Digital BW, The Print

Hi all,

Normally, PhotoRag is my paper of choice and I use Epson Enhanced 
Matte as draft paper. My default print size is A4.
 
Lately I'm making some smaller prints (A5-A6) with quite some detail. 
And I notice that my EEM prints show clearly more detail than the 
ones on PhotoRag. The paper is the only thing that changes. All 
prints are made on an Epson 2100, UT3D inks, QTR. In both cases I use 
the very same QTR curves (made with an Eye-One). No, I don't print on 
the back side of PhotoRag - once in a while I do by mistake, and then 
the difference is MUCH bigger :O).

I think I observed the same phenomenon earlier, but can not recall it 
was that clear. Perhaps I notice better because of the smaller print 
size? Or I got a different batch (of both PhotoRag and EEM) with some 
more difference.

Have you seen the same thing?

Joost

Joost, Not all papers are ; the same thickness, take the same amount of time
to absorb/dry ink, etc. The printers are pretty amazing but they really are
stupid. They don't know what paper is being put into them, so you might need
to make adjustments to paper feed, dry time, thickness, etc to get the best
out of each paper. 

 

That being said, flatter smoother papers will show more detail that rougher
papers. EEM is a smoother paper than HPR 308. is that 188 you are using? 

 

Eric

 

 

Eric Neilsen Photography

4101 Commerce Street

Suite 9

Dallas, TX 75226

http://e.neilsen.home.att.net

http://ericneilsenphotography.com

Skype ejprinter

  _____  

From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Joost
Horsten
Sent: Sunday, April 13, 2008 11:30 AM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Digital BW] more detail with EEM than with PhotoRag(?)

 

Hi all,

Normally, PhotoRag is my paper of choice and I use Epson Enhanced 
Matte as draft paper. My default print size is A4.

Lately I'm making some smaller prints (A5-A6) with quite some detail. 
And I notice that my EEM prints show clearly more detail than the 
ones on PhotoRag. The paper is the only thing that changes. All 
prints are made on an Epson 2100, UT3D inks, QTR. In both cases I use 
the very same QTR curves (made with an Eye-One). No, I don't print on 
the back side of PhotoRag - once in a while I do by mistake, and then 
the difference is MUCH bigger :O).

I think I observed the same phenomenon earlier, but can not recall it 
was that clear. Perhaps I notice better because of the smaller print 
size? Or I got a different batch (of both PhotoRag and EEM) with some 
more difference.

Have you seen the same thing?

Joost

 



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

if the paper is the only thing that changed, then the printing process was not linearized 
and/or profiled, or otherwise calibrated for each paper.
Papers don't print alike, they can't really be evaluated unless the printing system is 
calibrated to each somehow, then prints compared. One is not necessarily Better than 
another, I supposed some fixed systems print better on one than another though.
I hope that makes sense, though I doubt it's much help...
Can you make your QTR curves, one for each, then compare?
Tyler

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Joost Horsten" <j.h.j.h@...> 
wrote:

>
> Hi all,
> 
> Normally, PhotoRag is my paper of choice and I use Epson Enhanced 
> Matte as draft paper. My default print size is A4.
>  
> Lately I'm making some smaller prints (A5-A6) with quite some detail. 
> And I notice that my EEM prints show clearly more detail than the 
> ones on PhotoRag. The paper is the only thing that changes. All 
> prints are made on an Epson 2100, UT3D inks, QTR. In both cases I use 
> the very same QTR curves (made with an Eye-One). No, I don't print on 
> the back side of PhotoRag - once in a while I do by mistake, and then 
> the difference is MUCH bigger :O).
> 
> I think I observed the same phenomenon earlier, but can not recall it 
> was that clear. Perhaps I notice better because of the smaller print 
> size? Or I got a different batch (of both PhotoRag and EEM) with some 
> more difference.
> 
> Have you seen the same thing?
> 
> Joost
>

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Eric Neilsen" 
<e.neilsen2@...> wrote:
>
> Joost, Not all papers are ; the same thickness, take the same 
amount of time
> to absorb/dry ink, etc. The printers are pretty amazing but they 
really are
> stupid. They don't know what paper is being put into them, so you 
might need
> to make adjustments to paper feed, dry time, thickness, etc to get 
the best
> out of each paper. 

Yes, I know all this. But in this particular case we're talking about 
the combination of HPR and EEM. EEM is often advocated as a good 
draft paper for HPR. 
And indeed, the print shades I get on both papers are very much 
alike, good enough for me.

Furthermore, the QTR curve I'm using is a curve calibrated for HPR, 
not EEM. So if a paper would be priviliged, it would would be EEM 
over HPR.

> That being said, flatter smoother papers will show more detail that 
rougher
> papers. EEM is a smoother paper than HPR 308. is that 188 you are 
using? 

I'm using HPR 308, which is indeed somewhat rougher than EEM. But I'm 
surprised if this could explain the difference?? 

Can I expect a different result on HPR 188?? 


> Eric
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> Eric Neilsen Photography
> 
> 4101 Commerce Street
> 
> Suite 9
> 
> Dallas, TX 75226
> 
> http://e.neilsen.home.att.net
> 
> http://ericneilsenphotography.com
> 
> Skype ejprinter
> 
>   _____  
> 
> From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of 
Joost
> Horsten
> Sent: Sunday, April 13, 2008 11:30 AM
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [Digital BW] more detail with EEM than with PhotoRag(?)
> 
>  
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> Normally, PhotoRag is my paper of choice and I use Epson Enhanced 
> Matte as draft paper. My default print size is A4.
> 
> Lately I'm making some smaller prints (A5-A6) with quite some 
detail. 
> And I notice that my EEM prints show clearly more detail than the 
> ones on PhotoRag. The paper is the only thing that changes. All 
> prints are made on an Epson 2100, UT3D inks, QTR. In both cases I 
use 
> the very same QTR curves (made with an Eye-One). No, I don't print 
on 
> the back side of PhotoRag - once in a while I do by mistake, and 
then 
> the difference is MUCH bigger :O).
> 
> I think I observed the same phenomenon earlier, but can not recall 
it 
> was that clear. Perhaps I notice better because of the smaller 
print 
> size? Or I got a different batch (of both PhotoRag and EEM) with 
some 

> more difference.
> 
> Have you seen the same thing?
> 
> Joost
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Tyler,

As also replied to Eric, I know what you're saying. But 1) the 
EEM/HPR combo is known to give very similar results (curves are often 
interchagned) and more important 2) I'm using a curve calibrated for 
HPR, not EEM. So, if there would be any difference, then HPR should 
give the better results, which is not the case.

Joost

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Tyler Boley" 
<tyler@...> wrote:
>
> if the paper is the only thing that changed, then the printing 
process was not linearized 
> and/or profiled, or otherwise calibrated for each paper.
> Papers don't print alike, they can't really be evaluated unless the 
printing system is 
> calibrated to each somehow, then prints compared. One is not 
necessarily Better than 
> another, I supposed some fixed systems print better on one than 
another though.
> I hope that makes sense, though I doubt it's much help...
> Can you make your QTR curves, one for each, then compare?
> Tyler
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Joost 
Horsten" <j.h.j.h@> 
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi all,
> > 
> > Normally, PhotoRag is my paper of choice and I use Epson Enhanced 
> > Matte as draft paper. My default print size is A4.
> >  
> > Lately I'm making some smaller prints (A5-A6) with quite some 
detail. 
> > And I notice that my EEM prints show clearly more detail than the 
> > ones on PhotoRag. The paper is the only thing that changes. All 
> > prints are made on an Epson 2100, UT3D inks, QTR. In both cases I 
use 
> > the very same QTR curves (made with an Eye-One). No, I don't 
print on 
> > the back side of PhotoRag - once in a while I do by mistake, and 
then 
> > the difference is MUCH bigger :O).
> > 
> > I think I observed the same phenomenon earlier, but can not 
recall it 
> > was that clear. Perhaps I notice better because of the smaller 
print 
> > size? Or I got a different batch (of both PhotoRag and EEM) with 
some 

> > more difference.
> > 
> > Have you seen the same thing?
> > 
> > Joost
> >
>

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Joost Horsten" <j.h.j.h@...> 
wrote:
>
> Tyler,
> 
> As also replied to Eric, I know what you're saying. But 1) the 
> EEM/HPR combo is known to give very similar results (curves are often 
> interchagned)

well, perhaps by folks somewhat less discerning than you <G>.

>  and more important 2) I'm using a curve calibrated for 
> HPR, not EEM. So, if there would be any difference, then HPR should 
> give the better results, which is not the case.
> 

"better" is always a tricky concept in this brave new world. Would you say that it is better 
in terms of match to monitor when soft proofing?
Don't mean to push this too far, I think the real issue is that the two papers do not, in 
fact, preform the same. Never did for me either.
Also, there have been over the last year or so a lot of batch variance for me and others I 
know with PhotoRag, could be a factor as well.
Tyler

Hi Tyler,

Thanks for your reply. With "better" I mean "sharper" or "more 
detail". I don't see relevant differences in overall matching of 
monitor and print proofs.

Joost


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Tyler Boley" 
<tyler@...> wrote:
>
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Joost 
Horsten" <j.h.j.h@> 
> wrote:
> >
> > Tyler,
> > 
> > As also replied to Eric, I know what you're saying. But 1) the 
> > EEM/HPR combo is known to give very similar results (curves are 
often 
> > interchagned)
> 
> well, perhaps by folks somewhat less discerning than you <G>.
> 
> >  and more important 2) I'm using a curve calibrated for 
> > HPR, not EEM. So, if there would be any difference, then HPR 
should 
> > give the better results, which is not the case.
> > 
> 
> "better" is always a tricky concept in this brave new world. Would 
you say that it is better 
> in terms of match to monitor when soft proofing?
> Don't mean to push this too far, I think the real issue is that the 
two papers do not, in 
> fact, preform the same. Never did for me either.
> Also, there have been over the last year or so a lot of batch 
variance for me and others I 

> know with PhotoRag, could be a factor as well.
> Tyler
>

got it!
Just ignore me then.

Unless it's some kind of bleed, which you could determine with a loup, I'm stumped.

Tyler

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Joost Horsten" <j.h.j.h@...> 
wrote:

>
> Hi Tyler,
> 
> Thanks for your reply. With "better" I mean "sharper" or "more 
> detail". I don't see relevant differences in overall matching of 
> monitor and print proofs.
> 
> Joost
> 
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Tyler Boley" 
> <tyler@> wrote:
> >
> > --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Joost 
> Horsten" <j.h.j.h@> 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Tyler,
> > > 
> > > As also replied to Eric, I know what you're saying. But 1) the 
> > > EEM/HPR combo is known to give very similar results (curves are 
> often 
> > > interchagned)
> > 
> > well, perhaps by folks somewhat less discerning than you <G>.
> > 
> > >  and more important 2) I'm using a curve calibrated for 
> > > HPR, not EEM. So, if there would be any difference, then HPR 
> should 
> > > give the better results, which is not the case.
> > > 
> > 
> > "better" is always a tricky concept in this brave new world. Would 
> you say that it is better 
> > in terms of match to monitor when soft proofing?
> > Don't mean to push this too far, I think the real issue is that the 
> two papers do not, in 
> > fact, preform the same. Never did for me either.
> > Also, there have been over the last year or so a lot of batch 
> variance for me and others I 
> > know with PhotoRag, could be a factor as well.
> > Tyler
> >
>

> >...With "better" I mean "sharper" or "more detail". 

You might be able to get an objective handle on this by printing a 
resolution chart like this: 
 http://www.paulroark.com/BW-Info/Res_chart.zip
with each paper.  Have the printer set to it's top resolution/quality 
mode.

Paul    
www.PaulRoark.com

Let me add that you might want to print the little resolution chart at 
several different gray levels.  As Tyler noted, bleed might be the 
difference, and that could be caused by how the profile is written.  
Particulary at the 100% black point, I've seen even without a loupe 
significant differences in bleed simply caused by how the profile is 
written.   And, of course, the same profile might cause different 
amounts of bleed on 2 different papers depending on what the papers' 
ink load capacities are.  In short, try to eliminate as many variables 
as possible.

Paul     
www.PaulRoark.com   


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "pr_roark" 
<pr_roark@...> wrote:

>
> > >...With "better" I mean "sharper" or "more detail". 
> 
> You might be able to get an objective handle on this by printing a 
> resolution chart like this: 
>  http://www.paulroark.com/BW-Info/Res_chart.zip
> with each paper.  Have the printer set to it's top resolution/quality 
> mode.
> 
> Paul    
> www.PaulRoark.com
>

Hello Joost,

>I'm using HPR 308, which is indeed somewhat rougher than EEM. But 
>I'm surprised if this could explain the difference?? 

A rougher surface is often softer and will have more bleed, or dot
gain (an ink droplet will spread out and lose it's hard edge to some
degree).   That's probably what you're seeing.

Regards,
Clayton


Info on black and white digital printing at    
http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm
I-Trak 2.1   http://www.cjcom.net/itrak.htm

Might even try keeping that paper a touch dryer, in a lower relative
humidity than EEM. And yes, the 188 is smoother than the 308 but not a night
and day different. 

 

Eric Neilsen Photo

4101 Commerce Street, Suite 9

Dallas, TX 75226

214 827-8301

 

http://ericneilsenphotography.com

SKype ejprinter

 

  _____  

From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Clayton
Jones
Sent: Monday, April 14, 2008 2:37 PM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] more detail with EEM than with PhotoRag(?)

 

Hello Joost,

>I'm using HPR 308, which is indeed somewhat rougher than EEM. But 
>I'm surprised if this could explain the difference?? 

A rougher surface is often softer and will have more bleed, or dot
gain (an ink droplet will spread out and lose it's hard edge to some
degree). That's probably what you're seeing.

Regards,
Clayton

Info on black and white digital printing at 
http://www.cjcom. <http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm> net/digiprnarts.htm
I-Trak 2.1 http://www.cjcom. <http://www.cjcom.net/itrak.htm> net/itrak.htm



 



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

Just a photographer's perspective here  (just a very good eyeball
printer): I know of no reason to use EEM for anything. It isn't as
good as (for example) Moab Kayenta in terms of detail resolution (easy
to see)...and not as stable (unless it's recently improved), no
whiter, and not as cheap...in addition to which, Kayenta's two sided.

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "djon43" 
<djon43@...> wrote:
>
> Just a photographer's perspective here  (just a very good eyeball
> printer): I know of no reason to use EEM for anything. It isn't as
> good as (for example) Moab Kayenta in terms of detail resolution (easy
> to see)...and not as stable (unless it's recently improved), no
> whiter, and not as cheap...in addition to which, Kayenta's two sided.
>
Moab kayenta is no longer being sold by Moab. (now legion)

> Moab kayenta is no longer being sold by Moab. (now legion)

Not quite correct. http://www.moabpaper.com/

Moab remains as a Legion product line...Kayenta remains Moab. 

The current (Legion) Moab Kayenta is almost identical to the old
(pre-Legion) Moab Kayenta... both seem superior in every way to EEM.

Thanks Paul,

I did use your test chart. As a matter of fact I created one with 8 
eught different gray levels. I'll upload it to file section.

Frankly, I'm a bit gobsmacked now. The test charts hardly show any 
differences. Both papers don't have a problem to resolve 7.2 /p/mm and 
both can borderline manage 14.4 lp/mm. IF any difference, than perhaps 
wins the comparison, but it's very hard to tell.

So I'm not sure what's happened with my earlier prints. Perhaps 
difference is moisteaization effecting the bleed? Find it difficult to 
understand as both papers are stored in the same room. I'll guess I 
have to monitor my results closely in the come period.

Thanks all for trying to help!

Joost
   

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "pr_roark" 
<pr_roark@...> wrote:

>
> > >...With "better" I mean "sharper" or "more detail". 
> 
> You might be able to get an objective handle on this by printing a 
> resolution chart like this: 
>  http://www.paulroark.com/BW-Info/Res_chart.zip
> with each paper.  Have the printer set to it's top resolution/quality 
> mode.
> 
> Paul    
> www.PaulRoark.com
>

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Joost Horsten" 
<j.h.j.h@...> wrote:
>
> I did use your test chart. As a matter of fact I created one with 8 
> eight different gray levels. I'll upload it to file section.
> 

Apparently I can't upload myself, so here's the line for anyone that is 
interested

http://horstenj.zenfolio.com/img/v3/p720744150.tif

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "djon43" 
<djon43@...> wrote:
>
>  
> > Moab kayenta is no longer being sold by Moab. (now legion)
> 
> Not quite correct. http://www.moabpaper.com/
> 
> Moab remains as a Legion product line...Kayenta remains Moab. 
> 
> The current (Legion) Moab Kayenta is almost identical to the old
> (pre-Legion) Moab Kayenta... both seem superior in every way to EEM.
>
I like this paper also.  The only place I find find it is in the 
Graveyard section and they only have two sizes left.  Do you have a 
link where it is a current product for sale in all sizes?
Thanks,
Tom

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "djon43" 
<djon43@...> wrote:
>
>  
> > Moab kayenta is no longer being sold by Moab. (now legion)
> 
> Not quite correct. http://www.moabpaper.com/
> 
> Moab remains as a Legion product line...Kayenta remains Moab. 
> 
> The current (Legion) Moab Kayenta is almost identical to the old
> (pre-Legion) Moab Kayenta... both seem superior in every way to EEM.
>
No longer made.

http://www.moabpaper.com/index.asp?PageAction=Custom&ID=8

Last year, I ordered a number of sample packs from different 
manufacturers of matte papers and compared different characteristics by 
visual inspection. PR showed good detail, but was not the best. I can't 
remember offhand which paper showed the best detail, but VFA was pretty 
high up the list.

Paul G.

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "pglombick" 
<glombick@...> wrote:
>
Thanks Paul. I'd be interested in some more detail in the other 
papers you tried as well. For this particular project I'm looking for 
a paper that is should be
- matte
- slightly warm (photo rag-like)
- sharp
desirable, but negotionable:
- slightly textured
- available on 13" roll (I need a panorama-like aspect ratio, 11" 
roll would even be better, but I'm not aware of its existence)

High Dmax is in this project not the key criterium as the images are 
all rather light-toned.

If anything else fails, I might go for Photo Rag 188 that is 
available on 13" roll. But I'm open fot suggestions

Joost




> Last year, I ordered a number of sample packs from different 
> manufacturers of matte papers and compared different 
characteristics by 
> visual inspection. PR showed good detail, but was not the best. I 
can't 
> remember offhand which paper showed the best detail, but VFA was 
pretty 

> high up the list.
> 
> Paul G.
>

Moab paper "offcut" rolls sound like a great deal.  But have any of 
you had experience printing with it.

I'd hope that   offcut Entrada = regular Entrada  on a short roll, 
perhaps, but with only the most occasional blemish.

Is that really the case?


Arthur Fink

	A r t h u r  .  F i n k  .  P h o t o g r a p h y
	-------------------------------------------------
	Ten New Island Avenue         . land 207.766.5722
	Peaks Island, Maine 04108     . cell 207.615.5722
	www.arthurfinkphoto.com  . af@...

	More dance images  www.f64gallery.com/arthur.html
                    www.arthurfinkphoto.com/BatesShow2007

Joost Horsten wrote:
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "pglombick" 
> <glombick@...> wrote:
> Thanks Paul. I'd be interested in some more detail in the other 
> papers you tried as well. For this particular project I'm looking for 
> a paper that is should be
> - matte
> - slightly warm (photo rag-like)
> - sharp
> desirable, but negotionable:
> - slightly textured
> - available on 13" roll (I need a panorama-like aspect ratio, 11" 
> roll would even be better, but I'm not aware of its existence)
> 
> High Dmax is in this project not the key criterium as the images are 
> all rather light-toned.
> 
> If anything else fails, I might go for Photo Rag 188 that is 
> available on 13" roll. But I'm open fot suggestions
> 
> Joost

You could use 11" wide sheets cut from 36"or 44" wide rolls 
if you can store them.


-- 
Met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst


|  Dinkla Grafische Techniek  |
|     www.pigment-print.com    |
|             ( unvollendet )            |

Thanks all who replied to this. 

Recent results suggest this seems to be a red herring. A resolution 
test did not show any significant differences. Moreover, while 
printing a set of identical prints (on identical paper) for a print 
exchange recently I noticed that in some prints I seemed to miss one 
or more of the darker inks, and consequently some detail. I suspect 
that some trapped air is/was the problem.

Sorry for bothering you...

Joost

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Joost Horsten" 
<j.h.j.h@...> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
> 
> Normally, PhotoRag is my paper of choice and I use Epson Enhanced 
> Matte as draft paper. My default print size is A4.
>  
> Lately I'm making some smaller prints (A5-A6) with quite some 
detail. 
> And I notice that my EEM prints show clearly more detail than the 
> ones on PhotoRag. The paper is the only thing that changes. All 
> prints are made on an Epson 2100, UT3D inks, QTR. In both cases I 
use 
> the very same QTR curves (made with an Eye-One). No, I don't print 
on 
> the back side of PhotoRag - once in a while I do by mistake, and 
then 
> the difference is MUCH bigger :O).
> 
> I think I observed the same phenomenon earlier, but can not recall 
it 
> was that clear. Perhaps I notice better because of the smaller 
print 
> size? Or I got a different batch (of both PhotoRag and EEM) with 
some 

> more difference.
> 
> Have you seen the same thing?
> 
> Joost
>