A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital Photography
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Papers for the Epson 2200 - Best image quality



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old September 17th 04, 04:01 PM
hassy_user
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Papers for the Epson 2200 - Best image quality

I am an experienced photographer, and know my way around a color
darkroom pretty well, but have just started trying out a 2200. I have
not shopped around for papers yet (I've just stuck with the nice Epson
Matte), but am curious to know if it is worth it to buy the very
expensive rag, etc papers, and if they give an edge in image quality,
or just archival stability. I am more concerned with image quality,
and am willing to pay extra for it. If it makes a difference, I am
using scans from 6x6 done on a Nikon LS8000 at max resolution and bit
depth, so I have enough source data to warrant trying to squeeze out
more quality in the print. What papers are you all using on the high
end, and why are they better? And can I get ICC profiles for them?
Thanks in advance...

Christopher
  #2  
Old September 17th 04, 06:12 PM
Bill Hilton
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

From: (hassy_user)

I am an experienced photographer, and know my way around a color
darkroom pretty well, but have just started trying out a 2200. I have
not shopped around for papers yet (I've just stuck with the nice Epson
Matte), but am curious to know if it is worth it to buy the very
expensive rag, etc papers, and if they give an edge in image quality,
or just archival stability. I am more concerned with image quality,
and am willing to pay extra for it.


I have a 2200 and a 4000 and have tried probably 15 papers in them. "Image
quality" is excellent with any of the Epson papers and print life is also
pretty high with all of them with the Ultrachrome Inks so it boils down to a
question of taste, ie, what looks best to YOU.

FWIW, for portraits we prefer the Premium Luster and use it on all the portrait
prints we sell. You'll need the Photo Black ink for this one. The Semi-Gloss
is also nice for a more "photo" look, with Photo Black ink. The Premium Glossy
Photo Paper (PGPP) looks fine and glossy but if there are large areas of black
and you tilt the paper between 20 and 45 degrees or so you'll probably notice
what's called "bronzing", so we don't use this paper much.

Most guys printing fine art prints with these inks (usually using the wider
carriage 9600, 7600 and 4000) use the Matte Black ink instead of Photo Black,
even with the narrower gamut. You don't get the typical "glossy photo look"
with these papers though. There seems to be a wide range of preferences as to
which paper works best. Here are my impressions -- best advice I can offer is
to buy a pack of each and shoot it on a variety of images to see what looks
best to YOU.

Velvet - Fine Art (made by Somerset for Epson) has a raised, textured surface
but prints with a surprisingly wide gamut. I love this one for more abstract
images and it looks arty for exhibits. Expensive and easy to print on the
wrong side since the coated side is only slightly whiter than the uncoated side
. If you want a high quality fine-art paper with a different "look" this one
is worth a try.

Ultrasmooth Fine Art ... relatively new one that's probably still not available
in many sheet sizes (mostly in rolls), but several big name guys like John Paul
Caponigro have switched to this as their favorite fine art paper. I've printed
on it with the 4000 and it's like a somewhat better matte paper to me, I like
the look but prefer VFA for art shots. If you like matte this might be the one
for you. Here's a review you might find interesting ...
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/re...rasmooth.shtml

Watercolor - Radiant White ... this one is only available in 13x19" sheets, has
a textured finish (not as textured as the VFA though), is relatively cheap and
prints beautifully. We use it mainly to proof for images destined for VFA
since it's about 1/3 the cost but I would have no problems doing an exhibit on
this paper.

PremierArt Water Resistant Canvas ... this is only available on 13" wide rolls
for the 2200 but it's pretty amazing stuff, canvas with a printer-receptive
coating that looks excellent gamut-wise, given the rough surface. I think it
works best with softer, more abstract shots but that's just my tastes. If you
think some of your images might look good as a painting you might give this one
a shot, people print on it and sometimes paint on parts of it, then stretch it
over canvas stretchers to exhibit.

Matte is matte, you've already used it so you know what to expect.

There are many other papers available from 2nd party sources, especially coated
and uncoated watercolor papers, but most have poor ICM profiles (if any) and
I've yet to find any that offered any advantages over the Epson papers, except
for lower price. If you want to try sample packs to get a feel for them try
this link -- I've used all of these and found them wanting but YMMV.

http://www.inkjetart.com/art_papers.html

If it makes a difference, I am
using scans from 6x6 done on a Nikon LS8000 at max resolution and bit
depth, so I have enough source data to warrant trying to squeeze out
more quality in the print.


All this means is that you can print larger than the 2200 allows and still get
good quality ... that's why I got the 4000, for 17x22" sheets (I have the
LS8000 with both 645 and 6x7 cm film). We get pretty good 20x24" prints on a
LightJet from the 6x7 scans, for example.

What papers are you all using on the high
end, and why are they better?


As mentioned above, best advice I can offer is to buy a pack of each and shoot
it on a variety of images to see what looks best to YOU. In talking to people
who sell a LOT of fine art prints, Ultrasmooth and Velvet Fine Art are pretty
popular, but maybe that's just the guys I'm talking to. Nothing wrong with
matte either ... and for portraits I think Luster is the best paper since it
matches the traditional wet darkroom "look" of what people expect a portrait to
look like.

And can I get ICC profiles for them?


Epson supplies profiles for most of their papers, except Ultrasmooth and Canvas
use the Watercolor profile at the moment. There are good profiles and
not-so-good profiles and a lot of the 2nd party profiles are bad ... the 2200
has enough variance between units and enough shifting over time that any canned
profile you receive is unlikely to be spot-on, another reason I switched to the
4000.

Bill


  #3  
Old September 17th 04, 06:12 PM
Bill Hilton
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

From: (hassy_user)

I am an experienced photographer, and know my way around a color
darkroom pretty well, but have just started trying out a 2200. I have
not shopped around for papers yet (I've just stuck with the nice Epson
Matte), but am curious to know if it is worth it to buy the very
expensive rag, etc papers, and if they give an edge in image quality,
or just archival stability. I am more concerned with image quality,
and am willing to pay extra for it.


I have a 2200 and a 4000 and have tried probably 15 papers in them. "Image
quality" is excellent with any of the Epson papers and print life is also
pretty high with all of them with the Ultrachrome Inks so it boils down to a
question of taste, ie, what looks best to YOU.

FWIW, for portraits we prefer the Premium Luster and use it on all the portrait
prints we sell. You'll need the Photo Black ink for this one. The Semi-Gloss
is also nice for a more "photo" look, with Photo Black ink. The Premium Glossy
Photo Paper (PGPP) looks fine and glossy but if there are large areas of black
and you tilt the paper between 20 and 45 degrees or so you'll probably notice
what's called "bronzing", so we don't use this paper much.

Most guys printing fine art prints with these inks (usually using the wider
carriage 9600, 7600 and 4000) use the Matte Black ink instead of Photo Black,
even with the narrower gamut. You don't get the typical "glossy photo look"
with these papers though. There seems to be a wide range of preferences as to
which paper works best. Here are my impressions -- best advice I can offer is
to buy a pack of each and shoot it on a variety of images to see what looks
best to YOU.

Velvet - Fine Art (made by Somerset for Epson) has a raised, textured surface
but prints with a surprisingly wide gamut. I love this one for more abstract
images and it looks arty for exhibits. Expensive and easy to print on the
wrong side since the coated side is only slightly whiter than the uncoated side
. If you want a high quality fine-art paper with a different "look" this one
is worth a try.

Ultrasmooth Fine Art ... relatively new one that's probably still not available
in many sheet sizes (mostly in rolls), but several big name guys like John Paul
Caponigro have switched to this as their favorite fine art paper. I've printed
on it with the 4000 and it's like a somewhat better matte paper to me, I like
the look but prefer VFA for art shots. If you like matte this might be the one
for you. Here's a review you might find interesting ...
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/re...rasmooth.shtml

Watercolor - Radiant White ... this one is only available in 13x19" sheets, has
a textured finish (not as textured as the VFA though), is relatively cheap and
prints beautifully. We use it mainly to proof for images destined for VFA
since it's about 1/3 the cost but I would have no problems doing an exhibit on
this paper.

PremierArt Water Resistant Canvas ... this is only available on 13" wide rolls
for the 2200 but it's pretty amazing stuff, canvas with a printer-receptive
coating that looks excellent gamut-wise, given the rough surface. I think it
works best with softer, more abstract shots but that's just my tastes. If you
think some of your images might look good as a painting you might give this one
a shot, people print on it and sometimes paint on parts of it, then stretch it
over canvas stretchers to exhibit.

Matte is matte, you've already used it so you know what to expect.

There are many other papers available from 2nd party sources, especially coated
and uncoated watercolor papers, but most have poor ICM profiles (if any) and
I've yet to find any that offered any advantages over the Epson papers, except
for lower price. If you want to try sample packs to get a feel for them try
this link -- I've used all of these and found them wanting but YMMV.

http://www.inkjetart.com/art_papers.html

If it makes a difference, I am
using scans from 6x6 done on a Nikon LS8000 at max resolution and bit
depth, so I have enough source data to warrant trying to squeeze out
more quality in the print.


All this means is that you can print larger than the 2200 allows and still get
good quality ... that's why I got the 4000, for 17x22" sheets (I have the
LS8000 with both 645 and 6x7 cm film). We get pretty good 20x24" prints on a
LightJet from the 6x7 scans, for example.

What papers are you all using on the high
end, and why are they better?


As mentioned above, best advice I can offer is to buy a pack of each and shoot
it on a variety of images to see what looks best to YOU. In talking to people
who sell a LOT of fine art prints, Ultrasmooth and Velvet Fine Art are pretty
popular, but maybe that's just the guys I'm talking to. Nothing wrong with
matte either ... and for portraits I think Luster is the best paper since it
matches the traditional wet darkroom "look" of what people expect a portrait to
look like.

And can I get ICC profiles for them?


Epson supplies profiles for most of their papers, except Ultrasmooth and Canvas
use the Watercolor profile at the moment. There are good profiles and
not-so-good profiles and a lot of the 2nd party profiles are bad ... the 2200
has enough variance between units and enough shifting over time that any canned
profile you receive is unlikely to be spot-on, another reason I switched to the
4000.

Bill


  #4  
Old September 18th 04, 04:32 PM
Eager
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Bill -- what an excellent review of papers for the 2200 and 4000. I can
confirm from experience that you're spot-on abou the standard Epson
papers -- Luster, Semi-gloss, and gloss. I have no experience with the
art papers, but with your advice, I'll try some.

I also want to mention the Red River papers --
http://www.redrivercatalog.com/sbprinter/epson2200.htm

I've ordered their version of luster paper, which they claim has a
no-fade life with Ultrachrome inks as long as the Epson brand stuff,
though the Red River paper is something like half the price or less --
less than 50 cents a sheet in Super B size. So far I'm pleased with the
output.

-=-Joe



In article , Bill Hilton
wrote:

I have a 2200 and a 4000 and have tried probably 15 papers in them. "Image
quality" is excellent with any of the Epson papers and print life is also
pretty high with all of them with the Ultrachrome Inks so it boils down to a
question of taste, ie, what looks best to YOU.

FWIW, for portraits we prefer the Premium Luster and use it on all the
portrait
prints we sell. You'll need the Photo Black ink for this one. The Semi-Gloss
is also nice for a more "photo" look, with Photo Black ink. The Premium
Glossy
Photo Paper (PGPP) looks fine and glossy but if there are large areas of black
and you tilt the paper between 20 and 45 degrees or so you'll probably notice
what's called "bronzing", so we don't use this paper much.

  #5  
Old September 18th 04, 04:32 PM
Eager
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Bill -- what an excellent review of papers for the 2200 and 4000. I can
confirm from experience that you're spot-on abou the standard Epson
papers -- Luster, Semi-gloss, and gloss. I have no experience with the
art papers, but with your advice, I'll try some.

I also want to mention the Red River papers --
http://www.redrivercatalog.com/sbprinter/epson2200.htm

I've ordered their version of luster paper, which they claim has a
no-fade life with Ultrachrome inks as long as the Epson brand stuff,
though the Red River paper is something like half the price or less --
less than 50 cents a sheet in Super B size. So far I'm pleased with the
output.

-=-Joe



In article , Bill Hilton
wrote:

I have a 2200 and a 4000 and have tried probably 15 papers in them. "Image
quality" is excellent with any of the Epson papers and print life is also
pretty high with all of them with the Ultrachrome Inks so it boils down to a
question of taste, ie, what looks best to YOU.

FWIW, for portraits we prefer the Premium Luster and use it on all the
portrait
prints we sell. You'll need the Photo Black ink for this one. The Semi-Gloss
is also nice for a more "photo" look, with Photo Black ink. The Premium
Glossy
Photo Paper (PGPP) looks fine and glossy but if there are large areas of black
and you tilt the paper between 20 and 45 degrees or so you'll probably notice
what's called "bronzing", so we don't use this paper much.

  #6  
Old September 18th 04, 04:32 PM
Eager
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Bill -- what an excellent review of papers for the 2200 and 4000. I can
confirm from experience that you're spot-on abou the standard Epson
papers -- Luster, Semi-gloss, and gloss. I have no experience with the
art papers, but with your advice, I'll try some.

I also want to mention the Red River papers --
http://www.redrivercatalog.com/sbprinter/epson2200.htm

I've ordered their version of luster paper, which they claim has a
no-fade life with Ultrachrome inks as long as the Epson brand stuff,
though the Red River paper is something like half the price or less --
less than 50 cents a sheet in Super B size. So far I'm pleased with the
output.

-=-Joe



In article , Bill Hilton
wrote:

I have a 2200 and a 4000 and have tried probably 15 papers in them. "Image
quality" is excellent with any of the Epson papers and print life is also
pretty high with all of them with the Ultrachrome Inks so it boils down to a
question of taste, ie, what looks best to YOU.

FWIW, for portraits we prefer the Premium Luster and use it on all the
portrait
prints we sell. You'll need the Photo Black ink for this one. The Semi-Gloss
is also nice for a more "photo" look, with Photo Black ink. The Premium
Glossy
Photo Paper (PGPP) looks fine and glossy but if there are large areas of black
and you tilt the paper between 20 and 45 degrees or so you'll probably notice
what's called "bronzing", so we don't use this paper much.

  #7  
Old September 20th 04, 02:07 AM
hassy_user
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

dy (Bill Hilton) wrote in message ...
From:
(hassy_user)

I am an experienced photographer, and know my way around a color
darkroom pretty well, but have just started trying out a 2200. I have
not shopped around for papers yet (I've just stuck with the nice Epson
Matte), but am curious to know if it is worth it to buy the very
expensive rag, etc papers, and if they give an edge in image quality,
or just archival stability. I am more concerned with image quality,
and am willing to pay extra for it.


I have a 2200 and a 4000 and have tried probably 15 papers in them. "Image
quality" is excellent with any of the Epson papers and print life is also
pretty high with all of them with the Ultrachrome Inks so it boils down to a
question of taste, ie, what looks best to YOU.

FWIW, for portraits we prefer the Premium Luster and use it on all the portrait
prints we sell. You'll need the Photo Black ink for this one. The Semi-Gloss
is also nice for a more "photo" look, with Photo Black ink. The Premium Glossy
Photo Paper (PGPP) looks fine and glossy but if there are large areas of black
and you tilt the paper between 20 and 45 degrees or so you'll probably notice
what's called "bronzing", so we don't use this paper much.

Most guys printing fine art prints with these inks (usually using the wider
carriage 9600, 7600 and 4000) use the Matte Black ink instead of Photo Black,
even with the narrower gamut. You don't get the typical "glossy photo look"
with these papers though. There seems to be a wide range of preferences as to
which paper works best. Here are my impressions -- best advice I can offer is
to buy a pack of each and shoot it on a variety of images to see what looks
best to YOU.

Velvet - Fine Art (made by Somerset for Epson) has a raised, textured surface
but prints with a surprisingly wide gamut. I love this one for more abstract
images and it looks arty for exhibits. Expensive and easy to print on the
wrong side since the coated side is only slightly whiter than the uncoated side
. If you want a high quality fine-art paper with a different "look" this one
is worth a try.

Ultrasmooth Fine Art ... relatively new one that's probably still not available
in many sheet sizes (mostly in rolls), but several big name guys like John Paul
Caponigro have switched to this as their favorite fine art paper. I've printed
on it with the 4000 and it's like a somewhat better matte paper to me, I like
the look but prefer VFA for art shots. If you like matte this might be the one
for you. Here's a review you might find interesting ...
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/re...rasmooth.shtml

Watercolor - Radiant White ... this one is only available in 13x19" sheets, has
a textured finish (not as textured as the VFA though), is relatively cheap and
prints beautifully. We use it mainly to proof for images destined for VFA
since it's about 1/3 the cost but I would have no problems doing an exhibit on
this paper.

PremierArt Water Resistant Canvas ... this is only available on 13" wide rolls
for the 2200 but it's pretty amazing stuff, canvas with a printer-receptive
coating that looks excellent gamut-wise, given the rough surface. I think it
works best with softer, more abstract shots but that's just my tastes. If you
think some of your images might look good as a painting you might give this one
a shot, people print on it and sometimes paint on parts of it, then stretch it
over canvas stretchers to exhibit.

Matte is matte, you've already used it so you know what to expect.

There are many other papers available from 2nd party sources, especially coated
and uncoated watercolor papers, but most have poor ICM profiles (if any) and
I've yet to find any that offered any advantages over the Epson papers, except
for lower price. If you want to try sample packs to get a feel for them try
this link -- I've used all of these and found them wanting but YMMV.

http://www.inkjetart.com/art_papers.html

If it makes a difference, I am
using scans from 6x6 done on a Nikon LS8000 at max resolution and bit
depth, so I have enough source data to warrant trying to squeeze out
more quality in the print.


All this means is that you can print larger than the 2200 allows and still get
good quality ... that's why I got the 4000, for 17x22" sheets (I have the
LS8000 with both 645 and 6x7 cm film). We get pretty good 20x24" prints on a
LightJet from the 6x7 scans, for example.

What papers are you all using on the high
end, and why are they better?


As mentioned above, best advice I can offer is to buy a pack of each and shoot
it on a variety of images to see what looks best to YOU. In talking to people
who sell a LOT of fine art prints, Ultrasmooth and Velvet Fine Art are pretty
popular, but maybe that's just the guys I'm talking to. Nothing wrong with
matte either ... and for portraits I think Luster is the best paper since it
matches the traditional wet darkroom "look" of what people expect a portrait to
look like.

And can I get ICC profiles for them?


Epson supplies profiles for most of their papers, except Ultrasmooth and Canvas
use the Watercolor profile at the moment. There are good profiles and
not-so-good profiles and a lot of the 2nd party profiles are bad ... the 2200
has enough variance between units and enough shifting over time that any canned
profile you receive is unlikely to be spot-on, another reason I switched to the
4000.

Bill


Thanks Bill!

I just picked up a pack of the Pictorico/Olympus Hi-Gloss film,
and.....wow. I have one particular contrasty fashion image shot with
a ringlight, and having very delicate shadow/highlight detail as well
as subtle tonal qualities in the background. I was just not getting
it with the Matte or Premium Luster papers from Epson after much
trying. The Pictorico totally solved the problem, and I got a great
print. And no bronzing.

I read that the discontinued Epson Professional Glossy had great tonal
qualities like the Hi-Gloss. Is there a replacement product? I will
definitely try the Ultrasmooth and Velvet as well, but since my
portfolio is all fashion, the Ilfochrome/Supergloss look of the
Pictorico is a real benefit.

I still have CM issues, so the canned profiles get me close enough. I
make two or three test prints on 4x6 size of the same stock and can
nail it pretty quick. In fact my colors are dead-on the first time,
but the density is way off. I need to get my hands on another
calibrator so I can profile everything again.
  #8  
Old September 20th 04, 02:07 AM
hassy_user
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

dy (Bill Hilton) wrote in message ...
From:
(hassy_user)

I am an experienced photographer, and know my way around a color
darkroom pretty well, but have just started trying out a 2200. I have
not shopped around for papers yet (I've just stuck with the nice Epson
Matte), but am curious to know if it is worth it to buy the very
expensive rag, etc papers, and if they give an edge in image quality,
or just archival stability. I am more concerned with image quality,
and am willing to pay extra for it.


I have a 2200 and a 4000 and have tried probably 15 papers in them. "Image
quality" is excellent with any of the Epson papers and print life is also
pretty high with all of them with the Ultrachrome Inks so it boils down to a
question of taste, ie, what looks best to YOU.

FWIW, for portraits we prefer the Premium Luster and use it on all the portrait
prints we sell. You'll need the Photo Black ink for this one. The Semi-Gloss
is also nice for a more "photo" look, with Photo Black ink. The Premium Glossy
Photo Paper (PGPP) looks fine and glossy but if there are large areas of black
and you tilt the paper between 20 and 45 degrees or so you'll probably notice
what's called "bronzing", so we don't use this paper much.

Most guys printing fine art prints with these inks (usually using the wider
carriage 9600, 7600 and 4000) use the Matte Black ink instead of Photo Black,
even with the narrower gamut. You don't get the typical "glossy photo look"
with these papers though. There seems to be a wide range of preferences as to
which paper works best. Here are my impressions -- best advice I can offer is
to buy a pack of each and shoot it on a variety of images to see what looks
best to YOU.

Velvet - Fine Art (made by Somerset for Epson) has a raised, textured surface
but prints with a surprisingly wide gamut. I love this one for more abstract
images and it looks arty for exhibits. Expensive and easy to print on the
wrong side since the coated side is only slightly whiter than the uncoated side
. If you want a high quality fine-art paper with a different "look" this one
is worth a try.

Ultrasmooth Fine Art ... relatively new one that's probably still not available
in many sheet sizes (mostly in rolls), but several big name guys like John Paul
Caponigro have switched to this as their favorite fine art paper. I've printed
on it with the 4000 and it's like a somewhat better matte paper to me, I like
the look but prefer VFA for art shots. If you like matte this might be the one
for you. Here's a review you might find interesting ...
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/re...rasmooth.shtml

Watercolor - Radiant White ... this one is only available in 13x19" sheets, has
a textured finish (not as textured as the VFA though), is relatively cheap and
prints beautifully. We use it mainly to proof for images destined for VFA
since it's about 1/3 the cost but I would have no problems doing an exhibit on
this paper.

PremierArt Water Resistant Canvas ... this is only available on 13" wide rolls
for the 2200 but it's pretty amazing stuff, canvas with a printer-receptive
coating that looks excellent gamut-wise, given the rough surface. I think it
works best with softer, more abstract shots but that's just my tastes. If you
think some of your images might look good as a painting you might give this one
a shot, people print on it and sometimes paint on parts of it, then stretch it
over canvas stretchers to exhibit.

Matte is matte, you've already used it so you know what to expect.

There are many other papers available from 2nd party sources, especially coated
and uncoated watercolor papers, but most have poor ICM profiles (if any) and
I've yet to find any that offered any advantages over the Epson papers, except
for lower price. If you want to try sample packs to get a feel for them try
this link -- I've used all of these and found them wanting but YMMV.

http://www.inkjetart.com/art_papers.html

If it makes a difference, I am
using scans from 6x6 done on a Nikon LS8000 at max resolution and bit
depth, so I have enough source data to warrant trying to squeeze out
more quality in the print.


All this means is that you can print larger than the 2200 allows and still get
good quality ... that's why I got the 4000, for 17x22" sheets (I have the
LS8000 with both 645 and 6x7 cm film). We get pretty good 20x24" prints on a
LightJet from the 6x7 scans, for example.

What papers are you all using on the high
end, and why are they better?


As mentioned above, best advice I can offer is to buy a pack of each and shoot
it on a variety of images to see what looks best to YOU. In talking to people
who sell a LOT of fine art prints, Ultrasmooth and Velvet Fine Art are pretty
popular, but maybe that's just the guys I'm talking to. Nothing wrong with
matte either ... and for portraits I think Luster is the best paper since it
matches the traditional wet darkroom "look" of what people expect a portrait to
look like.

And can I get ICC profiles for them?


Epson supplies profiles for most of their papers, except Ultrasmooth and Canvas
use the Watercolor profile at the moment. There are good profiles and
not-so-good profiles and a lot of the 2nd party profiles are bad ... the 2200
has enough variance between units and enough shifting over time that any canned
profile you receive is unlikely to be spot-on, another reason I switched to the
4000.

Bill


Thanks Bill!

I just picked up a pack of the Pictorico/Olympus Hi-Gloss film,
and.....wow. I have one particular contrasty fashion image shot with
a ringlight, and having very delicate shadow/highlight detail as well
as subtle tonal qualities in the background. I was just not getting
it with the Matte or Premium Luster papers from Epson after much
trying. The Pictorico totally solved the problem, and I got a great
print. And no bronzing.

I read that the discontinued Epson Professional Glossy had great tonal
qualities like the Hi-Gloss. Is there a replacement product? I will
definitely try the Ultrasmooth and Velvet as well, but since my
portfolio is all fashion, the Ilfochrome/Supergloss look of the
Pictorico is a real benefit.

I still have CM issues, so the canned profiles get me close enough. I
make two or three test prints on 4x6 size of the same stock and can
nail it pretty quick. In fact my colors are dead-on the first time,
but the density is way off. I need to get my hands on another
calibrator so I can profile everything again.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Digicam Video Quality vs. Camcorders, Camcorder Image Quality vs Digicams Richard Lee Digital Photography 21 August 23rd 04 07:04 PM
epson 2200 question GLL Photographing Nature 10 August 9th 04 10:10 PM
Choosing a printer Morton Klotz Digital Photography 16 August 7th 04 12:22 AM
Image intensifiers Richard Knoppow In The Darkroom 8 July 31st 04 04:38 AM
Image circle versus stopping down? Nick Zentena Large Format Photography Equipment 11 July 3rd 04 02:40 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:08 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2022 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.