Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Innova F-Type inconsistency  (Read 4801 times)
thompsonkirk
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 205


WWW
« on: June 19, 2006, 11:58:49 PM »
ReplyReply

I'm surprised to have encountered so much inconsistency in the Innova F-Type surface.  

Before Michael's review I'd borrowed a few sample sheets from a lab/printer in my building.  We thought the surface was unattractive - not like an air-dried gelatin silver paper, but stippled or indented.

After reading Michael's review I wondered if I'd seen a bad lot, so I tried a new package of letter-sized paper.  Out-of-the-box, the surface looked a little different, and prints on it looked noticeably better - smoother surface, higher reflectance, & less (but still slightly) stippled.  I was won over by it & sent some targets off for profiling.  The blacks on the target prints looked very deep & I could see why Michael was impressed.  

Planning to print a portfolio on it, I bought two packages of 17x22" paper - only to find that they matched not the paper I'd just printed on, but the more 'cardboard'-surfaced  version I'd tried at first.  

I subsequently heard from a paper distributor that the Innova F-Type that was first available did look somewhat different.  

I've sent a request to Innova for a return or replacement authorization of what I suppose was a bad batch or early version.  I understood that the 17x22" packages had been sent to my dealer quite recently, so apparently it's still being sent out in some sizes or to some dealers.  

I'd urge anyone interested in trying the paper to be sure they can return it if it doesn't seem to match Michael's description.
« Last Edit: June 20, 2006, 12:02:37 AM by thompsonkirk » Logged
tsjanik
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 521


« Reply #1 on: June 20, 2006, 07:43:45 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Before Michael's review I'd borrowed a few sample sheets from a lab/printer in my building.  We thought the surface was unattractive - not like an air-dried gelatin silver paper, but stippled or indented.
.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=68611\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Interesting comment.  I ordered a pack of 8.5x11 with no small difficulty.  I was perhaps expecting too much from the paper, but to me it looks like a semi-gloss with stipples; not an attractive surface at all.
Logged
nihil
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 52



WWW
« Reply #2 on: June 20, 2006, 12:21:27 PM »
ReplyReply

I just received a pack of A4 sheets to check it out. The label on the box says "Batch Code:003". Did you get such codes on your different samples?

I'm probably going to decide between this and the Fine Art Pearl paper (when I get my hands on it in a few days). But in case of inconsistencies I'd like to know what I got.

EDIT: Based on what Michael wrote in his review about the surface, quote "The surface of Fibaprint is very smooth, with almost no tooth whatsoever. If you hold the paper to the light just so, you'll see a very fine texture, what I would call a micro-stipple. This is a tiny dimensionality to the paper's depth that isn't at all unpleasant, and is only seen in inked area, not on the paper itself. It needs some contrast to be seen."   - I suspect I got a different sample. To me the stipple seems very pronounced. I haven't decided if I like it or not, but the texture is very visible. That said, I have very limited experience with papers of this sort. I've been using Ilford Smooth Pearl mostly but want a more classy paper with a less reflective surface (the innova f-type reflects as much as Smooth Pearl I'd say).
« Last Edit: June 20, 2006, 04:49:07 PM by nihil » Logged

regards,
Erlend Mørk
thompsonkirk
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 205


WWW
« Reply #3 on: June 20, 2006, 05:01:05 PM »
ReplyReply

There aren't any batch codes on the US packages, but there are dates.  In both cases, the date is 3-30-06 - which doesn't help much because it's the same for both of the slightly different surfaces.

The difference you noted - between Michael's description & the paper you saw - sounds just like the difference between the two surfaces I tried.
« Last Edit: June 20, 2006, 05:04:52 PM by thompsonkirk » Logged
nihil
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 52



WWW
« Reply #4 on: June 20, 2006, 09:19:51 PM »
ReplyReply

Well I for one can't have such inconsistencies in my papers. Is this normal for newly launched papers? I hope Fine Art Pearl will prove more satisfying.
Logged

regards,
Erlend Mørk
haefnerphoto
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 617


WWW
« Reply #5 on: June 20, 2006, 09:32:47 PM »
ReplyReply

I've printed on perhaps 100-120 sheets of the 11x17 purchased at three different times.  The first lot was fine and since I liked the weight and feel I ordered another 40-50 sheets.  The second lot had been cut so that one edge of the paper was shreaded (for lack of a better description) and very small bits of paper would stick to the surface until printed on and then fall off leaving a small white dot.  This happened to about 50% of the prints, which is a problem.  I talked to Shades of Paper about this and they acknowledged that there was a problem and that it had been resolved.  The last couple of packages were cut correctly but now I'm noticing small dark spots embeded in the paper, perhaps 4 of 20 have this imperfection and though much improved I am still getting some white spots from the sheets not being clean.  Obviously, I could blow off each sheet as I'm loading the printer but I've never had to do that with any other paper and would prefer not to start now.  I've just ordered some more, although it is now backordered, hopefully these problems will be resolved soon.  I haven't noticed any variance in the surface, at first I didn't like it but after seeing that it makes a great print I think I'll continue to go with it until something better comes along.
Logged

bossanova808
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 46


« Reply #6 on: June 21, 2006, 12:12:56 AM »
ReplyReply

We stopped carrying Innova papers here because of surface issues - their Fibaprint matte was a bloody shambles in that regard.
Logged
nihil
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 52



WWW
« Reply #7 on: June 21, 2006, 12:01:36 PM »
ReplyReply

on-linepaper.co.uk just assured me that Innova admitted "this was a problem only of the pre-production batches and will not be a feature of current or future production."

Also I was told that what I got was from the latest production - which I am actually liking more and more as I'm getting used to it.

Another thing; this paper seems rather vulnerable to the pizza wheels in my epson 4800. Any way to avoid this? Has anyone removed the wheels from a 4800?
« Last Edit: June 21, 2006, 12:02:53 PM by nihil » Logged

regards,
Erlend Mørk
thompsonkirk
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 205


WWW
« Reply #8 on: June 21, 2006, 08:23:28 PM »
ReplyReply

It's a thick paper - .37mm or 14.6 mil.  You can make a custom thickness setting on your printer.
Logged
nihil
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 52



WWW
« Reply #9 on: June 21, 2006, 08:52:15 PM »
ReplyReply

Thanks but I've already tried that. The default was 0,1mm so I raised it to 0,5mm to see if there was a difference. There wasn't. I also tried, without knowing what I'm doing excactly, to set Eject Roller Type to to "No Roller-Roll Normal". No difference there either. But this option is perhaps active when using roll paper only? (I have only sheets for testing now, but if roll paper won't encounter this problem I'm happy enough)

The pizza wheel marks is very visible in dark areas, and sparkles at you at certain light angles. And my images are unfortunately dominated by large black and dark areas. I wonder how buyers would look at these prints. I also wonder if Michael had set up his 4800 better since he deemed the paper good enough to order a lot more.

I'm preparing an exhibition so any help to solve this matter quickly would be greatly appreciated.
« Last Edit: June 21, 2006, 08:55:27 PM by nihil » Logged

regards,
Erlend Mørk
britzus
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 4


« Reply #10 on: June 22, 2006, 08:04:38 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: nihil,Jun 22 2006, 03:52 AM
Thanks but I've already tried that. The default was 0,1mm so I raised it to 0,5mm to see if there was a difference. There wasn't. I also tried, without knowing what I'm doing excactly, to set Eject Roller Type to to "No Roller-Roll Normal". No difference there either. But this option is perhaps active when using roll paper only? (I have only sheets for testing now, but if roll paper won't encounter this problem I'm happy enough)

The pizza wheel marks is very visible in dark areas, and sparkles at you at certain light angles. And my images are unfortunately dominated by large black and dark areas. I wonder how buyers would look at these prints. I also wonder if Michael had set up his 4800 better since he deemed the paper good enough to order a lot more.

I'm preparing an exhibition so any help to solve this matter quickly would be greatly appreciated.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=68819\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
[/quote

I encountered the same problem and could not solve it. The same happens with Hahnemühle FineArt Pearl, I suspect the wheel marks are on all kind of papers, but you just do not notice it on matte papers, due to the different coating. I think buyers will hardly notice it, as you have to look at an extrem light angle with strong directed light to see it clearly. I never noticed it on pictures on the wall behind glass.
Logged
dbell
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 131


« Reply #11 on: June 22, 2006, 08:45:45 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
The pizza wheel marks is very visible in dark areas, and sparkles at you at certain light angles. And my images are unfortunately dominated by large black and dark areas. I wonder how buyers would look at these prints. I also wonder if Michael had set up his 4800 better since he deemed the paper good enough to order a lot more.

I'm preparing an exhibition so any help to solve this matter quickly would be greatly appreciated.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=68819\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I had the same problem on my 2400. Using both the sheet feeder and the single-sheet feeder (I'm using precut sheets), I had visible pizza-wheel marking on my prints. When I loaded the paper through the front slot (which is supposedly for "thick media"), I got overspray outside of the edges of the printed area.

My workaround is a real kludge, but it seems to be working to some extent: I feed the paper through the front slot on top of a thin piece of cardboard (the kind that comes in boxes of paper). This seems to reduce the gap between the heads and the paper enough to eliminate the overspray while still keeping the paper safely away from whatever rollers cause the pizza-wheel damage.

I don't know whether the anatomy of the 4800 is similar enough for this to be of any help. Given the expense and aggravation involved with this paper, I'm not sure whether or not I'll keep using it. It IS a unique surface; it's also not cheap or particularly easy to work with.


--
Daniel Bell
Logged
nihil
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 52



WWW
« Reply #12 on: June 22, 2006, 09:24:38 AM »
ReplyReply

Except for the pizza wheels, I think it is rather easy to work with. It prints almost the same as Ilford Smooth Pearl with the same settings.

As I got painters all around me, and I like to compare my self with them, I feel that my papers are so boring compared to a painted canvas.  This Innova paper is at least a big step in the right direction.   I'd have a hard time persuading myself to give this paper up now.

After investigation I could also find the wheel marks on Smooth Pearl and Fine Art Pearl, but those were well within the acceptable I'd say.
Logged

regards,
Erlend Mørk
nihil
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 52



WWW
« Reply #13 on: June 22, 2006, 03:07:16 PM »
ReplyReply

Ok. Now I found out what I'll do. Setting 'Ejection Roller Type' to "No Roller-Roll Normal" inside 'Paper Config' kept the pizza wheels off the paper when printing from a *roll*. But the 4800 insists on spoiling the bottom 10-15cm when ejecting the the cut paper. The "solution" to this is to sacrifice some extra paper before making the cut. Not economic, not even acceptable from such expensive equipment, but whatever it takes.....

Better solutions are more than welcome.
Logged

regards,
Erlend Mørk
Pages: [1]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad