As I mentioned above, the positive comments from John and others regarding Canson Platine had me intrigued. I have a box of this paper (13x19), tried it once or twice but have never used it for a job. Not sure why; maybe because my initial reaction to an RC front with a soft matte back just felt weird. I don’t know.
So I ran a comparison test between Canson Infinity Baryta Photographic (CIBP) and Canson Infinity Platine Fibre Rag (Platine). First, a note about comparison testing: this was my test not anyone else’s, so it was done to mimic how I would print b&w images:
Printer: Epson 7900 w/ OEM inks
Image prep: Export from LR – sized at 360ppi, sharpen for gloss-standard
Size constrained to 11" and/or 17"
Path: ImagePrint 9.0.2.2
Profiles: ImagePrint's gray profiles
Tone: slight warm tone using narrow gamut tool: 70/50 and 60/50 *
*For those of you familiar with LR split tone, it is kinda similar to 50/3 for highlights and 50/2 for shadows. I like a slight warm tone on the prints. It is one of the reasons I like ImagePrint; I think there is better subtle control over the toning process.First of all, I don’t think the average Joe non-printer would ever know the difference between these two papers. Certainly not without touching them. In fact, in my opinion the feel of these papers is by far the biggest difference. I think Platine has a cotton rag base; CIBP a cellulose base. I had similar feed problems that Mark reported above. Platine has a bit of reverse curl at the edges that need to be turned back from at least the two feed corners so it doesn’t jam in the 7900.
Platine has a slightly rougher surface. Really just a few bigger “pock marks” vs. CIBP. I don’t mean that to sound as if there are imperfections in the Platine. It is just a bit more “organic” compared to CIBP’s perfectly uniform surface. Platine is slightly warmer; no scratch that – CIBP is slightly cooler! Aardenburg rates Platine LAB 96.6/0.1/0.2, and CIBP as 97.9/0.1/-0.1 (UV incl). They also rate CIBP with a slightly denser black, but not something I think anyone could see; more on that later. CIBP has a small amount of OBA while Platine has none. CIBP scored a little higher in Aardenburg’s fade testing when printed using Epson AWB. I suspect this is one of those cases Mark (MHMG) has talked about where the paper yellowing due to OBA fading counteracts the ink’s bluing. If that intrigues you, sign up on their website and download the reports.
<rant> Seriously, I think everyone who lurks on this printing forum should at least sign up on that site, if not provide an additional donation. They are doing wonderful work from which we all benefit. <end rant>
I printed the three images at the end of this post. The first has a lot going on but is good because all the branches can be used to judge sharpness, and they expose any overly-aggressive sharpening. It is an IQ180 image from a technical camera. The second is a general image, but the fence shows sharp clues, while the clouds provide good tone info. Sony A7r_Lecia f/2-90. The third has some obvious dense black areas. It is from an oh-so ancient Canon 5D_70-200 f/4 (not even 10 years ago – ugh).
What do I see in regards to sharpness? Not much. Both of these papers are fantastic. I would rate CIBP to have a slightly sharper perception, but I think it is because the light tones feel crisper, almost like there is added ‘clarity’. It very well may be because the paper is brighter. Someone else may look and rank them differently, so I understand John’s comment and I am interested in Mark’s feedback. It is impossible to evaluate the differences between these two papers without looking really close. And when you look that close you can tell which one is which because of characteristics other than sharpness, like paper color, surface texture and obviously feel.
In regards to gloss differential and bronzing with Epson inks, I have to admit I’m not sure of definition and difference between those terms. But holding the paper at various angles the ink looks remarkably similar in how it reflects light. Sometimes I think the Platine has slightly more of that “3-D baseball card” feel, but that is being really imaginative. The image below from half way up Mt. Rainier would show any problems, and I just can’t see any. One curious note on the deep black area at the bottom of that image: CIBP has some very slight banding through ImagePrint that is only noticeable up close in very bright light. Platine has a very light “dusty” or hairy look. Like there are some paper fibers on the surface that don’t get completely saturated with ink. Mark, I’m really interested to hear if you see that too. It might be tied to ImagePrint's controls. Again, this is under
really close inspection.
So, if you abhor OBA’s, Platine is a great choice. I still give CIBP a slight edge in appearance, but it is very slight. When looking at only one print, I would challenge anyone to to decipher which paper it is from anything farther than 2 feet away. If paper feel is important, then that would surely be the deciding factor. I think that is the biggest difference between these two papers.
Anyway, I am glad you all drove me to take another look at Platine. My next roll might just be this stuff since I think it will handle a bit better as roll paper. I don’t know if it will replace CIBP as my go-to paper, but it might. Depending on my preference on feel and my growing fear of OBA’s.
Dave