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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
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 |