The world of inkjet fine art papers is quite amazing. There is an incredible amount of variety available today, and it seems a new kid on the block always creates an atmosphere of excitement. Every year we see new varieties from a continually growing market. Lately I have been reading about a new paper from Harman called Harman Gloss FB AL. It has quite a few raves from people who have tried it and has certainly peaked my curiosity. But the fact is, I am already neck deep in other papers I am still trying. I really have never been content with sticking with just one paper, I am always asking if it can get better. It really is a never ending search for the perfect print.
One thing that frustrates me in particular is that I am pretty much matte finish dedicated given it is quite costly to change over my Epson 4800 just ‘to try’ a new type of paper. It is a conscious decision for a variety of reasons; I happen to like matte finish prints, particularly for framing because of the lack of glare, the velvety feel of the papers and lack of concerns over issues like off-gassing of glycols that fog the glass when framed. On the other hand, I am always seduced by the higher contrast range, depth, and sharpness possible with glossier and luster type papers. Generally I like a soft luster to semi-matte finish the best, but the off-gassing has always kept me back. The Harman paper would require me to change over to try it, more expense to change back if it didn’t totally win me over. I have certainly cursed at Epson for imposing this upon me on numerous occasions.
The pursuit of the ‘perfect print’ is a very slippery slope. Once you start trying a variety of third party papers, you also realize that some of the printer profiles out there can leave a lot to be desired. So you are then left questioning – is my print really the absolute best it can be? Am I settling if I just say ‘it’s good enough?’ This prompted me to start getting into custom profiles which opens up an entirely new, complex area to learn about and tinker with. Until you see a custom profiled print side by side with a canned profile print, you may never know the difference. The differences can really be quite dramatic.
I have already grown fond of Hahnemule’s Photo Rag Satin. It is the closest thing I have found that bridges some of the gap between the characteristics of matte and glossy papers. Already I have been pleasantly surprised when using a custom profile for this paper versus the one from the manufacturer. I have another new one (to me) sitting waiting to try called PremierArt Platinum Luster Rag, which I think will bridge the gap even further since it is one of the few, if not only, Luster finish papers that works best with MK (matte) inks. It seems like new papers not only have to look good, feel good, and have flawless performance – but they need a sexy name as well. 🙂
So I am a bit overwhelmed by all the possibilities of late, and keep toying with the idea if it is worth changing my printer over to try something new. I imagine the paper chase continues because there are always some compromises involved, with the hope that someday there won’t be any.
Bernie & Howard – I highly recommend getting the Camera to Print videos. Much of it you may already know – but they share quite a few tips, I learned a few new things. I wrote a post about it a week or so ago.
Howard, the Satin paper works well for B&W, I did a couple when I was playing with my “Gorman” method of B&W conversions. I have a pack of the Premier Platinum Rag that I still need to try. It is actually a genuine luster surface paper that works best with MK inks. I am hoping it works out. Between these two, my desire to change to PK inks is softened just a little.
Mark…I might just give that a try because it is something different. I always print on fine art matte paper but, at times, have wanted something with a slight gloss but they have always required changing to photo black which, as you mentioned is a real pain in the butt. I would particularly like to try black and white on something with a slight sheen to it. Have you tried black and white printing on that paper? If so, how do you like it?
Bernie…I don’t have this myself, though I have been thinking about getting it. Have a look:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/videos/camera-print.shtml
Howard
I’m sinking on my printing Mark, it’s funny when I first started out doing my own prints I really liked how they turned out, now I am not so sure. I need a good tutorial on it, you know any good ones.
Howard, Photo Rag Satin uses Matte black ink. One of the reasons I like it! It has actually a slight sheen once printed on.
After trying and tinkering with a large number of papers I pretty much have settled on using three (with ImagePrint). The problem is that with limited time to work on prints one could easily spend more time trying out papers, custom profiling, tweaking the profiles etc to the detriment of getting the real work done. So I am using Hahnemuhle Photo Rag, Epson Ultrasmooth, and Breathing Color Elegance.
That said, do you have to switch over to Photo Black ik for the Hahnemuhle Photo Rag Satin?
Nice article Mark.
It is hard to keep things simple. Some photos do look better on some surfaces than others.
I love your pic as well. I dream of getting to go and experience such shots one day.
Well, your own profiles will certainly take into account any particular characteristics of YOUR printer. That could be why you are seeing some variance. So you would have to decide if you want to do that yourself, or send a print from your printer to someone else to have it measured. Not an easy choice I think – which is why I went back and forth for so long.
Imageprint’s profiles are quite good. But since my prints are usually non-typical (to put it nicely) I sometimes find myself trying to do things they can’t quite get. For example, I spent a week trying to print a photo that was primarily shades of brown and tan, and IP’s profile wasn’t getting the color anywhere close to what I wanted. I always wonder if I could create a custom profile that would get me closer to my intentions, or if I’d just be trading one sort of tedious work for another.
p.s. I have always read that Imageprint’s profiles are some of the best. So if you already have that software package, perhaps it is not worth the trouble. They are known to profile just about every paper on the market.
Hey Dan, I really debated for awhile whether I wanted to get into doing my own or not. Some people offer them for $25-50 – so you could really get a lot of them done compared to the cost of buying the equipment. But I went out on a limb and bought the basic EyeOne Photo profiling kit. I suppose I just wanted the control of doing it right at my desk. I am still learning about the various targets, effects of measuring more patches, etc. Still in a bit over my head I think!
I also learned that the photo spectrometer that comes with this kit did a better job of profiling my LCD monitor than my previous Monaco Optix device. The software is easy to use, but includes a key feature of being able to select a targeted luminosity of your screen. I believe this was the root cause of my prints always looking a bit darker than I expected. My luminosity was set too bright, even though the screen was previously profiled.
I know what you mean about how doing custom profiles opens up a Pandora’s box of tinkering. I’ve tried to avoid it (using Imageprint’s profiles instead) just because I know once I go there, I’ll most likely be stuck geeking out on profiles! I’m curious: are you buying custom profiles or making your own (and if so, what hardware do you use)?