Digital BW, The Print

I just spent the last 2 days trying to get a 13"x19" B&W print on 
these two papers with an Epson 2400.  Here is what I ran into.

The Museo Silver Rag has a vertical scratch running the length of 
the paper that is barely visible to the naked eye om the unp[rinted 
sheet but takes ink differently than the regular surface and is 
quite visible on the printed image.  It seems to be on every sheet 
in the 20 sheet box - lot X56792701.

The Innova had several sheets with surface coating overlaps that 
were readily apparant to the naked eye.  I also have has 
some "pinhole" problems with this paper where the ink flakes off the 
paper in small dots about 1/32" diameter.  Only had 2 or 3 dots per 
sheet.  The paper was brushed with an antistatic brush followed by a 
shot of clean compressed air from a can to remove any particles on 
the surface.  The vertical scratches were not observed with the 
Innova paper. The Innova F Type Gloss Black Max Paper was 17"x22" 
which I cut down to 13"x19" and had lot number 18852 29005 from the 
bar code on the package.

It seems to me that Museo and Innova need to strengthen their QA 
program.  I recall very few paper flaws from the old darkrooom days 
over the last 20 years.  I didn't have any problems with these 2 
papers in the 8.5" x11" sizes, only the larger sheet sizes used in 
this print session.  Has anyone else ran into similiar problems with 
defects in paper coatings? 

Cheers,

TK

Many have tried these papers & have decided not to use them, usually for the reasons in 
this review:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/surface-reflections.shtml

I've tried them myself & have received some other folks' examples in the Print Exchanges 
on this forum.  My hope is that the next generation of papers that are supposed to look 
like air-dried gelatin-silver will be more successful.

Kirk

This review has been much discussed already; I had not commented
earlier because I then had no first-hand knowledge of these papers.

Suffice it to say this is a very subjective, and IMHO, not very learned, review.

Why do I say not very learned?  Because the reviewer starts with the
marketing hype of the paper, manufacturers, then screams when the
papers don't live up to the hype.  These papers allegedly, as the
reviewer notes, are supposed to "recreate the look of  a traditional
paper." This is marketing hype, and any artist who is familiar with
the history of digital imaging product will recognize it as such, and
frankly, give it exactly the credence it deserves. These papers need
to be evaluated in their own right, not as re-creations of a supposed
former glory.

The reviewer describes Fiba Gloss as "Naugahyde".  This is a very easy
denigration, complete with the requisite old car analogies supposed to
turn you off to the paper. It would have been interesting (but much
more difficult!) if the reviewer had actually tried to characterize
the paper.

Fiba Gloss does have a very particular texture- it is not plate
smooth, or photorag smooth, or very smooth at all. I print mostly on
William Turner, and this texture is likewise very different. Some
people I can well imagine disliking this texture, particularly if they
are used to printing on very smooth papers.  The gloss differential
can be daunting, but much less so than with other gloss papers. For
really deep, really saturated colors, though, (for me) it opens up a
whole new world!

I welcome more reviews of these papers from actual users, describing
their suitability (or not!) for particular image types. Reviews such
as the one cited, IMO, do not advance our understanding.
-- 
Regards,

Bill Morse
Wm. Morse Editions

(617) 429-3298

On 10/10/06, Kirk Thompson <thompsonkirk@...> wrote:
>
> Many have tried these papers & have decided not to use them, usually for the reasons in
>  this review:
>
>  http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/surface-reflections.shtml
>
>  I've tried them myself & have received some other folks' examples in the Print Exchanges
>  on this forum.  My hope is that the next generation of papers that are supposed to look
>  like air-dried gelatin-silver will be more successful.
>
>  Kirk

Hi Bill,

Your points are well taken and I agree.  But what I took from the 
article was that these papers (I have tried them, and love and hate 
them) are not the final iteration he (nor I) would hope for.  If we 
all accept these as nirvana and don't keep asking for more paper 
development, development may slow down or cease.

Paul

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Bill Morse" 
<Bill.Morse@...> wrote:
>
> This review has been much discussed already; I had not commented
> earlier because I then had no first-hand knowledge of these papers.
> 
> Suffice it to say this is a very subjective, and IMHO, not very 
learned, review.
> 
> Why do I say not very learned?  Because the reviewer starts with the
> marketing hype of the paper, manufacturers, then screams when the
> papers don't live up to the hype.  These papers allegedly, as the
> reviewer notes, are supposed to "recreate the look of  a traditional
> paper." This is marketing hype, and any artist who is familiar with
> the history of digital imaging product will recognize it as such, 
and
> frankly, give it exactly the credence it deserves. These papers need
> to be evaluated in their own right, not as re-creations of a 
supposed
> former glory.
> (snip)

Hi Paul-

I actually didn't take from the review that "this is good, but we want
more."  (we always want more, don't we?)  ;^)

I understood the review to be saying that the new papers were "naugahyde",
but we were too stupid/infatuated with the new to realize it. In my opinion
it was the reverse- the reviewer was too interested in recreating an old
paper to realize the potential of the new.

Bill

On 10/10/06, bwinkjet <bwinkjet@...> wrote:
>
>   Hi Bill,
>
> Your points are well taken and I agree. But what I took from the
> article was that these papers (I have tried them, and love and hate
> them) are not the final iteration he (nor I) would hope for. If we
> all accept these as nirvana and don't keep asking for more paper
> development, development may slow down or cease.
>
> Paul
>
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com<DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint%40yahoogroups.com>,
> "Bill Morse"
> <Bill.Morse@...> wrote:
> >
> > This review has been much discussed already; I had not commented
> > earlier because I then had no first-hand knowledge of these papers.
> >
> > Suffice it to say this is a very subjective, and IMHO, not very
> learned, review.
> >
> > Why do I say not very learned? Because the reviewer starts with the
> > marketing hype of the paper, manufacturers, then screams when the
> > papers don't live up to the hype. These papers allegedly, as the
> > reviewer notes, are supposed to "recreate the look of a traditional
> > paper." This is marketing hype, and any artist who is familiar with
> > the history of digital imaging product will recognize it as such,
> and
> > frankly, give it exactly the credence it deserves. These papers need
> > to be evaluated in their own right, not as re-creations of a
> supposed
> > former glory.
> > (snip)
>
>  
>



-- 
Regards,

Bill Morse
Wm. Morse Editions

(617) 429-3298


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