Eight papers

[FrankStark]

Thank you, Mark, for this informative review.
Is your specialist in Toronto a source for these papers? If not, where in Toronto might one buy them?
Thanks
F.

[Mark D Segal]

Hi Frank, yes he is in the distribution chain but the company he is with does not sell retail any product that a retailer is willing to procure from them. We've discussed this issue, because some of these papers are not advertised on the websites of our key retail outlets at least here in Toronto. So the correct approach is to find out from a retailer whether they would bring the product in for you to purchase.

[FrankStark]

What retailers would you suggest?
Thanks
F.

[Mark D Segal]

CCBC-Club, Henrys, Vistek, Downtown Camera (all in Toronto), to name the most prominent that come to mind.

[schertz]

Hi Mark,

First off let me complement you on an excellent review. It was very informative, striking a good balance between technical details and real world information and examples of the differences in paper colour and Dmax. This site and your work are truly a great resource to this community.

It's interesting that you note the curl of the Harman papers; I wonder if this is a general  property of baryta, wood-fibre type papers. I find that the Canson Baryta photographique has a bit of curl coming out of the printer (convex shape, relative to the printed side), and the Epson Legacy Baryta has even more curl (so much so that I constantly got head strikes in the centre of the sheet near the start and end, which was quite frustrating). The Platines by comparison tend to have a bit of a convex curve once inked...

How did you find the quality control/cleanliness of the papers? I find with the Canson BP that I need to wipe off the surface gently before printing otherwise there is a risk of coating bits (dust) that is stuck on and coming off afterwards leaving white spots. The Canson Platine has been fine for this. The Epson Legacy platine is full of white dust/coating however and I have found a one or two dark inclusions in some of the paper itself.

If you would be willing to entertain some suggestions:
1) Many of the images are rather small, it would be nice to see some of the Atkinson test prints up close for example, to compare the papers more closely, although perhaps as separate links/downloads so as to not clutter up your review.
2) While the average deltaE measures are quite useful for getting a general sense of profile accuracy, a posting of the colours with the greatest difference for each would be useful as well. In many ways a profile is only as good as its weakest link (perhaps posting the standard deviation as well as the average of the deltaE). A profile with inaccurate blues might be perfectly fine for those printing portraits for example, while landscape photographers might prefer to have the expense of a custom profile made. Of course there is nothing stopping one from obtaining test packs and checking how the profile performs oneself.
3) It would be great is a lot of this information could be put into a database of sorts, to allow searching and comparisons between these papers and others from your previous reviews.

Again, none of this is to take away from the fact that this is likely one of the best and most thorough paper reviews available on the web (an area of photographic output for which there is sadly a lack of good info on the web). Thanks again.



To FrankStark:

I have been a frequent customer of a few Toronto Camera Shops and might provide some insight.
 
Vistek: I shop here most frequently for paper/inks because they have the widest selection of papers with good inventory. You can find a full range of Canson and Moab papers here, and they have all the Epson papers including stock of the the new Legacy papers in cut-sheets. Their prices are generally bit better than Henry's. They generally don't have as much Canon, Hahn and Ilford stuff on the shelves. They will special order stuff for you as well. The three employees on the ground floor are very helpful and courteous in my experience. I really like the Canson range of paper which is why I shop here the most, and I recently got a bunch of the Epson Legacy paper here because it's still on rebate (but is otherwise a bit too expensive IMHO).

Henry's: Another good choice, but with a much much smaller selection (based on Downtown and an uptown store). They will price match. The service people I have dealt with were friendly, but there are no personnel specific to the printers and paper, unlike Vistek. They do have an ongoing deal where when you purchase $250 of ink and/or paper you get a $20 gift card. This is like a loyalty program, where it builds up over time/ multiple purchases. Their on-line offerings are greater than those in store.

Downtown Camera: The camera people here are really nice and helpful, probably the most so of the stores, but their inkjet section and papers is quite small. Overall the store is small but sometimes they have the best price on things.

Aden: Don't bother.

Hahnemule in Canada distributes through a retailer up in Markham called Amplis. They have a web presence but I don't think any stores. They seem to have a full range of Hahn papers and products, better than any of the competitors, but I have never shopped there myself...

The value of the Canadian dollar is not doing us any favours in terms of ink/paper pricing up here.   I tried ordering some Epson ink carts from B&H but Epson won't let them ship to Canada...

MS

[FrankStark]

Thank you, Mark and MS. That information is very helpful.

F.

[Mark D Segal]

Hi Mark,

First off let me complement you on an excellent review. It was very informative, striking a good balance between technical details and real world information and examples of the differences in paper colour and Dmax. This site and your work are truly a great resource to this community.

It's interesting that you note the curl of the Harman papers; I wonder if this is a general  property of baryta, wood-fibre type papers. I find that the Canson Baryta photographique has a bit of curl coming out of the printer (convex shape, relative to the printed side), and the Epson Legacy Baryta has even more curl (so much so that I constantly got head strikes in the centre of the sheet near the start and end, which was quite frustrating). The Platines by comparison tend to have a bit of a convex curve once inked...

How did you find the quality control/cleanliness of the papers? I find with the Canson BP that I need to wipe off the surface gently before printing otherwise there is a risk of coating bits (dust) that is stuck on and coming off afterwards leaving white spots. The Canson Platine has been fine for this. The Epson Legacy platine is full of white dust/coating however and I have found a one or two dark inclusions in some of the paper itself.

If you would be willing to entertain some suggestions:
1) Many of the images are rather small, it would be nice to see some of the Atkinson test prints up close for example, to compare the papers more closely, although perhaps as separate links/downloads so as to not clutter up your review.
2) While the average deltaE measures are quite useful for getting a general sense of profile accuracy, a posting of the colours with the greatest difference for each would be useful as well. In many ways a profile is only as good as its weakest link (perhaps posting the standard deviation as well as the average of the deltaE). A profile with inaccurate blues might be perfectly fine for those printing portraits for example, while landscape photographers might prefer to have the expense of a custom profile made. Of course there is nothing stopping one from obtaining test packs and checking how the profile performs oneself.
3) It would be great is a lot of this information could be put into a database of sorts, to allow searching and comparisons between these papers and others from your previous reviews.

Again, none of this is to take away from the fact that this is likely one of the best and most thorough paper reviews available on the web (an area of photographic output for which there is sadly a lack of good info on the web). Thanks again.



To FrankStark:

I have been a frequent customer of a few Toronto Camera Shops and might provide some insight.
 

Hi M Schertz,

Thanks very much for your thoughtful post - really appreciated and I am pleased you find these articles useful; that is our primary purpose.

Firstly, on paper sources here in Toronto, I would suggest to Frank giving CCBC-Club a try. They are compact and agile enough to really go out of their way for customers and their pricing is very competitive. Amplis is the wholesale distributor for Hahn. Ilford and Harman and they do not sell to the public unless no retailer they deal with is prepared to order what the customer wants.

Secondly, on paper curl, my experience has been different. The two Harman papers are the only ones I've used or tested where the paper curl actually posed a handling issue. I do not think it endemic to all Baryta/alpha-cellulose products. A very low level arc can be observed with various papers, is relatively innocuous and different from curl.

Thirdly, on paper dust, the only one that ever gave me headaches with this was Canson Platine used in an Epson 4900. Very nice paper, but the declogging was painful.

Fourthly, on consistency of product - impossible to say unless one has been using a paper routinely for a certain period of time. I can relate that Ilford Gold Fibre Silk has been a  consistent performer because it is the one paper I have used the most ever since we reviewed it here way back when. For the others, testing/reviewing is very much a sample of one pack and that certainly doesn't allow reliable findings on this matter. That said, the main name brands I think can be relied upon - on the whole - for consistent standards over time.

Fifthly, on the Atkinson test print, yes, I agree, those images are small, unless they are printed on a large sheet. The target itself is one image with all those photos laid-out in it as shown. However, what I am showing in those particular illustrations isn't print quality, but screen captures of softproofs of the target file, just to show readers what the test material is; it won't help much over the internet for accurately seeing how the papers perform. That is difficult in a web article, because in any event a printed page would need to be scanned, rendered into a JPEG and reduced to internet dimensions. The only REAL RELIABLE way to see print quality is to see the print, unfortunately.

Sixthly, on the question of profile performance, yes I agree - there is variance in the accuracy of colour reproduction between hues, and it may be useful for the most inaccurate ones to illustrate the differences between the correct colours and the printed outcomes. However, I'm now working on something even better than that, which explicitly deals with this whole general issue in a very systematic manner. It will take some time complete this research, but once it's done it could be interesting, and if it turns out that way I shall approach Kevin to publish it.

Finally, your idea of the database is a future project Kevin and I have been discussing. I'm at the very early stages of thinking about how it would be designed and implemented. Apart from those already reviewed on this website, there are umpteen other papers out there we haven't touched yet, so if we are to make this a comprehensive exercise it would be a very considerable undertaking. More on that anon if we get something up and running.

[schertz]

Thanks for the response Mark,

I hope to see your project come to fruition and am looking forward to your upcoming piece on the Hahn pano paper and book kits which piqued my interest...

Of course a database comprising the menagerie of papers would be quite an undertaking, but even if it were not fully complete, would still be a tremendous resource to the photographic community.

Until today, I had never heard of CCBC-club, I'll have to wander over and check them out

MS

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

Thanks for this excellent and useful article, Mark. You provide enough information for me to tell quite well which of those papers I will personally like.
I will be trying a couple that I haven't yet. The base paper I also compare all others to is Gold Fibre Silk.

-Eric

[Mark D Segal]

You are welcome Eric, glad it's useful to you.

Mark

[pearlstreet]

Great article, Mark. I'm one of those who love the Harman FB Gloss Baryta. I don't have issues feeding the paper but I always have prints on this paper dry mounted.

I wondered what you thought about Hahnenuhle photo silk baryta. I have been using it lately in place of the Ilford gfs. Mainly because the place that prints my larger prints switched to it when Ilford originally went out of business.

Thanks again for the great review.

Sharon

[Mark D Segal]

Hi Sharon, glad you liked the article. I did review the Hahn Photo Silk Baryta previously (though less detailed); you may find it here: Another two Barytas. It's good.

[robertDthomas]

Mark,

Just want to chime in with the others that I found your article informative and I will be looking at trying several of the papers you so thoroughly reviewed for different types of images. I have recently started using HAHNEMUHLE FineArt Baryta as my paper of preference as I like the surface texture and it is heavier and has a nicer feel to the touch than CANSON INFINITY Baryta Photographique.  Are these the same HFABS and HNGB as you have reviewed?

Articles such as yours make the very modest subscription to LL a true bargain.

Bob

[Mark D Segal]

Thanks Robert, glad you found it useful. FineArt Baryta is not quite the same as FineArt Baryta Satin. The Satin is 25gsm lighter weight, both are alpha-cellulose substrate, the Satin has what they call a "white satin gloss", while the FineArt Baryta they describe as "bright white high-gloss". I don't have this latter paper to compare with the Harman.

[dchew]

Mark,
As always, great review; the effort is much appreciated. I have a bit of an aside question regarding the Hahne pano paper:

Most of my panos are between 9:4 (2.25:1) and 3:1. I always thought most of us are within that same range somewhere. Hahnemuhle’s pano paper size of 8.27x23.39 seems really odd to me. If we assume a 1” border around the print for handling and/or mounting, then that leaves a 6.27x21.39 print area, or a 3.41:1 ratio.

If I simply take a 17x22” sheet and cut it in half I get a much more usable space, 8.5x22. Minus the 1” each side equals 6.5x20, or 3.07:1.

Is everyone else printing wider panos, or am I missing something else? Maybe they found a way to sell some wasted cut ends? 

Dave

[Mark D Segal]

Hi Dave,

I shall be reviewing this product in the near future - haven't started into it yet, as the current article has just been published. I agree the aspect ratio is "different" and does raise a question about the kind of photos that can be easily adapted to these dimensions. That is a matter to look into anon.

[Benny Profane]

Thanks very much for this. I am a new owner of a P800, and a newbie to home printing, although I have been around a lot of printers in pre press shops. This is all quite informative. And, you can put me in the camp that appreciates the technical vs the aesthetic/perceptual method of testing.

Two things. How does one acquire the Atkinson test image, but, if that's not possible, what would you recommend as an alternative? And, Am I correct in assuming that there isn't enough difference between the custom profiles and the paper manufacturers profiles to be significant enough to bother with, especially for a novice like myself?

Thanks

[Mark D Segal]

Hi Benny,

Thanks - glad you find the reviews useful.

On the Atkinson target - Bill used to have this on the public portion of his website for free download. He took this down quite a while ago, so we asked his permission to use this target for our articles, which he granted us. However, there is a close alternative that remains in the public domain: it is the Outback target which you can find here: Outback Photo Target

On the profiles, as you are starting out I recommend that you begin with the manufacturers' profiles and see whether you think they are delivering adequately reliable results. The key thing is to make sure that your colour management set-up is correct, and in particular that your monitor is not too bright, otherwise you will be tempted to adjust your photos in a manner that will make the prints come out looking too dark. See Andrew Rodney's article on this website "Why Are My Prints Too Dark."

If after a while you become persuaded that you need custom profiles, there are a number of good providers of this service who can make them for you. You should probably focus on learning to use no more than two or three papers really well, and if you need custom profiles for one or more of those, ordering them from a profiling service will be much cheaper than buying comparable quality profiling equipment to make them yourself.

[Benny Profane]

Thanks

[photopianeil]

Hey Mark, Excellent review (as usual)...  I've been following your articles since LULU went online.  I also enjoyed the great number of responses and your personal responses to the commenters.  I'm still stuck in the Hot Press and Exhibition Fiber generation. I've tried many of the newer papers, but none for the last few years.  It looks like I'm going to have to give some of your recommendations a try, including the Legacy papers. 
Thank you for your reviews.
Neil Rennie