Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Printing: Printers, Papers and Inks => Topic started by: rmyers on July 26, 2011, 11:44:21 pm
-
Maybe it's just late, but I can't seem to find the media settings for this paper on the Harman by H website. I found a thread here on LL where someone mentioned using the Luster setting with the ABW driver. The old Harman FB AL shows Premium Glossy. Can anyone shed some light on this combo?
-
For the 3880, you should get excellent results with the PGPP setting, 2880, and "dark" with the ABW driver.
Visit my web site's (www.dygartphotography.com) technical section for some informative paper tests. They are presented with matte papers first, and then the papers that use the "photo" black. Be sure to read about the methodology before going on to the charts.
The PGPP setting has has worked very well for me with this paper. You'll see that the new Harman by Hahnemuhle paper gets an excellent black, and there should be little need to try to push it further with the luster setting. I haven't tried it with that paper, but I did try it with Epson Exhibition Fiber, and found that it didn't work all that well.
Aloha,
Aaron Dygart, Honolulu
-
Thanks Aaron. It was late. I was getting confused by the Hahnemule / Harman / Harman by Hahnemuhle papers and was accidentally looking at Hahnemuhle Fine Art Baryta for which they called out Luster. Quit for the night and got it straight in my head the next day.
I printed using the glossy setting and the ABW without profile and was pleased with the results. Thanks for the tip.
Thought I saw on here where someone mentioned using the Luster setting on this paper with the ABW driver, but I may have been mistaken. You say that will push the blacks?
-
Luster papers have little pockets between the raised portions of the surface, so they can take more ink, and often deliver the deepest blacks, and highest color saturation. But when a smoother surface takes ink, it can't build up as deeply, and sometimes more ink simply creates a more reflective surface that causes an apparent (and measurable) reversal. In other words, more ink can result in lower measured Dmax. This happened with the Exhibition Fiber when I tried it after someone on the forum suggested that the Luster setting made for deeper blacks. The curve with PGPP setting was nice and smooth. The curve with the Luster setting was bumpy, dipping near the end, and did not go significantly higher. What that showed me was that it would be harder to get a smooth transition in the lower tones, and gains were insignificant.
However, it certainly can't hurt to try it if you want to do so with the 3880. It might work out for you, but I would guess that it won't make any useful difference.
Aloha,
Aaron
-
..Is this what you are looking for?:
http://harman.hahnemuehle.com/media/HAR_Eps3880_HandlingInstruction.pdf.
It took me a few days to find it for my R3000
Absolutely beautiful paper,very close to the Canson Platine,my favorite,up until now.
Mike
-
Yes it is, and I never did find that. Thanks.
I found the old Harman Gloss FB AL profile and settings which call for Gloss. I found the profile for the Harman by Hahnemuhle Gloss Baryta but could never find the recommended media setting for that profile and assumed it was gloss as well. Apparently the media settings are different. Will try them out later. Have not printed color on it yet. I have only printed one b and w on it. Paper is very nice.
-
Seems that when you go to the Harman by Hahnemuhle site and down load the profile,you have to select "Handling Instructions",instead of the actual paper your trying to get the settings for.
Kind of a half-*ssed way of doing things...
Also,I've read,that with this paper,you should have ,black point compensation checked,so some testing might be advised.
After more reading,I know keep Black Point Compensations checked all the time,whatever paper I'm using.
Hope this info helps,
Mike
-
Yep. It is right there in the drop down menu. I would have never seen that. Thanks. Can't wait to try it.
-
I see that Hahnemuhle recommends a setting of 1440 dpi with the PLPP paper type. With my 3800, I've noticed a slight difference between 1440 and 2880 dpi in terms of detail with this paper, but not all glossy papers. This paper is capable of reproducing very fine details. I admit that I don't know what the Epson 3880 does compared with my 3800, but Epson does claim that it has a different dithering method. If you are satisfied with the results at 1440, then maybe the luster setting compensates for what would typically produce a slightly lower Dmax at 1440 than 2880.
If you go to Eric (Mad Man) Chan's website, http://people.csail.mit.edu/ericchan/ (http://people.csail.mit.edu/ericchan/) and look for his ABW profiles, you'll see that he has not yet posted one for the 3880, but with the one for the 3800 he recommends 2880 dpi and PGPP paper type at the "dark" setting. I've had excellent results with these settings and his profile for ABW.
I just printed a QTR calibration sheet on the Harman by Hahnemuhle Glossy Baryta at 1440 and I'll compare the curves from that with the 2880 curves. I'll post them when I have them done.
Aloha,
Aaron Dygart, Honolulu
-
His profile is for the Harmon Gloss FB AL. I have read where some people say the Gloss Baryta is not the exact same paper as the Gloss FB AL. I don't know as I have no experience with it. The FB AL profile is for Gloss media setting. The Gloss Baryta profile is for Luster media setting. I saw some posts where people didn't like the new profile and were using the old profile. Wonder if they used the correct media setting? I won't say the media setting is buried in the web site as it is actually in plain view, but I will say it wasn't obvious to me where it was at.
I am going to try to experiment with it later this week.
-
I'm one of the people who pointed out changes from the first version - changes that Hahnemuhle denied. They tweaked it some. Those differences are documented in the charts on my website. Essentially, it's the same paper, though.
Here's what I just did. I printed the Northlight linearization image on two sheets as follows:
1) 1440 dpi, luster paper type, ABW zeroed (no tone), dark, no profile
2) 2880 dpi, pgpp paper type, ABW zeroed (no tone), dark, no profile
The 1440 shows the dither pattern as a very fine halftone in the middle values, the Dmax is visibly lower than the one at 2880, and the transitions near the dark end are not quite as smooth. The 2880 with the pgpp setting is smooth, no halftone look, transitions have no visible reversals or stripes in the circular images. You can see the difference from a good distance away, even in rather poor light. The blacks with the 2880 pgpp setting are visibly deeper, and the circular shapes with the light centers become rounded, dimensional by comparison to the 1440. This is enough to convince me of the superiority of the 2880 setting without touching these prints with a spectrometer. I'll get the numbers for you, though, after they've dried enough.
I think the Hahnemuhle guys are aiming at the lowest common denominator with their recommendations; a printer that can't print as finely as the Epson Pro-printers. It's easy to get away with a recommendation like that if nobody checks, because it's, well, adequate. It's still a terriffic paper, though.
Aloha, Aaron
-
I went to the Hahnemuhle site and found it rather ambiguous. IF you cannot download their profiles, they have a different recommendation. If you use the first recommendation listed they are telling you to use 1440, then scrolling down further they say to use 2880. I'm talking about the 3880 here. I found this rather strange, but then was able to successfully download the profiles. Eric Chan's profiles (I believe) are for bw only. I print with HPRP and HPRB. Since Eric has not listed profiles for these yet, I have been using his profile for the Ilford Gold Fibre Silk for my bw output and it is working well.
-
I notice that Hahnemuhle's recommendation for the media setting for it's Harman gloss papers is Luster, whereas, Harman's recommendation was Glossy so there may indeed be a slight difference in the paper. Or, the profile builder for the new product felt that the Luster setting produced better results. I built mine for the old stock using the Glossy media setting as well. Good info on the differences Aaron.
Slightly OT, I still only see 17x22 sheets listed, despite many pleas for a return to offering the Harman products in 17x25.
-
I just bought 17 x 25 from B and H. Several other places had it in stock, but B and H had the lowest price, shipping included.
Aaron, thanks. Very useful info. I'm planning to get a profile built for it.
-
Here are some preliminary numbers from the two Northlight Images calibration sheets:
Dmax at 1440 PLPP = 2.46; Dmax at 2880 PGPP = 2.54
These numbers are closer to the numbers you would get in actual use than the QTR calibration sheet will have (the QTR numbers are typically higher than the final linearized numbers). The ones I did before with the QTR sheets measured 2.56 for the 1440 and 2.60 for the 2880 settings.
Aloha,
Aaron
-
I am fairly new to this, so if the answer to this is obvious, I won't be embarrassed if you say so, but is there a chance the luster media setting with 2880 would offer even better results? I am in MK mode for the next three days or so or I would print them and look. I don't have any way to measure other than my eyes.
Again thanks for that info. I will use that when I have a custom profile made for this paper.
-
Because you have a 3880, and I have a 3800, all I can really tell you is to try it. Ultimately it's about the seeing, more than the numbers. I did talk with a friend who has a 3880, and he always uses 2880 and PGPP with the Harman by Hahnemuhle Gloss Baryta. Now, some matte papers are clearly designed to work best at 1440, so you do need to test. I'm actually also a believer in visual comparison, and that is why I devised the tests using the QTR calibration sheet. The numbers from the spectrometer just provide verification of what you can see on the prints anyway.
Other variables, such as rendering intent and black point compensation, that you won't be able to test with the QTR sheet, can be tested with test images from various sources, including the Northlight Images calibration sheet for black and white, and others, like Andrew Rodney's, for color.
Aloha,
Aaron
-
Aaron, I didn't mean for that to sound like I was asking you to print the test for me. Sorry if it came across that way. I am going to experiment more with that paper later this week or this weekend including printing some targets for color and b and w profiles.
I thought there might be something about the luster setting's ink handling method or about the makeup of the paper that you knew about that might have led you to believe that it wouldn't be a good strategy. I'm still in "absorb knowledge mode" with a lot of this. I have the basic color management down pretty well and have made some really nice prints. Now trying to get a little further past the basic stuff. Just what you have put on this thread has put me a little further down that path. Thanks again.
-
Oh, no. I didn't think you were asking me to do the test for you at all. No apologies necessary. I'll be very interested in how your own tests come out.
One of the things that I've noticed is that manufacturers or their representatives often give bad advice, make poor profiles, and use a lot of hype to cover up problems. So, I think it's really up to the users to check their claims, test, and learn how best to use their materials, software, and equipment, and to let the manufacturers know when you see things that aren't right. For example, Hahnemuhle made some immediate improvements when they partnered with Harman. The first was to improve the packaging. The Harman boxes were flimsy, and almost guaranteed to suffer damage in transit. Now, they are much sturdier, and I would expect that some of the retailers who were reluctant to stock the larger sizes will recognize the change and start stocking them again. Given the popular digital aspect ratios, similar to 35mm film (24x36), it only makes sense to have 17" x 25" papers available in many more brands and types.
Digital printing has come a long way from when it started, but it still has plenty of room for improvement.
Aloha,
Aaron
-
Before posting as a new topic, I thought I would reply in the event either of you gentlemen still monitor your posts.
I'm consistently getting white (sometimes black) horizontal markings on various parts of my prints using 17x25 Harman Gloss Baryta on my Epson 3880.
None of the following steps worked. I tried them all and I still keep getting those marks. For each step, the paper was inserted through the rear feeder:
1) I unchecked "High Speed" in the "Quality Options" menu thinking that the marks may not appear if the ink has a little more time to dry.
2) I changed the platen size from "Standard" to "Wide" thinking the Harman paper is thicker than the Epson paper and, therefore, pressing against the rollers.
3) I used Level 5 (SuperPhoto 2880 x 1440 dpi) for Print Quality.
3) I created a Custom Paper Configuration (Manual at page 41) with these settings:
• Platen: “ Standard as Epson suggests
• Thickness Pattern: 3 but it was hard to know what to select. The lines that are printed are faint
and small. So it is very difficult to see the gap between the lines to
determine which setting number to select.
• Paper Feed Adjust A and B: I made no settings because I'm not getting any banding.
• Drying Time: I picked 10 seconds (so that there is plenty of time for the ink to dry).
Before taking the above steps, I tested with 11 x 14 Epson Glossy Premium paper and inserted it through the rear feeder -- and there were no marks at all. I'm using the Harman paper because Epson does not make the 17 x 25 size.
Before doing so, I thought I would post and ask for the settings others are using or for any other tips or advice.
Epson tech support's immediate response is to blame the Harman paper.
There must be a simple solution that I or Epson tech support is overlooking.
-
You may be getting head strikes. Without seeing it I couldn't be certain. I think the below settings are correct for platen gap.
Standard = 190gsm
Wide = 260 gsm
Wider = 320 gsm
Widest = 500 gsm
That paper is 320gsm, so I would certainly start with wider and try widest if I still got head strikes. Is the paper flat? If its bowed, it could cause problems. Also, do you have your output tray all the way up to support it coming out? I have never adjusted drying time or the other settings you mentioned.
-
I appreciate the detailed settings -- the wider platen (and increased thickness setting) has produced the best print so far!
I have to check more carefully, but they do appear to be more like strikes than "banding" -- when I pass my finger over the marks, I can feel that there are indentations into the paper. I was trying to explain that to Epson Tech Support, but the fellow kept cutting me off and insisting it was banding. Can you tell me a little more about what head strikes are. I was under the impression that the pigment was sprayed on by the nozzles. I guess there is more to it than that?
I also rolled the paper ends with a long shipping tube. And that also seems to help as you suggested. I use the rear feeder but I have the printer by a wall, which give a little extra support for that part of the paper extending beyond the feeder.
The only remaining issue is that the narrow unprinted borders around the image are not proportional. The left side is about a 1/16 or 1/8 wider than the right side. So the image is slightly off-center. This has been happening consistently and is not the result of anything you suggested.
I've checked "Center Image" box, the "Scale to Fit Media" box and various combinations of checking and unchecking either or both. I've even manually entered numbers in the "Left" box so that the image appears centered in the preview. No matter what, the image is always off center. The image was not cropped, so it's not like the aspect ratio changed (though I'm not sure that would make a difference).
I agree that it's a really fine paper. It feels substantial and the images look great. It even smells good. :-)
If I can just get this centering issue resolved... :-) Thanks in advance for any suggestions on that.
-
If your platen setting is too small, the print head will strike the paper. Scroll down to number 4 on this link. Is that what it looks like? Is it smudged like that?
http://kb.mcad.edu/index.php?action=article&id=519&relid=40
If your paper is not flat, press it between a table top and something heavy to flatten it. This is usually a problem with paper from a roll more so than with sheet paper. If the paper is bent you can certainly have problems. I have had problems with the corners being bent on this paper during shipping because it wasn't packaged very well.
Also, I was talking about your outfeed tray. If the paper isn't supported when it is coming out, the back of the paper can lift. If the strike is on the rear of the print, you might try putting something under the paper as it is coming out to lift it a little more helping to keep the rear of the print down as it clears the printer.
No help on the uneven margin problem. Sorry.
-
Yes! Number 4 is exactly it. I'm going to read that section carefully.
Interesting observation about how poor packaging can contribute to the curling on sheet paper. I ordered it from B&H and the paper was slightly curved on each side upon arrival. I may just go to their store next time and see if I can inspect the paper right then and there before buying.
Sorry. There was some distraction and I did not read carefully to see that you were referring to the outfeed tray. Very good point. I did have it fully extended each time. But I will check for rear strikes and have made a note about providing some extra support when that happens.
Your suggestions are really informative and I am very grateful.
Perhaps someone else may have some thoughts on the uneven margins.
Again, my sincere thanks to you and to Luminous Landscape for having this forum.
-
My damaged paper actually had bent corners like it had been dropped on one of the corners. If the paper is curled, I would flatten with weight overnight and try it.
I actually store this paper upside down so the weight of the paper can help flatten it. I also store it on the bottom of the stack, but that is because it is the largest box, so I'm not sure it actually does anything as the box may keep the weight of the rest of the stack off the paper.
What program are you printing from? You might post your problem in the appropriate sub forum for the program you are using. You might get some good hints there. Good luck.
-
Yikes, actual bent corners! I had that happen with a box of Epson papers. Except I didn't notice until a couple of months later when I opened it. I learned my lesson and I immediately open and inspect every sheet upon delivery even if I'm not using the paper right away -- so that I can at least exchange it before too much time passes.
Great idea about storing the paper upside down. I'm definitely trying that. Cheers!