Referring to the reference image above from Keith Cooper, the first image I printed with my pro ink set up was on Epson Hot press paper because I have a lot of it and it was already profiled. I was quite impressed with the results and I paid quite a bit of attention to the image of the Indian ruins. The shadow detail was really quite good and when compared to the black and white that I got for my Canon 6400 was a definite improvement in many respects one being shadow and highlight detail. The next paper I looked at was the Cone5 paper. The first thing I noticed was how much less shadow detail there was in the test image. I thought I would re-profile the Cone5 paper but it became apparent that all I was doing was re-creating was already available.
I then decided to make a set of profiles for Museo Max paper. The results were more in keeping with the results that I was getting with the Cone 5 paper. The image was contraster and had less shadow detail than the Hot Press paper profile.
I then started looking at the respective quad profiles in the Quad viewer and the profiles that I made for Museo max were for all intensive purposes identical to the Hot Press profiles and worked quite well with Hot Press paper.
Backing up just a bit here I do want to make clear that the difference between the Piezo Hot Press and the Canon 6400 B&W hot press was not nearly as significant.
I’m not sure what my expectations should be here or if I’m just missing something. It takes a pretty strong move in Photoshop for me to get some of my black-and-white landscapes that I printed on Hot Press to have a similar look with the Cone 5.
In layman terms it just seems to me that this process of linearizing the various papers would even out the contrast amongst the various papers.
On the color side if I have a file that prints well on Hot Press it’s going to look very similar on Museo Max.
I would love to get this confusion cleared up.