Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Epson Exhibition Fiber  (Read 30116 times)
picnic
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 574


« Reply #40 on: January 01, 2008, 10:00:33 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Epson Premium Luster paper? Its pretty popular. Its used with Photo Blank ink, its not a matt paper.

This new paper is similar but much, much nicer.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=164366\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Thank you.  That helped classify it for me.  I really would like to try samples of the several new papers as I did of the F type that came out earlier.  I ended up with the less glossy of the bunch--Innova F type semi matte.  Since it seems difficult to find a sample pack of all of them except Epson EEF (I bought the F pack from Jim Doyle at Shadesofpaper before--hoping he will put one of the baryta papers sample packs together also) I've been trying to decide which paper to sample with a 25 pack of 8.5 x 11 to print (the Ilford is available in a 10 pack I think).  Michael seems to think one of the baryta papers is the answer for him and no more matte prints (the Ilford Gold Fiber Silk)--and the EEF is quite pricey, but I'd at least like to try it now.

Diane
Logged
BruceHouston
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 308



« Reply #41 on: January 01, 2008, 10:46:46 PM »
ReplyReply

I received EEF paper a few days ago and have made a few prints.  It has the same "baryta" smell as the Harman Gloss FB Al (stronger, even), prints about the same, and says "Made in UK."  The EEF surface is very slightly rougher than the Harman surface.  Sheets from the 8 1/2 x 11 box (batch 700097) have a few pits in the coating, whereas the Harman surface is flawless.  

The EEF is a bit cooler in tone than the Harman.  Curiously, notwithstanding the cooler tone, softproofing EEF in Photoship CS3 results in a larger image tonal shift than seen with the Harman paper.  I do not know if the manufacturers are able to manipulate the degree of tonal shift seen with the softproofing function when they create the profiles.

I notice that neither paper has any "patent pending" notices on the packaging, presumably because the "baryta" technology is old.  This is good news for photographer-consumers, because it means that this paper is a non-IP protected commodity whose price will soon drop as all the photo paper companies begin participating.  I paid $4.44 per 13" x 19" sheet of the EEF, making it the most expensive of the four brands mentioned in Michael's article.  As to the EEF's reportedly significantly higher dMax, for me the jury is still out on that issue until more testing is performed.

Jeff Schewe, Pixel Genius created the Epson profile for EEF and recommends a paper type setting of Premium Luster, while the Epson insert sheet inside the paper package recommends a setting of Pemium Glossy Photo Paper, as previously mentioned in this thread.  With your numerous connections, could you please clarify this setting for us?

Thanks,
Bruce
Logged
ricgal
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 139


« Reply #42 on: January 02, 2008, 06:53:17 AM »
ReplyReply

Can anyone tell me who is selling EEF in the UK please?
Logged

www.ricbower.com- Art and Fashion Photography
www.ricbower.co.uk- Wedding Photography
www.ricbowerphotography.co.uk- Commercial Photography
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8590



WWW
« Reply #43 on: January 02, 2008, 08:26:41 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Jeff Schewe, Pixel Genius created the Epson profile for EEF and recommends a paper type setting of Premium Luster, while the Epson insert sheet inside the paper package recommends a setting of Pemium Glossy Photo Paper, as previously mentioned in this thread.  With your numerous connections, could you please clarify this setting for us?

Thanks,
Bruce
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=164513\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Use Luster. You'll see if you look, the slip in the box describes the wrong paper
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
eleanorbrown
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 612


WWW
« Reply #44 on: January 02, 2008, 09:08:52 AM »
ReplyReply

My question is what is the difference in using the media setting of Luster and glossy?  It is ink lay down, dithering or what.  I'm using this paper with the PPG profile, it it is excellent by the way! eleanor


Quote
Use Luster. You'll see if you look, the slip in the box describes the wrong paper
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=164556\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Logged

Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5416


WWW
« Reply #45 on: January 02, 2008, 11:33:13 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
My question is what is the difference in using the media setting of Luster and glossy?  It is ink lay down, dithering or what.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=164564\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


In Canada and Europe, those Epson divisions have decided to call the paper "Traditional Photo Paper" and their info sheets call for Premium Glossy as a media settings. Why? I don't know, but I think it's because they didn't actually TEST it and simply followed the suggestions of others. At Epson US, the paper was extensively tested and it was decided that the proper media settings to use was Luster 260 (or Luster in current printers). That's the media setting that PixelGenius used to create the PG profiles and that's the media settings you must use if you use our profiles.

As for the differences when changing media settings, the driver adjusts the platten gaps and the ink flow to the heads based on the media settings. Thus, with the EFP you should be using Luster with a platten gap of 5.
« Last Edit: January 02, 2008, 03:26:28 PM by Schewe » Logged
BruceHouston
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 308



« Reply #46 on: January 02, 2008, 12:06:54 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
In Canada and Europe, those Epson divisions have decided to call the paper "Traditional Photo Paper" and their info sheets call for Premium Glossy as a media settings. Why? I don't know, but I think it's because they did actually TEST it and simply followed the suggestions of others. At Epson US, the paper was extensively tested and it was decided that the proper media settings to use was Luster 260 (or Luster in current printers). That's the media setting that PixelGenius used to create the PG profiles and that's the media settings you must use if you use our profiles.

As for the differences when changing media settings, the driver adjusts the platten gaps and the ink flow to the heads based on the media settings. Thus, with the EFP you should be using Luster with a platten gap of 5.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=164598\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Thank you for the clarification, Jeff.

Bruce
Logged
Marty C
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 65


WWW
« Reply #47 on: January 02, 2008, 03:58:01 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
In Canada and Europe, those Epson divisions have decided to call the paper "Traditional Photo Paper" and their info sheets call for Premium Glossy as a media settings. Why? I don't know, but I think it's because they didn't actually TEST it and simply followed the suggestions of others. At Epson US, the paper was extensively tested and it was decided that the proper media settings to use was Luster 260 (or Luster in current printers). That's the media setting that PixelGenius used to create the PG profiles and that's the media settings you must use if you use our profiles.

As for the differences when changing media settings, the driver adjusts the platten gaps and the ink flow to the heads based on the media settings. Thus, with the EFP you should be using Luster with a platten gap of 5.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=164598\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Jeff:
 On both my 9800 and 3800 the platen gap is either standard,wide, widest. ect. So a platen gap of 5 is what?
Logged
AaronPhotog
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 128


WWW
« Reply #48 on: January 03, 2008, 10:37:19 AM »
ReplyReply

I think he means the paper thickness.  Right above the platen gap setting (usually) is the paper thickness setting in units of .1mm.  Set that to 5 (which therefore equals .5mm).

Aloha,
Aaron
Logged

Aaron Dygart,
Honolulu
Ralph Eisenberg
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 82


« Reply #49 on: January 03, 2008, 02:17:08 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Has anyone tried Eric Chan's EEFP profile for use with ABW mode in the 3800 driver (in order to use only black inks)?  Just looking for comments on the output, while I wait to get my hands on the paper.

http://people.csail.mit.edu/ericchan/dp/Epson3800/index.html
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=163858\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

For me this method has worked very well with EFP, using the instructions provided, with very satisfying screen to print matches. Eric has been most generous in making these profiles (for a range of papers) available with all the expertise and time that must have gone into making the program that generated them. I for one am most appreciative.
Logged

Ralph
Robert.D
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 12


WWW
« Reply #50 on: January 03, 2008, 02:55:55 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Can anyone tell me who is selling EEF in the UK please?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=164541\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Try phoning Calumet they have it on order
Robert

 08706 03 03 03
website@calumetphoto.co.uk
Logged
guerillary
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 13


WWW
« Reply #51 on: January 03, 2008, 03:18:18 PM »
ReplyReply

I picked up a box of Exhibition Fiber 8.5 x 11 from Samy's Culver City, CA for my 3800 and am having exactly the same issue you are with the "micro cracks".  I'm using the Pixel Genius ICC profile and following all instructions in the box and on the Pixel Genius site.  There's a sticker on the back of my box with the number "700119" - who knows, that might be the batch number.

Although the cracks appear in every print I've run on this paper, they appear at slightly different densities and usually on either the left or right side of the image; not both at the same time.

Like dealy's experience, my 3800 prints like a charm on all my other stocks; be they glossy, luster, thick fine art rag, matte, etc.  This is either a problem with the paper or instructions on how to print on it.  Being I've tried all the suggestions users who aren't having problems with this paper have made and am still getting the cracks... my guess is there's a bad batch out there.

Here's the specs I'm using to print...

Epson Pro 3800 w/ clean print heads, purchased within the last week
8.5 x 11 Exhibition Fiber Paper
Tried both latest and shipped versions of print driver for OSX
Photoshop CS3 AdobeRGB 1998 ICC image profile
2880 Photo Fine
Pixel Genius 3800 EFP ICC Profile
Tried both Premium Lustre and Glossy settings
Tried both manual rear and sheet-feeder settings
Tried both standard and Paper Width of "5" paper types
Tried Black Point Compensation "on" and "off"
Tried Match Print Color "on" and "off"
Have "High Speed" turned off
Not letting the printer control any settings

... What a shame because, as far as I can tell, this would be the most amazing B&W print stock if it weren't for these ruinous cracks.  For a moment I thought the artifacts could be intentional however there isn't a trace of them on the print samples at my local shop.

ryan@giantsteps.us
Logged

Ryan Thompson
www.giantsteps.us
Dave Gurtcheff
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 464


« Reply #52 on: January 03, 2008, 04:43:01 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Got you. Yes, I see allot of people referencing Epson Premium Luster paper in both role and sheets. I take it that its Eposn's best Glossy paper and one of the best glossy papers in the market.

Makes sense now why you would call it luster on steroids. I got to wonder, though, with this paper offering so much is there a point of using matte paper anymore?

Thanks
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=164368\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
A bit off topic, but Epson Premium Luster has been one of my most used and favorite papers using 2200 and 7600 printers. I just got a 3800 printer and wanted to make 16"x24" prints using K3 inks, so I bought Inkjet Art's 17"x25" Ceramic Luster, and used both the Epson Luster profile, and Inkjet Art's free profile. Hard to tell the difference. In fact comparing 7"x10.5" prints of Epson Luster, and Inkjet Art Luster with the two different prifiles, all three are hard to tell apart, except under my small desk halogen light the Inkjet Art paper surface is noticicably whiter (Optical brighteners?). Again off topic, am I the only one seening value in 17"x25" size?
Dave in NJ
Logged
FDewannieux
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 17


« Reply #53 on: January 03, 2008, 04:48:06 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
In Canada and Europe, those Epson divisions have decided to call the paper "Traditional Photo Paper"
Hi Jeff,

Do you know whether  the paper sold in the US and in Europe are manufactured in the same place ? I had reported a couple a weeks ago on this forum how I had found that the ICC profile downloaded from the French Epson website was significantly more accurate for colour work than the PG one when printing on French-bought ""Epson Traditional Photo Paper. Since this was surprising, I was wondering whether there might be a certain level of variation between the US paper and the European one.

Thanks,

Franck

The post was there: http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....topic=21347&hl=

Here's the quote:
Quote
I just put my hand on a box of "Epson Traditional Photo Paper" in Paris. I thought it would be the same as the "Epson Exhibition Fiber Paper". I tested it with a color image and the profile I downloaded from the Epson website. The soft proof was reasonably accurate (not incredibly great but not bad for a canned profile). I am printing from CS3 and let Photoshop do the color management.

I then printed the same image with the Pixel Genius profile. I was surprised to notice that the result is significantly worst, there is actually quite a strong yellow color cast.

Either I don't know what I am doing (but I have become reasonably competent at this and usually don't have this kind of problem) or maybe the papers are actually different ? The product id on my box is S045050 whereas the product id for the "Epson Exhibition Fiber Paper" on the US website is S045033. My paper was manufactured in Switzerland.

I am puzzled...
Logged
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5416


WWW
« Reply #54 on: January 03, 2008, 05:01:43 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Do you know whether  the paper sold in the US and in Europe are manufactured in the same place ?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=164876\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Nope...not yet. Still waiting for a response from Epson...
Logged
Ralph Eisenberg
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 82


« Reply #55 on: January 04, 2008, 01:13:09 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Hi Jeff,

Do you know whether  the paper sold in the US and in Europe are manufactured in the same place ? I had reported a couple a weeks ago on this forum how I had found that the ICC profile downloaded from the French Epson website was significantly more accurate for colour work than the PG one when printing on French-bought ""Epson Traditional Photo Paper. Since this was surprising, I was wondering whether there might be a certain level of variation between the US paper and the European one.

Thanks,

Franck

The post was there: http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....topic=21347&hl=

Here's the quote:
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=164876\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Yesterday I tried the profile from the Epson France site for "Traditional Photo Paper" and I would have to concurr that for the particular images I was printing it gave a more accurate screen to print match on my 3800 than the PG profile. This was most apparent for B&W printing where there is a notable color cast using the latter profile, something that surprised me and that ultimately led me to use Eric Chan's ICC profile for the Epson ABW driver which gives really satisfying results. It would be good to know if we are talking about the same paper.
Logged

Ralph
ghui
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3


« Reply #56 on: January 04, 2008, 09:06:23 AM »
ReplyReply

Anyone try this or one of the other new next gen papers with an Epson 2200?

Thanks,

gh
Logged
guerillary
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 13


WWW
« Reply #57 on: January 04, 2008, 05:52:49 PM »
ReplyReply

I spoke to Epson Tech Support today regarding the "micro-cracks" issue on the Exhibition Fiber Paper; which another poster and myself have been experiencing.  They said that, while occurrences are rare, they are aware of the problem via prior reports and it is the paper.  I've been directed to get a replacement from the retail vendor however Epson said they will replace the product for me in any event the vendor won't honor the transaction.

I don't expect any issue with the replacement, Epson support has been helpful in the matter and I'm just following up to make folks aware of the situation so they don't think there's a problem with their printer or setup.

I'm really forward to printing on this paper without the artifacts; because in absence of them it's the nicest paper (at least for B&W) I've seen 3800 inkjet prints on.

Ryan Thompson
www.giantsteps.us
Logged

Ryan Thompson
www.giantsteps.us
dealy663
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 57


« Reply #58 on: January 05, 2008, 01:53:17 PM »
ReplyReply

Ryan,

Well its good to hear that Epson is aware of the problem, and at least will make it right be sending us replacements. I hope that this issue doesn't come up again if I by a box of 17x22.

Derek

Quote
I spoke to Epson Tech Support today regarding the "micro-cracks" issue on the Exhibition Fiber Paper; which another poster and myself have been experiencing.  They said that, while occurrences are rare, they are aware of the problem via prior reports and it is the paper.  I've been directed to get a replacement from the retail vendor however Epson said they will replace the product for me in any event the vendor won't honor the transaction.

I don't expect any issue with the replacement, Epson support has been helpful in the matter and I'm just following up to make folks aware of the situation so they don't think there's a problem with their printer or setup.

I'm really forward to printing on this paper without the artifacts; because in absence of them it's the nicest paper (at least for B&W) I've seen 3800 inkjet prints on.

Ryan Thompson
www.giantsteps.us
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=165102\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Logged

guerillary
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 13


WWW
« Reply #59 on: January 06, 2008, 05:28:39 AM »
ReplyReply

Finally, I can confirm the "micro crack" issue was simply a bad batch of paper, as Epson suspected.  Samy's Culver City (CA) replaced my box of 8.5 x 11 today and I'm printing gorgeous B&W on it with no artifacts in sight.  Now I can say this paper rocks!

BTW - Eric Chan's EEF ABW ICC Profiles at...

http://people.csail.mit.edu/ericchan/dp/Ep...bwprofiles.html

... produce results damn close to my Macbook Pro LCD; and that's just with my eyeball-setup monitor profile!  His FAQ and other material on the 3800 is packed with great info, although the ABW profile printing instructions are a little confusing.  I think he might accidentally be linking to a page that forgets to tell you to turn on the ABW driver when using his profile... either that or I made a lucky mistake.

Ryan Thompson
www.giantsteps.us
Logged

Ryan Thompson
www.giantsteps.us
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad