since I have the HP Z printers I measure the calibration targets (again) separately after the printers integrated spectrometer calibrated the printer. That second measurement is done to check whether the target was printed with the Dmax on the 100% patch, it often isn't on the Z3200 but often correct with the Z3100. That tells me whether I can alter media preset for that paper or start from another media preset. If that is done I run a test through the HP B&W mode with my greyscale wedges to check the bleed and detail loss and to verify the linearity of the Z calibration. The greyscale wedge is 360 PPI for the Epsons, I changed that to 300 PPI and 600 PPI for the Z models.
met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst Dinkla
spectral plots of +100 inkjet papers:
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm (http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm)
-
John,
Thanks for the kind words.
Ernst,
Yes, I saw your spectral analysis as visualized by your son, too. Great stuff! That's why I didn't feel a need to delve into that, as you guys have done such a great job with that.
After doing my inking test and have narrowed my selection, that's when profiling and test prints come into play. I like Northlight Images' black and white test image for comparison of the kinds of things you mention. I think Roy's intent for the ramps is strictly to enable calibration and linearization for his excellent Quad Tone RIP, so I don't think he had the evaluation aspect of it in mind when he built it. It just turns out to be an excellent tool for this evaluation. One improvement might be to leave gaps between the steps, as you have done, so it's harder to miss with the spectrometer. I mark my printouts with little lines above the edges of the patches, but even then, it's possible to overlap an edge here and there in the darker patches, so I re-read every now and then.
Thanks for your excellent comments and suggestions, as always.
Aloha,
Aaron
-
After doing my inking test and have narrowed my selection, that's when profiling and test prints come into play. I like Northlight Images' black and white test image for comparison of the kinds of things you mention. I think Roy's intent for the ramps is strictly to enable calibration and linearization for his excellent Quad Tone RIP, so I don't think he had the evaluation aspect of it in mind when he built it. It just turns out to be an excellent tool for this evaluation. One improvement might be to leave gaps between the steps, as you have done, so it's harder to miss with the spectrometer. I mark my printouts with little lines above the edges of the patches, but even then, it's possible to overlap an edge here and there in the darker patches, so I re-read every now and then.
Aaron
Aaron,
I understand that the main purpose of the QTR channel greyscales is to find the points where partitioning has to be done and to put the D-max on the 100% Black patch. But it happens sometimes that there is bleeding at the 100% Black patch while more ink would increase Dmax, A Dmax you can't use because you have to set the inklimit lower to stop the bleeding. For the other channels if used on a color ink loaded printer you would check the maximum chroma and bleeding again. If you can find a balance at that stage it is much more likely that your image quality/resolution test later on will be satisfying and there will be no need to return to the ink limit phase or another media preset choice. This is very similar to pro RIP calibration, CMYK-device profiling. I think it could be useful to have the bleeding and detail checks there, at least on the black channel but preferably on all. They do not interfere with the patch measurements either.
For QTR quad etc use there's another stage where ink loads may prove to be near the paper coating's absorption capacity. After the partitioning on the transfer points of the 3-4-5-6 grey inks. That's where I used my greyscale wedges for. As a replacement for the linearisation target, check the one you linearise on, print the target again for the QTR profiling and the last is the final one to check bleeding and detail loss. If one goes the custom partitioning, custom profiling route of QTR then no extra targets have to be printed to check resolution etc. The targets have to be printed anyway so give them more functionality.
met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst Dinkla
Try: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/ (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/)
-
Thanks for the analysis Aaron, looks like I will be ordering some when my current supply runs low.
I also contacted them about the smaller 17" option. For those lamenting the demise of the 17"x25" sheets, Hahnemuhle will be releasing their version of the Gloss FB AI in that size. It will be the Gloss Baryta 320gsm, this as per one of their reps., no release date as of yet though.
Dave
-
Thanks for the analysis Aaron, looks like I will be ordering some when my current supply runs low.
I also contacted them about the smaller 17" option. For those lamenting the demise of the 17"x25" sheets, Hahnemuhle will be releasing their version of the Gloss FB AI in that size. It will be the Gloss Baryta 320gsm, this as per one of their reps., no release date as of yet though.
Dave
That's really good news, David. Thanks for contacting them. Let us know if and when you hear more. Meanwhile, I hope people will keep writing to Hahnemuhle and encouraging them to go ahead with the larger size.
And, of course, as soon as I've posted the tests of the new paper, they've already come out with another line that they call their Harman Gloss Art Fibre Baryta by Hahnemuhle, 300 gsm. It's thinner, and they are touting (as if we are that gullible) "made with pure pulp." Like the 320 gsm Harman Gloss Baryta by Hahnemuhle, they have a warm-tone version as well.
Aloha,
Aaron
-
But, the most glaring problem is that this box of sheets had absolutely the worst curl of any cut sheets that I have ever used from any manufacturer. I tried decurling a couple of sheets before printing on my Epson 3800. No luck, though, as I had a number of head strikes at the beginning, causing the paper to slew slightly and double print for the first inch or so. Regardless, I did a couple of prints, enough to see the differences others have also observed. I have left the rest of the box on a decurling tube I used in the past when cutting roll paper into sheets, but even then it looks rather resistant to decurling.
Mike Bailey
Following up on my experience with my last order of Harman (by Hahnemuhle) Gloss Baryta:
Discussing this problem with customer service at the Hahnemuhle facility in Illinois, USA, I was told that the papers are currently being manufactured by Harman, sent to Hahnemuhle and packaged. Possibly this is where part of the problem may be. When I received shipment of my order of 30 sheets of Harman Gloss Baryta, the package had been on a UPS truck during most of a warm day, temperature around 85, so probably warmer in the truck. The package that the paper was in was much larger than needed for the paper, so there was plenty of room for the paper to settle in any direction if the package was tipped. So this may have contributed to the problem.
I did let the box sit for a couple of hours to adjust to an indoor air-conditioned environment, but that hadn't been enough.
The customer service person I talked with was very helpful, and she said she'd forward this information to their HQ in Germany.
Mike
http://www.bluerockphotography.com (http://www.bluerockphotography.com)
-
I just compared the profiles provided by the manufacturer for both papers. The gamut of the ORIGINAL seams quite bigger than that of the new one (when I compare them in the 3D LUT viewer of NEC's Multiprofiler).
-
Am I missing something or is there no longer a matte baryta paper?
-
I hope the change is for the better. As one poster noted the old Harman had many problems, unfortunate because it printed beautifully. I, too, went back to all my Harman prints which were framed (and for sale in galleries!!) and I've had to reprint and replace all of them due to buckling and waves - and this was with the best products and procedures for dry mounting. Today I'm living with a little less d-max and I would never give Harman a second look, it was just too expensive in the long run.
-
I hope the change is for the better. As one poster noted the old Harman had many problems, unfortunate because it printed beautifully. I, too, went back to all my Harman prints which were framed (and for sale in galleries!!) and I've had to reprint and replace all of them due to buckling and waves - and this was with the best products and procedures for dry mounting. Today I'm living with a little less d-max and I would never give Harman a second look, it was just too expensive in the long run.
I'm curious about what your procedures for drymounting were.
Aloha,
Aaron
-
I hope the change is for the better. As one poster noted the old Harman had many problems, unfortunate because it printed beautifully. I, too, went back to all my Harman prints which were framed (and for sale in galleries!!) and I've had to reprint and replace all of them due to buckling and waves - and this was with the best products and procedures for dry mounting. Today I'm living with a little less d-max and I would never give Harman a second look, it was just too expensive in the long run.
What have you replaced the Harman with that has a similar finish?
Thanks.
Paul
-
What have you replaced the Harman with that has a similar finish?
Thanks.
Paul
To my eyes, there is nothing really comparable in terms of surface. I am about to use Canson Platin Fibre Rag more and more. The surface is bit more semi-glossish but very even and fine. Unlike Harman Gloss FB Al Wt, it contains NO brighteners and still is a lot whiter : L*a*b* 97.40 / 0.29 / 0.41 (see here http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=45494.msg382088#msg382088 and here http://wyofoto.com/Canson_Platine_review_2.html). It's 100% cotton rag, acid-free and buffered... ;)
cheers
nino
EDIT: I forgot to mention that the paper seams to have a high dMax and wide gamut. I think you understood that I like it.
EDIT (II): after running some more tests I must contradict my initial euphoria. Everything seamed promising, but I can't get real good dMax, nor Gamut till now. Anyone?
Also, after having the paper on my walls and in my drawers, printed with some test images, I would not call the surface smooth. It's more something like Exhibition Fiber.
-
... L*a*b* 97.40 / 0.29 / 0.41 (see ... here http://wyofoto.com/Canson_Platine_review_2.html).
Hm, a strange approach is in http://wyofoto.com/Canson_Platine_review_2.html
I don't usderstand why "Illumanant A" was used for CIE values calculation...
For Illuminant D50 I've got L*=96.9, a*=0, b*=0.1 (averaged from 10 measurements)
-
Hm, a strange approach is in http://wyofoto.com/Canson_Platine_review_2.html
I don't usderstand why "Illumanant A" was used for CIE values calculation...
For Illuminant D50 I've got L*=96.9, a*=0, b*=0.1 (averaged from 10 measurements)
I didn't notice that, but I think Miles Hecker must have a good reason for doing so. I find his website very informative, as well as his articles here in LL. My guess is that he directly compares for his standard illuminant, which is of type A, meaning all the incandescent light of his clients and his own house.
-
Yes, I have a very good reason.
I sell prints to professionals that display them in galleries with
quartz halogen incandescent lamps. These have a CRI af 100 and temperature of about 2800-3000K.
The old type A illumenant is way closer to this lamp than the
D50 illumenant which simulates daylight at noon at mid-latitudes in the northern hemisphere.
I've always thought it's very silly to use a 5000K light source to preview a print when
it will probably never be viewed under those lighting conditions. Of the several dozen people I know
who collect and view fine art photographs, only one is using Solex 5000K bulbs to view the prints.
-
What have you replaced the Harman with that has a similar finish?
Thanks.
Paul
Paul, I'm now using Hahnemuhle Photo Rag Baryta. No, it is not the same, but it's very, very good. And I no longer worry about mounting causing problems.
John
-
Thanks, John.
Is the surface a similar semi-gloss? And my two main gripes with the Harman are curl (with rolls) and easy scratching. How have you found those issues?
Thanks.
Paul
-
Yes, I have a very good reason.
I sell prints to professionals that display them in galleries with
quartz halogen incandescent lamps. These have a CRI af 100 and temperature of about 2800-3000K.
The old type A illumenant is way closer to this lamp than the
D50 illumenant which simulates daylight at noon at mid-latitudes in the northern hemisphere.
I've always thought it's very silly to use a 5000K light source to preview a print when
it will probably never be viewed under those lighting conditions. Of the several dozen people I know
who collect and view fine art photographs, only one is using Solex 5000K bulbs to view the prints.
Thanks for your explanation.
But... Do you prefer to profile your printer for type A illuminant also? If so how do you (or your clients) calibrate your display(s)? Setting 2800-3000 K for display's white point color temperature?
-
Is the surface a similar semi-gloss?
Harman Gloss FB AL does not have a semi-gloss surface!? I find it more glossy, as in the name, with a texture-less surface. Scratching is a problem that I have with most Baryta papers. Coating helps a lot with that.
-
COMPANY STATEMENT
HARMAN by Hahnemühle Gloss Baryta and Gloss Baryta Warmtone
HARMAN technology Limited uses a traditional photographic baryta fibre base in the manufacture of HARMAN by Hahnemühle inkjet papers, GLOSS BARYTA and GLOSS BARYTA WARMTONE.
This is the same baryta base used in our traditional black and white exhibition quality photographic papers. GLOSS BARYTA and GLOSS BARYTA WARMTONE were designed using this key element in order to give users a unique product with the look and feel of a true photographic baryta paper
There has been no change to the Baryta base, or the coating formulation used in the manufacture of Gloss Baryta 320gsm and Gloss Baryta Warmtone 320gsm for the HARMAN by Hahnemühle product range.
The products manufactured for this range are the same as those used in the previous manufacture of HARMAN PHOTO PROFESSIONAL GLOSS FB Al 320gsm and HARMAN PHOTO PROFESSIONAL GLOSS FB Al WARMTONE 320gsm.
At HARMAN technology we regularly review our test processes and keep a comprehensive archive of test results. These results confirm that the products are the same today, as when they were originally launched in 2007.
There is and never has been any intention to change the design of these products.
Any change to the design or formulation of our products will be communicated to the market and consumer via our usual established routes.
Consumers using the new print profiles downloaded from the Hahnemühle website, may notice a change in product performance. For enquiries of this nature, please contact Hahnemühle Technical Service directly for support.
-
COMPANY STATEMENT
HARMAN by Hahnemühle Gloss Baryta and Gloss Baryta Warmtone
HARMAN technology Limited uses a traditional photographic baryta fibre base in the manufacture of HARMAN by Hahnemühle inkjet papers, GLOSS BARYTA and GLOSS BARYTA WARMTONE.
This is the same baryta base used in our traditional black and white exhibition quality photographic papers. GLOSS BARYTA and GLOSS BARYTA WARMTONE were designed using this key element in order to give users a unique product with the look and feel of a true photographic baryta paper
There has been no change to the Baryta base, or the coating formulation used in the manufacture of Gloss Baryta 320gsm and Gloss Baryta Warmtone 320gsm for the HARMAN by Hahnemühle product range.
The products manufactured for this range are the same as those used in the previous manufacture of HARMAN PHOTO PROFESSIONAL GLOSS FB Al 320gsm and HARMAN PHOTO PROFESSIONAL GLOSS FB Al WARMTONE 320gsm.
At HARMAN technology we regularly review our test processes and keep a comprehensive archive of test results. These results confirm that the products are the same today, as when they were originally launched in 2007.
There is and never has been any intention to change the design of these products.
Any change to the design or formulation of our products will be communicated to the market and consumer via our usual established routes.
Consumers using the new print profiles downloaded from the Hahnemühle website, may notice a change in product performance. For enquiries of this nature, please contact Hahnemühle Technical Service directly for support.
Thanks for the info.
BTW. Would love to get the 17 by 25 inch format back, A2 is a little to short.
-
So everything is the same. Is it correct to say that custom profiles made for the old FbAl should work fine with the Hahnemuhle papers?
Thanks.
Paul
COMPANY STATEMENT
HARMAN by Hahnemühle Gloss Baryta and Gloss Baryta Warmtone
HARMAN technology Limited uses a traditional photographic baryta fibre base in the manufacture of HARMAN by Hahnemühle inkjet papers, GLOSS BARYTA and GLOSS BARYTA WARMTONE.
This is the same baryta base used in our traditional black and white exhibition quality photographic papers. GLOSS BARYTA and GLOSS BARYTA WARMTONE were designed using this key element in order to give users a unique product with the look and feel of a true photographic baryta paper
There has been no change to the Baryta base, or the coating formulation used in the manufacture of Gloss Baryta 320gsm and Gloss Baryta Warmtone 320gsm for the HARMAN by Hahnemühle product range.
The products manufactured for this range are the same as those used in the previous manufacture of HARMAN PHOTO PROFESSIONAL GLOSS FB Al 320gsm and HARMAN PHOTO PROFESSIONAL GLOSS FB Al WARMTONE 320gsm.
At HARMAN technology we regularly review our test processes and keep a comprehensive archive of test results. These results confirm that the products are the same today, as when they were originally launched in 2007.
There is and never has been any intention to change the design of these products.
Any change to the design or formulation of our products will be communicated to the market and consumer via our usual established routes.
Consumers using the new print profiles downloaded from the Hahnemühle website, may notice a change in product performance. For enquiries of this nature, please contact Hahnemühle Technical Service directly for support.
-
Thanks for the info.
BTW. Would love to get the 17 by 25 inch format back, A2 is a little to short.
+1
-
Yes you can use the 'Old' Harman profiles for the Gloss and WT FB papers. I did a quick comparison and you should get a slightly better gamut using the Harman profiles, although the difference is very small.
Jid
-
Am I missing something or is there no longer a matte baryta paper?
Yes it is .. I believe it can be obtained directly from the Harmanexpress website.
-
So everything is the same. Is it correct to say that custom profiles made for the old FbAl should work fine with the Hahnemuhle papers?
Paul, I'm using, and prefer, the original profile. Check this post for more details:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=46110.msg387248#msg387248