Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Cheaper alternative to Hahnemühle photo rag 308 with epson 3800 at A2?  (Read 6929 times)
AaronPhotog
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 128


WWW
« Reply #20 on: January 18, 2011, 01:33:18 AM »
ReplyReply

Tyler,

For the record, the Hahnemuhle Fine Art Photo Rag 308 in my tests has an average brightness reading of L=96.25, while the Epson Hot Press Natural reads 97.35 (higher is brighter).  Visually, however, the Hahnemuhle looks a little brighter than the Hot Press Natural under a 5000k Fluorescent bulb.  What this tells me is that there is a possibility that the Hahnemuhle paper may have a small amount of brighteners (notice how carefully I've couched those terms).  Maybe Ernst can confirm that.  To my spectrometer, the Hot Press Natural is brighter.  Also, for the record, all that information is in the published results on my website as linked above, including the all-important spread from useable dMax to paper white (it's all relative).  Also, for the record, I'm using an Epson 3800 with the K3 inkset for my tests, but in the case of paper brightness comparisons, no ink is involved.

Aloha,

Aaron
« Last Edit: January 18, 2011, 01:37:11 AM by AaronPhotog » Logged

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

Posts: 2726


« Reply #21 on: January 18, 2011, 03:01:21 AM »
ReplyReply

Tyler,

For the record, the Hahnemuhle Fine Art Photo Rag 308 in my tests has an average brightness reading of L=96.25, while the Epson Hot Press Natural reads 97.35 (higher is brighter).  Visually, however, the Hahnemuhle looks a little brighter than the Hot Press Natural under a 5000k Fluorescent bulb.  What this tells me is that there is a possibility that the Hahnemuhle paper may have a small amount of brighteners (notice how carefully I've couched those terms).  Maybe Ernst can confirm that.  To my spectrometer, the Hot Press Natural is brighter.  Also, for the record, all that information is in the published results on my website as linked above, including the all-important spread from useable dMax to paper white (it's all relative).  Also, for the record, I'm using an Epson 3800 with the K3 inkset for my tests, but in the case of paper brightness comparisons, no ink is involved.

Aloha,


Aaron

HM PR has FBA throughout the paper in a modest amount, the Hot Press Natural not (slight dip even on the blues).

You use "brighter" while the L value actually describes an average of total white reflection, brightness is measured at 457 NM. The PhotoRag will be brighter than the HPN but isn't whiter than HPN (L 96.6-97.2 here). It shows in the spectral plots.


met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst Dinkla

New: Spectral plots of +220 inkjet papers:
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
Logged
TylerB
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 334


WWW
« Reply #22 on: January 18, 2011, 11:36:46 AM »
ReplyReply

I'm not sure if these comments are to take issue with mine or not, but I'll clarify-
Neither those I print for regularly who prefer PhotoRag, nor myself, would consider any of the "natural" papers a viable visual alternative to PhotoRag. They consistently select it because it is NOT warm by comparison, amongst other reasons. Had I thought natural papers were what the OP would prefer, I would have emphasized the natural version of Alise more. I am fully aware that the brighteners in Alise are in the coating. Nonetheless, subjectively it is a viable option to PhotoRag, much more affordable, given of course the knowledge of potential brightness fade over time, which I was quick to point out. Prints with ink on paper laying next to each other are very visually similar, compared to pairings with natural papers.
I never mentioned any Epson papers, and though Hot Press Natural is an impressive performer, again, it is natural, and these new Epson papers don't don't represent a real significant savings, at least from my dealer, so seem OT to me. If they were, again I'd suggest the bright version for more of a subjective match to HPR for actual ink on paper prints, despite the base measurements differences.
The best alternative, both objectively and subjectively, to HPR that in my experience is Canson Rag Photographique, but it represents no savings, so OT.
Tyler
Logged
JeffKohn
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1671



WWW
« Reply #23 on: January 18, 2011, 12:24:20 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
What this tells me is that there is a possibility that the Hahnemuhle paper may have a small amount of brighteners (notice how carefully I've couched those terms).  Maybe Ernst can confirm that.
As Ernst said, HPR does have a modest amount of brighteners. They seem to have found the sweet spot though. HPR tends to look whiter than most natural/OBA-free papers, yet without looking "cool". The paper white is pretty close to neutral. And whatever formulation they're using doesn't hurt permanence, since HPR doesn't suffer the burnout or yellowing that many OBA-heavy papers do.

I think that's why it's so difficult to find a substitute for HPR. Even if you do find another cheaper paper with similar white point and texture/feel that is also in the ballpark for gamut/DMax, chances are it won't have the permanence of HPR. While this may not be an issue for personal prints, IMHO it has to be a concern for prints sold to collectors. Maybe worrying about prints lasting 100+ years is overkill, but having prints yellow or otherwise deteriorate in just a few years would be pretty embarrassing, and isn't something I would want to risk just to save 20% on paper costs.
Logged

AaronPhotog
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 128


WWW
« Reply #24 on: January 23, 2011, 04:17:08 PM »
ReplyReply

When I used the term "brighter" it was in the subjective sense.  Ernst is right, I should have used the term "lighter" or having higher "luminance," as that is what is being reported by the
"L" in the LAB numbers.  I was not comparing "whiteness." 

Although it was an error in the strictest sense, it is a very common one, made sometimes for practical communication with people who are more influenced by common usage and ordinary, rather than photographic, dictionaries (I have a box of laser paper here that is labeled "96 brightness").  A lot of people relate "luminance" only to something that emits light, rather than reflects it.  However, "luminance" supplanted "brightness" in modern terminology for quantifying reflected light as well.  In the discussion of the charts on my website, I was more careful about it.  By way of clarification, the only LAB numbers being reported are the ones describing the paper base, the rest are expressed as reflection densities.  Also, the "b-w" numbers do compare the densities of dMax vs. paper reflection density, rather than dMin in the strictest sense for the sake of uniformity, and for comparitive purposes only.  In reality, the spread reported may or may not be achieved, depending on a number of factors such as profile accuracy, lighting, covering glass or plexiglas, etc.

Meanwhile, I was curious about the bright versions of the Epson HP and CP papers.  They definitely have brightening agents, but I scaped away at the surfaces and found that the appearance of "white" did not differ all the way through the sheets.  I didn't measure it to confirm, but it was pretty obvious that there was no difference.  Ernst, perhaps you could shed some light on that (sorry, I can't help the pun).  If the brightening agent is distributed throughout the paper thickness, should that make it more or less likely to fade?

Aloha,

Aaron
Logged

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

Posts: 2726


« Reply #25 on: January 24, 2011, 02:57:34 AM »
ReplyReply


If the brightening agent is distributed throughout the paper thickness, should that make it more or less likely to fade?

Aloha,

Aaron


There are more factors having an influence on the shift of paper white in time. In the end Aardenburg will have the verdict on how the paper behaves. Mark gave a good summary on the Digital B&W list of the factors that have an influence. I assume he wouldn't  mind a quote here:


> I believe there are several factors that influence OBA burnout and
> media white point stability. Here are some of the key variables.
>
> 1) concentration of OBAs, ie.  how much does the initial media color
> depend on the incorporated OBAs. If very little, then total burnout
> produces only slight effect. If a lot, then total burnout produces
> large effect.
>
> 2). Location of OBAs. When located in top microporous coatings, the
> OBAs are extremely sensitive to oxidation (just like other dyes). The
> oxidation can be photochemically induced, but even more so due to
> ozone induced oxidation. The OBA's are more protected when located in
> subbing layers and paper core.  Many RC papers, for example, have
> subbing layers below the top ink receptor layer and above the PE/TiO2
> layer where the manufacturer can include some OBAs.
>
> 3). Molecular structure of the OBA and interaction with the layer(s)
> in which they are embedded. For example, swellable polymers will
> indeed protect them more from oxidation, which in part explains why
> OBAs in traditional darkroom type photo papers have not gotten as bad
> a reputation (although some problems have been experienced in the
> field with traditional photo papers as well).
>
> 4) As a corrollary to item 3), the pore size of the micro/nano porous
> silcates used in the inkjet paper probably plays a role as it can
> also affect the oxygen penetration rates to the OBAs as well as the
> final physical shape of the OBA molecular chain structure due to
> electronic charge influences from the silicates distorting the bonds
> in the dye molecule.
>
> 5) Inclusion of additional tinting pigments in the paper
> size/coatings to achieve cooler media white point thus lessening the
> need for higher OBA concentrations.  Typically you will see lower L*
> values for papers that add some cool-white hue with tinting
> additives, and UV-cut spectral data should still show blue wavelength
> region effects due to the added colorant.
>
> There's undoubtedly other variables as well, but these are some key
> variables that affect OBA fading impact on media white point
> stability.

> The manufacturers can also add anti-oxidants.

end of quote

If you check the Aardenburg paper white shifts of papers and my plots you will see some correlation between the paper construction (FBA placing) and white paper shifts but there isn't a strict 1:1 rule.

I prefer to use shift instead of fading. it is quite usual that the overall white reflectance actually (initially) increases a bit in the Aardenburg test but the brightness goes down in time due to FBA breakdown. I guess that first effect is like bleaching linen on the meadow. Due to the FBA loss a shift to a warmer paper happens.

On the brightness versus white reflectance. In the graphic industry the brightness number was used as a general indication of whiteness for papers that had very similar spectral plots. By measuring only the 457 NM reflectance is was an easy and fast method. We see however that it isn't an accurate description for the papers we use. And I think that simple rule may have had an influence on the use of FBAs to give that paper a boost to get in a higher category. Not a problem for magazine paper though.


met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst Dinkla

New: Spectral plots of +230 inkjet papers:
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm





Logged
Alan Goldhammer
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1573


WWW
« Reply #26 on: January 24, 2011, 08:16:52 AM »
ReplyReply

To follow up on the last two posts, I printed out a bunch of B&W targets on Hahnemuhle Photo Rag Ultra Smooth for Mark to put into stability testing at Aardenburg.  They were done on an Epson 3880 and one of the things we are also going to look at is various effects of the "toning wheel" from the standard Epson presets (sepia, warm, cold) to the extremes around the wheel's edges.  It should be interesting to see the results.
Logged

Shane Daly
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3


« Reply #27 on: August 09, 2012, 11:22:51 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi everyone

Just joined, first post.

I too love Hahnemuhle paper but the cost can be daunting. I'm keen to experiment with the other papers suggested here but the warning on the paper feed of my Epson 3880 says no Ultra smooth or Velvet Fine Art paper, which may explain why she was struggling sometimes with the 300g/m2 paper?

Any advice greatly appreciated, thanks a lot.

Shane

shanedaly.info
Logged
howardm
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 651


« Reply #28 on: August 09, 2012, 12:11:15 PM »
ReplyReply

which paper feed are you referring to?  the 38xx has 3
Logged
Shane Daly
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3


« Reply #29 on: August 09, 2012, 12:56:10 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi Howard

The basic rear manual feed. The thick paper seemed to cause problems and I had to feed it one at a time, but the difference in image quality means I am keen to continue printing on this type of paper.

I just don't want to damage my printer..

Shane
Logged
Randy Carone
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 536


« Reply #30 on: August 09, 2012, 02:58:45 PM »
ReplyReply

Shane,

The SHEET feed (or standard feed) is where the 3800/3880 says no Ultra Smooth Fine Art, Velvet Fine Art and/or Water Color Radiant White. By this, they mean that you have to use the REAR feed for heavy paper and the FRONT feed for media that is between 1.2 and 1.5mm (48 to 60 mils). So, yes, you certainly can run Ultra Smooth and Velvet in a 3800/3880 with no problem. It's all in the manual. Smiley
Logged

Randy Carone
Shane Daly
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3


« Reply #31 on: August 09, 2012, 03:37:35 PM »
ReplyReply

Randy

Smashing, thanks for the info.

Read the manual?!! Now there's an idea..  Wink

Thanks again.

Shane
Logged
Pages: « 1 [2]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad