Go To TopJoel Wilcox has printed copies of my test file on a number of papers using MIS Archival inks in an Epson 1160, 4 color printer. He mailed them to me, and I put samples to the test in each of my test scenarios.
The descriptions that follow are Joel's most recent conclusions. All of these tests were printed using the MIS archivalcolor ink set in a 4 color Epson 1160. The results are almost identical for most of the papers tested, so I'll consolidate the results here. If, after reading this, you're still interested in image quality, keep reading.
I haven't received the sample on Kodak paper, so these comments do not apply to that paper.
Not one of these samples faded or color shifted at all. Unfortunately, there's a much bigger problem with MIS inks and glossy papers. Except for the Epson Photo Paper, this ink doesn't really adhere to the paper. Even on the control samples, I can very easily rub the pigments off with my finger. The Epson Photo Paper wasn't as bad, but it didn't take much effort to rub the ink off of that, too.
I should point out that many people are very happy with these inks. They don't seem to be suited for glossy papers, but if you output on matte, watercolor or similar papers, these inks might be of interest. They certainly don't seem to orange shift.
Of the tested papers, only the Heavyweight Matte works at all. But to be frank, I like the
look of the Epson 1270 inks on that paper much better.
The following is Joel's description of his printing and results:
These are the results of subjective tests with MIS archival inks on various glossy papers
with the Epson 1160 printer.
Go To Top
My workflow may be of interest because it certainly impacts the way these materials need to be handled, in my opinion. I'm using a 1160 with CIS (nomorecarts). I have a Viewsonic GF775 monitor which is calibrated with the ColorVision Photocal/mc7 device. With this device I set the gamma to 1.8 and temp to 5K as these values seem to give me the best match to the print of all possible configurations. In particular I find that the monitor almost always indicates a heavier saturation than I eventually get in the print and these settings seem to produce the lightest rendition of the image on the monitor.
All papers have been profiled using ColorVision ProfilerRGB. I thought the profiles were OK "out of the box," but I found that with MIS ink the profiles needed tweaking more often than OEM ink to get the effect I wanted. Specifically, with Epson Photo Paper the absorptive qualities of the paper make it necessary to increase saturation and often combine a saturation boost with a cut in RGB colors to get as definitive a black as possible. Ilford papers base stock is a cyan/cooler white than EPP, so I found I wanted to warm the effect a little with Ilford paper by bumping up the red slider.
In general, ProfilerRGB works well, but I really do think the sliders are a beneficial
addition and I can't imagine not using them as the differences though subtle do ultimately have
an impact.
Go To Top
I tested a variety of papers, including a few Red River papers. For the moment I am out of all Red River papers except for Polar Gloss, which I did not think worked well with this ink and didn't warrant any further testing because the printed surface became soft and the gloss flattened out. Furthermore, the ink seems never fully to dry on Polar Gloss with this ink. You can simply smudge it off with a finger, even a couple weeks after printing.
Initially, I was very impressed with Ilford Heavyweight Glossy and Ilford Heavyweight Semi-Matte papers. Furthermore, I was at first less impressed with one of my favorite papers with OEM ink, Epson Photo Paper. But with further testing and tweaking of profiles, the EPP has come up a lot in my estimation. Some problems with the Ilford papers now seem to be significant, though there may still be hope.
Finally, Kodak Premium Picture Paper performed at least as well as the Ilford papers, and may
well not have the same drawbacks. Read on.
Go To Top
I found that I was able to get a very good print with the Glossy paper with a simple adjustment of +10R in the ProfilerRGB sliders. This paper has very good photographic qualities for some kinds of images, particularly those that have good contrast and not too much deep black. The Glossy has a tendency to reflect black more than the other inks (bronzing), which can make the paper seem inappropriate for some images. In fairness, I have seen this kind of shininess with OEM ink and older Kodak papers, too, so it is not just an "archival ink thing."
The Glossy produces a wonderful illusion of depth and three-dimensionality. This is particularly rewarding where one desires good penetration of shadows. It also reproduces the image with razor sharpness (i.e., less dot gain).
The Semi-Matte has very similar characteristics. The surface is similar to the Cibachrome Pearl surface I used to use 15 years ago. It reproduces shadow penetration well and is also very sharp. I found that up to a +10 - 15 boost of the R slider in ProfilerRGB was helpful for warming the print and somewhat nullifying the bluish/cyan bias of the paper stock.
The lingering problem with both papers is that the ink remains soft for so long. After several weeks I still do not have a "hard" print on these papers. The black ink is the worst, so this paper is really going to be a problem for low-key images with MIS archival ink. In prints made mainly with CMY inks, drying seems to be much more acceptable. Nevertheless, the surface is so soft that even stacking prints results in scratches to the glossy surface. To add insult to injury, the backing of the Ilford papers is particularly rough, so that stacking them can actually scuff them up.
Particularly if you like a glossy paper, this paper seems almost to be the Holy Grail, if these inks would just dry or harden faster.
Go To Top
With significantly more tweaking of the ProfilerRGB sliders, I found that the EPP works pretty well with this ink. For one thing, the ink penetrates this paper more than either of the Ilford papers. Blacks are not shiny to the same degree. This is both a good thing and a bad thing. In high-key images it's fine. In really low-key images, it's also reasonably OK. The least successful images are those in which shadow penetration is important because the ink creates a sort of haze in these shadowy areas. The illusion of three-dimensionality is lost; in fact, the result can be quite gross and ugly. I have an image made at dawn of Long's Peak illuminated on the top of its diamond face while a huge boulder field in the foreground is mostly in shadow. In some ways the Ilford Semi-Matte paper handles this better than the Glossy or EPP. Out of the print chute the EPP is sooty and ugly. There is some improvement over time as the ink dries a bit. EPP just does not produce as good a black as the Ilford papers. I think the effect I'm seeing in the unpleasing shadows of this print are from a lack of contrast and a general impression of fogginess in the paper surface. The Ilford Semi-Matte, or Kodak Premium Picture Paper, seems about the best for dealing with this difficult image.
Aside from shadow fogginess, the other kind of image I find very difficult with this ink is one where the color is predominantly green. It has not been easy for me to find the right combination of saturation and contrast to produce subtle variation in shades of green distinctly and well.
Nevertheless, properly profiled the paper looks very good with these inks for many many images. My favorite profile uses a +5 boost in contrast, +5 saturation, +7R and -4G. This creates to my eyes good color and adequate saturation in most images. At present I am using this combination of ink and paper to make stock reference prints of keeper images.
For me, the combination of EPP and MIS archival inks *can* produce images which are very reminiscent of this paper with OEM ink. EPP has always worked better for more and different kinds of images than any other paper I know. I guess this is still the case, though one has to work harder just to get to something like the quality one had previously taken for granted with OEM ink.
But if the result is truly archival with MIS archival inks, one could do worse. It is also the only non-watercolor, non-matte "wash and wear" glossy-type paper with MIS archival inks.
Go To Top
This paper could be it! It is very glossy and seems as good or even better than Ilford Glossy at reproducing a very smooth surface. Bronzing is very minimal. The ink does not dry instantly but seems to penetrate deeper and to harden sooner, though even after a day the surface can be damaged, though not as easily or as significantly as the Ilford papers. The backing of this paper also is velvety, so the prints can be laid carefully one on top of another without risk of damage to the underlying print.
To my eyes, the MIS archival inks on the Kodak Premium Picture Paper is thrillingly beautiful, if you like a very deep, glossy paper surface. The Photo Paper setting worked best for me and the paper will take a high setting on the saturation slider in ProfilerRGB. Blacks are good and shadow detail is terrific. By comparison prints on Epson Photo Paper seem to have a veil. The Kodak paper also reveals very punchy greens, which are a weak color with the Epson Photo Paper.
It remains to be seen whether the Kodak Premium Picture Paper will dry and harden enough for the wear and tear of trimming and mounting, and whether the Ilford papers will dry at all with the MIS archival inks. If so, the Kodak in particular looks to be a paper (maybe *the* paper) to beat if one is looking for something glossy with this type of ink.
At this time, it would appear from Kodak's site that the Premium Picture Paper is only available in letter and smaller sizes.
copyright 2000, Joel Wilcox
9/29/2000
Return to main page.