Inkjet Paper Database

[neile]

Over the course of the year I've managed to print on about 60 different papers using my Canon iPF5100. Whenever I see a new sample pack come out I grab it for fun, print out the same test image, and see what it looks like.

After having the stack stare at me for months I finally decided to do some organization and dump all the data about each paper into a spreadsheet. Most of the data is from the company website (things like whether the paper contains OBAs, is double-sided, cost/sq. in., etc.), but I also included the dMax reading that I came up with using my spectro. I'm not sure whether anyone will find the spreadsheet useful but I've posted a beta version of it for everyone's viewing pleasure.

I still have a few things I'd like to add: I need to finish profiling about 10 of the papers (ugh), and there's some missing data on weight, paper base, and OBA usage for some of the papers. If anyone can help me fill in the missing info it would be much apperciated.

You'll also notice there's no Harman papers in the list. That's because Harman doesn't sell sample packs, and I'm unwilling to buy a full box of each of them to test. But they are on my list to try, since people think highly of them.

If anyone has suggestions for changes or other data points to add let me know!

Neil

Edit: Fixed link.,

[Guigui]

Over the course of the year I've managed to print on about 60 different papers using my Canon iPF5100. Whenever I see a new sample pack come out I grab it for fun, print out the same test image, and see what it looks like.

After having the stack stare at me for months I finally decided to do some organization and dump all the data about each paper into a spreadsheet. Most of the data is from the company website (things like whether the paper contains OBAs, is double-sided, cost/sq. in., etc.), but I also included the dMax reading that I came up with using my spectro. I'm not sure whether anyone will find the spreadsheet useful but I've posted a beta version of it for everyone's viewing pleasure.

I still have a few things I'd like to add: I need to finish profiling about 10 of the papers (ugh), and there's some missing data on weight, paper base, and OBA usage for some of the papers. If anyone can help me fill in the missing info it would be much apperciated.

You'll also notice there's no Harman papers in the list. That's because Harman doesn't sell sample packs, and I'm unwilling to buy a full box of each of them to test. But they are on my list to try, since people think highly of them.

If anyone has suggestions for changes or other data points to add let me know!

Neil

I think your link is broken. Here is the correct URL
Thanks for the initiative btw

[neile]

Merci Guigui! I fixed the link in the original post.

Neil

[Etienne Cassar]

Excuse my ignorance but how do you go about opening it?  I have downloaded it and it is a zip file containing 3 folders.

Thanks

Etienne

[neile]

Excuse my ignorance but how do you go about opening it?  I have downloaded it and it is a zip file containing 3 folders.

Thanks

Etienne

Etienne,

It's an Excel 2007 file. If you have an older version of Office, try installing the compatibility pack from http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details...43-c6bb74cd1466.

Neil

[bill t.]

That's a a lot of papers!  Allow me to be the first to ask...any Editor's Choices in there?

Can't open it with Sun Open Office on my PC, "unsupported format."  Renaming doesn't help.

[neile]

That's a a lot of papers!  Allow me to be the first to ask...any Editor's Choices in there?

Can't open it with Sun Open Office on my PC, "unsupported format."  Renaming doesn't help.

I've uploaded a version of the spreadsheet in Office 2003 format which should help those with issues opening it. You might also check and see if you're invited to try the new features of SkyDrive that will let you view the spreadsheet directly within the web page (although you might have to be logged in with a Passport account to see that option).

As for favourites, I'm not much different than others here. I print almost exclusively on the Ilford Galerie Gold Fibre Silk and Hahnemuhle FA Baryta. Recently, however, I've been very impressed with the Epson Exhibition Fiber, most notably for its insane cheap pricing. Too bad it isn't available in rolls, although I keep hearing rumors that rolls are coming to North America.

Once I run out of my current stock of FA Baryta I'll likely switch to the Photo Rag Baryta. Rag-based, slightly less texture, and slightly less cool tone.

The Breathing Color canvas is nice too although I've just started experimenting with it and haven't had a chance to try it coated. A test bottle of their Glossy coating is on the way.

The Epson Cold/Hot press papers are nice matte papers, but I don't really like matte

Neil

[Alan Goldhammer]

That's a a lot of papers!  Allow me to be the first to ask...any Editor's Choices in there?

Can't open it with Sun Open Office on my PC, "unsupported format."  Renaming doesn't help.

Also cannot open it with Excel 2007.  I just saw the new post as I was writing this reply and that one doesn't open either.  I get a format or corrupted file error when trying to open either one.

[neile]

Also cannot open it with Excel 2007.  I just saw the new post as I was writing this reply and that one doesn't open either.  I get a format or corrupted file error when trying to open either one.

Very strange. I just gave it a whirl and it worked fine. Ok then, attachments to the post are the solution  Zip file contains both the 2007 and 2003 versions of the file.

Neil

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

Very strange. I just gave it a whirl and it worked fine. Ok then, attachments to the post are the solution  Zip file contains both the 2007 and 2003 versions of the file.

Neil

I just downloaded and opened both of the original files and the new zip-file and had not trouble opening them any of them on a PC running Vista using Open Office 3.1.1, which is my default for .xls files. The .xlsx file opened in Excel 2007 (which I find too confusing to use, even with an add-on that gives me the traditional menus), but I was also able to open it in Open Office.


This is a very impressive and informative list. Thanks for sharing your researches with us.

Eric

[milt]

Neil,

A great list, many thanks for putting it together and posting it.

This list stirred an idea in the back of my head.  Maybe what this forum needs is such a list maintained in an actual database and available on the web and with its contents constantly contributed to by the forum members.  I'm pretty good at programming, so I would be willing to host & maintain the database if there was widespread interest in such a thing.  We do see a lot of questions here like "What paper is best for X?"  And even the experts here post questions like "Anybody had any experience with paper Y?".

--Milt--

[Neuffy]

Milt:

I'd certainly both like and contribute to such a database. Only problem I see, is procedural/quality control. How consistency would be maintained is somewhat worrying. Still, worth trying.

General:

It's an interesting chart. I'd like to see it expanded.

[abiggs]

One of the challenges with DMAX figures is that you really have to nail the best media type in the manufacturer's printer driver to get the best colors. However, sometimes you can get a better DMAX if you ignore some ink limitation problems (too much ink) on some of the other channels. I am always skeptical of DMAX numbers unless I do the calculations myself.

Just a heads up. Thanks for the great resource, Neil. Good stuff.

[neile]

One of the challenges with DMAX figures is that you really have to nail the best media type in the manufacturer's printer driver to get the best colors.

Agreed. I've listed the media type I used, and it was helpful to have the Canon ipf5100 wiki for selection options. Most of the matte papers are Premium Matte Paper, as nobody seems to have found a matte paper yet where there is a better option. On the glossy papers I went with recommendations from the wiki, or what the manufacturer recommended.

Neil

[milt]

Milt:

I'd certainly both like and contribute to such a database. Only problem I see, is procedural/quality control. How consistency would be maintained is somewhat worrying. Still, worth trying.

I agree there are several things to worry about on getting good quality control.  Its something worth discussing here.  I'm not proposing anything like a wiki, but something more controlled.  I'm such a newbie I wouldn't expect to be contributing much, just doing the flunkie tech work.

I make this proposal partly because I have seen such cooperative efforts based on an active forum work quite well in the past.  I'm a PC-based Home Theater junkie (as well as a photo junkie), and several active Home Theater forums have done stuff like this, including, in one case I remember, preparing a working piece of software.

--Milt--

[JimGoshorn]

How much of a D-Max difference is required to visually tell the difference in two papers? In other words if I am printing on a matte paper with a D-Max of 1.6 and there is another with 1.7 would the difference be noticeable? Are these differences more noticeable on matte vs glossy?

Jim

[neile]

How much of a D-Max difference is required to visually tell the difference in two papers? In other words if I am printing on a matte paper with a D-Max of 1.6 and there is another with 1.7 would the difference be noticeable? Are these differences more noticeable on matte vs glossy?

Jim

Great question! The difference between 1.6 and 1.7 is subtle, and not really noticable. There's definitely no difference when you get to another digitl of precision (i.e. between 1.59 and 1.60). There's a HUGE difference between 1.6 and anything over 2.0.

If you filter by matte paper you'll see that all of the dMax numbers are well below 2. If you look at all the glossy papers you'll see they are above 2.

Neil

[Alan Goldhammer]

If you have a current Epson printer and are doing B&W printing using the ABW driver you can get a higher Dmax compared to the normal driver so we need to be careful about clarifying things here.  I don't have any experience with HP or Canon printers to say whether they would give a deeper black than Epson.  Would be an interesting experiment to conduct providing you can control for all the variables.

[JimGoshorn]

Great question! The difference between 1.6 and 1.7 is subtle, and not really noticable. There's definitely no difference when you get to another digitl of precision (i.e. between 1.59 and 1.60). There's a HUGE difference between 1.6 and anything over 2.0.

Thanks for that info. So as long as we're at .2 difference or less, there really won't be a noticeable difference wether we are using matte or glossy papers. I suppose that once framed under glazing, even a slightly larger difference won't be noticeable.

I guess this can fall under a new category - D-Max Peeping  

Jim

[neile]

So as long as we're at .2 difference or less, there really won't be a noticeable difference wether we are using matte or glossy papers.

The real way to look at it isn't to read the dmax number, it's to print the test image out and look at the series of black squares in the bottom left using your paper/ink combo. It's a progression of dark grey/black against a solid black background. I look at that and see what the darkest square is where I can still tell it apart from the background (very much like a maximum black test from darkroom days). That's my guide, since what my eye can see is more important than whatever dMax number the spectro gives me.

Edit: Actually, that would make for an interesting additional column in the spreadsheet. Darkest dark and whitest white I can tell apart. Hmm. I'll have to give that a try tonight.

And yes, dmax peeping sounds like an appropriate term

Neil