Paper -- luster vs matte and when to use which

rutt

[font=ARIAL,HELVETICA]I bought an Epson 4k this fall. I was disappointed when I found out that Epson doesn't make Premium Luster paper in 17" rolls. I got kind of hooked on that paper, and I'm definitely hooked on the 17" wide prints from this printer. Now the 13" wide prints I used to make look *so* small!

InkjetArt.com has their own luster paper in 17" wide rolls. They claim that this paper is identical to Epson's PL. It is certainly less expensive. See:

http://www.inkjetart.com/photo_papers/ceramic/index.html

I bought a few rolls of this and have tried it out. It works well with the Epson PL profile. It looks great. To my eye the virgin paper is whiter than the Epson paper, but probably this is good not bad. So I recommend this paper.

I also bought a few rolls of Epson Ultra Smooth Fine Art paper. Unfortunately, InkjetArt doesn't have Museum Digital in 17" rolls. I love Museum Digital. It's a "fine art" paper, sort of the ultimate in matte and has the added feature that you can print on both sides. Also, it's acid free and no paper has better archival properties. It's only drawback is that it is tender. You have to be careful not to scratch it once you print on it. Anyway, InkjetArt tech support said that Epson Ultra Smooth Fine Art Paper is virtually identical to single sided Museum Digital, so I bought a few rolls to try out. Nice paper.

Which to use? It's hard to say. Matte paper has a nice feature, it suffers less from metamerism than more reflective papers (makes sense, right?) I also think that it's important to consider what happens when a photo is framed. Glass is reflective and so putting reflective paper under it sort of doubles the effect. Beautiful fine art paper looks pretty good under glass. In a photo album, the fine art paper would scratch, better to use luster. But then, some images sort of cry out for one kind of paper or another. For example, I think Pathfinder's images of historical scenes and objects would look great on fine art paper. Likewise, lots of portraits look better without the luster. Damon's recent indoor porraits, for example, seem like fine art paper naturals. The matte paper surface draws you in more. On the other hand, all the cars and motorcycles people shoot seem like luster (or glossy) naturals. Likewise, Andy's night shots and landscapes. So it depends. But it's good to have both arrows in your quiver.

Has anyone given any thought of when to use what kind of paper? I'd like to hear other opinions.
[/font]

wxwax

Good question. I'm keen to hear what others think.

PerezDesignGroup

Can't answer the question, but I wish to thank you for all this incredible insight. I never even considered the impact paper would have on a finished product and, frankly, I had no idea inkjetart even existed.

So I'm off to look around and check the cool papers out.

pathfinder

PerezDesignGroup wrote:

Can't answer the question, but I wish to thank you for all this incredible insight. I never even considered the impact paper would have on a finished product and, frankly, I had no idea inkjetart even existed.

So I'm off to look around and check the cool papers out.

I think your images of the young mother-to-be cry out for matte paper - I love Epson's Premium Lustre for many of my images and much I print glossy - but your lovely sepia/brown images to my eye, demand Museum Digital type matte paper.

I have two boxes of paper from Red River that I hope to report about in the next couple of weeks. Matte and their Polar Satin which is a semi gloss finish - both are 17 x 22 inches.
Red River sells Epson inks for the 2200,4000, 9600 discounted compared to Epson's on-line store....

ian408

pathfinder wrote:

I have two boxes of paper from Red River that I hope to report about in the next couple of weeks. Matte and their Polar Satin which is a semi gloss finish - both are 17 x 22 inches.
Red River sells Epson inks for the 2200,4000, 9600 discounted compared to Epson's on-line store....

They have a sample kit for $8. I think I'll give them a whirl.

Thanks pf!

Ian

rutt

[QUOTE=pathfinder Matte and their Polar Satin which is a semi gloss finish - both are 17 x 22 inches.
[/QUOTE]
17x22 is a frustrating size, IMHO because you have to crop in order to use the 17" side fully. I've been printing 16x24 on 17" roll paper, which leaves 1/2 inch borders on the short side. Then you want 25" long paper.

That's what drove me to the InkjetArt MicroCeramic Luster paper. I like Epson's Premium Luster, but why do they only make 16" wide rolls? Jeez, I just shelled out for their printer than can handle 17" rolls, and now I want to use it, every possible inch of it.

In short, I'm loving roll paper because you can use precious wide side completely and then not have to crop. I'm loving the MicroCeramic Luster paper. It comes in the size I want. It's a lot less expensive than the Epson paper ($108 for 100 sheets super b vs $88 for 50 sheets.) And it's whiter, which I now think is a good thing.

Red River ink prices look a little better than InkjetArt ($58 vs $60 for 110 ml cartridges), but Red River doesn't seem to stock 220ml cartridges. InkjetArt has these for $96. Perhaps froogle can find even cheaper?

pathfinder

rutt wrote:

[QUOTE=pathfinder Matte and their Polar Satin which is a semi gloss finish - both are 17 x 22 inches.

17x22 is a frustrating size, IMHO because you have to crop in order to use the 17" side fully. I've been printing 16x24 on 17" roll paper, which leaves 1/2 inch borders on the short side. Then you want 25" long paper.

That's what drove me to the InkjetArt MicroCeramic Luster paper. I like Epson's Premium Luster, but why do they only make 16" wide rolls? Jeez, I just shelled out for their printer than can handle 17" rolls, and now I want to use it, every possible inch of it.

In short, I'm loving roll paper because you can use precious wide side completely and then not have to crop. I'm loving the MicroCeramic Luster paper. It comes in the size I want. It's a lot less expensive than the Epson paper ($108 for 100 sheets super b vs $88 for 50 sheets.) And it's whiter, which I now think is a good thing.

Red River ink prices look a little better than InkjetArt ($58 vs $60 for 110 ml cartridges), but Red River doesn't seem to stock 220ml cartridges. InkjetArt has these for $96. Perhaps froogle can find even cheaper?[/QUOTE]


I have not had any experience with roll paper, because I am still in an experimental mode - that is - I shift back and forth between brands and types of papers which would be harder to do once I have loaded a roll of paper. Maybe I will finally settle down and find I agree with you about the preference for roll paper.

Red River DOES sell 220 ml Epson ink cartidges for the 4000 printer - I have three of them on my desk at home - I think they were $98 bucks. Some of the cartidges do not say Epson 4000, but the same cartidges are used in the 4000, 7600, 9600 I believe. Inkjetart looks like another alternate source to Epson online. Epson online store does not discount - BUT I AM able to get delivery overnight from Epson. Epson online ships to me from Indianapolis. Red River took 4 or 5 days over a weekend from Texas. How long is delivery time from Inkjetart in Utah?

I will order some of the MicroCeramic lustre and give it a try. Do you have any resudual curvature in your prints when you print from a roll as opposed to a flat sheet? I may look into 13 inch rolls for panoramic prints for my 2200 also if I elect to keep it.
Great information John.

rutt

pathfinder wrote:

I have not had any experience with roll paper, because I am still in an experimental mode - that is - I shift back and forth between brands and types of papers which would be harder to do once I have loaded a roll of paper. Maybe I will finally settle down and find I agree with you about the preference for roll paper.

Roll paper is pretty easy to use with the 4k. Changing rolls is easy, the printer does most of the work.

pathfinder wrote:

Red River took 4 or 5 days over a weekend from Texas. How long is delivery time from Inkjetart in Utah?

Depends on shipping method, of course. For UPS, maybe Utah would add a day for us and subtract a day for the Californians.

pathfinder wrote:

I will order some of the MicroCeramic lustre and give it a try. Do you have any resudual curvature in your prints when you print from a roll as opposed to a flat sheet?

Yes, but it relaxes after a day or so. When I print that large, though, it's for framing or a portfolio. What other use is there?

pathfinder wrote:

I may look into 13 inch rolls for panoramic prints for my 2200 also if I elect to keep it.
Great information John.

You can use any size <= 17" with your 4k, including 13" rolls. But one of the great things about the 4k would be to make 17" high panos, no?

pathfinder

rutt wrote:

Roll paper is pretty easy to use with the 4k. Changing rolls is easy, the printer does most of the work.
Depends on shipping method, of course. For UPS, maybe Utah would add a day for us and subtract a day for the Californians.
Yes, but it relaxes after a day or so. When I print that large, though, it's for framing or a portfolio. What other use is there?

You can use any size <= 17" with your 4k, including 13" rolls. But one of the great things about the 4k would be to make 17" high panos, no?

John, I just rechecked the price for 220ml ink cartridges for the 4000, 7600, 9600 at Red river - I was too high - they list for $93.00 each. You only need eight of them.... Hah Hah That's a joke of course - not really - but they do last a nice long time.

I have not finished any of the 110 ml ones that came with my printer and about 1/3 of them are used in priming he system initially as you know.

rutt

pathfinder wrote:

John, I just rechecked the price for 220ml ink cartridges for the 4000, 7600, 9600 at Red river - I was too high - they list for $93.00 each. You only need eight of them.... Hah Hah That's a joke of course - not really - but they do last a nice long time.

I have not finished any of the 110 ml ones that came with my printer and about 1/3 of them are used in priming he system initially as you know.

Yeah, they are expensive, but really a bargin compared to the little ones for the 2200.. Think about it, it's almost 1/4 of a liter.

pathfinder

rutt wrote:

Yeah, they are expensive, but really a bargin compared to the little ones for the 2200.. Think about it, it's almost 1/4 of a liter.

I know - they are about 40% the cost per ml.