Why "paper weight" ?

[Some Guy]

Why are we still using the term paper weight? 

Seems "Paper thickness" or "Material thickness" would be a more relevant term in that most all printers specify a "Thickness" in setup, and "Weight" isn't one of them.

I'm tired of dragging out the micrometer to measure the paper thickness to set platen gaps and subsequent paper thickness "Mils" in the driver menu (Those should be linked I would think?).

Paper could have almost any thickness depending on what it is made out of so the weight (gsm?) could be anything.  Not telling at all, other than often papers with 300+ gsm can have a really bad edge curl and maybe damage the printer to the point it becomes a throw away.  "Thickness" should appear on the box somewhere, and a term that the printer menu or software shows - not GSM.

I just want to know the THICKNESS!  Not pounds, gsm, or whatever else paper makers specify and stamp on their boxes.  They could make paper out of foam and be super thick that won't feed at all in any printer.   Weight is not a good plan.

SG

[aaronchan]

thickness is important for you to set the platen gap on your epson printer.
but "paper" wasn't design for inkjet photo printer only.
most paper base was designed for some other application,
but the one that we use has an inkjet coating on top of it for it's special purpose.

and also, paper weight is direct related to the density of the paper,
this can also show part of the charactaristic of the paper itself as well.

inkjet paper is just a small part of the paper industry,
i don't think they would like the change their system for such a small market.

aaron

[Geraldo Garcia]

and also, paper weight is direct related to the density of the paper,
this can also show part of the charactaristic of the paper itself as well.

Actually the paper weight/thickness ratio relates to the density of the paper, not the weight alone.
I agree that we should always know both and, while weight is always informed, thickness is almost always missing.

[hugowolf]

Actually the paper weight/thickness ratio relates to the density of the paper, not the weight alone.
I agree that we should always know both and, while weight is always informed, thickness is almost always missing.

I don't know about 'most', but certainly many don't give the thickness/caliper of the paper. Canson is particularly bad at this. But the density is pretty consistent, the thickness can be difficult to adequately specify, especially for softer-surface textured cotton rag papers – the velvets, for example.

Vernier calipers are very inexpensive, and digital micrometer screw gauges aren’t priced too badly. But yes, I don’t know why both (density and caliper) aren’t readily stated.

Brian A

[PhotoEcosse]

Doesn't the printer driver automatically set the "thickness" when you tell it what type of paper you are using?

Or, if no-one has alreadu thought of that, they are welcome to use my idea!

(Remember when cameras automatically set the ASA according to the bar code on the film cassette.)

[aaronchan]

Doesn't the printer driver automatically set the "thickness" when you tell it what type of paper you are using?

Or, if no-one has alreadu thought of that, they are welcome to use my idea!

(Remember when cameras automatically set the ASA according to the bar code on the film cassette.)

2 paper, same weight, could have 2 different thickness
thickness does not need relative to it's thickness
that's where the original question came from

aaron

[Ernst Dinkla]

How a paper behaves on the printer is not predictable on thickness only. Weight, thickness, rigidity and the core size should be described. The HP Matte Litho-Realistic is lower in weight and thinner than Photorag 310 gsm but way stiffer + running from a 2" core and so more difficult on the printer in my experience.


Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst

http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
November 2014 update, 680+ inkjet media white spectral plots