Printing on Different Papers

[rpcrowe]

I am experimenting with the various papers that I presently have using my PIXMA iP8720 printer...

So far; I have tried making prints on Canon Photo Plus Glossy II, Kodak Gloss, a generic glossy paper from the office supply chain "Staples" as well as Epson Ultra Premium Photo Paper,

The best results have come from the Canon and Epson papers, decent results from the Staples paper and, bad results from the Kodak brand paper.

The Kodak printer doesn't print a continuous blue sky with this image...



The results of the sky on that paper are banded, rather than a continuous blue. I will try some more settings. This was the first of the prints that I experimented with and perhaps the fault is in user error

So far, I like the quality of the print using Epson Ultra Premium Luster paper best...

[Donald]

I was watching a piece by a professional in which he was talking about his favourite papers. He said that that the number one in deciding what paper to print on, every time, is 'where is thing going to be viewed?'. That before he looks at the print, assesses the tones, assesses how he wants the whites to look and anything else. Knowing the location (and therefore the light etc) where it is going to be viewed always comes first.

[Manfred M]

I have not seen any ICC profiles for either the Kodak or Staples papers. I know Epson does not supply any for Canon printers, so I wonder what you are using (I understand that there are some third party generated ones, but cannot tell you how good or bad they are).

The patchiness could attributed to the wrong profile settings.

How are you setting up your print jobs? What software are you printing from? Something does not look right in your workflow.

[Manfred M]

I was watching a piece by a professional in which he was talking about his favourite papers. He said that that the number one in deciding what paper to print on, every time, is 'where is thing going to be viewed?'. That before he looks at the print, assesses the tones, assesses how he wants the whites to look and anything else. Knowing the location (and therefore the light etc) where it is going to be viewed always comes first.

Absolutely correct, Donald. That is usually the most challenging part of printing, figuring out the light the image will be viewed under. Ideally, viewing a test print under those lighting conditions is the optimal way to go.

One well known, high end printer I've gotten to know quite well tells me that having been in the business for over 35 years, this is still one aspect of print making he sometimes struggles with.

[DanK]

Absolutely correct, Donald. That is usually the most challenging part of printing, figuring out the light the image will be viewed under. Ideally, viewing a test print under those lighting conditions is the optimal way to go.

One well known, high end printer I've gotten to know quite well tells me that having been in the business for over 35 years, this is still one aspect of print making he sometimes struggles with.

How would one know? In rare cases--e.g., printing for an exhibit in a location with controlled lighting--one may know. I don't know about others here, but such cases account for very little of the printing I do. I often don't know what sort of lighting will be used.

But to be honest, except in extreme cases, I don't know what I would do with the information if I had it because in many cases, I wouldn't be able to replicate other lighting conditions in my printing studio anyway.

[Manfred M]

How would one know? In rare cases--e.g., printing for an exhibit in a location with controlled lighting--one may know. I don't know about others here, but such cases account for very little of the printing I do. I often don't know what sort of lighting will be used.

But to be honest, except in extreme cases, I don't know what I would do with the information if I had it because in many cases, I wouldn't be able to replicate other lighting conditions in my printing studio anyway.

I will do several test prints and see what they look like where the print will be hung, before I do my final full-size prints.

[DanK]

That makes sense, if you know where it will be and have access when the lighting is as it will be. Unfortunately, I often don’t.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Manfred M]

That makes sense, if you know where it will be and have access when the lighting is as it will be. Unfortunately, I often don’t.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Most of my prints either go on the walls at home (easy to do here), are shown in local galleries or other public buildings (easy to get in and look at the lighting there) and in competitions (I just use the standard CAPA lighting specs at home with some lights in my office).

I've done an occasional print for others and will use a similar room in the house as a way of getting close.

[DanK]

What sorts of changes do you often make once you have done this?

One vexing part of this is lighting. It used to be that one had two main types, daylight and tungsten, and all tungsten bulbs had reasonably similar spectral distributions, in addition to similar WB. No longer. LEDs commonly come in 4 different nominal temperatures, 2700, 3000, 4000, and 5000K. Worse, even the ones with supposedly similar WB can look quite different because they have spikes and gaps in different parts of the spectral distribution. This is certainly true of cheap bulbs, but it can be true of good ones as well. For example, in one location, I have a Green Creative 15 degree spot mixed in with four Soraa BR30s, and seen together, the Green Creative is noticeably more yellow. And yet another complication: excepting very expensive ones, many LEDs show a shift in color balance when they are dimmed.

But even without that, in a setting with lots of windows, the WB changes dramatically between daytime and night because most interior lighting is at most 4000K.

And of course, if you put your prints up for sale, you have no idea where they will end up.

[Manfred M]

What sorts of changes do you often make once you have done this?

One vexing part of this is lighting. It used to be that one had two main types, daylight and tungsten, and all tungsten bulbs had reasonably similar spectral distributions, in addition to similar WB. No longer. LEDs commonly come in 4 different nominal temperatures, 2700, 3000, 4000, and 5000K. Worse, even the ones with supposedly similar WB can look quite different because they have spikes and gaps in different parts of the spectral distribution. This is certainly true of cheap bulbs, but it can be true of good ones as well. For example, in one location, I have a Green Creative 15 degree spot mixed in with four Soraa BR30s, and seen together, the Green Creative is noticeably more yellow. And yet another complication: excepting very expensive ones, many LEDs show a shift in color balance when they are dimmed.

But even without that, in a setting with lots of windows, the WB changes dramatically between daytime and night because most interior lighting is at most 4000K.

And of course, if you put your prints up for sale, you have no idea where they will end up.

Agreed Dan - I look at this from two different aspects.

1. Colour temperature - if the print is going to be displayed in a home and will normally be lit by daylight, I will generally stick with the colours I see on my calibrated / profiled computer screen. I might make some small adjustments if I know gallery style lights (3000K - 3500K) are going to be used.

Generally I let chromatic adaption work in my favour; and

2. The light level in the display area - this is the tough one because a print that is displayed in a dark corner of a north-facing room is going to be treated a lot differently in printing than a display print in a gallery-like setting that is going to be bombarded with a bright light source. Again, it's all about trying to come up with a print that will display well when people are going to look at it.

[Donald]

That makes sense, if you know where it will be and have access when the lighting is as it will be. Unfortunately, I often don’t.

Then, as the professional I watched stated, you imagine the worst type of situation as print on a paper that will help the image look at its best. You use the best 'General Purpose' paper that you have.

[DanK]

This is new to me, so I hope you'll bear with me as I ask a few more questions.

2. The light level in the display area - this is the tough one because a print that is displayed in a dark corner of a north-facing room is going to be treated a lot differently in printing than a display print in a gallery-like setting that is going to be bombarded with a bright light source.

How does this affect the choice of paper? My first reaction is that it would change how I handle tonality in editing--for example, I might brighten the print that is going into a dark setting and increase midtone contrast. But at least in the case of coated papers--the overwhelming bulk of my printing--I don't see how it would affect my choice of paper. With fine art paper, it might be a different matter because of differences in surface texture.

What I find can matter a good bit in dealing with varied settings is glazing. For example, I used to use UV-protective glass almost exclusively for long-term displays. However, it does add a slight color cast under certain conditions, so I now use plain glass for settings that will get very little daylight. Non-reflective glass, which I almost never use, can make an even bigger difference. I'm about to use it for a print that will hang in a location that has daylight (not direct sunlight) coming from almost 90 degrees, generating a lot of very annoying reflections.

Then, as the professional I watched stated, you imagine the worst type of situation as print on a paper that will help the image look at its best. You use the best 'General Purpose' paper that you have.

In some respects, this can arise under the best of circumstances, not just the worst: if a gallery takes some of your work. In that case, you can work to make the print look as you like it in the gallery, but galleries are business, and they take on photography in order to sell it. If they succeed, it can end up anywhere.

I don't have a "general purpose" paper, although I do have a paper that I would consider a default, in that I use it most of the time: Canson Baryta Photographique. I use it, however, not because it is a good general purpose paper, but because I consider it a good paper for several specific genres of prints that I make. IMHO, the type of image is the dominant consideration. I

[Manfred M]

How does this affect the choice of paper? My first reaction is that it would change how I handle tonality in editing--for example, I might brighten the print that is going into a dark setting and increase midtone contrast. But at least in the case of coated papers--the overwhelming bulk of my printing--I don't see how it would affect my choice of paper. With fine art paper, it might be a different matter because of differences in surface texture.I

The Dmax of the paper can make a difference, but in general this observation has more to do with how bright or dark you make your print.

I probably print a touch more on uncoated papers than coated papers, so it might impact my choices a bit more; in a darker display areas I might use a baryta rather than a cotton rag.

[DanK]

I probably print a touch more on uncoated papers than coated papers, so it might impact my choices a bit more; in a darker display areas I might use a baryta rather than a cotton rag

That makes sense to me. Since I print almost entirely in baryta papers (in large part because I am usually seeking to show detail), this is less of an issue for me. I presently have over a dozen prints on display, and all but one are on a baryta paper.

My use of uncoated papers is so limited that I am really unimaginative and don't take advantage of the huge variety of them. This is in part because it is very expensive to stock a bunch of different papers one almost never uses. Most of my prints on uncoated paper are on Canson Rag, which I stock in a few sizes.

[Manfred M]

That makes sense to me. Since I print almost entirely in baryta papers (in large part because I am usually seeking to show detail), this is less of an issue for me. I presently have over a dozen prints on display, and all but one are on a baryta paper.

My use of uncoated papers is so limited that I am really unimaginative and don't take advantage of the huge variety of them. This is in part because it is very expensive to stock a bunch of different papers one almost never uses. Most of my prints on uncoated paper are on Canson Rag, which I stock in a few sizes.

I have a number of different papers I go to, depending on the subject matter.

For the bulk of my work, I use cotton rag papers; generally Epson Hot Press Bright city scapes and architecture and Cold Press Bright for landscape work. I use Hot Press Natural and Cold Press Natural in my portraiture work (no OBAs, so the paper is slightly warmer toned). The main difference between the hot press and cold press is that the latter has a more textured surface. Those papers are what I use for about 60% of my work and Hot Press Bright is half of that with the other papers getting used more or less equally.

My "go to" paper when printing for others who just want prints is Epson's Ultra Premium Photo Luster, which doesn't resolve quite as well as the baryta papers, but has a similar surface and is about half the price.

When it comes to coated papers, I use Canson Baryta Photographique for about 30% of my prints. The final 10% I experiment with a host of other papers. I've used Epson Metallic Luster for some cosplay studies, Moab Slickrock for modern architecture and am playing around with several different Washi papers for some high key images I am working on.