Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Terms Lustre, Satin, Pearl, Semi-Matte, Gloss, High Gloss  (Read 2920 times)
Ernst Dinkla
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2726


« on: February 01, 2013, 03:54:53 AM »
ReplyReply

There is a new thread and poll in this forum about RC Lustre papers. I thought about hijacking that thread as it is already wandering off to unknown territory and starts with an odd list for the poll. A new thread is better though.

I have a collection of about 500 inkjet papers, say half of them glossy. It surprises me again and again that the "manufacturer's" description of the texture and the gloss is so often off the mark. And I am not sure myself what Luster is compared to Pearl or Satin to Semi-Matte, etc. There is that other confusion where Pearl either means a Pearly texture or a Pearlescent (Opale) effect in the coating

Not a traditional polling request here but something else; describe the surface of the glossy papers you use or at least have a sample off and tell us the manufacturer had it right or wrong. Also mention whether you like that texture and gloss quality including its change when printed with the inks you use. Maybe a manufacturer could learn something from a "poll" like that and give us the right textures and the right descriptions in the coming years. Glossy RC papers, Fibre-Baryta and other media.


--
Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst

http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
December 2012, 500+ inkjet media white spectral plots.
Logged
aaronchan
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 279


« Reply #1 on: February 01, 2013, 07:27:07 AM »
ReplyReply

This is my surface definition defined by paper:

Luster - Epson Luster
Pearl - Ilford Smooth Pearl
Satin / Semi-Gloss - HP Satin pro/Ilford Gold Silk
Glossy - Ilford Smooth Glossy
High-Gloss - Ilford High Gloss / Pictorico white film
Logged
MHMG
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 580


« Reply #2 on: February 01, 2013, 05:15:17 PM »
ReplyReply

Just couple of points...2 maybe 3 cents worth.

RC papers are far more consistent than "fine art" inkjet media in classification as "luster", "Pearl", "Satin", "Semi-gloss", Glossy", etc. This is because the top coating imparts most of the surface effect and typically without any bi-directional differences since it is being coated over a very smooth, non conformal, paper-concealing polyethylene layer. The final surface result is typically thus a very homogeneous, non-oriented surface texture. Some RC papers are mechanically "calendared", again giving rise to a very uniform texture. Calendaring is very common with the 'fine art" papers, but the effect is more wide ranging, giving rise to "ultrasmooth" matt fine art papers as well as more toothy surfaces like Hahnemuhle's William Turner.  When mechanical calendaring is applied with less vigor during the paper making process, then the ink jet coatings on a fine art paper core often still carry evidence of the paper structure itself. All in all, the media surface description terms hold up reasonably well for RC paper, much less so for fine art papers. For example, HP Satin Pro looks very similar to Red River Ultrapro Satin (both RC papers) but radically different than Hahnemuhle Photo Rag Satin (a non RC paper) which has an incredibly unique surface that needs to be seen first hand to appreciate.

For RC papers, "luster" generally has the most tooth, Satin somewhat less but still very noticeable. "Pearl" is marketing speak usually for a surface most similar to luster, while "semi-gloss" is marketing speak for a paper often very similar to Satin. In the "good ole" days of 20th century photography, Kodak "E" papers were lustre/pearl, while Kodak "N" was a matt finish with much less tooth than today's "satin". I don't remember a Kodak letter for semi-gloss/satin, but the surface probably existed. Some companies (Innova comes to mind) make "matte" RC inkjet media very similar to the once popular Kodak "N" surface. Kodak "Y" was heavily calendared with a "diamond chisel" type surface that seemed to be popular for school portraits, but IMHO, was kind of cheap/tacky looking.  The Kodak "F" surface was for both glossy and high gloss...the RC versions achieved varying gloss levels with different heat drying methods while the "traditional fiber" F papers achieved even greater gloss level differences depending on whether they were air dried or drum dried. Ultra high gloss on non RC papers occurred when dried against a smooth chrome polished drum, and much lower gloss occurred if air-dried.

Bottom line: with RC type inkjet media the marketing terms are more predictable. You probably won't be too surprised with what you receive when ordering an RC inkjet paper, but for fine art media, these classifications get really murky, and the best advice is just order a sample and check it out before you commit to a large purchase.

And just to give some "new" naming ideas for the marketing folks who lurk at LULA, in the 19th century photographers offered tintypes to the public in both "gloss" and "Eggshell" finishes. I suspect but don't know for sure that Kodak's "E" satin-type surface may have been a tribute to the "eggshell" description. Those vintage eggshell tintypes really do have the surface patina of a chicken egg Grin


cheers,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com
Logged
hugowolf
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 528


« Reply #3 on: February 02, 2013, 06:08:56 PM »
ReplyReply

I knew it was a bad idea just looking at the subject line. And now we get into the difference between tooth and texture, which are two different things.

Brian A
Logged
MHMG
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 580


« Reply #4 on: February 02, 2013, 07:48:07 PM »
ReplyReply

I knew it was a bad idea just looking at the subject line. And now we get into the difference between tooth and texture, which are two different things.

Brian A


I use the terms tooth and texture somewhat interchangeably. Please enlighten me on the difference since I appear to have offended you.
Logged
hugowolf
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 528


« Reply #5 on: February 02, 2013, 08:41:10 PM »
ReplyReply

I use the terms tooth and texture somewhat interchangeably. Please enlighten me on the difference since I appear to have offended you.
I am not that easily offended.

Tooth refers to availability of the fibre content on the surface. So you could press or emboss a heavy texture into a very smooth hot pressed paper, but it would have very little tooth. Working with a pencil, a smooth surface is fine, but you need tooth to hold the graphite.

Brian A
Logged
MHMG
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 580


« Reply #6 on: February 02, 2013, 09:03:27 PM »
ReplyReply

Your definition of tooth does not appear to be a universally accepted one. There seems to be a lot of ambiguity on the subject.  Here's but just one definition that can be found if one google's it. The ability to accept ink or pencil is not necessarily a direct correlation to the amount of exposed paper fibers.

http://desktoppub.about.com/od/glossary/g/Tooth.htm


All that said, if one wants to define a property of media that relates to its ability to write on successfully with graphite pencil, and you want to call that "tooth", I readily agree that this property can be distinctly different than texture. Thanks for bringing up this issue.

kind regards,
Mark
« Last Edit: February 02, 2013, 10:17:13 PM by MHMG » Logged
hugowolf
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 528


« Reply #7 on: February 02, 2013, 11:13:01 PM »
ReplyReply

Like hue and colour, definitions vary. And at times the differences can be quite astounding: the English verb to table, has almost the exact opposite meaning in American. To table: to bring forth for discussion, or to table: to put aside. Who in Europe has enough space to consider a table a suitable place for storage?

Brian A
Logged
hugowolf
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 528


« Reply #8 on: February 02, 2013, 11:45:12 PM »
ReplyReply

So Ernst, I have inadvertently hijacked your thread.

To me pearl has to have two textures: a shallow bowling and a finer texture superimposed on that. Satin has to be a fine uniform texture, similar to satin cloth. I see semi-matte as being a cover term for any RC paper that isnít full gloss.

Anything else, who knows? How would you classify Harman Gloss Baryta? A soft gloss? It certainly isnít lustre, pearl or satin.

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

Posts: 2726


« Reply #9 on: February 03, 2013, 09:58:15 AM »
ReplyReply


All that said, if one wants to define a property of media that relates to its ability to write on successfully with graphite pencil, and you want to call that "tooth", I readily agree that this property can be distinctly different than texture. Thanks for bringing up this issue.

kind regards,
Mark


English is not my native language but one tries to get an understanding of the terms.

Tooth can describe a texture property. For "more tooth" I had a more abrasive texture in mind, on a larger scale say Dolomites compared to the other Alps. In inkjet papers William Turner versus German Etching, same texture frequency but sharper tops. I do not relate it to paper fiber either but a good sized rougher drawing paper would get more tooth than the same paper with less size or a smoother paper with sizing. The glossy papers discussed here have the texture more or less embossed and paper fiber does not play an important role here but in some fiber/baryta papers.

Luster has more tooth you wrote. My association with that term was more sparkle, say a glossier Pearl quality, texture of both somewhat lower frequency and rounder tops than Satin, so less tooth. Not that I see my association back in the paper samples' naming. But for me Ilford Smooth Pearl becomes Luster when I apply the HP gloss enhancer on top. I would expect a lower frequency in its texture though, too close to satin.

Semi-Gloss, Semi-Matte, Satin and your Eggshell are hard to separate. Companies usually arrange the qualities they offer so that they cover the spectrum the customer expects, sometimes in names only and then this category shows considerable shifts to what another company offers on that range. When texture is not visible anymore but the gloss grade varies I do not expect a label like "Satin", then it should be (Smooth) Matte, Semi-Matte (Eggshell), Semi-Gloss, Gloss, High- Gloss. If there is high frequency texture (hardly detectable) with a semi-gloss reflection then it becomes Satin for me. Silk should be lower frequency than Satin but more regular. The Epson Proofing White Semi-Matte is more or less Eggshell to me, without the Gloss Enhancer applied. Some Fibre/Baryta papers have it too

The Ilford Galerie Smooth Pearl is less glossy than the HP Premium ID Satin Photo paper, the texture is almost identical. I would have expected a slightly lower frequency in the Pearl's texture and a similar gloss in both. Very subjective, I know.

Your >>Kodak "Y" was heavily calendared with a "diamond chisel" type surface that seemed to be popular for school portraits, but IMHO, was kind of cheap/tacky looking<< is back in inkjet papers I'm afraid, several companies that had a very regular, fine embossed paper in their new catalogs on the Photokina. I never liked that texture either. Tecco Silk Raster, Photolux StudioPortrait Cooltone, Tetenal Silk. Which introduces another ambiguous term, Cooltone.  Photolux uses Cooltone for anything colder than b -5 and Warmtone for -2 to -5. Warmtone starts at +b  values for me, like found in Fiber, Baryta and matte cotton papers.

I see a lot of Gloss papers that could easily be called Semi-Gloss and possibly no Gloss paper that could fall in the High-Gloss group, which is a small group. I think a matter of Gloss inflation. Some Gloss and all High-Gloss papers become less glossy when I print Gloss Enhancer on them, almost an objective line to draw between them but an arbitrary one.

--
Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst

http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
December 2012, 500+ inkjet media white spectral plots.
Logged
Pages: [1]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad