Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Aanybody tested the new "Harman by Hahnemuhle" papers?  (Read 18119 times)
eleanorbrown
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 612


WWW
« Reply #20 on: July 22, 2010, 09:43:43 AM »
ReplyReply

I have also heard the papers are the same exact paper as before. Eleanor


Quote from: AnthonyHope
Hi, I've been unable to get the old Harman Gloss FB AL in the uk and Harman are selling their remaining papers off at reduced prices. So it looks like its all being replaced by the Harman/Hanhemule logo
and I'm very doubtful that the papers will be indentical. So its back to testing and new ICC profiles.

Good luck

Cheers

Anthony
Logged

John R Smith
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1357


Still crazy, after all these years


« Reply #21 on: July 22, 2010, 11:39:48 AM »
ReplyReply

Well, I've just got home and I have now checked my sample B/W prints from last night in good daylight (which is always forensically revealing). And so far as my eyes can see, there is absolutely zero difference between the old and the new warmtone paper. Perhaps, as I mentioned, just slightly more gloss differential, but even then you have to look hard to see it. The actual image on the paper looks just the same.

So now I am really puzzled. Why are others seeing (and measuring) quite marked differences between old and new? I was so worried about this change that I brought up large stocks of the original paper to see me through in case the new stuff was no good (I got it at a great price, though).

John
Logged

Hasselblad 500 C/M, SWC and CFV-39 DB
and a case full of (very old) lenses and other bits
mrcmrc
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 40


« Reply #22 on: July 22, 2010, 01:41:29 PM »
ReplyReply

Thanks for the tips John!

- Marco.



Quote from: John R Smith
To elaborate a little on this problem of paper curl -

The original Harman FB Gloss was certainly very prone to this. The new Harman by Hahnemule may be less so, or the same, I don't know. But I have mitigated the problem by adopting the following strategy -

* Always store the boxes flat. I know it is terribly tempting to store them vertically, like books, because it saves space, but just don't do it.

* The plastic bag inside the box I am sure does help to protect the paper from environmental contaminents, but it also makes the paper curl up because the bag gets folded and scrunched up in the corner of the boxes. So the first thing I do is strip the outer shrink-wrap off, open the box and remove the paper from the inner bag.

* Then replace the paper carefully in the box, without the bag, but the opposite way up, glossy side down. The way it is despatched (glossy side up) contributes to curl.

* When you are about to make a print, remove the box lid, tilt one end of the paper stack out of the box (carefully!) and remove the bottom sheet of paper for the print. This is the flattest sheet, obviously, because of the weight of paper above it.

* I forgot the most important part of the cunning plan. We always have two boxes of paper on the go, not just one. As you remove sheets from the printing box, you add new sheets to the top from box 2. That way you always have a good weight of paper on the lowest sheet, which is nice and flat when you come to use it. When box 2 runs out, you buy another, and carry on.

I know many of you will already have all of this figured out, but I think at least some of the folks reading these threads may be just starting on their journey . . . .

John
Logged
John R Smith
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1357


Still crazy, after all these years


« Reply #23 on: July 22, 2010, 03:29:00 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: mrcmrc
Thanks for the tips John!

- Marco.

Marco, you are welcome. If anyone finds it helpful, that makes my day.

John
Logged

Hasselblad 500 C/M, SWC and CFV-39 DB
and a case full of (very old) lenses and other bits
AaronPhotog
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 128


WWW
« Reply #24 on: July 23, 2010, 12:53:12 AM »
ReplyReply

For those wishing to see a comparison of the three versions of the Harman Gloss Al Baryta (I only have the latest original Harman Warm Tone Glossy Al at this time), as well as other paper comparisons, please see the link below to view my Inkjet Paper Ink Reception Test by the Comparative Method.

This test was devised by me to provide an accurate way of comparing and measuring the way papers respond to ink.  In my opinion, that’s by far the most important factor in paper selection, and the test has been an extremely reliable indicator of paper quality.

1)   The test is not influenced by, and does not use, profiles, linearization, curves, rendering intents, or actual test images.  (that can be done later)
2)   The only selections are
a.   Paper type
b.   Matte or glossy black ink
c.   Dots per inch

Those parameters assure that the papers may be directly compared, numerically and visually, for their responses to ink under the same exact conditions.  The test image produces ramps of each ink cartridge at 5% intervals from 5% to 100%, using Roy Harrington’s QTR calibration page.  All that the page does is push ink in those increments.  I use the black, light-black, and light-light black ramps only for this test.  The color ramps are not used for this numerical evaluation.

All the charts are to the same size and scale for direct comparison.

In the charts, the top of the highest curve is the maximum black.  The bottom of the lowest curve is the lowest 5% grey, but not minimum ink.  If the curves are smooth with no reversals and no leveling out before the final increase or decrease, and relatively evenly spaced, then linearizing or profiling will be able to effectively produce a smooth range of tones.  If not, it is sometimes possible with some ink limiting to produce a satisfactory profile if some other aspect of the paper is worth the effort.  The best curves in this test set reveal themselves very quickly.

Other observations are included, such as bronzing observations, paper color and indications of the presence of brighteners, surface reflectance (gloss differential).  An important number is the difference between paper white and maximum useful black density (Dmax).  That number has a box around it, as it is an important indication of perceived potential contrast.

A few odd tests were made to prove or disprove some suggested deviations from the normal way of printing on certain papers.  Other tests were made to compare response at 1440 vs. 2880 dpi settings where it seemed that results might improve.  This was done for the Harman by Hahnemuhle Gloss Al, and seems to indicate a better response at the lower setting.

For more information, go to http://www.dygartphotography.com/papertestmethod.html and read about the paper test method.  Then, you should be able to easily read and interpret the spreadsheets found in the next page listed in the upper menu as “Paper Test Charts.”

Aloha,

Aaron
« Last Edit: July 23, 2010, 12:58:00 AM by AaronPhotog » Logged

Aaron Dygart,
Honolulu
John R Smith
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1357


Still crazy, after all these years


« Reply #25 on: July 23, 2010, 02:14:53 AM »
ReplyReply

Aaron

That is really good stuff. Thank you very much.

Your photography is drop-dead stunning, too.

John
Logged

Hasselblad 500 C/M, SWC and CFV-39 DB
and a case full of (very old) lenses and other bits
Ernst Dinkla
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2829


« Reply #26 on: July 23, 2010, 02:26:38 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: AaronPhotog
For more information, go to http://www.dygartphotography.com/papertestmethod.html and read about the paper test method.  Then, you should be able to easily read and interpret the spreadsheets found in the next page listed in the upper menu as “Paper Test Charts.”

Aloha,

Aaron

Aaron,


If you could convince Roy to implant the greyscale wedges I made you would also get better information on bleeding and detail loss at that stage. An aspect I do not see much reference to in your method.

http://www.pigment-print.com/Quad%20QTR/Index.html

Since I have the HP Z printers I measure the calibration targets (again) separately after the printers integrated spectrometer calibrated the printer. That second measurement is done to check whether the target was printed with the Dmax on the 100% patch, it often isn't on the Z3200 but often correct with the Z3100. That tells me whether I can alter media preset for that paper or start from another media preset. If that is done I run a test through the HP B&W mode with my greyscale wedges to check the bleed and detail loss and to verify the linearity of the Z calibration. The greyscale wedge is 360 PPI for the Epsons, I changed that to 300 PPI and 600 PPI for the Z models.


met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst Dinkla

spectral plots of +100 inkjet papers:
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm


Logged
AaronPhotog
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 128


WWW
« Reply #27 on: July 23, 2010, 03:42:40 AM »
ReplyReply

John,
Thanks for the kind words.

Ernst,
Yes, I saw your spectral analysis as visualized by your son, too.  Great stuff!  That's why I didn't feel a need to delve into that, as you guys have done such a great job with that.

After doing my inking test and have narrowed my selection, that's when profiling and test prints come into play.  I like Northlight Images' black and white test image for comparison of the kinds of things you mention.  I think Roy's intent for the ramps is strictly to enable calibration and linearization for his excellent Quad Tone RIP, so I don't think he had the evaluation aspect of it in mind when he built it.  It just turns out to be an excellent tool for this evaluation.  One improvement might be to leave gaps between the steps, as you have done, so it's harder to miss with the spectrometer.  I mark my printouts with little lines above the edges of the patches, but even then, it's possible to overlap an edge here and there in the darker patches, so I re-read every now and then.

Thanks for your excellent comments and suggestions, as always.

Aloha,

Aaron
« Last Edit: July 23, 2010, 03:47:03 AM by AaronPhotog » Logged

Aaron Dygart,
Honolulu
Ernst Dinkla
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2829


« Reply #28 on: July 23, 2010, 05:06:29 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: AaronPhotog
After doing my inking test and have narrowed my selection, that's when profiling and test prints come into play.  I like Northlight Images' black and white test image for comparison of the kinds of things you mention.  I think Roy's intent for the ramps is strictly to enable calibration and linearization for his excellent Quad Tone RIP, so I don't think he had the evaluation aspect of it in mind when he built it.  It just turns out to be an excellent tool for this evaluation.  One improvement might be to leave gaps between the steps, as you have done, so it's harder to miss with the spectrometer.  I mark my printouts with little lines above the edges of the patches, but even then, it's possible to overlap an edge here and there in the darker patches, so I re-read every now and then.

Aaron

Aaron,

I understand that the main purpose of the QTR channel greyscales is to find the points where partitioning has to be done and to put the D-max on the 100% Black patch. But it happens sometimes that there is bleeding at the 100% Black patch while more ink would increase Dmax, A Dmax you can't use because you have to set the inklimit lower to stop the bleeding. For the other channels if used on a color ink loaded printer you would check the maximum chroma and bleeding again. If you can find a balance at that stage it is much more likely that your image quality/resolution test later on will be satisfying and there will be no need to return to the ink limit phase or another media preset choice. This is very similar to pro RIP calibration, CMYK-device profiling. I think it could be useful to have the bleeding and detail checks there, at least on the black channel but preferably on all. They do not interfere with the patch measurements either.

For QTR quad etc use there's another stage where ink loads may prove to be near the paper coating's absorption capacity. After the partitioning on the transfer points of the 3-4-5-6 grey inks. That's where I used my greyscale wedges for. As a replacement for the linearisation target, check the one you linearise on, print the target again for the QTR profiling and the last is the final one to check bleeding and detail loss. If one goes the custom partitioning, custom profiling route of QTR then no extra targets have to be printed to check resolution etc. The targets have to be printed anyway so give them more functionality.


met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst Dinkla

Try: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/
« Last Edit: July 23, 2010, 07:09:07 AM by Ernst Dinkla » Logged
David Good
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 145


« Reply #29 on: July 23, 2010, 09:26:40 AM »
ReplyReply

Thanks for the analysis Aaron, looks like I will be ordering some when my current supply runs low.

I also contacted them about the smaller 17" option. For those lamenting the demise of the 17"x25" sheets, Hahnemuhle will be releasing their version of the Gloss FB AI in that size. It will be the Gloss Baryta 320gsm, this as per one of their reps., no release date as of yet though.

Dave
Logged

AaronPhotog
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 128


WWW
« Reply #30 on: July 23, 2010, 11:35:50 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: David Good
Thanks for the analysis Aaron, looks like I will be ordering some when my current supply runs low.

I also contacted them about the smaller 17" option. For those lamenting the demise of the 17"x25" sheets, Hahnemuhle will be releasing their version of the Gloss FB AI in that size. It will be the Gloss Baryta 320gsm, this as per one of their reps., no release date as of yet though.

Dave

That's really good news, David.  Thanks for contacting them.  Let us know if and when you hear more.  Meanwhile, I hope people will keep writing to Hahnemuhle and encouraging them to go ahead with the larger size.

And, of course, as soon as I've posted the tests of the new paper, they've already come out with another line that they call their Harman Gloss Art Fibre Baryta by Hahnemuhle, 300 gsm.  It's thinner, and they are touting (as if we are that gullible) "made with pure pulp."  Like the 320 gsm Harman Gloss Baryta by Hahnemuhle, they have a warm-tone version as well.

Aloha,

Aaron
« Last Edit: July 23, 2010, 11:37:06 PM by AaronPhotog » Logged

Aaron Dygart,
Honolulu
Mike Bailey
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 24


WWW
« Reply #31 on: August 03, 2010, 05:32:56 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Mike Bailey
But, the most glaring problem is that this box of sheets had absolutely the worst curl of any cut sheets that I have ever used from any manufacturer.  I tried decurling a couple of sheets before printing on my Epson 3800.  No luck, though, as I had a number of head strikes at the beginning, causing the paper to slew slightly and double print for the first inch or so.  Regardless, I did a couple of prints, enough to see the differences others have also observed.  I have left the rest of the box on a decurling tube I used in the past when cutting roll paper into sheets, but even then it looks rather resistant to decurling.

Mike Bailey

Following up on my experience with my last order of Harman (by Hahnemuhle) Gloss Baryta:

Discussing this problem with customer service at the Hahnemuhle facility in Illinois, USA, I was told that the papers are currently being manufactured by Harman, sent to Hahnemuhle and packaged.  Possibly this is where part of the problem may be.  When I received shipment of my order of 30 sheets of Harman Gloss Baryta, the package had been on a UPS truck during most of a warm day, temperature around 85, so probably warmer in the truck.  The package that the paper was in was much larger than needed for the paper, so there was plenty of room for the paper to settle in any direction if the package was tipped.  So this may have contributed to the problem.  

I did let the box sit for a couple of hours to adjust to an indoor air-conditioned environment, but that hadn't been enough.  

The customer service person I talked with was very helpful, and she said she'd forward this information to their HQ in Germany.

Mike

http://www.bluerockphotography.com
Logged

Nino Loss
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 433


« Reply #32 on: August 09, 2010, 11:58:24 AM »
ReplyReply

I just compared the profiles provided by the manufacturer for both papers. The gamut of the ORIGINAL seams quite bigger than that of the new one (when I compare them in the 3D LUT viewer of NEC's Multiprofiler).


Logged
Mike Louw
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 137



WWW
« Reply #33 on: August 09, 2010, 05:46:26 PM »
ReplyReply

Am I missing something or is there no longer a matte baryta paper?
Logged

JohnBrew
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 734


WWW
« Reply #34 on: August 09, 2010, 08:20:33 PM »
ReplyReply

I hope the change is for the better. As one poster noted the old Harman had many problems, unfortunate because it printed beautifully. I, too, went back to all my Harman prints which were framed (and for sale in galleries!!) and I've had to reprint and replace all of them due to buckling and waves - and this was with the best products and procedures for dry mounting. Today I'm living with a little less d-max and I would never give Harman a second look, it was just too expensive in the long run.
Logged

AaronPhotog
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 128


WWW
« Reply #35 on: August 16, 2010, 02:35:28 AM »
ReplyReply

I hope the change is for the better. As one poster noted the old Harman had many problems, unfortunate because it printed beautifully. I, too, went back to all my Harman prints which were framed (and for sale in galleries!!) and I've had to reprint and replace all of them due to buckling and waves - and this was with the best products and procedures for dry mounting. Today I'm living with a little less d-max and I would never give Harman a second look, it was just too expensive in the long run.

I'm curious about what your procedures for drymounting were.

Aloha,

Aaron
Logged

Aaron Dygart,
Honolulu
pindman
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 191


« Reply #36 on: August 16, 2010, 09:33:40 AM »
ReplyReply

I hope the change is for the better. As one poster noted the old Harman had many problems, unfortunate because it printed beautifully. I, too, went back to all my Harman prints which were framed (and for sale in galleries!!) and I've had to reprint and replace all of them due to buckling and waves - and this was with the best products and procedures for dry mounting. Today I'm living with a little less d-max and I would never give Harman a second look, it was just too expensive in the long run.

What have you replaced the Harman with that has a similar finish?
Thanks.
Paul
Logged
Nino Loss
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 433


« Reply #37 on: August 16, 2010, 09:44:36 AM »
ReplyReply

What have you replaced the Harman with that has a similar finish?
Thanks.
Paul

To my eyes, there is nothing really comparable in terms of surface. I am about to use Canson Platin Fibre Rag more and more. The surface is bit more semi-glossish but very even and fine. Unlike Harman Gloss FB Al Wt, it contains NO brighteners and still is a lot whiter : L*a*b* 97.40 / 0.29 / 0.41 (see here http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=45494.msg382088#msg382088 and here http://wyofoto.com/Canson_Platine_review_2.html). It's 100% cotton rag, acid-free and buffered...  Wink

cheers
nino

EDIT: I forgot to mention that the paper seams to have a high dMax and wide gamut. I think you understood that I like it.

EDIT (II): after running some more tests I must contradict my initial euphoria. Everything seamed promising, but I can't get real good dMax, nor Gamut till now. Anyone?

Also, after having the paper on my walls and in my drawers, printed with some test images, I would not call the surface smooth. It's more something like Exhibition Fiber.
« Last Edit: August 18, 2010, 06:58:42 AM by Nino Loss » Logged
probep
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 149


« Reply #38 on: August 16, 2010, 10:20:32 AM »
ReplyReply

... L*a*b* 97.40 / 0.29 / 0.41 (see ... here http://wyofoto.com/Canson_Platine_review_2.html).
Hm, a strange approach is in http://wyofoto.com/Canson_Platine_review_2.html
I don't usderstand why "Illumanant A" was used for CIE values calculation...
For Illuminant D50 I've got L*=96.9, a*=0, b*=0.1 (averaged from 10 measurements)
« Last Edit: August 16, 2010, 10:29:48 AM by probep » Logged
Nino Loss
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 433


« Reply #39 on: August 16, 2010, 12:05:21 PM »
ReplyReply

Hm, a strange approach is in http://wyofoto.com/Canson_Platine_review_2.html
I don't usderstand why "Illumanant A" was used for CIE values calculation...
For Illuminant D50 I've got L*=96.9, a*=0, b*=0.1 (averaged from 10 measurements)

I didn't notice that, but I think Miles Hecker must have a good reason for doing so. I find his website very informative, as well as his articles here in LL. My guess is that he directly compares for his standard illuminant, which is of type A, meaning all the incandescent light of his clients and his own house.
Logged
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad