High Quality Digital Photographic Printing at Home
Friday, May 04, 2007
This interesting blog post about Z3100 mentions this HP article describing proper procedure for using custom (non-HP) papers with Z3100. The interesting part of the post to me was the mention of Crane Museo Max as the best matte and Hahnemuhle Fine Art Pearl as the best semi-gloss paper they tried. In their experiments, Crane Museo Max clearly beat out Epson Ultrasmooth Fine Art (which is what I used so far). I should try both of these papers.
Monday, April 23, 2007
K&S in Palo Alto recommended the following two places for local framing needs:
University Art: Palo Alto Store www.universityart.com
267 Hamilton Ave, Palo Alto, 94301 - (650) 328-3500
Accent Arts
www.accentarts.com392 S California Ave
Palo Alto, CA 94306
(650) 424-1044
Palo Alto, CA 94306
Of these two places, University Art got really good reviews, and Accent Arts got terrible
reviews. Thus, even though AA quoted me lower prices for dry mounting than UA did,
I am going with University Arts.
University Art recommended (by phone) Jungle Digital Imaging on High Street in Palo Alto for printing needs.
Dale Cotton's Framing tutorial lists the following two methods of attaching the print to the backboard, of which only the first has the property of covering the full area of the print:
3M Photo Mount Spray Adhesive
3M Photo & Document Mending tape
I believe the full area needs to be used, because otherwise, with time, the print will start
to bend. This is likely to be true especially in my case, since I plan to not use matting. I am considering using this as an alternative to dry-mounting.
Thursday, April 19, 2007
The plan is to hang 23 photographs around the house, most printed in pretty large size. After a lot of thinking, I decided to dry mount, frame, but not matte them, and present naked (no glass). Matte is mostly needed to keep the glass separated from he photograph, and I would rather have the photographs take up extra space (by being larger) than have the matte eat it up. Also, this will save costs. I don't see how to avoid dry-mounting or framing.
After a visit to Zyt Gallery on San Antonio in Los Altos, my wife and I decided to order the frames on the internet -- Zyt Gallery quoted us absolutely exuberant prices. It looks like PictureFrames.com is going to be place the order them. Their web site has width and rabbet size for each frame, but, alas, no lip size (the part of the frame that intrudes on the photograph). A phone conversation with them revealed that the majority of their frames have 1/4" lip (on each side). This means that if you were to order a 10"x8" frame from them, its opening would actually be 9.5"x7.5" (since 1/4" x 2 would be taken from each dimension). They also specify dimensional tolerance at 1/8". Initially, I was planning to play with the numbers and to have the lip of the frame eat up less of the space of the photograph. But, given the size I am going to print at, 1/4" eaten on each side should not be a big deal, whereas the peace of mind that nothing but the photograph will be visible is important to me. Ergo -- I will do exactly what they suggested, and order the frames sized exactly by the size of the "picture" in the photograph, i.e., the printed portion, and ignore the white border portion. Further, I will instruct the dry-mounting place to cut off all of the white border before mounting. In fact, just to be safe, it may be a good idea to get the dry-mounted prints back before ordering the frames, so that the measurements communicated to the frame shop are the exact measurements of the dry-mounted and cut photographs.
Next task -- finding a place to inexpensively dry-mount and count 23 large size photographs.
Wednesday, March 07, 2007
I have just calibrated and profiled Epson UltraSmooth Fine Art paper again on Z3100 with the latest 4.1.0.2 firmware. I believe I forgot to do the calibration step last time, or, perhaps, something else went terribly wrong, but my previous attempt to use this paper has been a complete disaster. This time, I calibrated before profiling. I used Paper Type: Fine Art Material/Fine Art Paper because the HP PDF listed it as a paper type they "improved" the dark and saturated reds gamut in the firmware update.
The results:
- Images with out of gamut colors (Photoshop softproof) show fewer OOG colors than with HP Hahnemuhle Smooth Fine Art (specifically mentioned in the list of improved papers in the PDF).
- In every respect, images look at least as good on Epson UltraSmooth as on the HP Hahn Smooth FA paper -- I can't tell DMax (max contrast) difference, for instance. Both, however, have noticeably lower DMax than either HP Pro Gloss or HP Pro Satin.
- The one key image that shows a lot of OOG areas on both of these matte papers (though about 1/2 to 2/3 less on Epson than on HP Hahn), prints on both with what seems like a noticeable magenta cast (with, possibly, a slight cyan cast). Epson version is better though.
Since my wife and I find gloss unacceptable with anything that hangs on the walls, we plan to matte/frame everything printing on matte papers and displaying naked, without glass in front. This will, undoubtedly, diminish the life of the images, but they will have a good life :-)
By the time they noticeably deteriorate, I expect to have even better printing technology available. For instance, I expect flat-screen technology to reach a point relatively soon when it will make more sense to hang a "TV" instead of a "photograph" -- matting/framing a large image costs several hundred dollars, and, coupled with the fact that a display can show many images, rotating them, it may be a better investment than several large framed photographs.
The key reason why I am going to standardize on Epson UltraSmooth paper is because it is much less fragile than HP Hahnemuhle, and has much less noticeable texture. To me, texture is an all-or-nothing proposition. I either don't want to see it at all, or I want to see huge amounts of it, like on some exotic papers, where it becomes part of the composition. Hahnemuhle "Smooth" Fine Art paper is not smooth enough for me -- the texture feels like manufacturing defects. And it flakes like crazy... Almost as bad as Hahnemuhle Photorag.
Sources of Epson UltraSmooth Fine Art 24"x50' rolls from PriceGrabber.com. The model number of this roll is S041782.
Monday, March 05, 2007
Of the matte papers listed in the PDF by HP detailing latest firmware fixes, only HP Hahnemuhle Smooth Fine Art Paper satisfies my needs. HP Professional Matte Canvas is too thick and ink flakes off of it. Hahn SFA is warm, but has good DMax. (All of this info is off of forums). Until the firmware is fixed and I can start using Epson UltraSmooth Fine Art paper again, I am ordering a roll of Hahn SFA. It is VERY expensive -- 24"x35' roll costs $105-$135, depending on where you order it, and it is out of stock everywhere I looked by at HP. HP graciously included free 1-day shipping, but at $135 + tax, and considering it's 35' and not 50', this is almost 2x more expensive than HP Pro Satin, which is not a cheap paper by any means.
It is my current understanding that HP branded Hahn SFA differs from Hahn branded SFA, and that current HP firmware only supports HP branded version. The part number is Q8732A.
Correct part number for the HP Z3100 Paper Spindle 3" Adaptors: Q1271-60629 and can be ordered directly from HP.
Sunday, March 04, 2007
Recommended matting/framing shops around Palo Alto, CA:
University Art, 267 Hamilton Ave., Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 328-3500
Great American Framing Shops, 229 Hamilton Ave, Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 327-4521
Zyt Gallery, 923 N San Antonio Rd, Los Altos, CA 94022, (650) 949-2866
Fast Frame, 371 State St, Los Altos, CA 94022, (650) 949-3278
This PDF explains the changes introduced by Z3100 firmware 4.1.0.2. Apparently, HP ID Satin paper was fixed, but HP Pro Satin was not. Until I get the extra spindles, I am too lazy to change
the roll to the Pro Satin which I just got and test it out. I am satisfied that the problem can be fixed in the firmware, so I can wait for HP to fix it. In the mean time, I will be printing on HP Premium Instant Dry Gloss (that comes with the printer), learning how to optimize images for 24" wide output.
Now that I am prepared to print to hang on the walls, and not just for experiments, I need to find a good local framing/matting shop. First, however, I'd like to learn a bit about framing and matting, to make sure I make good decisions. Here are tutorials I have read:
Norman Koren's Framing and Matting tutorial, which has a link to LightImpressions, who sell custom cut matts. (Which still leaves one with the work of attaching print to matt, and framing it)
Matting and Framing Crash Course by Dale Cotton
Friday, March 02, 2007
Updated to 4.1.0.2 (latest) firmware. Recalibrated/reprofiled Epson UltraSmooth Fine Art paper, and printed about 7 test prints. All looked terrible -- washed out, cyanish tint, all colors unsaturated. Disaster! Photoshop Soft Proof confirms/predicts the result, and out of gamut preview shows about 1/3 of the area of prints being OOG. Changed paper to HP Premium Gloss Instant Dry. Soft Proof looks very similar to the original, nothing is OOG, and prints look great. HP Professional Satin roll has just arrived. It has a good chance to become my "standard" paper, especially if matte gamut problems are not resolved by HP. At this point, despite being unable to print on matte paper, I am a happy camper. Oh, and B&W looks completely neutral, whether printed in Monochrome or Color mode. Fantastic!
Sunday, February 25, 2007
I posted a question on LLForum about the source of 3" spindle adapters. I could not find them anywhere for sale, whereas there are a number of places to buy extra spindles.
A sort of blog on LLForum by an early Z3100 adaptor with paper and usage recommendations. Of particular interest, are his recommendations for Epson Premium SemiMatte Photo Paper (250gsm), which he recommends to calibrate using SemiGloss/Satin media setting, and which he claims is pretty much the same as HP Professional Satin but is much cheaper. Also, he recommended Pictorico High Gloss White Film (213gsm) for high-gloss paper, but warned it is very expensive. What he said was a little ambiguous, and it is possible he believes HP Professional Satin is still a little better. Not to mention the native advantage.
Another problem some had with Z3100 has been the so called Zebra Stripes. This post at LLForums links the the HP article explaining this issue. It would seem that it boils down to either very low humidity or to incorrectly chosen media type. The good news is that this problem is very hard to miss (unlike the deep reds problem, which many people missed).
There is a good possibility that, for a time being, Z3100 is not going to be optimal for printing on matte media. I think it is very likely either HP or some third-party RIP will solve the dark reds on matte problem, but it may take a while. In the mean time, I want to print. It seems people are getting excellent results (though I am yet to confirm this myself, of course) with glossy and satin HP stock with Z3100, and, in particular, HP Professional Satin (Q8759A) looks like a good candidate paper. It seems like a better candidate than HP Premium Instant Dry Satin Photo Paper. The differences between them are explained in this Luminous Landscape Forums post. I plan on going to Keeble & Shuchat Photography to check out the different papers. Maybe I can tolerate a little gloss -- after all, it does yield higher DMax. HP Pro Satin can be bought here in 24" rolls.
After a long pause, the saga continues. I have just gotten HP Z3100 24". Primarily, this decision was based on great Luminous Landscape review, a couple other reviews, $1,000 rebate going on currently (hope it fairs better than my other attempts to get a rebate), and theoretical objective facts, the primary one being the built-in spectrophotometer.
Despite its size and weight, the printer was very easy to put together, and I prefer its ability to roll on its own feet to the Epson 4000 I used before, which had to have a dedicated large-size chest a its support.
Of course, as with any other new product, there are problems. The most notable problem (discussed in this Luminous Landscape Forums thread) is the lack of saturation in dark reds on matte papers. Supposedly, the problem is either much less severe, or absent, on glossy and satin media. Currently, it's not clear whether this is caused by the way the printer mixes colors, or by the ink set itself. The former cause can be eliminated in software (firmware). HP is supposed to come out with a new firmware and driver version in late February.
One of the posters figured out that choice of paper type matters, despite the built-in profiling. This is likely because the printer lays down different quantities of ink depending on specified paper stock. He got much better results with "Litho" and "Super HW coated" media types than with "HP photo matte".
Since I have not yet put together the new Photoshop machine (to replace my old, dead one), I can't do any experimenting of my own. I was able to profile the printer, but the color patches printed for profiling did not have saturated dark reds, and I don't know whether this is by design, or because the printer is unable to produce them (in this setting). I am using Epson UltraSmooth Fine Art paper, of which I had 17" roll lying around for a while now.
Saturday, June 26, 2004
This post on Yahoo DigitalBlackAndWhiteThePrint group suggested that Epson recommends using Printer ICC: Off and Color Controls/Automatic Mode in driver setup for printing B&W. I tried it, and indeed, the resulting B&W gray wedges and Tanya III came out much more neutral (almost ideally neutral), compared to the output produced by configuring the driver for No Color Adjustment and using the the supplied printer profile. While I find this aesthetically disturbing, I'll take the superior (in neutrality) results produced in this way over the highly-non-neutral results of the more "kosher" way of doing things any day.
Further, other posts on the group suggested that B&W prints on Epson 4000 (apparently, those folks used the No Color Management setup as I did, and then used the printer-supplied profile in the printing software) are very far from neutral, in contrast to what Luminous Landscape review stated.
Friday, June 25, 2004
Thursday, June 24, 2004
Epson 4000 came.
Installation woes:
Epson has updated driver, some additional software, and firmware on the site. I downloaded it all, but the instructions in the zip files are not valid (i.e., they tell you to use Control Panel Add/Remove section
to remove the old driver, but the driver does not show up there). I first installed the supplied-CD version
of the software (Driver versoin 5.30), and then installed the updated driver (5.34). Unfortunately, this resulted in the Epson Monitor (which shows ink levels) disappearing from the icon set at bottom right of the screen (where the clock lives). Further, when I print from QImage now, the ink levels are NOT displayed. This is very irritating, but I guess it is better to have the latest driver.
Tests I have done so far:
* Bronzing on Premium Luster Paper:
Present as on R800 w/o using gloss optimizer. This is expected.
* Gray wedges on Enhanced Matte and Premium Luster.
Far from neutral, possibly worse than R800 in this regard. Strong magenta cast in upper midtones, and strong cyan cast in lower midtones/shadows. Very disappointing, especially in lew of Luminous Landscape description of the B/W results from default Epson 4000 profile being very neutral. The paper choice hand little to no effect on this.
* Choosing highest quality and slightly lower quality (e.g., trying with/without SuperX microweave).
No perceptible difference.
* Comparing 1440dpi (max for Epson Enhanced Matte paper) and 2880dpi (max for Epson Premium Luster Paper)
The resolution of the latter is preceptibly better than the former, but this is probably only visible because I used extremely fine detail test pattern, and is unlikely to be easily detectable in a regular photo print.
Admittedly, this is not a very thorough test.
* Printing BO (Black Only) gray wedge.
It is not neutral -- it has a warm cast, and the dot pattern, especially in highlights (as predicted) is quite noticeable. However, at least the cast is uniform, which is far preferable for the ugly non-uniform casts of my gray wedge test above.
* Printing BO (Black Only) B/W photograph.
Horrible results. The print looks completely washed out, with extremely low tonal resolution, i.e., patches of gray showing up where on display there are numeous clearly discernable shades of gray. Unless I am doing something terribly wrong, therefore, BO printing more is unusable.
Friday, June 18, 2004
Justin at Digital Art Supplies (877-534-4278) was very helpful in answering my questions about different kinds of paper, roll vs. sheet, etc., in preparation for my soon-to-arrive Epson 4000.
* They will have Epson Ultra Smooth in 17" rolls in a couple weeks (or so says Epson).
* Epson Ultra Smooth has a much better Dmax than Epson Enhanced Matte. In fact, it holds up well when compared with such Dmax monsters as Hahnemuhle Photorag 308, though it is admittedly a little weaker.
* Roll is much more economical when printing custom size prints, but sheets are actually easier when one needs to print out lots of same-size photos, e.g., 8"x10".
* The heavier the roll paper (e.g., Photorag 308 is much heavier than Photorag 188) the harder it looses its curl after being printed.
* Light weight paper has a good chance to loose its curl during the printing, and if not, will do so after sitting out on a flat surface for a while, possibly under weight.
* Hahnemuhle 188 and 308 are not different in any way other than weight. Same goes for Epson Ultra Smooth different weights.
Based on this information, as well as multiple recommendations of Epson Ultra Smooth by others, primarily due to its excellent Dmax and no flakiness, I have decided to standardize on Epson Ultra Smooth. This will mean, alas, some wait, until it becomes available (I have about 100 sheets of Photorag in 8.5x11 to keep me busy till then), but is definitely the way to go because:
1) I don't want to deal with flakiness.
2) Photorag is more expensive, especially when not on sale.
3) I want to use Epson brand paper (smaller likelyhood of problems).
4) I can order custom spectrophotometer-based profile made for it.
Sunday, March 28, 2004
Thursday, March 25, 2004
Saturday, March 20, 2004
Friday, March 19, 2004
InkJetArt tips on Hahnemuhle Photorag handling, mounting prints, etc.
Framing tools and info site Framing4Yourself.com
Spraying prints and Out-Gassing advice by Blair Arts Editions
Wednesday, March 17, 2004
I have recalibrated my monitor, and I now have a serious problem. I am pretty certain I did not have it before, but I am only about 95% sure. The problem is that the images look consistent via Internet Explorer and BreezeBrowser (by which I mean that I can't tell the difference between an image I uploaded to pbase as viewed via Internet Explorer, and one on my machine when viewed via BreezeBrowser), but different from what I see in Photoshop. Not hugely different, but somewhat different. I tested this on several images, and it is consistently so. Also, I have very carefully gone over Photoshop Color Management menu, including advanced options, and made sure everything was set as I believe it should be set. Further, I made sure the images have sRGB embedded profile, which is my working Photoshop profile. Alas, none of this helped. I just received the latest version of Real World Photoshop CS, and decided to reread color management section, on the off-chance I am doing something wrong. For now, at least for my quadtone and photo paper experiments, I don't really suffer terribly badly from thus strangely-miscalibrated visual system, but this definitely needs to be fixed before I return to any serious Photoshop work.
I printed Natalia V on a 4"x6" Hahnemuhle Photo Rag 308 (I got 200 sheets of this wonderful paper in this tiny size for proofs), and was totally blown away -- dynamic range is incredible -- the blacks have to be seen to be believed! Now I am a total convert to matte, and understand what the fuss on all the groups about Photo Rag 308 is all about.
Received Cathy's profile for Epson Premium Luster I have ordered a while back. Cathy is a real pleasure to deal with! I should have used faster shipping method to get the targets to her faster. The good news is that the color prints are a little more neutral, and the B&W prints are a LOT more neutral (than with the Epson-supplied profiles). The bad news is that the B&W prints are still not ideally neutral, which is pretty noticeseable on a 21 step and 100 step gray scales I printed, but less noticeable on the actual prints. It becomes almost completely unnoticeable if the print is not ideally neutral (the original pixel info, I mean) but toned, and is pretty much a non-issue when printing duo, tri, and quadtones (which I am getting into lately). The profile works about equally well for Epson Premium Luster (for which it was made), Epson Premium Semi-Gloss, and Epson Premium Glossy papers. It is completely unusable with Epson Enhanced Matte (quite naturally).
I resolved to ignore the slight non-neutrality of the profile on B&W stuff (it is totally unnoticeable on color photographs) since in the near future I will be experimenting with quadtones for B&W, and different papers, in preparation for Epson 4000. When it arrives (judging by the current back-log, it is likely going to take months, may be even as long as 1/2 a year), I should be ready with a choice of paper, some experience printing quadtones, and, hopefully, lots of experience anticipating what a print will look like corresponding to the image on a calibrated monitor.
