Choosing a fine art paper

Hi all,

I recently ordered the Epson signature worthy sample pack and the Moab sample pack. Unfortunately this has given me a problem I didn't expect. I now have too many choices... I really want to choose 1 or maybe 2 at the most(a matte and maybe a gloss) - to have on hand to print and sell. So far I've tried printing on the Entrada 190gsm and 300gsm and I like both for the print quality the 300gsm seems to have a better feel. But do I really need to print on every piece of matte paper to find out which one is best? How did you all decide on a paper? Is trial and error the only way? Or is there resources to help you at least narrow it down?

Do you all prefer heavier papers(300gsm) - do these have an advantage when framing? As in do they reduce problems with warping if you are framing large pieces?

I really love Epson's velvet fine art paper - but I read that it's not archival... and I figure if you're selling prints that's going to be one of the things you want to be able to tell a buyer - is there a good resource for which papers are archival and how long they can be expected to last?

Thanks for any help you all can give me!

I always go for the heavier papers IMO they give a higher quality feel to my work plus I hate using flimsy papers. I always use archival paper. I like Museo and Hahnemuhle but their are many good ones out the. I tend to read reviews on papers before I try any new ones,but I will most probably now stick with Museo as I like their a couple of there mat and silk papers that I now keep as stock. The knack is to stick with what you like otherwise you will spend a fortune trying many different papers and use heaps of ink.

Beth, you're right -- there are (too) many choices. It would be easier if most of these papers didn't exist, or were plainly crappy quality. But there's a lot of really good stuff out there, with a few more coming along each year it seems. Experimenting with different papers is part of the fun of printing for me, so I don't mind doing it. I do read discussion threads & reviews on various sites like Luminous Landscape, Digital Outback Photo, and here at NSN. Mainly that's because new things that I might be interested in don't always show up quickly on my local shop shelves. But ultimately it comes down to a level of subjective preference.

I'm totally off all resin coated media, strongly preferring several of the fiber based papers, most of which have good longevity. If you want longevity info, a couple of pretty definitive sources are Wilhelm Imaging Research (http://www.wilhelm-research.com/) and Aardenburg Imaging (http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com/).

I do maintain a small number of core papers that I commonly use for prints that I sell or show in my portfolio. Mostly these are towards the glossier end of the spectrum since I like more dynamic range in most of my prints, rather than the flatter / subtler look of matte.

Current favorites include Ilford Galerie Gold Fibre Silk and Canson Infinity Platine Fibre Rag, which are both a semi-gloss. For more gloss, my benchmark was Harman Gloss FB Al, which is no longer made. I haven't yet gotten ahold of its nominal replacement(s), the new Harman by Hahnemuhle Gloss Art Fibre or Gloss Baryta. I don't use matte papers enough to have a hard & fast favorite, but I do have Entrada Natural 300 gsm on hand.

All of these are up in the 300 - 320 gsm weight range. Like Trevor, I prefer the heavier stocks because they generally are more robust during handling... and they just feel better. I'm not sure the heavier papers really lie flatter once framed, just because they're heavier; likely some do but also some heavier papers I've tried don't lie particularly flat.

I have not been printing long enough nor have enough money/time to try all the papers although I have been to two professional printing workshops that have allowed me to print on a variety of papers so I was able to print the same image on several different samples.

I favour the heavier stock and I confess to liking matte more than glossy.

My favourites are:
Canson Infinity Rag Photographique 310gsm
Canson Infinity BKF Rives
Canson Infinity Baryta Photographique
Illford Gold Fibre Silk

I used to fancy Ilford Galerie Gold Fibre Silk, but everytime I use it with my Epson R2400 it prints off dark tones way darker than what is in my monitor display.

nash30 wrote:I used to fancy Ilford Galerie Gold Fibre Silk, but everytime I use it with my Epson R2400 it prints off dark tones way darker than what is in my monitor display.

Are you using a monitor calibrated to approximately 100 cd/m2, are you using the correct paper and ink profile for that paper and are you soft proofing prior to printing?

I missed the first part but I use the correct profile and paper. I am learning on soft proofing and I am referring to this now http://people.csail.mit.edu/ericchan/dp ... kflow.html. Thank sir.. I will try it today.

Yes, I am referring to exactly the same thing talked about under soft proofing in that article. Having the monitor brightness set at about 100 cd/m2 is imperative to get the correct brightness in your prints.

Or, put another way, you must match your monitor to the paper in terms of brightness. Not the other way around. Paper does not have a brightness dial. Ink on paper reflects whatever light is around, that is the "real" level of brightness of the image in its presentation form. If the print looks too dark in the same viewing conditions that the finished work will be shown, then what that often really means is that the monitor is too bright.

The monitor does have a brightness dial, and it needs to be turned down to approximate the brightness of ink on paper reflecting ambient light. This way as you work on your image on-screen and prepare it for printing, you have a more lined-up appreciation of its tonality. Soft proofing also can help.

The rule of thumb for ideal monitor brightness is 90 - 100 cd/m2. However, not all monitors can be calibrated down to this level with reliability, or can't reach it at all. In fact, few monitors most people are likely to have can accurately reach down to this level of brightness. 120 - 140 cd/m2 is more common, but then you have to make some mental adjustments plus perhaps some actual image adjustments to compensate for the difference in brightness you're seeing on-screen vs. what the printer will be able to produce.

There are many extensive threads here on NSN discussing monitor calibration; searching the forum archives will turn them up if you need some additional reading material on this subject... or just need to battle insomnia. If you would like to discuss this sort of color management topic, feel free to fire up a different thread so we don't overly hijack this one onto a different topic. To bring it back a bit more on topic, on a well set up system, I definitely don't find Ilford Galerie Gold Fibre Silk to be too dark.

I'm in the same boat as Lizabeth, I've ordered sample packs from Red River and Epson (signature worthy) and some trial rolls from Breathing Color. I have printed the same images on different papers and, while I can clearly see a difference between canvas and matte, or matte and satin, I have to admit I am having trouble seeing much difference between diffenent brands of similar finished papers .

I'm using the manufacturers profiles for now, and will get custom profiles once I narrow down to a few papers. But I'm not expecting to see huge differences with custom profiles.

Part of the problem is the 8.5x11 sample pack size is not condusive to standing back and taking in all the nuances a paper offers, but mostly I think it is not knowing what to look for. Without seeing a larger print, matted and framed, I'm finding it difficult to decide which paper looks best for my images. Maybe going to galleries and paying attention to presentation will help. But, as with wine, I don't want my taste in papers get too far out in front of my pocketbook...

Royce, other than longevity, why have you stopped using RC papers?

thx, Dave

Thanks for the replies everyone. It definitely would be easier if I just hated most of the paper! I never expected there to be so many matte papers that look so similar to each other - even of the same brand. It makes it difficult to know why you should choose one over the other.

Royce Howland - I think I would enjoy the trying of new paper more if I only had a hand-full to try - instead of the 50+ that seem to be out there. Maybe in a year or so I'll enjoy it - right now it's a little overwhelming - I actually had three different dreams about paper samples the night I got them in the mail. Though I do admit I had a lot of fun going through the samples - my husband thought it was a little crazy - getting that excited over paper samples! Maybe I should just keep in mind that it is fun and stop worrying about all the ink I'm using in the process.

I checked out the Wilhelm Imaging Research link - and found a document for the Epson R1900 with Ultrachrome inks(which is my setup) and it does list the Epson Velvet Fine Art paper - and lists it as >100 years framed in a standard frame. That sounds pretty long to me, so I wonder why it wasn't listed as archival in the Epson printing book I was reading. Granted the Watercolor Paper is 200 years...but it seems like >100 years is significant enough that I could feel confident selling it to customers.

In both the sample packs I didn't find a paper that I liked as much as the Epson Velvet - so if this means I could use that it would make me quite happy. Does anybody know of issues with it? Why Epson wouldn't call it archival but WIR would list it at >100 years?

Now to make things stranger - I've been on the WIR site and it looks like the Epson Velvet fine art paper averages 61 years on all the other Epson Printers. The R1900 is the only one that is >100 years. That's really confusing to me. Anybody know if there's any way that could be true? It's the same ink and paper... so why would the R1900 make the print last longer...

Beth, can you provide a link?

Dave: It can be difficult to discern differences between similar papers. Some really are equally as good as each other, other have issues that only come to light after a bunch of time printing on them and/or research into reports from those who have deeper experience on those papers. Still other differences can come to light by looking at certain specific qualities, for example use of optical brightening agents (OBA's).

Fluorescing OBA's are commonly used to produce papers that are really "white" as opposed to some shade of off-white. These papers will look more colorful and contrasty in the short term, but the brighteners fade over time, leading the paper to go more to its natural shade of off-white. Plus the OBA itself may color as it breaks down. Even if this is the only difference between an OBA paper and a similar non-OBA paper, and regardless of whether both papers are claimed to be "archival" in all other respects, it's enough of a change over time to make a lot of people steer away from OBA papers. Plus, while the OBA's are in full play, the fluorescence can contribute to some metamerism under different lighting conditions. Many paper manufacturers don't explicitly disclose whether they use OBA's or not, but it can be determined from sources like WIR, AIA or the SpectrumViz tool (http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralpl ... mviz_1.htm).

Another difference that will show up under more protracted use is the robustness of the surface. Some papers have a great surface that's resilient under reasonable handling. Other similar papers have trouble with flaking, for example, and need to be carefully brushed before printing. You don't want flakes to come off after ink has been laid down, which can mar the print.

Those are just a couple of examples of some things "paper geeks" look at in evaluating things.

I don't stick just with the 8x10 sample packs, for trial work. I like to print bigger to get a better feel for how a new paper scales up. So I usually burn through 1 or 2 packs of 13x19 or 17x22 and make up my mind whether to keep using it after that. Going to galleries can help, but they don't always disclose what specific media are used. Try checking the print sales web sites of a bunch of different master photographers & printers, they often list what papers they use. Not a guarantee you'll like the same media, but it's a good bet they've done thorough research and print trials before selecting papers for use in their print sales.

I'm off RC papers for a lot of reasons. I don't like the plasticky feel which now feels "cheap" to me, I don't like the gloss differential and the way ink often seems to "sit on top" of the paper, I don't like the off-gassing when mounted under glass, and so on. With the current crop of fibre based papers having a reduction of all these characteristics while offering a big & versatile range of color & contrast reproduction, I've simply got no more need for plasticky RC media.

Custom profiles will help. Even with the most current papers & printers, not all generic profiles you download from the manufacturers are the best they can be. A few are mediocre or downright poor, though thankfully the poor ones are much less common than they used to be. Still, good custom profiles from somebody who knows what they're doing are a useful investment, usually about $20 - $30 per paper. I do recommend it once you find one or more papers you want to settle in with.

Beth: You could just pretend all the other papers don't exist. Put the genie back in the bottle, as it were. Find a small number you like, do a bit of research to confirm no land-mines are lurking, and go with 'em. It all depends on your definition of "fun". But even if you keep trying a few, don't get too put off by it. Trying 50 papers would be overkill even for me, I'm simply not interested in them all. A bit of research will get you something very good to start; while you may find others you like equally or better later on, if you start out reasonably well then it's less likely that you'll find something mind-blowingly better.

As for whether Epson Velvet Fine Art -- or any other paper -- is archival or not, there's no agreement on what "archival" means. Epson VFA contains some OBA's, perhaps that's enough that Epson declines to call it "archival". Or it could be the nature of the fibre base of the paper -- cotton rag vs. alpha cellulose; I don't know off hand which is used in the VFA paper, but cotton rag generally is considered to be the superior archival fibre base.

There are as yet no set industry standards that everyone complies with. WIR (Wilhelm) and AIA (Aardenburg) are the two operations I know of that are attempting to systematically evaluate longevity properties. WIR was the pioneer at this, but I think even Wilhelm doesn't much use the term "archival" any more. There are folks in the know who feel the AIA testing methodology is more comprehensive. Plus their methods and stats differ -- WIR reports a rating by which time fading is "easily noticeable", whereas AIA's provides ranges for "minimal or no fading", targeting people more concerned with serious collector, gallery or museum grade conservation levels.

Why is the WIR rating for Epson VFA on the 1900 showing a different value than other printers? The inksets are not the same, and print permanence depends on both ink and paper. The Epson 1900 uses an inkset called "UltraChrome Hi-Gloss 2", and may be the only Epson printer to do so; pretty well all the other printers WIR tests will be using UltraChrome K3 or one of its derivatives. The precursor printer of the 1900, the Epson 1800, used an inkset called UltraChrome Hi-Gloss, and it had some similarly higher numbers in WIR testing for certain papers, compared to the UltraChrome K3 based printers. So the Hi-Gloss ink formulation probably has something unique to it that fares better in testing in certain cases. The rating of "only" 61 years on most Epson printers may be the smoking gun for why Epson doesn't describe the paper as "archival".

So these sources can provide useful guidance but a single one should not be taken in isolation as the (only) gospel truth about printing with a given inkset and paper combination. There's some context and interpretation needed, and also fitting together this kind of info with other bits of info to make a complete picture of how a paper stacks up. (I did look up an AIA report for Epson VFA paper from an Epson 7800 printer with Ultrachrome K3 ink, the closest in their database to your Epson 1900 printer, and the stats are more or less congruent with the WIR rating.)

Factor in more than one source plus pragmatic reports from various experienced photographers out there, and your own goals. Do you really care if your print is rated to easily noticeable color fading in 250 years vs. "only" 100, or even 61? Yes, no, or how good of a rating is "good enough"...? And you can also modify this depending on the glazing you use (normal glass vs. UV-filtered conservation grade glass), or applying a spray coating to the print for extra protection.

Thanks Royce for the good advice.

The Velvet Fine Art is 100% cotton rag, very nice looking paper.

Good luck Beth, let us know how your journey goes.

thx, Dave

I know I'm late, but another vote for the Canson Infinity Platine Fiber Rag... an amazing paper, the prints just seem to jump out of it. It's a semi-gloss.

E.J. Peiker - the link is: http://www.wilhelm-research.com/epson/R1900.html

Royce Howland - Thanks again for the long and thoughtful answer. The VFA is 100% cotton - so I don't think that's it. I think Epson's cold-pressed paper also has optical brighteners but that one is considered "archival" so I don't think that's the reason either.

I didn't notice that the inks were different for the r1900. I saw the "hi-gloss 2" but thought it only pertained to the gloss coat that they added on top(which wouldn't be used on a matte surface anyway). So I just assumed UltraChrome was UltraChrome. Shows how much I still need to learn about this printing thing. I don't know why I thought it would be quick and easy - nothing else in photography is - if I want to be good at it!

The concerns I have about a paper being archival is simply that I want to be able to confidently tell my customers that a print will last a certain amount of time. I do offer a warranty on my prints and I'm guessing even the 61 years for the VFA should make most customers happy... At least I can't imagine someone would come back in 61 years for a replacement! But even for the other printers that said 61 years it still said 125 years if behind UV filtering glass. That sounds pretty permanent to me!

I think it's already too late for me to put the genie back in the bottle - aside from being overwhelming at the start it is kinda fun. I'll just let myself have a little slack and not assume that I need to be able to tell which of two almost identical papers is better.

I use Epson ultra premium luster and exhibition fiber-both very nice if you like semigloss.

ahazeghi wrote:I use Epson ultra premium luster and exhibition fiber-both very nice if you like semigloss.

Does Exhibition Fiber out-gas as much as Ultra Premium Luster?
I have quit using the Luster due to the out-gassing problems (yes, I have followed all of Epson's instructions about print drying even adding additional time for drying, with little if any difference.)

In my experience, off-gassing has been a problem mainly with resin coated papers. (One of the reasons I don't use them any more, mentioned above.) Epson Exhibition Fiber isn't RC, so it shouldn't have the problem that Epson's Premium Luster has, or certainly much less so...