Digital BW, The Print

I'm still very new to both BW printing and the MIS VM inks, but I 
thought I'd share what I found this morning when printing a photo 
restoration image on various papers in WIN98SE on a 1280 printer.

I've never used EAM, so I probably steepened my learning curve 
somewhat, but I'm making some progress. I don't know enough to give 
much more than a general observation, but maybe that'll be helpful.

I'm printing a 1904 8x10 image that I scanned from a very good grade 
of newsprint (vintage 1976), so print quality expectations were never 
very high. However, I was pleasantly surprised at the quality of the 
prints. 

I printed the image on Museo (250gsm), Epson SFA (425gsm), and 
Brightcube Eclipse Satine 190 papers. I used the VMP8-MW8.acv curve 
for all three prints and viewed them under an Ott-lite.

My least favorite of the three was the Eclipse Satine. Although I 
like the paper (in part because it's quite a bit whiter than the 
others), the blacks didn't look as deep as on the other two. Could 
this be because of the combination of this warm curve and this bright 
white paper? This paper did seem to show just a little more detail, 
however. 

The Museo paper I think is just a little whiter than the Epson SFA, 
but they're very close. The Museo image is a little sharper than the 
SFA image, but not by much at all and the sky is less mottled (better 
looking) in the Museo print.

Overall, the Museo print is the best of the three in this instance.
I like all three papers and will continue to experiment with all 
three. I've got plenty of Museo and Epson SFA to experiment with and 
will order the Eclipse Satine when they get it stocked again. 

I hope this is helpful...

Tom Keesling
Intelligent Design, Inc.

Tom,

Your impressions are most welcome. With little or no opportunity to 
see the real thing we have to rely on verbal evaluations of the 
materials.

I am running the same inks and printer, and I am finding the Eclipse 
Satine with a "n" neutral curve Paul did for me or the "mw" the most 
pleasing. AS Paul notes, the Satine does not have the deepest black 
but I really like the brightness and color of the base, the texture, 
and especially, to my eye, the neutral appearance of the inks on the 
paper.

EAM has really nice tonality and great blacks but I have come to not 
like the base color, which I find to be slightly greenish. Museo is a 
wonderful paper but too warm for my tastes for the majority of my 
work. You might like the Hahnemule Photo Rag, which is in between 
Museo and Eclipse Satine in brightness and warmth and is smoother 
than either.

Where did you get the SFA? Was it already cut down or are you cutting 
it from sheets or rolls yourself?

Martin Wesley


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Tom Keesling" 
<tom.keesling@a...> wrote:
> I'm still very new to both BW printing and the MIS VM inks, but I 
> thought I'd share what I found this morning when printing a photo 
> restoration image on various papers in WIN98SE on a 1280 printer.
> 
> I've never used EAM, so I probably steepened my learning curve 
> somewhat, but I'm making some progress. I don't know enough to give 
> much more than a general observation, but maybe that'll be helpful.
> 
> I'm printing a 1904 8x10 image that I scanned from a very good 
grade 
> of newsprint (vintage 1976), so print quality expectations were 
never 
> very high. However, I was pleasantly surprised at the quality of 
the 
> prints. 
> 
> I printed the image on Museo (250gsm), Epson SFA (425gsm), and 
> Brightcube Eclipse Satine 190 papers. I used the VMP8-MW8.acv curve 
> for all three prints and viewed them under an Ott-lite.
> 
> My least favorite of the three was the Eclipse Satine. Although I 
> like the paper (in part because it's quite a bit whiter than the 
> others), the blacks didn't look as deep as on the other two. Could 
> this be because of the combination of this warm curve and this 
bright 
> white paper? This paper did seem to show just a little more detail, 
> however. 
> 
> The Museo paper I think is just a little whiter than the Epson SFA, 
> but they're very close. The Museo image is a little sharper than 
the 
> SFA image, but not by much at all and the sky is less mottled 
(better 
> looking) in the Museo print.
> 
> Overall, the Museo print is the best of the three in this instance.
> I like all three papers and will continue to experiment with all 
> three. I've got plenty of Museo and Epson SFA to experiment with 
and 

> will order the Eclipse Satine when they get it stocked again. 
> 
> I hope this is helpful...
> 
> Tom Keesling
> Intelligent Design, Inc.

Martin,

I got the SFA from Atlantic Exchange in 24 x 30 inch sheets and then 
cut it as needed.

I didn't mention in my original post that I've ordered some Photo Rag 
and it should arrive today. I've been paying close attention to all 
the comments on the various papers on this list and on others. The 
positive comments on this paper prompted me to order the 17x22 sheets 
(I also have a 3000 printer) to try.

By the way, I am having a little trouble getting the thicker papers 
to feed into the 1280. But all I need to do is give the sheet a 
little assist as the printer begins the paper feed process. Once the 
printer has grabbed the paper, there's no problem, even with the SFA 
425gsm.

Also, I should have mentioned that I aligned the print heads for the 
SFA before making my prints and didn't readjust for the Eclipse or 
Museo papers. Based on this experience, I doubt that readjustment for 
the lighter-weight papers would have made any noticable difference. I 
had been concerned earlier that I'd have to realign the printer prior 
to each and every paper change. Apparently, my concern was unfounded.

Tom

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Martin Wesley" 
<mwesley250@e...> wrote:

> You might like the Hahnemule Photo Rag, which is in between 
> Museo and Eclipse Satine in brightness and warmth and is smoother 
> than either.
> 
> Where did you get the SFA? Was it already cut down or are you 
cutting 
> it from sheets or rolls yourself?
> 
> Martin Wesley
> 
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Tom Keesling" 
> <tom.keesling@a...> wrote:
> > I'm still very new to both BW printing and the MIS VM inks, but I 
> > thought I'd share what I found this morning when printing a photo 
> > restoration image on various papers in WIN98SE on a 1280 printer.
> > 
> > I've never used EAM, so I probably steepened my learning curve 
> > somewhat, but I'm making some progress. I don't know enough to 
give 
> > much more than a general observation, but maybe that'll be 
helpful.
> > 
> > I'm printing a 1904 8x10 image that I scanned from a very good 
> grade 
> > of newsprint (vintage 1976), so print quality expectations were 
> never 
> > very high. However, I was pleasantly surprised at the quality of 
> the 
> > prints. 
> > 
> > I printed the image on Museo (250gsm), Epson SFA (425gsm), and 
> > Brightcube Eclipse Satine 190 papers. I used the VMP8-MW8.acv 
curve 
> > for all three prints and viewed them under an Ott-lite.
> > 
> > My least favorite of the three was the Eclipse Satine. Although I 
> > like the paper (in part because it's quite a bit whiter than the 
> > others), the blacks didn't look as deep as on the other two. 
Could 
> > this be because of the combination of this warm curve and this 
> bright 
> > white paper? This paper did seem to show just a little more 
detail, 
> > however. 
> > 
> > The Museo paper I think is just a little whiter than the Epson 
SFA, 
> > but they're very close. The Museo image is a little sharper than 
> the 
> > SFA image, but not by much at all and the sky is less mottled 
> (better 
> > looking) in the Museo print.
> > 
> > Overall, the Museo print is the best of the three in this 
instance.

> > I like all three papers and will continue to experiment with all 
> > three. I've got plenty of Museo and Epson SFA to experiment with 
> and 
> > will order the Eclipse Satine when they get it stocked again. 
> > 
> > I hope this is helpful...
> > 
> > Tom Keesling
> > Intelligent Design, Inc.

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Tom Keesling" 
<tom.keesling@a...> wrote:
> Martin,
> 
> I got the SFA from Atlantic Exchange in 24 x 30 inch sheets and 
then 
> cut it as needed.

Tom,

Are you cutting it by hand or do you have a paper cutter large enough 
to handle it?

> I didn't mention in my original post that I've ordered some Photo 
Rag 
> and it should arrive today. I've been paying close attention to all 
> the comments on the various papers on this list and on others. The 
> positive comments on this paper prompted me to order the 17x22 
sheets 
> (I also have a 3000 printer) to try.

Let us know how you like it.
 
> By the way, I am having a little trouble getting the thicker papers 
> to feed into the 1280. But all I need to do is give the sheet a 
> little assist as the printer begins the paper feed process. Once 
the 
> printer has grabbed the paper, there's no problem, even with the 
SFA 
> 425gsm.

The heaviest I have used so far in the 1280 are the Eclipse Satine 
300gsm and velvet 350gsm. Both feed without any encouragement unlike 
my 1200 that needs a bit of a push. There seems to be a fair amount 
of variation in the transport on the desktop printers.
 
> Also, I should have mentioned that I aligned the print heads for 
the 
> SFA before making my prints and didn't readjust for the Eclipse or 
> Museo papers. Based on this experience, I doubt that readjustment 
for 
> the lighter-weight papers would have made any noticable difference. 
I 
> had been concerned earlier that I'd have to realign the printer 
prior 
> to each and every paper change. Apparently, my concern was 
unfounded.

I have not noticed any benefit to doing a realignment when changing 
papers. For the current print exchange I used Eclipse Satine 190gsm 
for working prints and then did the final prints on the 300gsm 
without a head alignment and I cannot see any difference. This is a 
really good thing because the head alignment procedure on the 1280 is 
very lengthy!

Martin

(snip)

Martin,

I'm cutting the SFA and other papers by hand at this point. I'm not 
doing enough printing yet to justify the purchase of a cutter. It's 
not the most efficient setup, but it gets me by for now. I'm putting 
some of my old architectural design tools to work that I've had for a 
few decades. Still haven't found a good use for my slide rule though!

I suspect there are a lot of other 1280 users out there who're 
relieved to know we don't need to realign the heads every time we use 
a different weight paper. I've never timed the process, but it must 
take 20 minutes or so. 

Tom Keesling

> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Tom Keesling" 
> <tom.keesling@a...> wrote:
But all I need to do is give the sheet a 
> > little assist as the printer begins the paper feed process. 


If it's any consolation, you also need to give it a bit of an assist 
even with the 7000. The 425 weight makes it just thick enough 
for the feeder to not grab it properly each and every time.

MT

After posting the following information, I received my box of 
Hahnemuhle Photo Rag paper. On Friday, I printed the same image as 
described below with the same vmp8-mw8.acv curve. I made no other 
modifications. For this image and this curve, the Photo Rag paper 
produces the best image. The paper is a little whiter and it prints a 
little warmer than the Museo. It's also a slightly sharper print than 
the Museo, but, using the loupe, I can see microbanding throughout 
the image. Despite this, it's the best print at a viewing distance of 
15-18 inches.

I made a print on the Photo Rag of the same image using the vmp8-
nc8.acv curve. Posterization was pretty bad but there was no banding 
whatsoever. I'm not sure what this indicates. I printed another photo 
restoration image using this same combination and there was neither 
posterization nor microbanding. This last image file's resolution was 
480dpi while the other image was 300dpi. I didn't alter the 
resolution of either prior to printing.

The bottom line is that the Photo Rag is looking like the best paper 
of the lot based on this limited testing. Museo is a very close 
second. I'll post again when I've done similar comparisons with 
another image or two.

Tom Keesling

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Tom Keesling" 
<tom.keesling@a...> wrote:
> I'm still very new to both BW printing and the MIS VM inks, but I 
> thought I'd share what I found this morning when printing a photo 
> restoration image on various papers in WIN98SE on a 1280 printer.
> 
> I've never used EAM, so I probably steepened my learning curve 
> somewhat, but I'm making some progress. I don't know enough to give 
> much more than a general observation, but maybe that'll be helpful.
> 
> I'm printing a 1904 8x10 image that I scanned from a very good 
grade 
> of newsprint (vintage 1976), so print quality expectations were 
never 
> very high. However, I was pleasantly surprised at the quality of 
the 
> prints. 
> 
> I printed the image on Museo (250gsm), Epson SFA (425gsm), and 
> Brightcube Eclipse Satine 190 papers. I used the VMP8-MW8.acv curve 
> for all three prints and viewed them under an Ott-lite.
> 
> My least favorite of the three was the Eclipse Satine. Although I 
> like the paper (in part because it's quite a bit whiter than the 
> others), the blacks didn't look as deep as on the other two. Could 
> this be because of the combination of this warm curve and this 
bright 
> white paper? This paper did seem to show just a little more detail, 
> however. 
> 
> The Museo paper I think is just a little whiter than the Epson SFA, 
> but they're very close. The Museo image is a little sharper than 
the 
> SFA image, but not by much at all and the sky is less mottled 
(better 
> looking) in the Museo print.
> 
> Overall, the Museo print is the best of the three in this instance.
> I like all three papers and will continue to experiment with all 
> three. I've got plenty of Museo and Epson SFA to experiment with 
and 

> will order the Eclipse Satine when they get it stocked again. 
> 
> I hope this is helpful...
> 
> Tom Keesling
> Intelligent Design, Inc.

Tom,

I thought youd' like the HPR. One of the top papers out there.

Martin

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Tom Keesling" 
<tom.keesling@a...> wrote:
> After posting the following information, I received my box of 
> Hahnemuhle Photo Rag paper. On Friday, I printed the same image as 
> described below with the same vmp8-mw8.acv curve. I made no other 
> modifications. For this image and this curve, the Photo Rag paper 
> produces the best image. The paper is a little whiter and it prints 
a 
> little warmer than the Museo. It's also a slightly sharper print 
than 
> the Museo, but, using the loupe, I can see microbanding throughout 
> the image. Despite this, it's the best print at a viewing distance 
of 
> 15-18 inches.
> 
> I made a print on the Photo Rag of the same image using the vmp8-
> nc8.acv curve. Posterization was pretty bad but there was no 
banding 
> whatsoever. I'm not sure what this indicates. I printed another 
photo 
> restoration image using this same combination and there was neither 
> posterization nor microbanding. This last image file's resolution 
was 
> 480dpi while the other image was 300dpi. I didn't alter the 
> resolution of either prior to printing.
> 
> The bottom line is that the Photo Rag is looking like the best 
paper 
> of the lot based on this limited testing. Museo is a very close 
> second. I'll post again when I've done similar comparisons with 
> another image or two.
> 
> Tom Keesling
> 
(snip)