Inkjet Paper Test
Inkjet Paper Test
- Subject: Inkjet Paper Test
- From: "Anthony Sanna" <email@hidden>
- Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2006 14:25:10 -0600
I tested 7 different papers on my 2200, trying to see which one came
closest to the dull-gloss of a photo C-Print. The papers were...
Epson Premium Glossy
Epson Premium Semi-Gloss
Epson Premium Luster
Epson Enhanced Matte
Ilford Gallarie Smooth Pearl
Crane Museo Silver Rag
Hahnemuhle Fine Art
...and I'm waiting for a Moab sample box to arrive.
The purpose of the paper test was to find a paper that worked well in a
portfolio of matted prints that will be viewed hand-held. There is no
intention that they will ever be framed or displayed in a fixed
position. At the beginning, I was trying to match the look of an old C-
Print, but inkjet and photo paper are two different animals. After
printing a variety of images with each paper, here's what I found...
The problem with all but two of the papers I tried was that they
achieved their "smooth", "luster", "pearl", or "semi-gloss"
characteristics by putting a texture on the paper surface - like Kodak's
old E-surfaced paper. Texture is 3-dimensional, and hand held, in just
about at any position with a spot light source, the texture reflects
light in all or some part of the print. My office has numerous spots,
but even backing into a corner with one light source didn't solve the
problem. Let me put it this way, even when you found a position where
the glare was gone, your hand would move a little or the matte would
bend slightly, and while you're looking at one part of the print, the
glare would start creeping into another, usually the corners. The more
diffuse the light, the less the problem. Under florescence, the over-
powering speckled affect gave way to a more semi-matte appearance.
Here's my totally subjective, not extensively tested, printed on a 2200
experience...
The Epson Glossy, very reflective, but smooth, could easily be moved out
of the glare, but not out of its extensive bronzing. It failed.
Epson's Semi-Gloss texture proved too reflective under both light
sources, and because of bronzing, it also failed. The Epson Luster was
just the worst, period. The Ilford Smooth Pearl, wasn't (smooth). It's
texture was objectionable, and it did show some bronzing, although less
than the Epson papers. Same for the Crane Museo. The best was the
Hahnemuehle Fine Art. Under diffuse light, it appeared totally matte,
and although the others fared better, as well, under diffuse light, like
fluorescence or daylight, the Hahnemuehle was the best. Also, the
Hahnemuehle showed the least amount of bronzing, and on the pictures
that I printed, I'd call it none at all.
But here's the surprise. Out of all the papers I tried, by far the best
for the actual "feel" of the image when matted and viewed hand-held, was
the Epson Enhanced Matte - the hands down winner. No bronzing at all,
and no barrier between the viewer and the image. Regardless of the
penalties in the shadows, the viewer saw all of the print and was able
to empathetically connect, if that's the right word for it, with the
image. Within my small, unscientific test panel, it was 100% for the matte.
For display, that's another matter. I'd have reevaluate what I've got
here, but in the meantime, I'll take a knock-out matte paper they'd
like to recommend?
Tony
--
Anthony R. Sanna
SACO Foods, Inc.
1-800-373-7226
email@hidden
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Colorsync-users mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden