Digital BW, The Print

So far, all the "satine" papers seem to be trying to mimic the super ugly and unattractive R.C. Darkroom
paper surface "pearl" or "semi matte". Why would anyone want his fine art prints to look like an R.C.
darkroom paper?


Inquiring minds just gotta know! :).

Jerry



Martin Wesley wrote:

> Mike,
>
> Have you tried the Eclipse Satine 190 or 300 yet? I would be
> interested in how you compare them to the Velvet and the LPM.
>
> Martin
>
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Michael J. Kravit"
> <kravit@b...> wrote:
> > One other thing I just noticed when comparing the same print on
> > Legion Photo Matte and Bright Cube Eclipse Velvet.
> >
> > The Eclipse Velvet image is sharper!
> >
> > Yup, with a 4x loupe the edge effects on the Velvet are visibly
> > sharper and more pronounced. The Legion Photo Matte edges are a bit
> > soft. Perhaps a bit of ink bleed?
> >
> > Mike
>
>
> Please visit the Group Homepage often and check the resources their regularly. The page can be found at:
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

> So far, all the "satine" papers seem to be trying to mimic the super ugly and
> unattractive R.C. Darkroom
> paper surface "pearl" or "semi matte". Why would anyone want his fine art
> prints to look like an R.C.
> darkroom paper?
> 
> 
> Inquiring minds just gotta know! :).
> 
> Jerry


If you think there is room for interpretation when confronted with
manufacturers specs for weights and thickness, the terms Velvet and Satine
will send you to the mad house. ;-)

Actually, my experience with *art* papers called "Satine" is good - think
Xtreme Gamut. It usually denotes a surface that is not so smooth as EAM, but
with less texture than say a Somerset Enhanced (old style). I think Museo
could be called a "Satine" type surface, for instance.

I'm no expert, so I welcome correction.

Jerry, I think you're thinking of plastic papers, like Epson Luster. I'd
expect matte papers called Satine to be nice.

Jerry,

I have no idea why they call it Satine but it does not resemble an RC 
paper at all. It is a very nice art paper. More texture than Museo, 
less than Torchon. Hard texture like Torchon. White very close to EAM.

The 190 gsm feels about 50% stiffer and heavier than the 230 gsm 
Legion Photo Matte or EAM. The 300gsm is very substantial. I don't 
know if you would like it but I don't think you would hate it either.

Does not take Piezo inks well unfortunately but I have hopes for MIS 
inks. If they work it could be a real winner. $0.66 per sheet in the 
190 GSM and it is double sided.

Martin


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., Jerry Olson 
<jerryolson@r...> wrote:
> So far, all the "satine" papers seem to be trying to mimic the 
super ugly and unattractive R.C. Darkroom
> paper surface "pearl" or "semi matte". Why would anyone want his 
fine art prints to look like an R.C.
> darkroom paper?
> 
> 
> Inquiring minds just gotta know! :).
> 
> Jerry
> 
> 
> 
> Martin Wesley wrote:
> 
> > Mike,
> >
> > Have you tried the Eclipse Satine 190 or 300 yet? I would be
> > interested in how you compare them to the Velvet and the LPM.
> >
> > Martin
> >
(snip)

Hi Martin,

That's better. I was afraid all satine papers had that RC look.  I've only seen 2 or 3 and they did look
like an RC print. They looked like a glossy print had been sprayed with a matte spray, which is about as
tacky as you can get.

I just don't understand why manufacturers can't label their papers so that their thickness raing means the
same thing to all people. The ideal paper for me would be a photo matte by legion papers that was about
twice as thick as it is now.  I'm awaiting some eclipse to see how I like that with the MIS inks.  I still
haven't printed a piezo print with the photo matte, but I will today.



Jerry

>



> I have no idea why they call it Satine but it does not resemble an RC
> paper at all. It is a very nice art paper. More texture than Museo,
> less than Torchon. Hard texture like Torchon. White very close to EAM.
>
> The 190 gsm feels about 50% stiffer and heavier than the 230 gsm
> Legion Photo Matte or EAM. The 300gsm is very substantial. I don't
> know if you would like it but I don't think you would hate it either.
>
> Does not take Piezo inks well unfortunately but I have hopes for MIS
> inks. If they work it could be a real winner. $0.66 per sheet in the
> 190 GSM and it is double sided.
>
> Martin
>
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., Jerry Olson
> <jerryolson@r...> wrote:
> > So far, all the "satine" papers seem to be trying to mimic the
> super ugly and unattractive R.C. Darkroom
> > paper surface "pearl" or "semi matte". Why would anyone want his
> fine art prints to look like an R.C.
> > darkroom paper?
> >
> >
> > Inquiring minds just gotta know! :).
> >
> > Jerry
> >
> >
> >
> > Martin Wesley wrote:
> >
> > > Mike,
> > >
> > > Have you tried the Eclipse Satine 190 or 300 yet? I would be
> > > interested in how you compare them to the Velvet and the LPM.
> > >
> > > Martin
> > >
> (snip)
>
>
> Please visit the Group Homepage often and check the resources their regularly. The page can be found at:
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

all--
grams per square meter is the clearest measurement you can get. when 
we talk about "lbs--pounds" here on this side of the pond, it refers 
to the weight of 500 sheets BASED on a certain size (hence, basis 
weight), or amount of square feet.  For example, 20-lb bond is 20 lbs 
because 500 sheets of 17x22 weighs 20-lbs (and 500 sheets 17x22 is 
about 1300 sq.ft.)
It is true that the two sheets with the same basis weight can feel 
thicker/thinner, this is due the density of the sheet.  So, the other 
question you can ask suppliers is what is the caliper thickness of 
the sheet.
hope this helps one issue anyway, as regards what we paper makers 
call our sheets, well ... ;)
thanks
robert rex

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., Jerry Olson 
<jerryolson@r...> wrote:
> Hi Martin,
> 
{snip}
 
> I just don't understand why manufacturers can't label their papers 
so that their thickness raing means the
> same thing to all people. The ideal paper for me would be a photo 
matte by legion papers that was about
> twice as thick as it is now.  I'm awaiting some eclipse to see how 
I like that with the MIS inks.  I still
> haven't printed a piezo print with the photo matte, but I will 
today.
> Jerry
>