B&W, 3800 & Baryta Papers tested

[jjlphoto]

I tested the following , Epson Exhibition Fiber, Hahnemühle Fine Art Baryta, Hahnemühle Photo Rag Baryta, Harman Gloss FB Al, and Ilford Gold Fibre Silk.

I used Eric Chan's ABW workflow and profiles. First of all, each paper produced wonderfully rich, full toned prints. I don't think anybody would be disappointed with any of them. The HFAB was the sturdiest. The HGFBAL was the thinnest, notably thinner than HFAB, strange as any crescent moons from rough handling would show up the worst on that high gloss.

Paper tone, from brightest/whitest to warmest:
EEF (almost blue)
HFAB
HGFBAL
IGFS
HPRB

Gloss differential, from barely noticeable to noticeable:
HGFBAL (you'd think it would be the worst, but strangely, it is in a league all its own. Yeah, it's there, but it is not objectionable.)
HFAB
IGFS
HPRB
EEF

[neil snape]

Good to  know. I'll copy this for my students.

Did you see any pizza wheel tracks on any of these?

[jjlphoto]

Neil, no. However, my tests were done using both the sheet feeder and rear feeder. (On the 3800, some media types are only available when rear feeder is selected.) The sheet feeder seems to be a better guarantee of a perfect 'grab', so I prefer to use it unless there is a history of marks, or if that particular media type is not available there. Even though Epson says not to run thick stocks through the sheet feeder, the Pixel Genius guys say you can, which I did.

I've also tested with the bottom feeder, but it works best when the paper is laid on top of a matt board per Eric's suggestions. The only glitch I had was that sometimes the very end of the sheet bucks up and wipes along the bottom of the head. (Next time, I'll tack down all four corners.)

All in all, I was very pleased. I guess it boils down to three things to decide:
Hi Gloss or not.
OBAs or no OBAs.
Price

Inkpress has a Baryta also, just a warm tone currently. Apparently, their prices are very attractive. I emailed them direct to get a sampler as they have quite a full line of papers to choose from. Anyone have experience with them?

[Wayne Fox]

I tested the following , Epson Exhibition Fiber, Hahnemühle Fine Art Baryta, Hahnemühle Photo Rag Baryta, Harman Gloss FB Al, and Ilford Gold Fibre Silk.

I used Eric Chan's ABW workflow and profiles. First of all, each paper produced wonderfully rich, full toned prints. I don't think anybody would be disappointed with any of them. The HFAB was the sturdiest. The HGFBAL was the thinnest, notably thinner than HFAB, strange as any crescent moons from rough handling would show up the worst on that high gloss.

Paper tone, from brightest/whitest to warmest:
EEF (almost blue)
HFAB
HGFBAL
IGFS
HPRB

Gloss differential, from barely noticeable to noticeable:
HGFBAL (you'd think it would be the worst, but strangely, it is in a league all its own. Yeah, it's there, but it is not objectionable.)
HFAB
IGFS
HPRB
EEF

Interesting.

I've used all but the HPRB on the 11880 and 7900 and felt GD so insignificant on all  it wasn't a factor in choosing which papers I liked.  I didn't feel it was noticeable on any of them ...  you had to look for it and on the EEF and FHAB I couldn't see it unless I had a very bright point light source. To me EEF was on par with HFAB for GD,  HGFBAL slightly below those two and IGFS showing it the most.  The IGFS seems to have a very slight "matte" finish which contributed to the GD, whereas the EEF and HFAB have more of a stipple texture finish, but still had a glossy sheen quality that the IGFS didn't have.

I'll have to test some side by side against the 3800 to see if the newer inkset of the 11880 and even newer inkset of the 7900 actually makes a difference or if is just a matter of personal perspective and perhaps viewing conditions.

While EEF is the "coolest", to me it only looks cool when compared to a warm paper, and with color images the paper tone didn't factor in much either.  I could see where in  B&W it would be more critical since the paper tone will contribute to the overall image tone.

The HGFBAL is almost too glossy and as you mentioned somewhat flimsy, but for very detailed images it may be terrific.  It's finish is somewhat amazing ... rivaling a ferrotype finish.

In the end I liked the stipple finish of the HFAB and EEF the best ... they just look richer to me.

All are nice papers ... I'll have to try the HPRB.

[jjlphoto]

...  you had to look for it and on the EEF and FHAB I couldn't see it unless I had a very bright point light source. To me EEF was on par with HFAB for GD,  HGFBAL slightly below those two and IGFS showing it the most.  The IGFS seems to have a very slight "matte" finish which contributed to the GD, whereas the EEF and HFAB have more of a stipple texture finish, but still had a glossy sheen quality that the IGFS didn't have.

It could depend on subject matter and light source, and newer inkset. Epson say the latest version of inks minimize GD even further than my original K3 inkset. My GD test was a large window, and the portrait was very deep in tone with lots of black blacks. All the papers were fine, I would be satisfied with any of them. Although the HGFBAI makes no attempt to disguise the GD with a stipple texture, I found its GD so unique it couldn't be compared with the rest. That's why I rated it as best for GD. Plus, with its ability to render greater fine detail, perhaps it made the black blacks open up and show actual noise/grain, instead of looking like a solid dark tone on the other papers. I mentioned the EEF as almost blue is when I use my standard white Crescent #1607 matt board I've been using for years, the matt now appeared a bit warm.