Digital BW, The Print

Don't forget though that the non-'Classic' Ilford  papers are instant dry
types and are not as archival as the Classic pearl and gloss. You are right
though the weight, look and feel of the instantdry ilfords are great!

Julian

Julian
----- Original Message -----
From: <sandersm@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, April 13, 2003 5:55 AM
Subject: [Digital BW] Epson RC paper alternative


> A couple of posts asked for better alternatives to the Epson gloss and
lustre
> papers for the bronzing/differential surface reflection problem.   After
> finding both Epson papers unacceptable for these reasons, I tried the
Ilford
> Galerie papers on my Epson 2200 and was blown away by the difference.
The
> Ilford Galerie Smooth Gloss Paper is heavier than the Epson paper, cheaper
> than the Epson paper, and shows no difference in gloss over light and dark
> areas when viewed at an angle.   Honestly, it looks like a paper that came
> out of a wet darkroom.  I took a few images in to show the salesmen at B+H
> who had told me that the 2200 could not print onto gloss papers without
the
> reflectivity problem arising, and they were amazed at the results.   It is
an
> incredible paper; I am surprised that more people are not aware of it.
>
> Special bonus:   Ilford's US office told me yesterday that the company is
> releasing a set of custom drivers next month for their papers that work on
> the 2200 and other Epson printers, that Ilford believes will produce a
more
> neutral b+w image.   Better yet, they are going to distribute it at no
> charge, bundled into their paper packages.
>
> Sanders McNew
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and
other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to
unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same
page.
>
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or
&amp;amp;quot;flames.&amp;amp;quot;
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
resources on the homepage.

>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>

...and the Classics are not for pigment inks - so that's the problem with the 
whole RC / darkroom-looking print . These so called "real photographic" 
papers may look great but do they match the longevity of either the rag papers 
for inkjet or the silver papers for darkroom ( fiber, not  RC, I suppose should be 
the archival standard) ?  Looks like we are not "there" yet.....


Antonis





--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Julian Thomas" 
<julianthomas@t...> wrote:

> Don't forget though that the non-'Classic' Ilford  papers are instant dry
> types and are not as archival as the Classic pearl and gloss. You are right
> though the weight, look and feel of the instantdry ilfords are great!
> 
> Julian

I've used the classics with pigs and not had problems - but don't know about
archivability.

Julian
----- Original Message -----
From: "Antonis Ricos" <antonisphoto@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, April 13, 2003 7:41 PM
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Epson RC paper alternative


> ...and the Classics are not for pigment inks - so that's the problem with
the
> whole RC / darkroom-looking print . These so called "real photographic"
> papers may look great but do they match the longevity of either the rag
papers
> for inkjet or the silver papers for darkroom ( fiber, not  RC, I suppose
should be
> the archival standard) ?  Looks like we are not "there" yet.....
>
>
> Antonis
>
>
>
>
>
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Julian Thomas"
> <julianthomas@t...> wrote:
> > Don't forget though that the non-'Classic' Ilford  papers are instant
dry
> > types and are not as archival as the Classic pearl and gloss. You are
right
> > though the weight, look and feel of the instantdry ilfords are great!
> >
> > Julian
>
>
>
>
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and
other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to
unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same
page.
>
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or
&amp;amp;quot;flames.&amp;amp;quot;
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
resources on the homepage.

>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>

Antonis wrote:

>...and the [Ilford} Classics are not for pigment inks -
>so that's the problem with the whole RC / darkroom-looking print.
>These so called "real photographic" papers may look great
>but do they match the longevity of either the rag papers
>for inkjet or the silver papers for darkroom ( fiber, not
>RC, I suppose should be the archival standard) ?
>Looks like we are not "there" yet.....

I think I agree that we may not be there yet.  I expect to see a lot of
paper action in the next few years.  I think we'll benefit from the large
demand for good, pigment-compatible RC papers that will result from the
UltraChrome inkset's apparent success.

With respect to the Ilford Smooth papers (the non-classic, I believe), I've
noticed substantial dark storage dmax loss -- from 2.16 to 1.9 in a matter
of weeks.  I've never seen this with any other paper.  I was using the MIS
Photo Black for these tests.

Aside from this, the look and feel -- not to mention cost -- of the Ilford
paper is very nice.

Paul
http://www.PaulRoark.com

Hello,


Did anybody tried Ilford "SMOOTH FINE ART" paper? Look at 
http://www.ilford.com/html/us_english/prod_html/galerie/htm/prod/sfap.
htm They write about 100 years when produced on pigment ink printers.


-richo-
http://piskoftak.sk/

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Vanek" 
<richard.vanek@e...> wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> 
> Did anybody tried Ilford "SMOOTH FINE ART" paper? Look at 
> 
http://www.ilford.com/html/us_english/prod_html/galerie/htm/prod/sfap
.
> htm They write about 100 years when produced on pigment ink 
printers.
> 
> 
> -richo-
> http://piskoftak.sk/

The Ilford Smooth Fine Art is rebranded Hahnemuhle William Turner 190

"Gregory Schern" wrote:
> "Richard Vanek" wrote
> >
> > Did anybody tried Ilford "SMOOTH FINE ART" paper? Look at 
> 
> The Ilford Smooth Fine Art is rebranded Hahnemuhle William Turner 
190

Sorry I do not understand, what did you mean?

-richo-

> > The Ilford Smooth Fine Art is rebranded Hahnemuhle William Turner 
> 190
> 
> Sorry I do not understand, what did you mean?


Richo,

Greg was nice enough to jump in and tell you that this particular Ilford paper is 
in fact not made by Ilford. It is made by Hahnemuhle, and sold under a lot of 
different names (that's what "rebranded" means). A lot of people are already 
familiar with William Turner - the original Hahnemuhle name for the paper - 
and can find it  in several different sources.  

This rebranding is very common with Hahnemuhle papers and seems to be a 
way to confuse buyers looking for the best price .


Antonis