Epson Water Color Paper?
Mark Anon
I'm looking for something with more texture than the Enhanced Matte paper to
print out some of my LF images. Any suggestions?
Thanks,
Mark
Andrew Haley
Epson Somerset Velvet is the very best, but it's frighteningly
expensive.
Andrew.
Anon
??
"Somerset" is available on Epson's website in sizes smaller than 24x30
Mark
"Andrew Haley" <andr...@littlepinkcloud.invalid> wrote in message
news:11sd76e...@news.supernews.com...
Bob Salomon
Andrew Haley <andr...@littlepinkcloud.invalid> wrote:
> > I'm looking for something with more texture than the Enhanced Matte paper
> > to
> > print out some of my LF images. Any suggestions?
Tetenal Aquarell watercolor paper has a very nice hand pressed finish.
You can actually print on either side depending on the effect desired.
Their Canvas material can also do this for two different effects.
--
To reply no_ HPMarketing Corp.
Anon
"Bob Salomon" <bob_s...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:bob_salomon-8C6C...@news.isp.giganews.com...
Nicholas O. Lindan
> Does Epson no longer make the Water Color paper?
Try watercolor paper from the art store -- the stuff
sold for painting watercolors. I have done it and it
works well, don't know if it is still considered 'kosher'.
"Cheap Joe's Art Stuff" is a decent discount art supply
house, they are on www.
--
Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio
Consulting Engineer: Electronics; Informatics; Photonics.
To reply, remove spaces: n o lindan at ix . netcom . com
Fstop timer - http://www.nolindan.com/da/fstop/index.htm
tomm42
no coating to restrict the bleed of the ink. That said I have seen some
nice pieces using this technique, but it was on Rieves or Arches paper,
not Cheap Joes'. www.ATLEX.com has epson papers at a substantial
discount from the Epson site. www.hawkmtnartpapers.com is a very good
independent paper manufacturer, very good people to deal with.
Tom
Bob Williams
Nicholas O. Lindan wrote:
> "Mark Anon" <Anon...@xyz.com> wrote
>
>
>>Does Epson no longer make the Water Color paper?
>
>
> Try watercolor paper from the art store -- the stuff
> sold for painting watercolors. I have done it and it
> works well, don't know if it is still considered 'kosher'.
>
> "Cheap Joe's Art Stuff" is a decent discount art supply
> house, they are on www.
>
I have done the same.
I get a "Tablet" of 25-30 sheets of acid-free watercolor paper with a
texture as close as possible to the original from my local Art store.
Costs around $10. Works great.
Bob Williams
rafe b
"Nicholas O. Lindan" <s...@sig.com> wrote in message
news:bqxxf.6585$ZA2...@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> "Mark Anon" <Anon...@xyz.com> wrote
>
>> Does Epson no longer make the Water Color paper?
>
> Try watercolor paper from the art store -- the stuff
> sold for painting watercolors. I have done it and it
> works well, don't know if it is still considered 'kosher'.
>
> "Cheap Joe's Art Stuff" is a decent discount art supply
> house, they are on www.
I did that years ago and the results were horrible.
Dot gain on artists' watercolor paper is enormous
and (IMO) totally unsuitable for detailed prints
or images that need "snap."
Problem is, inket papers don't hold photographic
detail without a good, hard coating. The best
Dmax and contrast also require optical brighteners.
Viz., regular old Somerset Velvet sucked badly,
but Somerset Velvet "Photo Enhanced" worked
quite nicely.
The downside (there always is one) is that such
coatings applied to coarse-fibered "art" papers
tend to flake off, leaving dust and debris in the
printer. If the paper flakes after the ink goes on,
it leaves white specks on the print.
The "solution" is to brush the paper thoroughly
and carefully before printing.
rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com
measekite
rafe b wrote:
>"Nicholas O. Lindan" <s...@sig.com> wrote in message
>news:bqxxf.6585$ZA2...@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>
>
>>"Mark Anon" <Anon...@xyz.com> wrote
>>
>>
>>
>>>Does Epson no longer make the Water Color paper?
>>>
>>>
>>Try watercolor paper from the art store -- the stuff
>>sold for painting watercolors. I have done it and it
>>works well, don't know if it is still considered 'kosher'.
>>
>>"Cheap Joe's Art Stuff" is a decent discount art supply
>>house, they are on www.
>>
>>
>
>
>
>I did that years ago and the results were horrible.
>
>
Did you use Epson ink?
rafe b
"measekite" <inkys...@oem.com> wrote in message
news:oAyxf.524$nT6...@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net...
>
>
> rafe b wrote:
>
>>"Nicholas O. Lindan" <s...@sig.com> wrote in message
>>news:bqxxf.6585$ZA2...@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>>
>>>"Mark Anon" <Anon...@xyz.com> wrote
>>>
>>>
>>>>Does Epson no longer make the Water Color paper?
>>>>
>>>Try watercolor paper from the art store -- the stuff
>>>sold for painting watercolors. I have done it and it
>>>works well, don't know if it is still considered 'kosher'.
>>>
>>>"Cheap Joe's Art Stuff" is a decent discount art supply
>>>house, they are on www.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>I did that years ago and the results were horrible.
>>
> Did you use Epson ink?
Yes, and others as well. The ink isn't going to
matter much in this situation. With uncoated
paper, the nature of the paper dominates.
rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com
Mike
Nicholas O. Lindan
> Rieves [sic] or Arches paper, not Cheap Joes'.
"Cheap Joe's Art Stuff" sells water color paper by Cotman,
Arches, Strathmore and just about anybody else you can think
of, but I am sure you know that [cough].
http://www.cheapjoes.com/art-supplies/4550_watercolor-paper.asp
http://www.cheapjoes.com/
Frank
>
>
>
> Yes, and others as well. The ink isn't going to
> matter much in this situation. With uncoated
> paper, the nature of the paper dominates.
>
>
> rafe b
> www.terrapinphoto.com
>
>
Exactly. It's the paper, not the ink.
Frank
Nicholas O. Lindan
> > > Does Epson no longer make the Water Color paper?
> > Try watercolor paper
> Dot gain on artists' watercolor paper is enormous
And I tried it and the results were great, dot gain was
enormous and it lost that ink-jet look.
> Problem is, inket [sic, I think he means WC papers, ed]
> papers don't hold photographic detail without a good, hard coating.
Rafe, baby, if the question is watercolor paper the
answer isn't 'photographic detail'.
rafe b
"Nicholas O. Lindan" <s...@sig.com> wrote in message
news:wyAxf.8585$M%4....@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> Rafe, baby, if the question is watercolor paper the
> answer isn't 'photographic detail'.
Well, the word "photo" still appears in the name of this
group, doesn't it?
Agreed, there is a class of images and subject that might
yield acceptable or even desirable results on uncoated WC
paper. Viz., the same sorts of images that one might
take with a soft-focus lens.
Not my gig, though.
rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com
rafe b
wrote:
>And I tried it and the results were great, dot gain was
>enormous and it lost that ink-jet look.
How old is your printer, Nick? If you're seeing
dots from a modern Epson, Canon or HP printer
in photo/best mode, your visual acuity is
probably in the 99.9th percentile.
Seriously, on the R800/R1800, dots are not
observable without a loupe. I expec even
our resident grain sniffer Dave L. would
concur.
FWIW, in my first post on this topic I did
qualify by saying that WC was not suitable
for images that need "snap." But if you're
making dreamy, soft-focus, high-key stuff,
it just might be the ticket.
rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com
David J. Littleboy
"rafe b" <rafebATspeakeasy.net> wrote:
> How old is your printer, Nick? If you're seeing
> dots from a modern Epson, Canon or HP printer
> in photo/best mode, your visual acuity is
> probably in the 99.9th percentile.
>
> Seriously, on the R800/R1800, dots are not
> observable without a loupe. I expec even
> our resident grain sniffer Dave L. would
> concur.
Yep. No dots without a loupe. The R800 is seriously amazing. At A4 it
renders pretty much _all_ the detail a 5D captures. That's 353 ppi of real
detail.
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
Jon O'Brien
wrote:
> I'm looking for something with more texture than the Enhanced Matte
> paper to print out some of my LF images. Any suggestions?
Bockingford double-sided inkjet watercolour paper is very nice. I've used
it quite a bit in my Epson 2100 and have been very pleased with the
results.
Jon.
Andrew Haley
> "Andrew Haley" <andr...@littlepinkcloud.invalid> wrote in message
> news:11sd76e...@news.supernews.com...
>> In rec.photo.digital Mark Anon <Anon...@xyz.com> wrote:
>>> Does Epson no longer make the Water Color paper?
>>
>>> I'm looking for something with more texture than the Enhanced Matte paper
>>> to
>>> print out some of my LF images. Any suggestions?
>>
>> Epson Somerset Velvet is the very best, but it's frighteningly
>> expensive.
> Is this the same as Epson Velvet (S041636 for 8.5x11, and S041637 for 13x19)
> ??
> "Somerset" is available on Epson's website in sizes smaller than 24x30
I don't know, sorry. Form the description it might well be, but I
can't be sure.
Somerset Velvet has the best black I've seen on a matt cotton paper,
great whites, and excellent colour gamut.
Andrew.
Andrew Haley
> "Mark Anon" <Anon...@xyz.com> wrote
>> Does Epson no longer make the Water Color paper?
> Try watercolor paper from the art store -- the stuff
> sold for painting watercolors. I have done it and it
> works well, don't know if it is still considered 'kosher'.
I have too, but uncoated paper doesn't produce such dense blacks or
saturated colours. That might well be OK for some things, of course.
Andrew.
Andrew Haley
> Dot gain on artists' watercolor paper is enormous and (IMO) totally
> unsuitable for detailed prints or images that need "snap."
> Problem is, inket papers don't hold photographic detail without a
> good, hard coating. The best Dmax and contrast also require optical
> brighteners.
Right.
> Viz., regular old Somerset Velvet sucked badly, but Somerset Velvet
> "Photo Enhanced" worked quite nicely.
It might be that I've never seen "regular old" Somerset Velvet. I use
"Somerset Velvet for EPSON" on 24"x50' rolls which gives outstanding
results. There's a page at
http://www.inkjetart.com/news/archive/IJN_11-05-02.html called
"SOMERSET VELVET" FINE ART PAPERS: ELIMINATING THE CONFUSION
According to that page, "Somerset Velvet For EPSON (in rolls) - This
product is virtually the same product as Somerset Photo Enhanced
http://www.inkjetart.com/wc/somerset_enhanced.html ..."
... and ...
"EPSON Velvet Fine Art Paper - This paper uses the original Somerset
Velvet paper base (from St. Cuthberts Mill), but the coating is
totally different, and this is done by Epson. This coating is somewhat
similar to the Hahnemuhle coatings, that are more on the surface and
tend to "flake" a little with abusive handling, but these coatings do
give slightly higher D-Max's, slightly higher resolutions, and higher
color saturation."
... which answers the question, I think.
Andrew.
Nicholas O. Lindan
> "Nicholas O. Lindan" <s...@sig.com>
> >And I tried it and the results were great, dot gain was
> >enormous and it lost that ink-jet look.
> visual acuity?
Old, very good.
> Seriously, on the R800/R1800, dots are not
> observable without a loupe.
So who looks at pictures without a loupe ...
> ... if you're making dreamy, soft-focus,
> high-key stuff, [water color paper] just
> might be the ticket.
I didn't think that anyone asking for 'water color
paper' would be trying to do anything else. But
who knows, a super-sharp picture of precision
gearing might look cool on Arches?
Marvin
Marvin
> You can try it but the results are very soft as standard WC paper has
> no coating to restrict the bleed of the ink.
I've used artists' paper when I wanted a water color effect. The bleeding is part of the
effect - it happens with water color paint.
Todd Maurer
Perhaps not that bad, but almost. Handling it is almost worse than a
Cibachrome print.
Todd
--
See fine art photography at: www.konabear.com
"Mark Anon" <Anon...@xyz.com> wrote in message
news:sMwxf.5294$B93.1971@fed1read07...
Ace
Did you look at " inkjetart.com " to see what they have?
Bob AZ
Arthur Entlich
our local art store looking for a less costly "holy grail" of "art
paper" that will work well with Epson printers.
To date, I only found one that was even close to acceptable in regard to
maintaining color values and edge detail, and it was one I picked up on
a whim at a liquidation shop. I have no idea what it really is,
although it does have a nice deckled edge. None of the others were able
to hold the detail or color, no matter how much ink was applied.
However, I should mention I was working with dye inks.
As others have stated, generally, dye inks, at least, need a specially
coated surface to retain the detail and bright colors.
Are you using a dye ink or pigment ink printer? ANd which brand
watercolor paper are you purchasing, if it is branded?
Art
Arthur Entlich
is a certain amount of definition, especially edge definition required.
Watercolor images aren't necessarily "out of focus". Further,
sometimes a person is just after a certain feel or look of texture
without wishing to degrade the colors and detail. That's why inkjet
coated watercolor art papers are produced.
I have seen absolutely beautifully produced artwork turn to mush on an
uncoated watercolor paper, and I have also seen it beautifully
reproduced on coated watercolor paper.
I think it is a misnomer that watercolor equals dull undefined color and
no detail.
Art
Arthur Entlich
one. Watercolor can certainly be made to be very soft with ill defined
edges, but most watercolor artists use both the potential softness and
sharp edges possible to create differences of texture and distance,
using softer definition for distant objects, fog, or mist, or for
gradient areas, while defining edges for closer objects, texture and
other elements.
Using uncoated watercolor paper just provides an overall out of focus
look that is equally so, and that is rarely how a watercolor image
looks. Given the choice, watercolor artists getting their work
reproduced will request a inkjet coated paper for the "giclee" prints.
Art
Marvin
> I have tried dozens of different water color and printmaker papers from
> our local art store looking for a less costly "holy grail" of "art
> paper" that will work well with Epson printers.
>
> To date, I only found one that was even close to acceptable in regard to
> maintaining color values and edge detail, and it was one I picked up on
> a whim at a liquidation shop.
Why use watercolor papers when you don't want a watercolor effect?. Paints bleed on water
color paper. It is not not meant to be coated, nor does the artist prime it. Canvases
are primed.
Arthur Entlich
fragile in terms of maintaining the surface both before printing and
afterwards.
There are a few newer papers on the market, in small release, that have
the mordants and dot gain reducers saturated through the paper added to
the "pulp" while the paper is being made. It apparently works quite
well for many inkjet applications.
Art
nosredna
by hand, with a brush, after the printing?
In article <IaQyf.361178$ki.330141@pd7tw2no>,
Arthur Entlich
and pigment ink results may differ.
I have some training in watercolor (as well as acrylics and oil and
inks), and used to paint in watercolor a fair amount prior to going
heavily digital. The process of watercolor painting is both defining
edges and using the water to move the colorant and blend it. But
blending is not the same as bleeding. That is why attempts to create a
watercolor look with Photoshop filters and using "sloppy" paper really
doesn't make it. Also, watercolor doesn't mute/muddy colors the way a
"sloppy" paper does. In watercolor the water allows for more
transparency of the color, allowing the paper white to shine through.
Some watercolors have very high color values. With standard watercolor
paper and inkjet printing, the maximum density is highly limited, and
doesn't allow for the shadow detail afforded watercolor painting. The
main point is that watercolor paints don't penetrate the paper very
much, while inkjet inks on uncoated paper do just that, sink right in,
so the paper surface ends up the topmost surface (as the ink sinks
"through" it, while with watercolor, the paint colorants are the topmost
surface.
I sometimes scan my watercolor images and print them, and the only way
they create the values and definition in the original image is to print
them on a inkjet specialized coated paper.
Art
Arthur Entlich
inkjet prints with a brush and I find the surface and the colors change
when they are worked on. What I have done, and the results were
interesting is taking an image and printing it on a coated surface, and
then using a wet brush to move the colorants around to build them up or
wash them further. The paper doesn't always tolerate it well... the
inkjet ink seems to change the absorbency of the paper (makes it more
absorbent of water). Often watercolor paper is sized (coated with a
glue or starch) prior to use to decrease the absorbency to water and
stiffen the paper.
Art
Nicholas O. Lindan
> I sometimes scan my watercolor images and print them, and the only way
> they create the values and definition in the original image is to print
> them on a inkjet specialized coated paper.
Yup, ink-jet on watercolor paper creates an 'ink-jet on watercolor' look.
The good or bad of it is up to the printer: sometimes it works, sometimes
it doesn't. Profound, n'est ce pas?
Weren't the first 'giclee' prints - early 90's - done on watercolor?
> attempts to create a watercolor look with Photoshop ... really
> [don't] make it
Have you tried 'Fractal Design Painter'? I used to play around with
it, never quite got the hang of using a pen tablet instead of a brush.
I think it does great at 'water-color-type-things'; great fun to play with.
Arthur Entlich
Painter", is actually pretty good at creating digital versions of
traditional media, with the same look and feel of those media,
especially with a pressure sensitive pen. I think it is one of the
better executed "simulation" products. I really like the pallets and
they also have some very interesting filters.
Art