Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 2 [3]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Disappointment with Hahnemuhle papers  (Read 19578 times)
howie
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 15


« Reply #40 on: December 10, 2006, 09:35:00 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Quality control starts with whether you are using a professional printer that is individually calibrated to a common standard before it leaves the factory and stays that way thereafter.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=89792\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

So, the Epson 3800 (and all their "pro" printers) use PreciseColor technology in the factory to calibrate the printers.  Can you really rely on any printer staying in spec?  If not, then the only way to really be certain your color management is accurate is to periodically create custom profiles for your combination(s), and make sure the RIP you use accomodates custom profiles.  Would that be a fair statement?
Logged
Gene Coggins
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 36


« Reply #41 on: December 10, 2006, 09:56:02 PM »
ReplyReply

[
For goodness' sake, isn't there a heavyweight paper (over 250 g/m2) for MK which is ultra-smooth and bright white (over 100 ISO)? I do understand that this is a forum for "landscape" enthusiasts, and that textured papers probably tend to enhance landscape photos. I was just hoping that maybe someone here might have a helpful suggestion for me.

Thanks,

Brad
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=76459\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
[/quote]

First of all, your ICC profile is obviously wrong! And I don't know what the preoccupation is about the ISO. If you insist in printing with matte black ink, then look at the fine art German Etching paper, William Turner or better the Museum Etching paper. Hahnemühle papers are the finest I have found for making fine art prints.

I have two 4800s, one loaded with photo black and the other with Matte black inks. The only anomaly I discovered with printing on the Museum Etching 17 X 22" sheet stock is I needed to make an slight adjustment with curves in Photoshop to darken the mid to dark grays.

Contact Hahnemühle USA and ask for a free sample pack of 8 x 10 sheets of all their papers. Download their suggested ICC profiles for the Epson 4800 from their Web site. Select ONE image and print on each of the sample papers. Then make a decision.

If the ISO is so critical, then switch to photo black ink and use resin coated (RC) papers such as the Epson Premium Photo Luster paper.

Gene
Logged
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6931


WWW
« Reply #42 on: December 10, 2006, 10:53:54 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
So, the Epson 3800 (and all their "pro" printers) use PreciseColor technology in the factory to calibrate the printers.  Can you really rely on any printer staying in spec?  If not, then the only way to really be certain your color management is accurate is to periodically create custom profiles for your combination(s), and make sure the RIP you use accomodates custom profiles.  Would that be a fair statement?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=89805\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Epson are probably the only ones who know how they calibrate their printers in the factory. How long a printer will remain in a steady state probably depends on a number of variables so there is no single answer to that question.

Ask yourself what you need a RIP for apart from profile provision, then ask yourself how many profiles a year you are likely to need and based on those answers you can work out for yourself whether a RIP makes sense for your particular needs.
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
NikosR
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 622


WWW
« Reply #43 on: December 11, 2006, 07:51:55 AM »
ReplyReply

If you can relax your restriction about >100% whiteness for a fine art matte ink paper, then you can find lots of papers to suit your needs. PhotoRag Bright White itself is less than 100% (99% per Hahn. spec sheet).

PhotoRag Duo for one, is quite smoother than PhotoRag and PhotoRag Bright White. Epson UltraSmooth is also another one, resembling EEM in its surface smoothness.

I'm a bit puzzled by your insistance with bright white. Bear in mind that any cotton based paper of such whiteness will have a large amount of OBA's added. These are bound to fade in time returning the paper to a much lower whiteness level.

The EEM paper that you insist on using is quite well known to loose its whiteness in quite a short time, and is generally accepted that it is not of archival quality (although much better than other non-archival papers).

Relaxing your criteria for brighness, will help you solve the problem with EEM overinking as well. EEM i found to be good for proofing, too thin for much else.
« Last Edit: December 11, 2006, 07:53:11 AM by NikosR » Logged

Nikos
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6931


WWW
« Reply #44 on: December 11, 2006, 08:16:09 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
The EEM paper that you insist on using is quite well known to loose its whiteness in quite a short time, and is generally accepted that it is not of archival quality (although much better than other non-archival papers).

Relaxing your criteria for brighness, will help you solve the problem with EEM overinking as well. EEM i found to be good for proofing, too thin for much else.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=89850\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I don't know what you mean by "quite a short time" and then there is a question of the storage conditions. It is necessary to be more precise in discussing these things otherwise people can misunderstand.

EEM like other matte papers is relatively short on D-Max and can block detail in deep three-quarter-tones, but it is an eminently useful paper depending on the purpose. I use it extensively, but I don't sell my work. If I sold my work I would prefer to use a heavier stock.

Getting back to its properties, if I post these prints on the fridge door, within a year they lose a bit of their original whiteness. When they are kept in dark storage or in bound books as I described in my recent article on this website, the difference in whiteness is hardly noticeable after two years and somewhat noticeable after five years. I am printing as I write and I just made the comparison of a print fresh out my 4800 with stuff on my bookshelf this minute, under D-50 illumination.

As for over-inking, this depends on printer settings and adjustments, not on the paper. I see no evidence of over-inking from my 4800; I do not consider the deep quarter-tone issue a matter of over-inking, based on similar results I've seen from other printers on the same files - be it with the Epson driver or ImagePrint - unless all of them over-ink regardless of what one does - perhaps not likely.
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
NikosR
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 622


WWW
« Reply #45 on: December 11, 2006, 08:26:05 AM »
ReplyReply

I am refering to findings by the Wilhelm Research Institute and to the actual reasons Epson decided to rename their Archival matte paper to Enhanced matte in the US market. According to them yellowing in EEM will happen under dark storage conditions also.

I print images for display in household conditions (under glass) and not for dark storage or just for gallery tungsten viewing.

With regards to inking, I have had regular problems with EEM warping due to excessive ink when printing images with high ink coverage both on my 2200 and now on my 3800. I have to routinely adjust the driver ink settings for this.
Logged

Nikos
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6931


WWW
« Reply #46 on: December 11, 2006, 08:30:20 AM »
ReplyReply

I'm completely familiar with Wilhelm's data - which also includes specific information on "yellowing" - but it is not actually yellowing we are talking about, rather it is a fading of the brightener, which then reveals the base colour of the paper. I wasn't saying this doesn't happen - only that one needs to be careful about describing the conditions and the extent.
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
NikosR
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 622


WWW
« Reply #47 on: December 11, 2006, 08:39:25 AM »
ReplyReply

I don't want this thread to deteriorate to an EEM discussion, but wasn't OBA fading what I refered to in my post to which you responded with your objections?
Logged

Nikos
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6931


WWW
« Reply #48 on: December 11, 2006, 08:48:51 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I don't want this thread to deteriorate to an EEM discussion, but wasn't OBA fading what I refered to in my post to which you responded with your objections?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=89861\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

True, but you mentioned "yellowing" two posts back   . And no harm discussing EEM in as thread like this - it is such a widely used medium we should understand clearly what it does and doesn't do either alone or compared with media being discussed here as well.
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
Brad_Stiritz
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 27


« Reply #49 on: December 11, 2006, 10:01:46 AM »
ReplyReply

Hey everyone,

Quote
I'm a bit puzzled by your insistance with bright white. Bear in mind that any cotton based paper of such whiteness will have a large amount of OBA's added. These are bound to fade in time returning the paper to a much lower whiteness level.

The EEM paper that you insist on using is quite well known to loose its whiteness in quite a short time, and is generally accepted that it is not of archival quality (although much better than other non-archival papers).

Maybe it would be helpful to bring the actual Wilhelm data into this discussion--

Quote
Display Permanence Ratings and Album/Dark Storage Permanence Ratings (Years Before Noticeable Fading and/or Changes in Color Balance Occur)
Epson Enhanced Matte Paper > 110 years

http://www.wilhelm-research.com/epson/WIR_..._2005_09_03.pdf

So we're talking about 3-4 human generations here. I honestly think this length of time meets any reasonable standard of ethics for the sale of prints, at least person-to-person. OK, if you're selling to a museum or some other institution, then it's probably fair to question EEM's longevity. Personally, though, I'm not quite at that point yet. I do have one client who is pretty fanatical about collectability, and he hasn't questioned my choice of EEM.

**For my personal taste** the archival rag papers are just too yellow for general use. **To me** it doesn't matter whether they last 200 or 1000 years. I'm choosing to go with a brighter paper that will look great for 2-3 generations. Of course, if a particular project or sale comes up where longevity is a requirement, and the image is predominantly warm-tone, then I would absolutely take the time to make a proper print on the UltraSmooth Fine Art paper. Until then, I'm choosing to work with EEM.

Brad
Logged

Brad Stiritz
candid portraits
www.brad.stiritz.net
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6931


WWW
« Reply #50 on: December 11, 2006, 10:41:24 AM »
ReplyReply

Brad, this is useful input, but let us be clear what the Wilhelm rating means. If you read the language carefully, there appears to be a distinction between what appears to be yellowing caused by fading of the brightener (footnote 10 in the Wilhelm data) and yellowing of the paper itself (footnote 6) and there also appears to be no specific commitment on the question about the extent to which the optical brightener fades over time revealing the underlying colour of the paper (footnote 10). You could well have a less *brightened* print whch is still "WIlhelm-stable" (footnote 6) if I can put it that way - in the sense that the colour balance hasn't been affected and it hasn't faded. I'm not sure whether Wilhelm or anyone else knows over how many years the OBA effect will disappear completely. In footnote 10 he does recommend using papers that do not contain OBAs if you wish to absolutely insure against the OBA itself being a source of yellow staining.
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
ericbullock
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 67


WWW
« Reply #51 on: December 11, 2006, 06:42:06 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
For goodness' sake, isn't there a heavyweight paper (over 250 g/m2) for MK which is ultra-smooth and bright white (over 100 ISO)? I do understand that this is a forum for "landscape" enthusiasts, and that textured papers probably tend to enhance landscape photos. I was just hoping that maybe someone here might have a helpful suggestion for me.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=76459\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

You may want to try Moab Entrada BW, or Innova FibaPrint Ultrasmooth. Myself, I do not find a subtle texture (like Photo Rag) to be objectionable when rendering skin. Clearly your preference is for a smoother sheet, so I would look at those two papers. A thicker paper than EEM won't buckle like that.

-eric-
Logged
ericbullock
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 67


WWW
« Reply #52 on: December 11, 2006, 06:44:45 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
First of all, your ICC profile is obviously wrong! And I don't know what the preoccupation is about the ISO. If you insist in printing with matte black ink, then look at the fine art German Etching paper, William Turner or better the Museum Etching paper. Hahnemühle papers are the finest I have found for making fine art prints.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=89808\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

If he did not like the texture of Photo Rag, then he will absolutely hate William Turner! Etching is nice, but also has more texture than Photo Rag.

-eric-
« Last Edit: December 11, 2006, 06:45:11 PM by ericbullock » Logged
NikosR
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 622


WWW
« Reply #53 on: December 11, 2006, 11:43:50 PM »
ReplyReply

Brad,

It's your work and you can do whatever you want with it. I was just suggesting that your whiteness criterion limits you in using a paper with inferior handling characteristics (and a smaller gamut by the way, but this might be irrelevant for your kind of images), which in a not a very long time under normal household display conditions will return itself to the colour of the papers you refuse to use. BTW, exactly due to the large amount of OBAs added to EEM, it will appear much colder when displayed under UV rich lighting (for example diffused daylight) than under gallery standard tungsten illumination. To me EEM and UltraSmooth appear quite similar under D50 tungsten (Solux) illumination, and even more similar under household tungsten.

To each his own.
« Last Edit: December 11, 2006, 11:46:13 PM by NikosR » Logged

Nikos
Brad_Stiritz
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 27


« Reply #54 on: December 12, 2006, 08:13:53 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi Nikos,

Thanks for your comments. May I ask please, do you have a scientific reference for your statement--?

Quote
in a not a very long time under normal household display conditions [EEM] will return itself to the colour of the papers you refuse to use

Regarding your comment about viewing conditions--

Quote
To me EEM and UltraSmooth appear quite similar under D50 tungsten (Solux) illumination, and even more similar under household tungsten

-- I can imagine you're completely right. To my eyes, D50 & household tungsten are really yellow. I evaluate all my prints under daylight. As you may know, Phillips and others are now marketing broader-spectrum lighting to the masses. From the point of view of longevity, counting on D50 illumination to be the prevailing standard well into the future might be a little short-sighted, if you'll pardon the expression. We'll have to see!  

But the paper wars will probably go on forever!  

Brad
Logged

Brad Stiritz
candid portraits
www.brad.stiritz.net
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6931


WWW
« Reply #55 on: December 12, 2006, 09:01:28 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
To my eyes, D50 & household tungsten are really yellow.
Brad
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=90036\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

To each his/her own eyes - but in my case Solux D50 is VISIBLY much cooler than household tungsten.  

If you intend to look at your photographs mainly in daylight, that is the standard to judge them by, but otherwise an interior lighting standard would be more appropriate. D50 is now the industry standard. I think it makes sense to standardise to something that is generally accepted, real, and generally relevant to one's viewing conditions. Whether D50 will change to something else at some unknown future time is perhaps a consideration, but doesn't strike me as particularly operational in the here and now.
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
NikosR
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 622


WWW
« Reply #56 on: December 12, 2006, 10:22:57 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Hi Nikos,

Thanks for your comments. May I ask please, do you have a scientific reference for your statement--?
Regarding your comment about viewing conditions--
-- I can imagine you're completely right. To my eyes, D50 & household tungsten are really yellow. I evaluate all my prints under daylight. As you may know, Phillips and others are now marketing broader-spectrum lighting to the masses. From the point of view of longevity, counting on D50 illumination to be the prevailing standard well into the future might be a little short-sighted, if you'll pardon the expression. We'll have to see! 

But the paper wars will probably go on forever!   

Brad
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=90036\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

As I said, to each his own. I find daylight a very inexact and unrepeatable light to proof my prints under. Having said that, I always examine my prints under daylight as well to get an idea how they look under non-standard conditions. But not for proofing. My daylight is very different depending on the window I'm close by, time of day and year and weather conditions, and I'm sure it is very different to yours (unless we live in the same latitude and altitude).

Regarding EEM, no scientific evidence. My eyes only (which btw can differentiate between D50 and household tungsten really well  and even between Solux D50 and GTI fluorescent D50 for what it's worth). If you just want scientific evidence that OBA's will fade, I think you can find plenty in the public domain.

I'm not sure I understand your comments about D50, future prevailing standards and short-sightedness. Would you care to elaborate?
« Last Edit: December 12, 2006, 10:44:27 AM by NikosR » Logged

Nikos
Brad_Stiritz
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 27


« Reply #57 on: December 13, 2006, 09:16:51 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi Nikos,

Quote
I'm not sure I understand your comments about D50, future prevailing standards and short-sightedness. Would you care to elaborate?

I was trying to highlight your own point that standards can change. We were discussing what will happen to EEM decades down the line, and how EEM looks in daylight and under D50 compared to an ISO-90-brightness type of paper. In that context, your show of support for D50--

Quote
If you intend to look at your photographs mainly in daylight, that is the standard to judge them by, but otherwise an interior lighting standard would be more appropriate. D50 is now the industry standard. I think it makes sense to standardise to something that is generally accepted, real, and generally relevant to one's viewing conditions. Whether D50 will change to something else at some unknown future time is perhaps a consideration, but doesn't strike me as particularly operational in the here and now.

--seem to me a tiny bit unfair. After all, if we're only going to talk about the here and now, then why shouldn't the debate end with me saying that I feel my prints look and sell better on EEM than on archival rag whatever? Whether the color balance of EEM prints "will change to something else at some unknown future time is perhaps a consideration.." etc etc

Also, note that D50 is just one of the CIE reference illuminants, which to my knowledge are all less than 75 years old; i.e. not really too established yet, at least by the light of your presumed 200-year archival rag lifespan.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_illuminant
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_point
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International...on_Illumination

This is all I was trying to get at with my previous comments.

Brad
Logged

Brad Stiritz
candid portraits
www.brad.stiritz.net
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6931


WWW
« Reply #58 on: December 13, 2006, 10:05:31 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
--seem to me a tiny bit unfair. After all, if we're only going to talk about the here and now, then why shouldn't the debate end with me saying that I feel my prints look and sell better on EEM than on archival rag whatever? Whether the color balance of EEM prints "will change to something else at some unknown future time is perhaps a consideration.." etc etc

Also, note that D50 is just one of the CIE reference illuminants, which to my knowledge are all less than 75 years old; i.e. not really too established yet, at least by the light of your presumed 200-year archival rag lifespan.
Brad
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=90257\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Well, as long as its only a tiny bit unfair, that's fine - I was neither trying to debate nor to be fair or unfair; I was only suggesting an approach that I think makes logical sense in the current context, which I believe is the normal context in which one sells prints. In the final analysis, when it gets down to paper choices, longevity standards and viewing conditions, these are all largely a matter of personal taste and preference, so it's whatever floats the boats of you and your customers. There are no right or wrong answers.
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
Pages: « 1 2 [3]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad