Paper surface nomenclature

[Paul Verizzo]

This is perhaps just a "What say you?" posting.

Back in the wet darkroom, there was a lot of consistency about paper surface descriptions. Since Kodak was the 800 pound gorilla in the red safe light lit darkroom, they defined paper surfaces. They were all given a letter designation, the most famous being F. Glossy. There was a huge alphabet soup of surfaces in the 1940's and 1950's. Glossy, semi-matte N (loved that one, probably similar to Canon Luster), many more.

So today it's a free for all. Sure, we can all get behind Glossy, granted there is better and worse. Gloss. Pearl, tip of the hat to Ilford for the last fifty years, a bit less than Gloss, heavily textured. Then we run into Lustre/Luster, sometimes like Pearl, sometimes like that N.

Tomorrow I'll dredge out my ancient Kodak paper sampling book. I shall update this post. But in the interim, I'll posit that on the scale of Gloss to Matte, they should arrange themselves something like this:

Glossy
Pearl
Luster, as with Arista II/Premier
Semi-Gloss
Canon Luster
Matte

Of course, if you spray or laminate, it becomes rather moot, doesn't it?

What say you?

 

[turbguy]

Kodak still uses those designations for inkjet papers, I believe...

 

[Paul Verizzo]

Kodak still uses those designations for inkjet papers, I believe...

Just checked their website. Their best paper is called High Gloss, the medium and low grade are available in Gloss or Matte. No letter designations, nor is there any real need for them with such a limited selection and adequate word description.

 

[Paul Verizzo]

I want to backtrack. I was wrong. After printing certain images on two Luster finishes, let alone many other surfaces, the Canon Luster is the step below Glossy. Don't know how I concluded otherwise.

I just picked up a box of 50 letter sized sheets on Amazon for a bit under $18. This Luster is the first step you can use short of Glossy.

 

[Roy Sletcher]

I want to backtrack. I was wrong. After printing certain images on two Luster finishes, let alone many other surfaces, the Canon Luster is the step below Glossy. Don't know how I concluded otherwise.

I just picked up a box of 50 letter sized sheets on Amazon for a bit under $18. This Luster is the first step you can use short of Glossy.

From my observations each manufacturer or reseller uses the terms and descriptions that suit his marketing plan and/or product range.

One suppliers luster is another's satin, and so it goes.

Until they come up with a verifiable numerical index for gloss, whiteness and brightness the current descriptive names can mean anything the marketeers decide.

Aint standards marvelous. So many to choose from.

RS

 

[Paul Verizzo]

I don't think it's as bad as you bemoan, Roy. First, Whiteness has a standard that virtually every office type paper uses. Sadly, not as near many photo papers do. But the fact is, is that unless you are looking at really amped up white (96) compared to pretty much natural bleached (85), most fall into a similar middle range

Glossy, fortunately, is pretty much a standard, although different papers will have different depths or levels of gloss. Canon has their Platinum line, for instance. Glossy and Very Glossy?

I think Glossy and Matte pretty well define the surface texture ends, so it just is a matter of where Satin, Semi-Gloss, Pearl, and Luster fit in. Luster/Lustre always has been and appears to be with my three brands in hand, a textured glossy. Canon, Arista, Inkpress. All the same for every practical purpose.

The older packaging of Canon Semi-Gloss, the ones without a product number, on the back in the multi-language descriptions calls it Satin, in English, even. Which, compared to interior house paint surface descriptions, is a better description than Semi-Gloss. Pearl and Semi-Gloss/Satin are virtually indistinguishable; you have to have identical prints in hand and really look hard to see differences. Hence, I now think of them as the same for all practical purposes; I pronounce thee Satin(s).

Obviously, I have a limited number of brands and surfaces in hand. There may be in the many dozens of brands out there that could fall in somewhere with inaccurate description labeling. But not likely, at least with major brands.

So, for the time being, I see the inkjet paper world as having four surface options: Glossy, Luster, Satin, and Matte. Trying to define tighter I think is just a waste of time, angels dancing on the head of a pin type of debate.

 

[Roy Sletcher]

I don't think it's as bad as you bemoan, Roy. First, Whiteness has a standard that virtually every office type paper uses. Sadly, not as near many photo papers do. But the fact is, is that unless you are looking at really amped up white (96) compared to pretty much natural bleached (85), most fall into a similar middle range

Glossy, fortunately, is pretty much a standard, although different papers will have different depths or levels of gloss. Canon has their Platinum line, for instance. Glossy and Very Glossy?

I think Glossy and Matte pretty well define the surface texture ends, so it just is a matter of where Satin, Semi-Gloss, Pearl, and Luster fit in. Luster/Lustre always has been and appears to be with my three brands in hand, a textured glossy. Canon, Arista, Inkpress. All the same for every practical purpose.

>>>SOME STUFF DELETED TO SAVE SPACE AND BANDWIDTH<<<

Paul,

You misunderstand what I said. It could be due to the fact that I explained my point poorly.

I understand the fact that the manufacturers give a broad description to their inkjet surfaces. The question, for using glossy for reference is, "HOW GLOSSY IS THE GLOSS". Am I the only person that perceives a different level of gloss between various manufacturers of gloss paper. Surely a numeric index of gloss written on the package would indicate this to the purchaser.

As you correctly state, "Whiteness has a standard that virtually every office type paper uses."

You could also have continued that brightness also has a numerical standard widely used in the paper making industry along with many other defined standards used to define regular paper properties.

MY POINT - I cannot find any referent to these standards on most inkjet papers. For example - brightness, whiteness, gloss etc are glaringly absent from the predominantly displayed specs

OK, to be fair - Ilford gives the L*A*B* colour values of their surface which is useful. The other brand I use, Red River Paper uses mainly laudatory descriptive language to describe their papers. Apart from that you may be lucky to get the caliper and substance in GSM or lbs. Ilford gives opacity althought at 200+ grams per square metre probably not critical.

This is not to denigrate the two brands mentioned above - I find them excellent.

It's all in the VERIFIABLE specs! Defining a dog's tail as a trunk does not make it an elephant.


RS

 

[The Hat]

Paul,
You misunderstand what I said. It could be due to the fact that I explained my point poorly.
"HOW GLOSSY IS THE GLOSS". Am I the only person that perceives a different level of gloss between various manufacturers of gloss paper.
As you correctly state, "Whiteness has a standard that virtually every office type paper uses."

It's all in the VERIFIABLE specs! Defining a dog's tail as a trunk does not make it an elephant.

RS

@Roy Sletcher you will find that is not correct either, like glossy paper the office paper too has all different shades of whiteness, no two are alike.

On a lighter not whiter note: As you have pointer out correctly, A dog with a trunk may not be classified as an elephant just because he’s going on holidays..

 

[Ink stained Fingers]

you are right that it is quite easy to measure whiteness, and I have seen some paper companies to specify such value, in Lab terms, in their product specifications. But once you have optical brighteners in the paper you need at least 2 values - one under UV light and one under incandescent light. Residual UV is there in rooms with neon tubes or similar, even some halogen lamps emit residual UV despite some UV blocking filters, their quartz bulb will not block UV like regular glass.

It is getting much more difficult with the gloss, there are techniques to measure gloss, you could take a laser beam , direct it onto the surface and measure the intensity distribution in the reflection cone, which you can make visible with some smoke. You can make such measurements under different angles, and at different spots on the surface and you'll get lots of results, you can generate nice 3-dimensional diagrams etc but you cannot really melt all those results down into one number as a characteristic of a particular paper/surface, and you can see that such measurements take much more effort than just measuring the whiteness. And actually I wouln't care so much about the white level of a paper, it is much more the
black level , the deep blacks, which create the apparent contrast in an image. And a L of 4 or 7% of the black level makes a much bigger difference than a white L-level of 93 or 96%

 

[Roy Sletcher]

From the Hat
"A dog with a trunk may not be classified as an elephant just because he’s going on holidays."

Love it!