Appears to be as good as Premium Luster, whch is petty durable.Originally Posted by Chris Strobel
Appears to be as good as Premium Luster, whch is petty durable.
Great.....
Just got back from my lab with two sample packs and when I got home, noticed they were the Matt version. Guess I'm waiting till later this week to try it out.
As an aside, the Matt paper is incredible on both my Canon i9900 and Epson 7600.
Yeah, thats what I use the Drycreek Printer Evaluation Target for. I print it out varying only the paper type (I override the paper thickness defaults etc to suite the media). It tells me if I'm over-inking by examining the crosshairs, prints a gray scale so that I can determine which media type optimizes shadow detail, and gives a color gradient spectrum so I can check which media type produces the smoothest overall transitions with the greatest range into the shadows and highlights. Overall color casts are not a concern since the profile will fix these. I find it is better to choose media settings (i.e. mainly paper type) that deposits slightly too much ink than not enough. The profile helps to linearize the ink output. Too little ink on the paper reduces the printers color range. You can download the target at www.drycreekphoto.comFWIW, when you build a profile, you can use prett much any paper choice you want as long as it supports the correct K ink
I probably won't get to this until tomorrow, but I'll report back what I find out for the benefit of 4800/7800/9800 owners.
scratches as soon as you look at it though (or the samples from Ilford Harman did anyway)
which is why I'm also interested to see how durable the surface on the glossy is.
(The surface on Silver Rag is one of the toughest I've come across).
Also, like regular "darkroom" paper, I'm guessing this is an alpha cellulose paper?
Has anyone seen any longevity testing on it yet?
You'd be amazed how small the demand is for pictures of trees... - Fred Astaire to Audrey Hepburn
www.photo-muse.blogspot.com blog
I do the same, but varying the ink limit as well. I believe that it is worth finding the optimum media setting, and the optimum ink limit before profiling. DMax varies, and so does the ability to get separation in the shadows - which may not be recoverable by profiling. The aim is to get the highest DMax while keeping the ability to get shadow separation with as many of the 256 values usable (you need all those values because the density range of these papers is so high). I have found that one of the following four settings* will usually be the best for glossy paper and PK with my 3800:
Glossy 0
Glossy +5
Luster 0
Luster +5
Usually it is one of the +5 options that works the best for me with these recent glossy papers.
In case anyone is interested, for colour work I use an Eye-One with SpectraShop for these simple evaluations (I think that it has the edge on BabelColor and the full version of Measure, but BabelColor is very good value), ProfileMaker 5 for the profiles themselves with 1452 patch targets, and ColorThink Pro for profile evaluation. I'm still using Krystal Topkote for overcoating these papers - it improves DMax and shadow separation, and gives some degree of abrasion resistance to the surface.
* Four test patches will fit on one sheet of letter size paper. I use the same sheet of paper for the thickness test, which I do first then overprint it with the Dry Creek test patches.
Best,
Helen
Holy cow....you ain't kidding. Just played with the paper a bit and while it looks good, there is no way I could ship this stuff without it crumbling to dust. I'm going to use the remainder of the 10 sheets I've got but I won't buy it again.
Man....did I mention it crumbles to "heck?"
I did some tests on this paper and I have to say I disagree with the OP very strongly. This paper doesn't even come close to having the "feel" or surface quality of a good air dried glossy FB print. It has a weird smell that several people have independently described as "like a pickle", LOL. Having said that, b&w prints on the paper do indeed look nice and have a depth that has heretofore has been elusive in inkjet. But it doesn't come close to a FB print, yet. YMMV.
if you open a box of Ilford Multigrade FB (silver emulsion) and smell it, you'll find the smell the same, as is the surface. The difference is one has a silver emulsion, the other an inkjet receptor. They've taken their silver paper technology and used it for this paper. Physically, it shouldn't be any less durable than the same silver fiber print. as far as image longevity.. that's still up for testing.. but i'd put my money on the silver
Yeah, it's hard to quantify, Jim. But it definitely does not feel like a FB silver gelatin print. The surface is worlds apart from that. But it does take the ink nicely.
Okay William, you are free to disagree, but at least DEFINE "worlds apart" as the difference you feel in the surface for all of us... Just saying that means nothing. Personally, I'm *really* interested to read what it is you feel in an air-dried F surface Silver print that you don't feel in this paper (or vice-versa). And again to be really clear, I'm talking about Harmon GLOSS FB AL, not the matte...
Cheers,
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks