Beginning printing - the next step: choosing betweenBayrta and Platine papers -

[FrankStark]

For the  past few weeks I have been trying out my P800 printer and software, and doing proofs using 8.5 by 11 inch Epson Ultra Premium Luster paper.  I am now starting to consider the fine art paper that I am going to use for exhibition, mostly in 13 by 19 inch, but also 17 by 22 sheets.

I have decided to avoid OBAs if I can. To my understanding, this leaves only a few PK papers: Ilford Gold Fibre Silk which seems to be a Bayrta paper, and Platine papers like the Canson and Epson Legacy Platine.  The Platines seem to be considerably more expensive. I am told they have a greater "shimmer," but Mark (Segal) did not see a lot of difference at the surface level with a loupe between Epson Bayrta and Platine papers in his review if I remember correctly.

Testing these different papers at 13 by 19 inches by buying 25 sheet boxes is not inexpensive, especially considering I am not sure I need more eight and a half by eleven prints at this point.

So, as a beginner, how might I proceed? Am I correct in my assumptions about which papers do not have OBAs? Is there indeed a different in the appearance of  prints made with Bayrta and Platine paper - e.g. Epson's Bayrta and Platine papers? What is the most practical way of comparing papers? I would be grateful for thoughts of members of the forum.

F.

[Mark D Segal]

Frank, I've published a lot of data and description of much of this range of papers in various articles on this website, but even after reading all that, in the final analysis choosing paper is both subjective and image-dependent (i.e. you need a feel for what kind of your photos you think would look better on which paper, principally as between matte and non-matte. I wouldn't worry too much about moderate OBA content in these papers, of which Ilford Gold Fibre Silk and Epson Legacy Baryta both have some. For media with high OBA content, there is more cause for concern. You can check the longevity data for some of these paper/printer combinations on the Wilhelm-Research and Aardenburg websites. The main differences between Legacy Baryta and Legacy Platine is that the former has some OBA and alpha-cellulose substrate, while the latter has no OBA and cotton rag substrate. The surface textures are also a little different. The most practical way of compsring papers is to buy 8.5*11 inch sample packs of several of them and print a range of photos that are typical of your output to see which renders the way you prefer. Use the right profiles for each paper and adjust the photos under softproof for each one independently.

[FrankStark]

Thank you Mark,

I guess there is no by-passing of smaller eight and a half by eleven test sheets. Patience is a virtue, and less expensive besides! Thanks for that practical advice, and for setting me straight about OBAs in Ilford Gold Fibre Silk. It will be interesting to see which paper I prefer subjectively in relation to my particular images.

Frank

[hogloff]

Most photography stores that sell the papers have sample images you can compare to see which surface you like better.

[Mark D Segal]

Most photography stores that sell the papers have sample images you can compare to see which surface you like better.

That's true, but I have never found this reliable enough because no two paper companies provide the same images on the different papers, so the comparison may tell you something about differences between paper surfaces, but not inform you specifically about how the kind of photos important to you look on those different papers, which is really the key point of such comparisons. Yes, it costs a bit of money and time to make these comparisons, but it's a small investment looking forward to  years of printing. I think it would be reasonable to start by narrowing the choice to no more then say four papers whose specs look to be in the desired ballpark, then narrow it down to understanding one's "go to" options, which may be, for example, one mainstay paper and an option or two for when other kinds of effects are wanted.

[hogloff]

That's true, but I have never found this reliable enough because no two paper companies provide the same images on the different papers, so the comparison may tell you something about differences between paper surfaces, but not inform you specifically about how the kind of photos important to you look on those different papers, which is really the key point of such comparisons. Yes, it costs a bit of money and time to make these comparisons, but it's a small investment looking forward to  years of printing. I think it would be reasonable to start by narrowing the choice to no more then say four papers whose specs look to be in the desired ballpark, then narrow it down to understanding one's "go to" options, which may be, for example, one mainstay paper and an option or two for when other kinds of effects are wanted.

The OP was asking about surface shimmer which can be seen by just looking at different images printed onto the various papers. I agree picking a couple of papers and printing your own images for comparison is a good final step, but if he wants to narrow down the paper by the type of surface they have...then comparing prints made on those papers saves you a bunch of time and money.

[Mark D Segal]

The OP was asking about surface shimmer which can be seen by just looking at different images printed onto the various papers. I agree picking a couple of papers and printing your own images for comparison is a good final step, but if he wants to narrow down the paper by the type of surface they have...then comparing prints made on those papers saves you a bunch of time and money.

Sure he can do that, but my reading of his first post suggests that his interest is considerably broader than that one issue. But he can speak to that.

Time to move on.

[stockjock]

For the  past few weeks I have been trying out my P800 printer and software, and doing proofs using 8.5 by 11 inch Epson Ultra Premium Luster paper.  I am now starting to consider the fine art paper that I am going to use for exhibition, mostly in 13 by 19 inch, but also 17 by 22 sheets.

I have decided to avoid OBAs if I can. To my understanding, this leaves only a few PK papers: Ilford Gold Fibre Silk which seems to be a Bayrta paper, and Platine papers like the Canson and Epson Legacy Platine.  The Platines seem to be considerably more expensive. I am told they have a greater "shimmer," but Mark (Segal) did not see a lot of difference at the surface level with a loupe between Epson Bayrta and Platine papers in his review if I remember correctly.

Testing these different papers at 13 by 19 inches by buying 25 sheet boxes is not inexpensive, especially considering I am not sure I need more eight and a half by eleven prints at this point.

So, as a beginner, how might I proceed? Am I correct in my assumptions about which papers do not have OBAs? Is there indeed a different in the appearance of  prints made with Bayrta and Platine paper - e.g. Epson's Bayrta and Platine papers? What is the most practical way of comparing papers? I would be grateful for thoughts of members of the forum.

F.

Obviously, the paper you choose is subjective but when I was going through this process I found it very frustrating that posters wouldn't express a clear preference or summarize the differences in papers that they used.  I am going to share my opinions on this and some of the reasons why I made the choices I did.  Remember, this is just one person's opinion, but I like to think it is an informed one.  My printing experience is primarily with the Epson 3880 and the Canon iPF8400. 

First, cost is a factor.  That rules out the Hahnemuhle papers for me.  I have never tried Moab.  Most of the off brand papers like Red River etc. don't represent a significant price advantage after factoring in high shipping costs to justify their purchase.  I dislike the feel of RC papers and they have too many OBA's for my tastes.  I don't want to invest in an Xrite i1Photo Pro 2 and I am skeptical that the ColorMunki Photo would provide better profiles than the paper manufacturer.  So the ICC profiles the paper manufacturer provides are important to me.

The Canson papers seemed to be a good compromise between cost, quality, and good ICC profiles.  I was unhappy with the Epson Exhibition Fiber and Fine Art Bright White papers I had used previously.  I have bought various sample packs etc. etc. and for my tastes and style of photography textured papers are irrelevant.  For the purposes of this post I think you should assume that the Epson Legacy Platine, Baryta, and Fibre are identical to their Canson counterparts.  Given the very attractive rebates and some special pricing at Atlex and Shades of Paper in the past I have a large inventory of the Epson Legacy papers but I haven't printed on them yet so I am hoping that the other posters that have equated them to the Canson papers are correct.

So that is a wordy preamble.  For most purposes Platine is better than Baryta.  I think the surface is better with less gloss differential and a very slight advantage in dmax and gamut.  In my experience the Platine doesn't lie quite as flat as the Baryta if you just tack it to a wall.  My guess is that the cotton fibre is more sensitive to humidity changes but the difference is very small and your experience might be different.  The Baryta is generally quite a bit cheaper but that varies depending on whether you are buying cut sheets or rolls.  The single biggest downside with the Platine is that in my experience it is impossible to trim a photo to size and get a clean edge.  I've tried a lot of different techniques and I just can't get it to work.  This simply doesn't matter if you never have to cut into the photo area but if you do then the Baryta is a better choice.

The Canson Rag Photographique, which is probably substantially identical to the Epson Legacy Fibre, is a really awesome paper if you want a smooth matte paper with a gamut and dmax that almost rivals the Platine or Baryta.  It is more expensive but if gloss or gloss differential bothers you and you still want a rich, saturated look then the Rag/Fibre paper is great.  I always use it when a print has a lot of white space.

In my opinion, Platine is better than Baryta unless you need to cut it or cost is an important factor.  Rag Photographique/Legacy Fibre is a great matte paper if you aren't looking to add surface texture.  With the Rebates and careful shopping the Epson Legacy papers are a better deal that then Canson equivalents at this point in time.  All of the Epson Legacy papers are better than any of the previous Epson papers.  If the Hahnemuhle papers offer a significant advantage it doesn't matter to me since I can't afford them.  I would love to see comments from somebody with extensive experience with both the Hahnemuhle and Canson papers.

I can't wait to see if I get flamed for expressing my opinions LOL.

[Mark D Segal]

You won't get flamed - or shouldn't - a lot of this IS about opinions and in important respects subjective. I've reviewed and written-up for this website a good number of the papers you mention. I agree there is considerable similarity between a number of them, such that large price differences could drive a decision - but different brands offer different specials at different times, so one should be attentive for the deals. The Epson Legacy papers ARE very good, and all the better when they have them on special, as they did for the last four months of 2016 (at least here in Canada).

You mention trimming Platine: to trim Platine a high quality rotary cutter such as a Rotatrim Professional does a very clean job, but it's not a cheap piece of equipment.

The gamut comparison you make between Platine and Baryta depends on the brands and specific papers you are comparing. I've posted some gamut data in various articles on a number of these papers - you can see there how the specs compare. Beyond specs it's a matter of taste. The data of course comes from profile analysis, so different profiling is going to produce different data - even for the same paper.

I've tested a number of papers from both Hahn and Canson. Each offers enough variety that again, it's not a matter of comparing one brand versus another but one specific paper versus another. Many slightly differing characteristics to choose from apart from price, so I think it would make sense for those just getting into it like the O/P to shortlist what characteristics are most important as that helps narrow the choices and focus on a few prospective candidates.

[hugowolf]

…
… I have decided to avoid OBAs if I can. …

Ilford Gold Fibre Silk has OBA content, as does the very similar Canson Baryta Photographique, although the Canson paper at lower levels.

Brian A

[unesco]

I am now also testing my new P800 (4 months of ownership) and try to make the full pipeline similar I had with 3880.

You can try relatively new Ilford Gold Fibre Gloss with no OBA, PK ink on cotton base with some texture. Beautiful rendering and feel for both color and B&W. I love this paper with both P800 and K3 inks from 3880. Similar to HmH Photo Rag Baryta.

The other option is Sihl Baryta Mono 290 (or if you are in UE, similar/the same from Fomei), less texture than above, more satin (but not so boring as IGFS), matt-like, and using PK inks - but only with new P800 inks. The old K3 are not dark enough on this paper. Very analogue look and feel with archival ISO certificates. And relatively cheap, no OBA.

Or Harman Gloss Baryta, Warmtone version. Smooth gloss, incredible tonality, perfect for B&W.

Hope it helps.

[mattandersonphotography]

My experience with some stocks on the P800. I have printed on several sample packs as well as 17 x 22 stocks.

Epson Exhibition Fiber Soft Gloss - I tried to like, high hopes, gloss differential and mottling is a deal  breaker. Does exhibit some pizza wheel, but not as bad as not as bad as others.

Epson Exhibition Fiber Watercolor - Wonderful stock, I recommend. No pizza wheel
Epson Hot Press - Wonderful stock, I recommend. No pizza wheel
Hahnemuehle  Torchon - Wonderful stock, I recommend. No pizza wheel

Epson Ultra Premium Photo Paper Luster - Amazing value price / quality. No pizza wheel.
Epson Ultra Premium Presentation Matte - nice simple stock, nothing sexy about it though. No pizza wheel.

Epson Metallic Photo Glossy - Wonderful stock, with the right image really has impact. Does exhibit some pizza wheel, but not as bad as others.

Moab Slickrock Metallic Silver - Unfortunately, this stock has a strong blue cast. Unusable.

Moab Juniper Baryta Rag 305 - Love this stock. Substantial feel, deep dmax, wide gamut, I recommend but, solid heavy ink areas exhibit substantial pizza wheel artifacts.

Hahnemuehle Fine Art Baryta  - Love this stock. Substantial feel, deep dmax, wide gamut, I recommend but, solid heavy ink areas exhibit substantial pizza wheel artifacts. I use this stock the most, my standard for fine art printing.

Ilford Gold Fiber Silk  - A nice stock,  hate to say it, but getting a bit dated. Substantial feel, deep dmax, wide gamut, I recommend but, solid heavy ink areas exhibit substantial pizza wheel artifacts.

Epson Legacy Platine and Baryta - Just getting into these stocks. They show promise. Initially, I'm still liking the density, dmax, gamut, shine, and lack of mottling that Hahnemuehle Fine Art Baryta has.




Below is my post response on the P800 Pizza Wheel marks I’m reposting in the event you experience such artifacts. See forum posting Re: Epson P800 Faint Roller Mark (not pizza wheel marks)
Not trying to hijack post, but make sure your printer doesn't have this issue, if it does, return promptly while under warranty. Epson service WILL NOT be able to fix the issue.
________________________________________
The pizza wheel marks are real and do exist. I'm a fine art printing professional of 20+ years. In my shop ( high end premedia - prepress - digital content production) currently I have 2 epson P9000's 2 epson 9900's and a P800. I've been through dozens of epsons over the years.



The P800 will leave sprocket feed marks on most robust glossy or semi glossy smooth stocks. I'll attach a picture where you can see. They are spaced around an inch apart along the entire paper feed path. It doesn't matter if you use the sheet feeder, front feed, or thick feed paths. Platen width, ink drying slowed down per pass, etc etc... The marks are there. Also, I picked this P800 up late in the game, so IMO it's not an initial design flaw that was corrected early in production. I think a bean counter said we're sticking with what we got, 90% of users won't see it. My gut says select epson ambassadors, reviewers, and industry notables probably got a machine that was "tweaked" or within a tight tolerance spec so it wouldn't show this overlooked design error. As others have mentioned, it shows it's ugly head most notably in solid heavy ink areas. Areas of mixed detail such as branches, rocks, and other areas that have a wide variation of ink density and texture mask the small sprocket perforations that are occurring on the papers texture. I've worked with Epson tech support with no positive outcome. My review of the printer is #1 on the BH site. I've spent hundreds on ink and high end fine art papers trying to mitigate this problem. Epson, if your reading, please let me return this printer for a P5000 plus change. I love your printers, my 9900's have served me well. Unfortunately, the P800 is fatally flawed.

Stocks I prefer to use, and all have the same issue with the pizza wheel sprocket marks.

Ultra Premium Photo Paper Gloss
Epson Metallic Photo Glossy
Epson Exhibition Fiber Soft Gloss
Moab Slickrock Metallic Silver
Moab Juniper Baryta Rag 305
Hahnemuehle Fine Art Baryta
Ilford Gold Fiber Silk

Best,

Matt Anderson
www.mattandersonphotography.com

[FrankStark]

Thanks for this, Matt. There are no marks that I can notice using the Epson Ultra Premium Luster paper - as you noted.  The papers that I have planned on testing include The Epson Legacy Platine and Baryta, the Canson Baryta, and the Ilford FGFS. You have not made specific comments about these particular papers with respect to pizza wheel marks except for Ilford FGFS. I will try this paper first to see if my particular printer has this problem with that paper. If it does, I will try the Epson papers. If it still does, I will return it, perhaps for a P5000 if I can afford it.

Frank

[Mark D Segal]

Matt - I think there may be either something wrong with your P800 or something right with mine, but I've run scads of paper through it, including a number you've mentioned and haven't seen evidence of roller/pizza marks on any of it. Given you are a professional printer I have to assume you are using the Front Fine Art feed for the heavier papers and the top sheet feeder for the lighter ones and making sure the driver settings for Platen Gap and paper thickness are appropriate to the thickness of the actual media being printed on. I am a reviewer, but the particular P800 I'm using happens to be a refurb - I returned the previous one because it came with a fatal nozzle performance flaw in the LLK channel that took beyond the 30 day new printer replacement provision to be unambiguously confirmed. Really hard to believe Epson Support in the Philippines knew or took the trouble to "tweak" a refurbished printer just for me here in Canada. Anyhow, if yours isn't working properly, sure, should be rectified one way or another - my point is that I think it can be regardless of who one is.

I don't know what you mean by IGFS getting "dated". Either it performs well and has satisfying photographic characteristics or it doesn't. If it does, makes no difference how long it's been on the market, really. I underdtand this remains one of the most widely used of the better papers on the market and is usually competitively priced - except when Epson has a killer special on the "Legacy" line of papers.

I expect once you get to using them you'll like the Epson Legacy papers - very good material too.

[graeme]

My experience with some stocks on the P800. I have printed on several sample packs as well as 17 x 22 stocks.

Epson Exhibition Fiber Soft Gloss - I tried to like, high hopes, gloss differential and mottling is a deal  breaker. Does exhibit some pizza wheel, but not as bad as not as bad as others.

Epson Exhibition Fiber Watercolor - Wonderful stock, I recommend. No pizza wheel
Epson Hot Press - Wonderful stock, I recommend. No pizza wheel
Hahnemuehle  Torchon - Wonderful stock, I recommend. No pizza wheel

Epson Ultra Premium Photo Paper Luster - Amazing value price / quality. No pizza wheel.
Epson Ultra Premium Presentation Matte - nice simple stock, nothing sexy about it though. No pizza wheel.

Epson Metallic Photo Glossy - Wonderful stock, with the right image really has impact. Does exhibit some pizza wheel, but not as bad as others.

Moab Slickrock Metallic Silver - Unfortunately, this stock has a strong blue cast. Unusable.

Moab Juniper Baryta Rag 305 - Love this stock. Substantial feel, deep dmax, wide gamut, I recommend but, solid heavy ink areas exhibit substantial pizza wheel artifacts.

Hahnemuehle Fine Art Baryta  - Love this stock. Substantial feel, deep dmax, wide gamut, I recommend but, solid heavy ink areas exhibit substantial pizza wheel artifacts. I use this stock the most, my standard for fine art printing.

Ilford Gold Fiber Silk  - A nice stock,  hate to say it, but getting a bit dated. Substantial feel, deep dmax, wide gamut, I recommend but, solid heavy ink areas exhibit substantial pizza wheel artifacts.

Epson Legacy Platine and Baryta - Just getting into these stocks. They show promise. Initially, I'm still liking the density, dmax, gamut, shine, and lack of mottling that Hahnemuehle Fine Art Baryta has.




Below is my post response on the P800 Pizza Wheel marks I’m reposting in the event you experience such artifacts. See forum posting Re: Epson P800 Faint Roller Mark (not pizza wheel marks)
Not trying to hijack post, but make sure your printer doesn't have this issue, if it does, return promptly while under warranty. Epson service WILL NOT be able to fix the issue.
________________________________________
The pizza wheel marks are real and do exist. I'm a fine art printing professional of 20+ years. In my shop ( high end premedia - prepress - digital content production) currently I have 2 epson P9000's 2 epson 9900's and a P800. I've been through dozens of epsons over the years.



The P800 will leave sprocket feed marks on most robust glossy or semi glossy smooth stocks. I'll attach a picture where you can see. They are spaced around an inch apart along the entire paper feed path. It doesn't matter if you use the sheet feeder, front feed, or thick feed paths. Platen width, ink drying slowed down per pass, etc etc... The marks are there. Also, I picked this P800 up late in the game, so IMO it's not an initial design flaw that was corrected early in production. I think a bean counter said we're sticking with what we got, 90% of users won't see it. My gut says select epson ambassadors, reviewers, and industry notables probably got a machine that was "tweaked" or within a tight tolerance spec so it wouldn't show this overlooked design error. As others have mentioned, it shows it's ugly head most notably in solid heavy ink areas. Areas of mixed detail such as branches, rocks, and other areas that have a wide variation of ink density and texture mask the small sprocket perforations that are occurring on the papers texture. I've worked with Epson tech support with no positive outcome. My review of the printer is #1 on the BH site. I've spent hundreds on ink and high end fine art papers trying to mitigate this problem. Epson, if your reading, please let me return this printer for a P5000 plus change. I love your printers, my 9900's have served me well. Unfortunately, the P800 is fatally flawed.

Stocks I prefer to use, and all have the same issue with the pizza wheel sprocket marks.

Ultra Premium Photo Paper Gloss
Epson Metallic Photo Glossy
Epson Exhibition Fiber Soft Gloss
Moab Slickrock Metallic Silver
Moab Juniper Baryta Rag 305
Hahnemuehle Fine Art Baryta
Ilford Gold Fiber Silk

Best,

Matt Anderson
www.mattandersonphotography.com

This might be worth a try:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HZqdM-1skEU

[gkroeger]

While I have no doubts that Matt is correctly reporting on his P-800, I have been printing for a year on Epson Exhibition Fiber and more recently on Legacy Baryta with absolutely no sign of pizza-wheel marks on any prints. I have looked hard for them with no (or total really) success.

[mattandersonphotography]

I'm still working with Epson to get this rectified, after being on the phone today, I finally got someone to admit a hardware fault, and I should be able to return it.
In the meantime I'm still proceeding with stock testing. Even though Hahnemuehle Fine Art Baryta 325 is my favorite, I'm testing other robust stocks.
I printed these out today, and I'm comparing in my GraphicLite color viewing station. I have to say, everyone one of these stocks is very good. Detail, density, color, etc.
I think I got a bad batch of Epson Exhibition Fiber Soft Gloss in the 13 x 19 size. It shows mottling, but the LET size and the 17 x 22 looks ok.

Moab Juniper Baryta Rag 305, Epson Ultra Premium Photo Paper Luster, Epson Exhibition Fiber Soft Gloss, Epson Metallic Photo Glossy
Hahnemuehle Fine Art Baryta 325, Hahnemuehle FB Baryta 350, Epson Legacy Platine, Epson Legacy Baryta

The feel of the Hahnemuehle FB Baryta 350 is by far the most substantial, and having three other people looking at all 8 proofs, all liked the feel of this stock.
A couple liked the finish on the Epson Metallic Photo Glossy, it has a polyester type sheen like you'd see with fuji's chrome series papers.

The unfortunate part of the Hahnemuehle FB Baryta 350 is that it reads 95 4.45 -9.54 on my Xrite, clearly a pinkish purple paper color. Deal breaker. I do like epson's legacy platine as well, but given the cost ( it's more expensive ) compared to Hahnemuehle Fine Art Baryta 325, I'm sticking with Hahnemuehle Fine Art Baryta 325 as my "house stock"

I highly recommend picking up the Hahnemuehle Baryta sampler pack. It's only $12 and you get some really good papers to try.

Happy Printing

-m

[Ernst Dinkla]

The unfortunate part of the Hahnemuehle FB Baryta 350 is that it reads 95 4.45 -9.54 on my Xrite, clearly a pinkish purple paper color. Deal breaker. I do like epson's legacy platine as well, but given the cost ( it's more expensive ) compared to Hahnemuehle Fine Art Baryta 325, I'm sticking with Hahnemuehle Fine Art Baryta 325 as my "house stock"


-m

Based on its paper white spectral plot the yellows have to rely on not more than the paper base reflection while the reds got some additional reflection component and the rest is stuffed up with optical brightener. What that does in the long run is hard to tell without independent fade tests. Right from the start it will be prone to color inconstancy in changing light conditions, often described as "metamerism". In the LuLa review of this paper it was rejected right away for the magenta cast in the paper white.

Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst

http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
February 2017 update, 700+ inkjet media white spectral plots