Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Canson Baryta Photographique vs Ilford Gold Fibre Silk  (Read 11463 times)
Orang
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2


« on: February 08, 2010, 01:16:53 AM »
ReplyReply

Thank you, Michael, for your experience. I have also tried to make my experience between these two materials using  the Epson R1900 and having profiled with the new Spyder 3 Print.
I'm trying to be serious, but I cannot see any difference. I printed the test image provided by Spyder and also made some prints with photographs of my own. Should my (non professional) printer not be able to show tyniest differences? Or could it be that these two papers come from the same mill?
btw: I love these prints on both papers.
Logged
abiggs
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 542



WWW
« Reply #1 on: February 08, 2010, 08:13:42 AM »
ReplyReply

One difference is that the two papers have an obvious difference in white point.
Logged

Andy Biggs
http://www.andybiggs.com
Africa Photo Safaris | Workshops | Fine Art Prints
Ernst Dinkla
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2804


« Reply #2 on: February 08, 2010, 10:30:55 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: abiggs
One difference is that the two papers have an obvious difference in white point.

Very little in my opinion.

Measured it with a Spectrocam. Can put the results on my site. Both have OBA.

Paperbase is very alike too, microscope on a lightbox. Photorag Baryta has a different paper base.

Tiny bit more gloss on the Canson but that could be a batch difference.

Can't  print as I have only the Canson swatchbook. But some A4 sheets will arrive soon.


met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst Dinkla

Dinkla Gallery Canvas Wrap Actions for Photoshop
http://www.pigment-print.com/dinklacanvaswraps/index.html
Logged
eleanorbrown
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 612


WWW
« Reply #3 on: February 08, 2010, 11:08:30 AM »
ReplyReply

Is the Canson any more "holdable" than the GFS?  I can't touch the surface of the latter without putting a finger mark on the paper.  Using white gloves is a must.  For this reason GFS has become my choice of paper after Epson Exhibition Fiber and the Harman papers, which don't mark as easily.  I was hoping the Canson would not have as fragile a surface coating.  eleanor



Quote from: Ernst Dinkla
Very little in my opinion.

Measured it with a Spectrocam. Can put the results on my site. Both have OBA.

Paperbase is very alike too, microscope on a lightbox. Photorag Baryta has a different paper base.

Tiny bit more gloss on the Canson but that could be a batch difference.

Can't  print as I have only the Canson swatchbook. But some A4 sheets will arrive soon.


met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst Dinkla

Dinkla Gallery Canvas Wrap Actions for Photoshop
http://www.pigment-print.com/dinklacanvaswraps/index.html
Logged

agavephoto
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 38



WWW
« Reply #4 on: February 08, 2010, 04:08:30 PM »
ReplyReply

I find the Canson to have a pretty easily marked surface, as for finger prints.


Quote from: eleanorbrown
Is the Canson any more "holdable" than the GFS?  I can't touch the surface of the latter without putting a finger mark on the paper.  Using white gloves is a must.  For this reason GFS has become my choice of paper after Epson Exhibition Fiber and the Harman papers, which don't mark as easily.  I was hoping the Canson would not have as fragile a surface coating.  eleanor
Logged
GGordon
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6


« Reply #5 on: February 08, 2010, 09:34:16 PM »
ReplyReply


I'm in the process of printing and comparing the Canson, Harman and Ilford baryta papers. My personal favorite was the Harman's but I am liking what I see on the Canson prints a bit better. Not a lot, but to me it just looks nicer. Perhaps a better gamut? I read quite a bit on the baryta papers before making my first purchases and had read that people let the baryta prints dry for 24 hours before handling and that is what I have been following. I normally either frame prints or store them in bags so they are not handled too much. I do not believe that I would use a baryta paper for photos that were to be passed around and handled much. I find that after drying they seem to toughen up but not as much as most of the cheaper "every day" print papers.

Gil
Logged
haefnerphoto
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 617


WWW
« Reply #6 on: February 15, 2010, 10:55:10 AM »
ReplyReply

I just printed identical images on both papers and really see very little difference between the two.  The Canson is ever so slightly brighter but that's about it.  The good news is that the excellant Ilford profile works well with it and it comes in 50' rolls, more sheet paper sizes and is 20% cheaper!!  It's also my understanding that it does come from the same mill as the Ilford product (courtesy of Jim Doyle)  Jim
Logged

kikashi
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3904



« Reply #7 on: February 16, 2010, 03:12:20 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: haefnerphoto
I just printed identical images on both papers and really see very little difference between the two.  The Canson is ever so slightly brighter but that's about it.  The good news is that the excellant Ilford profile works well with it and it comes in 50' rolls, more sheet paper sizes and is 20% cheaper!!  It's also my understanding that it does come from the same mill as the Ilford product (courtesy of Jim Doyle)  Jim
It may be 20% cheaper in the US; over here, it's nearly four times the price of GFS.

Jeremy
Logged
PeterSibbald
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 9


WWW
« Reply #8 on: February 22, 2010, 09:19:57 AM »
ReplyReply

Have just done a comparison of CBP vs. IGFS and to me the difference is clear not just in the whiter tone of the the Canson, but especially in the stipple of the surface.

By comparison, the Ilford is yellow, though this difference is not as marked as if one were comparing to the Hahnemuhle which appears as Michael reviews, is markedly magenta.... so much so that if you accidently use its profile on other papers they will be insipidly green. To me the warmth is a matter of taste and an appropriateness for certain images, some intrinsically more wanting of a warmer paper. That is, both the CBP and IGFS can be pleasing.

But the Canson for me is much more so because of that stipple. For traditional silver halide, where the silver is embedded in the surface emulsion, and can consequently convey  a greater sense of depth that subliminally registers as integrity,  implicitly injet inks reside on the surface of a print. This bugged me about the Ilford as one could readiy see the ink sitting right at the surface which felt, by comparison to traditional silver, insubstantial.  The slight stipple of the Canson helps create that same illusion of depth. Some of the ink is actually deaper in the wells of the stipple than the ink on the peaks. (I suspect it may therefore be more vulnerable to abrasion,  bit I haven't tested this yet.) The stipple or some other finish also affords a slightly brighter sheen which masks the differential between the printed and unprinted edges of the paper surface, again, more like a "real" print. However the sheen—it is classed as a semi-gloss— is not so great as to create issues with viewing light reflection.

I compared a Canson print with one of the same image, size and tonal range that I printed on Agfa Classic roughly 20 years ago. Classic was a slightly warm-toned multigrade fibre paper, quite wonderful except for having a slightly too thin paper base which kinked too easily in sizes 16x20 and above (a feature that lead me to Ilford's multigrade fibre soon after. The Classic is slightly warmer though not as warm as the IGFS or ILford's silver-based Warm-tone Multigrade Firbe. The Canson, with Canson's own profiles for my Epson 3880 holds up most admirably compared to the vintage print. I'd still prefer the silver though it would doubtless take me quite while to bring my darkroom skills back up to my contemporary "lightroom skills". That greater control may just give the inkjet the edge.

I am deeply troubled however by the longevity question of the Canson. Its brightness, although pleasing, suggests not just the presence of optical brighteners, but lots of them, and I have just written to Canson questioning the appropriateness of branding it as an "Infinity paper". It is, albeit buffered, alpha-cellulose as opposed to cotton rag. The others of that brand have the Wilhelm stamp from the study published last year  since they exceed the ISO 9706 standard. And on closer inspection of their sales bunk, Canson claims that their CBP "respects the ISO 9706 standard to guarantee maximum conservation of your prints" , whatever that means. In this case I read "respects" as a weasel word. Canson also refer to it as a "museum grade" paper, but I'm not sure upon what basis they can make this claim. It is a wonderful paper to be sure, but I'm not sure it is going to be a reliable contender in terms of museum longevity.

Is there a baryta inkjet paper without optical brighteners, but with some stipple, that meets or exceeds recognized standards of longeivty. Or is one still stuck with flatter matte papers for this job?

 
Logged
Randy Carone
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 539


« Reply #9 on: February 22, 2010, 10:18:42 AM »
ReplyReply

Museo Silver Rag has no OBAs and, as a result, is a very warm paper. This is one of my papers of choice, along with Epson's Exhibition Fiber, for printing on my Epson 3800.
Logged

Randy Carone
Wayne Fox
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2808



WWW
« Reply #10 on: February 22, 2010, 11:06:26 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: PeterSibbald
I am deeply troubled however by the longevity question of the Canson. Its brightness, although pleasing, suggests not just the presence of optical brighteners, but lots of them

I'm not sure the presence of OBA's makes a paper non-archival.  I don't even know what the definition of "archival" is, but this seems to be more of a personal choice than anything.  As a simple example, Wilhelm tests show Epson 7900 on Somerset Velvet (non-oba) framed under glass at 62 years vs Exhibition Fiber (oba) at 90 years. Interestingly, treating the Somerset velvet with Premier art spray extents the somerset velvet to 166 years but no such test has been made on other papers. Another example, nearly all silver halide papers (those baryta papers we're trying to duplicate with inkjet) contained OBA's.

Some of the concern revolves around the "yellowing" of the OBA papers which is the result of their gradual loss of activity.  Some claim this leaves the prints more yellow than identical papers made without OBA's making the prints less archival.  Personally I wonder if the issue isn't the paper, but the fact that the print itself is printed warmer due to the cooler base color, so once the OBA's fade the image on the print will in fact look warmer.

There is a lot of concern with "archival" and longevity, yet history has proven that most prints printed on any paper are destined to die from some reason other than fading. Seems the only sure way to archive any image is to guarantee the preservation of the source of the image.
Logged

Light Seeker
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 255


« Reply #11 on: February 22, 2010, 12:16:15 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: PeterSibbald
Is there a baryta inkjet paper without optical brighteners, but with some stipple, that meets or exceeds recognized standards of longeivty. Or is one still stuck with flatter matte papers for this job?
You should take a look at Hahnemuhle Photo Rag Baryta. Tise cotton rag paper base is very close to neutral and it has a very nice stipple. No OBA's.

Another paper that is well worth considering is Jon Cone's Type 5 (Inkjet Mall). It is also a cotton rag paper with no OBA's. It is very close to Silver Rag but is slightly warmer and with less gloss. However, it has a baryta coating (Silver Rag does not). Type 5 has the most beautiful texture I've seen in this class of papers. It's more of a "texture" than a stipple. The shine is subdued and combined with the beautiful texture, this paper has a very "soft gloss" / artistic look. A very nice paper. I am printing both b/w and colour inks on it.

Terry.
Logged
dwood
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 273



« Reply #12 on: February 22, 2010, 01:51:43 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Light Seeker
You should take a look at Hahnemuhle Photo Rag Baryta. Tise cotton rag paper base is very close to neutral and it has a very nice stipple. No OBA's.
Agreed in regards to the Hahn PRB. Only problem, and it appears to be a recurring one, is that Hahn seems to have a QC issue with this paper. I've had to throw away a fair number of prints because of random black spots as well as tiny spots where the paper has flaked. When there are none of these problems, prints on PRB are beautiful.

Back to the Canson - I've been wanting to try this and ordered some sheets from SOP quite a while ago but I guess sheets must still be backordered. I'll be anxious to give this paper a go.
Logged

Ernst Dinkla
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2804


« Reply #13 on: February 22, 2010, 03:03:00 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: PeterSibbald
Have just done a comparison of CBP vs. IGFS and to me the difference is clear not just in the whiter tone of the the Canson, but especially in the stipple of the surface.

By comparison, the Ilford is yellow, though this difference is not as marked as if one were comparing to the Hahnemuhle which appears as Michael reviews, is markedly magenta.... so much so that if you accidently use its profile on other papers they will be insipidly green. To me the warmth is a matter of taste and an appropriateness for certain images, some intrinsically more wanting of a warmer paper. That is, both the CBP and IGFS can be pleasing.

But the Canson for me is much more so because of that stipple. For traditional silver halide, where the silver is embedded in the surface emulsion, and can consequently convey  a greater sense of depth that subliminally registers as integrity,  implicitly injet inks reside on the surface of a print. This bugged me about the Ilford as one could readiy see the ink sitting right at the surface which felt, by comparison to traditional silver, insubstantial.  The slight stipple of the Canson helps create that same illusion of depth. Some of the ink is actually deaper in the wells of the stipple than the ink on the peaks. (I suspect it may therefore be more vulnerable to abrasion,  bit I haven't tested this yet.) The stipple or some other finish also affords a slightly brighter sheen which masks the differential between the printed and unprinted edges of the paper surface, again, more like a "real" print. However the sheen—it is classed as a semi-gloss— is not so great as to create issues with viewing light reflection.

I compared a Canson print with one of the same image, size and tonal range that I printed on Agfa Classic roughly 20 years ago. Classic was a slightly warm-toned multigrade fibre paper, quite wonderful except for having a slightly too thin paper base which kinked too easily in sizes 16x20 and above (a feature that lead me to Ilford's multigrade fibre soon after. The Classic is slightly warmer though not as warm as the IGFS or ILford's silver-based Warm-tone Multigrade Firbe. The Canson, with Canson's own profiles for my Epson 3880 holds up most admirably compared to the vintage print. I'd still prefer the silver though it would doubtless take me quite while to bring my darkroom skills back up to my contemporary "lightroom skills". That greater control may just give the inkjet the edge.

I am deeply troubled however by the longevity question of the Canson. Its brightness, although pleasing, suggests not just the presence of optical brighteners, but lots of them, and I have just written to Canson questioning the appropriateness of branding it as an "Infinity paper". It is, albeit buffered, alpha-cellulose as opposed to cotton rag. The others of that brand have the Wilhelm stamp from the study published last year  since they exceed the ISO 9706 standard. And on closer inspection of their sales bunk, Canson claims that their CBP "respects the ISO 9706 standard to guarantee maximum conservation of your prints" , whatever that means. In this case I read "respects" as a weasel word. Canson also refer to it as a "museum grade" paper, but I'm not sure upon what basis they can make this claim. It is a wonderful paper to be sure, but I'm not sure it is going to be a reliable contender in terms of museum longevity.

Is there a baryta inkjet paper without optical brighteners, but with some stipple, that meets or exceeds recognized standards of longeivty. Or is one still stuck with flatter matte papers for this job?


Since a week I'm measuring paper whites with a spectrometer. Printing side with a museum matt board at the back (A1) and  with a black plastic table at the back (A2), back side with the front on a black plastic table(A3). The spectrometer measures into the UV. I got the Canson Baryta Photographique samples from two sources, the first showed a very slight whiter color than the Ilford Gold Fibre Satin. The next samples where completely the same on color in halogen light 3200K, hardly different in CFL 5000K. There is a bit more gloss stipple on the Canson version, both samples. The 3 spectro readings of both CBP and IGFs are completely identical. To me the base + inkjet coating is identical. Either Canson allows the manufacturer to put on an extra gloss "stipple" layer or it is a batch difference. I'm told it comes from the same manufacturer and that it is not from the two branding it.  The color is probably more a question of when it is made then where it is made, OBA fading most likely.

There is an improvised web page running now with the measurements. It will be changed as it is too rudimentary in its display and needs an explication. For the time being you can take a look. Some measurements will be redone but the majority is done as described above. the reason for the different measurements is to get comparable data for maximum reflectance on display (A1), to see what the opaqueness of the paper is (A1-A2 and the related gsm), to see where the OBA is located, in the inkjet coating or base or both (A2<>A3). Some papers have excellent reflectance over the spectrum without use of OBA but with good whitening agents. Other papers have a bad base, are cheap on whitening agents and have lots of OBA in the inkjet coating to cover it up.


http://www.pigment-print.com/spectrumplot/index.php


met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst Dinkla

Dinkla Gallery Canvas Wrap Actions for Photoshop
http://www.pigment-print.com/dinklacanvaswraps/index.html



Logged
Ernst Dinkla
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2804


« Reply #14 on: February 22, 2010, 03:25:04 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Wayne Fox
I'm not sure the presence of OBA's makes a paper non-archival.  I don't even know what the definition of "archival" is, but this seems to be more of a personal choice than anything.  As a simple example, Wilhelm tests show Epson 7900 on Somerset Velvet (non-oba) framed under glass at 62 years vs Exhibition Fiber (oba) at 90 years. Interestingly, treating the Somerset velvet with Premier art spray extents the somerset velvet to 166 years but no such test has been made on other papers. Another example, nearly all silver halide papers (those baryta papers we're trying to duplicate with inkjet) contained OBA's.

Some of the concern revolves around the "yellowing" of the OBA papers which is the result of their gradual loss of activity.  Some claim this leaves the prints more yellow than identical papers made without OBA's making the prints less archival.  Personally I wonder if the issue isn't the paper, but the fact that the print itself is printed warmer due to the cooler base color, so once the OBA's fade the image on the print will in fact look warmer.

There is a lot of concern with "archival" and longevity, yet history has proven that most prints printed on any paper are destined to die from some reason other than fading. Seems the only sure way to archive any image is to guarantee the preservation of the source of the image.

Wayne,


Wilhelm's test results tell little about the behaviour of the paper white itself in time. Aardenburg Imaging test results do.

OBA fading may not be that uniform on the print as you expect it to be.

I suspect that the Premier Art spray isn't so much blocking light fading on the print but blocking gas fading of inks in Wilhelm's tests. And would protect OBA dyes in the same way if they are present. Spraying the back of the paper may help then too. The varnish layer is too thin for an UV blocking agent. I'm not the only one who thinks that.

OBA in the base of RC papers, contained between the PE barriers would create similar effects.



met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst Dinkla

Try: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/



Logged
Alan Goldhammer
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1605


WWW
« Reply #15 on: February 23, 2010, 08:38:49 AM »
ReplyReply

There are also some some paper spectrums on Laszlo Pusztai's website, thought they are confined to Hahnemuhle, Epson, and a couple of Moab papers.  One can easily see the impact of OBAs from these results.

Quote
(Wayne Fox @ Feb 22 2010, 06:06 PM)
I'm not sure the presence of OBA's makes a paper non-archival. I don't even know what the definition of "archival" is, but this seems to be more of a personal choice than anything. As a simple example, Wilhelm tests show Epson 7900 on Somerset Velvet (non-oba) framed under glass at 62 years vs Exhibition Fiber (oba) at 90 years. Interestingly, treating the Somerset velvet with Premier art spray extents the somerset velvet to 166 years but no such test has been made on other papers. Another example, nearly all silver halide papers (those baryta papers we're trying to duplicate with inkjet) contained OBA's.

Some of the concern revolves around the "yellowing" of the OBA papers which is the result of their gradual loss of activity. Some claim this leaves the prints more yellow than identical papers made without OBA's making the prints less archival. Personally I wonder if the issue isn't the paper, but the fact that the print itself is printed warmer due to the cooler base color, so once the OBA's fade the image on the print will in fact look warmer.

There is a lot of concern with "archival" and longevity, yet history has proven that most prints printed on any paper are destined to die from some reason other than fading. Seems the only sure way to archive any image is to guarantee the preservation of the source of the image.

We actually do know a lot from a chemical point of view and long history of conservation work on traditional paintings from the Renaissance and before.  In terms of paper, lignin and pH are the two major culprits and both can be addressed easily enough. Both alpha-cellulose and cotton rag have lignin that must be removed.  Cotton fiber has less of this than tree based cellulose.  pH can be addressed by adjusting it during the paper making process so that the final paper is buffered in a safe range.  I suspect that while there is a longer history of work with cotton fiber, that either paper is "archival" in terms of it not structurally degrading (contrast this to newsprint which after a couple of months turns yellow and gets brittle).  We know from "wet" color photography that dye based images do not last and depending on how and where they are displayed fade (I do not count storage in a light tight box as this defeats the purpose of displaying a print for view).  The use of plexiglass that blocks UV rays can slow down but not prevent fading.  Things are different with B&W photography where you have elemental silver as the image.  This cannot fade, though there could be degradation of the image as a result of residual hypo if it is not properly washed after development.

The pigment inks now used in photo printers do raise the bar considerably with regard to archival quality.  We know from great paintings of the past that colors based on pigments can last for a very long time.  Fading is usually a result of contaminants in the canvas or the varnish used to coat the painting.  Restoration can bring these colors back to life, though perhaps not entirely back to how it looked after the artist painted it.  For this reason, I am less sanguine about the effects of coatings that are used in canvas inkjet printing.  The only data we have is based on accelerated stability testing and that is a less than perfect tool relative to the long term display conditions that an image might be subjected to.  Based on the long history we have with paintings, image degradation is to be expected (but likely not in our lifetime perhaps).

OBAs will have an impact on the paper and as was noted by Ernst, the work that is being done at Aardenburg we will have some answers here (we all might to financially contribute to Mark's effort in providing solid data).  I try to stay away from OBA containing papers (though I do like and print on Epson Exhibition Fiber, so I must be mildly hypocritical).  We don't know which exact chemical agents the paper manufacturers are using for their OBAs and therefore cannot predict (other than through stability testing) what the fade rate will be.  The other thing to remember here if you use these papers; don't frame using UV plexiglass as it defeats the purpose of the OBA!

The other important thing, unlike a painting, is that we can always reprint the image as long as the digital file is preserved.
Logged

TylerB
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 345


WWW
« Reply #16 on: February 23, 2010, 02:15:09 PM »
ReplyReply

The Aardenberg site is becoming invaluable, obviously, and THE place to find info like OBAs etc. I would hope anyone active in this community would step up and subscribe, it's a couple of fast food lunches at best, and so important. Nowhere else are we getting this kind of information.
Nice work on the paper base page Ernst, very informative. It would be interesting to see Hahnemuhle Baryta FB in there as well, since it is so unique.
Tyler
http://www.custom-digital.com/
Logged
tived
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 688


WWW
« Reply #17 on: February 23, 2010, 08:51:07 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: dwood
Agreed in regards to the Hahn PRB. Only problem, and it appears to be a recurring one, is that Hahn seems to have a QC issue with this paper. I've had to throw away a fair number of prints because of random black spots as well as tiny spots where the paper has flaked. When there are none of these problems, prints on PRB are beautiful.

Back to the Canson - I've been wanting to try this and ordered some sheets from SOP quite a while ago but I guess sheets must still be backordered. I'll be anxious to give this paper a go.

I Love the HM Photo Rag baryta, but I do feel the amount of imperfections in the paper is not acceptable given its price point

thanks

Henrik
Logged
NikoJorj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1063


WWW
« Reply #18 on: February 24, 2010, 09:46:37 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Wayne Fox
As a simple example, Wilhelm tests show Epson 7900 on Somerset Velvet (non-oba) framed under glass at 62 years vs Exhibition Fiber (oba) at 90 years.
Simple answer : WIR fading criteria doesn't take the OBA yellowing into account (this hue change goes under their radar).
As said, many useful informations can be found on AardenburgI&A website (and did you notice that subscription price dropped significantly with the new year?  ).

What would frighten me most with OBA-loaded papers is differential yellowing, the kind of thing that doesn't need much change to be spotted by an untrained eye.
Logged

Nicolas from Grenoble
A small gallery
Canson21
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6


WWW
« Reply #19 on: November 09, 2012, 06:52:33 AM »
ReplyReply

By definiton Baryta paper contain barium sulphate coating which some consider an OBA.
Logged

Regards,  and still learning...
Pages: [1]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad