vibrant paper

[marcsitkin]

Ilford POP and Drytac Eclipse are very similar to Fujiflex. They have a high gloss surface, Ilford has a grey backer and Drytac has a thin sheet of metal sandwiched in to keep opacity. Both can be printed on Piezo or thermal printers.

[William Morse]

Hi Marc-

Where do you get Ilford POP? Couldn't find it anywhere.

Thanks, Bill

Ilford POP and Drytac Eclipse are very similar to Fujiflex. They have a high gloss surface, Ilford has a grey backer and Drytac has a thin sheet of metal sandwiched in to keep opacity. Both can be printed on Piezo or thermal printers.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=207393\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

[dkeyes]

The prints are most likely Fujiflex. I printed on Fuji Supergloss for years until digital enlarging took over the market. Now I occasionally get prints on Fujiflex. Tried to emulate this with my z3100, the papers are close but the ink just sits on top and doesn't have the same gloss. Also tried on Epson printers as well. I think it's the difference between the pigment on the paper (inkjet) and dyes in the paper (Fujiflex, etc.). Don't think they will ever be the same looking.

People always ask if my Fuji Supergloss/Fujiflex images are internally lit lightboxes, the white of the paper has a pearlescence to it that just glows. I think the "paper" is a polyester base similar to Ciba/Ilfochrome papers. There are quite a few printers using this paper around the world.

On a side note, gotta hand it to Peter Lik, I've never heard of him but apparently he's the "most awarded photographer in history". They forgot to mention all the awards are from one place, the Australia Institute of Professional Photography. Don't get me wrong, it's competent work but there are 1000's of photographers shooting the same sunsets, sand dunes, etc. He belongs in the Art Wolfe, Dale Chihuly "art" circle. Maybe they should all get together and form a supergroup.

[Wayne Fox]

The prints are most likely Fujiflex. I printed on Fuji Supergloss for years until digital enlarging took over the market. Now I occasionally get prints on Fujiflex. Tried to emulate this with my z3100, the papers are close but the ink just sits on top and doesn't have the same gloss. Also tried on Epson printers as well. I think it's the difference between the pigment on the paper (inkjet) and dyes in the paper (Fujiflex, etc.). Don't think they will ever be the same looking.

People always ask if my Fuji Supergloss/Fujiflex images are internally lit lightboxes, the white of the paper has a pearlescence to it that just glows. I think the "paper" is a polyester base similar to Ciba/Ilfochrome papers. There are quite a few printers using this paper around the world.

On a side note, gotta hand it to Peter Lik, I've never heard of him but apparently he's the "most awarded photographer in history". They forgot to mention all the awards are from one place, the Australia Institute of Professional Photography. Don't get me wrong, it's competent work but there are 1000's of photographers shooting the same sunsets, sand dunes, etc. He belongs in the Art Wolfe, Dale Chihuly "art" circle. Maybe they should all get together and form a supergroup.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=207439\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I agree, I'm not sure pigment printers can ever equal the look, at least with current inkjet technologies.  Close maybe, but not quite the same.

Lik's awards come from more than just Australia Institute of PP,  many are from Professional Photographers of America and a couple of others.  I'm not sure how he can substantiate his claim, but getting a merit from PP of A isn't that big of an accomplishment ... thousands of prints each year receive the same award. i'm guessing the Australia Institute is similar.  I find it puzzling why he feels it is important to his credibility.   Most landscape shooters don't even bother with those groups .. they tend to be portrait and wedding oriented.  The judging process for those prints is composed of a 5 person panel, most likely none of which does any landscape work.

Have to hand it to him though, he's got a good thing going.

[Nick Rains]

I find it puzzling why he feels it is important to his credibility.   Most landscape shooters don't even bother with those groups .. they tend to be portrait and wedding oriented.  The judging process for those prints is composed of a 5 person panel, most likely none of which does any landscape work.

Have to hand it to him though, he's got a good thing going.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=208159\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

It's all about credentials - it sounds impressive to the buying public. Obviously it works!

[Wayne Fox]

It's all about credentials - it sounds impressive to the buying public. Obviously it works!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=208228\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I guess that's what he thinks anyway.  Personally I doubt if the buying public really cares ... they are lured in by the impressive panorama prints.

Love your work, btw.

[Nick Rains]

I guess that's what he thinks anyway.  Personally I doubt if the buying public really cares ... they are lured in by the impressive panorama prints.

Love your work, btw.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=208474\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Thanks Wayne

I think the buying public do care, not the specifics per se, but it does add to bragging rights over ownership. People aren't going to part with serious money so easily if they think the photographer is completely unrecognised by the industry.

It's probably subtle but it will have an effect on sales. Peter has excellent sales people working for him (the secret of his success?), they wouldn't bother doing it if it didn't work.