Digital BW, The Print

I just got a box of this paper and ran a few B&W test prints today. I really like 
this paper.  It has a sheen that's somewhat less than luster or semi-matte, and 
is a "soft" sheen rather than highly reflective (if that make sense).  No 
"bronzing"/"gloss differential" that I can detect.  (I'm printing with Matte Black 
on the 4800).

It has a texture which seems to me to be heavier than ordinary Photo Rag 
(maybe's it's just the sheen that makes the texture look a bit more 
prominent?).  I don't mind the texture, but i think Hahn. should also come out 
with a smooth (no texture) version, as there are occasions where a textureless 
surface is called for.  

The blacks were nice and deep and the paper itself is quite thick and 
substantial feeling.

In short, this paper comes closer to an air-dried fiber glossy paper than any 
other inkjet paper I've used.

(Note that I only printed B&W; I'll try some color soon).

I agree with your observations and I also like this paper for most of my BW work.  
However, the texture does interfere somewhat in prints with large areas of deep black.  I 
also noticed a little ink rub off in 100% black areas, but spraying with printshield solved 
that problem.  I think the satin coating accentuates the paper texture, compared to regular 
photo rag.  I'm also using HPR Satin for color work and it performs very well.  I'm printing 
with an Epson 4000 and MIS UC inks.

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "chipcarterdc" 
<chipcarterdc@h...> wrote:

> I just got a box of this paper and ran a few B&W test prints today. I really like 
> this paper.  It has a sheen that's somewhat less than luster or semi-matte, and 
> is a "soft" sheen rather than highly reflective (if that make sense).  No 
> "bronzing"/"gloss differential" that I can detect.  (I'm printing with Matte Black 
> on the 4800).
> 
> It has a texture which seems to me to be heavier than ordinary Photo Rag 
> (maybe's it's just the sheen that makes the texture look a bit more 
> prominent?).  I don't mind the texture, but i think Hahn. should also come out 
> with a smooth (no texture) version, as there are occasions where a textureless 
> surface is called for.  
> 
> The blacks were nice and deep and the paper itself is quite thick and 
> substantial feeling.
> 
> In short, this paper comes closer to an air-dried fiber glossy paper than any 
> other inkjet paper I've used.
> 
> (Note that I only printed B&W; I'll try some color soon).

Hi Carl,
Which particular "print shield" are you using? Do you use this with 
the regular Photo Rag as well?  

Anyone spraying standard Photo Rag prints done with the BO process? 
If so, what type of results are you getting?
Thanks,
David

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Schofield" 
<scho@m...> wrote:
> I agree with your observations and I also like this paper for most 
of my BW work.  
> However, the texture does interfere somewhat in prints with large 
areas of deep black.  I 
> also noticed a little ink rub off in 100% black areas, but spraying 
with printshield solved 
> that problem.  I think the satin coating accentuates the paper 
texture, compared to regular 
> photo rag.  I'm also using HPR Satin for color work and it performs 
very well.  I'm printing 
> with an Epson 4000 and MIS UC inks.
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "chipcarterdc" 
> <chipcarterdc@h...> wrote:
> > I just got a box of this paper and ran a few B&W test prints 
today. I really like 
> > this paper.  It has a sheen that's somewhat less than luster or 
semi-matte, and 
> > is a "soft" sheen rather than highly reflective (if that make 
sense).  No 
> > "bronzing"/"gloss differential" that I can detect.  (I'm printing 
with Matte Black 
> > on the 4800).
> > 
> > It has a texture which seems to me to be heavier than ordinary 
Photo Rag 
> > (maybe's it's just the sheen that makes the texture look a bit 
more 
> > prominent?).  I don't mind the texture, but i think Hahn. should 
also come out 
> > with a smooth (no texture) version, as there are occasions where 
a textureless 
> > surface is called for.  
> > 
> > The blacks were nice and deep and the paper itself is quite thick 
and 
> > substantial feeling.
> > 
> > In short, this paper comes closer to an air-dried fiber glossy 
paper than any 

> > other inkjet paper I've used.
> > 
> > (Note that I only printed B&W; I'll try some color soon).

Hi Carl,
Which particular "print shield" are you using? Do you use this with 
the regular Photo Rag as well?  

Anyone spraying standard Photo Rag prints done with the BO process? 
If so, what type of results are you getting?
Thanks,
David

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Schofield" 
<scho@m...> wrote:
> I agree with your observations and I also like this paper for most 
of my BW work.  
> However, the texture does interfere somewhat in prints with large 
areas of deep black.  I 
> also noticed a little ink rub off in 100% black areas, but spraying 
with printshield solved 
> that problem.  I think the satin coating accentuates the paper 
texture, compared to regular 
> photo rag.  I'm also using HPR Satin for color work and it performs 
very well.  I'm printing 
> with an Epson 4000 and MIS UC inks.
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "chipcarterdc" 
> <chipcarterdc@h...> wrote:
> > I just got a box of this paper and ran a few B&W test prints 
today. I really like 
> > this paper.  It has a sheen that's somewhat less than luster or 
semi-matte, and 
> > is a "soft" sheen rather than highly reflective (if that make 
sense).  No 
> > "bronzing"/"gloss differential" that I can detect.  (I'm printing 
with Matte Black 
> > on the 4800).
> > 
> > It has a texture which seems to me to be heavier than ordinary 
Photo Rag 
> > (maybe's it's just the sheen that makes the texture look a bit 
more 
> > prominent?).  I don't mind the texture, but i think Hahn. should 
also come out 
> > with a smooth (no texture) version, as there are occasions where 
a textureless 
> > surface is called for.  
> > 
> > The blacks were nice and deep and the paper itself is quite thick 
and 
> > substantial feeling.
> > 
> > In short, this paper comes closer to an air-dried fiber glossy 
paper than any 

> > other inkjet paper I've used.
> > 
> > (Note that I only printed B&W; I'll try some color soon).

I use the PremierArt PrintShield spray.  No, I do not use any sprays  
on regular Photo Rag or other matte papers.

Carl

On Jun 20, 2005, at 11:18 PM, David Sinai wrote:

> Hi Carl,
> Which particular "print shield" are you using? Do you use this with
> the regular Photo Rag as well?
>
> Anyone spraying standard Photo Rag prints done with the BO process?
> If so, what type of results are you getting?
> Thanks,
> David
>
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Schofield"
> <scho@m...> wrote:
>
>> I agree with your observations and I also like this paper for most
>>
> of my BW work.
>
>> However, the texture does interfere somewhat in prints with large
>>
> areas of deep black.  I
>
>> also noticed a little ink rub off in 100% black areas, but spraying
>>
> with printshield solved
>
>> that problem.  I think the satin coating accentuates the paper
>>
> texture, compared to regular
>
>> photo rag.  I'm also using HPR Satin for color work and it performs
>>
> very well.  I'm printing
>
>> with an Epson 4000 and MIS UC inks.
>>
>> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "chipcarterdc"
>> <chipcarterdc@h...> wrote:
>>
>>> I just got a box of this paper and ran a few B&W test prints
>>>
> today. I really like
>
>>> this paper.  It has a sheen that's somewhat less than luster or
>>>
> semi-matte, and
>
>>> is a "soft" sheen rather than highly reflective (if that make
>>>
> sense).  No
>
>>> "bronzing"/"gloss differential" that I can detect.  (I'm printing
>>>
> with Matte Black
>
>>> on the 4800).
>>>
>>> It has a texture which seems to me to be heavier than ordinary
>>>
> Photo Rag
>
>>> (maybe's it's just the sheen that makes the texture look a bit
>>>
> more
>
>>> prominent?).  I don't mind the texture, but i think Hahn. should
>>>
> also come out
>
>>> with a smooth (no texture) version, as there are occasions where
>>>
> a textureless
>
>>> surface is called for.
>>>
>>> The blacks were nice and deep and the paper itself is quite thick
>>>
> and
>
>>> substantial feeling.
>>>
>>> In short, this paper comes closer to an air-dried fiber glossy
>>>
> paper than any
>
>>> other inkjet paper I've used.
>>>
>>> (Note that I only printed B&W; I'll try some color soon).
>>>

Yeah, I thought that the "textured sheen" might be more obtrusive in prints 
with large areas of smooth continuous tones (deep black, a person's face, 
etc).  That's why I'd love to see a smooth version of this paper.   They now 
have "regular" (textured) Photo Rag and "smooth" Photo Rag, so hopefully it's 
just a matter of time before they have a smooth and textured version of Photo 
Rag Satin too (I hope).  

I'd also love to see a lower price -- $250 for a 50 sheet box of 17x22 is pretty 
expensive.  Rolls are cheaper, of course, but I don't relish the thought of trying 
to de-curl a paper this thick.

Despite all the above, I probably will go ahead and buy a 17x20 box because, 
for at least certain images, this paper is tough to beat.

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Schofield" <
scho@m...> wrote:
 
> However, the texture does interfere somewhat in prints with large areas of 
deep black.

>> Rolls are cheaper, of course, but I don't relish the thought of trying
to de-curl a paper this thick.


I use Photorag 308 exclusively in rolls, and decurling it is incredibly easy
and only requires one try. No special tools or ingenious techniques required
(just a small bit of imagination).

Michael Gordon
www.mgordonphotography.com

Do tell more Michael. We're always looking for new tricks to de-curl  
rag papers.
I primarily use Arches Infinity. Some lots are easy, some not so.
Maybe I should get one of those D-rollers from Jimmy D?

John Toles
www.dragonflyprinting.com

P.S. I enjoyed your website. Makes me want to visit CA.

On Jun 21, 2005, at 4:33 PM, Michael E. Gordon wrote:

>>> Rolls are cheaper, of course, but I don't relish the thought of  
>>> trying
>>>
> to de-curl a paper this thick.
>
>
> I use Photorag 308 exclusively in rolls, and decurling it is  
> incredibly easy
> and only requires one try. No special tools or ingenious techniques  
> required
> (just a small bit of imagination).
>
> Michael Gordon
> www.mgordonphotography.com


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I use the print roller thing from Shades of Paper (I'm too lazy or busy to
come up with my own solutions on how to flatten paper) - works great.

Anyway, I have a question. Has anyone used the Photo Rag Satin with Piezo
inks? I am not getting a good result.

Wendel

> Do tell more Michael. We're always looking for new tricks to de-curl
> rag papers.
> I primarily use Arches Infinity. Some lots are easy, some not so.
> Maybe I should get one of those D-rollers from Jimmy D?
> 
> John Toles
> www.dragonflyprinting.com
> 
> P.S. I enjoyed your website. Makes me want to visit CA.
> 
> On Jun 21, 2005, at 4:33 PM, Michael E. Gordon wrote:
> 
>>>> Rolls are cheaper, of course, but I don't relish the thought of
>>>> trying
>>>> 
>> to de-curl a paper this thick.
>> 
>> 
>> I use Photorag 308 exclusively in rolls, and decurling it is
>> incredibly easy
>> and only requires one try. No special tools or ingenious techniques
>> required
>> (just a small bit of imagination).
>> 
>> Michael Gordon
>> www.mgordonphotography.com
>

So, does this paper really display no bronzing or gloss differential?

I tried the Premier Imaging version of this paper, which looked promising,
but the bronzing was awful

I'm not willing to fork out for a box of 50 sheets from Lexjet just to find
out (and apparently Lexjet did some deal to buy up the whole first run from
Hahnemuhle, so no one else has any yet...)


tim

I've never been entirely clear on the difference between "bronzing" 
and "gloss differential."  Regardless: the printed areas are reflective 
and the paper is textured; therefore, the texture is more apparent when 
viewed under strong light from an oblique angle.  But, not bad and 
nothing I would characterize as bronzing (by which I mean, different 
portions of the printed surface having a different amount of sheen than 
other parts, or certain parts looking as if they're on a 
different "level" of the paper surface).  So, in other words, it looks 
nothing like glossy prints from the 2200 etc using Photo Black.

My only wish is that they made a non-textured version of this paper.

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Timothy Atherton" 
<tim@K...> wrote:
> So, does this paper really display no bronzing or gloss differential?
> 
> I tried the Premier Imaging version of this paper, which looked 
promising,
> but the bronzing was awful
> 
> I'm not willing to fork out for a box of 50 sheets from Lexjet just 
to find
> out (and apparently Lexjet did some deal to buy up the whole first 
run from

> Hahnemuhle, so no one else has any yet...)
> 
> 
> tim

I would not call that "bronzing" at all.  I think the common use of the term
bronzing is to describe the metallic brown or bronze colour that appears on
prints (largely only photo paper prints) when tilted to the light.  It is a
big problem on UC prints on photo paper, was reduced by gloss optimimzer and
is virtually irrelevant with the new k3 inks on photo paper.

> From: chipcarterdc <chipcarterdc@...>


> bronzing (by which I mean, different
> portions of the printed surface having a different amount of sheen than
> other parts, or certain parts looking as if they're on a
> different "level" of the paper surface).

When printing out, since my photo¹s are in 300 - 360 dpi
then print out a straight 720 dpi should cover it??

did hear some talk, that 720 dpi would be divide by 4 cartridges
so that would be 180 dpi for each, if this being true,
should I up it to a straight 1400x1400 dpi?

Using Gimp-Print C84 and not the standard epson driver (C86 )


Richard

The printing dpi and input file dpi are somewhat different animals.  With
the C86, you might want to go to the highest printing dpi possible.

(I'm not sure is this is what you were talking about, but ...)

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Richard
> Nagle
> Sent: Friday, June 24, 2005 8:58 PM
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [Digital BW] C86 dpi issues ???
> 
> When printing out, since my photo¹s are in 300 - 360 dpi
> then print out a straight 720 dpi should cover it??
> 
> did hear some talk, that 720 dpi would be divide by 4 cartridges
> so that would be 180 dpi for each, if this being true,
> should I up it to a straight 1400x1400 dpi?
> 
> Using Gimp-Print C84 and not the standard epson driver (C86 )
> 
> 
> Richard
> 
> 
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other resources as
> they are often being updated.
> 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> 
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to
> unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same
> page.
> 
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
> them short.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames.
> Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the
> membership without notice.
> - Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W
> printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be removed from
> the membership.
> - By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and
> guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group Owner
> and Moderators. See “Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines” in the Files
> section:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/
> 
> BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT
> YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE “OWNER” AND
> “MODERATORS” OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO
> YOU FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR
> EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF
> PROFITS, GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE
> “OWNER” AND “MODERATORS” OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN
> ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE
> OR THE INABILITY TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii)
> UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii)
> STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT
> YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE
> PRINT YAHOO GROUP.
> 
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
> 
> 
> 
>

>> So, does this paper really display no bronzing or gloss differential?


I'd say that the gloss diff. is virtually nil, and I would call it
'silvered' before I'd call it typical bronzing. The satin finish projects a
silvery sheen that is visible when viewed at an angle. As stated by others,
the texture is a little greater than regular PR and seems to be exaggerated
by the silvery finish.

Not better than or worse than regular PR; just different.

Michael
www.mgordonphotography.com

>> Do tell more Michael. We're always looking for new tricks to de-curl
rag papers.


Like I said, very remedial.

I use an old roll core to which I've affixed Renaissance paper with
acid-free tape. Simply place the print face up on the Ren. paper and start
rolling. Works great every time.

I'm too low-tech and cheap to come up with a more elegant solution, and
there's no need to because this works perfectly.

Michael Gordon
www.mgordonphotography.com

I think I saw a semigloss print from a 2400 today, at calumet 
photographic in san diego. They have 4 in boxes, and one set up on a g5
They also have a 4800 in a huge box. And a 4000 in a huge box. There 
was no sign of prices or anything like that. There were some test 
prints laying about and one was a B/W on semigloss that looked real 
good. Not significantly different than my Ut2/glop set-up. About 
exactly the same. There was the tinyest amount of gloss differential, 
but the inks had a very nice subtle sheen. Just about like Glop. As I 
said yesterday the matte prints near the machine looked just like my 
ut2 on matte.
Still there seemed to be no attempt at selling these printers. All 
around the display every sign was oriented toward selling their new 
brand of paper, and no mention of these brand new printers that were 
sitting right there. Almost bizarre. Two day ago, when I asked about 
them the guy walked away, saying that they might be able to special 
order a 2400, but I would have to pay upfront. I think he was unaware 
that they have 4 in boxes sitting right there....weird huh?

P.S.....I also asked about hahnemule Photo rag satin and the lady 
looked it up and said it was not listed in their books. She took my 
email and said she would check it out. That was a few days ago