Digital BW, The Print

I've been experimenting with fiber-based inkjet papers using ABW K3 PK
in an Epson Stylus Photo R2400, I figured I'd share my results.

These are the papers I've tried and the basic numbers I've
measured using PrintFix Pro:

				Dmax	Dmin	Lab (Dmin)
Museo Silver Rag		2.54	0.04	96.48, 0.42,1.17
Innova FibaPrint US Glossy	2.50	0.05	95.45, 1.59, -1.36
Harman Glossy FB Al		2.37	0.03	97.61, 0.63, -0.20
Moab Colorado Glossy		2.36,	0.05	95.49, 1.69, -2.35
Moab Colorado Satine		2.39,	0.05,	95.30, 1.87, -1.74
Ilford Gold Fiber Silk		2.43,	0.02,	97.90, 0.92, 0.16


In terms of sharpness, Harman Glossy FB Al and Ilford Gold Fiber Silk
are extremely close, doubtlessly the result of both being baryta papers. 
The Museo Silver Rag appears to be the least sharp of them, softening
detail quite a bit.

All of the papers exhibit some gloss-differential with the K3 inkset;
this comes as no surprise since the ink itself provides some gloss.
Subjectively, I'd say the papers are largely equivalent in this respect.
Of course, gloss differential is most noticeable in areas of highlight
with no detail; even a very thin layer of ink brings down the 
differential substantially.

Museo Silver Rag stands out as having a unique surface texture, with a
very fine pattern of striations running across the paper.  Harman Glossy
FB Al is very glossy and seems to have a slight bit of a sheen.  The
Moab Colorado papers are just what the names suggest; the Glossy paper
is reasonably glossy and the Satine a little less so; both papers are
smooth fiber.  Innova FibaPrint UltraSmooth Glossy is a little glossier
than Colorado Glossy.  The Ilford Gold Fiber Silk seems to have the most
"natural" FB surface.

The numbers tell the story in terms of surface tone; Ilford Gold Fiber
Silk is *slightly* on the warm side of neutral, Silver Rag is pretty
warm, Harman Glossy FB Al is *slightly* cool and the other papers all
appear a bit blue in direct comparison.

My personal conclusions:

The two baryta papers stand out from the group; I prefer the very
natural appearance of the Ilford paper over the slight sheen of the
Harman paper.

Museo Silver Rag is a special-purpose paper, perhaps best-suited for
traditional portraits where some softening of detail is desired and
the warm base lends a traditional look.

My favorite paper of the group is Ilford Gold Fiber Silk, which
pleasantly surprises me since it is also substantially less expensive
than the other papers.

Speaking of expense, I haven't added-up how much I've spent on paper
for this test and I don't think I want to :-)  The good news is, none
of the papers are clunkers - I'll use them all up eventually, though
Silver Rag will go more slowly since it's really a special-purpose paper.

Dana

Hi Dana,

Txs for sharing your experience. I have tried most of these papers (all but
Moab) on a 4800/7880 K3 and agree with most of your conclusions.
The only thing I would add is that, while I agree that Ilford silk is the
best, it also has by far the worst gloss differential of the set.
So bad, that at least in B&W, I find it unacceptable for images with
significantly large light patches. When it works its great and very sharp.
Gloss differential seems to be less distracting in colour prints.

I would love to try it on a printer with GLOP. Not very keen to spray the
prints as that reduces dmax.

Mike


On 20/12/2007, Dana H. Myers <dana.myers@...> wrote:
>
>   I've been experimenting with fiber-based inkjet papers using ABW K3 PK
> in an Epson Stylus Photo R2400, I figured I'd share my results.
>
> These are the papers I've tried and the basic numbers I've
> measured using PrintFix Pro:
>
> Dmax Dmin Lab (Dmin)
> Museo Silver Rag 2.54 0.04 96.48, 0.42,1.17
> Innova FibaPrint US Glossy 2.50 0.05 95.45, 1.59, -1.36
> Harman Glossy FB Al 2.37 0.03 97.61, 0.63, -0.20
> Moab Colorado Glossy 2.36, 0.05 95.49, 1.69, -2.35
> Moab Colorado Satine 2.39, 0.05, 95.30, 1.87, -1.74
> Ilford Gold Fiber Silk 2.43, 0.02, 97.90, 0.92, 0.16
>
> In terms of sharpness, Harman Glossy FB Al and Ilford Gold Fiber Silk
> are extremely close, doubtlessly the result of both being baryta papers.
> The Museo Silver Rag appears to be the least sharp of them, softening
> detail quite a bit.
>
> All of the papers exhibit some gloss-differential with the K3 inkset;
> this comes as no surprise since the ink itself provides some gloss.
> Subjectively, I'd say the papers are largely equivalent in this respect.
> Of course, gloss differential is most noticeable in areas of highlight
> with no detail; even a very thin layer of ink brings down the
> differential substantially.
>
> Museo Silver Rag stands out as having a unique surface texture, with a
> very fine pattern of striations running across the paper. Harman Glossy
> FB Al is very glossy and seems to have a slight bit of a sheen. The
> Moab Colorado papers are just what the names suggest; the Glossy paper
> is reasonably glossy and the Satine a little less so; both papers are
> smooth fiber. Innova FibaPrint UltraSmooth Glossy is a little glossier
> than Colorado Glossy. The Ilford Gold Fiber Silk seems to have the most
> "natural" FB surface.
>
> The numbers tell the story in terms of surface tone; Ilford Gold Fiber
> Silk is *slightly* on the warm side of neutral, Silver Rag is pretty
> warm, Harman Glossy FB Al is *slightly* cool and the other papers all
> appear a bit blue in direct comparison.
>
> My personal conclusions:
>
> The two baryta papers stand out from the group; I prefer the very
> natural appearance of the Ilford paper over the slight sheen of the
> Harman paper.
>
> Museo Silver Rag is a special-purpose paper, perhaps best-suited for
> traditional portraits where some softening of detail is desired and
> the warm base lends a traditional look.
>
> My favorite paper of the group is Ilford Gold Fiber Silk, which
> pleasantly surprises me since it is also substantially less expensive
> than the other papers.
>
> Speaking of expense, I haven't added-up how much I've spent on paper
> for this test and I don't think I want to :-) The good news is, none
> of the papers are clunkers - I'll use them all up eventually, though
> Silver Rag will go more slowly since it's really a special-purpose paper.
>
> Dana
> 
>


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

I'm also on the fence concerning the acceptability of surface  
artifacts present to varying degrees with all of these papers when  
printed with pigment inks.  I have no problems with GD on Ilford Gold  
Silk when printing B&W with the 1800 using MIS 3PKN+GLOP.  However,  
there is still residual bronzing that that I don't like and can't get  
rid of without spraying with PrintShield (which I dislike even  
more).  Epson Claria ink performs very well on some of these papers  
(particularly Harman), but unfortunately there is only one K in the  
current inkset and no large format Claria printers.

Carl

On Dec 20, 2007, at 3:24 PM, Michael King wrote:

> Hi Dana,
>
> Txs for sharing your experience. I have tried most of these papers  
> (all but
> Moab) on a 4800/7880 K3 and agree with most of your conclusions.
> The only thing I would add is that, while I agree that Ilford silk  
> is the
> best, it also has by far the worst gloss differential of the set.
> So bad, that at least in B&W, I find it unacceptable for images with
> significantly large light patches. When it works its great and very  
> sharp.
> Gloss differential seems to be less distracting in colour prints.
>
> I would love to try it on a printer with GLOP. Not very keen to  
> spray the
> prints as that reduces dmax.
>
> Mike
>
>
> On 20/12/2007, Dana H. Myers <dana.myers@...> wrote:
>>
>>   I've been experimenting with fiber-based inkjet papers using ABW  
>> K3 PK
>> in an Epson Stylus Photo R2400, I figured I'd share my results.
>>
>> These are the papers I've tried and the basic numbers I've
>> measured using PrintFix Pro:
>>
>> Dmax Dmin Lab (Dmin)
>> Museo Silver Rag 2.54 0.04 96.48, 0.42,1.17
>> Innova FibaPrint US Glossy 2.50 0.05 95.45, 1.59, -1.36
>> Harman Glossy FB Al 2.37 0.03 97.61, 0.63, -0.20
>> Moab Colorado Glossy 2.36, 0.05 95.49, 1.69, -2.35
>> Moab Colorado Satine 2.39, 0.05, 95.30, 1.87, -1.74
>> Ilford Gold Fiber Silk 2.43, 0.02, 97.90, 0.92, 0.16
>>
>> In terms of sharpness, Harman Glossy FB Al and Ilford Gold Fiber Silk
>> are extremely close, doubtlessly the result of both being baryta  
>> papers.
>> The Museo Silver Rag appears to be the least sharp of them, softening
>> detail quite a bit.
>>
>> All of the papers exhibit some gloss-differential with the K3 inkset;
>> this comes as no surprise since the ink itself provides some gloss.
>> Subjectively, I'd say the papers are largely equivalent in this  
>> respect.
>> Of course, gloss differential is most noticeable in areas of  
>> highlight
>> with no detail; even a very thin layer of ink brings down the
>> differential substantially.
>>
>> Museo Silver Rag stands out as having a unique surface texture,  
>> with a
>> very fine pattern of striations running across the paper. Harman  
>> Glossy
>> FB Al is very glossy and seems to have a slight bit of a sheen. The
>> Moab Colorado papers are just what the names suggest; the Glossy  
>> paper
>> is reasonably glossy and the Satine a little less so; both papers are
>> smooth fiber. Innova FibaPrint UltraSmooth Glossy is a little  
>> glossier
>> than Colorado Glossy. The Ilford Gold Fiber Silk seems to have the  
>> most
>> "natural" FB surface.
>>
>> The numbers tell the story in terms of surface tone; Ilford Gold  
>> Fiber
>> Silk is *slightly* on the warm side of neutral, Silver Rag is pretty
>> warm, Harman Glossy FB Al is *slightly* cool and the other papers all
>> appear a bit blue in direct comparison.
>>
>> My personal conclusions:
>>
>> The two baryta papers stand out from the group; I prefer the very
>> natural appearance of the Ilford paper over the slight sheen of the
>> Harman paper.
>>
>> Museo Silver Rag is a special-purpose paper, perhaps best-suited for
>> traditional portraits where some softening of detail is desired and
>> the warm base lends a traditional look.
>>
>> My favorite paper of the group is Ilford Gold Fiber Silk, which
>> pleasantly surprises me since it is also substantially less expensive
>> than the other papers.
>>
>> Speaking of expense, I haven't added-up how much I've spent on paper
>> for this test and I don't think I want to :-) The good news is, none
>> of the papers are clunkers - I'll use them all up eventually, though
>> Silver Rag will go more slowly since it's really a special-purpose  
>> paper.
>>
>> Dana
>>
>>

Mike and Dana

I very much concur on how nice the Ilford Gold is...and it greatly appeals to my sense of 
value.

Regarding the issue of gloss differential, I have thought about this at some length and 
have decided this is just a part of this medium.  Have you ever spent any time looking at 
Daguerrotypes?  Spectacular images....but viewed from an angle, you see a negative 
image. 

The Gloss differential on the Ilford is kind of similar.  Lit well (ie Gallery type lighting), the 
prints look awesome.  Turn the print at an angle and yes...you see that the whites are 
more or less paper white.  While this seems a wee bit odd, I have decided it is nothing to 
fret about.  Strikes me the sharpness and dimensional quality is so superb, I can accept 
this differential...and view it as just a part of the medium.

My only direct comparison was with Innova Ftype...the Ilford in my opinion blows the 
Ftype out of contention....lots of surface flaws in the Innova...the Ilford Gold has much 
better quality control IMHO.  Frankly the Innova looks dead and lifeless next to a print on 
the Ilford Gold.

Phil

> Hi Dana,
> 
> Txs for sharing your experience. I have tried most of these papers (all but
> Moab) on a 4800/7880 K3 and agree with most of your conclusions.
> The only thing I would add is that, while I agree that Ilford silk is the
> best, it also has by far the worst gloss differential of the set.
> So bad, that at least in B&W, I find it unacceptable for images with
> significantly large light patches. When it works its great and very sharp.
> Gloss differential seems to be less distracting in colour prints.
> 
> I would love to try it on a printer with GLOP. Not very keen to spray the
> prints as that reduces dmax.
> 
> Mike
> 
> 
> On 20/12/2007, Dana H. Myers <dana.myers@...> wrote:
> >
> >   I've been experimenting with fiber-based inkjet papers using ABW K3 PK
> > in an Epson Stylus Photo R2400, I figured I'd share my results.
> >
> > These are the papers I've tried and the basic numbers I've
> > measured using PrintFix Pro:
> >
> > Dmax Dmin Lab (Dmin)
> > Museo Silver Rag 2.54 0.04 96.48, 0.42,1.17
> > Innova FibaPrint US Glossy 2.50 0.05 95.45, 1.59, -1.36
> > Harman Glossy FB Al 2.37 0.03 97.61, 0.63, -0.20
> > Moab Colorado Glossy 2.36, 0.05 95.49, 1.69, -2.35
> > Moab Colorado Satine 2.39, 0.05, 95.30, 1.87, -1.74
> > Ilford Gold Fiber Silk 2.43, 0.02, 97.90, 0.92, 0.16
> >
> > In terms of sharpness, Harman Glossy FB Al and Ilford Gold Fiber Silk
> > are extremely close, doubtlessly the result of both being baryta papers.
> > The Museo Silver Rag appears to be the least sharp of them, softening
> > detail quite a bit.
> >
> > All of the papers exhibit some gloss-differential with the K3 inkset;
> > this comes as no surprise since the ink itself provides some gloss.
> > Subjectively, I'd say the papers are largely equivalent in this respect.
> > Of course, gloss differential is most noticeable in areas of highlight
> > with no detail; even a very thin layer of ink brings down the
> > differential substantially.
> >
> > Museo Silver Rag stands out as having a unique surface texture, with a
> > very fine pattern of striations running across the paper. Harman Glossy
> > FB Al is very glossy and seems to have a slight bit of a sheen. The
> > Moab Colorado papers are just what the names suggest; the Glossy paper
> > is reasonably glossy and the Satine a little less so; both papers are
> > smooth fiber. Innova FibaPrint UltraSmooth Glossy is a little glossier
> > than Colorado Glossy. The Ilford Gold Fiber Silk seems to have the most
> > "natural" FB surface.
> >
> > The numbers tell the story in terms of surface tone; Ilford Gold Fiber
> > Silk is *slightly* on the warm side of neutral, Silver Rag is pretty
> > warm, Harman Glossy FB Al is *slightly* cool and the other papers all
> > appear a bit blue in direct comparison.
> >
> > My personal conclusions:
> >
> > The two baryta papers stand out from the group; I prefer the very
> > natural appearance of the Ilford paper over the slight sheen of the
> > Harman paper.
> >
> > Museo Silver Rag is a special-purpose paper, perhaps best-suited for
> > traditional portraits where some softening of detail is desired and
> > the warm base lends a traditional look.
> >
> > My favorite paper of the group is Ilford Gold Fiber Silk, which
> > pleasantly surprises me since it is also substantially less expensive
> > than the other papers.
> >
> > Speaking of expense, I haven't added-up how much I've spent on paper
> > for this test and I don't think I want to :-) The good news is, none
> > of the papers are clunkers - I'll use them all up eventually, though
> > Silver Rag will go more slowly since it's really a special-purpose paper.
> >
> > Dana
> > 
> >
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

brouwerkent wrote:
> 
> 
> Mike and Dana
> 
> I very much concur on how nice the Ilford Gold is...and it greatly 
> appeals to my sense of value.
> 
> Regarding the issue of gloss differential, I have thought about this at 
> some length and have decided this is just a part of this medium. Have you
 > ever spent any time looking at Daguerrotypes? Spectacular images....
 > but viewed from an angle, you see a negative image.
> 
> The Gloss differential on the Ilford is kind of similar. Lit well (ie 
> Gallery type lighting), the prints look awesome. Turn the print at an
 > angle and yes...you see that  the whites are more or less paper white.
 > While this seems a wee bit odd, I have decided it is nothing to fret
 > about.  Strikes me the sharpness and dimensional quality is so  superb,
 > I can accept this differential...and view it as just a part of the 
medium.

Interesting perspective - I, too, find the GD of Ilford Gold Fiber Silk
not to be a problem under good viewing light/conditions, but it's easy
to see if it you're handling the print.  It's really not a problem for
a print on display, but it jumps right out at you if you're looking for
it.

Personally, I've been working for years to get past the "peer closely
and try to figure out what film/developer/paper/etc." syndrome and
instead look at the images, the art.  It's tough to get past the
geek urge sometime, though :-)

> My only direct comparison was with Innova Ftype...the Ilford in my
 > opinion blows the Ftype out of contention....lots of surface flaws in
 > the Innova...the Ilford Gold has much better quality control IMHO.
 > Frankly the Innova looks dead and lifeless  next to a print on the
> Ilford Gold.

Clearly the Ilford paper has a much better surface.  The Harman
paper is comparable excellent; Innova definitely has some blemishes
in my experience.

Dana

Michael King wrote:
> 
> 
> Hi Dana,
> 
> Txs for sharing your experience. I have tried most of these papers (all but
> Moab) on a 4800/7880 K3 and agree with most of your conclusions.
> The only thing I would add is that, while I agree that Ilford silk is the
> best, it also has by far the worst gloss differential of the set.
> So bad, that at least in B&W, I find it unacceptable for images with
> significantly large light patches. When it works its great and very sharp.
> Gloss differential seems to be less distracting in colour prints.
> 
> I would love to try it on a printer with GLOP. Not very keen to spray the
> prints as that reduces dmax.

Agreed.  While I'm actually not offended by GD under most circumstances,
it does seem like the ultimate solution is really going to require
GLOP in the inkset.

Dana

I am working on getting beyond the "peering too closely" but its hard :)

Mike

On 21/12/2007, Dana H. Myers <dana.myers@...> wrote:
>
>   brouwerkent wrote:
> >
> >
> > Mike and Dana
> >
> > I very much concur on how nice the Ilford Gold is...and it greatly
> > appeals to my sense of value.
> >
> > Regarding the issue of gloss differential, I have thought about this at
> > some length and have decided this is just a part of this medium. Have
> you
> > ever spent any time looking at Daguerrotypes? Spectacular images....
> > but viewed from an angle, you see a negative image.
> >
> > The Gloss differential on the Ilford is kind of similar. Lit well (ie
> > Gallery type lighting), the prints look awesome. Turn the print at an
> > angle and yes...you see that the whites are more or less paper white.
> > While this seems a wee bit odd, I have decided it is nothing to fret
> > about. Strikes me the sharpness and dimensional quality is so superb,
> > I can accept this differential...and view it as just a part of the
> medium.
>
> Interesting perspective - I, too, find the GD of Ilford Gold Fiber Silk
> not to be a problem under good viewing light/conditions, but it's easy
> to see if it you're handling the print. It's really not a problem for
> a print on display, but it jumps right out at you if you're looking for
> it.
>
> Personally, I've been working for years to get past the "peer closely
> and try to figure out what film/developer/paper/etc." syndrome and
> instead look at the images, the art. It's tough to get past the
> geek urge sometime, though :-)
>
> > My only direct comparison was with Innova Ftype...the Ilford in my
> > opinion blows the Ftype out of contention....lots of surface flaws in
> > the Innova...the Ilford Gold has much better quality control IMHO.
> > Frankly the Innova looks dead and lifeless next to a print on the
> > Ilford Gold.
>
> Clearly the Ilford paper has a much better surface. The Harman
> paper is comparable excellent; Innova definitely has some blemishes
> in my experience.
>
> Dana
> 
>


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