Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Epson Exhibition Canvas (Matte and Gloss) on Canon Printer  (Read 2220 times)
Johnny_Boy
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 133


« on: October 25, 2012, 04:28:12 PM »
ReplyReply

I am doing some test prints right now on Epson Exhibition Matte Canvas on my Canon ipf8300. I just got my custom profile made for it and will test it tonight, but in the mean time I just printed using the canned Lyve canvas profile and, hmmm, the print came out exactly the same. I wonder if they are basically the same canvas? I also bought Epson gloss canvas to try out. I have a feeling that might be the same as BC Crystaline? I guess I will use the profile and see how it looks. Anyone have similar experience?

Ive also purchased a spray can of Premier Art Print Shield to use for the Epson Exhibition Gloss canvas. I am thinking about using this rather than spraying BC Timeless. Thoughts on how this is going to work? I have a feeling the spray can is going to be way more expensive, but they dry in 5 minutes, so it will save me production time which is valuable. Anyone have experience in this area that can share the knowledge?

Overall how would the Epson canvas hold up over time vs. BC Lyve/Crystaline?
Logged
bill t.
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2711


WWW
« Reply #1 on: October 25, 2012, 08:36:39 PM »
ReplyReply

Crystalline and Epson Canvas Gloss are made by the same contractor.  Right now the substrates and surface qualities seem identical.  But if I use my Crystalline profile to make the same print on both canvases, the Epson canvas comes out MUCH punchier with considerably better d-max and much more brilliant highlights.  So they are definitely not the same product.

Epson Gloss might contain OBA's, and if so I'm all for it.  It can print certain important colors that are WAY outside aRGB, and considerably outside the ability of my 2690 monitor to display on the screen.  The good and bad news combined is that hard proofing is pretty much required and I find myself making many more test strips and proof prints than before.  Not all colors are outside aRGB of course, but the deep greens, red, and blues are real eye openers for those of use used to matte canvas.  Plan to tone down those clear blue skies and green foliage.

Uncoated Crystalline is a little more resistant to scratches, but both canvases are hopelessly vulnerable to cleaning sprays and IMHO it is a serious mistake not to coat either one unless you display under glazing.

BC has mentioned that the surface of Crystalline is quite acidic and they are uncomfortable about quoting longevity.  I note Epson is claiming their Gloss is "Acid Free."  Does that mean something for longevity?  Dunno but I can guess it does.  There's a kind of pungent smell when I print of Crystalline, that is not there with Epson Gloss.  I assume it has to do with the BC "no coating" technology.

Should mention that Epson has recently changed Epson Canvas Gloss very dramatically.  Gone is the goofy screen door surface they used previously.  If you buy any, be sure you get product numbers ending in 243, 244, and 245 for 24, 36, and 44 inch rolls respectively.

And both canvases come on super-stiff, 22mil, 400+GSM rolls which are complete PITAs in every way from edge head-bangs in the printer to pronounced curling afterwords.  The last shipment of Epson Gloss seem to have softened the substrate a little, and the head-bangs are much easier to avoid.  I'm hoping that's a trend.  QC on both canvases is above average, which is a good thing considering the price.

Water based coating are strong solvents for both canvases.  Maybe that's more pronounced with 8300 prints than with 9900 prints, not sure about that.  Rolling is out of the question.  You need a very thin, sprayed primer coat, then a couple more generous coats when the primer coat is dry to the touch.  Not hard to do, but you really need to get your spray rates and technique under control for that primer step or you will melt your images.  Both canvases can be easily coated with solvent sprays, including things like Deft wood spray from Lowes.  If your setup permits solvent spraying, that's what you want.

In the last couple months have hacked through about 20 rolls each of Cystalline and Epson Canvas Gloss.  On the walls both easily outshine the prints I formerly made on various matte canvases.  Sales are way up.  Folks are commenting how "dimensional" my prints look, which I never heard before.  I'm now able to print some very sparkly, backlighted images that were complete flops on matte canvas.  People like dramatic prints and that's a fact and that's why I'm sticking with gloss canvas for now.
« Last Edit: October 25, 2012, 08:40:53 PM by bill t. » Logged
JeffKohn
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1671



WWW
« Reply #2 on: October 25, 2012, 09:30:28 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Crystalline and Epson Canvas Gloss are made by the same contractor.  Right now the substrates and surface qualities seem identical.  But if I use my Crystalline profile to make the same print on both canvases, the Epson canvas comes out MUCH punchier with considerably better d-max and much more brilliant highlights.  So they are definitely not the same product.
I find this very interesting, so do you have a preference between these two or any other thoughts on how they compare (I would be using them on an 8300)?

The better d-max comment is surprising because when I compare the manufacturer-supplied 4900 profiles for Epson Gloss & BC Crystalline, the BC profile looks substantially better. The Epson profile has the black point at L*=17, which is not much better than typical matte papers. Overall gamut in the Epson profile is better than you would expect from a matte surface, but it still falls short of the BC profile. The Epson profile has a higher white point (you could be right about OBA's), and its gamut extends further into the light tones. But it comes up short in the darker colors, which tends to be more limiting for actual printing in my experience.

A black point of L*=17 is not at all what I would expect from a "gloss" surface, so I had pretty much written the Epson canvas off. So are these difference real or is it just a matter of Epson putting out a lousy profile?

I've been researching options for a gloss canvas to start using, and was thinking about trying out the BC Crystalline but they're currently out of sample rolls (and also 36" rolls which is what I would end up purchasing). So now I'm wondering if I should give the Epson canvas a try. I'm not necessarily against reasonable use of OBA's, but if it's similar to the Exhibition Fibre that might be cause for concern since that paper has not held up well in permanance testing (and is a little too cool for my taste also).
Logged

bill t.
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2711


WWW
« Reply #3 on: October 26, 2012, 12:00:45 PM »
ReplyReply

Wish I had more time to discuss this, but this is my busy season.  I have an 8300 and right now prefer Epson Gloss over Crystalline mainly because of a more vivid representation of the image which appeals to my clients, and also  because of supply issues.  But prints on either canvas are pretty stunning.  Have not done any quantitative measurements on the prints, except with my credit card terminal.  All other observations are empirical and based on overly romantic ideas about what constitutes a good print.

FWIW here's an iccview.de plot of my homebrew Crystalline 8300 profile against aRGB. Notice the significant poke outs in the mid tones, which correspond to colors I particularly cherish in my landscape prints.  The poke outs extend from midtones up into almost the brightest areas.  It makes a difference.  My Xrite homebrew profiles are about 10% more voluminous than the BC profiles.  As far as I can tell the extra volume represents represents real capacity.  I have been printing both Crystalline and Epson Gloss with the same profile...please feel free to kick me.

Also FWIW, here's a plot of my Crystalline profile against my 2690 monitor.  Thanks to Bob Fisher for suggesting this.  It explains a lot of the puzzlement familiar to those who move from low gamut to high gamut media.  Those blue skies, green leaves, and yellow flowers, and Coca Cola Reds can be pretty surprising on the prints.  iccview.de.  Priceless.

In each case the wireframes are the gloss canvas profile.
« Last Edit: October 26, 2012, 12:05:44 PM by bill t. » Logged
Johnny_Boy
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 133


« Reply #4 on: October 26, 2012, 01:25:21 PM »
ReplyReply

Well, so my new custom profile made for Epson matte wasn't very good. So I might have to try again. I am going to stick with Lyve profile for now on Epson Matte, as it gives the same output. BTW, Epson canvas really stinks. It smells like I have a dead fish in my studio when I print on this thing.

I tried out the Epson exhibition gloss last night using Crystaline profile, and I was disappointed. :-( It looks about the same as Epson and Lyve Matte canvas with gloss coating on it. I don't think I gained any color gamut. It looks about the same but different look due to canvas texture and different gloss finish.

Maybe I should try to make a new custom profile for the Epson gloss and try again.
Logged
bill t.
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2711


WWW
« Reply #5 on: October 26, 2012, 02:23:13 PM »
ReplyReply

In general, you need to put the pedal to the metal in post processing to really take advantage of the glossy canvases.  The carefully soft-proofed matte canvas printing files I had used for a long time looked like a smoggy day in LA when I tried to print them unmodified on the glossy canvases.  For the most dramatic results, the printing file has got to fill up the gamut envelope, to hugely and perhaps naively oversimplify things.  But the advantage of a large gamut media can only be realized if you exploit its potential, and for gloss canvas that potential goes way beyond what was available from matte canvas.

Here's a gamut map of Lyve (the colored area) versus Crystalline (the wireframe area).

Logged
Didymus
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 46


« Reply #6 on: October 26, 2012, 04:55:04 PM »
ReplyReply

it is a serious mistake not to coat either one unless you display under glazing.

Which product do you use to coat Crystalline?
« Last Edit: October 26, 2012, 05:00:45 PM by didymus » Logged
bill t.
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2711


WWW
« Reply #7 on: October 26, 2012, 05:35:48 PM »
ReplyReply

Glamour II, 1:1.  Step #1 is to put the roller in the drawer.  Total HVLP application of solution should be about 9ml per square foot, of which 4.5 would be Glamour II concentrate.  I use GII Gloss with no Matte mixed in which takes the canvas surface gloss down a little towards the satin direction.  I only mount canvases, so can't comment on wrapping characteristics.

I put down three coats at about 3ml per square foot each.  The first coat is exceedingly critical.  If the surface is wet too long the image will dissolve, but for me the 3ml/sq ft initial coat is well within safe margins.  In New Mexico at 6000 feet in the Autumn that first coat will dry in a very few minutes.  Be sure that first coat is dry before applying additional coats, you need it as a barrier to the subsequent coats.

My most useful tool in all this is the 5000 gram scale I bought for $20 on ebay. I weigh the gun before & after each coat and that's a terrific way to maintain tight process control which means no surprises and no trashed canvas.  Other than for the dissolving thing, gloss canvas has excellent coating characteristics and GII levels out even better than it does on matte canvases.

If you can apply solvent sprays, that's the way to go.  No dissolving issues at all and the clarity is excellent.
Logged
Pages: [1]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad