From   Fri, 21 Mar 2003 15:15:59 -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 15:15:59 -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 26204281; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 15:15:56 -0800
Received: from 199.185.220.221 by saf.tzo.com
 id 2003032118181292139 for photo{at}fanciful.org;
 Fri, 21 Mar 2003 23:18:12 GMT
Received: from computer ([66.222.145.239])
          by priv-edtnes10-hme0.telusplanet.net
          (InterMail vM.5.01.05.17 201-253-122-126-117-20021021) with SMTP
          id

          for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 16:15:38 -0700
Message-ID: 
From: "Larry N. Bolch" 
To: 
References: 




Subject: Re: PhotoSIG/Rich
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2003 16:14:30 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
 charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106

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/

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