Inkjet - ink appearance on surface

[Richard Fenner]

I recently had a small batch of transparencies returned from a lab. Scanned and printed to 8"x10" proofs, I have both Chromira prints and Epson 9600 prints for several of images.

I'm going through the process of proofing and deciding which medium I prefer for each image. Interestingly, there isn't one absolute answer. The issues are several, including gloss and sharpness (and yes, at 1.5ft, you can EASILY tell which is sharper on an 8x10 - the 9600). But one issue is causing me a problem - seeing the prints slightly side on, the inkjet prints are obvious - the ink has a strange pattern, and the colours all seem to move to shades of blue and grey - regardless of the actual colour of the ink, while the Chromiras don't look any different.

I'm trying to judge the strength of this effect in a room with inkjet prints of at least 20x24 (and preferably up to 50x40) on several walls (or even along the same wall - you tend to glance side to side then as well!), as you move around the room. Anyone with experience? Does this effect decrease once the prints are behind glass?

On a lesser issue, where there are expanses of similar colours (sky with slightly varying shades of blue eg), the Chromira copes much better at producing a smooth image - the Epson looks slightly grainy, although I may be a bit close to the image. Others have commented on this before, and I'm interested in whether this is too much a matter of looking too closely at the image (because I'm proofing), and whether this effect decreases once matted and framed behind glass.

I'll provide a summary of my experiences of the process and the lab once it's all over, and will be happy for UK residents to come over and see the images on the different media. In a couple of cases, it wil also be possible to see the images as Cibachromes.

[Bob Fowler]

Try using a UV protectant aerosol spray on your inkjet prints, it helps hide the strange pattern you see.

[matthew blais]

What paper are you printing your 9600 prints on? One thing I've been doing is to wax my 2200 prints on premium luster. It fills in those 'flat" white/bright areas and gives a nicer, smoother overall sheen. Sometimes under glass they will appear more even.

[Kirk Gittings]

"to wax my 2200 prints " What wax are you talking about? Is it archival?

[Matthew Cromer]

What you are seeing is called "bronzing" by Epson Ultrachrome printers everywhere. It is the bane of the Ultrachrome pigment inks on RC type papers.

You might try printing on Epson Enhanced Matte or another matte paper. I personally love the matte paper look and you don't get secondary reflection under glass. Others prefer RC papers and try different things such as the spray, or even look at different printers such as the new HP 130.

Good luck in your search for the perfect print!

[Brett Deacon]

I don't print on glossy paper using my Epson 2200 because of the differential gloss effect you described. The effect is much less pronounced on luster papers such as Ilford Smooth Pearl. This effect entirely disappears when using matte papers, which as Matthew said also have the advantage of no secondary reflection under glass. Personally, I much prefer the look and feel of Somerset Velvet Enhanced watercolor paper to Epson matte paper.

[jhogan]

The technical term is "metamerism," and is a result of the finely divided pigments in the archival Ultrachrome inks reflecting light from certain angles. You can find lots of info on the Flaar website, as well as may other places on the web.

[chris jordan]

Richard, the bronzing problem is easily solved by spraying the print with an archival protectant. This is recommended anyway; in addition to solving the bronzing problem, the spray almost doubles the archival life of the print. The sprays are available from inkjetart.com; the PremierArt Print Shield is cheapest but my personal preference is Lumkjet Imageshield which seems to go on slightly smoother. These sprays totally eliminate bronzing, and also deepen the blacks and colors slightly. I prefer to print on Premium Semimatte because of its nice velvety texture; the sprays work perfectly on this paper, and also make it more resistant to damage. I put a long post up a few months back about spraying technique; with the proper technique it can be applied with perfect smoothness. Feel free to e-mail or phone me privately if you want some tips.

The grainier look of the Ultrachrome prints is likely an artifact of the sharpening process your printer used (i.e., they over-sharpened the images). These prints are not inherently grainy at all, and can be made to look beautifully smooth with the right Photoshop technique.

~cj

www.chrisjordan.com

[Scott Fleming]

As regards the HP printers: Since the recent reviews of the 130 I am intrigued. Especially given the info Uwe has provided on his site, Outback Photo:

Link (http://www.outbackphoto.com/printinginsights/pi031/HP_Designjet_30.html)

The report of the measured reflectance by Charles Cramer as regards the black .... is revolutionary to me. The HP dyes beat everything else out there. By a large factor.

Now if HP's swellable papers actually do provide decent longevity ..... AND they can make a printer that doesn't chew up photo paper ... Epson is going to lose some money. So is my lab.

Does not HP make larger more advanced printers that use the same dyes ... that don't put roller marks on the paper?

[Richard Fenner]

Thanks for these quick answers, people. Some more info:



The paper is Epson Premium Glossy Photo Paper

I had heard about people waxing their prints (although not in this context), but I thought it was difficult to get the wax on evenly?

The file sent to print was the same for both the Chromira and the Epson 9600, so over-sharpening of one isn't likely to be the issue. I thought there were general problems with inkjets and larger areas of similar colours anyway?

I know a couple of people here - especially Chris Jordan! - will have seen very large Epson 9600 prints displayed on the wall. Is the consensus then, that once treated with such a spray, you don't get this effect by viewing the print slightly side-on? I like the sounds of the deeper blacks and generally saturated colours - this is (only just) an area in which the Chromira trumps the Epson 9600. What effect does this have on the general glossiness of a print, especially once behind glass, where differences are usually minimised anyway?

While this can sound like an over-fussy effort, there are a couple of reasons for it. The lesser reason, is that given the effort and expense LF photographers go to (esp. 8x10 e6 photographers!), we should make sure the print is as good as it can be. But mainly, I'm changing over from using Cibachromes because of the difficulty in getting cibas made up from 8x10 in the UK (and the lack of quality consistency for other sizes); and a growing reluctance to send out a transparency whenever I want a new print made up. Hence the immersion and the comparisons. It's not a cheap process, having multiple prints made up of each image, but it is educational.

[chris jordan]

Richard, I'm not sure about the color gamut of Fuji Crystal Archive paper versus the Epson Ultrachrome inks, but I know they are very close, and that issue is not likely to matter anyway unless your prints contain extremely highly-saturated colors (if you are photographing neon signs for example); otherwise virtually any colors that you can photograph will fall within the gamut of both processes.

One benefit of using the Chromira is that the Type C prints are easier to mount. If you like face-mounting prints on plexi, then the Chromira is the way to go-- you can't do that with the Epson prints. I also heard that Fuji has just released a new updated version of Crystal Archive paper with a brighter white point and better neutral greys. I don't know how the new paper will stack up against the Epson papers; they are both so good these days that gorgeous prints can be made from either process.

One reason that I prefer the Epson is that I own one, so I can make my own proofs and prints; if someone else were making my prints, then I would consider the Chromira as just about equally attractive, with the one exception being that the Epson prints are slightly sharper.

I still think the graniness in your Epson print is caused by oversharpening. The Epson printer is sharp enough to render the tiny grains that are caused by oversharpening; the Chromira will render those same grains with some fuzz around them, making the print look smoother. So the file is oversharpened, and when you do a side-by-side, the oversharpening is visible on the Epson print and not on the Chromira. I'm printing a 6-foot-wide print on my Epson right now that has a pale grey sky that is so smooth that it looks like spilled milk on the paper; not a single pixel or dot or grain visible anywhere.

~cj

[julian_4860]

Chris, I've just had some inkjet prints mounted to dibond and then acrylic using the same ilford paper that I used for the print of mine you have, so it is possible. Diasec is a no-no though I'm told by the lab here

[David F. Stein]

Epson, I believe, makes some glossier papers with less "ink differential." They are listed on the web site as professional proofing papers and come in rolls. The now-discontinued Glossy Professional 13 x19 did look like air-dried glossy fiber base paper-nice image quality with the 2200. Inkjetart folks recommended Ilford Smooth Pearl as next best, haven't had a chance to try yet. I think our ability to study files endlessly on the computer and the modern compulsion to hold everything to our nose sometimes overvalues the technical as opposed to the pictorial. It's like every can of corn at the supermarket needing to be perfect. Even if the label is a bit scuffed, it gets pushed aside. I also understand the reasoning—image-wise and protective—behind spray coating prints, but I feel if we have to do that, we have negated some of the environmental advantages of ink jet printing. Any of those sprays I've examined are pretty noxious. GOOD LUCK.

[neil poulsen]

I tried the Lumijet Imageshield spray and like it on glossier papers, like Ilford's smooth glossy. As others have said, it deepens the print. But, I tried it on a matt paper I bought, and it had the opposite effect. The print's colors weren't quite as rich and vibrant as they were on the uncoated print. Just a hair, but noticeable.

[matthew blais]

Kirk, I'm using a french made paste wax I bought from a guy who refinishes antiques. Beautiful on wood, so I tried it on the luster inkjets. As I said, evens the sheen out, no "bronzing", and seems to enrich the print overall. Basically rub it on with a soft cloth, and rub it off within minutes. Leave it for a day or so. I put some of these in the window that gets direct late morning-early aft. sun. The ones I put there a month ago are unchanged. That is not an archival test by all means - Is it labeled as archival or for this purpose? I doubt it but then again-it's all in French!

I am going to try the renaisaance wax and compare .

[Richard Fenner]

Thanks for the input, people. It seems fairly consistent, although obviously some people have more experience with the issue than others.

I called up the printer a short while ago, and was a bit disappointed by their response. They say very few people have commented on the bronzing issue, although they acknowledge it's inherent in the inkjet prints. In fact, they said many people don't even notice it. This surprised me.

Also, they'd never heard of 'archival protectorant' type sprays, either generally or by specific reference to Lumijet Imageshield. This also surprised me, as it's the sort of info I expected a printer to have, to help ease me into this new technology. To someone who didn't know of forums like this, the sight of bronzing with no help from the printer could be very off-putting.

I understand now what you meant by the over-sharpening, Chris, and may be contacting you to discuss the use of the spray when I get some sent over from the US. I also re-read your thread on displaying prints without glass, which was pretty useful.

Thanks all!

[tim atherton]

Richard - one of the most often used sprays is Lyson Printguard (which is very similar to, if not identical with Premier Art Pritnshield)

Lyson is a UK company based in Stockport. Try a couple of cans of that first - you won't have to re-import it that way under a different brand name...

[tim atherton]

In addition (unless ypu o the matte aper route - big colour pritns on Photo Rag or Soersrt Velvet can look gorgeous), of all the glossy/RC type papers, Epson Premium Semimatte is about the best for minimal bronzing (and as Chris says, takes the sprays very well too). I find it quite a lot better in this regard than the Lustre - even though they look very similar.

Premium Semimatte only comes in rolls. On smaller printers, Premium Semigloss is similar, but not quite the same.

The Ilford simigloss/pearl (?) paper is also nice, but probably doesn't have the same longevity