Digital BW, The Print

The test printer is a Epson C80 using their standard drivers and 
their black ink which is Durabrite and supposedly archival to 80+ 
years.

I bought the Hahnemule sampler pack from inkjetmall.com and tested 
everything but the Cone Photo Gloss and the Tunbridge papers. So here 
are my personal ratings on a scale of 1-5 and remember that this 
isn't scientific at all but purely/mostly/somewhat subjective.

This isn't piezography results but I am praying that I can get rid of 
any corduroy banding which exists when I get my Epson 1280 next month.
Right now it's going to be Epson inks at present. All settings were 
at Archive Matte or Heavyweight Matte (for Photo Rags) setting since 
I don't have the Epson C80 Cone ICC profiling software...

1) EAM- ***1/2 out of 5. Very white and a lot of people think that 
this is the strong point. I think that the prints come out neutral 
but that's why the Epson prints are very unexciting. There is 
no "depth" or "emotional" aspect to the paper. But it's cheap and 
unfortunately still acidic because it's not cotton rag.

Prints come out well with lots of sharp detail but the blacks aren't 
all that strong especially in Zone II-III areas. I accidentally 
printed at high speed (without realizing it) and corduroy banding was 
somewhat evident.

2) Wells River- ****1/2 out of 5. Very controversial stuff. Prints 
the blackest blacks using Epson inks and that's darker than most of 
the paper I've used. Flakes easily when handled quite a bit. (I 
tested it by rubbing it back and forth in the plastic sleeve). No 
trace of corduroy banding at all. I like the tonality better and 
suspect that the piezography will blow the mind away. This paper is 
best for sticking under glass immediately after printing but as a 
general use paper for proofing, not worth the expense :D...

3) Photo Rag Duo- ****1/2 out of 5. I tested this paper in the wrong 
manner by accidentally setting it on High Speed so corduroy banding 
was evident in the dark areas.

But it prints beautifully and the gradations of greyscale across the 
zones are stunning even with Epson inks. There is a depth existing 
where the EAM prints don't shine in respect to it. Prints very well 
on both sides and works best for bookmaking ;)

4) Photo Rag 308- ***** out of 5. Stunning paper. Corduroy banding 
less evident and unnoticeable which is rather strange but I think the 
feeding mechanism of the C80 takes this paper in very nicely. 
Stunning range of grayscale and it prints beautifully. Unfortunately 
I tested this also on High Speed without noticing that but the print 
wasn't too bad. Should retest without that setting on.

5) Orwell- **1/2 out of 5. Corduroy banding most evident on it which 
is strange because the Photo Rag 308 as a heavy paper didn't have 
that problem. The tonalities are decent and the blacks are muted 
slightly relative to the other papers.

I didn't care much for the stuff and it looks alright from a distance 
but the banding problem exists most evidently in the dark areas and 
so I couldn't rate this paper very highly.

6) Chelsea- *** out of 5. Decent paper and the corduroy banding 
wasn't evident like in the Wells River paper. The look is similar to 
that of the Orwell paper except that the texture is slightly rougher, 
in fact, it was the roughest looking of the bunch.

Blacks are muted but certainly the Zone IX and above are very well 
rendered. The light areas seem to work out a lot of good highlights 
here.

7) Hahnemule Photo Matte- ** out of 5. Dull paper and worse than the 
EAM stuff. Relatively more expensive and certainly I agree with a lot 
of people who argue whether this is any better than the regular 
Ultima paper out there.

Everything was muted using Epson inks and it was certainly very dull 
looking. I think that the tonal range is very limited here.

Perhaps I can get better subjective testing using Cone's drivers for 
the Epson C80 but I plan to upgrade to the Epson 1280 next month so 
the printer system will be replaced entirely. I'm totally stoked 
about getting it ready for use :D

Thanks, AW