Digital BW, The Print

Tyler, I've been getting very good blacks with the Epson Velvet FA paper an=
d 
Ultrachrome Epson ink when printing in color.  Using Quadtone Rip for b/w i=
s 
a bit less successful in the blacks.  I probably have to mess with the curv=
es a 
bit, because, otherwise, the QTR is excellent.  If the William Turner paper=
 had 
a less fragile surface, I'd use it all the time.  It is a pain to sweep the=
 surface 
before printing and then bag the print as soon as it dries.

Thanks for giving me the info on Somerset Enhanced.  I was trying to recall=
 if it 
was the same as EVFA.

Frank

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Tyler Boley" <
tyler@t...> wrote:
> Frank, I hate to take issue with you, but I agree and disagree. Velvet
> Fine Art, in all it's incarnations, is probably the most tested and
> wrangled with paper by some of us since we began inkjet printing.
> Somerset Velvet was the most workable before coated papers came along.
> Somerset Enhanced was the first usable coated paper after some Liege
> paper that had the longevity of an ant. These papers still have my
> admiration because of their beautiful surfaces. EVFA is rebranded
> Somerset Enhanced. Unfortunately, they do not have the dmax of the H
> papers, and tend to have mottle problems with certain ink loads. With
> many images, without a side by side comparison, these issues may fade
> to irrelevance, particularly given the beautiful surface.
> Though PhotoRag outperforms Velvet in these ways, it's surface is too
> card like for me.
> I agree that William Turner is gorgeous, not as brightened as
> PhotoRag, performs as well or better than all the others, and is my
> paper of choice. A nationally well know photographer was in here
> having us print for him the other day and wound up selecting WT,
> suprised to see that the tooth did not take away from image sharpness
> as he had assumed anything but a smooth surface would do. Many
> photographers autiomatically select smooth surfaces because of
> presumptions about how a photograph should look, rather than actually
> looking at the papers and prints as something new.
> If only it's surface had the more supple tooth of Velvet, I'd be a
> happy camper.
> Tyler
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "culturalvisions"
> <fmward@h...> wrote:
> > I'm always happy when someone else confirms my findings.  Epson Velvet =

> > Fine Art is the best paper for exhibition and portfolio printing. 
> When sli=
> > ghtly 
> > less texture and warmth is required, H. Photo Rag is perfect.  When
> slightl=
> > y 
> > more tooth is desired, H. William Turner is heaven to the touch.  
> > 
> > The link to Hawk Mountain is really the added bonus to your
> comparisons.  
> > I've been searching for a quality paper for less money and HM's product=
 
> > seems to be almost half the price.  I'm looking forward to trying them.=

> > 
> > Speaking of price, EVFA can be bought at 
> > http://www.atlex.com 
> > for considerably less than inkjetart. 
> > http://www.mediastreet.com
> > has Hahnemuhle under its own name for slightly less money.
> > Royal Renaissance is HPR and Royal Jazz is HWT.
> > You folks probably already know that.
> > 
> > Frank
> > 
> > http://www.photoeye.com/gallery/forms/index.cfm?image=1&id=46924&
> > imagePosition=1&Door=2&Portfolio=Portfolio1&Gallery=2
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Clayton Jones" 
<
> > cj@c...> wrote:
> > > Hello Steve,
> > > 
> > > Thanks for the report.  You sound like a happy camper <g>.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > >1) Epson Velvet fine art 13x19: Awsome paper 
> > > 
> > > It does have an incredible richness and depth.  Amazing stuff.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > >2) H. photo rag 308 13x19: Great texture and depth.  Hard to tell
> > > >the print apart from the epson velvet fine art.  Will likely not 
> > > >order again because it is the most expensive, and I had trouble 
> > > >seeing the difference from epson velvet fine art. It is ever so
> > > >slightly less warm.
> > > 
> > > Perhaps I'm over-sensitized from too much looking, but I see quite a
> > > difference between them, and not just being warmer.  VFA has a textur=
e
> > > to it and takes the ink dots differently - PR has smoother mid tones.=

> > > I'm keeping PR in my arsenal for now until I find something to replac=
e
> > > it.  Right now there's nothing else quite like it.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > >4) Hawk Mountain Merlin Smooth:  It will probably be my best all 
> > > >around paper.
> > > 
> > > Same here.  Great stuff.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > >I think the Hahnemühle Photo Rag did not display greater Dmax
> > > >then the Hawk Mountain papers.
> > > 
> > > I have examined carefully for this since reading Paul Roark's
> > > densitometer figures.  I forget the actual numbers, but the Dmax of
> > > these papers is excellent, and on prints with small or broken up area=
s
> > > of black it looks just as good.  However, one of my test prints has a=

> > > large solid black background and when comparing these prints the
> > > greater Dmax on PR can be seen.  But it's an unhappy photographer 
who
> > > lives purely the numbers.  These papers are excellent - contrasty and=

> > > punchy - and prints on them can hold up against PR or any of the
> > > others.
> > > 
> > > Keep up the good work.
> > > 
> > > Regards,
> > > Clayton
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Info on black and white digital printing at    
> > > http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm