ILFORD GALERIE Smooth Pearl Paper

[jecxz]

I am considering Ilford's Smooth Pearl paper. I read a decent review on this site and I've purchased a small box to sample, but I found this link:

http://www.ilford.com/en/pdf/prods/galerie/IGSPP11.pdf

Which says:

In a protected display, laminated or under glass, indoors and away from direct sunlight, life expectancy of up to 10 years can be expected with both the gloss and the
pearl papers, depending on the ink used.

10 years is rather short, I'm wondering if this is a mistake. I sell quite a number of prints each month and a permanence of 10 years would be a large problem. Any input on Ilford's permanence would be sincerely appreciated (I'm using an Epson 9800).

Kind regards,
Derek Jecxz
www.jecxz.com
 

[John R Smith]

Derek

This is no scientific test or anything, but I have had an A3 B/W print on Ilford SP using the Epson K3 inkset just blu-tacked onto a filing cabinet beside my desk for the past 4 years. No frame, no glass, gets direct daylight from the adjacent window, hot in summer, very cold in winter. So far there has been no discernible change or fading of the image, or noticeable yellowing of the paper. So it's really not that awful. And it certainly is cheap  

John

[pikeys]

Hi Derek,
My experiences is similar to Johns..
I've been using Ilford smooth pearl paper for many  years now,and I have a print{16 x 20},that is framed ,hanging in my living room...maybe it is 7/8 years old?
I see no degradation in color ,or contrast
I've replaced my Epson luster paper with the Ilford sp,and am quite happy with it...I use it about 80% of the time

If you like  the Ilford paper,you might want to try,  Canson Infinity Platine paper...
It is a heavier paper and has a nice stipple to it...price is much higher though,,but a truly beautiful paper.
I believe there was an article about it recently on this website...
 http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/the_paper_that_almost_got_away.shtml

Derek,went on your website,and I must say ,your images are outstanding,truly beautiful ...really ,really excellent work.

Hope this info helps,
Mike

[John R Smith]

Actually, yes Derek, looking at your website -

The quality of your work is outstanding - I would have thought it justifies the very best printing paper you can get, rather than ISP?

John

[Alan Goldhammer]

There is one color stability study on the Aardenberg site but it is listed as Ilford Gallerie Pearl (and not 'Smooth Pearl') so it might not be quite the same paper.  Big problem with the Pearl paper is the presence of OBAs which burned out pretty quickly showing deterioration after 10 mLux hours of exposure.  I echo what John just said in his post, your work deserves the best paper that you can print on.  If you want to stay with Ilford, you should take a look at Gold Fiber Silk.  I do a lot of printing on it and it's not terribly different from the Smooth Pearl (which I print snapshots out on).  The print permanency is much better.

Alan

[Sven W]

If you take a look at the Epsons equivalent, the Luster, at WIR, and you'll find that it is rated for around 70 years.
And one would expect similar display rating for the Ilford Smooth Pearl.

/Sven

[jecxz]

@John, unfortunately, costs are a factor in my life right now, times have been difficult; Ilford is both available in the two sizes I always (24" / 44") need and in stock (at B&H).

@Mike, I'll look at the link, thank you, over the past few years I've seen a number of smaller paper companies go under and I would like to maintain a paper consistency with my customers as the same print may be ordered multiple times for the same location. While not always true, generally larger established brand names offer reliability and availability. But I underline that this is not always true.

@Alan, I will take a look at the Gold Fiber Silk.

@Sven, years ago I used Epson papers and what surprised me, and the reason for this thread, was the low 10 year number from Ilford since I too believe the permanence would be closer to Epson's ratings, as you suggest.

Thank you for your responses and I sincerely appreciate the praise and kind words. Way too generous.

Kind regards,
Derek

[jecxz]

Let me add that I'm not married to Ilford at all, my parameters are sizes I need, availability (consistently in stock), price and that they will be manufactured for a while (agreed, the least predictable and most difficult aspect).

I looked at the Canson Infinity and the prices are very high, but is in stock in the sizes that I need and is a very old company.

Price is always a factor because: 1) volume clients want lowest price, and 2) gallery prints I pay for out of my own pocket and take forever to sell and therefore I tie up money, and galleries are not a main source of income.

Kind regards,
Derek

[howardm]

if you haven't been following along, the Ilford GFS paper and the Canson Baryta appear to be the same paper after much spectral analysis by folks here.  There may be a price advantage to one vs. the other.

[jecxz]

Same paper just different label? Following along where? What folks? Please provide links, I am interested, thank you and be well.

Kind regards,
Derek

if you haven't been following along, the Ilford GFS paper and the Canson Baryta appear to be the same paper after much spectral analysis by folks here.  There may be a price advantage to one vs. the other.

[neile]

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=49039.0

I found this by typing "canson ilford" in the search box at the top of the page and it was the first result.

Neil

[jecxz]

I wasn't really looking for a debate on Canson versus Ilford. My original question was about the low 10-year print permanence of a specific paper.

I'm glad I received the guidance from the other posts above and I'll look at the suggested papers, instead of Ilford. Thank you guys!

And of course I sincerely appreciate your lesson on the search box. 

Kind regards,
Derek

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=49039.0

I found this by typing "canson ilford" in the search box at the top of the page and it was the first result.

Neil

[ippolitois]

I wasn't really looking for a debate on Canson versus Ilford. My original question was about the low 10-year print permanence of a specific paper.

I'm glad I received the guidance from the other posts above and I'll look at the suggested papers, instead of Ilford. Thank you guys!

And of course I sincerely appreciate your lesson on the search box. 

Kind regards,
Derek

You might want to look at the Inkpress Luster too. I just printed the same image on Ilford Gold, Pearl smooth and the Inkpress appears to have less OBA than the Ilford but it's not as warm as the Gold. I was a little surprised to see that the Inpress was warmer looking which made me assume the it had less OBA. I like it because it has less stipple than the Ilford paper too.

Hope this helps.

Paul

[jecxz]

Hi Paul, yes, it helps. I will check out Inkpress Luster (it does come in 24" and 44" rolls). Thank you.

Kind regards,
Derek

You might want to look at the Inkpress Luster too. I just printed the same image on Ilford Gold, Pearl smooth and the Inkpress appears to have less OBA than the Ilford but it's not as warm as the Gold. I was a little surprised to see that the Inpress was warmer looking which made me assume the it had less OBA. I like it because it has less stipple than the Ilford paper too.

Hope this helps.

Paul

[jecxz]

I wanted to post an update to this thread as there is new information regarding Ilford's Galerie Smooth Pearl paper. Ilford's website now shows the print permanence to be 20 years here: http://www.ilford.com/en/pdf/prods/galerie/IGCPP9.pdf (in my first post you'll note it was listed as 10 years), however, the even better news is that a July 11th, 2011 report from Wilhelm rates it @ >200 years when framed under glass here: http://www.wilhelm-research.com/Ilford/Ilford.html

In the time I originally posted this thread and the good comments from a number of you, I've come to really appreciate Canson Infinity's Platine Fibre Rag as well. Much appreciated!

Kind regards,
Derek Jecxz
www.jecxz.com

[MHMG]

There is one color stability study on the Aardenberg site but it is listed as Ilford Gallerie Pearl (and not 'Smooth Pearl') so it might not be quite the same paper.  Big problem with the Pearl paper is the presence of OBAs which burned out pretty quickly showing deterioration after 10 mLux hours of exposure.  I echo what John just said in his post, your work deserves the best paper that you can print on.  If you want to stay with Ilford, you should take a look at Gold Fiber Silk.  I do a lot of printing on it and it's not terribly different from the Smooth Pearl (which I print snapshots out on).  The print permanency is much better.

Alan

I document samples typically as Aardenburg members show in their documentation, and it was called Ilford Gallerie Pearl, but it is indeed more correctly called Ilford Gallerie Smooth Pearl (I will correct in the database soon). From the date of printing, it must be IGSP9, whereas about a year or so ago Ilford completely reformulated. Ilford Galerie Smooth Pearl now has a catalog description of IGSP11.

I have a rather large backlog of new samples to get into testing, but I do hope to test some of the new IGSP11 formulation soon. Ilford claims it was a major reformulation and improvement. One nice feature of this RC paper is that you can buy it with double sided coating. Nice if you want to backprint any metadata about the photo and/or use to make a photobook.

  Also, the older IGSP9 sample in test was printed with some third party pigmented inks but still managed a respectable Conservation Display rating (ie. little or no noticeable fading) of 55-61 Megalux hours (about 25-30 years at Wilhelm rated light levels). While Alan is correct that the media whitepoint showed an initial shift at the 10 megalux hour exposure mark in light fade testing at AaI&A, it was subtle enough that a typical viewer would simply not notice, hence the sample hung in there to the 55 megalux hour mark before triggering the lower limit of the rating (the lower limit is determined from the worst performing 10% of the target color patches). At the 55 megalux hour rated lower limit, a discriminating viewer could indeed become aware of "just noticeable" OBA burnout.

cheers,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com