Have you ever printed on Ilford Washi paper ?

[Antonio Correia]

Have you ever printed on Ilford Washi Torinoko paper ?
I normally use Ilford Gold Fibre Silk on a Epson Stylus Photo R3000 with good results but I would like to try this Washi paper and would like to know your impression about it.
Thank you.

[Manfred M]

I ordered some (25 sheets about A4 size) from my local photo shop a week ago. It's a special order so I don't expect to see it until next week. I also ordered a Moab paper sampler pack with 4 pieces of their Washi paper (two different types).

I'll give my impressions once I've had a chance to uses these papers. I suspect they will be very effective for high key images.

[Antonio Correia]

Thank you Manfred !
I will remember you in 2 or more weeks in case you forget. I am not in a hurry but I would like to try something different and with new finish.
I am frequently with a friend who paints and prints photographic images in exquisite papers and I always find his works very beautiful.
His images are great but they are enhanced by the use of the paper.

[Manfred M]

The paper came in today and I have started to test it.

It's a fairly thin paper (110 grams per square meter) and is a bit on the translucent side so that means I am going to have to figure out the best way to view it for evaluation. It has a definite but subtle texture that I personally find pleasing. It has a very warm tone, even warmer than my usual portrait paper, Epson Hot Press Natural. It is a coated paper, so it is easy to identify which way it has to feed into the printer.

Even though it is a fairly thin paper, the default setting (Ilford tells me to set the printer settings for Ultras Smooth Fine Art Paper, which is a much thicker 250 grams per square meter paper), so it defaults to the front feeder on my Epson P800. This seems a bit odd for such a thin paper.

My initial print colours look a bit muddy when compared to an identical print made on Hot Press Natural, so I am going to have to do some more testing to understand how to get the most out of this paper.

I have not tested the Moab papers yet. These are just re-packaged Awagami Factory papers; the 110 gm / sq m Kozo paper and the 55 gm / sq m Unryu paper. At first glance, the Moab paper seems more expensive than the Awagami Factory paper, but I will have to do some more research. At first glance these seem to be more interesting textures than the Ilford paper. You might want to see if they are available in Portugal.

I've downloaded the printer profiles from the Ilford site; site navigation is a bit strange, but I was able to get what I needed.

The Kozo paper has a texture that is very similar to the Ilford Washi Torinoko paper, but is a little bit cooler toned. The Unryu has a very unique texture and would probably be very interesting to print winter scenes on.

[Antonio Correia]

Thank you Manfred for remembering and for the description.

I am glad you have succeeded with the new Ilford paper. Too thin as I thought. It is only 110 gr... I personally would like a heavier paper instead.
I love the warm tones but not that much the translucent quality of the paper as I think it makes manipulation difficult or perhaps not in A5...

I have seen Moab papers to be sold in Portugal somewhere. Anyway, this is not a problem as most of my purchases are made abroad this country. I am an ignorant in exquisite papers, in fact.

I have or rather, I must try an alternative paper to the Ilford. I have been too sticked to this brand. I have some Canson sample which I should use...

Thank you again Manfred ! You were great !

[Manfred M]

I must try an alternative paper to the Ilford.

Have you tried any of the Hahnemühle papers? I've used several and they are excellent. The Harman papers that Ilford sells are made for Ilford by Hahnemühle.

I'm currently using Canson Baryta Photographique as my main coated paper, although some people have suggested that I try Epson Legacy Baryta as being a bit better than the Canson product.

[Antonio Correia]

Oh yes I have !
Gorgeous paper the Hahnemuhle paper...

I still have a few sheets and also a sample pack !!
I must stop being lazy and print on these papers, and make a definite change over them. Thanks for the tip of the Hhane / Ilford
-
But, regarding this question of printing and evaluation of images.
A guy I know from previous meetings in a nearby village asked me to print some 22 images in A3+ with the Ilford paper because he likes my prints !
I said it was OK and he sent me from the same photograph in jpg, tif and the RAW file after being I asked to.
Unfortunately some people - including me, perhaps - do not know to see a printed image and evaluate it's qualities or/and faults.
His photo lack detail in the shadows and have poor contrast. The horizon is tilt !

I worked on the RAW file and worked my way. My wife says - and she is right - the "treatment" is too harsh and I think she is right.

However, he doesn't want me to re-do his work trying to do a better printed work.
I will simply print his images as they arrive to me without the quality I think they should have.
And I am not talking about composition or whatever because that is absolutely his "business"

I will have a simple task to do: open the files, feed the printer and click enter to print them. I would like to do something better but I can't.

You will understand at a glance which photo I have worked on...

[Manfred M]

Oh yes I have !
Gorgeous paper the Hahnemuhle paper...

I still have a few sheets and also a sample pack !!
I must stop being lazy and print on these papers, and make a definite change over them. Thanks for the tip of the Hhane / Ilford
-
But, regarding this question of printing and evaluation of images.
A guy I know from previous meetings in a nearby village asked me to print some 22 images in A3+ with the Ilford paper because he likes my prints !
I said it was OK and he sent me from the same photograph in jpg, tif and the RAW file after being I asked to.
Unfortunately some people - including me, perhaps - do not know to see a printed image and evaluate it's qualities or/and faults.
His photo lack detail in the shadows and have poor contrast. The horizon is tilt !

I worked on the RAW file and worked my way. My wife says - and she is right - the "treatment" is too harsh and I think she is right.

However, he doesn't want me to re-do his work trying to do a better printed work.
I will simply print his images as they arrive to me without the quality I think they should have.
And I am not talking about composition or whatever because that is absolutely his "business"

I will have a simple task to do: open the files, feed the printer and click enter to print them. I would like to do something better but I can't.

You will understand at a glance which photo I have worked on...

I wish there was an easy answer I can give you Antonio.

Unless one prints, one does not understand the amount of work that goes into making a print. All of the custom printers I know have their own style that is unique to their work. When someone says that they like your print work, that tells me that they also like the way you process your work to create these prints.

They also do not understand that an image file that looks fine on a computer screen still needs some additional work to create a strong print. If nothing else, the dynamic range or a paper print, the lighting where the print is going to be displayed and the issues associated with the printing process; resampling to print size (usually upsizing with an A3 print, depending on the camera used and the sharpening and tweaking that is dependent on the paper used area all unknowns to the non-printer.

My suggestion would be to make two full sized test prints; one that you have prepared for print and the other that you have simply run through the printer. Ask the person which of the two prints the person likes and you will have your answer.

[Antonio Correia]

Manfred, he has not seen the two prints I have done but on his computer. He will be coming to me next week and I will listen to the image he likes best.

Thank you again for commenting !