From   Fri, 21 Mar 2003 16:44:23 -0800 remote from
fanciful.org
Received: by fanciful.org (Wildcat! SMTP Router v5.6.450.61)
          for photo{at}fanciful.org; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 16:44:23 -0800
Received: from saf.tzo.com ([140.239.225.181]) HELO=saf.tzo.com
          by fanciful.org (Wildcat! SMTP v5.6.450.61) with SMTP
          id 31508531; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 16:44:20 -0800
Received: from 216.174.194.56 by saf.tzo.com
 id 2003032119465053135 for photo{at}fanciful.org;
 Sat, 22 Mar 2003 00:46:50 GMT
Received: (qmail 24803 invoked from network); 22 Mar 2003 00:44:06 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO Carl?Cook.olywa.net) (64.42.74.21)
  by queue2.atgi.net with SMTP; 22 Mar 2003 00:44:05 -0000
Message-Id: 
X-Sender: clcook{at}mail.olywa.net
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2003 16:42:36 -0800
To: 
From: Carl Cook 
Subject: Re: Papers 'n' Stuff / Larry
In-Reply-To: 
References: 
 
 
 
 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed

Same here --

I want someone to see the image/content, not the process of it got there, 
hens a search for papers that bring images out to a semblance of what I see 
in my head when I created it in the first place -- just a fancy way of what 
we said in the darkroom of getting the best print possible. Dull paper=dull 
image, no matter how striking the content.  That's why I am so impressed 
with the papers listed below. They really do bring the image out to what I 
saw in my head and labored like a maniac to get to look good on the monitor.

Concur on the Luminos review. I have tried their sampler and was very 
unhappy with the results, although their matte finish paper looked OK, and 
I used it for a while for everyday stuff.  Prints made with this paper had 
almost zero longevity, a view shared by a couple of reviews I have read.

As someone who can be a quality freak when it comes to my prints, I simply 
want the best I can do for my  exhibit and sale prints, not to mention 
anything intended for publication. Personally, I prefer matte or 
semi-gloss, also known as lustre or E Surface (Kodak bw papers). I have 
never liked glossy prints, but that's just a personal thing. Epson's 
semi-gloss is a nice paper, the digital equivalent to the papers named 
here, but expensive.

I use Epson Heavyweight Matte for my everyday work, their Enhanced Matte 
for exhibit or sale prints -- though after the comparison I made between 
this paper and the ones mentioned elsewhere in this post, I will probably 
end up switching, at least for real critical stuff.

Epson's original name for Enhanced Matte, was "Archival Matte" until they 
found out it didn't meet archival standards.



At 04:14 PM 3/21/2003 -0700, you wrote:
>Carl Cook at clcook{at}olywa.net wrote:
>
> > On the digital printing front, I have tried a couple of papers out. One is
> > Digital Art Supply's Photo Rag 308, a thick very, very nice paper. The
> > images take on a real quality of elegance. The stuff isn't cheap at about
> > $1.50 a sheet.
> >
> > Also tried Somerset Velvet paper from Inkjet Mall :) Beautiful paper at
> > $31.50 for 25 sheets. Not cheap, but for work that needs a special touch,
> > or for prints for fine art exhibit or for sale, it seems worth it. I'm
> > hoping prices will come down on some of these gorgeous papers, but while
> > waiting, I will continue to breathe.
> >
> > Have you tried any of these "specialty" papers (as
opposed to the standard
> > Epson papers.
>
>I picked up a trial pack of papers from Luminos with a variety of surfaces.
>The glossy did not seem to have the kick of the Epson Premium Glossy, and
>the matte seemed dull in comparison to the Heavyweight Matte of Epson. More
>like thick bond paper. Of course, I don't have a profile for either, and I
>have no intention of squandering my time on sensitometry, developing
>profiles. The Pearl and Canvas, displeased me dreadfully - the surfaces call
>far too much attention to themselves. The viewer should see the content not
>the print.
>
>My prints are about content, not process. For photographs that look like
>photographs, Premium Glossy gives me the the unobtrusive surface that
>delivers my image without imposing anything else. I see in terms of this
>paper. If I am experimenting or doing some graphic treatment such as my soft
>pictoral stuff - http://www.larry-bolch.com/soft/ I prefer the matte.
>
> > I am now looking at two prints of the same subject, one on Epson Enhanced
> > Matte, and the other on the above mentioned Somerset Velvet. Like night
> > and day. The Epson print looks dull, while the subject on the other
> > almost jumps off the page. Velvet is more-or-less a matte paper.
>
>Yes, I see them on the Epson web site, but have not tried them. If I see
>them on the shelves I may check them out. I also use their Photo Paper as a
>utility paper. CD-ROM covers, test prints, handouts and the like.
>
>larry!
>ICQ 76620504
>http://www.larry-bolch.com/
>---------------------------------------------------------------------

e-mail: clcook{at}olywa.net
http://www.clcookphoto.com

--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5