New Red River paper: Palo Duro Smooth Rag

[dasuess]

Being a long time Red River paper user, I recently received a RR announcement of their new Palo Duro Smooth Rag paper. I really like the RR PD Etching paper and so I have ordered a box of the PD Smooth Rag. After poking around the RR website and not finding a profile for the Smooth Rag paper, I asked RR if a profile was available and was told to use the profile for the PD Etching paper. Does this make sense? I assume the two papers use the same coating.

Also wondering if Mark Segal has this new paper teed up for testing?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Mark D Segal]

Being a long time Red River paper user, I recently received a RR announcement of their new Palo Duro Smooth Rag paper. I really like the RR PD Etching paper and so I have ordered a box of the PD Smooth Rag. After poking around the RR website and not finding a profile for the Smooth Rag paper, I asked RR if a profile was available and was told to use the profile for the PD Etching paper. Does this make sense? I assume the two papers use the same coating.

Also wondering if Mark Segal has this new paper teed up for testing?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

We won't know whether their profile recommendation is a good one until it is tested. I do not yet have the paper in the testing pipeline, but that could change.

[dasuess]

Just received my RR shipment of 13x19 PD Smooth Rag. Decided to check the RR website again and they now have a profile for this paper. Looking forward to trying it out.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Mark D Segal]

I shall be receiving some to test and review, but I don't have a fix on the timing. Do let us know your impressions of it.

[narikin]

I'd be very surprised if it's anything completely new to market. More likely a re-branding of another product.
Ernst / Spectra Viz will reveal the truth!

Delighted to be wrong though!

[Mark D Segal]

"Completely new" is a tall order for paper these days. Many papers are very similar. But that said, it doesn't necessarily mean one paper is rebrand of another, if by "rebranding" we mean that exactly the same paper is being repackaged and renamed. Spectrumviz will tell you whether papers behave similarly on Ernst's measurements, but that isn't proof of rebranding. 

[Ernst Dinkla]

"Completely new" is a tall order for paper these days. Many papers are very similar. But that said, it doesn't necessarily mean one paper is rebrand of another, if by "rebranding" we mean that exactly the same paper is being repackaged and renamed. Spectrumviz will tell you whether papers behave similarly on Ernst's measurements, but that isn't proof of rebranding.

That is correct Mark. Although papers with identical spectral plots, 3 of them per sample, often showed the same character in the prints as well. Not to mention similar weights, similar texture and introduction in the same period.  That hints very much at rebranding.

SpectrumViz has a problem though; I do not receive samples from manufacturers, distributors and users anymore. In the past I went to the Photokina too and got a two year update for most paper catalogs but I have not been to the last and probably will not be there end of the month. American catalogs were not present there either with some exceptions. So if users like to see more recent papers measured they can help by sending some sheets or requesting the distributor to send sample books.

Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst

http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
March 2017 update, 750+ inkjet media white spectral plots

[Alan Goldhammer]

From the description on the website this sounds an awful lot like Moab Entrada, a paper that I am now using with increasing frequency.  Entrada has been around for some time now and it's performance is well documented.  Just quickly looking at prices the Moab paper is only marginally more expensive.

[dasuess]

I would think Entrada is closer to RR Aurora Art Natural, especially the new heavier AAN.  I have all three on hand - I will print the same image on all three and see. Probably not as scientific as Mr. Segal, but I lack his tools. Heading off on a two week trip to London and Ireland this week, but will try and do those test prints before heading off.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Mark D Segal]

......... That hints very much at rebranding.

The word "hint" is well-chosen.

Far from the first time rebranding is mentioned in this forum. Personally, I think it's a vacuous and tired subject. First of all, why care - what matters is the quality and likeability of the paper and the price; secondly, "rebranding" is most probably illegal unless it is done by agreement between two parties for a commercial reason, hence no responsible company will be either offered or undertake rebranding absent an agreement. Maybe it gives some people comfort to know that X is a rebranded version of Y which they like. But since they're unlikely ever to be told with any certainty, their best bet is to read reviews, try the paper, compare prices and be guided accordingly.

[Mark D Segal]

I would think Entrada is closer to RR Aurora Art Natural, especially the new heavier AAN.  I have all three on hand - I will print the same image on all three and see. Probably not as scientific as Mr. Segal, but I lack his tools. Heading off on a two week trip to London and Ireland this week, but will try and do those test prints before heading off.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Super - let us know your findings and have a great trip.

[sharadn]

Since the RR Palo Duro Softgloss appears to be identical the Canson Platine (wonderful paper) I wonder if the new matte paper is rebranded Canson Rag Photographique.

[Mark D Segal]

........."appears to be identical"

Meaningless statement; so many factors that go into the composition of an inkjet paper, unless you are a paper technologist with a lab to analyze it you wouldn't know, and even then........but it could be similar for all intents and purposes - still doesn't necessarily mean there's rebranding. As I said above, a vacuous and tired subject.

[narikin]

Meaningless statement; so many factors that go into the composition of an inkjet paper, unless you are a paper technologist with a lab to analyze it you wouldn't know, and even then........but it could be similar for all intents and purposes - still doesn't necessarily mean there's rebranding. As I said above, a vacuous and tired subject.

Mark - I dont understand your hostility to people using the term "rebranding" They (and I) are simply trying to help people understand that almost none of these retailers are actually paper manufacturers - only major ones like Canson and Hahnemuhle are - they are for the most part working with a major manufacturer, such as Felix Schoeller of Germany, who seem to be the base source for so many of our basic favorite papers.

Ernst Dinkla's wonderful Spectrum Viz, reveals SO much about the near-identical nature of these supposedly 'unique' papers that come onto the market. Look at the plots for Canson Platine, and Legacy Platine, and 'Red River Palo Duro Soft Gloss' and Felix Schoelle J23000 True Rag Silk Satin', etc, (there's others...) and you see that they are basically the same thing.

Sure there might be the tiniest tweak, (and I'm sure you're going to point these out!) but it is really minor compared to choosing a Platine vs Baryta, for example.  It is pretty clear that Red River has bought rights to a Schoeller Platine-formula paper, and is marketing it as 'Red River Palo Duro Soft Gloss' (what a mouthful!). I'm not knocking RR, just trying to unravel the marketing hubris claiming a "new paper" for it's actual accuracy - is it really new or is it another Schoeller paper with maybe a tiny tweak, and a different label on the box?

I use a lot of paper - typically about $2500/ month in large rolls - and find the difference between (for example) Canson Platine and Epson Legacy Platine is near zero for all intents, and for sure less than using a roll of Canson Platine from 3 years ago to one today (the white point, mostly).

That's all!

[Mark D Segal]

There is no hostility. I'm pointing out that the whole discussion about rebranding is technically and legally pointless for the reasons I've explained. Ernst agrees that Spectrum Viz alone is not sufficient to confirm rebranding. Canson by the way is a subsidiary of F.I.L.A. It makes some of its own papers and has others made elsewhere, but again, more information the details of which this highly secretive industry won't tell us. The end of my intervention on rebranding.

[Ernst Dinkla]

The word "hint" is well-chosen.

Far from the first time rebranding is mentioned in this forum. Personally, I think it's a vacuous and tired subject. First of all, why care - what matters is the quality and likeability of the paper and the price; secondly, "rebranding" is most probably illegal unless it is done by agreement between two parties for a commercial reason, hence no responsible company will be either offered or undertake rebranding absent an agreement. Maybe it gives some people comfort to know that X is a rebranded version of Y which they like. But since they're unlikely ever to be told with any certainty, their best bet is to read reviews, try the paper, compare prices and be guided accordingly.

Over time I have heard a lot of nonsense from distributors about the unique quality of their papers. Lyson that assured it had a special extra coating on the Hahnemühle qualities they sold 18 years ago and Hanemühle at that time denying that anything special was done on that paper for Lyson. There is no legal issue in "rebranding" most of the time if you are not using that strict law terminology describing a label put over another label on the product. Felix Schoeller is the manufacturer of several qualities we use and it acts as a wholesaler in most parts of the world. Very few of us will actually have Felix Schoeller written on their boxes. The term White Labeling fits then but are we here in law school? This industry niche does not have that many paper mills making the qualities we need and even fewer coating facilities. If we go by your advice we can wait for another 1000 paper reviews while in reality there may not be more than 250 qualities. I guess you have done 25 paper reviews so far in the last ten years.  No, in court I can not testify that this quality is the same as the other quality and comes from the same manufacturing batch. In printing practice however things are different and we can go by several signs of resemblance in papers so purchase a paper from a distributor nearby where otherwise we have to buy from another country. Same for pricing or short term availability. SpectrumViz is fine for an educated guess, it does not have more pretensions either. It gives some insight on other properties of a paper but even on fade resistance I always advice to check Aardenburg Imaging's testing. The number of tested papers there is however also limited as we all know. Wilhelm Research has more but is flawed on the paper white color shifting aspect so hardly helpful at all.

Canson today is part of F.I.L.A, so is St, Cuthberts of Somerset paper fame.There have been several shifts of ownership for Canson since it entered the inkjet art paper market. It lost its license to use Arches names for the inkjet art papers at roughly the same time it became part of FILA. It has/had a well known relation with Felix Schoeller for the coating of its papers, official German papers on their cooperation exist. There have been threads here on that subject and about the changes of the products they sell, both on quality issues and name changes. We have seen similar things happen with Ilford Imaging products. It sure will happen again for some companies. I have seen product changes happen after ownership shifts where the name for the product did not change, simply because the spectral plots changed of the new productions.

You act from another perspective and that is no problem for me. Sure it is a boring discussion after ten years and when you start throwing in juridical concepts to denigrate what is mainly meant as a practical tool in comparing papers I doubt it will affect its use much. Maybe you should make a paper review of papers that seem alike in SpectrumViz, have the same texture and weight and your testing shows a difference. That would have practical value.


Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst

http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
March 2017 update, 750+ inkjet media white spectral plots

[Mark D Segal]

.................
You act from another perspective and that is no problem for me. Sure it is a boring discussion after ten years and when you start throwing in juridical concepts to denigrate what is mainly meant as a practical tool in comparing papers I doubt it will affect its use much. Maybe you should make a paper review of papers that seem alike in SpectrumViz, have the same texture and weight and your testing shows a difference. That would have practical value..............

Hi Ernst,

Please do not misunderstand me - for avoidance of doubt let me state unequivocally that I am not and had no intention of denigrating the practical value of any tool for comparing papers - be it Spectrum Viz or any other. All I said about Spectrum Viz, and you agreed, is that it does not provide a definitive conclusion on whether one paper is a rebrand of another. As for the terms describing the factual basis of a phenomenon, words have specific meanings which we need to respect in order to have unambiguous, accurate discussions. It's not a matter of juridical this or that. "Rebranding" has a very specific meaning. I completely agree with you that for practical purposes many papers are extremely similar to each other, but that's a different matter.

Thanks for your suggestion about what I should be testing for - it could really be an interesting and useful approach - but it's a research project that would require close collaboration between the two of us, which I would look upon positively as a learning opportunity in light of your vast experience in this area. I don't know about you, but I foresee it would consume a lot of time, which for now is scarce given my present commitments. So much as I think it's a good idea, I must defer for the time being; it could also be helpful to see such larger scale research and writing attract an acceptable form of sponsorship. Everything I do for this website is voluntary, so some limits are in order.

All the best,

Mark

[mearussi]

If you're curious about rebranding sometimes you can just and they will tell you. I asked RR about their metallic and was told it was rebranded Mitsubishi, which is nothing to be ashamed of as Mitsubishi is a very good quality paper.

[John Nollendorfs]

Interesting things to know about ink jet papers. In the late 1990's when large format inkjet printers were making their appearance, there were very few ink jet  specific papers available. One of the first companies that started having art papers coated to their specifications was Hawk Mountain Papers. Then as ink jet coating started getting  into main stream, the paper mills started doing their own coating for little more than the cost of the base paper. With that advent, many new/old inkjet paper brands were born. If you were willing to make commitments on buying master rolls of inkjet paper and do your own converting to smaller rolls and sheets and marketing, a new paper brand could be born. I believe that this was the way Red River got it start, by selling cut sheet packs of inkjet papers and then moving into rolls a few years back. It was once related to me by a supplier, that 1/2 the material cost of a 36" roll of inkjet paper was in the packaging!!!!

[enduser]

Mearusssia's mention of Mitsubishi reminds me of when I bought my Canon ipF printer. The Canon guys in Oz gave me a whole bunch of Mitsubishi profiles (to use with Canon papers?). I don't really know why - were the profiles to be used on Canon papers? I never was able to find "Mitsubishi" branded paper for retail sale.