* My Profile My Galleries My Networks

alternative printer paper for portfolio

Gear? Maybe…

I am putting together a new print portfolio book and am interested in printing on something other than the standard epson matte paper. Does anybody have any experience printing on alternative papers from their epson photo-printer? I will be printing on a friends printer so I am not sure of the exact model but it is, I believe, the 6 color epson on which you can print 16×20(though maybe it is only 11×14). I am looking for a paper that has a more rough-hewn, unfinished feel, though nothing that is necessarily too unconventional. It will be for a mix of b&w and color and therefore must be suited to both. I have experimented in the past and have never found anything that works well without making the photographs un-acceptably flat. This therefore is what I wish to avoid.

Any suggestions are greatly appreciated.

by [a former member] at 2005-03-22 15:20:20 UTC (ed. Mar 12 2008 ) mt. pleasant. washington d.c. , United States | Bookmark | | Report spam→

Im printing on Epson Luster “E” surface on an Epson 2200. It looks pretty much exactly E surface photo paper, and the black and white is coming out looking surprisingly black and white. I’m told this is best paper for this printer.

Adam — I recall you lost a lot of sleep doing color prints on the same model — what’s the word from you?

by teru kuwayama | 22 Mar 2005 15:03 | Brooklyn/East Side, United States | | Report spam→
I’ve been printing on the 2200 for several years. Recently I’ve switched to the Epson R800 and the Canon i9900 because in some cases (not all), the gamut of the old Ultrachrome inks (pre-R800) is just unacceptable. I do still use the 2200 for larger prints within certain color spaces on matte paper.

You should try Arches Infinity paper on the 2200. Very expensive, very heavy (comes in 230g and 355g weight). They have a “smooth” and “textured” version, the latter has an exquisite feel for a loose portfolio box or a naked-bound book, and might be that rugged look you are looking for. One idea is to print on oversized stock, then tear the edges to your final dimensions carefully by hand for even more texture, if thats your bag.

by Andrew Kornylak | 22 Mar 2005 16:03 | Georgia, United States | | Report spam→
the only other paper i use on my 2200 is Hahnemühle Photo Rag. The 308gsm is nice…

by [former member] | 22 Mar 2005 20:03 | New York City, United States | | Report spam→

the 2200 is specially well suited for black and white work, but you really should try it with matte paper. The quality difference is amazing.

by Fernando Gaglianese | 23 Mar 2005 08:03 | Philadelphia, United States | | Report spam→

I use epson velvet fine art paper w/ 2200 and the prints are really nice. But I do use a rip software called imageprint, it’s an extra 400 bucks or so but worth it because I have not waste one single paper trying to get a nice B/W or color. It’s always on the money.


by kenny pang | 23 Mar 2005 08:03 | new york city, United States | | Report spam→
i’ve lost a lot of sleep myself with the 2200 / Luster combination, made me regret replacing my 1280 for a while. things were flat and the gamut seemed really narrow. but nice prints are certainly possible with that combination, but you have to allow for some amount of compromise btwn what you want and what you’re getting in terms of color. however, switching to the enhanced matte made a real difference, the prints are great, though admittedly much more delicate. the guy at k&m downtown is always talking up the hannemuhle paper to me, but i’ve never tried it, pretty expensive stuff i think. am about to google kenny’s imageprint, thanks for the tip. also been seriously considering a gretag macbeth eye-one as my next big purchase, anyone have any comments on that? have a colorvision spider which does a decent job with my monitor, but the print profiles you get from their printfix are pretty worthless.

by [former member] | 23 Mar 2005 11:03 | New York City, United States | | Report spam→
Ive used Imageprint, and I found that the results I was getting using the Epson profile workflow was so similar that it was not worth the money. I’ve also used the (non-USA) “Epson Grey Balancer” and found it too user-unfriendly and inconsistent to make much of a difference either. The profiles with the proper workflow is about 99% there for the images that “work.” For those that don’t, profiling tools such as Gretag Macbeth won’t make a bit of difference, since it is a problem with the inherent old Ultrachrome colorspace limitations. IMHO. I havent used the print profiler personally, but learned this from two others who have tried using it and not significantly improved their 2200 images beyond the results I was already getting (which, like I said, was great for many images, bad for a few.)

The color results I was getting from my $100 dye printer were superior. Not the resolution nor the longevity, just the color.

Now I think those challenges have been met with the latest dye printers, as well as improvements in the Ultrachrome inks after the R800.

by Andrew Kornylak | 23 Mar 2005 12:03 | Georgia, United States | | Report spam→

Get notified when someone replies to this thread:
Feed-icon-10x10 via RSS
Icon_email via email
You can unsubscribe later.

More about sponsorship→


teru kuwayama, I/O teru kuwayama
New York , United States
Andrew Kornylak, Freelance Photographer Andrew Kornylak
Freelance Photographer
Atlanta , Georgia
Fernando Gaglianese, Photographer Fernando Gaglianese
Dresden , Germany
kenny pang, kenny pang
New York City , United States


Top↑ | RSS/XML | Privacy Statement | Terms of Use | support@lightstalkers.org / ©2004-2015 November Eleven