Paper talk (again!)

[Murph]

I have found love, in the Moab Entrada and Kayenta papers and my Epson 2400 printer. I d/l'ed the profiles from Moab, and WOW! Beautiful prints, just lovely. I am tempted to try some of the other papers, but I am having such good luck with the Moab, I approach with some trepidation. Kayenta has become my paper of choice for all but the very best prints, in that its inexpensive (comparatively), and with the printer profle delivers an excellent print.

Anyone here tried Hahnemuhle? Legion? Museo? Bergger?

[anorcross]

Originally Posted by Murph

Anyone here tried Hahnemuhle? Legion? Museo? Bergger?

I use Hahnemuhle PhotoRag for all my B&W prints (Epson 1280 with carbon ink set) and love it. I've also used it for a color print on my R1800 and been very pleased with the result. The print was one I'd processed to look like a watercolor painting. I usually prefer glossy for color prints of regular photos, though, so I stick to Epson Premium Glossy.

[johnastovall]

I'm using Hahnemuhle photo rag for B&W with carbon inks but have not used it with color.

If you want to try some different papers without get a large quanity, Inkjet Art has some sample packs you can get.

Here are other sample sets they have.

[billbunton]

I've got a roll of the Entrada, and use it sometimes. I've tried some photo rag; I wasn't too impressed with it, but that's from back when I was printing on the 2200. I've been meaning to try it on my 4000 (maybe one of these days). Actually, for matte paper I _really_ like the Epson Ultrasmooth Fine Art. This is what I end up using for quite a bit of my B&W, and it does real well with color also.

[jeffkohn]

The two rag papers I've been using are Hahnemuhle Photo Rag and Crane Museo II, both of which are pretty nice. The HPR has a bit better DMAX/gamut. I slightly prefer the texture of the Museo II and like the fact that it doesn't have any OBA's. The HPR is somewhat worse about flaking, you really need to brush it before printing. The Museo II isn't quite as bad at flaking, but dark areas in the print get a bit mottled and are prone to "scuffing". All in all I think I like the HPR better and will probably stop using the Museo II once I run out.

For prints that require greater DMAX than rag papers are capable of, I've been using Ilford Smooth Pearl which is pretty nice. I'll probably keep using this one for portraits, but now that I've got some of the Innova F-Type Gloss in 13x19 this is going to be my new semigloss paper for landscape/nature prints that need maximum DMAX/gamut. Very impressive stuff, you can check out my post in a previous thread for my impressions of the F-Type Gloss vs Crane Museo Silver Rag. I haven't seen the new Hahnemuhle Fine Art Pearl, but the feedback I've heard is that it's closer to Silver Rag in texture (except for being much cooler due to OBA's). I prefer the F-Type to the Silver Rag, so I probably won't bother with the FAP.

For the occasional high-gloss print I've used Pictorico High Gloss White Film, which is extremely glossy. For certain image types it produces stunning results if viewed under the proper lighting conditions. The problem is that in most typical homes/offices the lighting is anything but perfect and the surface glare with this paper is a real problem. You also have to watch out for gloss differential if your image has any bright highlights in it.

I think for now I've pretty much settled on Photo Rag, Innova F-Type, and Smooth Pearl as my preferred papers. I've built custom profiles for each of these for color printing (if anybody with a 2400 is interested in trying my profiles let me know). This week I've been experimenting a bit with Quadtone RIP for B/W prints; the process of creating custom curves is a bit frustrating/wasteful, but I think with some work I'm going to be able to get really stunning B/W prints from this app.

[jeffkohn]

Originally Posted by johnastovall

I'm using Hahnemuhle photo rag for B&W with carbon inks but have not used it with color.

Are you using an RIP for B&W, and if so which one?

[iCe]

I've seen work printed on Hahnemuhle photo rag. Good stuff.

[jeffkohn]

Originally Posted by Murph

I have found love, in the Moab Entrada and Kayenta papers and my Epson 2400 printer. I d/l'ed the profiles from Moab, and WOW! Beautiful prints, just lovely. I am tempted to try some of the other papers, but I am having such good luck with the Moab, I approach with some trepidation. Kayenta has become my paper of choice for all but the very best prints, in that its inexpensive (comparatively), and with the printer profle delivers an excellent print.

I'm a bit surprised because you say you're using the Moab profiles and you're happy with the results. Maybe they've updated they're profiles since I tried the paper back in January? I had some in a sampler pack so I did a test print using the profile from their website. Compared to a test print on Photo Rag, the Entrada was disappointing - very flat looking with less contrast and weaker shadows compared to the HPR. What's interesting is that when I did a second test-print on the Entrada using the HPR profile, the result was much better (although still not quite as good as the HPR). To me this indicated that there were problems with the Moab profile. I didn't investigate much further or try to create my own profile though, because I only had two sheets to test with it and at that point I decided to go with the HPR.

[billbunton]

Originally Posted by jeffkohn

Compared to a test print on Photo Rag, the Entrada was disappointing - very flat looking with less contrast and weaker shadows compared to the HPR. What's interesting is that when I did a second test-print on the Entrada using the HPR profile, the result was much better (although still not quite as good as the HPR). To me this indicated that there were problems with the Moab profile.

I noticed this with the Entrada profile from Moab, and also with the ImagePrint profile. It wasn't until I built my own profile that Entrada became useful to me (though as noted above it's not my preferred matte paper). It's still a little flatter than UFA, but needs be compared side by side to be very noticable.

[johnastovall]

Originally Posted by jeffkohn

Are you using an RIP for B&W, and if so which one?

The Quadtone RIP on an Epson 1280.

[amiga2091]

ILFORD. There is no other paper. The cost is worth it!

John

[jeffkohn]

Originally Posted by johnastovall

The Quadtone RIP on an Epson 1280.

Are you using the provided profiles/curves or rolling your own?

I've been evaluating QTR myself this week. The default support for the Epson 2400 is pretty weak; only two papers supported and the one I tried (Ilford Smooth Pearl) the profile was pretty poor. So I've been working on creating my own curves, which I must say is not the most intuitive process (the curve editor is pretty crude).

I was able to make a "warm" profile (using only K, LK, and LLK inks) for Smooth Pearl that is a big improvement over the one supplied with QTR; DMAX for my profile is 2.25 versus around 1.8 for the QTR version. Creating a cooler, more neutral profile has been much more difficult, requiring a lot of trial and error which is not only time consuming (have to wait for ink to dry, measure results, then adjust curves and try again), but also expensive considering the amount of consumables I've gone through.

I'm hopeful the end result will be worthwhile, as the ability to limit the individual ink densities gives a much more linear response as opposed to the Epson driver which dumps way too much ink in the shadows. The biggest hurdle (aside from the trial and errors) has been the dithering, which has a tendency to produce banding in certain large, even-toned areas if you don't get the ink mix just right. I've almost got the cool/neutral curve for Smooth Pearl where I want it, but then I'll have to decide if I want to pursue this further with my other (more expensive papers). Going through a dozen sheets of Smooth Pearl is one thing, but doing so with rag papers that cost 3x as much is a bit more daunting.

[johnastovall]

Originally Posted by jeffkohn

Are you using the provided profiles/curves or rolling your own?

I've been evaluating QTR myself this week. The default support for the Epson 2400 is pretty weak; only two papers supported and the one I tried (Ilford Smooth Pearl) the profile was pretty poor. So I've been working on creating my own curves, which I must say is not the most intuitive process (the curve editor is pretty crude).

I was able to make a "warm" profile (using only K, LK, and LLK inks) for Smooth Pearl that is a big improvement over the one supplied with QTR; DMAX for my profile is 2.25 versus around 1.8 for the QTR version. Creating a cooler, more neutral profile has been much more difficult, requiring a lot of trial and error which is not only time consuming (have to wait for ink to dry, measure results, then adjust curves and try again), but also expensive considering the amount of consumables I've gone through.

I'm hopeful the end result will be worthwhile, as the ability to limit the individual ink densities gives a much more linear response as opposed to the Epson driver which dumps way too much ink in the shadows. The biggest hurdle (aside from the trial and errors) has been the dithering, which has a tendency to produce banding in certain large, even-toned areas if you don't get the ink mix just right. I've almost got the cool/neutral curve for Smooth Pearl where I want it, but then I'll have to decide if I want to pursue this further with my other (more expensive papers). Going through a dozen sheets of Smooth Pearl is one thing, but doing so with rag papers that cost 3x as much is a bit more daunting.

Rolling my own and burning a fair mount of paper some times. Still not fully happy with them.

Have gotten some good netural cool on Epson heavy matte.

[billbunton]

I've been planning for a while to roll my own QTR profiles, but haven't gotten around to it. Now I'll know where to turn for help when I do :-)

[Murph]

Jeff, and all, I a happy with the Moab, and Moab profiles, because before I got my 2400, I was using a Canon i560 and Epson paper. Compared to the Canon prints, the new ones from the 2400 are just glorious. Thanks all for replying to this thread. I'll have to get and try some of the Crane and Hahnemuhl papers.