Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 3 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Epson Watercolor  (Read 3594 times)
huguito
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 212


« on: March 05, 2014, 05:12:22 PM »
ReplyReply

I see a new paper in the epson line.
"Exhibition Watercolor textured", does anyone here knows if this is a rename and repackage of the old "Watercolor radiant white"?
Anyone has run this paper through their printer? First impressions?
Hugo
Logged
hugowolf
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 589


« Reply #1 on: March 05, 2014, 07:19:30 PM »
ReplyReply

I see a new paper in the epson line.
"Exhibition Watercolor textured", does anyone here knows if this is a rename and repackage of the old "Watercolor radiant white"?
Anyone has run this paper through their printer? First impressions?
Hugo

No, it is a new paper. Or at least new to Epson branded papers.

Brian A
Logged
huguito
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 212


« Reply #2 on: March 05, 2014, 07:41:12 PM »
ReplyReply

Have you had the chance to try it?
I like the old watercolor radiant, I wonder how different this is
Logged
MHMG
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 596


« Reply #3 on: March 05, 2014, 07:43:19 PM »
ReplyReply

Epson claims no OBAs with this new paper, so it's definitely not a rebadged "Radiant white". That said I wish Epson had been a little more imaginative and kept the "Exhibition" part of the name out of the new paper. Only adds to confusion with Epson Exhibition Fiber (EEF) which is a whole other beast altogether. EEF should be pulled from the "Signature Worthy" line or reformulated.

cheers,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com
« Last Edit: March 05, 2014, 07:52:19 PM by MHMG » Logged
hugowolf
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 589


« Reply #4 on: March 06, 2014, 07:37:28 PM »
ReplyReply

Have you had the chance to try it?
I like the old watercolor radiant, I wonder how different this is

No, I have yet to try it, but there are so many excellent and well proven watercolor papers available, I probably never will. [I never liked the Epson Watercolor Radiant White paper. A fine art paper it never was.]

Brian A
Logged
shadowblade
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 689


« Reply #5 on: March 06, 2014, 09:45:59 PM »
ReplyReply

I don't rate Epson papers papers highly for anything except short-term display (Exhibition Fibre is great for that, particularly if the image runs on the cooler side).

I prefer Breathing Colour's Pura Smooth/Velvet (the OBA-free versions of Optica and Elegance) - their gamut seem good for matte papers and Breathing Colour papers seem to be among the most lightfast out there, when compared with other papers using the same inkset.
Logged
hugowolf
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 589


« Reply #6 on: March 06, 2014, 10:14:03 PM »
ReplyReply

I don't rate Epson papers papers highly for anything except short-term display (Exhibition Fibre is great for that, particularly if the image runs on the cooler side).

I prefer Breathing Colour's Pura Smooth/Velvet (the OBA-free versions of Optica and Elegance) - their gamut seem good for matte papers and Breathing Colour papers seem to be among the most lightfast out there, when compared with other papers using the same inkset.

It is interesting how personal paper choice is:

I have a print that sells well on Breathing Color Elegance Velvet. I print on it that because it that is what it was originally printed on. But otherwise it would be on Canson BFK Rives.

I can’t see a BC paper that I would recommend over another paper. , For example, Canson Rag Photographique I find far superior to BC Pura Smooth – it is whiter, smoother, holds a wider gamut, and doesn’t have the same curling problems.

Brian A
Logged
shadowblade
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 689


« Reply #7 on: March 06, 2014, 10:21:04 PM »
ReplyReply

It is interesting how personal paper choice is:

I have a print that sells well on Breathing Color Elegance Velvet. I print on it that because it that is what it was originally printed on. But otherwise it would be on Canson BFK Rives.

I can’t see a BC paper that I would recommend over another paper. , For example, Canson Rag Photographique I find far superior to BC Pura Smooth – it is whiter, smoother, holds a wider gamut, and doesn’t have the same curling problems.

Brian A

I like the Rag Photographique and Etching Rag for their texture, but their tested image permanence seems to be lacking in comparison to Hahnemuhle or Breathing Colour. They're great for black-and-white, though (since pure carbon inks are essentially permanent).
Logged
huguito
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 212


« Reply #8 on: March 07, 2014, 12:48:35 AM »
ReplyReply

I have a box of the new Exhibition Textured Watercolor paper coming from Atlex.
I will let you guys know what it looks like after my 9600 spits some out
Hugo
Logged
MHMG
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 596


« Reply #9 on: March 07, 2014, 12:34:00 PM »
ReplyReply

I have a box of the new Exhibition Textured Watercolor paper coming from Atlex.
I will let you guys know what it looks like after my 9600 spits some out
Hugo

Not withstanding my earlier terse comments about Epson naming conventions and EEF longevity issues, I think Epson management has been paying attention to the OBA burnout/discoloration concerns many of us in the printmaking community have and is working earnestly to give us more options. I see new additions of OBA-free canvas and OBA-free papers to Epson's line of media, Exhibition Watercolor being the latest one, and that's a good thing. Now, if the Epson team will just give us a more robust yellow pigment, we will then be reaching new heights of ink/media performance when it comes to digital fine art print permanence.

best,
Mark
htttp:/www.aardenburg-imaging.com
« Last Edit: March 07, 2014, 12:36:25 PM by MHMG » Logged
huguito
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 212


« Reply #10 on: March 12, 2014, 01:24:04 AM »
ReplyReply

I got a box of this paper today. Is bright and white.
Made my own profile with a color munki
Seem to soak ink a lot and come up muddy printing as profiled, a second try with the ink density reduced 20% come up very nice.
Colors have a lot of pop, more than other matte papers, nice contrast.
The image had a lot of colors, probably will make nice Black and whites with so much contrast as it has.
Looks very nice on the wall, specially after a light coat of Clear Jet coating, the one with lowest gloss
Doesn't quite have the quality creamy feel when you hold it in your hand as the other new Epson paper, the Exhibition Hot Press Bright I just tried.

Hugo
Logged
bill t.
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2693


WWW
« Reply #11 on: March 13, 2014, 01:37:39 AM »
ReplyReply

Have been testing a lot with BC Pura Velvet as a canvas replacement.  Very similar in look to Epson Cold Press Bright, but without the OBA's.  The Epson white point is just a 'tich higher and a 'tich cooler than the Pura, but Pura is a lot better down towards the d-max range and the prints are surprisingly bright and neutral looking.  Pura has a slightly subtler, less polarized texture than the Epson Cold Press.

Pura coats very well with ordinary canvas varnishes which is for practical reasons is my main interest, and the reason I would use it over some other matte papers like Rag Photographique that do not varnish very well.  For Pura, two generous, sprayed coats gives a nice satin-like gloss.  For that matter, Epson Cold Press paper coats well too, but it takes about 3 coats to get the same level of gloss.  Oh, and for those having issues with ink lifting during rolling, neither Pura nor Epson Cold Press Bright seem to have an issue with that.

Profiles from coated Pura targets show a considerable increase in gamut and a much lower d-max.  Like all varnished fine art papers, coating pulls the darker tones down quite a bit and that's best compensated for via the printing profile which should be made from a carefully coated target.  Very pretty paper, definitely artsy and portrait-friendly, but in no way too prissy for landscapes or hard edge subjects.  If I really lay on the coatings I can get a super gloss with a look that rivals face-mounted glossies, but with some residual ripple that may or may not be a problem depending on the presentation.

If BC would give me Pura on those nice, generous 50 foot rolls just like Epson does, that would be very nice.  But in any case, as a canvas veteran it sure feels nice to use media with zero manufacturing defects, yeah baby!  BC and Epson are both coming through nicely on the QC.
Logged
Alan Goldhammer
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1605


WWW
« Reply #12 on: March 13, 2014, 06:56:12 AM »
ReplyReply

My favorite textured paper is Hahnemule William Turner which has a nice bright white.  Don't know that a new Epson entry would make me want to change.
Logged

shadowblade
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 689


« Reply #13 on: March 13, 2014, 08:05:20 AM »
ReplyReply

Have been testing a lot with BC Pura Velvet as a canvas replacement.  Very similar in look to Epson Cold Press Bright, but without the OBA's.  The Epson white point is just a 'tich higher and a 'tich cooler than the Pura, but Pura is a lot better down towards the d-max range and the prints are surprisingly bright and neutral looking.  Pura has a slightly subtler, less polarized texture than the Epson Cold Press.

Pura coats very well with ordinary canvas varnishes which is for practical reasons is my main interest, and the reason I would use it over some other matte papers like Rag Photographique that do not varnish very well.  For Pura, two generous, sprayed coats gives a nice satin-like gloss.  For that matter, Epson Cold Press paper coats well too, but it takes about 3 coats to get the same level of gloss.  Oh, and for those having issues with ink lifting during rolling, neither Pura nor Epson Cold Press Bright seem to have an issue with that.

Profiles from coated Pura targets show a considerable increase in gamut and a much lower d-max.  Like all varnished fine art papers, coating pulls the darker tones down quite a bit and that's best compensated for via the printing profile which should be made from a carefully coated target.  Very pretty paper, definitely artsy and portrait-friendly, but in no way too prissy for landscapes or hard edge subjects.  If I really lay on the coatings I can get a super gloss with a look that rivals face-mounted glossies, but with some residual ripple that may or may not be a problem depending on the presentation.

If BC would give me Pura on those nice, generous 50 foot rolls just like Epson does, that would be very nice.  But in any case, as a canvas veteran it sure feels nice to use media with zero manufacturing defects, yeah baby!  BC and Epson are both coming through nicely on the QC.

Have you tried Pura Smooth as well as Velvet? If so, how does it compare?

I often use Pura Smooth and have seen Elegance Velvet (which I never used due to the OBAs), but have never seen anything printed on Pura Velvet. I generally like Breathing Colour products because they combine great longevity with good Dmax and gamut and are physically sturdy compared to other papers of the same type.
Logged
bill t.
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2693


WWW
« Reply #14 on: March 13, 2014, 12:47:36 PM »
ReplyReply

Have you tried Pura Smooth as well as Velvet? If so, how does it compare?

Pura Smooth and Pura Velvet are equivalent in terms of gamut and image appearance.  Smooth is a little thinner, about 17 mils compared to more like 19 or 20 for Velvet.  Pura Velvet is a bit more rigid, and near the limit for the suction available on my 8300.  I actually prefer the more pliable base on the Epson "Press" papers which are easier to handle at all stages of production.  But Pura looks nicer.

I don't use Pura Smooth simply because I don't like the way the flat surface looks when varnished.  It shows up the inevitable minor ripples in the coating in an way that is not attractive to my eye.  The inherent surface texture in Velvet forgives coating variations by casting them as part of the media's texture.

The surface of Velvet is better suited to a production environment.  I don't have to be as relentlessly careful about removing dust and such when coating Velvet, and it's not as likely to show up minor scrapes and scratches.

Velvet looks more acceptable when presented without glass or plex.  It sort of passes for canvas or at least it manages to look more tactile and organic than Smooth.  IMHO quality of surface becomes a competitive issue when pieces of art displayed near other, and I don't want my pieces to look comparatively crass or mechanical in the kinds of venues where I usually display which often include paintings and other fine art prints.  OTOH, if one wants to go in that direction, a hard edge look is probably achievable with Pura Smooth and very careful coating technique.
Logged
huguito
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 212


« Reply #15 on: March 13, 2014, 01:46:30 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi Bill

This is a question from a non expert and non professional hobbyst, not a critique, so please don't be offended

Why use a fine art matte paper if you are planning to coat it to gloss or semi-gloss after printing?

Wouldn't you have even more gamut available and deeper blacks using a base with some gloss already in it? Like Satin, Luster or Baryta paper?

Is there something to gain, that I am not seeing, by going in a round trip from matte back to gloss via coating?

Thanks

Hugo
Logged
bill t.
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2693


WWW
« Reply #16 on: March 13, 2014, 03:42:02 PM »
ReplyReply

What's to gain is, the varnished prints are extremely resistant to wear and can even be gently washed.  I can frame them without glass or plex which is a great advantage for sofa-sized pieces.  And I can handle varnished prints in the rough way needed for glue mounting to Gator and other substrates.  My observation has been that large pieces with glazing (aka glass or plex) do not sell anywhere near as well as those without glazing, and a lot of galleries tend to shy away from glazed pieces in the larger sizes because of in-gallery reflection issues.

FWIW, glossy media doesn't varnish well, or at least not with varnishes that offer industrial-strength, maid-with-Windex proof protection.  The far more delicate "protective sprays" suitable for those media offer relatively little mechanical protection.

Matte papers actually gain quite a bit of gamut and d-max from spraying, with the price of a very slight loss in highlight brightness.  In a sense, glossy media is just matte media with a glossy pre-coating.

It's not unusual to see coating almost double the gamut volume of matte paper.  While not all of that increase is in useful areas, a lot of it is.  For most images properly printed and varnished matte paper can compete with glossy media in color and contrast, while sometimes offering a more artful interpretation.

edit...I should be careful not to paint too rosy a picture of varnished matte paper. It's a bear to learn to do it right!  And you have to do some trial and error work  to develop the necessary profiles from varnished targets, which is also dependent on how well you have developed your coating technique.  One can run around in circles for a while on that stuff.
« Last Edit: March 13, 2014, 03:46:13 PM by bill t. » Logged
Some Guy
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 301


« Reply #17 on: March 13, 2014, 04:12:44 PM »
ReplyReply

I believe Premier Art suggests using their glossy protective spray prior to using a matte finish on most all surfaces.  May be a gamut thing with the glossy first, or too much dulling of a matte paper plus a matte overcoat without the glossy in the middle.

SG
Logged
shadowblade
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 689


« Reply #18 on: March 13, 2014, 05:16:24 PM »
ReplyReply

What's to gain is, the varnished prints are extremely resistant to wear and can even be gently washed.  I can frame them without glass or plex which is a great advantage for sofa-sized pieces.  And I can handle varnished prints in the rough way needed for glue mounting to Gator and other substrates.  My observation has been that large pieces with glazing (aka glass or plex) do not sell anywhere near as well as those without glazing, and a lot of galleries tend to shy away from glazed pieces in the larger sizes because of in-gallery reflection issues.

FWIW, glossy media doesn't varnish well, or at least not with varnishes that offer industrial-strength, maid-with-Windex proof protection.  The far more delicate "protective sprays" suitable for those media offer relatively little mechanical protection.

Matte papers actually gain quite a bit of gamut and d-max from spraying, with the price of a very slight loss in highlight brightness.  In a sense, glossy media is just matte media with a glossy pre-coating.

It's not unusual to see coating almost double the gamut volume of matte paper.  While not all of that increase is in useful areas, a lot of it is.  For most images properly printed and varnished matte paper can compete with glossy media in color and contrast, while sometimes offering a more artful interpretation.

edit...I should be careful not to paint too rosy a picture of varnished matte paper. It's a bear to learn to do it right!  And you have to do some trial and error work  to develop the necessary profiles from varnished targets, which is also dependent on how well you have developed your coating technique.  One can run around in circles for a while on that stuff.


I suspect spraying Timeless on paper may have another advantage, at least with Breathing Colour papers.

Inkjet coatings are inherently fragile and crack with heavy ink loads, as well as over time due to embrittlement in association with paper expansion and contraction. But spray-on acrylic coatings, such as Timeless, are designed to chemically bond with this layer, filling in cracks and pores and stabilising it to allow canvases to be stretched over a frame without cracking. In doing so, it doesn't so much form a 'bond' with the inkjet layer as it adds to, thickens and reinforces the layer. Essentially, the final product isn't really a sandwich of paper-inkjet layer-varnish, but a two-layer system consisting of a paper base with a thick layer of acrylic on top, with the inkjet layer becoming part of, rather than being separate from, the acrylic layer. Therefore, it bends with the layer, stretches with the layer (e.g. when stretching canvas) and is no longer susceptible to cracking, unless the whole layer cracks - which is far less likely, since its now a thick, tough layer of acrylic rather than a thin inkjet coating. Spray another coating of Timeless on the back of the paper and you've also effectively sealed the paper from the atmosphere, preventing curling and limiting interaction with pollutants and moisture in the atmosphere.
Logged
huguito
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 212


« Reply #19 on: March 13, 2014, 06:43:04 PM »
ReplyReply

Thanks for the clarification, Bill and Shadowblade

One more question.
But the time you finish your processing of a print on good matte fine art paper, after the thin coating with Timeless or  good spray can coating.
I am assuming here that you use one or two very thin coats, correct me if I am wrong.
What does the finish surface looks like?
Still mostly matte with a hint of gloss?
Satin or pearl like kind of shine?

What version of timeless? Gloss, satin or matte?

What spray? I have tried the Clear Jet fine Art Low Gloss, on a couple of matte papers and I end up with an increase in depth and better blacks, no shine at all, still matte.

Is there a website where I can look at your work to maybe get an idea of the type of images you work on to figure out this coating business?

Thanks a lot for your help, its definitely priceless the amount of knowledge and good will in this forum.

Hugo

Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad