Digital BW, The Print

I've not been able to keep up on all the great work being done here on papers for black & white printing and would like to hear where things are at and what current preferences you folks have. I recall some months ago Paul R. and Clayton J. were interested in Alise until something occurred that put a damper on that choice. If you folks have a minute to share your current favorites for natural matte, very low/no flaking, great dmax, archival, and so on. Thanks for your thoughts.

Michael

I believe Epson Hot Press Natural is the new big kid on the block everyone likes.  Plan to try it myself.  Excellent Dmax and quite neutral.

I have a 50 sheet pack of Alise 13x19 that curls something wicked awful - I'd give it a skip... $100+ down the drain on that junk.

Ken

>...current favorites for natural matte, very low/no flaking, great dmax, archival, and so on. 

I do like the Epson Hot Press natural.  With the Eboni-base inksets I use its relatively low increase in the Lab B (warmth) from the paper white to the maximum Lab B makes for a nice, close to neutral image, with just a hint of warmth.  I find it neutral enough that clouds, snow and white water look white in my landscapes, as opposed to the yellowish tint that all too often happens with 100% carbon.  It has an excellent dmax also.

I have had some flaking, unfortunately, but with care it's been acceptable.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

On 24/11/2010 15:22, "Paul" <roark.paul@...> wrote:

>> ...current favorites for natural matte, very low/no flaking, great dmax,
>> archival, and so on.
> 
> I do like the Epson Hot Press natural.  With the Eboni-base inksets I use its
> relatively low increase in the Lab B (warmth) from the paper white to the
> maximum Lab B makes for a nice, close to neutral image, with just a hint of
> warmth.  I find it neutral enough that clouds, snow and white water look white
> in my landscapes, as opposed to the yellowish tint that all too often happens
> with 100% carbon.  It has an excellent dmax also.
> 
> I have had some flaking, unfortunately, but with care it's been acceptable.
> 
> Paul
> www.PaulRoark.com

There is an awful review of this Epson Hot Press natural here:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/printers/epson-papers-09.shtml

Is this unfounded or unreasonable?

Toodle-pip,

Allan

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Allan Sutherland <allan@...> wrote:
>
> 
> There is an awful review of this Epson Hot Press natural here:
> 
> http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/printers/epson-papers-09.shtml
> 
> Is this unfounded or unreasonable?
> 

Maybe you and I are reading different reviews but I would hardly call that review "awful." In fact, I would call it "positive."  Not glowing but hardly negative. 

Harry 
but what do i know

Huh????  Maybe we read language differently, but how is this "awful":

"This is a gorgeous paper."

"The Hot Press papers are my new favorite Fine Art ultra-smooth surface papers."

What I think is confusing you is that there are four papers reviewed in the article.  He doesn't like the Cold Press papers, but he loves the Hot Press papers - which are the ones Paul and I are referring to.

Ken

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Allan Sutherland <allan@...> wrote:

> There is an awful review of this Epson Hot Press natural here:
> 
> http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/printers/epson-papers-09.shtml
> 
> Is this unfounded or unreasonable?
> 
> Toodle-pip,
> 
> Allan
>

well, just to add another perspective... don't count me amongst "everyone". The paper seems to fit in with several other good performers and did not set any new high water marks in my testing.
Nothing to dislike about it really, but it's just another option amongst several.
The prints that seem to have something extra from time to time here are from Canson papers, and the Rag Photographique in particular if you like smooth surfaces...
If you like texture and can deal with the handling delicacy, German Etching and William Turner still seem to have a richness with the inksets I use that I haven't quite equaled with other papers. But it's subjective.
Tyler

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "kwalsh74" <kwalsh74@...> wrote:

>
> 
> I believe Epson Hot Press Natural is the new big kid on the block everyone likes.  Plan to try it myself.  Excellent Dmax and quite neutral.
> 
> I have a 50 sheet pack of Alise 13x19 that curls something wicked awful - I'd give it a skip... $100+ down the drain on that junk.
> 
> Ken
>

On 24/11/2010 20:56, "HarryB" <hrblaine@...> wrote:

> Maybe you and I are reading different reviews but I would hardly call that
> review "awful." In fact, I would call it "positive."  Not glowing but hardly
> negative. 
> 
> Harry 
> but what do i know

What about the comments on the bleach, the excess whiteness and the likely
lack of longevity? Or did I misread those?

Toodles-pip,

Allan.

On 24/11/2010 23:11, "kwalsh74" <kwalsh74@...> wrote:

> 
> Huh????  Maybe we read language differently, but how is this "awful":
> 
> "This is a gorgeous paper."

Perhaps awful was not precise, I was being more rhetorical in tone of voice.
But this is the quote:

>     All the beauty of the Bright White version, but with slightly worse color
> rendition. For prints that are under UV protection, or prints where longevity
> is important, I would not take the risk of brighteners and would use this
> paper instead of the Bright.
> 
>     For portraits, no question this is the better paper; skin tones are
> slightly more natural and highlights have just the right amount of punch
> without getting too aggressive.

I would not say this is glowing. He does say of Hot Press Bright White:

> This is a gorgeous paper.  To be perfectly honest, I was predisposed to like
> the Natural White better, because I typically do not like brighteners, but in
> this case I ended up preferring the Bright White by a slight margin. The only
> exception is in portraiture, where the highlights can be a bit too aggressive
> with this paper.

He seems to reluctantly like it. In essence I am curious about the nature of
the review here.

Toodle-pip,

Allan.

I personally am using the Epson Hot Press Natural myself after liking
the Cold Press a lot. I agree with the reviewer on the
luminous-landscape.com site that the Cold Press' texture seems a bit
artificial but after looking at other textured papers, it seemed the
least obvious in terms of the machine-made look.
:)-AnnMariewww.annmarietornabene.net <http://www.annmarietornabene.net>



--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Allan Sutherland
<allan@...> wrote:
>
> On 24/11/2010 15:22, "Paul" roark.paul@... wrote:
>
> >> ...current favorites for natural matte, very low/no flaking, great
dmax,
> >> archival, and so on.
> >
> > I do like the Epson Hot Press natural.  With the Eboni-base inksets
I use its
> > relatively low increase in the Lab B (warmth) from the paper white
to the
> > maximum Lab B makes for a nice, close to neutral image, with just a
hint of
> > warmth.  I find it neutral enough that clouds, snow and white water
look white
> > in my landscapes, as opposed to the yellowish tint that all too
often happens
> > with 100% carbon.  It has an excellent dmax also.
> >
> > I have had some flaking, unfortunately, but with care it's been
acceptable.
> >
> > Paul
> > www.PaulRoark.com
>
> There is an awful review of this Epson Hot Press natural here:
>
>
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/printers/epson-papers-09.shtml
>
> Is this unfounded or unreasonable?
>
> Toodle-pip,
>
> Allan
>



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

> What about the comments on the bleach, the excess whiteness 
> and the likely lack of longevity? 

There are both bright white and natural (no optical brightening agents) versions of the paper.  OBAs are dyes that fade.  So, for the most stable fine art images, I use the "natural" paper version.  I think the comments in the article were simply making this same point.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

On 25/11/2010 15:38, "Paul" <roark.paul@...> wrote:

> 
>> What about the comments on the bleach, the excess whiteness
>> and the likely lack of longevity?
> 
> There are both bright white and natural (no optical brightening agents)
> versions of the paper.  OBAs are dyes that fade.  So, for the most stable fine
> art images, I use the "natural" paper version.  I think the comments in the
> article were simply making this same point.

Thank you for your comments, they are much appreciated.

By the way, I like your images of New York City. I recall many of my visits
there, and can envisage some of your vantage points from memory.

Toodle-pip,

Allan.

After reading the various comments about the referenced article, I think we can all agree that the article was well-intended but poorly worded. It's casual use of language caused all sorts of interpretations, some going one way, some the other. So, moving on - what opinions do you folks have of Red River's Aurora Natural? I see it is nearly 1/2 the cost of most other fine art papers. But what is the real world experience with this paper? Anyone use it or tried it?

I have been using Red River Aurora Natural for 3 years and it makes a great
proofing paper but does not have the weight or black density of Epson Hot
Press Natural or other similar papers.

Gary Wagner

www.garywagner.com

From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Michael
Sent: Thursday, November 25, 2010 9:10 AM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Digital BW] Re: Current preferences on natural matte papers?

 

  

After reading the various comments about the referenced article, I think we
can all agree that the article was well-intended but poorly worded. It's
casual use of language caused all sorts of interpretations, some going one
way, some the other. So, moving on - what opinions do you folks have of Red
River's Aurora Natural? I see it is nearly 1/2 the cost of most other fine
art papers. But what is the real world experience with this paper? Anyone
use it or tried it?





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]