Epson Enhanced Matt

[andrew_sacco]

Using an R2400 with MK ink. Dull, lifeless. I can't seem to like this paper.

Who uses it, why and how do you make it look good? Nature, scenics, some

pastel type shots. I have been given a TON of it free so hate to waste it.

It's the Ultra Premium Presentation Paper Matte. Thanks.

[bobmichaels]

EEM is my standard proofing paper. And I've used a 2400 and MK for several years. But I've always used EEM for proofing.

 

EEM advantages are that it gives proofs that are very close to good archival papers. It also had good D-Max and good tonality all by itself. EEM gives some of the best looking prints right out of the printer.

 

The reason I do not use EEM for real prints is the fact that it seems to turn yellowish rather quickly.

 

Tell us what other matte papers are making good prints for you using the same type settings and possibly we could help.

[jonathan_walker]

I use it to print for shows and it's greta. The slight yellowing, which I have not seen BTW, is not an issue for B&W.

[michel_moreaux2]

I agree with Bob and Jonathan. EEM just produced very good B/W prints straight using Epson ABW (Advanced B/W). I was quite excited with this paper (stunning results, cheap price, etc.) until I noticed many people mentioning that it was proning to turn yellow rather quickly. Personnally, I have _never_ noticed such effect on my prints. Never. But... since many people were complaining, I assumed that there "might" be some truth behind their complains, so I moved to Hahnemüle Photo Rag paper. The problem was that Photo Rag did not produce the same stunning results using ABW mode.

 

(skip the next section if it is too technical)

 

After checking for print densities, I noticed that the density curve is far more linear on EEM (esp. tuned by Epson -> logical since it is one of _their_ paper) than on Photo Rag where higher ink densities compressed the darks. It took me some time (oh! quite a time and energy!) to get some more information about ABW but eventually I successfully created correction curves allowing me to print linear tones on Photo Rag. And yes!, I can use EEM as a proofing paper.

 

From what I read on many forums and information collected everywhere, any paper containing OBA (optical britening agents) will sooner or later turn "yellow", more or less slightly (it's a physical/natural process -> the OBA effect will fade away). There are many discussions and not everyone agree about the rate and the intensity of the yellowing process. I will not debate on that. Papers are naturally _not_ "white". So using OBA is in some extent wished by people for getting bright white matter. Generally speaking, this is a matter of taste and after you agree with that, you understand why there are soooo many different type of papers available on the market.

 

If you accept that the paper you use for your prints can slightly turn yellow in "some near" future, then this will not even make EEM a good archival paper. The more annoying problem (IMHO) with EEM is that it is not acid-free. It contains some matter (lignite) that will degrade the paper itself to some extent. To illustrate this effect, consider this overly exagerated example: compare newspaper paper against watercolor paper (pure rag). A piece of newspaper paper, when exposed to daily light by being hang on a wall, will soon turn yellow _and_ become more and more fragile (teared off more easily).

 

In these days, there are many discussions and everyone wants paper with "stability" ensured to last forever. As far as I remember, there have never been such discussions when printing on photographical papers in the past althought these papers were soaked in "not so clean" chemical baths (heard of "fixing" bath?).

[david_littleboy__tokyo__ja]

"As far as I remember, there have never been such discussions when printing on photographical papers in the past"

 

It's odd that you missed them. Archival washing and mounting were big deals back in the 60s when I first printed B&W...

[andrew_sacco]

Well, I haven't used many other matt papers to compare, but do like Moab Entrada, a slightly different paper. Hanem. photo rag has been nice, but maybe I'm getting that little extra contrast. Just seems I get consistent results with other papers that match the monitor more closely. I am using profiles, both for paper and monitor, but also doing color at the moment. The few BW I've done were OK, but I DON'T use ABW, I use the grayscale tools in CS3 and print with printer profile turned off. Thanks.

[roger_smith4]

If you don't like the look of a matte paper give the new fiber-type glossies a try like Harmon Glossy Baryta AL, Innova Fiber White Semi-Matte 300 and others.

 

I haven't had great luck printing color on any matte paper (some prints look great, but the limited gamut makes it more hit or miss than I like- I prefer WISIWIG with profiled glossy papers).

 

For B&W I prefer matte-type papers and love Innova White Cotton 315.

[ted_davis1]

We sell many Epson Enhanced Matte prints in our gallery(www.ddstudio.us) and never had a problem with yellowing. Nice for Selenium-toned looking BW on the Epson 9600. Did have yellowing issues 2 years ago with Epson Doubleweight Matte, which I believe has been renamed.

[lambow]

Andrew

I not much of a expert in printing, and you might already be doing this. In Photoshop CS3 and maybe earlier versions too, they have something call custom proof and proof color under the "view". Set custom proof to match your paper and then proof colors, you then can adjust your settings to match your orginal the best you can. You can even open another window with a copy of the orginal in it so you can view what your shooting for. Of course thats a lot of extra work and I never seem to get a exact match, so I have been trying this method out and it seems to work the few times I have tried it. Under "edit" go down to "covert to profile" and select your paper type for "Destenation Space Profile" I use perceptural for the redering intent. I know the paper profile is a printer profile and not a screen profile, but it seems to work. It will convert trying to match the orginal as close a possible. Now when you go to proof colors they won't change at all and you have less or no adjustments to do. Using this has gotten me the closer to the print I am looking for with the least amount of extra work.

 

Lambert

[Kent Shafer]

Andrew,<p>

 

I have the same problem. I'm a beginner at this, but here's the best I've come up with. I add a Brightness/Contrast adjustment layer and adjust it to make the screen look as much as possible like the unsatisfactory dark and dull first print. The adjustment seems to be around -40 brightness and +65 contrast. I then add a second Brightness/Contrast adjustment layer and adjust it to make the picture look good on the screen (positive brightness and negative contrast). When I've finished doing that, I delete the first Brightness/Contrast layer, which leaves an overly bright and washed out image on the screen that prints fairly close to what I want on Epson Enhanced Matte.<p>

 

Kent

[don_bryant2]

So Epson has changed the name of EEM to Ultra Premium Presentation Paper Matte - jeez.

 

If it is the same paper then it is a good proof paper, unfortunately it is an alpha cellulose paper not 100% cotton and not archival quality. It does yellow on the back of the print. I would never use it to sell to someone else. Any gallery that knowingly sells Fine Art prints made on EEM is its customers a dis-service IMO. EEM is widely regarded as a proof only paper and not a high quality archival paper.

 

I've been very happy with the Moab Entrada papers. The are reasonably priced, 100% cotton and considered archival.

[RaymondC]

I enjoy the paper.

I must admit the paper is a bit dull if you want that punch.

Some have said semi gloss or lustre is nice.

 

Maybe b/w its good ..

Some of my best prints on this matte paper is a night shot with v explosive colors .. maybe I can compensating for the paper ;)

But I have not tried b/w on the fine art papers like ultrasmooth or velvet.

 

Its a good price vs the other papers though...

[patricklavoie]

Its all depend of your setting..according to what you say, turning color management OFF could be the problem..

 

what is the setting you use in Ps?

 

what color profile?

 

what setting you use in the Epson driver?

 

do you print on the good side of the paper, the whiter side?

 

All that should be explain to see where you get rong..

 

i would syggest you read a recent tutorial i wrote call HOW TO PRINT ON A EPSON on photo.net, that should give you the best rendering and print on your epson paper.

[andrew_sacco]

Patrick, I'm sure I'm doing everything correctly. All my prints on all other papers are just great. It's just that this paper seems less brilliant than I expected, and again it's not that big of a deal except that I got a TON of it free (like 750 sheets). I'll use it for proofing I guess. I use the proper Epson paper profile, turn off printer color management and with both CS3 and Lightroom the prints are just less brilliant and lack some contrast. Comparing that to other papers, changing only the paper profile, things are much better. I think I just don't care much for the paper. Now that being said, a high contrast BW image or very colorful shot that has great saturation prints pretty nice. Just doesn't seem to do really broad tonal ranges in BW for me, and the blacks seem slightly "muddy" and lack the crispness I get from papers like Entrada.

[bobmichaels]

Andrew: is there a chance that you are printing on the wrong side of the paper? I don't mean to insult your intelligence but this doesn't just sound like EEM that I've always used.

 

What happens if you use one of the paper profiles for a paper that works for you but print on EEM instead of that paper?

[michel_moreaux2]

I wrote: "As far as I remember, there have never been such discussions when printing on photographical papers in the past"

 

You wrote: "It's odd that you missed them. Archival washing and mounting were big deals back in the 60s when I first printed B&W..."

 

Yes, I know but not to the extent of today's discussions concerning the paper. I have never seen/heard in those times dicussing about OBA in printing papers, nor the fact that papers were not pure rag. Printing papers were different from fine art papers and no one really complained about the paper coating. I think that today there are too much focus on paper longevity. It seems that more and more people want papers that will last forever. IMHO.

[andrew_sacco]

Hi Bob. Yeah, I did the "stick the lip to the sticky side" test and others, so it's the correct side. Again, they're not bad photos, just lacking something. I have tried other paper profiles that give a different result, some better, but call me stubborn that I want to do it the right way with the profile like it's supposed to be. I do like the finish however of the EEM so will try again this weekend.

[andrew_sacco]

Hi Bob. Yeah, I did the "stick the lip to the sticky side" test and others, so it's the correct side. Again, they're not bad photos, just lacking something. I have tried other paper profiles that give a different result, some better, but call me stubborn that I want to do it the right way with the profile like it's supposed to be. I do like the finish however of the EEM so will try again this weekend.

[bobmichaels]

Andrew: That's a good way to tell which is the printable side. But sometimes out of curiosity, I just print on the other side just to be sure. Since you've already used the sheet of paper, why not?

 

I've always determined the "right way" is the way that gives me the photos I want. That's frequently contrary to the film / developer / paper / ink manufacturer or even at odds with normal use.

 

For example, I frequently don't use the EEM printer profile. I just specify Grey Gamma 2.2 as the printer profile, then I specify Velvet Fine Art as the paper, reduce the ink load by 10%, then change the feed back to the sheet feeder, then dial in the tone I want using ABW. Now that's not what Epson says but I print to please me, not them.

[robert_k1]

Matte paper suffers from a less Dmax than semi- or glossy paper, as demonstrated here:

 

http://daystarvisions.com/Docs/Rvws/EpsonPaper/pg1.html

 

and discussed here:

 

http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=22588

 

Semi- or glossy paper has its own problem, as discussed here:

 

http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=21302

 

The holy grail is a paper with high Dmax and a non-reflective surface.

[RaymondC]

Try out photo paper that is the beauty ...

If you printer supports it .. maybe cheaper paper to get roll paper instead .. esp if you are sticking to a few papers only. You can then do the normal cut sizes and the pano's they tend to curl I heard but if framed or matted up should be fine.