trying matte paper

[nmp]

Thanks for the education. Do these clear / non-pigmented inks counter gloss differential by making high value areas as shiny as low values or do they reduce gloss toward the paper's natural low level, i.e. dull everything? Using my P600, even areas close to paper white are shiny with Hahnemuhle FineArt Baryta Satin.

Now it gets complicated...

Canon and Epson claim they are doing different things, even that they are solving different problems. I think the end result is the same - that of improvement of the reflective quality in some way.

If I understand correctly, Epson works by filling in the sparsely color-coated areas, both at micro and macro level, with clear droplets. The resin has higher gloss than a typical satin or glossy paper so the effect would be to make the high value (low ink) areas as shiny as the low value (high ink) areas, i.e. equalizing up, not down. I have a P400 (since about 2 weeks) and I can notice higher gloss (compared to the rest of the paper) in the white border around an image, for example. It can be seen very clearly at an angle, but not straight on. I am still learning how to use this judiciously with different modes (on, auto, off) that are available. I am not sure if your displeasure with the satin paper is simply that it is too shiny to start with or that you are indeed perceiving the distraction of the gloss differential on P600. Or may be it is both.

Canon apparently applies a blanket coating in the inked areas, the liquid leveling off over the height of the pigment particles as nicely explained here:

https://media.canon-asia.com/v3.5media/products/inkjet_printer/pro1/luciatechnologyguide/p03.html

I am not sure what the formulation of their clear ink is but my guess is it is not the same as the encapsulant. The question is whether it cuts down on the overall gloss or increases it. I personally have no experience with Canon printers. The illustrations in the link seem to suggest that that it lowers the amount of reflections in the dense areas like shadows whereas increases it in the highlights.

In a way the Canon approach seems to be akin to the silver gelatin papers where the silver particles are embedded in a matrix of gelatin. It would be interesting to take a satin print from P600 (or even a matte print) and run it through Pro-1000 with a blank image to make it coat the Chroma Optimizer and see what it does.

:Niranjan.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Everyone has their favorite and I'm not sure every printer prints the same tones on a given paper. There are more profiles than I can count but with my Epson 3880 and the standard Epson inks and settings I am getting beautiful results with Hahnemuhle Baryata PhotoRag 100% cotton (glossy) paper. It is not too glossy and looks like silver gelatin glossy paper air dried. It has a very slight luster type surface. After some experimenting I have found a 60% sepia 2 layer and a 30% brown tone layer(PhotoKit plugin) over my home made Delta 400 curve gives me a very slightly warm-neutral mid tone tonality print with deep rich blacks. It works well with either scanned negatives or digital capture.

http://www.jeffreyglasser.com/

Jeff, bang on; I came to the very same conclusion.

 

[Sal Santamaura]

...Canon and Epson claim they are doing different things, even that they are solving different problems. I think the end result is the same - that of improvement of the reflective quality in some way...

Personal aesthetic taste would determine whether what they're doing is an improvement or just a change.

...Epson works by filling in the sparsely color-coated areas, both at micro and macro level, with clear droplets. The resin has higher gloss than a typical satin or glossy paper so the effect would be to make the high value (low ink) areas as shiny as the low value (high ink) areas, i.e. equalizing up, not down...I am not sure if your displeasure with the satin paper is simply that it is too shiny to start with or that you are indeed perceiving the distraction of the gloss differential on P600...

With my P600, even very high value areas are just about as shiny as the low values. There's very little differential; it's all far too reflective. Thus, the P400 approach would simply remove any last vestige of goodness in the high value areas. In other words, for me, it would make matters worse.

...Canon apparently applies a blanket coating in the inked areas, the liquid leveling off over the height of the pigment particles as nicely explained here:

https://media.canon-asia.com/v3.5media/products/inkjet_printer/pro1/luciatechnologyguide/p03.html

I am not sure what the formulation of their clear ink is but my guess is it is not the same as the encapsulant. The question is whether it cuts down on the overall gloss or increases it. I personally have no experience with Canon printers. The illustrations in the link seem to suggest that that it lowers the amount of reflections in the dense areas like shadows whereas increases it in the highlights...

It's challenging to confidently interpret that link; most likely Canon did not have a native English speaker review it. However, your speculation seems reasonable. The question then becomes whether a Canon pigment print after having Chroma Optimizer applied is more or less reflective than a Canon dye ink print made on the same (Hahnemuhle FineArt Baryta Satin) paper.

...It would be interesting to take a satin print from P600 (or even a matte print) and run it through Pro-1000 with a blank image to make it coat the Chroma Optimizer and see what it does...

Yes, very interesting. If anyone reading this has a Canon pigment-ink printer and is interested in such an experiment, I'll gladly send one of my P600 FineArt Baryta Satin prints for Chroma Optimizer application.

Another question is whether Canon (or another manufacturer) would offer a "Chroma Optimizer" spray that could be applied over pigment prints which would accomplish the same thing. From what I've read about Hahnemuhle Protective Spray, it has no effect on the glossiness of prints, i.e. matte stays matte and shiny stays shiny.

 

[faberryman]

Is the Canon dye print archival?

 

[Sal Santamaura]

Is the Canon dye print archival?

"Archival" is a meaningless word that's been used in slapdash fashion by photo industry marketers for many decades.

To gain a better understanding of how different ink/paper combinations hold up over time, I strongly suggest exploring the Aardenburg Imaging research results:

http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com/light-fade-test-results/​

One must register in order to view them, but doing so is free. Unlike other testing entities, Aardenburg takes no funding from manufacturers. In my opinion, its information can be relied upon as objective and unbiased. I have no such confidence in manufacturer-funded "tests."

Life expectancy of inkjet prints is very much a function of both paper and ink. Aardenburg has not tested Hahnemuhle FineArt Baryta Satin with Canon dye ink. However, based on its tests of those inks with other papers, I'd expect pigment inks to be much longer lived. This is a trade off each photographer must make. Is reduced display life too great a price to pay for such a wonderful surface? Are the prints going to be sold or only for personal use? Will the prints be on display or kept in an album / portfolio box?

Although I have never sold prints and don't expect to in the future, their life expectancy is of some importance to me. Thus, I've settled on the P600 and Hahnemuhle Photo Rag Ultra Smooth. However, for anyone who is very concerned with print surface and less about longevity, Canon dye inks on FineArt Baryta Satin are a wonderful combination.

 

[nmp]

Personal aesthetic taste would determine whether what they're doing is an improvement or just a change.

Indeed...should have used quote unquote improvement or change instead.

With my P600, even very high value areas are just about as shiny as the low values. There's very little differential; it's all far too reflective. Thus, the P400 approach would simply remove any last vestige of goodness in the high value areas. In other words, for me, it would make matters worse.

I figured as much. Gloss Differential might be something no one has seen but everyone knows it is bad.... My settling on the P400 instead of the others had nothing to do with the GO. I am still evaluating whether I will use it on my prints or not. Like you I also am not a big fan of the too glossy.

:Niranjan.

 

[jtk]

Currently I'm only using Canon papers (Canon Pro-10) ...because Canon gives me (free!) a tremendous amount of paper with my pigment orders

I think glossy (e.g. Canon Platinum) is best with images heavily reliant on big blacks, but I've found that framing with glass usually eliminates that advantage. Some images do call for softer tonal scale, relatively little max black...then matte works best for me (often with very warm tone pigment settings).

I rarely show unframed prints, even at home...I proof letter-size but my goal is always 13X19.

I've been looking for affordable Unryu (Japanese paper that works with some images, not with others due to inclusions). Unryu from photo sources is very expensive...I've been happy with Unryu from a local stationary store, but that went out of business !

 

[Sirius Glass]

I got tired of glossy papers and wanted to try a matte paper.someone suggested Museo to me; especially recommended for fine -art B&W. It's of course a matter of personal taste but, it's not for me. the prints look lifeless compared to a glossy paper; contrast and Dmax are weskit also just eats through ink; only plus I see is a very neutral gray tone; not a hint of a color shift in any lighting condition but, I think,I'll stay with glossy paper and live with the reflections. maybe, I'll try a pearl or satin surface instead. What's your experience?

My experience is the same with wet prints only, no ink.

 

[mitch brown]

ralph
my friend Dan Burkholder uses and loves Museo Portfoilo rag and I use Epson Hot Press Bright and really like it.
mitch

 

[Adrian Bacon]

Yesterday some more of Dick's prints arrived, including a couple on Hahnemuhle FineArt Baryta Satin. This led me to do additional research into Canon printers and post this update.

Some Canon printers use dye inks and others employ pigmented inks, which I didn't know previously. Dick's Pro-100 is a dye-based machine. I'd tried Hahnemuhle FineArt Baryta Satin in my Epson P600 and been thoroughly displeased by the rather high level of surface reflection. The dye prints on that paper Dick sent are absolutely wonderful, with low sheen and high sharpness. Holding them next to my very shiny pigment prints on the same paper is amazing; it's hard to believe how different their surfaces appear.

It seems that Canon 13x19 printers (PRO-10 and PRO-100) use dye-based inks, while cartridges in the larger 17x22 PRO-1000 are pigment-based. If I were printing with a Canon dye-ink machine, I'd definitely use Hahnemuhle FineArt Baryta Satin. For Epson printers and the larger Canon, my recommendation of Hahnemuhle Photo Rag Ultra Smooth stands.

I know this is an old thread, but I thought I’d add that I have a Canon Pro-1000 and use it with the FineArt Baryta Satin and set the printer to coat the entire sheet with the Chroma Optimizer. I know everybody has their own preference and opinion, but that combination in both BW or color... just wow. It does have a little sheen to it, but it’s more of a luster finish than a gloss finish, and absolutely no gloss differential happening. It’s amazing.

 

[Adrian Bacon]

Yes, very interesting. If anyone reading this has a Canon pigment-ink printer and is interested in such an experiment, I'll gladly send one of my P600 FineArt Baryta Satin prints for Chroma Optimizer application.

I have a Pro-1000 and am up for something like that. I could even make a print if you wanted to compare the output with your Epson. FineArt Baryta Satin is my standard paper for higher end prints and I keep 8.5x11, 13x19, and 17x22 sizes on hand.

 

[JohnMurphy06]

I believe everyone have their own reasons and opinions and their experiences will lead them to evaluate which one is the best. I used seamless paper for my studio photography and the result was amazing.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

I got tired of glossy papers and wanted to try a matte paper.someone suggested Museo to me; especially recommended for fine -art B&W. It's of course a matter of personal taste but, it's not for me. the prints look lifeless compared to a glossy paper; contrast and Dmax are weskit also just eats through ink; only plus I see is a very neutral gray tone; not a hint of a color shift in any lighting condition but, I think,I'll stay with glossy paper and live with the reflections. maybe, I'll try a pearl or satin surface instead. What's your experience?

Math papers do not have enough Dmax for my taste.

 

[jtk]

Compare pro10 to pro100. Different significantly. Advantage to pro10 for subtlety, pro100 for punch.

 

[jtk]

Math papers do not have enough Dmax for my taste.

If you're referring to mat surface vs gloss try
Gold Fiber Silk..better than both gloss and mat and semi-gloss in every way imo.

 

[Pieter12]

Math papers do not have enough Dmax for my taste.

You should try to get a look (or have a sample print made) at what Cone Editions does with piezography on matte paper. Velvety blacks.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I prefer glossy paper, matte papers just do not have enough Dmax for my tastes.

 

[Arthurwg]

MODERATOR'S NOTE: Responding post and Bob Carnie's initial post are off topic, as they reference darkroom papers, but I've left them in because of the observations about surfaces. By the way, I think paper surfaces are matt or matte, whereas "Matt" signifies something different .

[QUOTE="Bob Carnie, post: 1993578, member: 1767"]Ilford Warmtone Matt is beautiful with a slight, slight sepia and then selenium
300 is beautiful toned or un toned.[/QUOTE]
I only print on Matt, first Agfa Classic and now Ilford. Yes, Ilford Warmtone is great with now discontinued Kodak Polytoner, which is a mixture of sepia and selenium. I still have one remaining bottle and a little goes a long way. There's a formula for it somewhere and it can be recreated. I think glossy paper presents a barrier to the viewer, while Matt lets the viewer into the picture.

 

[jtk]

I prefer glossy paper, matte papers just do not have enough Dmax for my tastes.

Your "preference" doesn't seem to be explained...

IMO fibre-surface papers (available from most brands) are more appealing than plain matte papers in some situations...however my own tastes have shifted towards matte....I think matte calls for considerably more personal skills.. This may partially be due to my standardization on 11x17 prints.

"Dmax" isn't visual, it's a measurement. We don't see measurements.

If you hang your prints under glass your goals may be different from what you'd see holding them in your hands in various lighting situations.

 

[jtk]

Perceived black in inkjet prints can be enhanced by adding a little warm pigment. I do that routinely. I don't think many fine printers still use silver papers...that's obvious in galleries and museums.

The main shortcoming with inkjet prints seems to me to be inability to rival genuine platinum prints (which I've always admired but never wanted to attempt). But of course, nobody rivals genuine platinum prints with silver paper either. Inkjet printing is astoundingly flexible, allowing all sorts of variations/visualizations that are impossible with silver...partially because silver paper is so limited to such a narrow range of possibilities, even with toning. .