Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 3 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Baryta Papers  (Read 21354 times)
Lewis_Levin
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6


« on: January 28, 2008, 10:47:31 PM »
ReplyReply

Like everyone else, I’ve been looking forward to the new baryta papers (and Epson’s non-baryta work alike).  I waited until I could get all five of the new papers to try them.  To cut to the chase, the Harman Gloss FB outclasses the pack, especially if you like a low-sheen completely smooth paper—a refined glossy, in so many words.  If you prefer the slight stipple of “luster” or “semigloss,” then look no further than Ilford Galerie Gold Fibre Silk.  The oft-maligned Innova Fibaprint Ultasmooth Glossy delivers a surprisingly decent 3rd place performance.  Epson Exhibition Fiber can’t hold a candle to the best two baryta papers.  And Hahnemuhle Fineart Baryta 325 is even worse than Epson.

It’s interesting how enamored the “fine art” printers have been of these papers.  While wonderful warmth and texture have been achieved on the specially coated matte papers with rag (cotton) or non-lignin fiber bases, many photographers seem to have turned up their noses at printing on plastic sheets—the coated resin-based papers.  Some of the astonished remarks from “fine art” printers about these papers may reflect their prior rejection of any resin-based glossy papers.   There have been glossy papers with paper bases in the past, but until now these lacked the sharpness and color gamut of the RC papers.  

New coatings with baryta (barium hydroxide) or aluminum oxide can match the RC papers, but on a real paper base.  Now that glossy is newly acceptable, it is interesting to compare the new coatings to the most interesting of the “old” RC papers:  Epson Premium Semigloss (or Semimatte roll, but I was too lazy to do all the prints on roll paper) and Pictorico Photo Glossy Paper—one of the few ceramic particle coated papers on a paper base (this is not the ultra high gloss Pictorico Film with the Cibachrome-like gloss).  The best of the new papers—Harman and Ilford—are wonderful, but not so astonishing when you go back to look at Epson Premium Semigloss—if only it didn’t have “Epson” water-marked on the back.  

I only profiled 3 of the papers myself with an Eye-One and Gretag ProfileMaker 5.  I compared the gamut of Harman Gloss, Ilford Gold, and Innova Ultrasmooth to Epson Semigloss and Epson Luster.  Visually, Harman Gloss has a larger gamut overall, especially in highlights and a bit in the deepest shadows.  Ilford covers slightly more of the dark end of L (in L*a*b ).  The RC papers extend marginally further into cyan and magenta (and Luster covers marginally more light yellow), but otherwise have smaller gamuts.  Epson Exhibition Fiber, based on Pixel Genius’s profile, has the smallest of all the gamuts.  Actually, Hahnemuhle’s gamut appears even smaller, but I attribute that to a poorly made profile supplied by the manufacturer.

What follows is an impressionistic evaluation of the 5 papers based on printing the same images on all five papers using the manufacturer provided profiles for the Epson 4800.  

1.  Harman Gloss FB Al
- Very white:  not as white-blue as Epson and somewhat more white than Ilford
- Smooth “flat” sheen:  no stipple, some just discernible smoothed texture
- Even, low-glare sheen:  less reflective than Epson, but smooth without stipple so more like a true glossy but without the hard mirror shine of some RC glossies
- Least glare from light at an angle
- Just about completely indiscernible gloss differential
- Sharpest even printing at 1440 “Superfine” setting (except compared to resin-based papers):  no detail lost through ink spread
- US$1.56 / sheet:  50 8.5x11” sheets for US$77.95 (Atlex)

2. Ilford Galerie Gold Fibre Silk
- Natural white: a mimimal “parchment” coloration, but only when compared directly to papers containing optical brightening agents (OBA)
- Very fine, evenly distributed stipple
- Subdued sheen, not reflective—close to Epson Semigloss with slightly less sheen
- Some glare from light at an angle, but not objectionable because of the fineness of the texture and subdued sheen
- Some gloss differential in areas of paper white within images, just this side of indiscernible in blacks
- 2nd sharpest (printed at 2880 printer settting)
- US$.80 / sheet: 50 8.5x11” sheets for US$39.95 (BH Photo)

3. Innova Fibaprint Ultrasmooth Gloss
- Very bright white, but slightly green compared to Epson (it’s not green—just marginally towards green when placed next to Epson)
- Not exactly a stipple and not as evenly smooth as Harman:  like a stipple that has been partially “rolled” smooth
- Just as reflective and shiny as Epson but with less stipple, so “glint” is marginally less noticeable than Epson
- Glare less than Ilford
- Gloss differential less than Ilford
- Tied with Ilford for sharpness
- US$1.91 / sheet: 25 8.5x11” sheets for US$47.81 (BH Photo)

4. Epson Exhibition Fiber Paper
- Bright white:  the most “blue white” of all of these papers
- Fine, even distributed stipple: less than Premium Luster and more than Premium Semigloss
- Very reflective sheen—like a mirror glossy but with stipple, unlike Luster and Semigloss;  “reflective with bumps”
- Glare from light at an angle equivalent to Ilford, but more uneven
- Gloss differential equivalent to Harman
- Pixel Genius’ profile reveals amazing shadow detail because the darks don’t load up
- US$1.75 / sheet:  25 8.5x11” sheets for US$43.80 (Atlex)

5. Hahnemuhle FineArt Baryta 325
- Very bright white, 2nd only to Epson
- Evenly distributed stipple, but bumpier than Epson and much bumpier than Ilford
- Ink on the paper makes the paper look almost like a microscopic canvas because the layer of ink exaggerates the bumpiness
- Thickest of all the papers
- Worst glare from light at an angle
- Gloss differential equivalent to Harman in paper white, but somewhat more in blacks
- Mfgr. supplied profile is minutely lighter than the others, which improves shadows with no disadvantage to mids and highs (despite smaller gamut)
- Hahnemuhle recommends 1440 printing “resolution”:  through 10X loupe this reduces sharpness but even staring closely from 10” this isn’t noticeable
- US$1.49 / sheet: US$29.70 for 20 8.5x11” sheets (BH Photo)

6. The RC comparison
- Pictorico Photo Glossy Paper and Epson Premium Semigloss are sharper yet than Harman, but only negligibly—there’s not much farther to go—after all, it’s ink on paper.
- Epson Premium Semigloss is almost a dead heat with #2 ranked Ilford;  Ilford is slightly warmer and has slightly less sheen

Over the years, I’ve tried nearly any paper that promised some distinct benefit—and I’ve then cut way back to using only 2 or 3 papers that represent best of a certain class of paper because it’s just not worth the cost and difficulty to frequently switch papers for marginal or no benefit.  So many people looked forward to the Epson and Hahnemuhle papers, but I find myself very disappointed in them.  They just don’t look good to me--the problem is the surface.  The combination of highly reflective surface with pronounced texture seems unlike any other photo surface--and not in a good way.

Harman Gloss FB Al is the best paper in this evaluation.  It really is unprecedented.  It offers the gamut and sharpness of rc papers with less gloss differential than rc glossies.  It has a wonderfully muted sheen that offers the impact of a glossy print without the mirror brashness of rc glossies.  Ilford Gold Fibre Silk is the best value of the lot and is nearly a dead ringer for Epson Semigloss, with a slight warmth and reduced sheen.  These are both really superb papers.   These are the two for me.
Logged
Mike Arst
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 148


« Reply #1 on: January 29, 2008, 02:16:38 AM »
ReplyReply

Thanks for taking the time to post your impressions of these papers. I have used the Harman and the Ilford papers (with an Epson R1800) and have been pretty impressed by both of them. For surface appearance, the Harman paper gets my vote...and how I wish its pricing were more like Ilford's. Both of them bring back that darkroom experience for a moment (they really do smell like enlarging papers -- the Ilford, especially.

I found to my surprise that the Gold Fiber Silk produced noticeably more vibrant reds and yellows than the Harman paper. I made a custom profile (X-Rite Pulse system) for the Harman gloss but haven't yet been able to make a custom profile for the Ilford paper -- more about that below. Perhaps the difference I'm seeing is due to my Harman profile not being good enough (I'm new to do-it-yourself paper profiling and I don't know yet how best to evaluate how good a job I've done...or how to correct errors afterward via profile editing).

My impression of how image detail is rendered with the papers is the reverse of what you observed. This surprised me because I would have thought that the Ilford surface would reduce rather than enhance the effect. Prints on the Gold Fiber Silk seem to be ever so slightly sharper (the sharpening-for-print settings are identical in all these tests).

So far I've been able to make only a few prints successfully on the Ilford paper due to its having a very strong curl toward the back side. The trailing 1/3 of the paper bows upward enough to come into contact with the print heads, and there's smearing and streaking. The prints are ruined. I was able to get a few prints in which this didn't happen, though -- otherwise, I'd have simply given up on the Ilford paper altogether.

I did give up profiling it for now -- there were simply too many prints ruined due to the paper-curl problem. With that strong a reverse curl, printing on 13x19 paper would be a disaster, every time. Recently I complained to Ilford's tech support department about this. They replied, saying they were aware of the paper-curl problem and said they were working on a fix. I asked afterward if they had an ETA for the fix -- alas, they didn't reply.

With printers having an adjustable gap, this might not be a problem at all. The R1800 doesn't seem to provide such an adjustment, so no joy there. This kind of paper-curl problem would be utterly unacceptable in an enlarging paper! The easel blades would not be able to hold the paper flat and focusing the projected image would be impossible (short of using a vacuum easel).

Another problem with the Ilford paper has been that it is highly susceptible to finger-marks -- more so than any other inkjet paper I've used. Of course it's a good idea to handle paper extra-carefully, including handling it while wearing cotton gloves. But still -- the paper seemed abnormally easy to mar this way. I got around it, sort of, by having the R1800 coat the entire surface with its gloss optimizer. (The trade-off is that this "knocks down" the highlights ever so slightly.) I have wondered about how the delicacy of the surface can be worked around if someone is using a printer whose inks have the gloss-optimizer chemistry within the ink droplets themselves (thus, no coating for the entire surface at print-time). Would all prints have to be sprayed to protect them? Opinions vary about the need for such sprays...IAC I would be irritated if I had to spray every print to avoid this problem.

If I can figure out how to improve the vibrance of reds and yellows on the Harman paper, I'd be glad to standardize on it. But despite the finger-mark problem with the Gold Fiber Silk -- if Ilford really can solve that unpleasant reverse-curl problem, it will also be one I'll want to use.

Who knows -- maybe competition between these companies will drive down the price of the Harman paper a bit.
Logged
juicy
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 254


« Reply #2 on: January 29, 2008, 07:33:29 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
So far I've been able to make only a few prints successfully on the Ilford paper due to its having a very strong curl toward the back side. The trailing 1/3 of the paper bows upward enough to come into contact with the print heads, and there's smearing and streaking. The prints are ruined. I was able to get a few prints in which this didn't happen, though -- otherwise, I'd have simply given up on the Ilford paper altogether.


[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Hi!

Have you tried straightening the curl before printing? I had the same problem when printing on Ilford  Smooth Fine Art paper but solved it simply by de-curling it with a similar device that Michael reviewed in [a href=\"http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/accessories/d-roller.shtml]http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/.../d-roller.shtml[/url]

Cheers,
J
Logged
01af
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 294


« Reply #3 on: January 29, 2008, 08:34:44 AM »
ReplyReply

Regarding the lack of vibrance in the yellows and reds on the Harman Gloss FB Al paper ... I found that's an issue when using the original Harman profile provided on their own website. I downloaded another profile from Booksmart Studio for my printer (which is an Epson Stylus Pro 3800; see http://www.booksmartstudio.com/), and that yields more vibrant yellows and reds---and thus, more vivid (but still natural) skin tones, for example. However in very saturated areas, the Booksmart Studio profile will yield slightly less differentiated hues.

Bottom line, generally I prefer the Booksmart Studio profile over the Harman profile; it has better shadow rendition too (albeit by a very small margin). Some of the Booksmart Studio printer ICC profiles are free, some cost a few bucks---the one for Harman Gloss FB Al on Epson 3800, for instance, is $4.00 US. See their "Canned ICC profiles" section.

-- Olaf
Logged
Lewis_Levin
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6


« Reply #4 on: January 29, 2008, 12:20:39 PM »
ReplyReply

Thanks for all of the comments.

Interesting POV about Ilford detail.  I didn't see the  curling problem or the fingerprint problem.  Wonder if batches are different.

I saw terrible curling on the Moab colorado baryta paper--wouldn't even print, but other posters said that they have subsequently fixed it.

Profiling is hard and very dependent on both the software and the target.  I have used Bill Atkinson's 1728 patch target (he admits that the bigger target is only essential for problem situations) with ProfileMaker and produced really good profiles.  The 1728 [atch target resulted in larger gamut profile than the mfgr. supplied profile.
Logged
JeffKohn
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1671



WWW
« Reply #5 on: January 29, 2008, 12:52:40 PM »
ReplyReply

I'm surprised at your assessment of the Harman paper, I found it to be the glossiest and most reflective fiber paper I've tried, which combined with the extremely smooth surface gives a look and feel very similar to RC glossy paper.

The sharpness of prints on the Harman is pretty amazing, I just don't like the feel and surface of the paper.
Logged

Mike Arst
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 148


« Reply #6 on: January 29, 2008, 12:54:40 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Have you tried straightening the curl before printing? I had the same problem when printing on Ilford  Smooth Fine Art paper but solved it simply by de-curling it with a similar device that Michael reviewed in http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/.../d-roller.shtml
I did try something rudimentary -- it didn't involve using an anti-curl device -- but didn't succeed in removing the curl enough to prevent the problem within the printer. I can wait a while ... perhaps Ilford will be able to fix the manufacturing defect.
Logged
Mike Arst
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 148


« Reply #7 on: January 29, 2008, 12:58:29 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Regarding the lack of vibrance in the yellows and reds on the Harman Gloss FB Al paper ... I found that's an issue when using the original Harman profile provided on their own website.
Hmm. I saw this difference when I was using the profile I'd made. I guess it indicates that I haven't made a good profile. (Making them is fairly easy with this equipment. But how to customize them later on and improve them...no clue...)

I've noticed some slight improvements in shadow detail with the profiles I've made myself, but no matter -- I'll download the Booksmart profile you're talking about and give it a try. Thanks for mentioning it.
Logged
mmurph
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 507


WWW
« Reply #8 on: January 29, 2008, 01:01:12 PM »
ReplyReply

Lewis,

Thank you for the long post.  I appreciate your observations.

You have to realize though that your conclusions are rather subjective.  I have not tried the Ilford yet. My ranking in terms of my preference, though, would be the Epson first, Hahnemuhle second, then the Harman, and finally the Innova.  I find the Harman too smooth, flat, and "dead", while the texture of the Epson and Hahnemuhle brings some life to the image.  

I agree on limiting and standardizing on your materials. I printed for at least 3 year using only Epson Preumium Luster and Epson Premium Semi-Matte in rolls.  The Luster, for me, has just a bit too much surface texture, but the Semi-matte is not available in smaller sizes.  The papers you mentioned above do offer significant, if subtle, improvements over those media.  

I just printed the same image on at least 22 different surfaces to test a new printer (7880), inks, profiles, etc.  When you have all of those image together the differences between most become subtle!  (Plus there are a few dogs where you still wonder how you screwed up even after profiling and testing with both blacks.     )

Best,
Michael
Logged
Mike Arst
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 148


« Reply #9 on: January 29, 2008, 01:03:08 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Interesting POV about Ilford detail.  I didn't see the  curling problem or the fingerprint problem.  Wonder if batches are different.
Considering differences reported here w.r.t. paper curl, I'd have to guess there is noticeable variation between batches.

Profiling: I suppose the only way to get a clue about the effects of profile editing is to load one of them into the editor, boost the reds and yellows (if that is possible; I haven't been brave enough to dive into the editor yet) and see what happens.
Logged
Mike Arst
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 148


« Reply #10 on: January 29, 2008, 01:19:38 PM »
ReplyReply

Lewis -- I noticed your mentioning Pictorico's high-gloss white film. I used that product with huge satisfaction when I had a printer that used dye inks. Though I once hated ferrotyped photographic papers, I could live with the Pictorico surface in trade for the fascinating way in which it "took" the image (and the superior d-max, which I have yet to produce in other papers -- that Pictorico black was black, not dark-dark grey). But when I switched to a pigment-ink printer, the effect I would see with the dye-based ink was lost in the gloss film. Have you used the film successfuly with pigment-ink printers?

After Pictorico moved under Mitsubishi's umbrella, the film got the word "Pro" in its name and the cut sheets doubled in price -- was $20/20 sheets of 8.5x11; now about $40/20 sheets. It was expensive before...but 2X is a BIG jump. Pictorico has done a strange thing, too: they have withdrawn all of their profiles (that I know of). It's a strange approach to marketing professional inkjet material -- double the price...and yet no profiles (not even a starting-point).

Pictorico claims on its site that Wilhelm labs rates the film at "100 years" with Epson pigment inks*. I have yet to find a report (or one-liner, or whatever) to that effect on Wilhelm's site. The short blurb about this on the Pictorico site doesn't provide a URL for the report. When I have asked Pictorico for more information, they have not replied...

* www.pictorico.com/articles/Wilhelm3.pdf
Logged
mmurph
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 507


WWW
« Reply #11 on: January 29, 2008, 06:17:35 PM »
ReplyReply

Lewis, if I read your notes correctly, it seems that the 2 papers you did not craete a custom profile for are ranked at the bottom of your list.

I wonder if that (probably) small difference in quality was enough to influence the rankings?  Just a thought.

Best,
Michael
Logged
Lewis_Levin
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6


« Reply #12 on: January 30, 2008, 12:40:49 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Lewis, if I read your notes correctly, it seems that the 2 papers you did not craete a custom profile for are ranked at the bottom of your list.

I wonder if that (probably) small difference in quality was enough to influence the rankings?  Just a thought.

Best,
Michael
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=170777\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Certainly my impressions are entirely subjective.

No, my subjective ranking has little to do with the profiles.  Image quality is very good on all of these papers.  My reaction is based primarily on the surface, which is the most subjective element of all.
Logged
woffles
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 22


« Reply #13 on: January 30, 2008, 08:29:12 AM »
ReplyReply

Interesting reading, thanks for taking the time to write it up.

I've used the Ilford Gold with my Epson R1800 and had the same issue with the head strikes at the end of the print.  It seems to me that the issue is the amount of ink being laid down towards the end of the print that is causing it to curl up.  I had a wedding print I was trying to do at 13x19 and it kept hitting.  I set the printer for thick paper and it still hit.  I finally turned the photo upside down in PS and got a successful print out of it.  The guys in black suits were on the right side of the picture so I had them print out first instead of last.  The women were in light colored dresses so not as much ink was laid down and the head didn't hit anymore.  De-curling first might help also but the paper was flat going into the printer and didn't show any curl before printing. YMMV
Logged
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6818


WWW
« Reply #14 on: February 03, 2008, 04:44:28 PM »
ReplyReply

I use an Epson 3800 for non-matte printing so I don't know the 1800. I'm having no curl or head-strike problems with Ilford GFS in the 3800 whatsoever; however, for a paper of the thickness of Innova Fibragloss Type F, it is necessary to adjust the platen gap from Standard to Wide. If the 1800 has such a platen gap adjustment this may be the solution. By the way, I don't notice curl in the Ilford GFS sheets (13*19 inch) going through the printer. Once printed, I let them cure standing in wire racks for 24 hours after printing, where they develop a slight curl which flattens as soon as they stored in a portfolio box. As for fingerprints - yes it is an issue and requires handling them at the edges. It is also quite sensitive to minor abrasions. In this regard, I think the Hahn-325 has a tougher surface, but at amost twice the price I'll use the Ilford and handle it a bit carefully.

Lewis, these Baryta papers are made with Barium Sulphate, not Barium Hydroxide.

The interesting thing about all this discussion of paper surface and gloss differential is that when you look at the prints under an angle of lighting that maximizes image detail and minimizes sheen, you see neither the paper texture nor the gloss differential - only the image, which is as it should be. Then all which matters is gamut, paper tone and retention of image detail. As I don't examine prints under a loupe, differences of the latter between these papers is moot. I think Michael's comments on dMax and gamut differentials (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/printers/baryta.shtml) are correct. As for tone, people who like a slight warm bias will really like the Ilford GFS, while those who prefer a slightly cooler look would opt for the Hahn-325, Epson EFP, or Harman.
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
Mike Arst
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 148


« Reply #15 on: February 03, 2008, 05:11:56 PM »
ReplyReply

I don't think the R1800 has a platen gap adjustment. If it does then shame on me -- a RTFM problem on my part.

Quote
As for fingerprints - yes it is an issue and requires handling them at the edges.
As with the paper-curl problem, it's interesting that some people have reported no problems with finger-marking, which again suggests possible considerable variation from batch to batch. The R1800's gloss-optimizer, if laid down over the entire sheet, seems to help with this. No such coating available with printers using K3 inks (as I understand it). Break out the cotton gloves, then...

Quote
The interesting thing about all this discussion of paper surface and gloss differential is that when you look at the prints under an angle of lighting that maximizes image detail and minimizes sheen, you see neither the paper texture nor the gloss differential
Agreed. A fine-art printer I know cannot stand to work with papers whose surfaces he despises. I mentioned that when a print is framed and under glass -- how noticeable is the surface -- or the gloss differential (if slight)? In the end, do these things matter a lot? This got no "traction," though. When I used a printer with dye-based inks, I could even tolerate Pictorico's super-high-gloss film surface in trade for the gratifyingly strong black[*] and the unusual -- in a good way -- appearance of the image on the film -- once the print was framed, that is. (In a previous incarnation I loathed ferrotyped surfaces with a passion.)

[*] Best I've seen so far. No other inkjet media I've used even come close.
Logged
picnic
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 574


« Reply #16 on: February 03, 2008, 05:30:01 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I don't think the R1800 has a platen gap adjustment. If it does then shame on me -- a RTFM problem on my part.
As with the paper-curl problem, it's interesting that some people have reported no problems with finger-marking, which again suggests possible considerable variation from batch to batch. The R1800's gloss-optimizer, if laid down over the entire sheet, seems to help with this. No such coating available with printers using K3 inks (as I understand it). Break out the cotton gloves, then...
Agreed. A fine-art printer I know cannot stand to work with papers whose surfaces he despises. I mentioned that when a print is framed and under glass -- how noticeable is the surface -- or the gloss differential (if slight)? In the end, do these things matter a lot? This got no "traction," though. When I used a printer with dye-based inks, I could even tolerate Pictorico's super-high-gloss film surface in trade for the gratifyingly strong black
  • and the unusual -- in a good way -- appearance of the image on the film -- once the print was framed, that is. (In a previous incarnation I loathed ferrotyped surfaces with a passion.)
  • Best I've seen so far. No other inkjet media I've used even come close.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=172085\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I've read this about the Ilford GSF--the fingerprinting, but though I've only printed the sample pack, mine have cured pretty well and I don't seem to have that problem.  Nor did I have a 'curl' problem with 8.5 x 11 and the 3800 while printing--no head strikes, etc.  I did set my platen gap wider as well as increased the paper thickiness however.  

The EEF and Ilford are the least flat (as opposed to the Harman and my older Innova White Semi Matte)---but its so slight its hardly noticeable and if I put them in a portfolio box, I don't think you would ever notice it.  Its the paper I'm leaning toward now--I prefer the slightly warmer tone and find the GD almost a nonissue under glass (at least for the samples I've printed--mono and color), no bronzing, and I like the surface and weight (and price LOL).

Diane
Logged
Mike Arst
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 148


« Reply #17 on: February 03, 2008, 06:24:33 PM »
ReplyReply

Well, once again it seems like a Varies From Batch To Batch sort of thing. I just got e-mail from a friend whose experiences with paper curling were the opposite of mine -- the Ilford paper is nice and flat, and it's the Harman paper that has quite a curl. Here the Harman paper lies almost flat as a board. It's a "go figure" kinda world.

> I like the surface and weight (and price LOL).

I'm not crazy for the Ilford surface -- but under glass, it'd be a non-issue. With both the Harman and Ilford papers there's slight gloss differential, and slight bronzing -- add some gloss optimizer and all that seems to disappear. But again, under glass -- both seem to be non-issues.

I do appreciate the lower price of the Ilford paper. Of course if I printed for exhibition this would not be such a factor. But nope. I print mostly to irritate myself. :-)
Logged
picnic
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 574


« Reply #18 on: February 03, 2008, 07:04:44 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Well, once again it seems like a Varies From Batch To Batch sort of thing. I just got e-mail from a friend whose experiences with paper curling were the opposite of mine -- the Ilford paper is nice and flat, and it's the Harman paper that has quite a curl. Here the Harman paper lies almost flat as a board. It's a "go figure" kinda world.

> I like the surface and weight (and price LOL).

I'm not crazy for the Ilford surface -- but under glass, it'd be a non-issue. With both the Harman and Ilford papers there's slight gloss differential, and slight bronzing -- add some gloss optimizer and all that seems to disappear. But again, under glass -- both seem to be non-issues.

I do appreciate the lower price of the Ilford paper. Of course if I printed for exhibition this would not be such a factor. But nope. I print mostly to irritate myself. :-)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=172103\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I think the K3 inks on even the Epson luster papers show a lot less GD and really no bronzing than the Ultrachrome (my 2200)--may be why I'm seeing less than the 1800.   Then again, maybe this is some of the differentiation in the papers--different inks, gloss optimizer with some printers, etc.   Who knows--interesting though.  Sometimes I read this forum and others about these papers and think we aren't even talking about the same papers.

Diane
Logged
neoprinter
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 21


« Reply #19 on: February 05, 2008, 02:25:38 PM »
ReplyReply

I gave up on trying to print color photographic images on these papers with K3-photo black ink, just too much differential reflection and dichroic bronzing.  I'm printing with an Epson 1400 with Claria ink now, and prints look like real color photographic prints.  

I've found the Innova Ultrasmooth gloss to have the whitest base, actually a tiny bit red, but the Harman gloss has the nicest surface, though a little yellowish, which is worrisome for the long term.  Another negative is that it takes a lot of ink to get sufficient contrast with the Harman, which increases printing costs.  

The Hahnemühle Fine Art surface is awful, looks like it's spatter sprayed!  I haven't tried the Epson Exhibition Fiber, it's way too expensive.  Epson's not a paper company anyway.

No perfect papers for me yet, and I'm uncertain as to whether Epson will get a brain and introduce a larger printer for the Claria ink, and leave paper to paper companies.  They remind me of Microsoft, trying to get their fingers in everything, even areas outside of their expertise.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad