The Great Paper Chase

Gordon Tarling said:

Fotografer - you have been VERY busy haven't you? Whilst I don't
use and HP printer (Epson - sorry!) reading the results of your
extensive tests hase been most enlightening and very useful. I've
just about settled on the Ilford Classic pearl paper for my own use
when I want high quality output and I was please to read that your
results concurred. One thing I have noticed with this paper is
that the surface always feels very slightly tacky, even after being
allowed to dry for a long time. This tackiness makes the prints
stick in the archive sleeves which I use, but they are easily
removed and don't seem to leave any marks in the sleeve. Perhaps
it's just the combination of this paper and the Epson inks which
causes this effect - would you care to comment?
--
Gordon Tarling

Click to expand...

HP papers use a swellable coating on their paper substrate, this coating absorbs the inks and then seals the dyes in the coating. This is effectively like a laminating process, thereby taking away any gas or air fade problems, this is what gives the HP papers their long life. Canon and Epson uses porous papers, the coating acts like a sponge and aborbs the inks through millions of tiny holes. Canon and Epson papers dry almost instantly, but the holes are still open to air polutants.

Have fun.
--
Vincent Oliver - editor of photo-i

Hi Richard,

Richard W said:

Thanks, they might be interesting to try out. I did try a pack of
HP a year or so ago which was very similar to Kodak paper on the
Canon - can't remember the exact type as I gave it to my father to
use on his old HP.

Click to expand...

You'll receive 2 pcs of HP PPPP Glossy (240gsm), 2 pcs of HP PPPP Matte (240gsm) and 2 pcs of HP PPPP Glossy (280gsm). I will write to you privately soon...

Richard W said:

I may have to rethink this. My comments were based largely on
comparing Canon PPP and the PGPP last year when I found it to give
the closest match to Canon. I've used a lot of Canon PPPG that I
got cheap earlier this year recently instead of PGPP. I've tried
the Ilfords on and off, and Fuji of late and while good I'm not
blown away by them. Anyway I printed something today on Fuji Satin
and then on Epson PGPP and the PGPP was actually more grainy in
solid areas. I probably need to try again as I used profiles with
them and as such they will have been printed non-identically.
Also, there were some regularly spaced lines on the PGPP which I've
rarely seen which made me suspicious of ink lag or having used a
lower quality setting.

Click to expand...

Gordon will saying more like Ilford Smooth gives very fine grain performance with Canon, more so than PGPP. But I think it's more than grain management. I know Smooth Pearl gives weaker Dmax than, say, Epson Premium Semigloss Photopaper. I am not sure if the same applies to Canon inks on these two papers...

Richard W said:

(2nd row of Photo Cyan, 7th column - marginally down)

Click to expand...

I thought the nozzle checks look largely okay?!

Richard W said:

Anyway I decided to wash the printhead in case there was an
imminent clog. Used isopropyl alcohol and water and of course it
didn't clear it but clogged several other nozzles instead! I bet
debris builds up and all I did was loosen it allowing it to clog
the nozzles! Recleaned it several times but I have a single magenta
clogged line which I cannot clear ever.

Click to expand...

Gosh!

Richard W said:

After this I thought what the hell and tried some 3rd party ink
refills (selectafont). Now they're not bad at all, but not
infrequently I will get occasional dropouts on nozzle checks - I'd
never had this or had to run a cleaning cycle myself in 15 months
until I 'cleaned' the printhead. The moral of this is obvious - if
it ain't broke don't fix it.

Click to expand...

Hmm. I must agree...

Richard W said:

In addition to the single clog I cannot clear, I get contamination
of some colours on nozzle checks which goes after doing a test
print on copier paper (the ink is cheap so you don't mind).

Click to expand...

The good thing about Canon series printers, you can so easily get refills it's the most economical way if you are printing in bulk.

Richard W said:

I'll check to see if I've got any Ultima left and I could send you
some if you like - think I bought it half price too or on a bogof
offer.

Click to expand...

Good. I will get in touch with you soon. I may apply for a p. o. box soon as Chris said it may be soon that people would like to see printer to printer comparison, and he said it's best if they can download the original file we used (with USM 70,0.7,1) with Photoshop (not Qimage). Thanks for the offer, whether you eventually find the Ultima papers or not...

Richard W said:

It's these damn offers isn't it! You think to yourself that's
cheap if it works ok, but often it's just so so and a waste of
money/ink.

Click to expand...

Yes, Ultima is definitely an anti-climax. Ilford Printasia was a pleasent surprise, however, with my ps7150 (see review above). I didn't expect them to do so well, better than HP PPPP stocks.

Richard W said:

I'll do a direct comparison on the Canon and on the Epson with both
and see I think. On the Epson grain formation is much less of a
problem with non-Epson papers because it prints so slowly!

Click to expand...

Well, my HP prints slowly by all standards, but the Canon PPP fed with it still pools! I don't know WHY?!

Richard W said:

As much as I love the Canon printers and despair of the Epson's
clogging (without any help from me I might add!), I have come to
the conclusion in recent months that I just about prefer prints
from the Epson on PGPP to prints on the Canon on Canon papers.

Click to expand...

Hmm. It makes me more and more itching to find takers who will print with their Epson sp950/960 from the test file Chris and I use to make comparison...

Richard W said:

You're talking about the new HP papers here, yes?

Click to expand...

No, I was talking about Canon PPP on the ps7150. I didn't expect nanoporous papers to pool, especially when HP printer prints much slower than the Canon ones.

Richard W said:

I'll try and see if I've got any Ultima left to send you. I could
also send you a few sheets of these if you're interested:

Canon Photo Paper Plus Glossy
Standard Canon Glossy
Canon Matte
Epson Heavyweight Matte

Click to expand...

Richard, you are MOST kind. But each the papers I try I might need at least 3 A4s per type. One to be printed for longevity estimate (to be sent to Bill Waterson), two to test printer setting, and for tweaking, if necessary. To be honest, I am rather intrigued by the Canon series papers (even though I had not-so-good impression with PPP). May I write you a cheaque if you don't mind providing three of each papers you've offered? I will send you six or nine HP PPPP series papers for you to try on your Canon s900 and Epson 1290...

--
Fotografer
...like, a total himbo

Hi Gordon,

Gordon Tarling said:

BTW - I have considered fixative spays before, but have shied away
from their use due to the difficulties of obtaining an even,
dust-free, coating. I may give them another try though.

Click to expand...

Frankly, I don't like fixative spray myself. I am looking into photographic feel of an inkjet paper, and fixative spray just makes them so fake, I might as well just buy normal inkjet paper to print on! But that's my take, of course, I know some professionals use fixative sprays to great success. I have read studio photographers use glossy fixative spray to heighten the paper gloss to give an even more glamorous look to their works... Sounds strange to me, but then again, I am no studio photographer myself.

--
Fotografer
...like, a total himbo

Hi,

There is one addition to the methodology that I forgot to mention, which is rather 'important' one.

The scanjet 5400C tends to oversaturate colours in their normal scan mode. I used the scanner for profiling PP targets with my cp1700 and attempted with 7150 (the latter wasn't successful with PP), and everytime I have to scan at 75% saturation (default 100%) to desaturate before I get down to less than 5 Xs.

All the scans you see are at 90% saturation , this way the colours weren't able to 'cover up' grain formation.

So, if you are scanning your targets (see link below) for comparison with HP scanjets, remember to lower down the saturation to 90% (10% less from default 100%) and you'll be able to see more grains for more profitable comparison/assessment.

--
Fotografer
...like, a total himbo

Fotografer,
what can I say?? Just another great and useful source of info for us hp owners.
Thanks a lot for your time and effort.

My big concern now is to find the ilford paper for a great deal as the one that you mention in your post, with shipping in the rest of euorpe.
Do you know of any??
Thanks,
gio

--
See my gallery at http://131.155.68.83/index.htm

Gio,

Unfortunately I don't know. If you check the web link above, do you see if 7dayshop allows shippment to other parts of Europe? If not, then perhaps a search on google in your area might yield some results. I mean the Ilford paper is manufactured in Switzerland. So I am assuming other parts of Europe should have this papers on the (internet) shelves somewhere.

Giovanni Russello said:

what can I say?? Just another great and useful source of info for
us hp owners.
Thanks a lot for your time and effort.
My big concern now is to find the ilford paper for a great deal as
the one that you mention in your post, with shipping in the rest of
euorpe.
Do you know of any??

Click to expand...

--
fotografer

...the great paper chase! (see http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1003&message=5683956 )

Check this link out and see if they apply to you: http://www.ilford.com/html/us_english/prod_html/galerie/htm/dealer.asp

--
fotografer

...the great paper chase! (see http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1003&message=5683956 )

fotografer said:

Unfortunately I don't know. If you check the web link above, do you
see if 7dayshop allows shippment to other parts of Europe?

Click to expand...

Unfortunately, they do not ship outside UK.

fotografer said:

then perhaps a search on google in your area might yield some
results.

Click to expand...

I tried and most of the stuff comes from US. The expense for the sending are equivalent to the paper price.

fotografer said:

I am assuming other parts of Europe should have this papers on the
(internet) shelves somewhere.

Click to expand...

I hope so. I asked just if you or someone else knows about a reliable shop with good price.
Thanks again.
gio.

--
See my gallery at http://131.155.68.83/index.htm

Gio,

Giovanni Russello said:

I hope so. I asked just if you or someone else knows about a
reliable shop with good price.

Click to expand...

Have you checked out the Dealer Locator link? I don't recall one in Holland, but you might get some dealer from Austria or Germany to do overseas shippment at reasonable price...

Do consider other papers, Epson ones, though relatively expensive, are keepers, especially the three I have reviewed here...

--
fotografer

...the great paper chase! (see http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1003&message=5683956 )

Ah, I just printed this test image on ODPHGP paper using 5 OEM inks and 1 Photo Magenta refill ink from Inkjet Goodies. Of course, using my i950 and my Nashua's settings.

I did it on 4x6 borderless with leftmost extension.

The outcome of the print, discarding the white lines on the border due to not enough expension for borderless print was: AMAZING... no more tweaks are needed. I could not ask better than that! I could not believe that a 600dpi native resolution image will look so good on a 4x6 print.

Nashua.

fotografer said:

Please follow this link to download the image:
http://www.pbase.com/image/19613265

Warning, this is a large image file, but it's not compressed at
jpeg level 12 (which would be 4.2MB), but at level 10 (thus file
size is smaller at 1.7MB), so some very slight image degradation is
present.

I may upload the 'original' level 12 jpeg file in the future...
Yes, it's the same file I used to print for this paper review.

--
Fotografer
...like, a total himbo

Click to expand...

--
Nashua Night Hawk

fotografer said:

Do consider other papers, Epson ones, though relatively expensive,
are keepers, especially the three I have reviewed here...

Click to expand...

Sorry I think that I didn't express myself clear. I can buy in a local dealer the ilford paper. As you can imagine, the price is higher that the one you can find on the net (19 Euro for 25 sheets).

Well maybe I will go for that. I need this paper because I'll be shooting the wedding of one of my friends. And as present I want to give them album with the pictures of the wedding. I like the Smooth Pearl paper but I do not want that after 5 years the picuters start to fading. Of course I understood that Printasia would be better (warmer skin tone) but I cannot find them here.

So in the end I choose to go for the Classic Pearl, print at 4800 mode, two pictures of 13x18 per sheet.
What do you thing??
--
See my gallery at http://131.155.68.83/index.htm

Good for you, Nashua!

Just for you to look for in these test images, besides the color accuracies (though one refill against all OEM may not be very telling in terms of color accuracies - or tweaking), is to see if the prints showed any signs of printer struggling with giving artifact-free prints at causal viewing and close viewing. Of course, if you don't view your prints close and never do so, then forget about looking for those things. This 600ppi file was, however, conceived in hope of those who would like to see exactly what are the limits of the printer (if any), and how to perhaps optimise them as such.

BTW, which mode did you print your 4x6 with? The default slider 2 mode or the slider one highest res mode?

Did you use Qimage? Or PS or some other programme?

Nashua_Hawk said:

Ah, I just printed this test image on ODPHGP paper using 5 OEM inks
and 1 Photo Magenta refill ink from Inkjet Goodies. Of course,
using my i950 and my Nashua's settings.

I did it on 4x6 borderless with leftmost extension.

The outcome of the print, discarding the white lines on the border
due to not enough expension for borderless print was: AMAZING... no
more tweaks are needed. I could not ask better than that! I could
not believe that a 600dpi native resolution image will look so good
on a 4x6 print.

Click to expand...

--
fotografer

...the great paper chase! (see http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1003&message=5683956 )

Gio,

Giovanni Russello said:

Sorry I think that I didn't express myself clear. I can buy in a
local dealer the ilford paper. As you can imagine, the price is
higher that the one you can find on the net (19 Euro for 25 sheets).

Click to expand...

Wow. That's quite expensive for the 25pcs Ilford.

Giovanni Russello said:

Well maybe I will go for that. I need this paper because I'll be
shooting the wedding of one of my friends. And as present I want to
give them album with the pictures of the wedding. I like the Smooth
Pearl paper but I do not want that after 5 years the picuters start
to fading. Of course I understood that Printasia would be better
(warmer skin tone) but I cannot find them here.
So in the end I choose to go for the Classic Pearl, print at 4800
mode, two pictures of 13x18 per sheet.
What do you thing??

Click to expand...

I think it's the best in terms of giving long-lasting prints. I don't understand 13x18, though, I am assuming you mean centimetre, not inches. Because the printer width cannot go beyond 8.5 inch.

--
fotografer

...the great paper chase! (see http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1003&message=5683956 )

fotografer

fotografer said:

Wow. That's quite expensive for the 25pcs Ilford.

Click to expand...

Yes I know!!

fotografer said:

I think it's the best in terms of giving long-lasting prints. I
don't understand 13x18, though, I am assuming you mean centimetre,
not inches. Because the printer width cannot go beyond 8.5 inch.

Click to expand...

Yes I think so too. Even If I belive that the Smooth Pearl could last longer than 5 years in a album. But better to be sure.
13x18 is in cm.

Looking forward to for a new wide and true bordless hp printer based on photoret IV.

--
See my gallery at http://131.155.68.83/index.htm

Gio,

I have to say ONE thing. The 4.2 years estimate is 'display' life, and I specifically said under room illumination of 275lux of average 8 hours exposure. If it's kept in albums, then it would be more than 5 years, definitely.

I have prints done in Photoret II inks (no.23, not known for longevity at all), in some mitsumishi (spelling?) nanoporous papers, and they are still fabulous in albums.

BUT, the display ones, even under glass, has undergone visible color shifts, not drastic, but noticeable. So perhaps if they decide to display the prints, then the Classic series from Ilford is still your best bet.

Good luck!!!

Giovanni Russello said:

Giovanni Russello said:

Wow. That's quite expensive for the 25pcs Ilford.

Click to expand...

Yes I know!!

Giovanni Russello said:

I think it's the best in terms of giving long-lasting prints. I
don't understand 13x18, though, I am assuming you mean centimetre,
not inches. Because the printer width cannot go beyond 8.5 inch.

Click to expand...

Yes I think so too. Even If I belive that the Smooth Pearl could
last longer than 5 years in a album. But better to be sure.
13x18 is in cm.

Looking forward to for a new wide and true bordless hp printer
based on photoret IV.

--
See my gallery at http://131.155.68.83/index.htm

Click to expand...

--
fotografer

...the great paper chase! (see http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1003&message=5683956 )

Ah... I was printing with high (slider 2 mode, I may modify all Nashua's Settings profiles to Custom wiht highest res mode 1 and using diffusion. I printed with Qimage.

I will try the same test again with custom settings.

Nashua

fotografer said:

Good for you, Nashua!

Just for you to look for in these test images, besides the color
accuracies (though one refill against all OEM may not be very
telling in terms of color accuracies - or tweaking), is to see if
the prints showed any signs of printer struggling with giving
artifact-free prints at causal viewing and close viewing. Of
course, if you don't view your prints close and never do so, then
forget about looking for those things. This 600ppi file was,
however, conceived in hope of those who would like to see exactly
what are the limits of the printer (if any), and how to perhaps
optimise them as such.

BTW, which mode did you print your 4x6 with? The default slider 2
mode or the slider one highest res mode?

Did you use Qimage? Or PS or some other programme?

Click to expand...

--
Nashua Night Hawk

Nashua,

Nashua_Hawk said:

Ah... I was printing with high (slider 2 mode, I may modify all
Nashua's Settings profiles to Custom wiht highest res mode 1 and

using diffusion. I printed with Qimage. I will try the same test again with custom settings.

Click to expand...

You may get even better results with the highest res mode!

--
fotografer

...the great paper chase! (see http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1003&message=5683956 )

Ah, I am now drowned with more prints of this test imge.

I printed it 3 times.

1) Res mode Hi, 2 on the slide AND the left most slide on the borderless expansion.

2) custom Res mode 1, 1 on the slide, diffusion mode, AND the left most slide on the borderless expansion.

3) custom Res mode 1, 1 on the slide, diffusion mode, AND the second left most slide on the borderless expansion.

Print #2 compared to 1:

Almost identical to 1. Maybe a hair line sharper. But I can not tell by my naked eye. if I swtich the print #1 and print#2, I could not figure out which is which. Now the question, is the default hi is the same as mode 1 or mode on the custom slide? Should I stick with the default hi, or use the custom mode 1 with diffusin mode? PLEASE, what is your prefered choice?

Print #3 compared to 1:

The first I noted that print#3 and due to expansion slide, fine hair lines are messed up. That is not good!. Those are equi spaceed lines. On print 3, they are not. Conclusion, for best image quality, do not use borderless print or use the left most expansion tick. PLEASE, what do you think?

Also, I noticed some banding in the bottom colors patches, Why? one time effect I do not know.

Thanks for the feedback.

fotografer said:

Nashua_Hawk said:

Ah... I was printing with high (slider 2 mode, I may modify all
Nashua's Settings profiles to Custom wiht highest res mode 1 and

using diffusion. I printed with Qimage. I will try the same test again with custom settings.

Click to expand...

You may get even better results with the highest res mode!

--
fotografer
...the great paper chase! (see
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1003&message=5683956 )

Click to expand...

--
Nashua Night Hawk

Nashua,

Very interesting observations!

Nashua_Hawk said:

1) Res mode Hi, 2 on the slide AND the left most slide on the
borderless expansion.
2) custom Res mode 1, 1 on the slide, diffusion mode, AND the left
most slide on the borderless expansion.
3) custom Res mode 1, 1 on the slide, diffusion mode, AND the
second left most slide on the borderless expansion.

Click to expand...

I am not all too familiar the details of the settings i950. Chris, who is commenting privately to me said that the highest mode (slider 1) gives the best results, with less evidence of banding than the default slider 2 setting (hi mode?). But Chris has very sharp eyes, so that's that maybe...

Nashua_Hawk said:

Print #2 compared to 1:
Almost identical to 1. Maybe a hair line sharper. But I can not
tell by my naked eye. if I swtich the print #1 and print#2, I could
not figure out which is which. Now the question, is the default hi
is the same as mode 1 or mode on the custom slide? Should I stick
with the default hi, or use the custom mode 1 with diffusin mode?
PLEASE, what is your prefered choice?

Click to expand...

I think let most slide of the borderless expansion simply means there is not expansion to overbleed the prints beyond the paper edges. So this means there is no printer upsampling, so the hairline sections are not affected. Even with slight interpolation will ruin the exact 600 ppi designed hairlines on the left of the test chart.

It's interesting that you can't tell the print #2 and #1 apart. Apparently #2 is done in the highest res mode (from the way you described it) while #1 is the default hi-mode. Chris seems to see the difference. Hmm... I will report back once I receive his prints (he has not contacted me since last week)...

Nashua_Hawk said:

Print #3 compared to 1:
The first I noted that print#3 and due to expansion slide, fine
hair lines are messed up. That is not good!. Those are equi spaceed
lines. On print 3, they are not. Conclusion, for best image
quality, do not use borderless print or use the left most expansion
tick. PLEASE, what do you think?

Click to expand...

Yes, I am assuming that left most borderless option means there is no printer upsampling to overbleed the image beyond the paper edges. So with no hardware upsampling, the 600 ppi equi-space lines are properly printed.

Nashua_Hawk said:

Also, I noticed some banding in the bottom colors patches, Why? one
time effect I do not know.

Click to expand...

You mean only #3 shows banding? At highest res mode? Hmm, that's strange. I would have thought the slider 2 print (your #1 sample?) should be the one showing the banding, even if slight.

--
fotografer

...the great paper chase! (see http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1003&message=5683956 )

fotografer said:

Please follow this link to download the image:
http://www.pbase.com/image/19613265

Warning, this is a large image file, but it's not compressed at
jpeg level 12 (which would be 4.2MB), but at level 10 (thus file
size is smaller at 1.7MB), so some very slight image degradation is
present.

I may upload the 'original' level 12 jpeg file in the future...
Yes, it's the same file I used to print for this paper review.

--
Fotografer
...like, a total himbo

Click to expand...

Fotografer,

This is excellent stuff, is your research available to download?

Question: I have a 7350, Sony digicam 3Mp, I'm going to get 602 v shortly.

What is the best way to get great looking prints in simple terms. ie as a rule I just print in Hp director at supposedly std dpi ie 72. Should I rsize my 2/3Mp photos down to 6x4, 7x5 etc and increase the dpi, ie 300+?

Will this yield better results. Like a lot of people I sometimes wonder If it's worth the bother. Note I currently are using Ilford, HP and Fuji papers, although the Fuji one is multijetb 210gsm. Thus far I'm not impressed with it as it always seems to smudge/at the top of the page, have tried cleaning the heads etc but still does it?

Tameside