Digital BW, The Print

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/

Was your image in RGB mode when you printed?  If not, that might 
explain the bluish cast.  I've found that Photo Rag prints from a 2200 
are actually quite warm in tone compared to EAM or Eclipse Satine-BW - 
probably because of the comparatively warm white paper base of PR.  I 
like eclipse satine and to my eye at least the blacks are equally deep 
on all 3 papers.

On Tuesday, November 19, 2002, at 11:22  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 
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "chipcarterdc" 
<chipcarterdc@h...> wrote: 
> (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).

------

Printing neutral B/W imagery is about the hardest thing to do in 
whole world, using color inks. Easy to print B/W imagery; very 
hard to do it and keep it neutral.

So, even though I won't hit you over the head with the "standard 
response", I'll simply quote it above.

It's simply not fair to expect that printer to print perfectly neutral 
B/W without a custom profile. You might hit by accident, but you 
don't really have the right to complain if you don't get a profile.

I will say, however, that the canned profiles that came with my 
Ultrachrome 96 are extremely good. Especially the Archival Matte 
profile.

Try it under these conditions:

* Media type: Archival matte
* DPI: 1440
* HiSpeed: Off
* No Color Adjustment
* SuperMicroWeave: Off

PrintDriver: ColorManagement:

Source> Adobe98RGB
Destination> 2200 Archival Matte MK

* File should be RGB.

* Monitor should be calibrated, but if not, use Info Pallette over 
several areas. View RGB values to make sure they're neutral, ie 
145R/145G/145B. Or, in RGB, choose Desaturate to throw your 
values back to neutral.

Try all that, but seriously, just get a profile and much of this 
anguish goes away immediately.

http://www.profilecity.com

MT

> Printing neutral B/W imagery is about the hardest thing to do in
> whole world, using color inks. Easy to print B/W imagery; very
> hard to do it and keep it neutral.
> 
> So, even though I won't hit you over the head with the "standard
> response", I'll simply quote it above.
> 
> It's simply not fair to expect that printer to print perfectly neutral
> B/W without a custom profile. You might hit by accident, but you
> don't really have the right to complain if you don't get a profile.
> 
> I will say, however, that the canned profiles that came with my
> Ultrachrome 96 are extremely good. Especially the Archival Matte
> profile.
> 
> Try it under these conditions:
> 
> * Media type: Archival matte
> * DPI: 1440
> * HiSpeed: Off
> * No Color Adjustment
> * SuperMicroWeave: Off
> 
> PrintDriver: ColorManagement:
> 
> Source> Adobe98RGB
> Destination> 2200 Archival Matte MK
> 
> * File should be RGB.
> 
> * Monitor should be calibrated, but if not, use Info Pallette over
> several areas. View RGB values to make sure they're neutral, ie
> 145R/145G/145B. Or, in RGB, choose Desaturate to throw your
> values back to neutral.

you might also want to try converting the file to the printer's profile
prior to printing, use the conversion engine that best suits your tastes as
you view the change on screen... I prefer Adobe CCM : RelCol : Black point
comp checked for most conversions to epson canned profiles, but Perceptual
may work better for your file.  Then your Destination in the driver should
be "same as source"...

Also, another thing to try to ensure your file is neutral before printing,
instead of desaturating the entire file, go thru the channel mixer in
monochrome to adjust the grays to your liking.  after another test print
adjust your curves, pull the blue out a bit if it still exists.   You may
find some color crossover but you can play with that as well.

I've managed some rather nice neutrals from my 2000P, metamerism aside,
without custom profiles, and without a lot of color crossover after some
curve play.  

Carolyn

I'm not a 2200 user yet, but have you tried using the greyscale balancer
plugin thingy for the 2200...

tim

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Tucker [mailto:mark@...]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2002 10:48 AM
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [Digital BW] Re: Photo Rag -- results less than expected
>
>
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "chipcarterdc"
> <chipcarterdc@h...> wrote:
> > (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).
>
> ------
>
> Printing neutral B/W imagery is about the hardest thing to do in
> whole world, using color inks. Easy to print B/W imagery; very
> hard to do it and keep it neutral.
>
> So, even though I won't hit you over the head with the "standard
> response", I'll simply quote it above.
>
> It's simply not fair to expect that printer to print perfectly neutral
> B/W without a custom profile. You might hit by accident, but you
> don't really have the right to complain if you don't get a profile.
>
> I will say, however, that the canned profiles that came with my
> Ultrachrome 96 are extremely good. Especially the Archival Matte
> profile.
>
> Try it under these conditions:
>
> * Media type: Archival matte
> * DPI: 1440
> * HiSpeed: Off
> * No Color Adjustment
> * SuperMicroWeave: Off
>
> PrintDriver: ColorManagement:
>
> Source> Adobe98RGB
> Destination> 2200 Archival Matte MK
>
> * File should be RGB.
>
> * Monitor should be calibrated, but if not, use Info Pallette over
> several areas. View RGB values to make sure they're neutral, ie
> 145R/145G/145B. Or, in RGB, choose Desaturate to throw your
> values back to neutral.
>
> Try all that, but seriously, just get a profile and much of this
> anguish goes away immediately.
>
> http://www.profilecity.com
>
> MT
>
>
> 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
> &amp;amp;quot;flames.&amp;amp;quot;
> - 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 http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>

This is REALLY weird. I consider photo rag to be a very warm paper no
matter what inks are used on it.  It has a slightly cream colored base,
so a cold tone print wouldn't look good on it at all.  I have printed
with Paul's curves on it with the cold tone, and it just doesn't make
it. It's very nice with the neutral curve, but still a tiny bit warm.
The paper IS way overpriced.

... 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)

I've never heard of anyone who called this paper cool with a bluish
color cast!!!!!

> 
> (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)

This may be the cause. the 2200 may indeed give you bluish results, but
the VM quads sure don't.

> 
> 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).

Probably much sooner than that.

> 
> So, am I missing something or doing something wrong with Photo Rag,
> or is it really a difference in personal preference and/or equipment?

Yes, it's a difference in personal preference and equipment.

Jerry

So, if say I buy one of these profiles for my 1280 with color inks, does
this mean I could print, toned black and white photos that stay that tone
and do not shift over night?  IS that what a profile does for you?  I think
I may have profile envy...

-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Tucker [mailto:mark@...] 
Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2002 10:48 AM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Digital BW] Re: Photo Rag -- results less than expected

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "chipcarterdc" 
<chipcarterdc@h...> wrote: 
> (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).

------

Printing neutral B/W imagery is about the hardest thing to do in 
whole world, using color inks. Easy to print B/W imagery; very 
hard to do it and keep it neutral.

So, even though I won't hit you over the head with the "standard 
response", I'll simply quote it above.

It's simply not fair to expect that printer to print perfectly neutral 
B/W without a custom profile. You might hit by accident, but you 
don't really have the right to complain if you don't get a profile.

I will say, however, that the canned profiles that came with my 
Ultrachrome 96 are extremely good. Especially the Archival Matte 
profile.

Try it under these conditions:

* Media type: Archival matte
* DPI: 1440
* HiSpeed: Off
* No Color Adjustment
* SuperMicroWeave: Off

PrintDriver: ColorManagement:

Source> Adobe98RGB
Destination> 2200 Archival Matte MK

* File should be RGB.

* Monitor should be calibrated, but if not, use Info Pallette over 
several areas. View RGB values to make sure they're neutral, ie 
145R/145G/145B. Or, in RGB, choose Desaturate to throw your 
values back to neutral.

Try all that, but seriously, just get a profile and much of this 
anguish goes away immediately.

http://www.profilecity.com

MT


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
&amp;amp;quot;flames.&amp;amp;quot;
- 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 http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 



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

I happened to be doing virtually the same experiment with my 2200
this weekend, using 30 or so different watercolor/matte papers I 
harvested out of three different sampler packs. I printed the 
same image on them all, using Carl Schofield's suggested settings 
(I'm pre-profile, just like you) and hung them up in my livingroom 
to compare them. In fact, my main point was to be able to pick a
paper to profile that I knew I would stick with, and I didn't think 
I could do that unless I knew what I was missing. What an education!

I got almost identical results on EAM and PhotoRag, and those were
the two best of the set (Legion Photo Matte was good, too.) I got
very slight color cast differences between EAM and Photorag which
I attributed to my lack of profiling, but it was nothing terribly
disturbing, both were quite neutral.

However, EAM did edge out the PhotoRag in deep blacks, though maybe
with a profile that wouldn't have happened. I haven't tried the
Satine.

david

 





--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "chipcarterdc" 
<chipcarterdc@h...> wrote:

>...  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...
>

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]

"I printed the same image on them all, using Carl Schofield's 
suggested settings...."

Who's Carl Schofield?  More importantly, where do I find his 
suggested settings (I assume these suggested settings refer to 
printing B&W on the 2200 using Photo Rag, Epson Matte and other 
papers)?

Thanks.

On Wednesday, November 20, 2002, at 03:42  PM, chipcarterdc wrote:

> "I printed the same image on them all, using Carl Schofield's
> suggested settings...."
>
> Who's Carl Schofield?  More importantly, where do I find his
> suggested settings (I assume these suggested settings refer to
> printing B&W on the 2200 using Photo Rag, Epson Matte and other
> papers)?
The workflow I described is for EAM on the 2200 using the Matte Black 
ink, but I also get similar results with PR and BC Eclipse Satine using 
the same settings:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/printers/2200-bw.shtml
The prints should appear neutral in daylight, but will have a slight 
magenta/purple cast under incandescent lighting.  You will need a 
profile or IP 5 if you want to eliminate this metamerism problem.