Luminous Landscape Forum

Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Printing: Printers, Papers and Inks => Topic started by: BigBadWolfie on June 15, 2012, 11:37:24 AM

Title: Canson Platine vs Baryta vs Hahnemuhle Photo Rag Baryta
Post by: BigBadWolfie on June 15, 2012, 11:37:24 AM
Anyone compare the Canson Platine to their Baryta to Hahnemule's Photo Rag Baryta or other similar papers and can give their impressions?
Title: Re: Canson Platine vs Baryta vs Hahnemuhle Photo Rag Baryta
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on June 15, 2012, 01:42:50 PM
I have compared only the two Canson papers.  Plantine is cotton rag stock while the Baryta is alpha-cellulose so there is a difference in feeling between the two papers.  Dmax and gamuts appeared to be pretty much the same in test prints and to me the Plantine is only slightly warmer.  Both are good papers.  I can't remember the pricing of them and since I still have a fair amount of Museo Silver Rag and Ilford Gold Fiber Silk (my two first choice papers for PK inks) I haven't been in the market for anything new.
Title: Re: Canson Platine vs Baryta vs Hahnemuhle Photo Rag Baryta
Post by: Light Seeker on June 15, 2012, 02:44:24 PM
I've worked with some of the baryta papers in the past and right now I'm using Platine. There are three things that I really like about Platine. . . 

1. It has no OBA's.
2. The surface texture is a uniform stipple, whereas other papers have some kind of a pattern to them. While I like a patterned texture in matte papers (looks "artsy") I find it distracting in a gloss / semi-gloss paper.
3. It is very close to neutral. The b* value is ~0.8 and a* is even lower. Canson's baryta paper in contrast, has OBA's and is on the cool side (negative b*).

If these appeal to you, Platine may be a good choice.

Another recent favourite is Hahnemuhle (Harman) Gloss Baryta. I love the smooth surface. It has OBA's, but they are not excessive. I like how the cool paper base cools my b/w prints a bit.

Terry.
Title: Re: Canson Platine vs Baryta vs Hahnemuhle Photo Rag Baryta
Post by: TylerB on June 15, 2012, 07:43:11 PM
PHoto Rag Baryta seems to me different than many of the others. It is cotton, and softer in feel than the others. The surface seems very natural and less manufactured. It is very close to neutral. No optical brighteners according to Aardenburg...
PLatine seems like a dead ringer for Gold Fiber Silk.. to the warm side of neutral and smoother.
Canson Baryta is the one I haven't tried.
Tyler
Title: Re: Canson Platine vs Baryta vs Hahnemuhle Photo Rag Baryta
Post by: David Sutton on June 15, 2012, 10:18:44 PM
Here are my notes for semi-gloss/satin oba-free papers. Hope it's some use!


Hahnemuhle Photo Rag Pearl
Very fine, but not unpleasant stipple. A creamy base colour.

Hahnemuhle Photo Rag Baryta
I haven't tried this paper

Canson Platine Fibre Rag
This paper appears quite smooth but has a sort of micro-texture that grips the thumb when held. With GFS on the other hand the thumb slides smoothly over the surface. Whiter than H Photo Rag Pearl. A very good to excellent GFS alternative.

Museo Silver Rag
Holds ink very well. A pronounced grain running the length of the roll, quite visible when the paper is seen at an angle of about 45 degrees which in my opinion renders it unsuitable for portraiture. A little warmer than Canson Platine

Innova Warmtone Gloss
The Europe icc profile works well with this. It holds a lot of ink. The colours are very good. A pronounced grain running along the length of the roll. The test print has tiny dots all over it when held in raking light. They look like minute indentations that have ink in them but catch the light when not viewed front on. This make this paper unusable for me.

Ilford GFS
Smooth finish. Whitest and coolest base of those tested with the exception of Canson Platine.  The Ilford appears marginally whiter but this may be a result of it's non-sheen surface. (Edit: I can't remember what I meant by this)

Title: Re: Canson Platine vs Baryta vs Hahnemuhle Photo Rag Baryta
Post by: Tony Jay on June 16, 2012, 05:38:13 AM
..Canson's baryta paper in contrast, has OBA's and is on the cool side (negative b*)...

I am a little confused with regards to optical brightening agents in Canson Baryta Photographique.
I have found some older [sic] information (some on this site) mentioning that a small amount of OBA's is present in this paper.
More recent information mentions the absence of OBA's in Canson Baryta Photographique.

I orginally made a decision to use this paper based on the absence of OBA's so some clarification would be good.

Regards

Tony Jay
Title: Re: Canson Platine vs Baryta vs Hahnemuhle Photo Rag Baryta
Post by: howardm on June 16, 2012, 05:48:59 AM
it's too early for me to hit the way-back machine but as I recall, the 'confusion' (if you want to call it that) is/was that the paper seems to have a small amount of OBA (of some sort) but they're in the paper base, not the upper layers.  Perhaps Mr. Dinkla can comment.
Title: Re: Canson Platine vs Baryta vs Hahnemuhle Photo Rag Baryta
Post by: Tony Jay on June 16, 2012, 06:27:33 AM
Thanks for the info Howard

Regards

Tony Jay
Title: Re: Canson Platine vs Baryta vs Hahnemuhle Photo Rag Baryta
Post by: Ernst Dinkla on June 16, 2012, 06:39:51 AM
Ilford GFS, Canson Baryta Photographique, Innova IFA69, all have some OBA in the coating just to neutralise the white, I do not think that there is OBA in the paper base. I do not see a -b in my measurements, it is natural on that axis too which indicates again that a spectral plot says more than just the Lab numbers. Aardenburg mentions a low OBA  content for the first two also, the Innova is not in their list.

Platine seems to be without OBAs.


--
Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst

340+ paper white spectral plots:
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
update april 2012: Harman by Hahnemühle, Innova IFA45 and more
Title: Re: Canson Platine vs Baryta vs Hahnemuhle Photo Rag Baryta
Post by: JohnBrew on June 16, 2012, 08:05:53 AM
I use Hahnemuhle Photo Rag Baryta extensively. It's a heavy paper and prints beautifully and can take rough treatment. I used some Canson Platine which was given to me to try by another photographer. I saw nothing wrong with it, but in 8 1/2 x 11 paper which I use for small prints and testing I prefer Ilford GFS. The only other paper I'm printing with presently is Hahnemuhle Photo Rag Pearl.
Title: Re: Canson Platine vs Baryta vs Hahnemuhle Photo Rag Baryta
Post by: MHMG on June 16, 2012, 11:14:18 AM
Just to summarize some of the comments that have already been posted and also add some info that hasn't been mentioned yet:

Platine is OBA free and the base sheet is cotton fiber. Its coating uses TiO2 whitening agents not Barium sulfate. It exhibits a fine surface stipple with ever so slight grain orientation. The base sheet may therefore be mechanically calendared during production to make it smoother before it later gets the coatings added.

 Canson Bartya Photographique has an alphacellulose base sheet  and Barium sulfate whitening plus a moderately low level of OBA. Because the OBA amount is used with restraint, it significantly outperforms in light fade testing compared to papers with high OBA content like Epson Exhibition Fibre paper. CIFA Baryta is almost a "dead ringer" for Ilford Gold Fibre Silk but, IMHO, not identical. It appears to use same coating technology both front and back side.  My guess is that the ever-so-slight difference between the two papers is due to Canson supplying the base sheet whereas IGFS base sheet is probably sourced from a different paper manufacturer or made with different calendaring/finishing procedures. That said, the apparently shared top coatings and anti-curl layer technology on the backside is what makes these two papers behave so similarly and have such similar texture, ink absorption, and handling properties. Many people cannot tell them apart, so it's not unreasonable to treat them as interchangeable and thus buy depending on price and availability. Right now, I seem to be able to find CiFA baryta at lower price from my suppliers than the IGFS.

Somewhere in the Ilford literature was a statement that IGFS is OBA-free. That's an error. As with CIFA baryta (see above) it has low level of OBAs. However, because the OBA is probably in a subbing layer and/or base sheet, it is more resistant to fade, and the total amount of OBA only substracts visually about 3 points in the b* value (the blue-yellow visual component), so when it does finally burn out it doesn't lead to severe visual differences in the media whitepoint and highlight color as can happen with other papers.

HN Photorag baryta and photo rag pearl both have cotton fiber base sheet. At same gsm weight, cotton generally gives a softer more bendable feel in handling compared to alphacellulose papers.  The HN photo rag baryta base sheet also provides a little coarser surface texture (presumably little or no machine roll calendaring) so HN photo rag baryta, like Museo Silver Rag, has a little more noticeable grain direction and surface stipple than Canson Platine Fiber, which in turn has a little more grain direction and stipple compared to CIFA baryta or IGFS. Platine is also a little whiter than HN Photo Rag baryta, both papers achieving their media whitepoint color without any OBA boost.  Some people like HN photorag baryta's surface and view it as a somewhat more "natural" aesthetic. Others (like me) prefer a more ordered fine satin or pearl aesthetic which Platine gets a little closer to. Note: if you really desire highly-ordered, grain direction-free finish then RC papers are the way to go.

Harmon Baryta Gloss and Warmtone Baryta papers are the smoothest of the non-RC "traditional fiber papers" I've encountered. They also exhibit less differential gloss and bronzing, IMHO, though none of the gloss/luster type inkjet papers are totally free of these issues, IMHO, when printing with Canon Lucia or Epson Ultrachrome pigmented ink sets. They also use a strong anti-curl technology on the verso similar to IGFA and CIFA Baryta. Seems like the Baryta coated papers may need this extra anti-curl layer on the verso.

Lastly, and I throw this in only as a personal comment that won't affect too many photographers' choices between these papers, In recent months I've started to do backprinting of metadata on my personal work (I don't want to use ink stamps or adhesive labels) To achieve backprinting, the paper doesn't necessarily have to be a dual-sided printable paper, but the back side does have to accept some ink at least as well, for example, as a plain paper. IGFS, and Canson Baryta have the same rather distinct anti-curl layer on the verso which HN photo rag, Platine, Museo Silver Rag, etc. do not have.  This layer does not accept the ink well so I was unsuccessful with my goal of back printing on the IGFS and the CIFA baryta, but I did succeed with the "cotton base" papers like Platine and HN Photo Rag Baryta. Again, this back printing issue is not an attribute that the typical user cares about. However, the strong anti-curl layer on the IGFS and CIFA baryta can also give a little trouble with head strikes on printers like the Epson 3880 which don't have vacuum assisted hold down during printing. Many report having to widen the platten gap distance to successfully print on IGFS. What is happening is that the anticurl layer is designed to give exceptional lay-flat characteristics to the finished print, but when high ink loads during printing wet the front side of the paper, the dry anticurl layer on the back is then overcompensating. The paper can then backwards bend towards the print head more than other papers with lesser anti-curl technology. That's why higher platten gap and/or vacuum strengthy may be needed.

All in all, it's great to have so many paper choices. Best advice I can give is take the time to get some real samples and let your own experience/preferences dictate what your favorites will become.

cheers,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com

Title: Re: Canson Platine vs Baryta vs Hahnemuhle Photo Rag Baryta
Post by: Czornyj on June 16, 2012, 11:57:00 AM
Mark - could you please tell how to determine that the coating uses TiO2 or BaSO4 as whitening agent? Can you recognize it by looking at the paper spectral plot?

BTW - thanks for the very interesting input, I'm really impressed.
Title: Re: Canson Platine vs Baryta vs Hahnemuhle Photo Rag Baryta
Post by: MHMG on June 16, 2012, 01:01:31 PM
Mark - could you please tell how to determine that the coating uses TiO2 or BaSO4 as whitening agent? Can you recognize it by looking at the paper spectral plot?

BTW - thanks for the very interesting input, I'm really impressed.


There are  differences in spectral properties of TiO2 and Barium sulfate, but by the time it's buried in a binder polymer and also with typical spectrometers we use for ICC profiling that don't go much below 400nm in wavelength, I have my doubts is can be distinguished with spectros that printmakers typically use. Ernst may be able to give a more definitive statement on thhis since he has looked at the spectral plots of so many of these papers made wtih an Eye One Pro.  Anyway, believe it or not, a good baryta paper can often be confirmed by it's odor. Barium sulfate has a slightly sweet odor that you will recognize easily once you know what it smells like.  Check out the Harmon gloss Baryta and compare to a non baryta paper like Canson Platine.  You can then get yourself "calibrated" to detect this classic baryta odor. Old timers like me that spent many years in the darkroom know it well.

Also, I should mention that the paper vendor will almost always mention the use of BaSO4 in marketing literature on the product. It's considered a bragging right with the "traditional fiber" type inkjet papers (although amounts may vary and some "baryta" papers may thus have hybrid whitening methods). When the manufacturer is vague about it, chances are it doesn't have it. AFAIK, RC type papers never have a baryta layer and always incorporate TiO2. When the baryta oder is strong, you know it's pretty much the real deal.

best,
Mark
Title: Re: Canson Platine vs Baryta vs Hahnemuhle Photo Rag Baryta
Post by: AaronPhotog on June 16, 2012, 02:12:46 PM
Mark is correct on the brightener question, and the smell of baryta papers.  During my darkroom years, virtually all the silver black-and-white papers that I used contained brighteners.  They have held up fine, except on the few occasions that I over-washed the brighteners out of the paper (I learned the Ilford method and followed it after that).

Here is a link to my comparison of inkjet papers, specifically starting with the Canson papers: http://www.dygartphotography.com/papertestcharts/025cansonbarytaphot2880.html

Click the right arrow to see the paper tests for the glossy papers in succession.  GFS is last.  The tests used the QTR calibration page, which feeds ink from each cartridge at 5% increments to 100%.  Only the black, light black, and light-light black from my Epson 3800 are plotted.  There is a commentary on the paper white, and you will see the maximum available difference from black to white, taking into account the capability to properly limit blacks where they level or fall off at the upper end.

The paper that GFS was compared to was not the Platine but the Canson Baryta Photographique, but the Platine curve is closer.  I don't see any of these curves as identical.  Some papers seem to be better for 2880, and some better for 1440 in terms of tonal response (making a good set of curves that can easily be linearized).  For some papers, then, you'll see one chart at 2880 and another at 1440.  Before the linked page, there are also a few other glossy papers, and several matte papers.  Also, there is a more detailed explanation of the inking tests at the start of the technical section.  Aloha,
Title: Re: Canson Platine vs Baryta vs Hahnemuhle Photo Rag Baryta
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on June 16, 2012, 02:33:19 PM
Mark, thanks for your comments on this.  I really have not had any head strike issues with IGFS with my 3880, but do with some cotton rag papers that don't have anti-curl technology (most notably Hahnemuhle Photo Rag Ultra Smooth and Bamboo.  Canson Plantine Rag, as well as Museo Silver Rag and Photo Rag all stay quite flat upon prolonged storage.  Hahnemule papers curl the minute the box is opened.

Alan
However, the strong anti-curl layer on the IGFS and CIFA baryta can also give a little trouble with head strikes on printers like the Epson 3880 which don't have vacuum assisted hold down during printing. Many report having to widen the platten gap distance to successfully print on IGFS. What is happening is that the anticurl layer is designed to give exceptional lay-flat characteristics to the finished print, but when high ink loads during printing wet the front side of the paper, the dry anticurl layer on the back is then overcompensating. The paper can then backwards bend towards the print head more than other papers with lesser anti-curl technology. That's why higher platten gap and/or vacuum strengthy may be needed.
Title: Re: Canson Platine vs Baryta vs Hahnemuhle Photo Rag Baryta
Post by: Ernst Dinkla on June 16, 2012, 03:17:30 PM
There are  differences in spectral properties of TiO2 and Barium sulfate, but by the time it's buried in a binder polymer and also with typical spectrometers we use for ICC profiling that don't go much below 400nm in wavelength, I have my doubts is can be distinguished with spectros that printmakers typically use. Ernst may be able to give a more definitive statement on thhis since he has looked at the spectral plots of so many of these papers made wtih an Eye One Pro.  Anyway, believe it or not, a good baryta paper can often be confirmed by it's odor. Barium sulfate has a slightly sweet odor that you will recognize easily once you know what it smells like.  Check out the Harmon gloss Baryta and compare to a non baryta paper like Canson Platine.  You can then get yourself "calibrated" to detect this classic baryta odor. Old timers like me that spent many years in the darkroom know it well.


Also, I should mention that the paper vendor will almost always mention the use of BaSO4 in marketing literature on the product. It's considered a bragging right with the "traditional fiber" type inkjet papers (although amounts may vary and some "baryta" papers may thus have hybrid whitening methods). When the manufacturer is vague about it, chances are it doesn't have it. AFAIK, RC type papers never have a baryta layer and always incorporate TiO2. When the baryta oder is strong, you know it's pretty much the real deal.

best,
Mark

Mark,

Right, a better spectrometer reading further into UV and smaller sampling could give a better answer on what whitening agent is used; TiO2 or BaSO4. The TiO2 absorbs some UV that the BaSO4 does not and it could show in the curve going down below 410 NM but that can also be some OBA that will absorb UV light there too. The OBA should give some extra blue above 410 NM in return but a little amount of OBA and enough use of other whitening agents may conceal that. The fact that TiO2 absorbs UV and radiates that energy as heat so beyond red, should reduce the effect of OBAs if mixed in, both absorb UV. Baryta does not have that. The Harman Baryta papers show OBA content, even warm tone versions that can have a strange staircase like spectral plot.

My nose is not a reliable instrument after years of silkscreen printing. I noticed a stronger smell when baryta papers and some other papers are printed and that could be the baryta but some glycols and acetates have a sweet smell too so I never thought of baryta in that case. My darkroom days are almost 40 years back.

There are more whitening agents than the ones mentioned in this thread, commercial blends of several whitening components exist. Different particle sizes, crystal and amorph structures within one type are possible too.

--
Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst

340+ paper white spectral plots:
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
update april 2012: Harman by Hahnemühle, Innova IFA45 and more


Title: Re: Canson Platine vs Baryta vs Hahnemuhle Photo Rag Baryta
Post by: MHMG on June 16, 2012, 03:32:57 PM
Mark,

My nose is not a reliable instrument after years of silkscreen printing. I noticed a stronger smell when baryta papers and some other papers are printed and that could be the baryta but some glycols and acetates have a sweet smell too so I never thought of baryta in that case. My darkroom days are almost 40 years back.



Yes, I should have noted my simple end-user sniff test should be done before printing not after! The ink solvents can indeed give off a distinctly sweet odor as well. Also, there are, of course. other analytical techniques such as FTIR and XRF that can identify the whitening agents, binder polymers, etc., but those are well beyond the scope of the tools in most photographers' and printmakers' studios  :)


Title: Re: Canson Platine vs Baryta vs Hahnemuhle Photo Rag Baryta
Post by: MHMG on June 16, 2012, 03:48:29 PM
Mark, thanks for your comments on this.  I really have not had any head strike issues with IGFS with my 3880, but do with some cotton rag papers that don't have anti-curl technology (most notably Hahnemuhle Photo Rag Ultra Smooth and Bamboo.  Canson Plantine Rag, as well as Museo Silver Rag and Photo Rag all stay quite flat upon prolonged storage.  Hahnemule papers curl the minute the box is opened.

Alan

Yes, I also have trouble with many Hahnemuhle papers when trying to use as cut sheet due to pronounced edge curl. HN uses probably the least amount of anti-curl treatment on the back side of it's products of all the manufacturers. It gives the paper a more traditional art "feel" but curling at the edges, even while just lying in the cut-sheet box is very noticeable on the HN media.  So, head strikes occur more often as the printer head starts to come onto the sheet after each pass, whereas with papers like IGSF with strong anti-curl layers, any bowing upwards in the middle of the sheet when wet with ink can cause head strikes and fine scratches (e.g. the "pizza wheel" variety) not at the edges but within the central regions of the sheet.

 I often have to use a de-curl procedure before placing HN cut sheet into a printer. Rolls are much better in this respect, but like many, I truly dislike the last few feet on most wound rolls. Whoever thought 3 inch diameter cores for 300 gsm media was adequate enough to prevent serious core set issues should have thought it out a little better.  The 50 ft rolls are better for me than the 39 footers since the last few feet on a longer roll represents less percentage loss than on a shorter roll.  I realize 39 feet is a nice 10 meter metric for Europe, but it's not as practical as the longer 50 foot rolls some manufacturers provide.

best,
Mark
Title: Re: Canson Platine vs Baryta vs Hahnemuhle Photo Rag Baryta
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on June 16, 2012, 05:39:36 PM
Before they shifted to translucent organic absorbing molecules, many sunscreen formulations here in the US used TiO2 to block the UV portions of the spectrum.  Problem was that it wasn't clear.  I think the formulations shifted in about the mid-1970s to para-amino benzoic acid (PABA).  They now use a palmitic acid ester of PABA which doesn't discolor clothing and is more water fast.
Title: Re: Canson Platine vs Baryta vs Hahnemuhle Photo Rag Baryta
Post by: Canson21 on August 28, 2012, 08:35:47 AM
Aaron,

You data   http://www.dygartphotography.com/papertestcharts/025cansonbarytaphot2880.html) was very interdting.

Thank you.

Title: Re: Canson Platine vs Baryta vs Hahnemuhle Photo Rag Baryta
Post by: hugowolf on August 30, 2012, 08:43:22 PM
On the sniff testing for BaSO4: there are problems with contamination. If papers are stored in close proximity and especially with sample packs, the whole lot can smell of BaSO4.

Brian A
Title: Re: Canson Platine vs Baryta vs Hahnemuhle Photo Rag Baryta
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on August 31, 2012, 08:47:21 AM
On the sniff testing for BaSO4: there are problems with contamination. If papers are stored in close proximity and especially with sample packs, the whole lot can smell of BaSO4.

Brian A

As a chemist I would be most interested to know what BaSO4 smells like. 
Title: Re: Canson Platine vs Baryta vs Hahnemuhle Photo Rag Baryta
Post by: Canson21 on September 25, 2012, 09:46:42 AM
H2S
Title: Re: Canson Platine vs Baryta vs Hahnemuhle Photo Rag Baryta
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on September 25, 2012, 02:13:56 PM
H2S
Highly doubtful for the same reason NaCl doesn't smell like hydrochloric acid.
Title: Re: Canson Platine vs Baryta vs Hahnemuhle Photo Rag Baryta
Post by: Canson21 on November 09, 2012, 07:57:43 AM
Canson Baryta (like all baryta papers) contains barium sulphate, which some call an OBA.
Title: Re: Canson Platine vs Baryta vs Hahnemuhle Photo Rag Baryta
Post by: Ernst Dinkla on November 09, 2012, 08:54:31 AM
Canson Baryta (like all baryta papers) contains barium sulphate, which some call an OBA.

Better check the Wiki pages on barite and on Optical Brightening Agents. The last has more names like Fluorescent Whitening Agents or Fluorescent Brightening Agents. Usually dyes. Barite has no fluorescence properties but some of its mineral forms can show phosphorescence which is something else.


--
Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst

http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
470+ inkjet paper white spectral plots, November 2012:
rearranged categories, Permajet + MediaJet brands added.





Title: Re: Canson Platine vs Baryta vs Hahnemuhle Photo Rag Baryta
Post by: hugowolf on November 09, 2012, 11:01:21 PM
Better check the Wiki pages on barite and on Optical Brightening Agents.
Oh Ernst, while I have contributed many images and edited many articles, I would hardly call Wikipedia a creditably resource, academic or otherwise. It is a good starting point for research, but will never be anything more.

Brian A
Title: Re: Canson Platine vs Baryta vs Hahnemuhle Photo Rag Baryta
Post by: Czornyj on November 10, 2012, 10:00:18 AM
Mark & Ernst,

What do you think was used as whitener in case of Photo Rag Pearl - TiO2 ora BaSO4?

Here are M1+M2 spectral plots of Photo Rag Baryta, Photo Rag Pearl and Platine Fibre Rag. There's no trace of OBA in all three cases.

(https://dl.dropbox.com/u/19059944/whiteners.jpg)
Title: Re: Canson Platine vs Baryta vs Hahnemuhle Photo Rag Baryta
Post by: Ernst Dinkla on November 10, 2012, 02:03:37 PM

What do you think was used as whitener in case of Photo Rag Pearl - TiO2 ora BaSO4?


All what makes an inkjet paper white: to start with a high quality cotton base, then BaSO4 as the main whitening agent, the ink receiving layer a microporous clay or similar. Binder a PVA that should be transparent. Whitening agents often are mixes of a clay like kaolin, BaSO4 or TiO2 and more like that Zinc oxides and sulfides. Sometimes to achieve similar white reflectance at lower cost. I think TiO2 is not a main component in this paper as that stuff shows some UV light adsorption below 410NM that is not visible in the PRP spectral plot. You need a scientific spectrometer to get the right answers, this is an estimation.

My spectral plots here added: the green plot is a BaSO4 tile, the yellow TiO2, blue is pure cotton, the brownred Photo Rag Pearl, the pink Entrada Rag Natural which I suspect to have TiO2 as a whitening agent.

--
Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst

http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
470+ inkjet paper white spectral plots, November 2012:
rearranged categories, paper distributor list updated
Title: Re: Canson Platine vs Baryta vs Hahnemuhle Photo Rag Baryta
Post by: Czornyj on November 10, 2012, 04:38:11 PM
Thanks Ernst. I was intrigued by Mark's statement, that TiO2 is whitening agent of Platine Fibre Rag. I saw your spectral plot of TiO2 and also noticed the absorption of UV below 410nm that distinguishes it from BaSO4, but coudn't find it on spectral plot of Platine Fibre Rag nor any other FB paper. Maybe Platine Fibre Rag is not really TiO2 based, or it has some additional whitening agents? It's a shame there's no detailed information about whitening agents in papers specifications.
Title: Re: Canson Platine vs Baryta vs Hahnemuhle Photo Rag Baryta
Post by: samueljohnchia on November 11, 2012, 07:29:03 PM
Thanks Ernst. I was intrigued by Mark's statement, that TiO2 is whitening agent of Platine Fibre Rag. I saw your spectral plot of TiO2 and also noticed the absorption of UV below 410nm that distinguishes it from BaSO4, but coudn't find it on spectral plot of Platine Fibre Rag nor any other FB paper. Maybe Platine Fibre Rag is not really TiO2 based, or it has some additional whitening agents? It's a shame there's no detailed information about whitening agents in papers specifications.

According to Miles Hecker, Platine has a "white carbon black" (http://www.wyofoto.com/Canson_Platine_review.html) whitening coating. That is, fine white sand.

I've tried asking Canson about this twice before, but they have ignored me. I'm curious whether their other OBA free papers use "white carbon black".

It is interesting to note that despite not having traditional fluorescing brighteners, Platine appears to fare rather poorly in  WIR's longevity tests (http://wilhelm-research.com/Canson/canson_infinity.html), especially with Epson and Canon inksets. AaI&A reflects similar results. It appears from WIR's report that there has been a newer version of Platine and Baryta Photographique. I wonder what has changed. Mark, perhaps you could comment a bit on why Platine does not do so well in light fade testing?
Title: Re: Canson Platine vs Baryta vs Hahnemuhle Photo Rag Baryta
Post by: Ernst Dinkla on November 12, 2012, 05:41:04 AM

According to Miles Hecker, Platine has a "white carbon black" (http://www.wyofoto.com/Canson_Platine_review.html) whitening coating. That is, fine white sand.


That material is probably in the ink receptor coating on top. Microporous in character to catch the ink, like medicinal carbon and carbon for filtering are microporous so the total carbon surface area for the reactions is huge. Hence the "white carbon black" nickname for this inkjet receptor.  It will be white mainly due to its microporous state but not be as white as TiO2 or Baryta that will be in the layer beneath it.

A good article though.

--
Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst

http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
470+ inkjet paper white spectral plots, November 2012:
rearranged categories, updated paper suppliers list
Title: Re: Canson Platine vs Baryta vs Hahnemuhle Photo Rag Baryta
Post by: Czornyj on November 12, 2012, 07:00:00 AM
I second Ernst opinion regarding SiCl4.

In Mark's report Platine paper white remains virtually unchanged (I* 98.7) after 100 Mlux-hrs, so my deduction is the prime suspect for worse light fading results is ink receptor coating (the alredy mentioned white carbon black?) rather than whitening agent. I suppose we have similar situation in this case:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=72175.msg572842#msg572842
   
According to Miles Hecker, Platine has a "white carbon black" (http://www.wyofoto.com/Canson_Platine_review.html) whitening coating. That is, fine white sand.

I've tried asking Canson about this twice before, but they have ignored me. I'm curious whether their other OBA free papers use "white carbon black".

It is interesting to note that despite not having traditional fluorescing brighteners, Platine appears to fare rather poorly in  WIR's longevity tests (http://wilhelm-research.com/Canson/canson_infinity.html), especially with Epson and Canon inksets. AaI&A reflects similar results. It appears from WIR's report that there has been a newer version of Platine and Baryta Photographique. I wonder what has changed. Mark, perhaps you could comment a bit on why Platine does not do so well in light fade testing?
Title: Re: Canson Platine vs Baryta vs Hahnemuhle Photo Rag Baryta
Post by: johncustodio on November 12, 2012, 08:36:47 AM
I don't know what to say about WIR's results, but note that in Aardenburg's tests Platine is still passing at 100 Megalux hours for the HP inks and Epson inks (in ABW mode), and is at 72-100+ for Espson color inks. This is not a poor performance. 120 Megalux hours results should be available by the end of November.
-John
Title: Re: Canson Platine vs Baryta vs Hahnemuhle Photo Rag Baryta
Post by: MHMG on November 12, 2012, 03:27:05 PM
I don't know what to say about WIR's results, but note that in Aardenburg's tests Platine is still passing at 100 Megalux hours for the HP inks and Epson inks (in ABW mode), and is at 72-100+ for Espson color inks. This is not a poor performance. 120 Megalux hours results should be available by the end of November.
-John

John is correct.  Platine is turning in a very respectable performance with Epson HDR ink set and OEM driver and also with HP Vivera Pigment (Z3100 series) as well.  I don't have any Canon Lucia ink samples in test with either Platine or Canson Baryta Photographique yet (an oversight I should rectify soon).  Canson Baryta Photographique turns in a slightly lower score with the HDR ink set than the Platine, but the result is also very competitive.

Both Canson Baryta and Platine also perform significantly better in AaI&A light fade testing than Exhibition Fiber Paper (aka, called "Traditional Fiber Paper" in Europe), and are comparable in Aardenburg testing to other papers that have been "certified" for use in Epson's apparently prestigious Digigraphie program. Ironically, EEF really deserves a "not recommended for fine art applications" rating due to ongoing media white point discoloration that can't be accounted for merely by loss of OBA fluorescence, yet it is now an approved paper for Digigraphie whereas the Canson Baryta and Platine are not approved.

The Digigraphie certification relies on a combination of test results provided by WIR in the U.S. and LNE in Europe. When the Digigraphie program first began Epson or Epson's "committee on reflection" decided upon a 60 year durability criterion that the media had to pass. Why did the committee choose a 60 year durability specification?  Beats me, but I note that Epson's lowest scoring paper in WIR testing is Velvet Fine Art, and VFA squeaks past the 60 year criterion with a WIR framed-under-glass rating of 61 years using Epson Utrachrome ink sets. Canson Platine and Canson Baryta do not currently meet the Digigraphie 60 year durability pass/fail criterion according to the WIR test results.

My guess, and it's only an educated guess, is that failing to pass the Digigraphie certification with a legend-named paper like Platine was a strong incentive for Canson to ask for another round of testing at WIR, especially when inferior papers like EEF manage to pass.  Hence, the update of the WIR document to include "improved" Platine and Canson Baryta samples.  What's definitely not clear in the updated document is what WIR means by "improved". Improved product, improved test, or perhaps both?

kind regards,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com
Title: Re: Canson Platine vs Baryta vs Hahnemuhle Photo Rag Baryta
Post by: Czornyj on November 12, 2012, 04:40:36 PM
Mark, you should seriously consider creating "Inkjetgraphy" or "Pigmentgraphy" program by Aardenburg-Imaging for print studios and artists. Isn't it ironic that the only recognizable program exist only for the least permanent water-based pigment inkset?
Title: Re: Canson Platine vs Baryta vs Hahnemuhle Photo Rag Baryta
Post by: samueljohnchia on November 12, 2012, 07:37:05 PM
I don't know what to say about WIR's results, but note that in Aardenburg's tests Platine is still passing at 100 Megalux hours for the HP inks and Epson inks (in ABW mode), and is at 72-100+ for Espson color inks.

My understanding that 72-100 megalux-hours in test roughly equates to about 40+ WIR years on display, using the tabular conversion table in Aardenburg's reports.

Mark, I am definitely missing something, but WIR (http://wilhelm-research.com/epson/ESP4900.html) published that Exhibition Fibre passes at 45 hours in bare-bulb display, but a mere 32 hours for Platine. Exhibition goes on to a rather amazing 150 years when under UV protection. (I'm referring to the tests using Epson's UltraChrome K3 inks) How does WIR consider when a print has reached the unacceptable point for light fade? I see in your published reports something vague about "noticeable" fading. Your testing that Baryta Photographique does a bit worse than Platine agrees with WIR's own, but this discrepancy with Exhibition Fiber is quite large. I am surprised by these published values.
Title: Re: Canson Platine vs Baryta vs Hahnemuhle Photo Rag Baryta
Post by: MHMG on November 12, 2012, 10:48:05 PM
My understanding that 72-100 megalux-hours in test roughly equates to about 40+ WIR years on display, using the tabular conversion table in Aardenburg's reports.

Mark, I am definitely missing something, but WIR (http://wilhelm-research.com/epson/ESP4900.html) published that Exhibition Fibre passes at 45 hours in bare-bulb display, but a mere 32 hours for Platine. Exhibition goes on to a rather amazing 150 years when under UV protection. (I'm referring to the tests using Epson's UltraChrome K3 inks) How does WIR consider when a print has reached the unacceptable point for light fade? I see in your published reports something vague about "noticeable" fading. Your testing that Baryta Photographique does a bit worse than Platine agrees with WIR's own, but this discrepancy with Exhibition Fiber is quite large. I am surprised by these published values.

You did correctly interpret how to translate megalux hours of exposure into WIR "years on display" (i.e, divide megalux hours by 2 in order to extrapolate to "display years" based on the WIR illumination assumption of 450 lux for 12 hours per day). However, even when making the same illumination assumptions for prints on display, there's still another huge distinction between the two laboratories' predicted display times owing to the different "failure criteria" that are also required to calculate these ratings.  Aardenburg relies on the I* metric for color and tonal accuracy retention in order to calculate its Conservation Display rating (CDR), whereas WIR uses a legacy densitometric criteria set with 17 different endpoints to determine its WIR display rating. The WIR densitometric failure criteria were developed during the silver halide era of color photo finishing and are thus reasonably suited to that era of color photography. They are not that well adapted for modern multi-color inkjet systems which in part explains why media like Exhibition Fiber or ink sets like Canon Chromalife 100 can get seriously misranked in the WIR tests.  My friend and colleague, Henry Wilhelm, fully understands the ramifications of the legacy WIR densitometric test. We co-developed much of the I* metric technology together, but I can only assume he and his clients are waiting on a new international standard of some sort before switching to a different type of testing protocol. I had no such constraints when founding Aardenburg Imaging, so I chose the more robust I* metric as the evaluation method. It's an open source metric (Henry and I both believed it needed to be), so the various ISO and ASTM committee's currently working on digital light fastness standards are more than welcome to adopt the I* metric if they want.  That said, the committee politics is such that I doubt any superior light fade testing standard will ever be published.

Verbal descriptions of visual changes taking place are always challenging, but the AaI&A CDR is probably best described as relating to any measurable change in the image which produces only "little or no noticeable fading" (i.e. print remains in excellent condition) whereas the WIR criteria set is better described as predicting "easily noticeable and often objectionable fading"(i.e, the print will be in only satisfactory to poor condition). It is regrettable that the WIR reports use the unfortunate phrasing "before noticeable fading occurs". That's not what the WIR criteria set actually spells out. Rather, noticeable fading will definitely occur sooner in test while more easily noticeable fading will be reached at the product's rated endpoint, assuming the 450 lux/12 hour per day illumination level holds true. With some systems exhibiting non linear fading behavior, at least some noticeble change can occur early on in test. That change would trigger the AaI&A criterion but not necessarily any WIR densitometric criteria for failure. Thus, the two laboratories' choices for "allowable" change as rated by the testing also contributes to the ratings differences beween WIR and Aardenburg.  The fact that greater fade is allowed in the WIR test and less fade is allowed in the AaI&A test is neither good nor bad since no single judgement of visual appearance can totally describe the full fading behavior of a printer/ink/media combination. The two laboratories simply have different audiences in mind. WIR's testing has always been dedicated to typical photo consumer expectations, whereas AaI&A was founded with a more discerning museum curator, fine art printmaker, and/or serious print collector's expectations in mind.

Lastly, I'd recommend that folks ignore the WIR "bare bulb" data and compare only the "framed under glass" WIR predictions to the AaI&A conservation display ratings, albeit keeping in mind that AaI&A fading tolerances are more conservative as explained above. For technical reasons I don't want to go into here, I don't think the WIR bare bulb findings make entire sense. However, WIR's UV-excluded numbers are also OK to consider if you want to check system sensitivity to UVA radiation which typically changes fade rates by a 2-3x factor.  Just bear in mind that any media like EEF which have loads of OBAS aren't going to look good under UV blocking museum conservation glazing, and even if you do improve fade resistance by filtering the UV component, sunlight striking a print directly (i.e., the primary source of that extra UV radiation) is still going to kill a UV-protected print quickly. Many experts have confused UV-induced damage with the far greater damage caused by the total light intensity of sunlight which coexists along with that extra UV component. The total intensity of direct sunlight entering a window and striking a print on the wall is order of magnitudes higher than typical room illumination levels. Hence, it's not the 2-3x UV factor that is causing so darn much damage. It's the 100-1000x total  light level increase associated with that sunlight, even when UV gets blocked, that is so destructive to artwork and other furnishings in the home or office.


cheers,
Mark
Title: Re: Canson Platine vs Baryta vs Hahnemuhle Photo Rag Baryta
Post by: Ernst Dinkla on November 13, 2012, 04:05:51 AM
Thanks Ernst. I was intrigued by Mark's statement, that TiO2 is whitening agent of Platine Fibre Rag. I saw your spectral plot of TiO2 and also noticed the absorption of UV below 410nm that distinguishes it from BaSO4, but coudn't find it on spectral plot of Platine Fibre Rag nor any other FB paper. Maybe Platine Fibre Rag is not really TiO2 based, or it has some additional whitening agents? It's a shame there's no detailed information about whitening agents in papers specifications.

I doubt there are many papers that have a straight TiO2 coating etc, blends will be more usual. I put the spectral plot of Platine (green) next to the Moab Entrada Rag (redbrown) both 300gsm and they do overlap quite well but the Entrada has that bend more pronounced. The other image shows papers that have more UV absorption that may not be an OBA effect but TiO2. Could also be an UV blocker, TiO2 is used like that but other blockers exist too. If all three are used I can not tell them apart. I did see a paper manufacturer mentioning a UV blocker but that could be marketing speak to mention one TiO2 property, it will not protect an ink layer on top of the whitening layer. Innova mentions the use of TiO2 in preference to Baryta in Fibaprint but most of their papers have OBA content so I can not separate them in the measurements. Soon SpectrumViz will have >500 spectral plots, it serves a purpose but has its limitations too.

--
Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst

http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
470+ inkjet paper white spectral plots, November 2012.

Title: Re: Canson Platine vs Baryta vs Hahnemuhle Photo Rag Baryta
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on November 13, 2012, 08:56:36 AM
Presumably the UV blocking properties of TiO2 can help prevent paper yellowing but I'm not sure that there is any other benefit over the use of BaSO4.

Alan
Title: Re: Canson Platine vs Baryta vs Hahnemuhle Photo Rag Baryta
Post by: Ernst Dinkla on November 13, 2012, 10:52:42 AM
I did not check the opacity of TiO2 versus BaSO4, my guess is that TiO2 is more opaque considering its use in paints and plastics.

As written before, TiO2 is absorbing UV light and Barite not, so in combination with OBAs TiO2 is not optimal. Of course there is then that choice to put OBA in the top layer, in or on the inkjet receptor layer. Worst place to battle fading but it will intercept the UV light before it is absorbed by TiO2. If you check some papers with identical weights and with TiO2, one natural, the other bright white, then I tend to think that they only add OBA on top of the natural quality to get the bright variety. Backsides almost identical but the OBA at the front will influence that reading a bit too.

As a side note; I see OBA use mentioned in some cases to enhance the strength of colors including the whites, with lamination foils for example.


--
Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst

http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
470+ inkjet paper white spectral plots, November 2012.