Choosing paper
How about Don
Registered Users Posts: 51 Big grins
I have been confussed about this for a long time. My favorite paper is Staples duo side matte. Now I know that's cheap stuff but Staples assured me of a print life of 75yrs. Is print life what I'm looking for? I'm using Inkpress Matte 60 for 11x14's, the same stuff in roll form for panoramic's and Inkpress luster in roll form.
As I look thru my B&H catalog at different papers I notice some are really expensive. Are they noticably that much better than less expensive stuff? What kind of salesman would you have to be to sell a print on a piece of paper that cost's more than the finish product of another kind of paaper?
I found in a Bi Mart some time back a box of Ilford Premium Photo Gloss paper; 100 sheet's for about $14. I printed a few photo's with it and found that if I used HP Gloss paper, Staples Gloss and several other's, then lay them out picture up, I can't tell the difference! What's the deal with these high dollar paper's? I was speaking with a pro from the east coast recently and was told she knows a guy that takes photo's at event's and sell's them to people there on very cheap paper and he's making money! How can that be?
This whole paper deal concerning getting what your really paying for is extreamly confussing. I looked at Wilhelm test's done on a paper I use, Inkpress, and they claim 125yr permance with HP ink! What am I missing here?
As I look thru my B&H catalog at different papers I notice some are really expensive. Are they noticably that much better than less expensive stuff? What kind of salesman would you have to be to sell a print on a piece of paper that cost's more than the finish product of another kind of paaper?
I found in a Bi Mart some time back a box of Ilford Premium Photo Gloss paper; 100 sheet's for about $14. I printed a few photo's with it and found that if I used HP Gloss paper, Staples Gloss and several other's, then lay them out picture up, I can't tell the difference! What's the deal with these high dollar paper's? I was speaking with a pro from the east coast recently and was told she knows a guy that takes photo's at event's and sell's them to people there on very cheap paper and he's making money! How can that be?
This whole paper deal concerning getting what your really paying for is extreamly confussing. I looked at Wilhelm test's done on a paper I use, Inkpress, and they claim 125yr permance with HP ink! What am I missing here?
0
Comments
Well, if the issue is print life, you won't be able to tell the difference for a few decades!
I've bought a few papers and there are clearly differences in how much of a range of colors and tones they reproduce. I can see the difference between Epson's luster paper and Hahnemuhle's. If I am printing for an exhibition, I use my Hahnmemuhle. Often the difference is in the extremes of color and in shadow detail. Especially shadow detail. I am printing on an Epson 3800; with a low-end printer it may be that the printer itself is not going to reach the limits of the paper.
Because the people buying them are not thinking about archival print life and the photos don't push the boundaries of tone or color. They're just event photos. The customers aren't investing in art. If it shows up looking like a good photo they're happy. Since many inexpensive papers are expected to last several decades now, the photographer probably thinks he's not going to get angry customers with faded prints like the photographers who used Kodak Ektacolor paper in the 1970s (as covered in Wilhelm's book, free as PDF).
Cheap papers are better than ever. It was horrible in the beginning, prints would fade in weeks. Now it seems like there are some standards out there. When you pay a little more, you get paper that's acid-free. When you pay more than that, you get paper with no optical brighteners for more fade resistance. When you pay more than that, it can come down to specialty textures (like Baryta) or advanced coatings that get you that extended tonal and color range. Since these higher-end papers are produced in lower volumes and to higher tolerances, they cost more.
They did, based on what science or testing? If someone like this ran the science, OK:
http://www.wilhelm-research.com/
Author "Color Management for Photographers"
http://www.digitaldog.net/
Good point! But then the only thing any of us really knows about Wilhelm is what they tell us. I have some photo's on the Staples paper that are pushing ten years old hanging on my wall. Others on different paper I stuck in a manilla envelope to see how long they'd last. Long time and none have changed. I've also seen photo's done on paper that faded in just a few years. So everything I've heard leads me to believe that permanance was the determining factor as I really can't see a lot of difference in the images. I did notice years ago that my HP paper would run if it got any moisture on it at all, pre Vivira. Cannon and Epson paper you could hold under the faucet right after coming out of the printer with no damage. But if all were kept dry I could not tell one from another.
It has been very confussing thinking I could be printing my photo's on paper that is supposed to be better but believing the degree of better would have to be astronical to justfy the cost. Always felt like something was missing here. From what I gather from colourbox's post is that to realize the difference I'd have to be doing fine art that really was fine art rather than I just might think it is to justify the cost. I don't, BTW, consider any of my stuff fine art but rather just some pretty good photo's now and then with a lot that people like but don't pay for. And I don't push selling them either. I seriously doubt that I could inhance my photo's much at all with paper but rather my time would be better spent learning to post process better. If you were going to do a modern rendition of the "Mona Lisa" and were going to use latex paint from the Bi Mart, you might as well not trouble yourself with fine canvas but rather just paint it on a board!
Thank's for the reply colourbox. I suspect, and probably you do to, that I am not a candidate for the fine art paper's. First I have to make the fine art photo!
While Wilhelm's tests can be useful, they also need to been interpreted with some caution. His tests tend to overestimate the effects of light in a typical home display environment and give less weight to other important factors like ozone, a common pollutant, This resulted in Wilhelm's tests being wrong in the past. For most users, a more balanced application of the degrading factors is necessary. It is also critical to note whether he provides all the test data. In the past, some of his reports would continue to claim "Test in Progress" for ozone for years after their initial publication (even though the ozone test is one of the quickest to perform). Since manufacturers pay Wilhelm to conduct these tests, many observers wondered whether the ozone results were simply ones these manufacturers didn't want people to see.
Since it is very hard to conduct meaningful image permanence tests at home and the real world results won't be obvious for decades, pictures you want to keep for the future are best printed on papers from major manufacturers, not store brands. There is a good chance that due to the inevitable obsolesence of computer media (5-1/4 discs anyone?) and their natural (but often invisible) deterioration, that you may not be able to reprint laterm, making high quality prints your best bet. Incidentally, for tips on preservation of digital images, I recommend the website www.savemymemories.org as well as the free booklets from the non-profit Image Permanence Institute (www.imagepermanenceinstitute.org) for tips and good background information.