Digital BW, The Print

Lately, I've been experimenting with different fine art papers and been 
wanting to try Museo Max. I don't read much about this paper on this 
forum, although Crane raves about how wonderful it is for black&white 
printing.

Does anyone use this paper, and if so, can you tell me about it?
I've used Portfolio Rag and Silver Rag.

How does MAX compare to these Crane papers?

Steve,

What did you think of Portfolio Rag and Silver Rag?

Mike


On 03/08/07, SteveZ <blizzie12@...> wrote:
>
>   Lately, I've been experimenting with different fine art papers and been
> wanting to try Museo Max. I don't read much about this paper on this
> forum, although Crane raves about how wonderful it is for black&white
> printing.
>
> Does anyone use this paper, and if so, can you tell me about it?
> I've used Portfolio Rag and Silver Rag.
>
> How does MAX compare to these Crane papers?
>
> 
>


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

On 8/3/07 3:59 PM, "SteveZ" <blizzie12@...> wrote:

> Lately, I've been experimenting with different fine art papers and been
> wanting to try Museo Max. I don't read much about this paper on this
> forum, although Crane raves about how wonderful it is for black&white
> printing.
> 
> Does anyone use this paper, and if so, can you tell me about it?
> I've used Portfolio Rag and Silver Rag.
> 
> How does MAX compare to these Crane papers?
> 
> 
I believe it is the same paper, surface and bas as the Portfolio rag, it
just has a bit of texture to it.  Portfolio Rag is the result of
photographers liking the Max, but wanting a smoother surface.
That¹s what a Crane rep told me.
David
-- 
David Aschkenas
915 N. Euclid Ave.
Pittsburgh, PA 15206
412-363-3458

www.daschkenasphoto.com



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

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "SteveZ" <blizzie12@...> wrote:
>
> Lately, I've been experimenting with different fine art papers and been 
> wanting to try Museo Max. I don't read much about this paper on this 
> forum, although Crane raves about how wonderful it is for black&white 
> printing.
> 
> Does anyone use this paper, and if so, can you tell me about it?
> I've used Portfolio Rag and Silver Rag.
> 
> How does MAX compare to these Crane papers?
>

Max is one of my all time favorites and I use it almost exclusively for Black and White and 
now also color work.  It does have some texture to it and that is why I like it more than a 
totally smooth surface.  Its a matte paper so differs totally from Silver Rag to answer one 
of your questions.  

Something to point out though as others may have pointed out about Portfolio Rag, MAX 
overinks very easily.  You will need to control your ink limits on this paper otherwise you 
will lose DMAX.  The other thing I also noticed is that MAX in rolls is different than Sheets.  
Sheet cut gives more DMAX (unless I just got a freak bunch).  To print a show, I once made 
a Bowhaus profile on MAX Sheet Cut.  I used the same profile on a MAX roll and was 
shocked to see how flat the image looked.  The two papers were totally different.  I then 
had to make a fresh profile for the Roll.

Same paper base tone as well (MAX and Portfolio Rag)?

Thanks - Terry.

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, David Aschkenas
<Daschkenas@...> wrote:
>
> On 8/3/07 3:59 PM, "SteveZ" <blizzie12@...> wrote:
> 
> > Lately, I've been experimenting with different fine art papers and
been

> > wanting to try Museo Max. I don't read much about this paper on this
> > forum, although Crane raves about how wonderful it is for black&white
> > printing.
> > 
> > Does anyone use this paper, and if so, can you tell me about it?
> > I've used Portfolio Rag and Silver Rag.
> > 
> > How does MAX compare to these Crane papers?
> > 
> > 
> I believe it is the same paper, surface and bas as the Portfolio rag, it
> just has a bit of texture to it.  Portfolio Rag is the result of
> photographers liking the Max, but wanting a smoother surface.
> That¹s what a Crane rep told me.
> David
> -- 
> David Aschkenas
> 915 N. Euclid Ave.
> Pittsburgh, PA 15206
> 412-363-3458
> 
> www.daschkenasphoto.com
> 
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

"The thing that people objected to most about Museo Max, besides the
inability to hold blacks very well, and the way it curls, which can be
significant, (like the other Crane papers) was that they raved about
how this paper was designed to produce a better dmax than any media on
the planet. They bragged in their promotionals that they had beat
everybody in quality, hands down.

Fact is, we found out very fast, that was a distortion, to be polite
about it, and all of the Hahnemuhle papers beat it as well as most
Innova in dmax. So that, along with the quite expensive cost, kept
people away from it. It is a perfectly decent coated paper, better
than Arches or Legion, just not revolutionary by a any measurement. As
far as I can see the papers Hahnemuhle has been making for 7 or 8
years are still the ones to beat. I think I started using German
Etching back in 1999 and it had a better dmax than MAX does now. I
keep waiting for a "revolutionary" matte paper with awesome tonal
capabilities and sharpness. There isn't one being made. I think most
of the research is going into the glossy fiber papers now."

My experience has been just the opposite. I have found it gave far
better blacks than almost any of the Hahnemuhle papers (never did like
german etching) - as well as most of the other matte papers I've used.
It also hasn't suffered from any of the odd yellowing issues that
plagued Photo Rag etc. It is also really good for not blocking up in
deep shadow areas and giving lots of detail.

As some have mentioned, you can't throw lots of ink at it though - you
have to get your black right

The texture can be a bit much on some types of prints

I still use it, but do most of my stuff on silver rag these days.



tim a




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

-It is not a bad paper by any means but if you are achieving a greater 
dmax than Hahnemuhle, you are the very first to report it. Everyone 
else was very disappointed and a lot of us from this list tested it 
even before it was being sold and for months after it was for sale.

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "john dean"
<deanwork2003@...> wrote:
>
> -It is not a bad paper by any means but if you are achieving a greater 
> dmax than Hahnemuhle, you are the very first to report it.

Yup, I'm a bit baffled by that too, but that's not to say wonderful
prints with pleasing blacks can not be made with it.

The impression of blackness seems to have to do with a lot of things,
numbers only part of it.
People continually think the work prints laying around in here on the
H art papers have better blacks than the new photo surface papers also
lying around. Yet the photo papers measure 2+, and the art papers in
the 1.7 area.
All these choices are a good thing.
Tyler

> a lot of us from this list tested it 
> even before it was being sold and for months after it was for sale.
>


that included me (as I did with Silver Rag as well). I did report back 
my measurements at the time - but as to which one of the several groups 
I'm on, it's too long ago to recall now.

Mind you, I know an awful lot of people who pritned/tested the wrong 
sides on the sheets... 

For some reason a lot of the boxes were loaded upside down, and as yoiu 
can print pretty well on the rear side, many people used that....

And it wasn't always very easy to tell which was the correct side :-)

okay, I found one of my old emails with the test info in it from when 
Museo Max came out

I was getting 1.70 with K3 inks