Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2005/11/29
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]> Two on the way ... two, because your payment will be to give me advice > on making them better. One is on Epson Enhanced Matte, the other is on > Hahnem?hle Photo Rag. I ran out of another of my favorite papers > (Permajet Classic Portrait) right before and haven't stocked up again > yet. > > Hope it gets to you by the end of the week. > > Daniel > Sounds great Daniel and thanks and I'll get the mailing. I have done the same exact test on those two papers. I have all my sizes in Hahnem?hle Photo Rag rag now. There's another Hahnem?hle which says it's textured but really isn't and also seems like somthin worth checking out. Mould-made William Turner. Might be cheaper even. The samples seem real nice to me. Perfect. As a backup at last. But I'm committed to the Hahnem?hle photo rag smooth now as I've got two packs of 50 sheets each of 13x19, 11x17 and 8x5x11 one pack being the thick 308 gsm stuff the thinner cheaper one being 188 gsms for in the plastic pages of PRAT portfolio books. And I'm undecided on which to really use matted behind glass the think or the thin. I'd suspect the archival people would steer us toward the thick. This is 100 percent rag just like the museum board I've mounted my not 100 percent rag darkroom prints to all these decades. The thick stuff I use for my default stacks of prints to be handled and so far for matting and putting behind glass and framing. Maybe skip the framing and even skip the glass. I'll start off with the thin stuff in the smallest size as its cheaper to make mistakes on to throw away as the "emulsion" is the same. The same coating on the same paper. I find that behind glass or behind the plastic pages of a PRAT Paris book the Epson which I've used for years and do not have to feed individually from the back of the machine comes real close to the quality of the Hahnem?hle image wise. The image which gets though the glass or plastic. But most of my prints get seen, especially first seen and handled - as is. And the thickness is necessary and lush. As is the actual surface of the paper. The paper color is just a bit better. And better than the Epson velvet which I think is a nice option. I use the regular Epson inks with a 2200 but plan to move on to the newest latest thing keeping up with the Joneses next door with the improved insets. I'll have the 2400 which they say is set up to print black and white and color both perfectly but I'll not be taking much advantage of that capability. But will put carbon Quadtones in to my 2200 and use that for the black and white for most stuff instead. The advantage of printing just color with the 2400 over the 2200 might be minor compared to the very low prices the 2200's should be giving away for by board rich people keeping up with the joneses next door. To their house. Perhaps theses new options will look good on my reams of Epson enhanced matt I've got laying around. Several feet thick; and in big sizes. Carbon quadtones. Advanced Epson inks.... It could be the carbon inks are so great that it makes it less of a big deal which paper you use as it all comes out so great anyhow. So I'd be able to do some printing of this Epson inventory by the stack. Not having to feed them in one by one. Nurse them so to speak. Do editions or mailings to send out to my friends and potential clients. While I watch "House" on TV upstairs. Mark Rabiner Photography Portland Oregon http://rabinergroup.com/