Hi, I've been unable to get the old Harman Gloss FB AL in the uk and Harman are selling their remaining papers off at reduced prices. So it looks like its all being replaced by the Harman/Hanhemule logo
and I'm very doubtful that the papers will be indentical. So its back to testing and new ICC profiles.
Anthony and all:
I've received the new Harman by Hahnemuhle paper in 8-1/2" x 11" and 17" x 22" and tested it for ink reception the same way that I tested the previouis versions of the paper. They've obviously tinkered with the paper since its introduction. I've compared all three versions (yes, three). Here's what I found with my Epson 3800 and K3 pigment inks.
The first Harman Al Baryta that I measured had a very nice smooth set of curves, with a maximum black density of 2.46. It also used very little brightener, producing a Lab "b" number of -.09, and the uninked paper surface density was .02.
Then, when they put out the Warm Tone paper, with a better black, they also improved the regular Al Baryta to get a Dmax of 2.52, virtually matching the curves of the warmtone version.
More brighteners were used in the revised Harman Al Baryta, producing a Lab "b" number of -1.42, and the uninked paper surface density was .03
Now, with the black ink curve starting out the same as the latest version of the previous Harman Al, the Harman by Hahnemuhle skates up to a killer Dmax of 2.62 (unless it's going to drop as it drys more). Lab "b" number is -1.35, (a little less brightener) and the uninked paper surface density is still .03. At first glance, the black ink curve is a little bumpier near the top, but I'll give it a week before I do my final curves.
From an appearance standpoint, the new paper looks very much the same and prints made with the profile from the latest version of the Harman branded paper look virtually identical (it's hard to see the difference in blacks once you get up past 2.5 or thereabouts). You could easily get away without retesting and not see the difference, though there is a slight one in the measurements. If your profile is made based on the original version, or if you don't know, then I'd advise that you reprofile the Hahnemuhle marketed version. Hahnemuhle says there are profiles avaliable on their website, but I can't vouch for their quality.
There's one big
improvement - the packaging. The boxes are typical strong Hahnemuhle construction. They are much better than the Harman boxes, and are far more likely to arrive without dings or dents in the paper.
Despite the usual cautions about scratching, and a new warning about contact with solvents like tape and other materials containing solvents or plasticizers (this should be a warning for all inkjet papers), the paper surface and appearance are identical. The new paper still has a tendency to warp with changes in humidity, and when the ink wets the surface.
The paper should be stored upside down, and it needs to be flattened before putting it in the machine, or you will likely get head strikes. I haven't run the large sheets, yet, but I anticipate having to use my water spray on the backs of the 17" sheets and letting them dry almost, but not quite, flat before putting them in my GPH (Great Printer from Hell). My friend who has a 3880 does not have scratching problems, but others in dryer climates do have problems with that printer. I tried to help a guy in New Mexico with my procedure on this forum, but he wound up solving the problem by going to matte papers.
The lack of the 17"x25" size is a big disappointment. If you agree, please drop Hahnemuhle an email.