Photo Paper Surface Shoot Out

[Paul Verizzo]

Remember back in the day of film, the popular photo magazines would have “Shoot outs” for a film category, like high speed slide? They would magnify little portions, examine the colors, pontificate, etc.

OK, so I’ve made a dozen or more identical test prints with the papers I have, including the recently arrived Canon Pro Platinum. The original image was taken with Kodak 400 HD (High Definition, yes, it was, very crisp!) color negative film developed by moi with a Unicolor kit, and scanned at 2400 dpi, 8 bit. The subject is some red fall chrysanthemums and foliage.

The image I used is very heavy in reds and greens and is pretty close to having all 0-255 levels. An interesting thing is that even though there is no visible blue, the histograms show that there is almost as much of it as the visible reds and greens!

This image was printed all of the papers that I have, but at the end of the day, I concentrated on Canon papers: Platinum, Luster, Glossy II, Matte, Semi-Gloss. All were printed on the PRO-100 with factory inks with appropriate profiles.

I viewed under incandescent and indoor sunlight, both direct and indirect. I mentally selected several red and green areas to compare, and used an “overall look,” too.

The envelope, please:

Under incandescent light, the differences are so minimal as to, for all practical purposes, not exist. Probably partly due to lack of UV and the paper whiteners. Yes, the matte paper, not surprisingly, doesn’t get the Dmax that the glossies do. At 9 cents a letter sized sheet, so what, for proofs or prints on the cheap?

In direct indoor daylight, there were differences, but subtle. Yes, the Platinum paper did have richer colors than the Glossy II and others, but it was only apparent side by side and with a critical eye. The Platinum background white was noticeably whiter than the other coated papers, other than Matte. The latter, very white, too.

In indirect indoor daylight, the differences were in between. Very difficult to see differences.

Most of the differences are what I would call “margin of error” types, differences in color or saturation or levels so small as to not matter. Perhaps profiling nuances. Or, perhaps they could be tweaked with saturation or other settings if you were really anal. Or, more logically, who compares a print on the wall with another one? I.e., all are great.

It appears to me that Canon has created an ink and paper environment that is pretty much consistent and uniform. "Set it and forget it." Even Inkpress, a respected third party paper manufacturer/reseller tells Canon Inkpress users to just use the closest surface type Canon profiles and all is well. (Unlike Epson, he he he. Lots of custom profiles necessary.) I can print on my five cartridge ip4500, my eight cartridge 9000, or the PRO-100 and it all works just fine. Perfect, or at the least, perfect to the typical viewer.

I would say that for hanging on a wall in indirect daylight, use any Canon paper you want. Perhaps what is cheapest, or a surface preference, or what you have on hand. Keep in mind, not all subjects or final results need Pro paper. The subjective bottom line is, it really doesn’t matter. Presumably you are not displaying in direct sunlight, right?

 

[Ink stained Fingers]

your evaluation is quite interesting indeed, but I have one more question - there is a price tag on each paper - if you include the cost into your assessment - is the higher price of a particular paper visible and justified for you - ist the gain of a particular characteristic worth the price increase over another similar paper ? And I'm asking the same question in regards to the printers you are using - they most likely use a different amount of ink per print so there is probably a different cost of the ink used - so is it worth the additional cost of ink of one printer over the other , or is the cheapest printer good enough ?

 

[Paul Verizzo]

your evaluation is quite interesting indeed, but I have one more question - there is a price tag on each paper - if you include the cost into your assessment - is the higher price of a particular paper visible and justified for you - ist the gain of a particular characteristic worth the price increase over another similar paper ? And I'm asking the same question in regards to the printers you are using - they most likely use a different amount of ink per print so there is probably a different cost of the ink used - so is it worth the additional cost of ink of one printer over the other , or is the cheapest printer good enough ?

I wasn't addressing cost because it didn't matter for my inquiry. And there is a huge range of paper costs, starting with where one lives. I'd rather think that a person spending a relative lot of money on a large, pro printer isn't going to make a paper decision on cost. Here in the US, Canon's 13x19" Pro Platinum, ten sheets, is close to $40 direct from Canon. OTOH, I got it for a bit less than half that through Amazon. Where I also got boxes of letter sized matte for $4.44 each, fifty count. Also, a box of 20 Luster for under $18. If under $1 a sheet isn't cheap enough, I don't know what is.

Ditto ink consumption. Firstly, no idea at all if there is much difference based on profile setting. But most of all, like the paper, if one worries about a paper choice based on cost, and the infinitesimally difference in ink costs, one shouldn't be printing.

 

[Roy Sletcher]

your evaluation is quite interesting indeed, but I have one more question - there is a price tag on each paper - if you include the cost into your assessment - is the higher price of a particular paper visible and justified for you - ist the gain of a particular characteristic worth the price increase over another similar paper ? And I'm asking the same question in regards to the printers you are using - they most likely use a different amount of ink per print so there is probably a different cost of the ink used - so is it worth the additional cost of ink of one printer over the other , or is the cheapest printer good enough ?

Judging by the amount of Costco Kirkland sold cheapest is best seems to be the mantra. It is a paper which is so loaded with OBA's it almost glows in the dark.

Truth be told paper choice seems to be a very personal choice based on multiple factors. Some factors being final use of the prints, budgetary constraints, how the print maker interprets print quality, and sometime because a specific printer seems to work better with certain papers.

In my case, home refilling has reduced my ink costs to a very small part of the print making cost. That permits me to increase the budget for what I think are better quality papers to display the image. I like to think I can see the difference made by a good paper. (SEE MY FIRST PARAGRAPH) Not all images are worthy of an expensive paper.

Probably a flawed philosophy, but each to his own.


RS

 

[Paul Verizzo]

Having been in the photo hobby for over a half century, I've long noticed that many photogs love to calculate the cost of paper and film from different sources, bulk loading, etc. And you know what? I was guilty as hell of doing that most of my life. Eventually I realized that it was foolish. Look for a good value, sure, but don't waste a lot of time on the cost saving project. And I speak as a not wealthy person, now on only Social Security.

I am amazed how little ink Canon printers use. I can't quote you how many prints I've done on my new 100 because I've not counted them. Also, almost all of my images are only a portion of the paper size, so that's another confounder. I print a lot of B&W, so it's not surprising that the gray cartridge is being used up the fastest, black next, yellow next. The remaining five are hardly touched.

I've picked up several CLI-42 carts on eBay for $10-14, you just have to keep an eye out. I'll be refiling the monochrome inks but sticking with the OEM for the others. The main cost savings is by not buying at the local Office Despot or similar. After tax, over $21 a cartridge.

 

[palombian]

I agree with Paul V's Canon hagiography on the condition you want to pay the price (but I doubt such people read this forum).

Since I will start living on Social Security next month I spent some time last year to make the cost bearable.
At Canon prices I could print exactly 6 A3+ photos with my allowance, leaving nothing for food, drink, heating etc.
Not that I would do this every day, but I feel more comfortable with conditions I can easily afford.

I owned or acquired most Canon papers, and several others of renowned brands.
Printed with pigment and dye, on glossy, pearl, satin and matte surfaces on several Canon printers.
IMO Platinum PRO is the only Canon paper that can be called excellent (Photo Rag is made by Hahnemuehle, all their papers are made by someone else).

A calibrator made me independent of ink and paper suppliers and I could experiment with some stocks offered at silly prices, and the discount offers already know on this forum.
Between papers for daily use I also found really good quality.
By comparing the profiles and the prints side by side with the brand papers I am inclined to believe that there are not so many inkjet photo paper manufacturers, or at least that the processes are rather standard.

The price you pay for the brands is to have repeatable quality and size availability over time.

But isn't it a joy to try a new paper, especially when the costs are nearly nothing ?

 

[Paul Verizzo]

@palombian: Sounds like you are enjoying your journey, have at it!

I never owned any Canon paper at all until but a few years ago. Partly led by the mistaken belief that Canon, et. al. automatically charge more than an equivalent product off-brand. I think that was true once, but companies like Adorama, Amazon, and even Canon themselves with their sales make the Canon papers often cheaper than off-brands.

For instance, I have some Arista II A3+ Luster. Arista is the house brand of Freestyle Photo Supply, a very old and respected house. I have strong reasons to believe this and similar papers are Premier. A box of 20 sheets is, IIRC, about $37 plus (reasonable) shipping. I just got 50 sheets of Canon Luster for the same price with free shipping on Adorama.

I'm curious as to your standards to feel that the Platinum paper is the only "excellent" Canon paper. Certainly the technology is very advanced, and as my tests show, given the right subject matter and display conditions, it's a notch better than Glossy II. But it's not like the difference is obvious, especially out of bright daylight or other than side by side.

According to Canon, alumina is a superior microporous receptor and they state the reasons. Silica is the norm. Both Platinum and Glossy II use alumina. At the price differential and if it's glossy you wnat, Glossy II is probably fine for 90% of one's color images.

Mi tres centavos.