Anyone using super glossy inkjet papers?

[Greg Miller]

The ultimate problem is the ink itself, since it sits on top the paper, and not within an emulsion layer. You'd have to overcoat the whole print with something shiny.
Can be done; but that's another subject. Any kind of face mounting needs a decent amount of print cure time, to allow all the glycols to thoroughly evaporate first.

I guess this would ignore the fact that modern inkjet printers apply a gloss optimizer layer on the print, which, among other things, was designed to a offer superior gloss finish.

[sanking]

I guess this would ignore the fact that modern inkjet printers apply a gloss optimizer layer on the print, which, among other things, was designed to a offer superior gloss finish.

With the Epson K3 inks, and I assume similar systems from Canon and HP, a high gloss encapsulation process of the pigment particles is used that makes it possible to obtain both very high reflective Dmax, without metamerism. Other systems, like Cone Piezography K7 Gloss, actually apply a gloss optimized layer over the pigment layer as a second step.

It is hard to know what others mean by high gloss. However, to provide some industry reference, the monochrome gloss prints that I am making on the Red River Ultra Gloss paper, measured with an iOne spectrphotometer, have a reflective DMin of log 0.05 (L=95.59), and DMax of log 2.546 (L=2.57). And frankly, I have not even attempted to optimize for DMax so I would expect others, with better papers and more focused testing, could obtain even higher shadow density.

Things are moving so fast in this field that even people who could speak with a great deal of authority just 3-5 years ago can shoot blanks with their comments today unless they have kept up with the current technologies, which includes a great deal of optimizing of both inks and papers for gloss effect.


Sandy

[bob carnie]

Currently in the RA4 world the glossiest paper IMO is Fuji Flex. nothing is close in that media.

[Drew Wiley]

Greg- even offset prints used to be overcoated (lacquered) or whatever for high gloss in premium applications. You rarely see it in books anymore, but a good
example would be the original edition of Eliot Porter's Glen Canyon book. All those pages have yellowed by now. Same with traditional print lacquers. Hard to say how well inkjet overcoats will live up to the alleged "archival" characteristics of the inks themselves. But none of the actual mfgs of these coatings are going to put their foot in their mouth in terms of long-term performance. In any event, nobody had come up with anything yet that comes close to the consistent sheen or sense of depth of a polyester Ciba or Fujiflex print. One thing I learned a long time ago is that if you want the facts you have to do an awful lot of testing yourself, and that some of the results can take many years under a variety of conditions to assess. It's hard to make a bunny rabbit behave like a possum and visa versa.

[John Bowen]

Sandy,
Are you using K7 for your glossy monochrome prints? If yes, do you have a printer profile for the Red River Ultra Glossy paper you'd be willing to share?
Many thanks,
John

[sanking]

Sandy,
Are you using K7 for your glossy monochrome prints? If yes, do you have a printer profile for the Red River Ultra Glossy paper you'd be willing to share?
Many thanks,
John

John,

I have an Epson 7600 set up with Cone K7 inks but it is used for monochrome printing on matte papers. The prints I described made with Red River Ultra Gloss papers were made with an Epson R3000, which I set up with an all gray ink set that has six slots filled with K3 Photo Black, and the other two with K3 Light Black and K3 LLK. I set this up for making digital negatives because the Epson K3 inks dry hard and fast. However, I found that with a fairly simply QTR profile I could make monochrome prints with really high gloss on some papers. So the ink set is custom designed and while I am more than happy to share my profiles this one would not be usable with the Cone K7 inks, or with any other all gray set for that matter.

Sandy

[Greg Miller]

Greg- even offset prints used to be overcoated (lacquered) or whatever for high gloss in premium applications. You rarely see it in books anymore, but a good
example would be the original edition of Eliot Porter's Glen Canyon book. All those pages have yellowed by now. Same with traditional print lacquers. Hard to say how well inkjet overcoats will live up to the alleged "archival" characteristics of the inks themselves. But none of the actual mfgs of these coatings are going to put their foot in their mouth in terms of long-term performance. In any event, nobody had come up with anything yet that comes close to the consistent sheen or sense of depth of a polyester Ciba or Fujiflex print. One thing I learned a long time ago is that if you want the facts you have to do an awful lot of testing yourself, and that some of the results can take many years under a variety of conditions to assess. It's hard to make a bunny rabbit behave like a possum and visa versa.

Drew - I was responding to this statement by you:

The ultimate problem is the ink itself, since it sits on top the paper, and not within an emulsion layer. You'd have to overcoat the whole print with something shiny.
Can be done; but that's another subject.

I wasn't talking about offset prints or permanence or bunny rabbits. I was pointing out that the it isn't correct that the ink just sits on top of the paper. I have no idea what the relevance is of anything you just wrote as it pertains to the OP's question.

[John Bowen]

Sandy,
Thanks just the same. I'm just getting started with scanning 7x17 and 8x10 negatives, using Photoshop and printing with K6 & K7 on Epson R3000 and 3880. Hadn't tried the Red River papers because I don't see any profiles for Red River with K7 inks.

[Drew Wiley]

Greg. Of course the ink sits on the paper. This is what ink does by definition. That's why they call them inks and not something else. It's not part of an emulsion, or transparent like dyes; it's deposited. Inks are designed to be opaque. Some of it might bleed in to the paper, but that type of activity would inherently require a porous paper surface and not a firm glossy suface. it's opaque. Dark colors like blacks often even differ in their reflectance (talking about color systems, not necessarily monochromes). Even if you hypothetically printed on a shiny plastic base, you still couldn't achieve a true gloss sheen without some kind of overcoat,
be it a liquid acrylic or lacquer, or a gloss adhesive film, or simply a sheet of plexiglas, with or without clear filler (an involved topic). Sure you can get some
improvement in glossiness, but nothing which ever equals a true gloss photographic print. It has everything to do with the original question. I've heard the best of inkjet printers complain about it. Let the bunny rabbit be a bunny rabbit, not a wannabee possum. That's my opinion of course, and one reason I prefer to see
inkjets in lustre rather than wannabee gloss applications. There are currently technical limitations to doing it well, unless you have the equipment and expertise
to alter the surface look in the frame shop, like Bob does.

[Greg Miller]

Greg. Of course the ink sits on the paper. This is what ink does by definition. That's why they call them inks and not something else. It's not part of an emulsion, or transparent like dyes; it's deposited. Inks are designed to be opaque. Some of it might bleed in to the paper, but that type of activity would inherently require a porous paper surface and not a firm glossy suface. it's opaque. Dark colors like blacks often even differ in their reflectance (talking about color systems, not necessarily monochromes). Even if you hypothetically printed on a shiny plastic base, you still couldn't achieve a true gloss sheen without some kind of overcoat,
be it a liquid acrylic or lacquer, or a gloss adhesive film, or simply a sheet of plexiglas, with or without clear filler (an involved topic). Sure you can get some
improvement in glossiness, but nothing which ever equals a true gloss photographic print. It has everything to do with the original question. I've heard the best of inkjet printers complain about it. Let the bunny rabbit be a bunny rabbit, not a wannabee possum. That's my opinion of course, and one reason I prefer to see
inkjets in lustre rather than wannabee gloss applications. There are currently technical limitations to doing it well, unless you have the equipment and expertise
to alter the surface look in the frame shop, like Bob does.

Go back and read what I actually wrote. But first read up on gloss optimizers.