Digital BW, The Print

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, David Aschkenas <Daschkenas@...> wrote:
>
> This might be a bit OT , but I guess that I'm a bit surprised that it  
> seems most everyone is using HPR.  I used to use that paper, but I  
> tried Cranes Museo Portfolio Rag a couple of years ago, and to my eye  
> (or perhaps my printing style), I found the Crane's to be a bit more  
> three dimensional, with excellent blacks, and actually prefer it to HPR.
> I'm using the Ultrachrome K3 inkset, but I'm printing both color and  
> b&w and sepia, through Imageprint, with great results.
> Anyone else happy with that paper?

I really like Portfolio Rag, too, but with my Canon Lucia inks, it doesn't perform as well as HPR in terms of light fastness. However, with an Epson 7800/k3 ink setup, the lightfastness doesn't take the hit on Portfolio Rag that Lucia inks do according to my testing in comparison to HPR. That's the value proposition in testing specific product combinations , ie., printer/ driver/ink/paper/coating parameters.  In the final analysis, your personal aesthetic choice of papers may still trump any reductions in longevity that a particular product combination might pose, but a wise choice is usually an informed choice.

In the round robin testing I was suggesting earlier, we could include more than one benchmark paper. Canson infinity Rag photographique, Museo Portfolio Rag, HPR, Premier Art Smooth Fine Art, and no doubt  several others are all similar in aesthetic properties, ie., for the most part without "bright white" OBA appearance and similar weight and texture. One goal of a paired comparison test is simply to better isolate any other variables Hence, the test samples should be run as one batch in testing.  I've got up to 25 sample capacity that can be tested as a single batch in one of my light fade units, so there is room for more than just one "benchmark" paper type.

regards,
Mark
http:/www.aardenburg-imaging.com