What about metamerism? A print from the Epson 2000P could look right under tungsten light, but when it was exposed to daylight, the greenish cast was awful. I got rid of the printer for that reason. Has this problem been entirely solved with the 7600/9600 inks?
Hello Paul! I'm too a new owner of a 7600 UC. As I got tired to mess with labs trying to get exhibition quality, I bought this just for making some panoramic pictures of my own.
There's sure some metamerism left in UC inks because they are pigments to some degree. As the color shift from the 2000P was like from a bad dream, here's not so much that I even bothered to look for it. Maybe it can still be relevant with BW printing, don't know.
Otherwise I'll second what Chris says.
One question; anyone tried Atkinson profiles with Ilford smooth pearl paper? Or is there any way to get a better Dmax without buying a RIP?
Jan, http://www.janeerala.net
anyone tried Atkinson profiles with Ilford smooth pearl paper? Or is there any way to get a better Dmax without buying a RIP?
I haven't measured to know if dmax is better with the Ilford paper, but Atkinson's Prem Luster (PL) profile with PL paper setting makes beautiful prints - much better surface appearance than with Epson's PL.
www.mgordonphotography.com
Hello Jan! So you finally took the step. Glad you like it! So, with what you get, metamerism is no longer a problem. That's good! Thanks! Greetings to Finland. Paul
Michael, I must say that your feedback on your color work with the UC inks does bother me. Did you try different brands of papers in conjunction with the low contrast versus long drying time dilemna? Was there really no suitable option?
Did you try different brands of papers in conjunction with the low contrast versus long drying time dilemna?
Paul: I've tried many papers, but have mostly stuck with Epson's due to my concerns about longevity. Wilhelm hasn't really tested many RC papers outside of Epson's. The Ilford Smooth Pearl is a beautiful option, but Ilford itself rates the longevity poorly (but I've heard contrary speculation). I'm not sure what you mean by "low contrast".
All I can really say is that despite my best efforts to control outgassing, I have seen it in several framed pieces of mine, and it's enough to make me untrustworthy.
Was there really no suitable option?
Yes! Lightjets!As I said before, the trouble that one must go through to produce a UC print that does not outgas or bronze is simply too much anymore for me. My solution exists in Lightjets.
Chris is potentially right about Print Shield being a cure for outgassing, but keep in mind that lacquers most certainly change the gloss level and look of an RC print. Lacquers do not have this effect on matte papers.
I'm not sure what you mean by "low contrast"
Michael, as you said earlier:
Color prints on matte papers are not for me as they don't have the punch I want (looking more like watercolors than photographs)
I should have said "poor blacks", blacks that aren't really black as this is what water color suggests. The glossy papers seem to be better in this regard, but with a longer drying time. Or did you mean something else? From my experience with other printers, saturation can be just as good or better than on photographic paper. The smoothness of tones does pretty well too. Or is there something else that makes in your opinion inkjet prints not as "deep" and vibrant as Fuji prints?
In my experience, all varnishes exposed to UV light end up yellowing at some point. Are the print shield sprays safe in this regard?
From my experience with other printers, saturation can be just as good or better than on photographic paper. The smoothness of tones does pretty well too. Or is there something else that makes in your opinion inkjet prints not as "deep" and vibrant as Fuji prints?
It's difficult to quantify my feelings in this matter, but it simply comes down to this: I don't like the way my color photographs look on matte papers; it is not the presentation I want or enjoy with my work.
In my experience, all varnishes exposed to UV light end up yellowing at some point. Are the print shield sprays safe in this regard?
Take a look at this page, Paul: http://www.atlex.com/premier/images/3001108PrintShieldSpray.htm
Michael, thanks for your opinion. It is true that unless one is completely pleased with a process or material, there is not much satisfaction in doing it. Thanks also for the link!
Paul,
Sorry to take so long to get back to this thread and answer your question. I've been out of town....
The dye inks have been announced on various lists and will be formally introduced at Photokina in a couple of weeks. They come from a UK company called Futures Wales Ltd. They are archival dyes with some interesting properties. They work in the Epson printers. They should have about the same lightfastness as the UltraChromes. They'll have wider gamut than the UCs, and better surface properties (not so easy to scratch and scuff). They'll work on glossy surfaces without bronzing, but need a substrate designed for dye inks to work their best. Futures is, of course, also introducing a line of substrates, from plastic film to papers to canvases for these inks. They should also work with papers from Lyson and Ilford (and many others). The plastic film in particular is neat - extremely dimensionally stable, perfectly smooth (zero texture) and perfectly matte. Nothing "traditional darkroom" about it, if you like that sort of thing.
But the thing I looking forward to is a drastic decrease in clogging, and no pigment settling issues if I don't print for a couple of weeks! Oh, wait. I'm not doing a very good job of containing my enthusiasm. I promised I'd work on that ;-)
Bruce Watson
Hogarth, this sounds promising! There is not much on the web about the new inks yet, but we will be looking forward! Thanks! Any projections have been made on lighfastness yet?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks