Thank you for the interesting article. I have a sample book with the Canson Baryta Photographique II Matt, and I find it a very hard surface. This has its positive aspects, of course, but for a matte paper, I've been bowled over by Canson's Arches BFK Rives in either of its whites. I think it's silky soft texture adds significantly. There's no loss of detail, no optical brighteners, and deep, deep blacks. Just be careful of the surface. Do you know of a textured baryta that isn't so hard surfaced or is the baryta hard by definition? I found this paper during a "Paper Psychotherapy" session that Eric Joseph runs at Freestyle. (Do you know of it? Your image printed on 10 papers, with before and after discussion sessions for $100). Thank you
Curious if you used the manufacturer’s ICC profiles or made your own? Asking because I will be trying at least one of these as they seem to offer much of what I like in a paper.
For the initial tests above we used the manufacturer's profiles for the Pro-1000. The images we were testing were primarily geared for shadow differentiation rather than any sort of comprehensive coment on the profiles but we didn't notice any sort of wild issues with the Pro-1000 profile for either.
We tested vs Entrada which is relatiely smooth, the coldpress and similar papers are far more textured so they would be night and day. The new papers Canson has we've not yet tried but there are two that could fall into that coldpress textured category I think one is the Arches and the other is a new revision of Somerset velvet (we just received samples)
Contrary to what is said in the article, the Canson paper has an OBA (Low), which is very annoying.
The Hahnemühle paper has no OBA and has a natural white base. My first results are that Hahnemühle paper is one of the best matt papers I've tried so far. The black is deep, the details precise and sharp, the color rendition excellent. The surface is super-smooth.
However, to achieve a high level of rendering. You absolutely must create a personalized ICC profile and not take a generic one.
Oops, forgot... the appearance of the OBA content may vary significantly with a high UV light source. I may take a few photos with one of my non-UV coated flash tube lights to see if it manifests as visually different with the Canson.
You are correct, the Canson does have a "very low" OBA content and a higher "whiteness level" in the specs but that did not manifest visually in our viewing both nor with UV filtered strobes (Profoto D1's with UV coated tubes and stock clear front glass) as you can see in the photos above, visually they are very comparible as opposed to typical "bright" papers. The strange thing is that the Hahnemuhle appeared a hair "brighter" in our viewing booth. Neither is nearly as Entrada Bright. (Both are ISO 9706 i believe).
In our initial observations we didn't detect any specific issues with the Manufacturer's profiles but we have not tested against our own yet, we're very early in evaluating these papers. We used a Canon Pro-1000. Out of curiosity, what printer do you use and find the ICC profile lacking for the Hahnemuhle?
The prints were made with a professional lab on an Epson P20000 with a custom ICC profile.
But in any case, each printer requires its own ICC profile, even if you have two of the same models at your disposal.
I insist on the custom ICC profile, because it's probably the most common basic mistake when people start fine art printing and avoid investing money on this crucial point, thinking that the generic profiles are enough to make good prints. It's enough to test the paper, but not to reach the maximum level that the paper/printer combination can give.
After that, where it gets complicated is that you can give ICC profiles to three different service providers, for example, and you'll get three slightly different renderings :)
I used to use Canson and then Hahnamuhle and now I’m learning the Moab papers. What I have discovered is that good paper is good paper. I recently used Estrada bright because my friend Les recommended it for black and white. I fell in love with it for color too. I like a bright white paper surface and thought I could only get that on a glossier surface Wrong. I thought the blacks wouldn’t be strong enough. Wrong again. The colors may not be as bright as glossier papers but they are strong and rich. Entrada has made me become a Matt paper convert.
A question from a couple of photographers who have an older Canon printers. On Canson's website they say the below. Would this eliminate our Canon printers? Never heard of Matt Black ink - think we just have Photo Black ink.
“Although Baryta Photographique II Matt is classed as a digital darkroom photo paper, it should be printed using Matt Black ink as opposed to Photo Black ink.”
Otherwise I found the evaluation educational and possibly providing more paper options.
What specific printer do you have? Just guessing if your printer does not have matt black ink then it's most likely a dye based printer rather than a pigment based printer. That's not absolutely a bad thing but... typically (especially if it's older) dye based prints don't last as long as pigment prints. Also this is a generality but dye based printers that don't have matt black ink generally don't make as "nice" of a matt paper print.
I cannot give you specific advice since it has been a very very long time since i've used a dye based printer for output of any kind of artwork. I think my first printer was an Epson 4880. If you have something that old you may want to think about an upgrade. If it's something newer like a Canon Pro-100 (dye based) I have never used one but they do have a reputation of not making great matt prints as there's some people that claim they have a bit of metamerism.
I and my two closest “foto friends” all have the dye ink Canon Pro 100. None of us are high volume printers but desire to produce the highest quality print we can with what we have to work with, and acknowledge the limited life span of dye ink photographs by. I frequently share your knowledge with them as we all want to improve but accept the limitations of our hardware.
I did recently purchase the Epson P-700 to step into entry level/affordable pigment ink printing—still a beginner there but looking forward to inching towards fine art printing. (And a fan of washi paper.)
Your poll has two choices but one option. I have not used these papers but based on your review I am going tempted to test them. Also interested in knowing the white/ bright number important for landscapes.
The canson brightness number/whiteness number is 100.70 and the Hahnemuhle is 88.6 but the visual impression is that the Hahnemuhle seems a hair brighter which calls into question if they are the same measurement or how useful that number is.
I’ll try writing again. Internet in Sweden doesn’t always connect.
Paper that is very white makes landscape unnatural. It misses tonality of leaves and trees and contact to water. I also get better contrast with trees and sea.
If I print Harlem jazz for sure I use the bright white and that contrast is different and “perfect”. The thing is to print.
Thank you for the interesting article. I have a sample book with the Canson Baryta Photographique II Matt, and I find it a very hard surface. This has its positive aspects, of course, but for a matte paper, I've been bowled over by Canson's Arches BFK Rives in either of its whites. I think it's silky soft texture adds significantly. There's no loss of detail, no optical brighteners, and deep, deep blacks. Just be careful of the surface. Do you know of a textured baryta that isn't so hard surfaced or is the baryta hard by definition? I found this paper during a "Paper Psychotherapy" session that Eric Joseph runs at Freestyle. (Do you know of it? Your image printed on 10 papers, with before and after discussion sessions for $100). Thank you
Curious if you used the manufacturer’s ICC profiles or made your own? Asking because I will be trying at least one of these as they seem to offer much of what I like in a paper.
Gary,
For the initial tests above we used the manufacturer's profiles for the Pro-1000. The images we were testing were primarily geared for shadow differentiation rather than any sort of comprehensive coment on the profiles but we didn't notice any sort of wild issues with the Pro-1000 profile for either.
In reading other comments I’d be curious if you compared these new Matt papers with Moab entrada cold press my now favorite?
I understand Canson has a new paper that may match the Moab cold press. Hope to hear about that.
We tested vs Entrada which is relatiely smooth, the coldpress and similar papers are far more textured so they would be night and day. The new papers Canson has we've not yet tried but there are two that could fall into that coldpress textured category I think one is the Arches and the other is a new revision of Somerset velvet (we just received samples)
I tried both.
Contrary to what is said in the article, the Canson paper has an OBA (Low), which is very annoying.
The Hahnemühle paper has no OBA and has a natural white base. My first results are that Hahnemühle paper is one of the best matt papers I've tried so far. The black is deep, the details precise and sharp, the color rendition excellent. The surface is super-smooth.
However, to achieve a high level of rendering. You absolutely must create a personalized ICC profile and not take a generic one.
Oops, forgot... the appearance of the OBA content may vary significantly with a high UV light source. I may take a few photos with one of my non-UV coated flash tube lights to see if it manifests as visually different with the Canson.
Rene,
You are correct, the Canson does have a "very low" OBA content and a higher "whiteness level" in the specs but that did not manifest visually in our viewing both nor with UV filtered strobes (Profoto D1's with UV coated tubes and stock clear front glass) as you can see in the photos above, visually they are very comparible as opposed to typical "bright" papers. The strange thing is that the Hahnemuhle appeared a hair "brighter" in our viewing booth. Neither is nearly as Entrada Bright. (Both are ISO 9706 i believe).
In our initial observations we didn't detect any specific issues with the Manufacturer's profiles but we have not tested against our own yet, we're very early in evaluating these papers. We used a Canon Pro-1000. Out of curiosity, what printer do you use and find the ICC profile lacking for the Hahnemuhle?
The prints were made with a professional lab on an Epson P20000 with a custom ICC profile.
But in any case, each printer requires its own ICC profile, even if you have two of the same models at your disposal.
I insist on the custom ICC profile, because it's probably the most common basic mistake when people start fine art printing and avoid investing money on this crucial point, thinking that the generic profiles are enough to make good prints. It's enough to test the paper, but not to reach the maximum level that the paper/printer combination can give.
After that, where it gets complicated is that you can give ICC profiles to three different service providers, for example, and you'll get three slightly different renderings :)
I used to use Canson and then Hahnamuhle and now I’m learning the Moab papers. What I have discovered is that good paper is good paper. I recently used Estrada bright because my friend Les recommended it for black and white. I fell in love with it for color too. I like a bright white paper surface and thought I could only get that on a glossier surface Wrong. I thought the blacks wouldn’t be strong enough. Wrong again. The colors may not be as bright as glossier papers but they are strong and rich. Entrada has made me become a Matt paper convert.
A question from a couple of photographers who have an older Canon printers. On Canson's website they say the below. Would this eliminate our Canon printers? Never heard of Matt Black ink - think we just have Photo Black ink.
“Although Baryta Photographique II Matt is classed as a digital darkroom photo paper, it should be printed using Matt Black ink as opposed to Photo Black ink.”
Otherwise I found the evaluation educational and possibly providing more paper options.
What specific printer do you have? Just guessing if your printer does not have matt black ink then it's most likely a dye based printer rather than a pigment based printer. That's not absolutely a bad thing but... typically (especially if it's older) dye based prints don't last as long as pigment prints. Also this is a generality but dye based printers that don't have matt black ink generally don't make as "nice" of a matt paper print.
I cannot give you specific advice since it has been a very very long time since i've used a dye based printer for output of any kind of artwork. I think my first printer was an Epson 4880. If you have something that old you may want to think about an upgrade. If it's something newer like a Canon Pro-100 (dye based) I have never used one but they do have a reputation of not making great matt prints as there's some people that claim they have a bit of metamerism.
I and my two closest “foto friends” all have the dye ink Canon Pro 100. None of us are high volume printers but desire to produce the highest quality print we can with what we have to work with, and acknowledge the limited life span of dye ink photographs by. I frequently share your knowledge with them as we all want to improve but accept the limitations of our hardware.
I did recently purchase the Epson P-700 to step into entry level/affordable pigment ink printing—still a beginner there but looking forward to inching towards fine art printing. (And a fan of washi paper.)
Your poll has two choices but one option. I have not used these papers but based on your review I am going tempted to test them. Also interested in knowing the white/ bright number important for landscapes.
The canson brightness number/whiteness number is 100.70 and the Hahnemuhle is 88.6 but the visual impression is that the Hahnemuhle seems a hair brighter which calls into question if they are the same measurement or how useful that number is.
Hi Karin. Can you explain "white/bright number important for landscapes"? Thanks,
I’ll try writing again. Internet in Sweden doesn’t always connect.
Paper that is very white makes landscape unnatural. It misses tonality of leaves and trees and contact to water. I also get better contrast with trees and sea.
If I print Harlem jazz for sure I use the bright white and that contrast is different and “perfect”. The thing is to print.