Looking for affordable quality matte media for Canon IPF8300

[deanwork]

I'm looking for a good smooth matte paper that is significantly less expensive than the Canson Rag Photogaphique to offer my clients who can't afford high-end rag media. I'm looking for decent longevity ratings (not Epson Enhanced Matte) and moderate oba burnout issues.

How is the Canon matt media holding up? Anyone using a lot of that. Their satin rc paper is working very welll for me, but I need a matte media also. It looks like Wilhelm's tests of the Inkpress line are doing very well. I only used their matte dual sided media once and found the gamut and sharpness very good but had some issues with mottling when lots of black was laid down, just like the Innova Fibaprint that I had a lot of trouble with years ago when printing black backgrounds.

John

[Paul2660]

I am not familiar with the Canon Matte, so I don't know the price point but have you looked at the Epson Hot Press line?, either bright or regular?  Both have a very smooth look and make a great print.

Others to consider, Breathing color's Optica 1, My overall favorite, but it's on the pricy side.
Epson Ultrasmooth Fine art, not as thick as Optica 1 or the Epson Hot press, and usually can be found
at a good price on-line.

Paul Caldwell

[neile]

Epson Hot Press Bright (with OBAs) or Natural (no OBAs) is a good option. It's $84.82 for a 17x50' roll and they're running their "buy 3, get a refund on 1" rebate right now. That brings the cost down to $56.55 per roll.

Compare that to the Canson Rag Photographique which is $128.75 a roll after $10 MIR.

Neil

[deanwork]

Thanks guys but I'm not looking for a nice rag paper, I've got that totally covered with Cason and Hahnemuhle. I'm looking for a budget matte paper that is made well in the 44" roll size. Somewhere in the same price category as the rc media. I've just never found one that holds black areas well but I have not tried either the HP or the Canon standard matte stuff so I guess I'll start there.

j

[neile]

Well, I cracked open my inkjet paper list (http://www.danecreekfolios.com/inkjet-paper-list/), filtered by "matte" and sorted by price. Red River floated to the top, but none of those options are available in roll.

The first one on the list available in rolls is the Canon Fine Art Natural. I know you want 44", but to keep my price comparisons consistent, I'll quote the 17" roll price: $38.

Neil

[Ernst Dinkla]

HP Matte Litho-Realistic 270 gsm?  Very smooth surface, no OBAs, paper white a bit warmer than neutral, b 2.7. Cheaper and heavier than Epson's EEM/EAM/name? Shifting paper white in time though, still acceptable based on my own proofs and Aardenburg is running a test so pay attention. 36" wide 3" core rolls only. Wish there was a Dual Sided version of 200 grams.

The Canon Premium Matte 210gsm shows some similarities in its spectral plot, a bit more neutral. The rest of the non-rag, matte Canon papers are quite OBA based.

On roll not wider than 24", the Red River Aurora Natural, Dual Sided, 230gsm and with a nice Aardenburg test. It is a rag paper but at that price you do not have to tell that to your customer :-)


met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst

330+ paper white spectral plots:

http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm

[howardm]

You may want to look into Hawk Mountain Papers, like their 'Condor' product.

[deanwork]

Thanks Ernst,

That is very helpful. You know your papers now.

The Aurora looks like a good deal if it takes ink well. And, the Canon Premium Matte comes in rolls 36" and the length is twice as long so is a really good value also and more in line with what I was looking for. I'll probably go with the latter but will test the Aurora which is seems is dual sided as well and could be great for book projects if it's white enough.

john

[luxborealis]

Have I missed something? I'm not sure I quite understand the point of offering a "matte paper that is significantly less expensive  to offer my clients who can't afford high-end rag media".

It sounds like you are not charging enough! The difference between low end and high end matte paper is a few dollars a sheet at 17" sizes:

• Hahnemuhle 17"x22" William Turner 310gsm is about $8/sheet
• Canson Infinity 17"x22" Rag Photographique Smooth 310gsm = $6/sheet
• Moab Paper Co. 17"x22" Entrada 300gsm Natural (my personal favourite) = $5/sheet
• Canon Fine Art Bright White Paper - 17" Wide Roll - 50' = $3/22" sheet

So the Hahnemuhle is $5 more expensive than the Canon - if your photo looks better on it - use it! And comparing the Canon to the Canson - that's only a $3 difference!

The $3 or $5 difference on anything sold as a 17" photograph should be negligible if you have priced your work commensurate with the amount of time and effort you've put into creating an original photograph, not to mention the thousands you've spent on camera gear, a computer, software  and a printer. If a $3 or $5 difference is significant then you are grossly undervaluing (underpricing) your photographs!!  I would think a 17" print really should not be priced for less than $100.

[Ernst Dinkla]

Few rolls, roughly equal sqms ordered, weight not considered:

HP Matte Litho Realistic $ 3.6 per sqm.
Red River Aurora Natural $ 6.0 per sqm.
Canson Rag Photographique $ 16.83 sqm.

USA prices and Red River ended a 30% reduction not that long ago while it still keeps nice quantity price reductions.

It is correct that with many jobs it does not matter but giving a reduction for students etc can be compensated (to a degree) with cheaper media. There is a wide variety of shops on this list, some are plain print shops while for others printing is just a tiny part of the business work flow The added value in the product differs then. A print shop that  shows printed samples, explains the differences in image quality and still considers longevity as an important aspect is not cheating the customer or the shop.


met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst

330+ paper white spectral plots:

http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm

[deanwork]

Yes, who in the world would buy 17" rolls or sheets, not me.

There is a growing segment of photographers and even art photographers who don't care as much about longevity or fine rag surfaces.
I can't fight it, it's just reality. The Canon HW Sain rc material is significantly cheaper than the Canson or Hahnemuhle quality media or the Harmon fiber gloss I try to use for most projects, but produces excellent imaging when framed and can outlast C prints by a big margin and have better gamut as well. I can afford to charge a little less for big jobs on that and with the Canon printer at bidirectional it is very fast to produce if the files are set up correctly. I don't want to completely miss that segment of the market, but I do realize that media is just one piece of the puzzle. What I was looking for is good budget matte media to offer at the same price point as the satin rc material. Most of my clients will choose the better papers, but for students and people who just want their work to last a couple of decades (or years) it is not a bad option to have. In this economy most real artists simply don't have money period and the ad photographers are in the middle of a total change in their professions and most of them moving their studios into their homes here in Atlanta.

I have this feeling that the Aurora price is just a promotional gimmic and they will raise those prices. I've seen that kind of marketing before. I'm not going to get stuck in that position.


john

[Ernst Dinkla]

John,

There are other good reasons to buy expensive rag papers than their supposed longevity; tactile experience, fiber strength, myths circling in the customer's mind, etc. Not all the rag papers keep their white; Photo Rag Bright White, quite new in Aardenburg testing, shows a fast change already. There have been more examples. The cheaper RC paper you quote did well in testing, both paper white and colors. So did the Aurora Natural. We do not know what the other properties will do in time; the bond of the coating to the paper for matte art papers and Fiber/Baryta, the reported cracking of coatings, the PE barrier/coating/fiber bonds, the PE decay.

Based on what we know I do not think you can say that the cheaper papers you are using or intend to use are inferior in longevity, that still has to be proven in practice or with other paper tests.

A rag paper like the Aurora can be produced and marketed at that price. There is just a smaller margin that should be enough for Red River the way they buy and distribute. The rag fibers will not be the longest in the market, the Fourdrinier will run fast, the 250gsm is only the 230 gsm I measured, the coatings will not be the 3 layers of HM Photo Rag and Dmax + Chroma will be accordingly. I have only one sheet printed on a B9180 and it is not bad. What might be an issue is the consistency between batches and what Red River will do with returns. Unlikely that the margin covers that. Watch the DPreview printing list and the Yahoo B&W list for any Red River issues, Red River has a wide group of fans there.

The HP Matte Litho-Realistic, if produced in a similar way offset papers are produced and with the same quality checks, may prove to be consistent. I expect the paper white to shift but the 20 Megalux results are encouraging. Several prints hanging here, bare as well but spray coated then and I am not complaining. Aardenburg measures a 16.6 L for Z3200 Dmax. More density than measured on several HM matte rag papers. Visually it is less black though in my experience.


met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst

330+ paper white spectral plots:

http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm