A classics revisited: My prints turn out too dark!

[nilo]

so case closed? fine! :-)

one last question... did you check this? (post #65) http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=46010.msg392859#msg392859

you are right! In the course of a full days work I forgot about that. I must see that right away!

[nilo]

Nino, when you look at the four paperas you are using frequently do have the impression that they are significantly different?

I assume you mean comparing them under in viewing booth for example. Yes, they are significantly different. Even though, they are all more less OBA-free. I assume because I use canvas, alpha-cellulose for small sizes and cotton rag for large format, and lastly proofing paper. Among those types the paper color seems quite consistent.

So one is cleary blueish/greyish (i.e. dark), one is blueish and bright, one is magentaish and one is yellowish?


Or are we talking about very subtile differences... so one is slighty warmer/colder/darker than the other but actually they are all quite similar?

There is a clear difference, but is not like candy or wrapping paper, as you put it ;-)

Now make a white 800x800 pixel wide square in Photoshop (either way how your display is calibrated for the time being) and enable softproof with SPC enabled for the respective four papers.
Do you have the impression that the simulation of paper white in Photoshops represents the real differences the papers show visually or do you have the impression the differences in Photoshop are more emphasised... or maybe even less?

well, is see changes that look, even though unbelievable at first, quite realistic when double checked against the paper in the booth. I notice that it gets very emphasized, for my taste at least, with the cold papers. I checked some of the Epson premium papers. (Maybe the papers that are closer in color to the present state of the monitor are easier acceptable?!).

[tho_mas]

well, is see changes that look, even though unbelievable at first, quite realistic when double checked against the paper in the booth. I notice that it gets very emphasized, for my taste at least, with the cold papers.

not sure I get it...
When the difference of the real papers (to each other) is about the same as the difference of their profiles softproofed with SPC enabled... or in other words: if the white square softproofed with the respective profiles and SPC enabled really match the visual appearance of the real papers you may very well use SPC for softproofing!

[nilo]

not sure I get it...
When the difference of the real papers (to each other) is about the same as the difference of their profiles softproofed with SPC enabled... or in other words: if the white square softproofed with the respective profiles and SPC enabled really match the visual appearance of the real papers you may very well use SPC for softproofing!

I think so too, after doing that test. Only it did not work in the beginning of this thread, because I was using a "not so optimal" paper profile, which I became only aware of in the course of the investigations.

[nilo]

Now, a few months later, with a costume profile, everything is fine! For those who cannot make a custom profile right away, there is a simple thing to do to get a lot better colors from that Canson Baryta Photographique paper: Use the Ilford Gold Fiber Silk profile with associated printer/media settings and everything will look a lot better. Some say it's the same paper. I just still wonder, again and again, about Canson.

regards

EDIT: We are talking about the Epson 3880 with K3VM here, so you have to see what that is worth on other printers and inks.

[Alistair]

Now, a few months later, with a costume profile, everything is fine! For those who cannot make a custom profile right away, there is a simple thing to do to get a lot better colors from that Canson Baryta Photographique paper: Use the Ilford Gold Fiber Silk profile with associated printer/media settings and everything will look a lot better. Some say it's the same paper. I just still wonder, again and again, about Canson.

regards

EDIT: We are talking about the Epson 3880 with K3VM here, so you have to see what that is worth on other printers and inks.

Hi, I came across this post when trying to find an answer to a question I posted on the board regarding a similar problem. Sounds like my issue could be the Canson profile as I suspected. I will try the IGFS one and if this looks better will make a custom one. However I cannot agree with the comment on IGFS and Canson being the same paper. At least here in the UK they are very different. Canson is much more to my taste. Kind of like the old Harman FB AL Gloss except less glossy and the blacks seem to be deeper.

[Mark D Segal]

Hi, I came across this post when trying to find an answer to a question I posted on the board regarding a similar problem. Sounds like my issue could be the Canson profile as I suspected. I will try the IGFS one and if this looks better will make a custom one. However I cannot agree with the comment on IGFS and Canson being the same paper. At least here in the UK they are very different. Canson is much more to my taste. Kind of like the old Harman FB AL Gloss except less glossy and the blacks seem to be deeper.

I have both papers. I've made gamut plots for both of them, I've measured the paper white and maximum black for both of them, I've looked at the surface of both of them with the same image on them, and quite frankly these papers are VERY similar - not identical, but very similar. Which you prefer is completely a matter of personal taste, but the main point is that if you have a viable profile for IGFS, it is certainly worth trying it on the Canson. I would not be the least bit surprised if the Canson profile were part of your problem. Paper manufacturers have been known to issue less than satisfactory profiles, and trying the IGFS profile would be a good way of testing for that possibility. If you get the same kind of results with the IGFS profile, it most likely means your problem is not with profiles, but elsewhere.

[nilo]

As I said, to me too they look very very similar. The GFS is better, but still far from ideal (for me it was a little bit greenish). But now, as soon as I decide to try a paper more thoroughly, I do custom profiles. And I don't do them myself, as I know to much to be satisfied by my own work and equipment. I therefore let my papers be profiled with an iSis and the Atkinson 1728 target. I can most definitely see a differences if a profile was only made with a simple iOi1 (not on the gamut plot though, it's more in accuracy and overall distribution of tones). It is also important that those machines and especially the software should be operated by someone with experience (I go for decades ;-). However hard I tried by myself, it didn't come close to a custom profile from the best of the industry. Also, I am not a color scientist, nor a color management service provider, but a photographer. I spend my time taking pictures and printing them.

regards

nino

[Arlen]

At least for the Epson 3800, there appears to be a problem with the Canson profile. I did some tests comparing the Canson and Ilford papers, and I agree that the papers are extremely similar, both to my eye and to the spectrophotometer. When I constructed custom profiles (ColorMunki) for both, the resulting test prints were virtually identical. When Lab values for a neutral step gradient were plotted against percent ink density, the Canson generic profile yielded results that were far from linear; the curve was pulled to the left, yielding overly bright midtones. A friend saw similar results with his Epson 3800, so it's not machine-specific. The Ilford canned profile is better; it gives superior results with the Canson paper, than Canson's own profile does, in my hands.

[Mark D Segal]

When Lab values for a neutral step gradient were plotted against percent ink density, the Canson generic profile yielded results that were far from linear; the curve was pulled to the left, yielding overly bright midtones.

Could you please unpack what this is all about? Exactly what data (from where) are you plotting against what data (from where) and what kind of insight should such a plot provide?

[Arlen]

Mark, I don't have time to go through it in detail right now, but the approach was similar to those described at Digital Outback Photo  (http://www.outbackphoto.com/printinginsights/pi045/essay.html#20070201) and Northlight Images (http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/article_pages/bw_printing/bw_print_colormunki.html).

[Mark D Segal]

Mark, I don't have time to go through it in detail right now, but the approach was similar to those described at Digital Outback Photo  (http://www.outbackphoto.com/printinginsights/pi045/essay.html#20070201) and Northlight Images (http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/article_pages/bw_printing/bw_print_colormunki.html).

Arlen, when you have time to describe the source of your data, what exactly you are doing with it and what purpose the results are supposed to serve, it will be interesting to read. Meanwhile I regret it means little to me in the specific context of this discussion thread.

[Alistair]

I have both papers. I've made gamut plots for both of them, I've measured the paper white and maximum black for both of them, I've looked at the surface of both of them with the same image on them, and quite frankly these papers are VERY similar - not identical, but very similar. Which you prefer is completely a matter of personal taste, but the main point is that if you have a viable profile for IGFS, it is certainly worth trying it on the Canson. I would not be the least bit surprised if the Canson profile were part of your problem. Paper manufacturers have been known to issue less than satisfactory profiles, and trying the IGFS profile would be a good way of testing for that possibility. If you get the same kind of results with the IGFS profile, it most likely means your problem is not with profiles, but elsewhere.

Mark, once the Canson paper has dried, I can now see that the differences between it and IGFS have largely disappeared. I can still just detect minor differences in surface and the gloss level and the Canson prints ever so slightly warmer when using the same IGFS profile. And yes, the Canson profile was the culprit of my problems and switching to the IGFS profile produces a much better print. You and Nino Loss were correct on that score too, thank you both.

I will go ahead and custom profile the Canson paper but given the lower price of the IGFS here in the UK I am not sure if I will use the Canson that much.

[nilo]

Though there is one thing in favor of the Canson BP. I can quote Canson and say that it is acid-free, museum grade, complies with ISO 9706, internally buffered...  My clients like that ;-) If someone could point me to the same info for Iford's GFS, I would appreciate.
I wouldn't bother with Canson, if only Ilford would be available here in my remote little place. The price difference is in disfavor of Ilford, after shipment.

regards

nino

EDIT: P-S: I should add, that as a selling point Ilford has got it's name as a big advantage. All my clients know the brand from the dark(room) ages. It has a traditional flavor.

[Mark D Segal]

Though there is one thing in favor of the Canson BP. I can quote Canson and say that it is acid-free, museum grade, complies with ISO 9706, internally buffered...  My clients like that ;-) If someone could point me to the same info for Iford's GFS, I would appreciate.
I wouldn't bother with Canson, if only Ilford would be available here in my remote little place. The price difference is in disfavor of Ilford, after shipment.

regards

nino

EDIT: P-S: I should add, that as a selling point Ilford has got it's name as a big advantage. All my clients know the brand from the dark(room) ages. It has a traditional flavor.

Nino, I too have had some concern about the previous lack of corroborated information supporting the Archival properties of Ilford GFS, so I sent a request to them in Switzerland and got this reply:

<Gold Fibre Silk does contain a small amount of OBA in the paper fibres.
This explains the fluorescence you have reported. We do not believe this
quantity poses any risk to the archival properties of this material, as the
quantity is low. In addition, the fact that it is in the paper stock means
that it is not in the coated layer nor the baryta layer and is therefore
protected to some degree against yellowing. We have had enough confidence
in the archival properties of the product, to have submitted for Wilhelm
testing and for the Arttrust initiative and we believe the results to date
look very encouraging (see attached Press Release from Photokina 2010).>

In the press release they say that (as of then) the testing work was still underway. However, on my reading, the conclusive results were not ready then. I have checked Henry Wilhelm's site periodically, including just now, and not found any reports there yet, so either the work is on-going or arrangements to make it public are not yet in place.

Here in Toronto both the Canson and Ilford papers are now priced quite competitively - I'd use either depending on availability.

[Alan Goldhammer]

Mark and Nino,

There is ample data from Aardenburg on IGFS that provides support about print longevity (you don't need to be a paying member to access the test data though I would strongly recommend supporting Mark's work here).  In addition if you look at Ernst Dinkla's data on spectral scans of the paper show it to have one of the most even responses of all the papers tested.  Sure there is a small amount of OBA in the paper stock but based on the available data show it to be a very good paper.  The only issue is with the "feel" of the paper and that it is not a true rag stock paper.  Unfortunately, there is not the level of test exposure for the Canson paper at Aardenburg and one cannot make any judgment at this point about comparing the two with regard to print fading.  FWIW, from my own perspective, the papers are pretty much interchangeable and one should make a purchase decision based on price.

[Alistair]

I have had a very helpful response from Canson on the profile issue and they have also commented on the differences between their paper and IFGS. Although I prefer the Canson paper (acknowledging the differences are slight) the pricing of IGFS in A2 sheet form here in the UK is very good when calculating the price on a sq metre basis. Much lower than their roll and other sheet sizes and much lower than Canson. I will reprint on Canson using their amended profile. Here is their response:

Start of Quote:
Dear Mr Owens

following your report on Canson Infinity website today, our technical department has taken up the matter very seriously.

We do confirm that the profile you have downloaded is defective. Even more, we have already corrected the mistake in the past, and we do not know how or why exactly, but the wrong profile was again put up for download on our website in replacement of the good one !

As for the comments on the Luminous Landscape forum, I confirm our paper is different from the Ilford Gold Fiber Silk, however with a similar technology.
The difference is into the formula of the base paper and into the coating that is working better with certain printers than the Ilford Gold Fiber Silk (our product was released several years after the IGFS).

Please find enclosed a profile that was submitted to me for forwarding by our Technical Department. This one should work great as they say !

In the case you send a reply to me, would you please confirm whether you are based in the UK or in New Zealand (your email address ends with .nz)
Reason is that I'm in charge of sales into the UK but not to New Zealand (although I know Wellington, having been there a few years back).

Cordialement/ Kind Regards

Christophe Renard
Regional Sales Manager
 End of Quote

[Mark D Segal]

Mark and Nino,

There is ample data from Aardenburg on IGFS that provides support about print longevity (you don't need to be a paying member to access the test data though I would strongly recommend supporting Mark's work here).  In addition if you look at Ernst Dinkla's data on spectral scans of the paper show it to have one of the most even responses of all the papers tested.  Sure there is a small amount of OBA in the paper stock but based on the available data show it to be a very good paper.  The only issue is with the "feel" of the paper and that it is not a true rag stock paper.  Unfortunately, there is not the level of test exposure for the Canson paper at Aardenburg and one cannot make any judgment at this point about comparing the two with regard to print fading.  FWIW, from my own perspective, the papers are pretty much interchangeable and one should make a purchase decision based on price.

Hi Alan,

Yes, I've checked what MMG has on his site for IGFS - almost all the entries are for sprayed prints. The closest to what would be of interest to Epson professional printers owners (unsprayed, from a pigment inkjet printer) is for a Canon model, and those results do look good. Based on what I hear repeatedly from several manufacturers, as long as the OBA content is small and mixed in the base, it should indeed have little long-term impact on image appearance. I can pass on the rag feel - I'm mainly interested in the quality of what's on the surface! But I know it's important to others, and why so much about paper choice is a matter of personal preference - and yes, price.

[Alan Goldhammer]

Hi Alan,

Yes, I've checked what MMG has on his site for IGFS - almost all the entries are for sprayed prints. The closest to what would be of interest to Epson professional printers owners (unsprayed, from a pigment inkjet printer) is for a Canon model, and those results do look good. Based on what I hear repeatedly from several manufacturers, as long as the OBA content is small and mixed in the base, it should indeed have little long-term impact on image appearance. I can pass on the rag feel - I'm mainly interested in the quality of what's on the surface! But I know it's important to others, and why so much about paper choice is a matter of personal preference - and yes, price.

Mark, there is data on IGFS from an Epson 4800 that is not coated (I just checked this morning prior to my previous post) and has passed through 140 megalux hours.  It shows the same problems with the yellow K3 ink that is problematic in all Epson prints (which is why the light flesh tones fade more than other colors).

[Mark D Segal]

Mark, there is data on IGFS from an Epson 4800 that is not coated (I just checked this morning prior to my previous post) and has passed through 140 megalux hours.  It shows the same problems with the yellow K3 ink that is problematic in all Epson prints (which is why the light flesh tones fade more than other colors).

Yes correct - for some reason about 4 of the IGFS results failed to load earlier today when I sorted the paper column to group all the IGFS together. I just tried it again and it worked, and indeed what you report is there. Speaking of the results, a dE of only 4.5 at the 50 megalux level (translating to 200 years) is really not bad. It just means my great-great grandchildren might think we were all a bit bluer than we really are, but then again these days there is enough to be blue about, no?  :-)