Got my Epson 9800!!!

[Doug Dolde]

I have a lowly R2400. To me prints made with it on Premium Luster have a very similar look to Lightjet/Chromira prints on Fuji Crystal Archive matte paper.

But what really blows my cork is matte prints from the R2400 on Epson's Ultrasmooth Fine Art paper. They have a very rich feeling...and B/W prints on that paper appear to have a "glow" or radiance that I've never seen in a print before.

[Doug Meek]

QT -

I haven't tried the Fuji supergloss yet. I've been tempted for some time now. I've never offered anything for sale other than glossy (lightjet or chromira) or premium lustre (9600) prints. I'm kind of afraid of upsetting the apple cart. Perhaps if I saw a supergloss in person I would change my mind. My assumption (correct me if I'm wrong) is that the supergloss prints would be more susceptible to fingerprints and glare. On the other hand, the "glow" for lack of a better term would probably impress me to no end. I'm definitely going to have to give it a try. You've really got me curious now.

[Eric Leppanen]

Right now on my living room wall, I have one 20x24" Chromira color print on Fuji Supergloss paper, and four 16x20" 9600 color prints on Hahnemühle Photo Rag matte paper. Everyone who sees these prefers the Chromira print by a wide margin; it is far more brilliant and looks more "photographic" (the matte prints look more like a hybrid between a photograph and a watercolor painting). The Supergloss is highly reflective and elevates highlights beyond anything I have seen with inkjet papers, resulting in a brilliant three-dimensional look. This is why I am curious about the new K3 inks; will they provide a viable alternative for glossy media?

All of my prints are mounted behind glass, so I am less sensitive to handling durability than others might be.

[QT Luong]

Ralph, I'd be surprised if Chris printed glossy, so I assumed that the comment you cited refered to Epson premium lustre v. Lightjet Semi-Gloss. Doug, the Fuji supergloss, like the Ilfochromes are indeed extremely sensitive to fingerprints and extremely reflective. In fact, they have an appearance quite reminiscent of those Ilfochromes. I also saw in the lobby of Calypso, a "metallic" paper from Kodak that shares some of this look, and which is supposedly less fragile. I am not starting offering those neither, since I plan to move my production to the 9800 when I can get my hands on one.

[neil poulsen]

"For matte prints, I like the 960o, especially with the premium lustre paper. "

Is preimiur lustre considered a matt paper? Does matt black work better on premium lustre than photo black?

[chris jordan]

Neil, you are right-- Epson's Premium Luster is not a matte paper; it is part of the line of three RC papers for which the photo black ink is made. The matte black ink does not dry properly on Luster.

For my own work, what I am doing currently is face-mounting my prints to 1/8" non-glare UV-filtered plexiglass, which produces a beautiful and archivally-protected print. The surface of the plexi is lightly sanded to remove the surface reflection, making the plexi become almost invisible on the surface of the print. Because the prints are face-mounted with a clear liquid adhesive, it doesn't matter how much gloss the original print had because the print surface is covered up in a vaccuum seal by the plexi. So for best color and darkest blacks, I am using Epson Premium Glossy (250) paper for all of my prints that will be face-mounted. The glossy prints standing alone look too shiny for my taste (I like the look of Premium Semimatte), but once the glossy prints are face-mounted, the gloss becomes invisible and the surface has a nice semimatte look, with all the rich color and deep blacks that the glossy prints possess.

The main drawback with face-mounting is that it is expensive, and the mounted prints are heavy and expensive to ship (especially when they are as big as mine are). But for special events such as gallery or institutional shows, I highly recommend this process. There are a couple of places in the country that are doing face-mounting; let me know if you are interested and I'll pass along the info.

~cj (Seattle)

[Bernard Languillier]

Chris,

This sounds interesting. Would you mind explaining a bit more what face mounting is?

Thank you in advance,

Regards,
Bernard

[Ralph]

Bernard,

The plexiglass (a) protects the print from fingerprints and dust (b) keeps the corners of the print from bending and creasing, and (c) protects the print from fading (as you may know, prints are more archival when behind UV filtering, and as Chris explains he uses "UV-filtered plexiglass").

In other words, rather than mounting the back of the print to foamcore or such, a clear adhesive is used on the *front* of the print to attach it to the plexiglass. The trick obviously is in evenly applying the adhesive and then evenly attaching the print to the plexiglass--especially with 4'x6' prints like Chris makes! Maybe I'll practice on 4"x6" prints. . . .

[chris jordan]

The cool thing about face-mounting is that it eliminates all of the reflections that usually happen when a print is put behind glass. When a print is behind glass the traditional way, there are three reflective surfaces: the print itself; the back surface of the glass, and the front surface of the glass. Face mounting creates a vaccuum-adhesive seal between the print and the back surface of the glass, so both of those reflective surfaces disappear. The front surface of the plexi is treated to be non-glare, so it doesn't reflect either. The final appearance is as if there is nothing on the surface of the print, and yet the print is protected as if it is behind glass. And the print is also held perfectly flat against the inner surface of the plexi (which is usually not the case when prints are matted behind glass) giving it an extra-snappy appearance.

~cj

[Jon Shiu]

What happens when the plexi gets scratched? Can the print be remounted?