Question about Iford Gold Fiber Silk

[nemophoto]

I just purchased a roll of Simply Elegant Gold Fiber Paper, which IT Supplies touts as a "100% Direct Replacement" for Ilford's paper. I don't doubt it, in that the results are beautiful. However, never having used the Ilford paper, or for that fact any of the so-called Baryta papers, I have a question regarding it. The paper is supposed to be a Fiber-based paper (as the name implies). However, to me, it has a sort of plastic/RC-like tactile feel. The papers I've used for years that are fiber-based, and really do feel like (to me) traditional darkroom papers, are papers like Museo Silver Rag (probably my all-time favorite, especially for B&W) and Innova Warm Cotton Gloss (IFA45) (a very close 2nd) and Canson Platine (a close 3rd).

Does/did Ilford Gold Fiber Silk, and in fact all of the Baryta papers, have this kind of feel?

Nemo

[Mark D Segal]

Gold Fibre Silk is fiber based, I believe alpha-cellulose. One of the nice qualities of this kind of paper base is that it doesn't clog-up your printer with shedding particulates.

[sgwrx]

i just tried ilford gold fibre silk and to me it feels smooth but not plastic.  it feels more fine art to me. silver rag has a more tactile feel.  the epson luster paper feels plastic. finally the canson platine feels closer to the epson and furthest from the silver rag.  but all three compared to the epson feel like fine art papers.

[hugowolf]

Whatever 'fibre based' meant, who knows. It seems to be a term invented for barium sulphate coated papers, whether they were cotton fibre based or wood pulp fibre based. The same goes for 'alpha cellulose', when used for wood pulp based papers: cotton fibre is close to 100% alpha cellulose, with a few impurities.

GFS is definitely not an RC paper, although it does appear to have a higher OBA content than its previous version.

Brian A

[Ernst Dinkla]

The paper is supposed to be a Fiber-based paper (as the name implies). However, to me, it has a sort of plastic/RC-like tactile feel.
Nemo

Cut a small strip off the paper, 1/5 inch wide. Split front and back slightly at one end with a sharp knife. Dip that end in hot water till it is soaked. Split it further by pulling. Soak again. Rub the splits. If it all falls apart it is no RC paper. If there is a sign that both sides keep some integrity then stretch them just after they have been soaked again. Any sign of a plastic (PE) film in them will show fast enough. There are some paper types in the RC category where the barrier is a sprayed polymer. The cheapest category.

If you (or anyone else) want more confirmation about this Simply Elegant paper then send me one or two A4 or A5 sheets for further testing. You can also add any other paper that I have not yet measured for SpectrumViz. Address in The Netherlands is at my website.

Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst

http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
December 2014 update, 700+ inkjet media white spectral plots

[Mark D Segal]

GFS is definitely not an RC paper, although it does appear to have a higher OBA content than its previous version.

Brian A

Have you tested it for this? The major US manufacturer's representative has confirmed to me in writing that the paper is identical in every detail to the paper shipped by Ilford Imaging Fribourg CH when it still existed. The new owners took over all the patents including the recipes and have continued production. I have profiled and compared both and seen ZERO appearance difference of profiles or prints made on sheets from the two packagings (I have now run out of the Swiss-labeled material, but had a period of overlap when I could work with both).

BTW, on the subject of alpha-cellulose, here is a quote from the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, pretty much confirming what you say:

<One of three classes of cellulose, alpha cellulose has the highest degree of polymerization and is the most stable. The other two classes, known as hemicelluloses, are beta cellulose and gamma cellulose. Alpha cellulose is the major component of wood and paper pulp. It may be separated from the other components by soaking the pulp in a 17.5% solution of sodium hydroxide. The pure white, alpha cellulose is insoluble and can be filtered from the solution and washed prior to use in the production of paper or cellulosic polymers. A high percent of alpha cellulose in paper will provides a stable, permanent material. Linen and cotton contain high proportions of alpha cellulose.>

[Mark D Segal]

i just tried ilford gold fibre silk and to me it feels smooth but not plastic.  it feels more fine art to me. silver rag has a more tactile feel.  the epson luster paper feels plastic. finally the canson platine feels closer to the epson and furthest from the silver rag.  but all three compared to the epson feel like fine art papers.

What exactly is a "Fine Art feel"? What distinguishes a Fine Art paper from a non Fine Art paper? In fact, what is "Fine Art" in photography? Is it another marketing term or piece of snobbery like "Giclee" prints used to be until the true meaning of this French expression sunk into the public mind? There are serious photographers making seriously large amounts of money selling prints made on Epson Premium Luster Paper. I don't know that consideration of whether the paper is "Fine Art" crosses their minds. To partly answer my own question, I think if Fine Art is to mean anything, it relates to what you put on the paper, not how the base feels.

So much about paper preference is subjective; there are those who make photographs for the sake of the image content, with little regard for what the back side of the paper feels like. But others for whom this latter factor is important; each to their own.

[Ernst Dinkla]

Have you tested it for this? The major US manufacturer's representative has confirmed to me in writing that the paper is identical in every detail to the paper shipped by Ilford Imaging Fribourg CH when it still existed. The new owners took over all the patents including the recipes and have continued production. I have profiled and compared both and seen ZERO appearance difference of profiles or prints made on sheets from the two packagings (I have now run out of the Swiss-labeled material, but had a period of overlap when I could work with both).

Three generations of Gold Fiber Silk in the attached SpectrumViz screen capture.  Lab b goes slightly more towards negative territory per generation. Profiling will not be affected much by that change. My estimation; Felix Schoeller produces the latest version as it does for more brands. It could well have been the source for earlier versions of IGFS too.

Edit: Three identical spectral plots in the other screen grab. One of them the new IGFS version. I can not see other differences either in the paper samples I have.

There is an older thread on this subject:
http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=95447.0


Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst

http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
December 2014 update, 700+ inkjet media white spectral plots

[Mark D Segal]

Hi Ernst,

OK, you got me to haul out my spectro yet again and take some measurements. I selected two recent sheets of IGFS: Swiss and New, and measured them in Lab. An average of three measurements per sheet produced b* = 1.37 for the new paper and 1.58 for the old. A b* difference of 0.21 is undetectable except to instruments, and the variance of the readings from different portions of the same sheet exceeds the average variance between the papers. So yes, on average it appears that the new paper may have an ever so slightly cooler b*, but for all intents and purposes it's the same thing. L* readings are extremely close within and between the papers - the new is about 97.6 and the old about 97.3 - again nothing any one would see. To complete the picture, on average the old paper is very slightly cooler on the a* dimension - about -0.24 for the old and +0.1 for the new - also nothing to get excited about. An algebraic difference of 0.34 on a scale of 255 (colours) is about 0.13%. While the manufacturer's rep may not have been 100% accurate in her view of this matter, I'm prepared to cut her this much slack! :-)

[Ernst Dinkla]

It is on the deviations in the IGPFS spectral plots that I base my theory that there have been changes in the production of Ilford Gold Fiber Silk in time. It is on the resemblance in the spectral plots of the different brand papers that I base my theory Ilford gets its IGPFS from the same source other brands get it today. I have written that before in the older thread I gave the link for.

Going by Lab numbers the following may be interesting. Of the oldest variety, Ilford Galerie Gold Fiber Silk, so sans Prestige, Aardenburg-Imaging has 13 Lab measurements, made with a UV enabled spectrometer. The Lab b variations are between -1 to 0.6, average 0.3. I have a Lab b 0.5 for that quality. Within the A-M range and 0.2 off on the average. There are no Prestige varieties in Aardenburg-Imaging measurements, not the old production, not the new production. I have Lab b -0.8 for the old Prestige and Lab b -0.9 for the new Prestige. Measured with a UV enabled Eye1 Pro, the one I did all my measurements with. Not much of a difference but both more than a 2 Delta E shifted from your measurements. Is the spectrometer you use measuring down to 380 NM or does it have a UV cut filter?  In profiling either the OBA aspect is then ignored or an arbitrary OBA content is extrapolated based on the measurements above 420-430 NM. I still think you can have a satisfying profile for both but I do not see my assumptions going down the drain based on your measurements.


Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst

http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
December 2014 update, 700+ inkjet media white spectral plots

[Mark D Segal]

I wasn't trying to put your assumptions "down the drain". In fact my measurements point in the same general direction as yours, though mine are likely more simplified. I'm using an X-Rite Pulse spectrophotometer. I think whether looking at your numbers or mine, these differences seem small enough to be bordering on rather unimportant. It's essentially the same paper producing the same beautiful results it always did. Whether it's a wee bit "this or that" isn't something yours' truly will lose any sleep over. But as usual, YMMV.

[hugowolf]

Well I am glad that seemed to work out.

But, it wasn't my testing that led me believe there has been some increase in the GFS OBA content over the years. I switched to Canson Baryta Photographique several years back and only have a few sheets of the older GFS and none of the new to compare it to. No it was from Ernst's app, and I think the full spectral plot gives a bit more information than just the paper white Lab values.



GFS reflectance curve used to almost identical to that of the Canson baryta (yellow plot), but that is no longer the case.

I would be surprised if I couldn't see the difference under daylight viewing conditions.

And, vis-à-vis fibre and alpha-cellulose, photography has a lot of silly terms: cotton paper hasn't been made from rags for many decades. 100% crop is another favorite. Shutter speed, which is a duration and nothing to do with speed or velocity, etc.

Brian A

[BobShaw]

I just purchased a roll of Simply Elegant Gold Fiber Paper, which IT Supplies touts as a "100% Direct Replacement" for Ilford's paper.

So it's not Ilford Gold Fibre Silk, which is branded Ilford Gold Fibre Silk.
Ilford GFS is readily available.

[sgwrx]

What exactly is a "Fine Art feel"? What distinguishes a Fine Art paper from a non Fine Art paper? In fact, what is "Fine Art" in photography? Is it another marketing term or piece of snobbery like "Giclee" prints used to be until the true meaning of this French expression sunk into the public mind? There are serious photographers making seriously large amounts of money selling prints made on Epson Premium Luster Paper. I don't know that consideration of whether the paper is "Fine Art" crosses their minds. To partly answer my own question, I think if Fine Art is to mean anything, it relates to what you put on the paper, not how the base feels.

So much about paper preference is subjective; there are those who make photographs for the sake of the image content, with little regard for what the back side of the paper feels like. But others for whom this latter factor is important; each to their own.

good questions. i was using it as a catch-all phrase (contributing i to the hype i suppose). to me that phrase represents a very broad base of paper that is not typical general purpose inkjet or laser paper found in most offices.

i do believe as you do, that much of it is subjective.  in re-researching silver rag, which i do like, i was a little put off by an article which admonished photographers to demand better. the author could spot the unacceptable silver rag easily among prints on other (better?) papers as if that was a bad thing.  i realized, what if you wanted your print to have the textured look of silver rag, or the colors it produces? is there anything wrong with that? i don't think so.

i do like "warmth" so that's why i don't like to use epson premium luster when i have something that i think would look good on "warm" paper.  and i've tried with my limited ability to match that warmth on premium luster, as compared to canson platine or gfs, and my results are not good

C.D. Bales (aka steve martin) from the movie roxanne:

"Get your favourite pen.
These are good.
And some good quality paper that really takes the ink."

[hugowolf]

Museo Silver Rag did go through a bad period, but all reports I have had of recent seem to imply that, although a little different from the original, it is back where it should be. If you liked it before, I would give it a try again.

Gold Fibre Silk and Canson Baryta Photographique are both great papers, but they are not cotton based like Silver Rag. The price is also right, at least in the US, compared to similar cotton based papers like Canson Platine.

Brian A

[Mark D Segal]

....... i realized, what if you wanted your print to have the textured look of silver rag, or the colors it produces? is there anything wrong with that? i don't think so.

i do like "warmth" so that's why i don't like to use epson premium luster when i have something that i think would look good on "warm" paper.  and i've tried with my limited ability to match that warmth on premium luster, as compared to canson platine or gfs, and my results are not good

[/i]

Of course rag won't be a "look", it will be a "feel" - when you handle the paper backing.

I too generally prefer neutral to very slightly warm and that is one of the reasons I also don't use Premium Luster paper. And I agree with you that trying to "warm it up" with editing is tricky, so the fact that your results have been less than satisfactory is expected. The reason is that the colour of the paper will influence the look of the photo inversely with the ink lay-down, so you'll see evidence of the paper hue more for highlights and lights, and less for darks and shadows. That does present a real editing challenge and a good reason to better match the paper tone with your taste, as you are doing.

[sgwrx]

well, can i ask a stupid question about feel?  if you really step back and compare paper discussed in this thread are they similar to the dark room papers?  i guess, are they close enough to give someone like me, who only did b&amp;w dark room when i was 12 or 14 during a summer class (so i really cant remember) an idea?

[Mark D Segal]

There were quite a few kinds of chemical darkroom era papers also in those days so there was probably something then that would be close enough to the feel of some papers now, but let me ask you this: why does it matter? What is the object of all this? Isn't the quality of the image the primary concern of a photographic process? We live in a new era with far expanded and superior technological options; we can match the materials and the outcomes to our tastes much more readily nowadays than we ever could as recently as ten or fifteen years ago. So let us enjoy to the fullest the new world of options laid out before us. They're pretty darn good.

[nemophoto]

There were quite a few kinds of chemical darkroom era papers also in those days so there was probably something then that would be close enough to the feel of some papers now, but let me ask you this: why does it matter? What is the object of all this? Isn't the quality of the image the primary concern of a photographic process? We live in a new era with far expanded and superior technological options; we can match the materials and the outcomes to our tastes much more readily nowadays than we ever could as recently as ten or fifteen years ago. So let us enjoy to the fullest the new world of options laid out before us. They're pretty darn good.

You ask, why does it matter? Well, in and of itself, in a way, it doesn't matter. The end look is the important thing. But then, there's the aesthetic of the tactile feel. How does a print feel in your hand? Having spent 25+ years in the darkroom (my shot olfactory senses and aching feet attest to the time), the feel of the print is a factor for me. Do I prefer the digital darkroom? Absolutely! Not even a question. My whole question that start this discussion was merely, did the original  Gold Fiber Silk have that slick, and yes to me, almost RC paper, feel? That said, I'm loving the results from the IT Supplies paper. Really beautiful prints.

[Mark D Segal]

OK, fair enough - going back to your question: it's all relative, and of course "feel" is subjective; that said, if I had to rank them, and I just "felt" all three to make sure I'm not fooling myself - Epson Velvet Fine Art and papers like it have a sort of rough, "hand-made papery" feel; by comparison Ilford Gold Fibre Silk is much smoother, but doesn't feel like plastic. Epson Premium Luster feels more "plasticky" than Gold Fibre Silk, so the latter sits between the other two in respect of the tactile factor.