cheap alternative for photopaper
Peter Meijs
producing good results. Perhaps special impregnations, sprays or so to
modify "normal" paper so that it improves. I have an Epson Photo Stylus 1290
printer
(black plus 5 colors) which can print A3 size.
Any idea is welcome!!
Thanks
Peter Meijs
Peter Meijs
Trevor Dennis
>Photopaper is extremely expensive. Has anybody hints for "normal" paper
>producing good results. Perhaps special impregnations, sprays or so to
>modify "normal" paper so that it improves. I have an Epson Photo Stylus 1290
>printer
>(black plus 5 colors) which can print A3 size.
I use an HP 895Cxi, and Kodak Premium Picture paper for all but critical
prints. It classes itself as ultra glossy; costs 13ukp for 50 sheets
here in the UK, and works *very* nearly as well as best quality HP
glossy paper, but at less than half the price.
I have tried a lot papers, and got very poor results with Epson 'Photo
glossy' paper, but perhaps it just doesn't work well with HP inks?
--
Trevor Dennis
Remove s-p-a-m to email
Mike P C
news:g9ZyINHQ...@tdennis36.fsnet.co.uk...
> I have tried a lot papers, and got very poor results with Epson 'Photo
> glossy' paper, but perhaps it just doesn't work well with HP inks?
I use an Epson 1520 and am not happy with
the results on Epson's photo glossy paper either.
So maybe it's not the HP ink. :^)
The Kodak Premium is my choice also for a
glossy paper.
I have not tried an HP paper for a long time.
What is the difference between the Kodak and HP
regarding the "*very* nearly as well" part of your post?
BTW, Kodak Premium sells here for $20.00/75 sheets.
Mike
BF
about 13 cents per page. It is a very heavy paper too. It looks very good
for the price. Very little to no difference, in how it looks, between this
and paper that cost many times more. How long it lasts remains to be seen.
"Peter Meijs" <pgm...@xs4all.nl> wrote in message
news:a30gms$j69$1...@news1.xs4all.nl...
Trevor Dennis
>I have not tried an HP paper for a long time.
>What is the difference between the Kodak and HP
>regarding the "*very* nearly as well" part of your post?
With normal viewing, none at all, but through an 8*Loupe the individual
ink dots look like they are sitting on the surface of the Kodak paper.
Almost as if the ink has coagulated, and the dots are repelled by their
neighbours.
On HP paper the ink dots look flatter, and tend to blend one into the
other.
You really do need the loupe to see the difference, but knowing it is
there kind of rankles.
Mike P C
>
> You really do need the loupe to see the difference, but knowing it is
> there kind of rankles.
Doesn't sound too serious for my needs.
Thanks.
Mike
Mike P C
news:mpW48.5727$FS4.2...@news2.news.adelphia.net...
> I bought 150 sheets of Royal Brites high gloss photo paper for $20. That's
> about 13 cents per page. It is a very heavy paper too. It looks very good
> for the price. Very little to no difference, in how it looks, between this
> and paper that cost many times more. How long it lasts remains to be seen.
I also have tried the Royal Brites and
find it to be significantly inferior to
the Kodak Premium.
If you have tried the Kodak Premium
and find little to no difference, I would
really like to know what printer, settings
and subject matter you are printing.
Mike
arrooke
If it's 'normal' paper you mean - that is - an alternative to regular 'bond'
type paper, the best paper I have found is Hammermill Colour Copy paper.
It's a 24 lb. Nice & white, good body and has a nice smooth finish that
gives you good sharp images.
You mention A3 size which tells me you're probably 'on the other side' so I
don't know if it will be available there. However there must be a
comparable - just look for paper recommended for colour copiers (as in
photocopiers).
Stephan
>the results on Epson's photo glossy paper either.
>So maybe it's not the HP ink. :^)
I am a pro-photographer, I use the Epson photo glossy paper on an 1280 and I
am very very pleased with the results
Stephan
Mike P C
news:Xhi58.5540$Ib.12...@typhoon.hawaii.rr.com...
> I am a pro-photographer, I use the Epson photo glossy paper on an 1280 and
I
> am very very pleased with the results
I believe the 1280 is significantly newer
technology than the 1520. Maybe that is
why you get pleasing results. Otoh, in a
previous thread the Epson paper was also
recommended for use with a 1520. I tried
it and found the print-outs to be on the
dark side and shadows were muddy.
Mike
Stephan
>it and found the print-outs to be on the
>dark side and shadows were muddy.
Maybe you have to work on your settings
Stephan
Mike P C
>
> Maybe you have to work on your settings
Yes, I admit I didn't give it the same
effort I gave to the Kodak with regards
to settings. Partially because I was initially
put off with the lack of brightness of the
Epson paper.
The Epson's ISO Brightness is 89%.
I can't find a corresponding number on the Kodak
package, but I suspect low to mid nineties.
The Kodak is noticeably "Whiter".
If I print something that has blank (white) area,
depending upon the subject matter, the "yellow
cast" can be unacceptable.
I'm curious, have you used the Kodak
Premium or Ultima paper?
Mike
Stephan
>Premium or Ultima paper?
No I haven't, I worked really hard on getting my prints to match my screen,
I don't want to start the battle again getting the settings right for
another paper. I print mostly portraits, the only white part would be the
eyes, a bit of yellow is OK there as long as it doesn't look like fish
poisoning ;-)
Stephane
Mike P C
> No I haven't, I worked really hard on getting my prints to match my
screen,
> I don't want to start the battle again getting the settings right for
> another paper.
I agree, print matching can be a major
undertaking depending upon how critical
you are. Since you are a pro photographer,
my guess is you spent a longer time than most.
Too many hours and too much ink and paper
to go down that road again without some
sort of "guarantee" that there would be
a significant improvement in quality.
> I print mostly portraits, the only white part would be the
> eyes, a bit of yellow is OK there as long as it doesn't look like fish
> poisoning ;-)
LOL, I know your from Hawaii.
Do you see a lot of fish poisoning there? :^D
Mike
Trevor Dennis
>Yes, I admit I didn't give it the same
>effort I gave to the Kodak with regards
>to settings. Partially because I was initially
>put off with the lack of brightness of the
>Epson paper.
My experience with the Epson paper was that it was
a long long way from what I could see on my monitor.
Whereas The Kodak and HP papers are perfectly
usable with no colour management at all.
The Epson paper would have to be very cheap, or to have
been strongly recommended as capable of superb results,
to make it worth the effort of getting the colour profile right.
Mike P C
> My experience with the Epson paper was that it was
> a long long way from what I could see on my monitor.
> Whereas The Kodak and HP papers are perfectly
> usable with no colour management at all.
Have you any experience with the Kodak Ultima
paper? The difference on the package between
Premium and Ultima seems interesting. Premium
has a 220 weight compared to Ultima's 270.
The weight difference would be obvious, but I
would like to know what the visual difference is
between Premium's "Premium photograph"
and Ultima's "Professional quality photograph".
Mike
Trevor Dennis
>Have you any experience with the Kodak Ultima
>paper?
No, but I'll make a point of getting some.