A great guide that I missed the first time it came through my email. I think it would be good to know the size of the photos presented by the featured photographers. The greatest need for this is the papers used by Les Picker and Scott Barrow. The paper details that show on the samples are nowhere to be seen in the photographer's examples.
FYI
- page 8 "it's" should be "its" in the last paragraph, last sentence
- page 18 "It's" should be "Its" in the second paragraph
- page 22 "image but there" should be "image is but there" in the first paragraph
- page 28 "cotten" (sic) should be spelled "cotton" on Les Picker's page
Thanks for the feedback and edit. This was an experiment to see if it was useful for people looking at what sort of photos other people paired with various papers along with a close-up view of the paper characteristics using consistent photos throughout.
I've got some ideas for potential future editions (as well as other papers) down the road. I'll add your idea to include more printing specifics like print size and other things to my list.
Thank you for this, I’ve been experimenting with Moab papers for a while in an attempt to limit myself to one known good range of papers. This summary really nailed what I’ve been trying to master. Thanks! As for the ‘glare’ it seems like the only way to illustrate the gloss, it worked for me.
I have been using MOAB PAPERS for several years . Recently read about and ordered ENTRADA COLDPRESS for my CANON PIXMA PRO 10 printer. I downloaded the ICC profile for this printer and set out to print several test prints.
On the whole, the paper is bright and the texture is wonderful, BUT it oversaturated the colors and the profile rarely resembles the image on my BENQ screen. I wonder if MOAB has received similar complaints for this paper?
This surprises me as we've not had an issue with the Moab Profile with our Pro-1000's. Are other papers working as you expect (since you last updated your software)?
Just as a test if you are confident of your software environment in terms of other papers, you may want to try using the Entrada Natural 300 profile and compare. If the Entrada Natural profile looks more like you expect we may want to raise the prospect of a "bad" profile to Moab.
If you soft-proof with the Coldpress profile, do you see any color shifts on screen? If not, then there is a mis-match or software issue in your print settings.
Are you using the recommended media setting of Matte Photo Paper? Is your printer driver set to 'no color adjustment' so it doesn't interfere with the settings in Photoshop? For futher help you can email me evan [at] legion paper .com
I've been paintings for a few years and so far the papers I've painted on include the regular drawing/painting paper, Fabriano and Estenbach (I prefer Fabriano to Estenbach for my watercolor paintings).
several of the prints seem to have glare, or something, like the orange on pages 20, 40, and 44, as well as the b/w arch on page 42 (top left, looks like uncontrolled lens flare). I certainly wouldn't want my prints to show such artifacts. Assume it is galre from overhead lighting??? Thanks - Walt
I think you might be misinterpreting and conflating to differing things.
1. For papers that have any degree of gloss (I guess your comment on page 42) we purposely bent those papers in an arc to show the degree of surface gloss, that will absolutely show an arc of surface reflection given the angle of incidence/angle of reflection law of optical physics.
2. The other pages you comment on are not photographs of prints they are images that the artist chose for a specific paper... IE some of the other pages you referenced.
Either that or I am looking at the wrong references. Are you looking at the page numbers embedded in the PDF at the top (there will be 2 page numbers one on left, one on right) or another reference? I assumed you used the numbers in the PDF at the top given the range of numbers.
In any case would love to answer any questions you have regarding the photos of the actual paper. In terms of the other artists that have supplied images they chose to pair with a specific paper, I can only say it's down to each artists taste in photographs and their associated aesthetic.
My comments regarding glare in the orange areas refer to images on pages numbered 19, 39, and 43.
If you purposely are curving the image in order to show the gloss/glare, please say so in your PDF document. Since this was not clearly stated up front, I was very sadly disappointed viewing these examples of what I know to be excellent paper.
Sorry about that, I assumed that the curvature to show the reflectivity of the surface by using a light to do so was obvious but I guess not. There's only a couple choices here in rendering papers with a gloss surface... rendering them without any reflections which makes them look like a matte paper or showing a reflection and its diffusion/texture characteristics which is what I chose as I thought flat lighting it with no reflection (with two large lights on a 45) like you'd do for artwork reproduction in a book would be pointless in illustrating the characteristics of the paper surface since that would eliminate the characteristics of the medium.
Sorry that the methodology and choices for the gloss papers was not obvious as I tried to put the reflection in the same spot on all papers with a gloss surface.
A great guide that I missed the first time it came through my email. I think it would be good to know the size of the photos presented by the featured photographers. The greatest need for this is the papers used by Les Picker and Scott Barrow. The paper details that show on the samples are nowhere to be seen in the photographer's examples.
FYI
- page 8 "it's" should be "its" in the last paragraph, last sentence
- page 18 "It's" should be "Its" in the second paragraph
- page 22 "image but there" should be "image is but there" in the first paragraph
- page 28 "cotten" (sic) should be spelled "cotton" on Les Picker's page
Thanks again for this content!
Thanks for the feedback and edit. This was an experiment to see if it was useful for people looking at what sort of photos other people paired with various papers along with a close-up view of the paper characteristics using consistent photos throughout.
I've got some ideas for potential future editions (as well as other papers) down the road. I'll add your idea to include more printing specifics like print size and other things to my list.
Thank you for this, I’ve been experimenting with Moab papers for a while in an attempt to limit myself to one known good range of papers. This summary really nailed what I’ve been trying to master. Thanks! As for the ‘glare’ it seems like the only way to illustrate the gloss, it worked for me.
Glad it was of use!!!
I have been using MOAB PAPERS for several years . Recently read about and ordered ENTRADA COLDPRESS for my CANON PIXMA PRO 10 printer. I downloaded the ICC profile for this printer and set out to print several test prints.
On the whole, the paper is bright and the texture is wonderful, BUT it oversaturated the colors and the profile rarely resembles the image on my BENQ screen. I wonder if MOAB has received similar complaints for this paper?
Colby Chester
Ayzieu 32800 FRANCE
This surprises me as we've not had an issue with the Moab Profile with our Pro-1000's. Are other papers working as you expect (since you last updated your software)?
Just as a test if you are confident of your software environment in terms of other papers, you may want to try using the Entrada Natural 300 profile and compare. If the Entrada Natural profile looks more like you expect we may want to raise the prospect of a "bad" profile to Moab.
If you soft-proof with the Coldpress profile, do you see any color shifts on screen? If not, then there is a mis-match or software issue in your print settings.
Are you using the recommended media setting of Matte Photo Paper? Is your printer driver set to 'no color adjustment' so it doesn't interfere with the settings in Photoshop? For futher help you can email me evan [at] legion paper .com
I've been paintings for a few years and so far the papers I've painted on include the regular drawing/painting paper, Fabriano and Estenbach (I prefer Fabriano to Estenbach for my watercolor paintings).
several of the prints seem to have glare, or something, like the orange on pages 20, 40, and 44, as well as the b/w arch on page 42 (top left, looks like uncontrolled lens flare). I certainly wouldn't want my prints to show such artifacts. Assume it is galre from overhead lighting??? Thanks - Walt
I think you might be misinterpreting and conflating to differing things.
1. For papers that have any degree of gloss (I guess your comment on page 42) we purposely bent those papers in an arc to show the degree of surface gloss, that will absolutely show an arc of surface reflection given the angle of incidence/angle of reflection law of optical physics.
2. The other pages you comment on are not photographs of prints they are images that the artist chose for a specific paper... IE some of the other pages you referenced.
Either that or I am looking at the wrong references. Are you looking at the page numbers embedded in the PDF at the top (there will be 2 page numbers one on left, one on right) or another reference? I assumed you used the numbers in the PDF at the top given the range of numbers.
In any case would love to answer any questions you have regarding the photos of the actual paper. In terms of the other artists that have supplied images they chose to pair with a specific paper, I can only say it's down to each artists taste in photographs and their associated aesthetic.
My comments regarding glare in the orange areas refer to images on pages numbered 19, 39, and 43.
If you purposely are curving the image in order to show the gloss/glare, please say so in your PDF document. Since this was not clearly stated up front, I was very sadly disappointed viewing these examples of what I know to be excellent paper.
Sorry about that, I assumed that the curvature to show the reflectivity of the surface by using a light to do so was obvious but I guess not. There's only a couple choices here in rendering papers with a gloss surface... rendering them without any reflections which makes them look like a matte paper or showing a reflection and its diffusion/texture characteristics which is what I chose as I thought flat lighting it with no reflection (with two large lights on a 45) like you'd do for artwork reproduction in a book would be pointless in illustrating the characteristics of the paper surface since that would eliminate the characteristics of the medium.
Sorry that the methodology and choices for the gloss papers was not obvious as I tried to put the reflection in the same spot on all papers with a gloss surface.
Thanks for the feedback