Spectroscan question for Mark McCormick

Guillermo Shashte said:

Ref: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/28006600

Mark McCormick wrote:

Guillermo Shashte said:

but my image permanence tests and other QC tests require repeated measurements of the same target over long periods of time. The Spectroscan (especially the newer purple units, earlier ones were green) has proven itself to inflict little or no physical damage to the color patches and be amazingly repeatable of very long periods of times (years).

Click to expand...

Mark, you posted this a long time ago. Got me an older Teal SpectroScan and it was barely moving. After lubrication and belt tensioning it runs as well as a newer SpectroScan T Lilac (also serviced by me).

I wonder if the difference you noted in your comment could have been caused by excessive vibration (a loose belt and poor lubrication)?

Click to expand...

It has been a while! I retired my Spectroscan from my image permanence work a few years ago, but still make ICC profiles with it. The bulb is starting to dim so it fails to calibrate sometimes, but then makes it on a second or third try. xRite EOLed these units quite a while ago, so I don't know where I'd get a new bulb, and even if I did, I'm not sure there isn't an internal calibration step that xRite probably wouldn't publish. Maybe there's a retired employee somewhere that might Know how to service it. I don't know. Anyway, it has served me well.

If I recall correctly, the teal versions had a nylon bearing used to lift the head up and down which broke or deteriorated quickly. Xrite improved the design of this part for the purple models. That said, it's a part one could probably replicate easily enough when the time comes, thus if you have your teal unit working well now, I say go for it! It's still a good unit.

Can't say the same for my i1Pro2 unit. xRite just EOLED that model, too, and wanted over $1K to service with only two weeks left for me to take them up on it before the EOL designation obsoleted it. i1Pro3 just seems hopelessly too expensive for photographers wanting to do the occasional ICC paper profile. That leaves the Calibrite (colormunki) model, which frankly isn't in the same league in terms of professional use unless you don't mind slugging your way through Argyll software. Argyll gives the old Colormunki a lot more capability than the Calibrite software offers, but you gotta love command line programming to use it, and that's a bridge too far for me these days!.

It seems my best bet is to find a working i1Pro 2 or 3 on Ebay, but that's easier said than done. People will let them go cheap when they don't have the matching calibration tile which of course is critical, and when I see one that's complete, the used unit is barely discounted from retail. Might as well by a new one.

Good luck with your Spectroscan. I still think the spectrolino/spectroscans are superb instruments.

kind regards,
Mark

--
Mark McCormick

Mark McCormick said:

Guillermo Shashte said:

Ref: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/28006600

Mark McCormick wrote:

Mark McCormick said:

but my image permanence tests and other QC tests require repeated measurements of the same target over long periods of time. The Spectroscan (especially the newer purple units, earlier ones were green) has proven itself to inflict little or no physical damage to the color patches and be amazingly repeatable of very long periods of times (years).

Click to expand...

Mark, you posted this a long time ago. Got me an older Teal SpectroScan and it was barely moving. After lubrication and belt tensioning it runs as well as a newer SpectroScan T Lilac (also serviced by me).

I wonder if the difference you noted in your comment could have been caused by excessive vibration (a loose belt and poor lubrication)?

Click to expand...

If I recall correctly, the teal versions had a nylon bearing used to lift the head up and down which broke or deteriorated quickly. Xrite improved the design of this part for the purple models. That said, it's a part one could probably replicate easily enough when the time comes, thus if you have your teal unit working well now, I say go for it! It's still a good unit.

Can't say the same for my i1Pro2 unit. xRite just EOLED that model, too, and wanted over $1K to service with only two weeks left for me to take them up on it before the EOL designation obsoleted it. i1Pro3 just seems hopelessly too expensive for photographers wanting to do the occasional ICC paper profile. That leaves the Calibrite (colormunki) model, which frankly isn't in the same league in terms of professional use unless you don't mind slugging your way through Argyll software. Argyll gives the old Colormunki a lot more capability than the Calibrite software offers, but you gotta love command line programming to use it, and that's a bridge too far for me these days!.

It seems my best bet is to find a working i1Pro 2 or 3 on Ebay, but that's easier said than done. People will let them go cheap when they don't have the matching calibration tile which of course is critical, and when I see one that's complete, the used unit is barely discounted from retail. Might as well by a new one.

Good luck with your Spectroscan. I still think the spectrolino/spectroscans are superb instruments.

kind regards,
Mark

Click to expand...

What do they do when you send a i1Pro for service?


I1 Pro Rev D

I see nothing there that can be serviced/calibrated. Well, may be replace a part like the cap but that will be a repair. How is the Spectro initially calibrated? My guess is that they use a precision instrument to read a lot of calibration tiles. After the instrument is built the value for the specific tile is saved in ROM. If the white tile has drifted they could again read the value and save the new value. (Recalibration)

If you read the white tile with the paired instrument, the value should be about the same that was stored in ROM.

You can then use a recently calibrated instrument to check if it reads about the same value as the paired instrument. Another test could be to read a Color Checker. The reference file for the old classic Color Checker is installed with Profilemaker 5. I used that one to check my i1 Pro Rev A.

Mark McCormick said:

It has been a while! I retired my Spectroscan from my image permanence work a few years ago, but still make ICC profiles with it. The bulb is starting to dim so it fails to calibrate sometimes, but then makes it on a second or third try. xRite EOLed these units quite a while ago, so I don't know where I'd get a new bulb, and even if I did, I'm not sure there isn't an internal calibration step that xRite probably wouldn't publish. Maybe there's a retired employee somewhere that might Know how to service it. I don't know. Anyway, it has served me well.

Click to expand...

If you were running the SpectroScan without the white tile recalibrated for years and you were satisfied with the readings, I would say that for some applications like printer profiling is not critical to have the instrument recalibrated as long as you take good care of the tile.


mag 3 cell hk 17k

The teal SpectroScan came with this spare lamp. (mag 3 cell hk 17k)

It looks almost identical to this one:

https://flashlightsunlimited.com/images/MagLite/WhiteStarBulbs.jpg

https://flashlightsunlimited.com/magbulbs.htm#MagLite White Star Krypton Bulbs

It is discontinued, maybe you can find a NOS somewhere or a replacement with the same ouput and CRI.

You can use an i1 Pro with Eye-One Share to check the CRI of the lamp.

I deduct from the Spectrolino manual section "3.4.1.1 Absolute white calibration" that no factory recalibration is needed after a lamp replacement. So, a similar lamp may work if the Spectro is able to recalibrate itself with the white tile.

looking...

Ebay is you best friend, I see a couple of NOS MAG 3 Cell Krypton bulbs and also some NOS 3 cell MAG flashlights.



--
GS

Mark McCormick said:

Can't say the same for my i1Pro2 unit. xRite just EOLED that model, too, and wanted over $1K to service with only two weeks left for me to take them up on it before the EOL designation obsoleted it. i1Pro3 just seems hopelessly too expensive for photographers wanting to do the occasional ICC paper profile.

Click to expand...

Mark, thank you for all your hard work creating the Light Fade Test Database . It's invaluable to new printers trying to make sense of ink and papers. The big surprise to me is how well RC papers hold up. RC paper lifespan seem significantly better than Canson Infinity Platine Fibre which is the paper I've liked best so far in terms of colour, looks and feel, using the Canson profile on a Canon Pro-300. Canson Infinity Photo Lustre looks almost as good as Platine Fibre, costs half as much and lasts twice as long.

In your opinion what is the least expensive and reasonably accurate way to do one's own profiles? Or is there a service you'd recommend? I'm based in Europe, but in principle the service could be worldwide (one just has to mail an A4 sheet) to the team making the profile.

In terms of out of the box profiles from well-known paper brands, Canson Infinity is great. Ilford profiles have been awful with drabby results twhich gave me a very poor notion of the quality of their papers. Switching Ilford Galerie Premium Duo Matt to a Permajet PhotoMatt 240 profile made a night and day difference, bringing IGPDM prints almost up to the level of Canson Infinity Photographique Duo. Permajet profiles have also been good, though the papers I've tried were not great (PhotoMatt 240) and ordinary (Oyster271).

UncoyDP said:

... Mark, thank you for all your hard work creating the Light Fade Test Database . It's invaluable to new printers trying to make sense of ink and papers. The big surprise to me is how well RC papers hold up. RC paper lifespan seem significantly better than Canson Infinity Platine Fibre which is the paper I've liked best so far in terms of colour, looks and feel, using the Canson profile on a Canon Pro-300. Canson Infinity Photo Lustre looks almost as good as Platine Fibre, costs half as much and lasts twice as long.

Click to expand...

The lightfastness ratings published by Aardenburg Imaging in our first decade of research did not recognize an obscure problem (LILIS, i.e., light induced low intensity yellowing) which occurs in all RC photo papers on the market today. It occurs as a byproduct of degraded OBAS reacting with the TiO2 whitening agents in the print to create yellowing/staining that is more severe than can be attributed merely to loss of OBA fluorescence over time and only after a print is removed from display and placed in dark storage or illuminated at relatively low light levels. I corrected this regrettable oversight with a more extended testing protocol in the last years of my research. Ratings from Wilhelm Imaging Research even to this day do not factor in the problem, so the industry is still being overly optimistic about "years on display before noticeable fading/discoloration occurs". See https://www.aardenburg-imaging.com/lilis-redux/ to get a better understanding of the problem.

My extended testing protocol was implemented only in the final years of my research, so regrettably only the later test scores factor LILIS into the Aardenburg conservation display ratings. The good news is that OBA-free papers never had the problem. Bottom line: because there are no OBA-free resin coated (RC) photo media being produced today, all RC photo papers should be limited to no more than about 10 Megalux hours of exposure on display in order to avoid the extra yellowing which will creep in at higher exposure doses over time. 10Mluxhrs is only about 5 Wilhelm years on display, but WIR assumes a 450lux per12hours assumed daily light level. The vast majority of photos on home display are typically displayed at 120 lux/12hrs average daily dose or less, which in turn gives a grace period into the 20+ year range. Thus, even today and given the history of inkjet paper development, the LILIS issue is not raising many concerns yet, but real world examples of LILIS are only now beginning to appear. Such is the nature of print permanence research. Moreover, when LILIS is observed, it's usually blamed on bad processing or air contaminants even though it isn't caused by either of those factors.

All that said, collectors and curators need to be aware of this little known RC photo paper yellowing problem and how to best avoid it by limiting time on display and lower illumination levels when the prints are being displayed.

I'll answer the second part of you question in another post.

cheers,

Mark

UncoyDP said:

In your opinion what is the least expensive and reasonably accurate way to do one's own profiles? Or is there a service you'd recommend? I'm based in Europe, but in principle the service could be worldwide (one just has to mail an A4 sheet) to the team making the profile.

Click to expand...

I still roll my own profiles, so I don't know the names of providers who offer the service.

Instrument options for photographers and printmakers who want to make their own profiles (and there are good reasons to do so) are pretty limited. At the affordable end of the market is Colorchecker studio (formerly called the Colormunki) which is now sold by Calibrite and also the data color Spyderprint model sold by datacolor . There have been many troubleshooting threads on these two products. I have not used the Colormunki. I have used the Spyderprint model and have gotten excellent results albeit with numerous caveats too long to mention here that affect the quality of the measurements obtained.

Then comes the big jump to Xrite i1Pro 3 or i1 Isis spectrophotometers. I personally need the professional software that one buys with this instrumentation, but take a deep breath. It's quite pricey and probably a bridge too far for amateur printmakers.

Other players are out there, but geared primarily to printing companies and their various QC needs. So, hard to put together a bundle with these products that makes sense for photographers who like to DIY print.

UncoyDP said:

In terms of out of the box profiles from well-known paper brands, Canson Infinity is great. Ilford profiles have been awful with drabby results twhich gave me a very poor notion of the quality of their papers. Switching Ilford Galerie Premium Duo Matt to a Permajet PhotoMatt 240 profile made a night and day difference, bringing IGPDM prints almost up to the level of Canson Infinity Photographique Duo. Permajet profiles have also been good, though the papers I've tried were not great (PhotoMatt 240) and ordinary (Oyster271).

Click to expand...

Yes, I agree that paper manufacturer supplied profiles are often hit and miss. When they are good, they are really good, but then there are times....!!! Which is why I continue to make my own ICC Profiles. However, in many ways building ICC profiles has so many measurement and complicated software pitfalls that it's a hard discipline to bundle into an instrument/software package for the casual user.

Mark McCormick said:

all RC photo papers should be limited to no more than about 10 Megalux hours of exposure on display in order to avoid the extra yellowing which will creep in at higher exposure doses over time. 10Mluxhrs is only about 5 Wilhelm years on display, but WIR assumes a 450lux per12hours assumed daily light level. The vast majority of photos on home display are typically displayed at 120 lux/12hrs average daily dose or less, which in turn gives a grace period into the 20+ year range.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the additional information about LILIS. After reading your article carefully a couple of times (the demo at the top of the page is nifty, I like the photo too), I understand much better the issues with RC papers. Basically plastic turns yellow over time (all clear cellphone cases gradually turn yellow, much faster when in use, not stored in a drawer). But as you point out, it's slow enough to not matter much for exhibition prints within a household or a club. Still, for heirloom pieces (what your children would like to show to their grandchildren, or for work of lasting value), RC papers are doomed.

What I still don't understand is how OBA-free 100% cotton fibre Canson Platine Fibre Rag could offer such poor longevity.…

Just done my own check, the whitening agent in Canson Platine Fibre Rag is TiO2, which has its own issues.

Mark McCormick said:

LILIS is caused by the light induced degradation of optical brighteners (OBAs) incorporated in modern media, and it also correlates with the combined presence of both OBAs and titanium dioxide (TiO2)…Careful comparative choices in this media category should help us to better understand the relationship between OBAs and TiO2 with respect to LILIS because this category of media contains OBA-free, OBA with TiO2, OBA‑free with TiO2, and OBA without TiO2 formulations.

Click to expand...

The most detailed discussion of Canson Infinity Platine Fibre Rag can be found at Luminous Landscape and dates back to 2012.

I've cross-checked your tests more carefully and on identical ink, Canson Infinity Platine Fibre Rag does quite well, particularly once one accounts for LILUS in RC papers.


Epson OEM UltraChrome HDR on various papers tested by Aardenburg Imaging

Is there a Canson Infinity paper you would recommend as a better substitute Platine Fibre Rag with better longevity and not more expensive? I'm avoiding Hahnemuhle papers for now as they don't seem particularly good value. The lack of consistent availability and the poor quality of Ilford colour profiles has put me somewhat off Ilford Galerie (now that I have a working profile for Premium Matt Duo, I will use it as it makes excellent cards and very affordable). Price does matter, though I'm willing to stretch as far as the upper mid-tier. What I like is a substantial feel, satin or smooth matte, with good whiteness, not heavily textured. The majority of my images are sport and in colour.

Or would you say if I like Platine Fibre Rag, I just choose Platine Fibre Rag for everything semi-archival or exhibition?

UncoyDP said:

...Is there a Canson Infinity paper you would recommend as a better substitute Platine Fibre Rag with better longevity and not more expensive? I'm avoiding Hahnemuhle papers for now as they don't seem particularly good value. The lack of consistent availability and the poor quality of Ilford colour profiles has put me somewhat off Ilford Galerie (now that I have a working profile for Premium Matt Duo, I will use it as it makes excellent cards and very affordable). Price does matter, though I'm willing to stretch as far as the upper mid-tier. What I like is a substantial feel, satin or smooth matte, with good whiteness, not heavily textured. The majority of my images are sport and in colour.

Or would you say if I like Platine Fibre Rag, I just choose Platine Fibre Rag for everything semi-archival or exhibition?

Click to expand...

I am printing these days much more on fine art matt media, but in the past I used Hahnemuhle Photo Rag Pearl as my choice for a fine art glossy/luster "traditional fiber" surface. It's a very beautiful paper, but like you, I've gone away from Hahnemuhle papers in recent years . They are selling at a premium price tag which doesn't seem to offer any extra quality (unless you absolutely love a particular surface texture) to justify this higher cost to the fine art printmaker compared to other good brands like Canson Infinity.

Platine Fiber Rag is a very popular paper, deservingly so, and there are clones (like Red River Palo Duro Soft gloss) which can sometimes be found at a lower price point. That said, you might want to try Canson Infinity Baryta Prestige II. Unlike the original Baryta Prestige, Prestige II is now OBA-free. It may or may not contain some TiO2, I haven't test for that, but with Canson's marketing emphasis on "Traditional darkroom paper" properties and the elimination of OBAs, the Baryta (BaSO4) in this product should be carrying the bulk of the whitening properties. It started out (in the USA at least) a little less expensive than Platine, but lately it's at a slightly higher price point.

I have not tested it for permanence because it arrived on the scene after I ended the Aardenburg research program, but I see no reason why it wouldn't be comparable or better than Platine Fiber Rag. It is a mixed alpha-cellulose and cotton base, but the history of photography tells us that even 100% high quality alpha-cellulose fibers (i.e., acid and lignin-free) will not be a limiting factor to long term permanence properties.

Paper finish is purely a matter of personal preference, and you may like the Platine surface better, but Prestige II ticks all the right boxes for me if I want to print on a glossy/luster finish without resorting to RC photo papers. My Pro-1000 and HP Z3200 printers' pigmented ink sets take to it with outstanding density range and the lowest amount of differential gloss. I've seen for a non RC type glossy/luster media. All of my printers have a gloss optimizer, but typically for printers that do, the gloss optimizer is optimized for the smoother RC photo papers, and often comes up a little short on non RC fiber based papers. So, I look at that issue carefully, and Prestige II outperforms Platine in this regard. I have not printed on an Epson pigmented ink printer with these papers, so I can't tell you how it will look with Epson pigmented inks.

Cheers,

Mark

--
Mark McCormick

Thank you for your detailed notes, Mark. They are a great help.

Mark McCormick said:

I am printing these days much more on fine art matt media.

Click to expand...

What are fine art matte paper would you recommend?

I haven't quite decided if I prefer satin or matte yet. Definitely not glossy. My first attempts at matte were a bit muddy (Permajet Photo Matt 240 4x6 cards, Ilford Galerie Premium Matte Duo with Ilford's poor profile) but subsequent prints have been a closer match for satin RC (Canson Infinity Photographique Duo, IGPMD with Permajet Photo Matt 240 profile) but without the reflections.

Mark McCormick said:

Platine Fiber Rag is a very popular paper, deservingly so, and there are clones (like Red River Palo Duro Soft gloss) which can sometimes be found at a lower price point.

Click to expand...

I'm in Europe, despite the Canadian twang, so Red River is not available to me. We have Canson Infinity, Hahnemühle, Ilford, Farbenwerk, Fomei, limited Permajet, some Canon, some Epson papers available here.

Mark McCormick said:

That said, you might want to try Canson Infinity Baryta Prestige II. Unlike the original Baryta Prestige, Prestige II is now OBA-free. It may or may not contain some TiO2, I haven't test for that, but with Canson's marketing emphasis on "Traditional darkroom paper" properties and the elimination of OBAs, the Baryta (BaSO4) in this product should be carrying the bulk of the whitening properties.…Prestige II ticks all the right boxes for me if I want to print on a glossy/luster finish without resorting to RC photo papers. My Pro-1000 and HP Z3200 printers' pigmented ink sets take to it with outstanding density range and the lowest amount of differential gloss I've seen for a non RC type glossy/luster media

Click to expand...

Yes, this is exactly what I'm looking for. I'll definitely try the Baryta Prestige II to see if I don't like it as well as Platine Fibre. In that case, I'll enjoy great looking prints which will last a very long time with no sudden onset of yellow or cracking film.

Mark McCormick said:

I have not printed on an Epson pigmented ink printer with these papers, so I can't tell you how it will look with Epson pigmented inks.

Click to expand...

My printer is a Canon Pro-300. I sent the Epson longevity tests as Epson Ultrachrome HDR was the only pigment colour ink set with which Platine Fibre had been tested. No Canon ink at all. While the Epson Ultrachrome HDR outlasts Canon Lucia ink, they are both pigment inks, so it seemed to me the results should be indicative in a comparative way (between papers).

UncoyDP said:

Thank you for your detailed notes, Mark. They are a great help.

Mark McCormick said:

I am printing these days much more on fine art matt media.

Click to expand...

What are fine art matte paper would you recommend?

Click to expand...

My "go to" paper for matte fine art media is Moab Entrada Rag Natural 300gsm. I prefer it because it's a very good value with a similar appearance to Hahnemuhle Photo Rag, but without any OBAs. Much of it's value to me derives from the fact that both cut sheets and rolls are dual-side coated, so I routinely back print info and family crests on the verso using the same ICC profile as the image on the front. Plus if I do have a reject print, I can save the reject for test printing since both sides print identically. All that said, I don't think Moab is exported to Europe. Entrada is an American made paper.

Canson's newest matte papers, Arches 88 and BFK Rives "Pure White" and BFK Rives "White" are really nice, Arches 88 being ultra smooth and BFK Rives Pure White having some subtle texture but with same neutral white point (almost cool white without using OBAs) while BFK Rives white is ever so slightly warmer and with very slightly higher L* lightness (I actually prefer this). If you like the ever so slightly warmer whitepoint but also want ultra smooth surface then the older CIFA rag Photographique fills that need.

I don't mean to sound like a salesman for Canson papers. There are numerous very nice papers from other companies on the market. Consider buying some more sample packs. It's a great way to check out a variety of different papers. I just don't know much about the other popular brands in Europe. My knowledge of fine art matte paper is limited pretty much to Canson and Hahnemulhe (also Moab and Red River Paper in the USA). And FWIW, Hahnemuhle Museum Etching is a gorgeous paper with an exquisitely sophisticated yet subtle texture and one of the few truly OBA-free Hahnemuhle papers. Unfortunately, Hahnemuhle has priced me out of its market. I print for myself and as gifts for family and friends. I can't really pass the higher cost of HN papers onto clients like custom labs do.

UncoyDP said:

My printer is a Canon Pro-300. I sent the Epson longevity tests as Epson Ultrachrome HDR was the only pigment colour ink set with which Platine Fibre had been tested. No Canon ink at all. While the Epson Ultrachrome HDR outlasts Canon Lucia ink, they are both pigment inks, so it seemed to me the results should be indicative in a comparative way (between papers).

Click to expand...

Check out ID#s 331 and 333 in the Aardenburg database. They were tests of Canon Lucia inks using Canon Pro-1 and Canon Pro-1000 printers on Red River Palo Duro Soft Gloss. Results are statistically the same given that the ink sets are only minor variants of the Lucia Pro inks used in your Pro-300 as well. RRPDSG is a dead ringer to Canson Platine. I'm 99% certain it's fair to think of it as rebranded Platine, well certainly the ink receptor coating is, and the base sheets if different are still so similar that by the time the coatings are applied one can't tell these two "different" papers apart, even with spectrophotometric instrumentation. They look the same. They print the same! Both papers are no doubt being coated by Felix Schoeller in Europe. Red River buys from Felix Schoeller in bulk roll and converts to final roll and sheet sizes here in the USA.

--
Mark McCormick