Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Hahnemühle Photo Rag Satin  (Read 7265 times)
WPalank
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 28



WWW
« on: March 21, 2012, 12:31:26 PM »
ReplyReply

I went into my local Calumet as I needed some 11" x 17" cut sheet paper for an upcoming Gallery show. My main go to paper is Canson Baryta Photographique when printing from my 7900 and Image Print RIP. As I lifted a box of Photo Rag Pearl off the shelf I noticed a paper I had never heard of before, Hahnemühle Photo Rag Satin which is listed as a "Glossy" FineArt Paper.

I went to the IP Profile Manager and was surprised it wasn't listed under PK inks. So I used the Photo Rag Pearl Profile instead and it came out gorgeous. In fact when I went to pick up 5 prints from the framer, another customer couldn't take his eyes off the Satin Print and just went on and on about it.
After thinking about it, I went to the IP Profile Manager and found the Profile under MK ink. The paper truly does have more of a Matte feel to it, but Hahnemühle lists it as Glossy.

I got an email from ColorByte today after sending them a query and the gentleman said that John had profiled the papers under PK and MK and the MK had better transitions and higher D-max. I must say that even under glass, the texture of this paper really comes forward.

So, is anyone else using it and what profiles are you using?
« Last Edit: March 22, 2012, 02:58:24 PM by WPalank » Logged

Geraldo Garcia
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 232



WWW
« Reply #1 on: March 22, 2012, 11:25:24 PM »
ReplyReply

I use it once or twice a month.

Beautiful paper, but a bit tricky. Although it has some level of gloss it has the gamut of a matte paper. Also, the texture and the satinish gloss generates quite a bit of glare on the shadows, lowering the perceived detail. It is a paper better suited for high key images IMHO.

Best regards.
Logged
Czornyj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1436



WWW
« Reply #2 on: March 23, 2012, 01:24:28 AM »
ReplyReply

It's definitely a MK-type paper. There's something funny, wax-like mixed into the paper fibers so it exhibits a very subtle glossiness. I find the opalescence of this paper particularly good to achieve a kind of metallic look of printed objects, and it's also cool for making oil paintings reproductions, it has similar "oily" surface.
« Last Edit: March 23, 2012, 01:26:57 AM by Czornyj » Logged

Ernst Dinkla
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2885


« Reply #3 on: March 23, 2012, 02:42:28 AM »
ReplyReply

Is the HM White Velvet Satin a paper with similar characteristics?


met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst
Shareware too:
330+ paper white spectral plots:
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm


Logged
Czornyj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1436



WWW
« Reply #4 on: March 23, 2012, 04:14:20 AM »
ReplyReply

Is the HM White Velvet Satin a paper with similar characteristics?

Ernst, did you mean Lumijet by Hahnemühle White Velvet 270? I haven't seen it yet.
Logged

Ernst Dinkla
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2885


« Reply #5 on: March 23, 2012, 05:31:08 AM »
ReplyReply

Ernst, did you mean Lumijet by Hahnemühle White Velvet 270? I haven't seen it yet.

A mistake.

I actually had HM White Etching Satin 270 gsm in mind.
Delisted at HM but some distributors still have it in stock.

Does it give that slight gloss too?



met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst
Shareware too:
330+ paper white spectral plots:
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
Logged
MonsterBaby
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 133


« Reply #6 on: March 23, 2012, 05:47:09 AM »
ReplyReply

yes. same deal.

just different carrier.. etching is 25% rag as rag is. well rag ;-) the rag is brighter than the etching

the unprinted parts are matte.. the printed once get a satin shine..  its a bit tricky with the Zs (or maybe with all pigments) when too much ink is apllied the shine gets a little muddy and smurfy.. it came out brilliant with the DJ130 and dye inks.. well for a bout 3 months ;-)

def no gloss enhancer for it!
Logged
Czornyj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1436



WWW
« Reply #7 on: March 23, 2012, 05:59:04 AM »
ReplyReply

its a bit tricky with the Zs (or maybe with all pigments) when too much ink is apllied the shine gets a little muddy and smurfy..

I haven't notice it with Epson K3 VM nor Canon LUCIA EX. The only problem I observed is a slight pink shine when light hits it at certain angle (left upper corner of left upper print):
Logged

MonsterBaby
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 133


« Reply #8 on: March 24, 2012, 01:45:53 PM »
ReplyReply

never saw that pinkish with the Zs
Logged
Geraldo Garcia
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 232



WWW
« Reply #9 on: March 24, 2012, 10:27:01 PM »
ReplyReply

Me neither!

I think that may be an issue caused by K3 or LUCIA inks (whatever was used) as I never noticed tat with Vivera inks.

Best regards.
Logged
fetish
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 153


« Reply #10 on: March 26, 2012, 11:08:36 AM »
ReplyReply

Ah the Hahnemuehle Photo Rag Satin and the White Etching Satin are two of my favourite papers to print on. Have been using them for over 6 years.
Have to watch the shadow areas tho, details tend to get lost there, so some manual tonings on the actual digital image will be needed.
It has an almost moody characteristic about it so the picture that goes onto it will have to be able to be compatible with the feeling of the paper.
Logged
John Caldwell
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 473



« Reply #11 on: May 03, 2012, 10:07:12 PM »
ReplyReply

A puzzle has cropped up, in my mind: Hahnnemüle cans Epson 4900 profiles for PK; the 7900/9900 for MK ink. I thought they were the same ink sets, meaning the 4900, 7900 & 9900. I always thought of the PR Satin as an MK paper, at least with the 3800 ink set. Any thoughts?

John Caldwell
Logged
Geraldo Garcia
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 232



WWW
« Reply #12 on: May 04, 2012, 01:08:48 AM »
ReplyReply

I have profiled this paper as both, gloss and matte, with the Z3200 and I must tell you that there is not much difference. As gloss the resulting profile has a slightly bigger gamut, but almost nothing.

Best regards.
Logged
John Caldwell
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 473



« Reply #13 on: May 04, 2012, 07:12:46 AM »
ReplyReply

Interesting Geraldo, thanks. I never cared for the results we got with PR Satin our HP Z3200. I had profiled the paper with MK. The prints were pretty dull, and not at all like what we got on the Epson's. Are you pleased with the Z3200 prints on the PR Satin? I wonder if I made some error in creating the Z3200 profile.

Many thanks,

John-
Logged
elisabeth russell
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 16


« Reply #14 on: May 04, 2012, 09:15:49 AM »
ReplyReply

I use HPRS several times/month, sometimes more. It's a lovely paper. I print from my 9900 from Photoshop and also from my 4800 using ImagePrint. The ImagePrint profiles are superior, in my opinion, as the 9900 tends to run a little magenta. That being said, it can be a tricky paper due to its thickness (making manual feeding a bit of a pain and making head strikes possible if the platen gap isn't set properly) and the MK/PK quandary. I use the MK settings, HOWEVER, if there are large areas of dense shadow you will end up with ink transfer/smudging. I would recommend adjusting the settings in the Advanced Control dialog box, perhaps increasing the drying time per pass and reducing a little of the density. That being said--it is beautiful.
Logged
John Caldwell
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 473



« Reply #15 on: May 04, 2012, 09:56:14 AM »
ReplyReply

Yes, Elizabeth. Thanks for your comments.

I'd like to commission one of the LL forum members to make a custom ICC profile for the 4900/Photo Rag Satin combination. The Epson canned profile is not at all correct on our 4900, in either MK or PK instances. Using the Epson 9900 profile instead, again on our 4900, is 1000 miles better. So something is not right.

If anyone experienced in profiling is interested, I'd like to pursue some profiles. PM or email is fine. To keep postage costs in line, it may make most sense to deal with a consultant in the continental US, although I do recognize and admire the deeply eminent knowledge of LL forum members who are not in the US.

I'll say that the 4900 results for a few other Hahnemüle MK papers are just spectacular, to my eyes. I'm using only the canned Hahnemüle profiles, so better results may be possible, but the prints on William Turner, German Etching and Photo Rag 308 are great. Turner and German really driver the painterly look, but are not undetailed in my mind. Museo Max is also good, and very vivid. Canson BFK Rives, my historic favorite MK paper on the Z3200, is giving horrible results with the Canson canned profile, so I'll pursue a custom profile for the BFK Rives/4900 combo as well.

Thanks for the interest.

John Caldwell

« Last Edit: May 04, 2012, 09:58:26 AM by John Caldwell » Logged
Geoff Wittig
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1017


« Reply #16 on: May 04, 2012, 09:21:11 PM »
ReplyReply

I first used HPR satin on HP's Z3100 and loved the appearance; a subtle metallic sheen, especially for black & white images, and great tonal separation in mid-tones to highlights. Gotta watch the shadow detail, but with the right file, the prints were terrific. However, the surface was unbelievably fragile. A single touch from a fingernail or the corner of another print, and they showed a very obvious burnished score mark. I ended up dropping it as a regular paper because so many prints got ruined even with very careful handling.

On Canon's iPF6300 there's a bit less of the metallic sheen, but still very subtle and lovely print quality, and the surface is a bit tougher. For subjects like low dynamic range foggy landscapes it's a wonderful paper. On the other hand, the color gamut is very limited. Any photos depending on brilliant color really will not work on this paper. And it takes a lot of work to keep shadow detail from blocking up.
Logged
John Caldwell
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 473



« Reply #17 on: May 04, 2012, 09:29:50 PM »
ReplyReply

Gotta tell you Geoff, the gamut on the Epson K3 is startlingly wide to my eyes. I have not made objective measurements, but BAM!

The results on our HP Z3200 were quite drab, but I may have gone about the profiling incorrectly.

I'm working on a project right now that calls for large prints, say 42" x 63", that will be Gator Foam mounted and laminated. The sample prints I've made thus far for the project were done on the Epson 9900 with the canned MK profile. I must say that we've been able to get the prints to the mounting shop across town without any surface injuries, and to my surprise, the PR Satin really looks good laminated. Normally we use Canson Baryta Photographique for the mounting and laminating, but the PR Satin's unusual surface still "reads thru" the laminate somehow. Out of ignorance, I'd not have expected to retain the unusual surface quality after (luster) lamination.

John Caldwell
Logged
orchidblooms
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 160


« Reply #18 on: November 14, 2012, 08:40:14 AM »
ReplyReply

Hahnemühle Photo Rag Satin...  new epson 4900  prints in ilford pearl look as i would expect ---

when i load the Hahnemühle Photo Rag Satin... the test print -- is simply atrocious...  dark areas are simply uninteligable and have green hue....  did not anticipate this at all...

I will re read this thread...

any more suggestions?

many thanks
Logged
John Caldwell
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 473



« Reply #19 on: November 14, 2012, 01:30:51 PM »
ReplyReply

Orchidblooms, Try this profile I had custom made from the 4900/MK/PR Satin. Use Velvet Fine Art as the media choice. This should give better results than the HFA canned profile.

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/87879474/Photography/Misc/Eps4900_HAH_PhotoRagSatinMK.icc.zip

John Caldwell
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad