Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2010/03/10

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: [Leica] My paper experience
From: zoeica at mac.com (Chris Williams)
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2010 00:51:11 -0600
References: <eb6799211003102245q543285b8sc6ff2d491e0d9131@mail.gmail.com>

Try Moab Entrada Natural Rag, I'm liking this paper quite a bit lately. 
Works extremely well with Epson K3 inks. And Moab is very customer friendly 
with color profile questions.

Chris
NOLA


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Richard Man"
Subject: [Leica] My paper experience


> In printing for my next portfolio review, here are some comments on inkjet
> paper that I tried this time.
>
> Firstly, at the last portfolio review, I did ~12 darkroom prints on Adox
> MCC. There really is nothing that beats the silver gelatin print look...
>
> Second, my monitor is a calibrated ColorEdge CE240W - a reasonably
> "middle-end" color correctable monitor. The next step up would be 
> something
> 3x-4x more expensive at $5000+.
>
> My printer is a Z3100 and I make all my ICC profiles.
>
> - Best value: Epson Ultra Presentation Matte / Enhanced Matte / Archival
> Matte etc. They change the names a few times, but it's their "low end"
> stuff, over the cheap "photo paper." It's quite good. The best matte paper
> is probably no more than 10-15% better, by any measure. If you like matte,
> this can be your work print paper, or even for exhibit and sales.
>
> - Hahnemuhle Fine Arts Pearl. A few years ago, I quite like it. Semi-gloss
> luster look. Now it's totally out classed by the new paper. Not 
> recommended.
>
> - Hahnemuhle photo rag, photo rag bright white etc. There are at least 2-3
> variations. One of the best fine arts matte paper. My biggest complaint is
> that it's very fragile. You look at it funny and then there's a scratch on
> the print!
>
> Now a general commentary on matte paper. They look like... fine arts 
> paper,
> like watercolor. I found the dark is not quite dark enough, and in fact, 
> if
> you have a very dark print (e.g. night time), it can look downright muddy.
> My wife, coming from a traditional artist background, like matte paper 
> more
> than the ones below. I think they work best for art work reproduction.
>
> - Ilford Gold Fibre. This is one of the first and still more expensive
> Baryta paper. It has the best dynamic range that I can see. It prints more
> contrasty than my screen, this would be the one I'd use if I want that
> slight gloss look.
>
> - Harman FB Fiber Matte, Warmtone and normal. This is currently my 
> favorite
> paper. It's matte but less flat than the photo rag matte. The prints match
> my screen more than other paper. Only thing it does not do well on is the
> night shots. Again it just looks muddy.
>
> While the above two have baryta and suppose to look like darkroom prints,
> they don't. OTOH, they look more like darkroom prints than the older 
> paper.
>
> ****
> YMMV etc. etc.
>
> -- 
> // richard <http://www.imagecraft.com/> blog: <
> http://imagecraft.wordpress.com>
> // portfolio: 
> <http://www.dragonsgate.net/pub/richard/PICS/AnotherCalifornia
>>
> // mailing lists: <http://www.imagecraft.com/contact.html>
> [ For technical support on ImageCraft products, please include all 
> previous
> replies in your msgs. ]
>
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information 



Replies: Reply from mark at rabinergroup.com (Mark Rabiner) ([Leica] My paper experience)
Reply from richard at imagecraft.com (Richard Man) ([Leica] My paper experience)
In reply to: Message from richard at imagecraft.com (Richard Man) ([Leica] My paper experience)