Comparison of PermaJet Fibre Base Gloss with Crane Museo Silver Rag
2006-02-26 by Steve Gledhill
Comparison of PermaJet Fibre Base Gloss (aka DaVinci Fibre Gloss \ufffd so we\ufffdre led to believe) side by side with Crane Museo Silver Rag Today I acquired two new papers - a box of the PermaJet Fibre Base Gloss and just 4 sheets (letter size) of Crane Museo Silver Rag (don\ufffdt ask). So the first thing I wanted to do was try them out to compare them side by side. Here\ufffds what I did: Profiled both papers with my i1 and QTR-Create-ICC \ufffd hair dryered for speed. Chose a B&W image with lots of shadow and highlight detail and a full range of tones. Printed the same image (size 16cm x 20 cm) on each paper on my 4800 with K3 (PK) inks using \ufffdLet Photoshop Determine Colors\ufffd using Rendering Intent = Perceptual and Black Point Compensation. ABW settings were for Premium SemiGloss Photo Paper (250) at 2880dpi, Neutral, Darker \ufffd no tints. Results: The paper bases are very different. The PFBG (295gsm) is a bright white compared to the pale cream CMSR (300gsm). The surfaces are very different too. The PFBG is to my eye much more like a silver fibre paper \ufffd smoother than the CMSR - but still with a very light random-ish texture (although there is a faint longitudinal texture too - not so nice). The CMSR has a finer more even texture. Both very attractive \ufffd PFBG is whiter and smoother compared with fine textured creamy CMSR. Neither looks like an RC type texture. Comparing the gloss from both I\ufffdd say the PFBG looks a little more glossy \ufffd the finer texture of the CMSR seems to diffuse the gloss just a little more. It\ufffds nice to have a choice. Both papers were sheets from A4 or letter size boxes and both papers curl slightly \ufffd coated side in. Both feel hefty and stiff. I have been told \ufffd but cannot verify - that the CMSR is 100% cotton rag with no optical brighteners and that the PFBG is \ufffdfibre based\ufffd but not cotton and it contains optical brighteners. DMax for PFBG is 2.6, DMax for CMSR is 2.5, both measured with my i1. Both images exhibit a similar degree of gloss differential. As far as bronzing is concerned it appears to be present but as it is now evening in the UK and I don\ufffdt have access to daylight (real or artificial) I\ufffdll have to wait until tomorrow to get a better view. In fact everything I have to say from here on is based on fresh-off-the-printer prints viewed in bright tungsten light. So what do images look like? The image is one I like a great deal and know very well so I am very critical when viewing it. Both are superb and both satisfy my critical examination. They are both sharp, both render all of the details in the shadows and highlights just as I see them on my fully profiled monitor. There is a very slight difference in contrast in the two images with the CMSR having just perceptibly higher contrast \ufffd but given my rush to see the results of the two papers I\ufffdm happy to get these results so quickly. I anticipate further tweaking to get everything just the way I want. I have absolutely no knowledge or information about that other critical factor \ufffd longevity and fade resistance. I can\ufffdt say yet which I prefer \ufffd but it\ufffds great for there to be a further significant step in the choice of papers available to us. And I must say that it\ufffds great to hold some of my work on papers that at least remind me of my darkroom days printing with Ilford MG FB and the like. They\ufffdre not the same, and I don\ufffdt want them to be, but there is something of that look and feel about them. Steve Gledhill http://www.virtuallygrey.co.uk/ ___________________________________________________________ Yahoo! Messenger - NEW crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with voicemail http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com