What are the best non inkjet photographic papers?

[Peterretep]

Of course the "best" is entirely subjective but I'm wondering what non inkjet paper you think gives the best photograph in terms of impact, clarity, color and longevity.
There was a time when Cibachrome was the choice of many but that was years ago. What paper receives the most accolades today?

The reason I ask is, though I've been printing my own images with large format Epson printers for over ten years, the images don't have the quality I've seen in other photographers images displayed in gallerys. I'd like to make the most of my photos from both 4x5 film and digital capture and am wondering what are the best choices available.

Thanks,

Peter

[Jager]

I don't think you can ascribe digital print quality deficiencies to inkjet papers.  Certainly, I don't think you're going to get better results by going to non-inkjet papers.

I agree that much print work - typically, analogue, wet-process-based - presented in galleries and museums is qualitatively at a much higher level than the run-of-the-mill inkjet print.  But you have to remember that the vast majority of darkroom prints, back in the day, were likewise pretty mediocre.

Very few printers ever truly mastered silver gelatin printing, or any of the darkroom varieties that preceded it.  And very few modern digital printers have truly mastered inkjet printing.

It's always been hard.

[Peterretep]

Jeff, thanks for sharing your opinion. The premise of my question could be wrong, maybe inkjet prints can be among the best in quality of image. For my own work I've been using Epson Hot Press Bright and Hahnemuhle Photo Rag, both matte surface papers. That in itself could be the limiting factor in the look of my prints as I rely on my decades of color printing experience to make the most of the image in terms of color, contrast and density. Indeed, my paper choice may be the weak link that I should look into correcting in order to get closer to the results I would like to achieve. But having no experience with non inkjet alternatives for at least ten years now I thought perhaps some of the media currently in use such as Endura luster or metallic or Crystal Archive gloss and super gloss media may be the best choices available.
I'd love to hear more input on this question, are inkjet printers capable of making the best prints from any given file or film or do non inkjet alternatives have the edge in quality of appearance.

[Wayne Fox]

the trend in photographer galleries lately seems mostly around getting a very high gloss finish which of course results in the maximum color saturation. (I call it the “Peter Lik” look although he didn’t invent  it, he certainly has exposed many to it and thus many are trying to follow).

Typically this is done by either printing on FujiFlex (crystal archive emulsion technology on a plastic polymer base), and face mounting the print to acrylic (or sometimes glass), or using dye sub aluminum prints.  the two processes provide a very similar look regarding colors and saturation.  There are now about 6 or 7 photographers in Park City, Utah near where I live, all are using one of these two processes for much if not all of their work. A few of the better known landscape photographers who sell mostly face mounted FujiFlex are Peter Lik, Rodney Lough, and Michael Fatali. (Lik and Lough use acrylic, Fatali face mounts to museum glass, and a select few of his prints are still printed on cibachrome although they are very high priced)

Personally I think it’s more about the presentation than the actual paper - very high gloss resulting in crisp contrast and rich colors.

At my store we offer face mounting of Fujiflex as well as Kodak metallic paper.   While a Fujiflex print looks pretty amazing coming out of the processor with it’s ultra high gloss mirror finish and resulting rich colors, I recently tested face mounting one of these prints as well as a matching image printed on a 9900 on Epson premium semi-gloss.  Once face mounted, both images are equally stunning and basically identical, but on close examination the additional detail and tonal range of the inkjet paper provides qualities the fujiflex print doesn’t quite match.  I sell some of my work using this process now, face mounting the inkjet print to ArtGlass. I leave a clear border of glass about 3” around the print, and mount it about ½” from a backing of a complementary color of matt board. End result is the image appears to “float” since the glass itself is hard to detect with it’s antireflective coatings. I still use  the Kodak Metallic (also a chemical process) for some images, since once face mounted it takes on a quality that’s hard to describe and impossible to match with inkjet metallic papers.

Once you move away from face mounting, I don’t think any chemical print can match the character and tonality available with modern inkjet printers on great papers, but to have appeal in a gallery they need to be framed and presented in an exceptional manner. Personally I’ve moved to using a liner to separate the glass/acrylic away from the surface of the inkjet paper by as much distance as possible, which allows the viewer to experience the subtleties of the surface of the paper.  I’ve heard some claim that once you frame an image behind glass the paper itself loses that character, but I think good presentation can allow some of that to still part of the viewing experience.

to me all of this depends on your audience and target market.  Nothing wrong with traditional matting and framing, using inkjet processes and the results are terrific.  Maybe less appeal to the masses that many of these galleries are depending on (thus their high tourist locations), but certainly many discerning buyers appreciate this simple and classic presentation.

[TylerB]

Longevity needs to be part of this discussion. I don't have knowledge for remotely comprehensive post, but in general recent inksets and high quality papers put inkjet ahead in the longevity category... and some of these process/presentation combinations have not been tested to much degree yet. I do understand that for some in certain circumstances longevity is not a consideration, but it is an ongoing issue in photography

[Wayne Fox]

Longevity needs to be part of this discussion. I don't have knowledge for remotely comprehensive post, but in general recent inksets and high quality papers put inkjet ahead in the longevity category... and some of these process/presentation combinations have not been tested to much degree yet. I do understand that for some in certain circumstances longevity is not a consideration, but it is an ongoing issue in photography

A good point.  It’s quite clear that inkjet on good paper is far superior to any chemical or dye sub process when measuring fade characteristics, so for some that’s the end of the discussion. 

I’m not sure it’s that simple, because fading is only one factor (and maybe not the most important one) regarding print longevity, and physical damage/destruction, while rarely discussed, seems be the main destroyer of images over time.  Even inkjet prints and papers may not be as “archival” as most believe, since the supporting structures (inkjet coating and paper) may deteriorate more than we currently believe. (Here's an old article)

I’ve always believed each photographer must set their own standard and decide what they are comfortable with (so they should at least be familiar with the issue).  There have been many discussions about longevity on this forum so a quick search will find good information. It’s a tradeoff, is the potential of lasting centuries more important, or is there something else which has a priority and a shorter life span, still measured in several decades and indeed may still come close to a century under ideal circumstances) ok. (the look, the physical feel or durability, the convenience to name a few)

IMHO, for something to last that long someone must care enough about the print and it must be important enough to actually take care of it.  So it has to have great personal meaning to a person and their descendants (some portrait photographers may want to consider this), or your work as a photographer has risen to a rarified level a significant segment of the human race is aware of it and feels it worthy of preserving and collecting (as an example from the 3 mentioned in my previous post, I’m not sure Lik. Lough, or Fatali have reached that level... and only time will tell). 

There are certainly a few out there who have become famous and collectible enough for maximum longevity to be a concern, but I don’t count myself as one.   I’ll stick with Kodak Metallic for those images where it appeals to me over the face mounted inkjet.  On the other hand, I no longer use FujiFlex, mostly because I believe face mounted inkjet offers a superior end product, and the additional longevity is a bonus.

Of course if a museum called, that would certainly impact my choices for making a print.

[TylerB]

I appreciate all this Wayne and agree it's up to each to have their priorities clear. I consult with someone involved in some of these methods, and gather advice from others known by this list, for them. One thing I was alluding to without coming out and stating it is- some of these presentation methods are in fact little tested, and reliable info about longevity in a high priced market, like the "Lick" market, is indeed scarce for many of these paper, substrate and adhesive combinations.

[John Nollendorfs]

Hey Tyler:
You know, the neat thing about our pigmented ink jets of the last 10 years, is the prints will last as long or much longer than the old Kodak prints we were used to. Now we have all kinds of choices of papers to print on. Any Tom, Dick or Harry can make good looking inkjet prints. Yes, us experts, can look down our noses at some of the novice efforts, but the bottom line is that it's gotten so much easier. The other thing, people don't seem to be making prints that much anymore. We all have phones that we can flash at our friends with all our images now!

What are the people in 2050 going to think about the people that lived at the turn of the century? They didn't take pictures??

I still say, "A picture is not a photograph, until you make a print"!!!!

[enduser]

Terrific and informative posts Wayne.  Thanks.  And yes, I agree with John, it's only a photograph when it's printed, and needs only light, to be seen.

[Peterretep]

Thanks, I appreciate all the comments made here.

Wayne, I really appreciate the first hand information you shared which has given me much to consider about both paper choices and presentation also. I've got my own experimenting to do needless to say. I'm somewhat unsure about whether you offer face mounting itself as a service or if you meant that you specifically only offer your own prints face mounted. Thanks so much for your input!

[Wayne Fox]

One thing I was alluding to without coming out and stating it is- some of these presentation methods are in fact little tested, and reliable info about longevity in a high priced market, like the "Lick" market, is indeed scarce for many of these paper, substrate and adhesive combinations.

Very good point.  Face mounting has been around for a long time, although much of it for signage/marketing, but one would hope there is experience in the long term aspects regarding images. But no real testing so only anecdotal evidence and that’s hard to find.  I suppose one could argue the same for inkjet papers, we think they’ll hold up, but there really isn’t a good way to age test aspect physical failure to project what will happen in a century or two.

While I like the results I’m getting face mounting inkjet, I have to admit that I’m concerned the inkjet coating may separate from the paper backing over time due to some reaction with the adhesive layer and things like thermal expansion/contraction causing failure, so maybe it isn’t as long lasting as I am assuming it is.  Could be the photographic paper is better for this (especially the flex), because the image/emulsion and supporting paper/polymers are less prone to failing.

I'm somewhat unsure about whether you offer face mounting itself as a service or if you meant that you specifically only offer your own prints face mounted.

Face mounting is difficult to do well, the challenge is mainly keeping out small dust and debris which usually end up as a pretty obvious “bubble” or silver looking spot, especially dark areas.  So I do it mainly for myself but we have done it for a few other customers when requested.  I’m pretty successful with glass, acrylic is much more challenging because of the static issues. There are a few labs around that do it, I believe some even specialize in it.  I’ve never tried to locate any of them, but I’ve heard rumors of one in Colorado, and one of the galleries in Park City the manager claimed his were done in Vegas.  Maybe others know some labs that offer face mounting.

[Stefan Ohlsson]

Longevity needs to be part of this discussion. I don't have knowledge for remotely comprehensive post, but in general recent inksets and high quality papers put inkjet ahead in the longevity category... and some of these process/presentation combinations have not been tested to much degree yet. I do understand that for some in certain circumstances longevity is not a consideration, but it is an ongoing issue in photography

For this market this is indeed an important criteria. If you compare c-print to a good inkjet printer on Aardenburg, you see a 3 to 6 times better light fastness with the inkjet prints.
Another important area is the size of the color gamut. I did a test on an Epson Luster paper when the X900 printer came out and compared the color gamut of that one with a profile from a Durst Lambda. The Epson print had more than twice the size of it's color gamut. Especially all the warm colors were much more saturated. When I did some test prints, the yellows and reds seemed muted and weak on the Lambda print. This was very easy to see, even for inexperienced viewers.

[Peterretep]

 There are a few labs around that do it, I believe some even specialize in it.  I’ve never tried to locate any of them, but I’ve heard rumors of one in Colorado, and one of the galleries in Park City the manager claimed his were done in Vegas.  Maybe others know some labs that offer face mounting.
[/quote]

This may be the one in Las Vegas. http://www.nevadaartprinters.com/