Photo Forum / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / February 2006
Papers for photo work Epson R1800
|
|
Thread rating:  |
Paul Furman - 23 Feb 2006 03:01 GMT I posted this about a month ago combined with another question and never got a response about the paper question. I'm crossposting to comp.periphs.printers & rec.photo.digital.slr-systems this time.
I just picked up a couple things at Calumet Camera, they have a decent selection I could look at... the salesman said people use matte for landscape work, pearl for portrait (shrug?) I'm used to glossy though I guess the glare is annoying. I saw some pearl/semigloss and that all has a bumpy texture. Hmm... I really don't know... opinions?
Paul Furman - 23 Feb 2006 03:07 GMT > I posted this about a month ago combined with another question and never > got a response about the paper question. I'm crossposting to [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > guess the glare is annoying. I saw some pearl/semigloss and that all has > a bumpy texture. Hmm... I really don't know... opinions? oh, the original sourcing research... --
I'm in the US, West Coast if that matters for other suppliers.
http://www.eximvaios.com/catalog/default.php?cPath=2_252_383 Premium Glossy Photo Paper 13"x100 ft roll $71.84 = $0.66/sf 13"x32 ft roll $45.00 = $1.30/sf 13"x19" 100 shts $150.00 = $0.88/sf -this is basically what I'm used to but supposedly this printer is a little funny on glossy paper so people talk about using matte or semi-gloss. The sample enhanced matte paper that came with the printer is awful, I assume the fancier stuff is better? If I go with gloss, my old prints will match. Does one or the other use more ink?
http://www.pictorico.com/category/5-PGHG-White-Film.htm -supposed to be really nice bright colors Photo Gallery Hi-Gloss White Film 13 x 19 20 shts $98.38 = $2.87/sf
http://www.hahnemuehle.com/index.php?mid=936&lng=us -supposed to make gorgeous matte prints but really expensive?? Moab supposed to be 30-40% cheaper with similar look: http://redrockinnovations.com/Merchant2/merchant.mvc?Screen=SFNT&Store_Code=IJG Entrada® Fine Art 190 Natural (MOAB) 8.5x11 [25] $24.30 = $1.50/sf (check math?) Entrada® Fine Art 190 13x66 [ROLL] Out of Stock $82.80 -it turns out this one is 'natural' meaning kind of yellowed but they offer a bright white also. It's like watercolor paper.
That same site has Ilford 'Pearl' products which I recall folks saying works well with an Epson R1800 but am not sure which one: Ilford Galerie Smooth Pearl (and Classic Pearl?) 13x19 [25] $31.95 -none of those in 13" rolls though.
 Signature Paul Furman http://www.edgehill.net/1 Bay Natives http://www.baynatives.com
frederick - 23 Feb 2006 05:37 GMT >> I posted this about a month ago combined with another question and >> never got a response about the paper question. I'm crossposting to [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > oh, the original sourcing research... Nah... the printer's fine on glossy - but it won't be as glossy as a dye ink printer on premium swellable polymer stock. I love it for snaps, hate it for large prints - but that's a personal thing. The enhanced matte should be fine - the matte heavyweight isn't. To me, matte is the way to go with big prints. Nope they don't always look like *real* photographs - but are stunning. Ink usage - god knows if one media uses *significantly* more than another... If you print 19x13's though, you do want to get it right first time. The paper is costing you as much as the ink.
> http://www.pictorico.com/category/5-PGHG-White-Film.htm > -supposed to be really nice bright colors > Photo Gallery Hi-Gloss White Film > 13 x 19 20 shts $98.38 = $2.87/sf ouch...
> http://www.hahnemuehle.com/index.php?mid=936&lng=us > -supposed to make gorgeous matte prints but really expensive?? Moab [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > 13x19 [25] $31.95 > -none of those in 13" rolls though. Works well - the "smooth" range is the one to use. Forget "Classic" for any pigment printer. The Ilford Smooth Pearl is similar to Epson Premium Semi-Gloss, but whiter (and less expensive). Profiles are downloadable from Ilford's site. They have also some fine art paper, but quite expensive, I can't get a sample pack, and haven't seen any reports on it. At the price, I'm not going to fork out for a pack "just to see".
rafe b - 23 Feb 2006 12:33 GMT >Nah... the printer's fine on glossy - but it won't be as glossy as a dye >ink printer on premium swellable polymer stock. I love it for snaps, [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >another... If you print 19x13's though, you do want to get it right >first time. The paper is costing you as much as the ink. I find this to be a good general rule, ie., glossy paper for "smallish" prints that will be hand-held and viewed up-close. Matte paper for larger prints that will be hung on a wall and viewed from a "reasonable" distance.
Glossy substrates can hold more detail and gamut, and these become more important in small prints. Conversely, matte papers work well on large, framed prints.
So far with my R1800 I've been pleased with results on both the Premium Glossy and Enhanced Matte papers -- both from Epson.
I also use Enhanced Matte on my Epson 7000, with its dye inks.
rafe b www.terrapinphoto.com
Paul Furman - 23 Feb 2006 15:00 GMT > Glossy substrates can hold more detail and > gamut, and these become more important in > small prints. Conversely, matte papers > work well on large, framed prints. Thanks, this is the kind of stuff I'm looking for. I was really dissapointed with the Enhanced Matte samples that came with the printer... perhaps because it was also thin and only letter size.
Wouldn't you know I screwed up yesterday & bought 20 sheets of 13x19 glossy epson & 20 letter size heavy Moab matte fine art. But it seems the other way around would make more sense!
I happened to have a bunch of really cheap 'construction paper' and tried a couple prints on that. 12"x18" turns out a perfect size needing no cropping and it honestly looks just fine to me since that's only 167dpi for a 6MP image, it doesn't need to be anything fancy. Of course it'll yellow and is a joke but... I'll use that for architectural prints.
It's been so long since I did B&W darkroom prints but I think I used a semi-gloss without texture. Why do all the pearl/semi-gloss have that texture? What's that about? Just kind adds some sexiness for soft portrait work? It seems messy for my purposes. Does inkjet look bad on smooth semi-gloss because of the reflectivity?
Is the pigment ink suitable for glossy? It seems this new inkset with gloss optimiser has overcome those problems I had with the old Epson C80 so really glossy performs just great now. But the reflections can be annoying when hanging on a wall if the lighting isn't just so.
> So far with my R1800 I've been pleased > with results on both the Premium Glossy [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I also use Enhanced Matte on my Epson 7000, > with its dye inks. G.T. - 23 Feb 2006 22:42 GMT > >Nah... the printer's fine on glossy - but it won't be as glossy as a dye > >ink printer on premium swellable polymer stock. I love it for snaps, [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > and Enhanced Matte papers -- both from > Epson. Anybody using Epson Premium Luster? I like it for anything 8x10 and down. In fact I wish they made it in 4x6, too, then I would just skip the Glossy.
Greg
C J Southern - 23 Feb 2006 06:19 GMT > > I just picked up a couple things at Calumet Camera, they have a decent > > selection I could look at... the salesman said people use matte for > > landscape work, pearl for portrait (shrug?) I'm used to glossy though I > > guess the glare is annoying. I saw some pearl/semigloss and that all has > > a bumpy texture. Hmm... I really don't know... opinions? I've had people "suggest" to me that "you need to use this type of paper for this kind of image" etc - and yet for me, I find that the photos I find most stunning are often the ones that "break the traditional rules".
My suggestion would be to go with what you like - so that it becomes a product of your imagination and creation, and not someone elses - Chances are some people will say "I like it - because it's different"
I'm using the Epson 7800 for my printing these days - it does a damn fine job, but the one thing I have learned is that it's ESSENTIAL to use the right profile for whatever paper you choose - if you're going to stick with only one or two papers then you might like to consider having a profile created for your printer / media combination - and make sure you calibrate your monitor too.
I watch ink levels very closely to track costs - and my experience is that gloss / canvas / satin don't have any appreciable difference in ink used.
Paul Furman - 23 Feb 2006 16:56 GMT > "Paul Furman" <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > product of your imagination and creation, and not someone elses - Chances > are some people will say "I like it - because it's different" Yes, that's good advice and I'm willing to break rules but I'm just rather clueless what the advantages & disadvantages are at this point. What are people's experiences with different papers for a particular look? I want to settle on something so I can get it profiled and move foreward and not waste too much time experimenting... focus on the photography.
> I'm using the Epson 7800 for my printing these days - it does a damn fine > job, but the one thing I have learned is that it's ESSENTIAL to use the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > I watch ink levels very closely to track costs - and my experience is that > gloss / canvas / satin don't have any appreciable difference in ink used.
 Signature Paul Furman http://www.edgehill.net/1 Bay Natives http://www.baynatives.com
C J Southern - 23 Feb 2006 21:01 GMT > Yes, that's good advice and I'm willing to break rules but I'm just > rather clueless what the advantages & disadvantages are at this point. > What are people's experiences with different papers for a particular > look? I want to settle on something so I can get it profiled and move > foreward and not waste too much time experimenting... focus on the > photography. My suggestion would be to start with a high gloss - I think it's a better all-rounder, and has a bigger gamut than most other papers. I use Kodak 260gsm Rapid Dry, which is a heavy paper - but if the prints are going to be framed then a 190gsm paper will be fine.
You should also grab a copy of "Real World Color Management" 2nd edition by Fraser, Murphy, and Bunting - it's the current definitive text on what you're going to need to know.
Cheers,
Colin
Paul Furman - 23 Feb 2006 19:24 GMT OK, so I've done a little testing and the Fine Art Bright Moab Entrada (watercolor) is more contrasty with richer colors, the Epson Premium Glossy (and Calumet generic) hold more actual sharp detail but the colors aren't as rich. The satin/semigloss generic is similar but I still think the bumpy texture muddles the detail and adds unnecessary junk though the satin sheen is more pleasing than the rude glare of full gloss, I guess the texture is OK as long as you don't get up close.
I'm pretty sure I got the profiles right though I'm not terribly concerned about that really. It's all coming out close enough to what I see on the monitor, the only issue is if my comparison of brighter colors or more contrasty is due to profiling problems. The Moab Fine Art Bright is supposed to get richer colors and it does, I'm just not sure if I like the dull matte look after years of printing glossy. I guess glossy is more flashy & impressive where matte is more tasteful and understated... though if the colors are really richer (not just a profile messup) then I like that aspect. Was there ever such a thing as totally glossless matte photo paper before inkjets? Part of me feels the matte just looks like an injet print on plain paper and maybe that's why it looks lame at 8x10 but at poster sizes, it's clearly not cheap and at those sizes gloss is annoying with a wrinkly plastic celophane look. Poster size film prints seem to use a much higher quality thick paper than Epson Premium Glossy.
One more consideration is that I'd like to make a portfolio of 13x19 prints to carry around & show. What paper is suitable for that? Presumably those would be in clear plastic pockets so matte may be fine & gloss might be more prone to stick or make double reflections.
What about framing? I always liked the 'French Clip' idea with just a sheet of glass, unobtrusive stainless steel clips and a black backing board. I've heard you shouldn't press glass against prints but I'm guessing that only applies to gloss and wouldn't be a problem for matte watercolor paper.
Also the Epson Premium Gloss... is that archival, acid free & all? If I'm selling prints that matters.
The 13" x 19" cuts down nicely to 9-1/2" x 13" and that means less cropping and a little more generous than 8-1/2" x 11". I really don't like cropping for the 8-1/2" x 11" aspect ratio. The custom paper size isn't permitted with borderless though... and that's a lot more work trimming!
frederick - 23 Feb 2006 23:09 GMT > OK, so I've done a little testing and the Fine Art Bright Moab Entrada > (watercolor) is more contrasty with richer colors, the Epson Premium [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > Presumably those would be in clear plastic pockets so matte may be fine > & gloss might be more prone to stick or make double reflections. The gloss shouldn't stick - so long as you let it dry. With matte papers, the surface can be marred relatively easily - ending up with polished shiny patches if not handled carefully. Semi-Gloss is extremely durable when dry - and washable - you can clean it with a soft damp cloth no problem. Watch that pockets are not made of PVC, as the plasticiser from the plastic will leach and mar the paper eventually.
> What about framing? I always liked the 'French Clip' idea with just a > sheet of glass, unobtrusive stainless steel clips and a black backing > board. I've heard you shouldn't press glass against prints but I'm > guessing that only applies to gloss and wouldn't be a problem for matte > watercolor paper. You could still do a french clip frame with a mat to keep the paper off the glass. I guess that matte paper probably would be okay against the glass, but my guess could be wrong.
> Also the Epson Premium Gloss... is that archival, acid free & all? If > I'm selling prints that matters. Yes. Dark storage >200 years. Display permanence rating with R1800 still under test by Wilhelm, but probably around 100 years.
> The 13" x 19" cuts down nicely to 9-1/2" x 13" and that means less > cropping and a little more generous than 8-1/2" x 11". I really don't > like cropping for the 8-1/2" x 11" aspect ratio. The custom paper size > isn't permitted with borderless though... and that's a lot more work > trimming! Print two at a time on full 19x13 borderless, then cut in half!
frederick - 23 Feb 2006 23:13 GMT >> Also the Epson Premium Gloss... is that archival, acid free & all? If >> I'm selling prints that matters. >> > Yes. Dark storage >200 years. Display permanence rating with R1800 > still under test by Wilhelm, but probably around 100 years. Sorry - misread that. Semi-Gloss still under test. Gloss 104 years DPR. That is framed behind glass. 175 years with UV filter glass, 34 years "bare bulb", and over 300 years album dark storage!
C J Southern - 24 Feb 2006 01:11 GMT > >> Also the Epson Premium Gloss... is that archival, acid free & all? If > >> I'm selling prints that matters. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > behind glass. 175 years with UV filter glass, 34 years "bare bulb", and > over 300 years album dark storage! Just a little caveat to archival tests - they're valid ONLY for a given ink / paper combination - so, for example, a WIR report that says K3 inks on Epson Gloss paper might last 83 years bears no co-relation to that ink used on, say, Kodak's "equivalent" paper.
rafe b - 24 Feb 2006 01:57 GMT >Just a little caveat to archival tests - they're valid ONLY for a given ink >/ paper combination - so, for example, a WIR report that says K3 inks on >Epson Gloss paper might last 83 years bears no co-relation to that ink used >on, say, Kodak's "equivalent" paper. I take some exception to that.
The matching of ink to paper is extremely important for *dye* inks, but less so, I think for pigment inks.
The reason is that in the dye ink case, if there's any longevity to speak of, it comes from the properties of the paper - eg., HP's DesignJet inkset and the corresponding swellable-polymer papers.
OTOH, for pigment inks, the relative lightfastness is inherent in the ink itself -- so the paper (it seems to me) would be less important in the overall equation.
That's not to say that the paper itself won't degrade over time. It only means that the pigment particles will hold their color more or less independently from the paper.
It turns out, however, that pigment inks may be just as susceptible, if not more so than dyes, to airborne oxidants. So there's a growing consensus that prints with pigment inks should be coated or laminated for best longevity.
rafe b www.terrapinphoto.com
C J Southern - 26 Feb 2006 02:09 GMT > >Just a little caveat to archival tests - they're valid ONLY for a given ink > >/ paper combination - so, for example, a WIR report that says K3 inks on [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > important for *dye* inks, but less so, I think > for pigment inks. The "Duck's Nuts" when it comes to this kind of thing is the work being done by Wilhelm Imaging Research, headed by chief scientist Henry Wilhelm.
I'll copy any paste what he has to say on the matter, based on an interview ... To cut a long story short, traditionally dye based inks are cause for more concern, but unfortunately pigment-based inks aren't immune.
Chris and Larry: Your work as a pioneer in the field of image permanence has shown you both the good and bad about ink jet printers. How can a photographer pick an ink jet printer that they can trust to make prints that will be around for decades?
Henry Wilhelm: The simple answer is to pick a printer for which print permanence data is available for the ink and media combinations used for that printer.
...
Chris and Larry: That is an excellent point. It is not just the type of ink that will affect the image stability, but the combination of the ink and paper used. When a manufacturer says that their printers produce prints that will last a certain length of time, one should carefully look at the exact paper and ink combination they used. Is it safe to assume that they always use their own papers with their inks in testing?
Henry Wilhelm: Yes, although manufacturers themselves often will publish data just for their paper that does the best, even though they have additional papers available.
Chris and Larry: So if one reads that a given printer will make a print that will last for a hundred years or more when displayed, one should immediately ask exactly what paper the test was done on. Often that is not stated very clearly. Would it be safe then to believe that, using the exact ink and paper, one can probably achieve the same kind of archival image stability?
Henry Wilhelm: Yes. Most of the quoted numbers have been for exposure to light on long term display. In general, the data have been for prints framed under glass. I think we also need to talk about susceptibility to ozone for prints that may be exposed to ambient atmosphere for long periods of time. Prints that are not framed under glass, for example the classic refrigerator display conditions or prints tacked to the wall in your office, things like that. Especially smaller prints which will never be framed under glass. There is a special concern about porous or microporous papers with dye based inks and greater susceptibility of these papers to ozone. I think from the reader's standpoint, the simple way to distinguish between porous and microporous and swellable papers is that if the paper package says instant dry. That's pretty good assurance that it is a microporous type. And if the printer is using dye based inks, which the majority of current desktop photo printers are using, then you can probably assume that your prints on microporous paper probably has a high susceptibility to ozone. You have to be careful there.
C J Southern - 24 Feb 2006 01:22 GMT > One more consideration is that I'd like to make a portfolio of 13x19 > prints to carry around & show. What paper is suitable for that? > Presumably those would be in clear plastic pockets so matte may be fine > & gloss might be more prone to stick or make double reflections. We've got an interesting situation at the moment. The Epson 9800 uses the new K3 inks - which are supposed to be particularly scuff resistant - and yet we're finding that the surface of both gloss and satin are easily damaged. It's not an issue of the ink coming off - just one of the surface marring. To be honest, after researching the issue we've come to the conclusion that inkjet printing is fine for things being framed - may possibly be OK in albums if the pages are seperated with rice paper (otherwise more scuffing) - and totally unsuitable for printing 4 x 6 that get handled like P & S prints from the camera shop.
We've also tried spraying with a protective coat - it makes the print a bit more abrasion resistant, but even something as innocent as sliding another 4 x 6 around on top of it with very light pressure produces many fine (and permanant) scratches.
> What about framing? I always liked the 'French Clip' idea with just a > sheet of glass, unobtrusive stainless steel clips and a black backing > board. I've heard you shouldn't press glass against prints but I'm > guessing that only applies to gloss and wouldn't be a problem for matte > watercolor paper. It helps to spray them first (and either way, let things dry for at least a day), but we've had prolems with both sorts of paper sticking to the glass. It starts out looking like a small spot (or group of spots) but gets worse - and when you try to remove the photo it will stick to the glass at these points, ruining the photo. Using a mat within the frame to keep it off the glass is the only 100% safe way, damn it!
|
|
|