Printing Black and White on Fine Art Rag?

[intensity studios]

I tried printing black and white photos on cotton paper (Red River Aurora Fine Art Natural) and the photos came out kinda muddy and lacking depth and contrast. The image looks washed out.

Does anyone have any tips on printing on this type of media? I have seen great black and white photos on this type of paper, so I know it can be done.

I am using a Canon 9000 Mark II printer, which is dye based. Do these papers work better with pigment ink?

I am printing from Photoshop with all ICC profiles installed, soft proofing, etc. OEM inks.

Any tips appreciated.

--
Antonio
http://www.intensitystudios.com

 

[Hugowolf]

I haven't used the Aurora papers except for testing, I’m not a great fan of Red River. Do you have sample packs of any other papers. I would try Hanhnemuhle Photo Rag and/or Canson Rag Photographique, just for a comparison and see if there are any major differences.

Most of the fine art papers are really designed for pigment inks, but most seem to be designated for dye inks too, so they should work.

Brian A

 

[Tom-C]

Did you use the printer settings recommended in the profile instructions downloaded from Red River?

Tom

 

[intensity studios]

I usually only print on pearl/satin/luster paper or matte paper for most of my printing and I am completely satisfied with the prints I get on these papers.

But I have the Red River sampler pack and it included the Rag papers, so I figured I would give it a shot but was less than excited when I saw the print. I probably won't really buy any rag paper any time soon because I think I would need a pigment printer with multiple black inks to get a good monochrome print on that paper.

Anyhow, thanks for the info. I have only been printing for about a month. Still learning

--
Antonio
http://www.intensitystudios.com

 

[intensity studios]

Tom, yes I used the correct printer settings. I set the canon driver for matte paper, had ICC profile installed that I downloaded from Red River. I am using a calibrated monitor.

Before printing, I previewed using soft proofing. Blacks looked really muddy and washed out on screen so I bumped up contrast and pumped up the blacks way more than usual.

Printed out the photo and the image still just has a washed out muddy kinda look to it.

--
Antonio
http://www.intensitystudios.com

 

[Hugowolf]

Well, if you get the urge to try again I would get a sample pack from Canson, since it includes photo and fine art papers and the Hahnemühle sample packs are split: one for fine art and one for photo. Canson Baryta Photographique and Canson Platine are two of the finest lustre papers out there.

The other thing would be the ‘natural’. If you are used to the bright white of photo paper, then the natural paper color will add to the apparent dullness of the art paper, so perhaps give the Aurora white a go. But the dMax values of matt paper will never match those of photo paper.

Brian A

 

[Pete Berry]

Tom, yes I used the correct printer settings. I set the canon driver for matte paper, had ICC profile installed that I downloaded from Red River. I am using a calibrated monitor.

Before printing, I previewed using soft proofing. Blacks looked really muddy and washed out on screen so I bumped up contrast and pumped up the blacks way more than usual.

Printed out the photo and the image still just has a washed out muddy kinda look to it.

--
Antonio
http://www.intensitystudios.com

Antonio, several years ago I tested samples of a dozen or so matte papers - most of them fine art cotton rag based - using identical driver settings for the color test prints in my iPF5000.

There were two rather far outliers in the bunch, with Crane Museo being oversaturated with blocked-up blacks on one end, and RR Aurora being undersat., with poor blacks on the other. RR Polar Matte was surprisingly close to the Preemo Hahne. PR 308 and Innova Smooth Cotton 315 (which I chose as my archival matte, and use the RR for proofing). The RR Aurora, which I had high hopes for didn't make the cut with it's poor response, and I doubted a custom profile could rescue it.

I did the same identical inking for a number of PK papers, including four baryta's and two RR satins also, all of which were much more identical - in fact almost indistinguishable except for paper base tint differences. Link to scans with identical scan settings of these if you're interested:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/8075035@N03/4822525261/in/set-72157624569134778

This is the first of six scans in light box view, which works best for comparison sequentially - arranged from whitest to warmest paper base.

Pete

 

[Pete Berry]

My link didn't go to the light box - hit the "+" to go there.

BTW, interesting fashion and glamor portfolio, Antonio.

Pete

 

[Danny]

It very much depends on your type of photography/image if it will 'work' on matt papers. It can look wonderful or simply dry and dull. I tested a whole bunch of matt papers and came to the conclusion it does not work for me. I ended up with Hahnemuhle Photo Rag Baryta, which is lustre/glossy with a slight texture. And this paper renders my work just so very beautiful, I cannot even compare it with the lifeless look of a matt rag paper. So, it depends..

 

[wcrosman]

I've the 9000 v1 and while I don't do a lot of BW printing I have found that the grayscale printing results in a much better print in general. Takes forever though.
--
T---
http://www.crosman.org
http://www.portfolio-shots.com

 

[intensity studios]

Yes, whenever I print in BW I always check the box for greyscale printing. takes longer but looks better
--
Antonio
http://www.intensitystudios.com

 

[intensity studios]

Yeah, I definitely agree that certain images "work" on matte paper better than others. I have used the Moab Lasal Photo Matte which is just a regular matte paper and not a "rag paper" and I have had some good results.

It very much depends on your type of photography/image if it will 'work' on matt papers. It can look wonderful or simply dry and dull. I tested a whole bunch of matt papers and came to the conclusion it does not work for me. I ended up with Hahnemuhle Photo Rag Baryta, which is lustre/glossy with a slight texture. And this paper renders my work just so very beautiful, I cannot even compare it with the lifeless look of a matt rag paper. So, it depends..

--
--
Antonio
http://www.intensitystudios.com

 

[intensity studios]

Thanks for the feedback everyone.

I tried another BW print on the Aurora Fine Art White paper from my sampler last night. It had slightly more punch but not much more than the Natural paper. The shadows kinda block up and the overall image just looks muddy. For lack of a better word, I would say they look like "computer prints" from about 15 years ago, they don't look like actual photographs.

Mainly I was just experimenting with the rag paper and I think I am just going stick with the pearl/satin or regular non-rag matte paper. My current favorites are Ilford Smooth Pearl, Moab Lasal Photo Matte, Moab Colorado Fiber Satine.

Thanks.

Antonio, several years ago I tested samples of a dozen or so matte papers - most of them fine art cotton rag based - using identical driver settings for the color test prints in my iPF5000.

There were two rather far outliers in the bunch, with Crane Museo being oversaturated with blocked-up blacks on one end, and RR Aurora being undersat., with poor blacks on the other. RR Polar Matte was surprisingly close to the Preemo Hahne. PR 308 and Innova Smooth Cotton 315 (which I chose as my archival matte, and use the RR for proofing). The RR Aurora, which I had high hopes for didn't make the cut with it's poor response, and I doubted a custom profile could rescue it.

I did the same identical inking for a number of PK papers, including four baryta's and two RR satins also, all of which were much more identical - in fact almost indistinguishable except for paper base tint differences. Link to scans with identical scan settings of these if you're interested:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/8075035@N03/4822525261/in/set-72157624569134778

This is the first of six scans in light box view, which works best for comparison sequentially - arranged from whitest to warmest paper base.

Pete

--
--
Antonio
http://www.intensitystudios.com

 

[JayMitch]

I would offer a couple of recommendations...

First, manage your expectations. If you arecomingfrom luster or glossy papers accept that you'll never get the same pop from matte. Granted, you no longer have to fight glare. The relatively limited range of matte will suit some images better than others.

Second, you'll need to treat the image differently on matte. I have yet to successfully figure this out so take with a grain of salt (I only use baryta and coated fiber papers). Try bringing up the output level to remap your blacks to a higher zone. The mud you're seeing is because you have levels in your image that are below the paper's maximum black. So instead of deep shadow detail it's all printing to black (ex. if your paper can only print to 5/5/5 RGB and you have blacks down to 0/0/0 all those levels will just get crushed to 5/5/5). By bringing your image's black point up to that of the paper you should be able to discern detail above. Yes, you make the image lighter, but you can't print blacker than the paper will allow anyway. Add some extra contrast to the quarter tones with a curves adjustment layer to improve the separation in the shadows. A bump to the highlight contrast should help restore some pop.

Then make test prints. Lots of 'em. Judge the merits of the print, not the screen or how it compares to the screen, and adjust accordingly. Once ink hits paper it's all about the print so don't worry how whack your image looks on the monitor.

--

Flickr Page: http://www.flickr.com/photos/25556585@N02/

Blog: http://jaymitchblog.blogspot.com/