wlaidlaw Posted December 27, 2007 Share #21 Posted December 27, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) If the tonal range on your prints go to paper white, or anywhere near that, no profile is going to compensate for a cream-tinted paper. —Mitch/Bangkok Flickr: Photos from Mitch Alland Mitch, Of course, but then people like me have been happy to have a less than chalk white on their silver/enlarger prints for many years. Very few bromide papers were dead white. In my personal opinion, especially on black and white, the Lyson satin I am using at the moment, which is very white, is less kind to the eye than the Ilford Smooth Pearl I normally use. Now for colour, particularly sea scenes, I would agreed that the ability to get a dead white can be a positive advantage. It was really compensation for colours other than white, especially skin tones, I was thinking of. If you don't have a decent profile and print on creamish papers, the skin will take on a rather jaundiced appearance. Wilson Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted December 27, 2007 Posted December 27, 2007 Hi wlaidlaw, Take a look here Hahnemuhle Baryta paper...WOW!. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
mreddington Posted December 28, 2007 Share #22 Posted December 28, 2007 Gordon, I used to get track marks all the time with Kodak Ultima 275gsm semi-gloss on my Epson R1800. I was annoyed because in a closing down sale, I had bought 10 x 25 sheet A4 packs of it. Luckily the same paper works perfectly in my HP B9180 in France and now in the new Canon Pixma Pro 9500, I have bought for the UK. I spoke to Epson about this problem, who in their usual helpful manner said "Use Epson paper". I spoke to Kodak, who said that the liquid suspension medium on some pigment inks caused their paper to swell to the extent that it could contact the drive gears of the guide rollers on some printers (i.e. the Epson R series). I wonder if you are getting this same phenomenon on your R2400 with the Hahnemuhle paper. Wilson Wilson, You kindly reported your experience with the Canon and HP in an earlier thread and I wondered how things are looking in the meantime, especially with B&W. Your last comment was that contrast was more difficult to get right with the Canon. I am thinking of getting an A3 printer some time in the next months and am attracted to the Canon 9500 due to its smaller footprint and also due to previous good experience with Canon printers. But I am looking out for something that handles B&W well and am happy to experiment with different papers. You live partly in France. Do you have any good tips for dealers apart from the usual consumer dealers like Fnac or Pixmania? l live in Strasbourg and there is really only one decent photo shop here. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wlaidlaw Posted December 28, 2007 Share #23 Posted December 28, 2007 Wilson, You kindly reported your experience with the Canon and HP in an earlier thread and I wondered how things are looking in the meantime, especially with B&W. Your last comment was that contrast was more difficult to get right with the Canon. I am thinking of getting an A3 printer some time in the next months and am attracted to the Canon 9500 due to its smaller footprint and also due to previous good experience with Canon printers. But I am looking out for something that handles B&W well and am happy to experiment with different papers. You live partly in France. Do you have any good tips for dealers apart from the usual consumer dealers like Fnac or Pixmania? l live in Strasbourg and there is really only one decent photo shop here. Martin, I think the Canon PP9500 or the HP B9180 is horses for courses. There is really very little to choose between them for quality of output. I would have really struggled to fit in the HP B9180 in my UK house and as as it has old wood floors and my study is not on the ground floor, the HP would have been very audible on the floor below compared with the Canon which is virtually silent. The HP is much faster (about 2X the speed). I think if I were going to be printing a lot of B&W on matte paper, was not worried by the large footprint and the noise/vibration was not a problem, I would go for the HP due to the initial cost saving and larger ink carts. I hope they have solved the breaking down problems by now. On the other hand, the colour output of the Canon is marginally better and as stated, it is smaller and much quieter. Ha ha - your choice! FNAC is fine I have had good dealings with them. When I had a house in Burgundy, five years ago, I bought a Sanyo music player - it was horrible and they took it back with no problems and I bought some Focal-Lab Be speakers instead, which sadly were destroyed when the house flooded in December 2003 - see picture. Pixmania is fine until something goes wrong and then you are on your own. I am still waiting for a refund on a non-working Western Digital external 500GB hard drive that I returned to them in September. I keep phoning up and they say they will contact me by email but of course, don't. Beware - it is difficult to buy extended warranties in France, since they are regarded as an insurance policy. I think you need to have extended warranty on either the HP or Canon printer, especially the HP. Wilson Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/41039-hahnemuhle-baryta-paperwow/?do=findComment&comment=436766'>More sharing options...
mreddington Posted December 28, 2007 Share #24 Posted December 28, 2007 Martin, II think if I were going to be printing a lot of B&W on matte paper, was not worried by the large footprint and the noise/vibration was not a problem, I would go for the HP due to the initial cost saving and larger ink carts. I hope they have solved the breaking down problems by now. On the other hand, the colour output of the Canon is marginally better and as stated, it is smaller and much quieter. Ha ha - your choice! Wilson Wilson, Thanks for the feedback. I think you have made up my mind to go with the Canon since the large footprint and vibration would be a problem for me. I was almost ripe for this decision anyway but when I saw the rather negative review in Chasseurs d'Images I became insecure again. Yes, I agree Fnac are OK. I sometimes get a bit put off by the nonsense their staff talk when dealing with people who aren't well informed about what they want, but their after sales service is fine. Luckily I haven't had any problem with Pixmania (touch wood) but I generally have some reservations about dealing with people I can't hassle in person. Good point about the extended warrenty. I usually avoid these but it's probably a good investment in this case. Cheers Martin Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike1981 Posted February 20, 2008 Share #25 Posted February 20, 2008 Hi, yesterday i have recieved the new Hahneühle Fine Art Baryta from Photolux . Its amazing. Really nice paper. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
woodyspedden Posted February 20, 2008 Share #26 Posted February 20, 2008 I have the 2400 since 2 years and I never have used a worse printer - expensive operation due to small ink tanks and silly head cleaning procedures, bad mechanics and no support. Also drivers are quite immature all the time a next OS comes out. Sorry, but my next printer will be no more Epson! Peter The Epson 3800 is in a different league from the R2400. It is part of their pro printer line and it shows in terms of reliability and consistency. Also, due to the much larger ink cartridges the cost of ink is significantly lower. This was the last of the 800 series and they had a much improved dithering algorithm so prints were sometimes even better than the 4800 and 7800. Only downside of this printer is that it is for sheets only. No roll paper feeder. But if you can live with that small inconvenience it is a solid solid performer. You may want to see if a dealer has one to demo before jumping brands. Woody Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie Roberts Posted February 20, 2008 Share #27 Posted February 20, 2008 Advertisement (gone after registration) Just to add to what Woody said, the Epson 3800 is also much better in terms of clogs. Just keep it turned off when not in use... I've had no problems compared with my 4000, which is extremely clog-prone if left idle. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
asfeir Posted February 20, 2008 Share #28 Posted February 20, 2008 Although this site is really for discussing digital Leica, I will still join with my 2 cents worth, and one question. 1- Great times, so many papers and printers combinations to get great prints of M8 shots 2- Tend to somewhat agree with Luminous Landscape on the comparison between Hahnemuhle and Ilford Barytas. I use an HP9180 and both are really great. 3- One of my favorite papers is Hahnemuhle's fine art pearl. True, you have to be acreful with the surface. 4- Has anyone found any reference on longevity of the papers mentioned above? Hahnemuhle has excellent reviews on the subject, but I understand the papers mentioned here all have optical brighteners of some sort. Will they yellow with time? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
zlatkob Posted February 20, 2008 Share #29 Posted February 20, 2008 I've been extremely pleased with Hahnemuhle Fine Art Baryta paper, and have to second Dan's WOW! I love the rich texture of this paper's surface. Some may prefer the smoother texture of the Harman and Ilford barytas, but to me those look a bit plain by comparison. It's great to have these and many other options in the paper world. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
charlesphoto99 Posted February 20, 2008 Share #30 Posted February 20, 2008 One of the reasons I've been sticking with Crane Silver Rag is the lack of OBAs (optical brightening agents). I'd rather have a slightly known warm base than a later unknown unwanted warm base. I also find the latest crop of "Baryta" papers way too glossy, thought the dmax is nice. The Crane is also very robust and scuff free (to a point of course). The surface has quite a bit of stipple but that doesn't bother me and once under glass hardly noticeable and very difficult to discern form a traditional fiber print. Looking forward to trying some of the new batch of barytas but boy this continual testing gets expensive. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
russell Posted February 20, 2008 Share #31 Posted February 20, 2008 Yes me too: any news on the optical brighteners and how they will age? Anyone know? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Printmaker Posted February 20, 2008 Share #32 Posted February 20, 2008 Yes me too: any news on the optical brighteners and how they will age? Anyone know? They will yellow in 10 - 20 years. It is a slow process and you will never notice it happening. The prints will just look like you printed them on Cranes Silver Rag in the first place. Yes, this is a great time for papers. My only complaint is that I have editions started on several papers all of which were the greatest new thing. It is getting expensive stocking them all. I'm dropping Hahnemuhle Fine Art Pearl because it tends to curl and jam in the 9800s. But I'll never drop their PhotoRag. It just makes wonderful sepias and soulful b&ws. My new favorite is Illford's Gold Fiber Silk. Its one sweet paper and will replace the Fine Art Pearl. It is heavy, has a nice surface and prints well. So is Epson's Exhibition Fiber. Too bad they do not come in 35x47 or 24x36. 24x30 and 17x22 is just too small. At this time I'm stocking Arches Fine Art, Hahnemuhle Photo Rag, Cranes Museo, Cranes Museo Portfolio, Cranes Museo Silver Rag, Harmon Gloss, Illford Gold Fiber Silk and Epson's Premium Gloss, Luster, and OCE Semigloss. Then of course there is three brands of canvas, vinyl banner material, backlight film, various fabrics and miscellaneous other rolls and sheets. Trying Hahnemuhle's Baryta may wait another few weeks. Tom Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
guiba Posted February 20, 2008 Share #33 Posted February 20, 2008 Hello, good news for R2400 owners: now the ICC profile for the Hahnemuhle FineArt Baryta is available on the Hahn. site. The name is: HFA2400BarytaPK.icc The printer set indications are: Media -Epson Premium Semigloss paper- Best photo Intent -perceptual- Black point compensation -Off- ICM -Off- Ciao Guido Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wlaidlaw Posted February 20, 2008 Share #34 Posted February 20, 2008 My new favorite is Illford's Gold Fiber Silk. Its one sweet paper and will replace the Fine Art Pearl. It is heavy, has a nice surface and prints well. So is Epson's Exhibition Fiber. Too bad they do not come in 35x47 or 24x36. 24x30 and 17x22 is just too small. Tom Tom, Is the Ilford Fine Art Pearl the same as their Galerie Smooth Pearl? I have used this for some years and find it is the closest I can get to a "universal" paper, which seems to work well in all printers, Epson, HP and Canon. I am getting slightly better results with the Ilford in my Canon Pixma Pro 9500 than Lyson Satin Lustre, which is considerably more expensive. On my HP B9180, I can see no difference between the Ilford and the Lyson. On the plus side, Lyson were kind enough to write me a specific icc profile for my Canon from a Gretag Macbeth swatch file. Wilson Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Printmaker Posted February 21, 2008 Share #35 Posted February 21, 2008 Tom, Is the Ilford Fine Art Pearl the same as their Galerie Smooth Pearl? I have used this for some years and find it is the closest I can get to a "universal" paper, which seems to work well in all printers, Epson, HP and Canon. I am getting slightly better results with the Ilford in my Canon Pixma Pro 9500 than Lyson Satin Lustre, which is considerably more expensive. On my HP B9180, I can see no difference between the Ilford and the Lyson. On the plus side, Lyson were kind enough to write me a specific icc profile for my Canon from a Gretag Macbeth swatch file. Wilson I was talking about replacing Hahnemuhle Fine Art Pearl with Illford Gold Fiber Silk. I was stocking 17x22 boxes and found that by the time I got near the bottom of a 50 sheet box, the Hahnemuhle paper had developed a curl which was jamming my 9800s. I'm using Illford Gold Fiber Silk paper and Harmon Gloss as my premium sheets for prints under 17x22 and 17x25. Over that size, I go to 24x36 and 35x47 sheets of Photo Rag or Museo as premium papers. I've never tried Gallery Smooth Pearl so I don't know. I try to stock the papers my artists request and the ones that I use for my own work. If an artist or photographer is running a numbered edition, then I'll stock that paper until the edition is either sold out or all the prints have been pulled. If I didn't have a few editions printing on Cranes Silver Rag, I'd probably drop that paper - it has too much surface sheen for my taste. Though I must confess, when it first came out I loved this paper. Right now, I don't have any editions running Hahnemuhle Fine Art Pearl, so I can drop this paper. Besides, once a print is matted and framed, I don't think anyone can tell the difference between the Hahnemuhle and the Illford. In the hand, the Illford paper has less sheen and that old fashioned darkroom smell. The Illford does cost a whole lot less, which helps. If and when the Illford Gold Fiber Silk becomes available in larger sheets or my supplier stocks 44 inch rolls, it could become my universal paper or premium house sheet for photographers. It looks every bit as good as the more expensive Epson Exhibition Fiber and has more of an air-dried F surface than Harman gloss, which - to my eye - has more of an air-dried RC look. Tom Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
charlesphoto99 Posted February 21, 2008 Share #36 Posted February 21, 2008 One thing I noticed when testing the Gold Silk vs the Harmon Gloss was the Harmon was ever so glossier but one could "see" through the gloss a bit more to the image. I wasn't too impressed by the RC-ness of either of these papers but for the price the Gold Silk would be a good go to paper esp for color. The Ilford Smooth Pearl is a non-archival paper. Great for portfolios, proofing and such but I wouldn't sell fine art prints with it. I use the Smooth Glossy equivalent for my portfolios and book layouts. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wlaidlaw Posted February 21, 2008 Share #37 Posted February 21, 2008 I have just called my supplier Marrutt UK and they tell me the Ilford Galerie Gold Silk is a wholly different product and considerably superior to the Galerie Smooth Pearl, although looking superficially a bit similar and being of a similar weight. They are currently waiting for A3+ stock, so I have put a couple of boxes on order, as I had run out of Smooth Pearl in this size anyway. Wilson Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
asfeir Posted February 21, 2008 Share #38 Posted February 21, 2008 One thing I noticed when testing the Gold Silk vs the Harmon Gloss was the Harmon was ever so glossier but one could "see" through the gloss a bit more to the image. I wasn't too impressed by the RC-ness of either of these papers but for the price the Gold Silk would be a good go to paper esp for color. The Ilford Smooth Pearl is a non-archival paper. Great for portfolios, proofing and such but I wouldn't sell fine art prints with it. I use the Smooth Glossy equivalent for my portfolios and book layouts. I agree that Ilford Smooth Pearl is non-archival, but is there any test concerning the archivability of the Gold Silk? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Printmaker Posted February 21, 2008 Share #39 Posted February 21, 2008 I agree that Ilford Smooth Pearl is non-archival, but is there any test concerning the archivability of the Gold Silk? Illford claims "... excellent archival characteristics." Just what that means is anybody's guess. But if we're getting 50--70 year archival ratings from Epson RC printers, I would expect more from a fiber based paper. Of course these are just numbers based on high intensity UV light tests. In the early days, we would tape a print to a window and figure that for every month it went without fading, it would go a year in a mat and under glass. The tests now are a little bit more sophisticated but based on the same idea. Few tests take into consideration the air quality. I would expect prints on this paper to last 100 plus years in dark storage and 20 to 30 years on an inside wall if it is given an acid-free mat and put under UV protected glass. (museum conditions) Subtract 10 years if you live in a city where the air is polluted with sulfur. Subtract 10-20 for mold. Subtract 10 for salt spray. In other words, I would expect this paper to last about half as long as a perfectly processed, toned and archivally matted silver print. But this is just a guess based on similar papers. Here is an interesting but unrelated side note I found on the Illford site: **The ILFORD Black and White Photo business, including the UK Manufacturing facility, was acquired by HARMAN technology Limited. Trading as ILFORD Photo, HARMAN is licensed to use the ILFORD brand in association with traditional Black and White silver halide products only. Tom Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wlaidlaw Posted February 21, 2008 Share #40 Posted February 21, 2008 Here is an interesting but unrelated side note I found on the Illford site: **The ILFORD Black and White Photo business, including the UK Manufacturing facility, was acquired by HARMAN technology Limited. Trading as ILFORD Photo, HARMAN is licensed to use the ILFORD brand in association with traditional Black and White silver halide products only. Tom Tom, Ilford went into receivership in 2004 - see Financial Times article here FT.com / Companies / Basic industries - Administrators put in the frame at Ilford The digital inks and paper business is separate. The Harman Technology group was an MBO from the receivers of the B&W business. I wish them well but I will not be investing. Wilson Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.