interesting review of papers

[DanK]

Dan Wells, who wrote the history of photographic printing that I posted a while ago, has a review of specific papers on the Luminous Landscape site now: https://luminous-landscape.com/on-pr...paper-reviews/

He makes no attempt to review everything you might want to consider. Instead, he reviews papers that he actually uses. As it turns out, he uses primarily Canson and Moab papers, which are two of my three standard brands, and that made the review even more interesting to me. However, his explanation of his choices among the papers he uses may be interesting regardless--for example, when he would choose a less textured paper over a more textured one. You could apply the same reasoning to choosing among Hahnemuhle papers, for example.

[Manfred M]

Unfortunately, Lula is a pay site (albeit at $US 1 per month, a definite bargain), so not everyone will be able to read these articles.

What I found particularly interesting is his comments on Moab Slickrock Metallic Silver papers. I've been working with the glossy, so I find the write up quite interesting.

The other interesting source I stumbled across is another one of Mitch Boyer's videos (same person you posted the black point compensation video) on his choice of papers. While he sticks with Hahnemühle papers, he prints with a matte cotton rag and a baryta paper. I've pretty well gone in a similar direction and print mostly with Epson Hot Press Bright (cotton rag) and Canson Infinity Photographique (baryta). I'm planning on testing both the Canson Infinity Photographique II as well as the Epson Legacy Baryta papers. While I love the Hahnemühle papers but have not found that I could justify the premium price for my own work.

The video link is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r6Rvxzh_0HU

[DanK]

We're much on the same page: almost all of my serious printing is on a baryta paper or a rag mat--in my case, both Canson papers, Rag Photographique and Baryta Photographique. I don't use the Epson papers because I would have to make my own ICC profiles (I print with a Canon, as you will remember) and because there are plenty of other good options.

I haven't had a chance to try Baryta Photographique II because I happened to stock up on the original just before they made the change to the new version. If it is any improvement at all, it will be a wonderful paper, as the original itself is superb.

When I started getting serious about papers, I felt overwhelmed by the choices. When I read of good printers using a paper that I hadn't tried, I worried that I was missing the boat. However, it would take too much time and money to go through them all. Instead, I decided to go through samples until I found things I really like. I was lucky Canson was one of the early ones on my list. Now that I have that done, I can examine others at my leisure if I want.

[Manfred M]

I haven't had a chance to try Baryta Photographique II because I happened to stock up on the original just before they made the change to the new version.

We are essentially in the same boat.

My understanding is that Canson replaced the paper making machinery used to produce the Baryta paper as the new machine cannot produce exactly the same paper as the original Baryta Photographique paper. I have heard that the texture is different and some like it more and others don't like it at all. Now I'm curious to try it as well as a couple of other candidates should I not like it.

[DanK]

Manfred,

I'll be very interested in your experience. I'm hoping I won't have to search anew.

Here is the bit of information provided on their website:

The new generation product has a more structured surface aspect which is reminiscent of the traditional fibre-based darkroom papers and a fine satin finish.

Personally, I would prefer slightly more structure on the surface, but not a lot.
Dan