Cognitive dissonance

[tsjanik]

I am in a crisis of sorts.  I am an old darkroom printer who fell in love with Cibachrome 30 years ago.  So, since I started digital printing I have sought my Holy Grail, the Ciba equivalent.  When using the K2 or UC inks, I was forced to use matte papers; the gloss differential really bothered me.  I thought the K3 inks would be my answer, but I find myself really missing the matte.  I refuse to engage in Epson’s $40 ink change so I want to commit my 4800 to gloss or matte.   Anyone else in this dilemma ?

[Stephenaweiss]

I am in the same position, and I love the Epson Ultrasmooth fine art paper...I think that as we move from film to digital, we are also going to have to re-define what an image looks like printed. I find a lot of the glossy/luster surfaces not as interesting as a good matte finish, s

[JeffKohn]

I know what you mean, for me the matte papers were a bit of an acquired taste at first but I've grown to really like them now. I think both have their places depending on the image, for some photos you just really need the greater dmax offered by the glossy/luster papers.

From what I've heard the Pictorico High Gloss White Film is the closest thing to Cibachrome for digital, also the new Crane Museo Silver Rag looks to be really promising. So the choice between matte/glossy is getting more difficult as the papers and inks get better, not less so.

I just have the 2400 so swapping blacks isn't as costly for me. So far I've just printed on rag papers but I'm going to be giving both the Pictorico and Silver Rag a try in the near future (probably try them both once the Silver Rag starts shipping).

[madmanchan]

So the choice between matte/glossy is getting more difficult as the papers and inks get better, not less so.

Actually, I thought the choice would be getting easier!  The thing about Museo Silver Rag is that it's a cotton paper like many of our favorite matte papers are, but you use photo black on it.  If it lives up to the early glowing pre-reviews, it should give you the best of both worlds, shouldn't it?  Deep blacks, but the heavyweight feel of a good fine art cotton paper.

Eric

[JeffKohn]

Actually, I thought the choice would be getting easier!  The thing about Museo Silver Rag is that it's a cotton paper like many of our favorite matte papers are, but you use photo black on it.  If it lives up to the early glowing pre-reviews, it should give you the best of both worlds, shouldn't it?  Deep blacks, but the heavyweight feel of a good fine art cotton paper.

Eric
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=60410\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Yes but it's still a glossy (or at least semi-glossy?) finish. There are some images where I've come to believe that the matte papers with a bit of texture just work better, especially for images that don't need super deep blacks. I have a shot of a tiger that I printed on Crane Museo II and with the matte finish the fur looks so real you almost want to reach out and touch it. Also for some landscapes images I the almost "painterly" look that the matte papers give you very pleasing.

[madmanchan]

Yes but it's still a glossy (or at least semi-glossy?) finish. There are some images where I've come to believe that the matte papers with a bit of texture just work better, especially for images that don't need super deep blacks. I have a shot of a tiger that I printed on Crane Museo II and with the matte finish the fur looks so real you almost want to reach out and touch it. Also for some landscapes images I the almost "painterly" look that the matte papers give you very pleasing.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=60427\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Oh ok, I see what you're getting at now.  Yes I agree, and I certainly relate to the types of images you describe being suitable for slightly textured matte papers.

Eric

[tsjanik]

Yes but it's still a glossy (or at least semi-glossy?) finish. There are some images where I've come to believe that the matte papers with a bit of texture just work better, especially for images that don't need super deep blacks. I have a shot of a tiger that I printed on Crane Museo II and with the matte finish the fur looks so real you almost want to reach out and touch it. Also for some landscapes images I the almost "painterly" look that the matte papers give you very pleasing.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=60427\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I believe this is the source of my condundrum.  A print is better if the texture of the paper matches the subject. I first noticed in a print with a snowy field; the texture of matte paper matches that of snow.   I supose the efffect would be the same with fur.

[borzynd]

Here is a quick link to a reference for a cheap switch between the blacks.  With not using the new Epson inks, I haven't use this method myself, but the poster originally referring to the method has a fairly good reputation for things like this:

http://www.naturephotographers.net/imagecr...d=21316&u=21316


For glossy vs matte papers, I have gone the Epson Premium Ultrasmooth route for most of my prints.  The reason is very simple, at least for matte papers.   Under glass, which is how I assume most of the prints will be displayed, there is not a second reflection off of the prints.  The color seems to "pop" a bit more than just holding the print free of a frame.

I actually don't use a fully glossy for my prints - a slight compromise has been reached to use the Premium Luster.  I use this for Black and Whites for the richer blacks, portrait work (why - purely irrational reasons) and then if a glossy type of paper is requested.  The downside with the previous generation of Ultrachromes is bronzing when the ink laid down is very close to white.

And with staying with the Epson papers:  I have tried a lot of papers from various manufacturers and decided that I like the detail in the blacks and whites the best.  

Dan Borzynski

[Stephenaweiss]

Here is a quick link to a reference for a cheap switch between the blacks.  With not using the new Epson inks, I haven't use this method myself, but the poster originally referring to the method has a fairly good reputation for things like this:

I called epson, this does not work on any of the large format printers, and none of the K3 printers.
Changing cartridges on the 4800 wastes 110ml of ink!! amazing, painful, hello matte black forever!, s

[bob mccarthy]

I called epson, this does not work on any of the large format printers, and none of the K3 printers.
Changing cartridges on the 4800 wastes 110ml of ink!! amazing, painful, hello matte black forever!, s
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=60463\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I can't speak to the latest K3 printers but Epson is plain wrong about the large format printers. The "so called South African" method works just fine on my 7600.

They just want to sell you more ink.

Bob

[frankric]

To the best of my knowledge the "South African Method" does not work on the K3 printers. The menu option that it relies on is not present. Investigations on the web and on my own 7800 failed to find a similar workaround.

I now use Image Print and the Phatte Black system. This enables you to print on glossy and matte papers without changing black inks, but of course requires Image Print v6.1.

Regards

Frank

[JeffKohn]

I now use Image Print and the Phatte Black system. This enables you to print on glossy and matte papers without changing black inks, but of course requires Image Print v6.1.

Regards

Frank
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=60474\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I've seen reports of bronzing when using Phatte Black, has that been your experience?

[frankric]

Jeff

I'd seen those reports and was expecting it to be a problem, but so far it hasn't been. But if it is a problem you can revert to the standard Photo Black K3 setup with minimal ink wastage. Michael describes the process in his review I linked to in my previous post.

Regards

Frank