Digital BW, The Print

Hahnemuhle Photo Rag 308 is my favorite paper. I use a Canon FS4000 
with VueScan. My iMac LCD screen was calibrated using the ColorBlind 
ProveIt and Chroma4 colorimeter. No image modification is made in 
VueScan. In Photoshop 7, I convert the color space to the calibrated 
profile, from ProveIt. From PS7, after cropping and whatever other 
changes I want to make, the image is sent to the Print Center. I choose 
"Advanced" settings. I set paper for "Heavy Weight Matte" 1440 dpi, 
high speed off, and select "Color Sync" because that is where the 
calibrated profile from ProveIt resides.

I print on an 870 or my new 2200. Both printers produce color prints 
that look like the image in the LCD screen. For B&W, the 870, with OEM 
inks produces a neutral print with excellent high values and somewhat 
unseparated low values. The 2200, so far, only produces excellent B&W 
when printed with "black ink" selected; otherwise, there is a magenta 
cast that moves around the gray scale but never goes away. This all 
with Photo Black, not Matte Black.

I am looking forward to Gimp-Print coming out of testing and tuning for 
the 2200. Otherwise, ImagePrint5 seems to be something to explore. The 
cost of admission is an issue.

For exhibition prints that would be sold, LightJet prints seem, to me, 
to be the safe way to go for now in color. Traditional silver B&W 
prints are likewise the conservative offering, it would seem. For a 
client who loves the look of inkjets, I would just be sure to 
underscore the fact that we do not know for sure what their long term 
durability is.

Hope this is of some use.

Cheers, Jim, San Diego


On Tuesday, November 19, 2002, at 08:22 AM, chipcarterdc wrote:

> OK, this is not intended as flame bait or to disparage this paper or
> anyone who uses it.  Here's the story.  I have an Epson 2200 printer
> and am trying different papers.  I recently ordered 2 sample sheets
> of Photo Rag to try out -- after reading all the glowing reports on
> it here and elsewhere, I though I'd give it a shot.
>
> The problem is, while I don't dislike the paper, I don't particularly
> like it either.  Last night, I printed the same image on Epson
> Enhanced Matte and Photo Rag and preferred the Enhanced Matte print. 
> The Photo Rag print tended toward the cold side, with a bluish cast,
> while the Enhanced Matte looked like a more neutral black (I found
> this to be true under a variety of lighting conditions (incandescent,
> halogen and daylight) -- the Photo Rag looked bluish while the
> Enhanced Matte looked more neutral.  In terms of the density of the
> blacks and detail of the image, they looked the same -- this wouldn't
> be a strike against Photo Rag, except that it's so much more
> expensive that I was hoping there'd be a substantial enough
> difference to justify the cost.
>
> Here are the possibilities that have occurred to me:
>
> (1) Personal preference -- those who really like Photo Rag prefer the
> cold tone bluish cast and I don't (which is fine)
>
> (2) Photo Rag doesn't work particularly well with the 2200, and/or
> the people who really enjoy Photo Rag are using different systems,
> like the third party quadtone systems so many people here are using 
> (which would dictate that I not use Photo Rag, since I don't
> currently plan to investigate third party inks)
>
> (3) There's something wrong with my settings, resulting in the bluish
> cast on Photo Rag (I used Postscript Color Management in the
> Photoshop driver and Color Controls: Photorealistic in the Epson
> driver; media type was set to Epson Watercolor Radiant White, as
> recommended by the Inkjetart website).  I also used Matte Black ink,
> not Photo Black, for the Photo Rag and Enhanced Matte prints.
>
> (4) The standard response: get a custom profile (yes I recognize the
> value of this; no, I have not decided to get custom profiles made
> yet).
>
> As things stand, the only advantages of Photo Rag over the Enhanced
> matte are (1) it "feels" better because it's heavier (not very
> important to me personally); (2) I do like the very slight textured
> appearance of Photo Rag; (3) most importantly, Enhanced Matte is not
> as archival as Photo Rag (from what I've read, even if the
> Ultrachrome inks are equally archival on both papers, the Enhanced
> Matte is slightly acidic and the paper will start to yellow in about
> 30 years).
>
> So, am I missing something or doing something wrong with Photo Rag,
> or is it really a difference in personal preference and/or equipment?
>
> Your thoughts are really appreciated, and sorry for the long post.
>
> BTW, I foolishly bought 2 packs of Photo Rag before doing my
> testing.  They are unopened, however, so I'm trying to figure as much
> of this all out as possible before I open those packs so I can return
> or sell them if necessary/
>
>
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls 
> and other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish 
> to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting 
> this same page.
>
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to 
> keep them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject 
> header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or 
> "flames."
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the 
> various resources on the homepage.
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]