Other than Hahnemühle's William Turner, I have generally been disappointed by other textured papers. I had small box of Moab Entrada Textured but after about three unsatisfactory prints, gave up on it. You have piqued my interest to give this one a shot to see how it performs. Thanks!!!!
I've not looked at any disclaimers/etc with respect to tech specs yet but the Entrada Natural prefix tends to mean no OBA's. This paper looks natural with no obvious OBA's or enhanced blue reflectivity/re-transmission of UV based on my strobe images I made so I'd guess it doesn't have any OBA's, certainly no obvious amount but I cannot swear to zero.
Easy enough to find out. Bottom line is it looks natural/neutral not "Bright"
Would love to hear your thoughts on it when you have a chance to give it a try. Image/paper matching is an art in and of itself. I think you'll be impressed. It's not at all the same texture as William Turner in other ways such as feel/dmax/sharpness/etc it's comparable.
Yes, a brief introduction which I hope you will expound upon with assessments of dmax, linearity, gamut, OBA's, etc. Interestingly, I've experimented with dozens of watercolor type media, some made for inkjets, and others not and quite candidly, I've never been overly impressed with the results. My suspicion is that the uniformity in ink deposition from inkjets detracts from the "old world" style that characterize these papers.
Everyone's subjective assessment varies a bit so I cannot assure you that whatever effects are "detracting from the old world style" are or are not present with respect to the new Coldpress 300 but it is very very impressive in terms of duplicating the texture of a watercolor cold press paper as well as interacting with the inkjet printed image in a unique, obvious, but attractive way... I really really like that you can see the obvious texture in areas of uniform tonality but doesn't seem to obfuscate areas of detail or distort them.
I find it compelling for the right photographs. Then again, I like textured papers and finding the right body of work that matches up to complement the image and the paper that is... more than the sum of its parts.
I have been printing on the new ENTRADA COLDPRESS PAPER, for three weeks now. However the ICC profile for my CANON PIXMA PRO 10 printer offers a considerably lighter image than the one fresh from the printer, and it doesn't correct with time. Is the profile I downloaded incorrect for the printer I use or is the paper incorrectly profiled?
We do not own that printer (pixma pro 10) so I can offer no comment on whether the Moab supplied profile is correct or not. I can only say that for the printers we have (canon 2000, 4000, and 1000) that the Moab profiles seem to be fine.
I am not sure that I understand what you are comparing your results on the pixma pro 10 to when you refer to "the one fresh from the printer".
In any case if you have what you consider a known good result and your pixma pro 10 result is considerably different something needs to be investigated. Here are a few paths to consider:
- Try letting the printer deal with the color management rather than your software IE, do not do the color conversion with the ICC profile in your software. Let the printer "do it's thing" by selecting a similar paper type and use printer color management. If the result is far closer to your known good print than something is definitely wrong with your software, printer driver, or ICC profile... this happens.
- Try reinstalling the newest version of the printer driver. Sometimes this gets screwy after Adobe or OS updates. Happens to us all the time and the cure is reinstallation of the printer drivers on a large number of occasions.
- If you have known good results from other papers/profiles and suspect that Moab's ICC profile for your printer is wrong/bad go ahead and contact Moab tech support (we know the man who makes the profiles and he's diligent and responsive) and tell them of your results. Maybe the profile is not correct, it is a new product and something went amiss with that profile they supply.
Obviously if you have the means, make your own profile to compare. We use the X-Rite (now Calibrite) Color Checker Studio which provides good results when profiling paper. Easy to use and reasonably priced. Borrow one from another photographer if you can.
I have used Hahneumhle Museum Etching and Ilford Textured Cotton Rag. I have a liking for Ilford's Rag. I would try this Moab's Coldpress as well.
Other than Hahnemühle's William Turner, I have generally been disappointed by other textured papers. I had small box of Moab Entrada Textured but after about three unsatisfactory prints, gave up on it. You have piqued my interest to give this one a shot to see how it performs. Thanks!!!!
Oh,
I've not looked at any disclaimers/etc with respect to tech specs yet but the Entrada Natural prefix tends to mean no OBA's. This paper looks natural with no obvious OBA's or enhanced blue reflectivity/re-transmission of UV based on my strobe images I made so I'd guess it doesn't have any OBA's, certainly no obvious amount but I cannot swear to zero.
Easy enough to find out. Bottom line is it looks natural/neutral not "Bright"
Would love to hear your thoughts on it when you have a chance to give it a try. Image/paper matching is an art in and of itself. I think you'll be impressed. It's not at all the same texture as William Turner in other ways such as feel/dmax/sharpness/etc it's comparable.
Yes, a brief introduction which I hope you will expound upon with assessments of dmax, linearity, gamut, OBA's, etc. Interestingly, I've experimented with dozens of watercolor type media, some made for inkjets, and others not and quite candidly, I've never been overly impressed with the results. My suspicion is that the uniformity in ink deposition from inkjets detracts from the "old world" style that characterize these papers.
Everyone's subjective assessment varies a bit so I cannot assure you that whatever effects are "detracting from the old world style" are or are not present with respect to the new Coldpress 300 but it is very very impressive in terms of duplicating the texture of a watercolor cold press paper as well as interacting with the inkjet printed image in a unique, obvious, but attractive way... I really really like that you can see the obvious texture in areas of uniform tonality but doesn't seem to obfuscate areas of detail or distort them.
I find it compelling for the right photographs. Then again, I like textured papers and finding the right body of work that matches up to complement the image and the paper that is... more than the sum of its parts.
I have been printing on the new ENTRADA COLDPRESS PAPER, for three weeks now. However the ICC profile for my CANON PIXMA PRO 10 printer offers a considerably lighter image than the one fresh from the printer, and it doesn't correct with time. Is the profile I downloaded incorrect for the printer I use or is the paper incorrectly profiled?
Colby C.
Colby,
We do not own that printer (pixma pro 10) so I can offer no comment on whether the Moab supplied profile is correct or not. I can only say that for the printers we have (canon 2000, 4000, and 1000) that the Moab profiles seem to be fine.
I am not sure that I understand what you are comparing your results on the pixma pro 10 to when you refer to "the one fresh from the printer".
In any case if you have what you consider a known good result and your pixma pro 10 result is considerably different something needs to be investigated. Here are a few paths to consider:
- Try letting the printer deal with the color management rather than your software IE, do not do the color conversion with the ICC profile in your software. Let the printer "do it's thing" by selecting a similar paper type and use printer color management. If the result is far closer to your known good print than something is definitely wrong with your software, printer driver, or ICC profile... this happens.
- Try reinstalling the newest version of the printer driver. Sometimes this gets screwy after Adobe or OS updates. Happens to us all the time and the cure is reinstallation of the printer drivers on a large number of occasions.
- If you have known good results from other papers/profiles and suspect that Moab's ICC profile for your printer is wrong/bad go ahead and contact Moab tech support (we know the man who makes the profiles and he's diligent and responsive) and tell them of your results. Maybe the profile is not correct, it is a new product and something went amiss with that profile they supply.
Obviously if you have the means, make your own profile to compare. We use the X-Rite (now Calibrite) Color Checker Studio which provides good results when profiling paper. Easy to use and reasonably priced. Borrow one from another photographer if you can.