I love MOAB Juniper, but also use Canson baryta, Red River Big Bend 310, and Hahnemuehle papers. I use Moab more frequently than the others. Bought a 100-sheet box and have never regretted it.
Hi Dan. I agree. We do love Moab here in our studio. Their commitment to quality and consistency is unquestioned. But as our Master Printer, Bob is always the curious sort and he is hell bent on staying on top of what is going on in the field of all kinds of papers.
The one time we did a random "test" of one image on the Canson I think it was love at first sight, maybe lust at first sight so I can't wait to really to see a variety of images on that. Maybe it's that I had the impression it looked A LOT like an Agfa gloss fibre I used to use a lot in the darkroom when air dried.
BTW, to prevent abrasions when printing on the Epson P900, I had to use Epson's profile tool to create a paper type with a .41 thickness and need to use that type for all the Baryta papers. It may just be my particular printer - it was one of the earliest ones that they shipped. The prints are beautiful.
I think the Juniper is 305gsm which we don't have any problems with on the Canon Pro1000 printers we use for sheets but we'll keep an eye out obviously. The biggest issue we've had across all heavy/stiff papers is when they are curled up on the edges even a hair. Then we get print head strikes.
Les has a special secret recipe when using paper with a slight curl towards the print surface, I'm sure I can encourage him to share it here ;-)
The bigger issue we have is with roll paper for something super heavy and stiff like Juniper and it's close to the end of the roll. Auto loading just doesn't work on the large Canon's so we have to resort to treating it like a sheet after flattening it with our super special homemade print flattening device. Not a huge issue but when we are hosting a workshop we cannot use short end of rolls, too much error and time.
I actually liked the first version of Canson Baryta more than the Baryta II, but it's still an excellent paper. I bought a box of the matte Baryta, but have only tried one or two prints on it. It's quite flat and I haven't yet figured out which images would be a good fit for it. Hahnemuehle is great and there is variety among their baryta papers, but all are quite expensive. Red River's baryta is excellent - similar to the Moab.
Been very pleased with Red River Big Bend 310. Printed a 9-image project yesterday,6 B&W 3 color. Had intended to do the color on something else but decided that consistent is better than right every time, as I was told 45 years ago. Originally came to it as an alternative to Epson Exhibition Fiber, which ti matches up against nicely.
I know from a couple of friends that they are very accommodating in regards things like custom sizes, special goers for the grain to be one way, etc. Nice folks.
I use Hahnemuhle Photorag Baryta as my go to B&W and Canson Baryta Prestige or Platine Fiber Rag for color. As far as mat papers I use primarily Canson Rag Photographique.
Love this discussion. Very helpful. MOAB Juniper is what I started with after my initial paper tests when I first started printing my own work; however, when it was recently on back-order for a good while I was forced to choose another comparable paper. I decided on Red River Palo Duro SoftGloss Rag, with their Big Bend 310 a close runner up. Since then I’ve stuck with Red River. But I do love the Juniper paper as well.
We are going to do our best to do a thoughtful comparison and kind of a guide book based on our observations for as many different baryta papers as we can "afford". Hopefully it will serve as a jumping off point for people in terms of taste, the kinds of pictures they make, and their own aesthetics. A tall order but we'll try.
Such a guide would be a great and much needed up-to-date resource. I would certainly be willing to contribute if you should opt to open up a crowdfund of some sort for it.
thanks for the encouragement. We were going to do this no matter what as I am convinced that while we give great advice for people attending our intro to fine art printing workshop (in terms of learning one semigloss and one mat paper well before randomly exploring others willy-nilly) we get a ton of questions about other specific papers that we'd love to have some. degree of authority when answering those.
We did open up (very subtly) paid subscriptions last week and have a few (I guessed we'd have zero) but we appreciate even a couple here and there as it helps finance a portion of things like this... one subscription pays for a box of small paper which is fantastic and hopefully as we go forward it will make doing things like this more and more possible.
Excluding yr sponsorship I'm sure you would otherwise pick Hahnemühle! Order a sample pack and I'm sure you would agree the Germans have the winner :-)
Fred, thanks for your comment. Speaking for both me and Bob, I have to say that we are not easily swayed by our sponsorships. We have an understanding with them that our commitment to integrity overrides all. Having said that, the fact is we love Moab papers for their quality, consistency and wonderful service.
Now, the fact is that we do use Hahnemuhle papers and have for two decades. We love their William Turner and Museum Etching papers, as well as others. As far as Baryta papers go, we have just purchased some of Hahnemuhle's offerings and will run them against the other barytas that we have. Please stay tuned for the results, which will start appearing soon here.
Walt, thanks so much for these links. Much appreciated and I can see they will be helpful.
We have been receiving boxes of baryta papers for our comparisons and we thank all of our paid subscribers for helping support our efforts to bring you unvarnished (no OBAs!) reviews of papers, equipment, display options and more. We will begin publishing the reviews and comparisons soon, so please stay tuned.
Also, please understand that our reviews will not be technical, lab-bench based analyses. They will be based on our combined experience after decades of printing thousands of images on a wide variety of papers, for our use and for many other photographers, as well as testing pre-production papers for paper companies and our own studio use.
We'll take a look, thank you so much for taking the time to point these out.
Ps.
The box of Canson we ordered is expected today with more baryta papers on the way!!! Thank you to our paid subscribers that have helped to fund the materials for the upcoming results of comparing a variety of these great papers!!!
I use both Moab and Hahnemuhle papers, my personal favorite baryta paper is Hahnemuhle fine art baryta satin. I prefer both the surface characteristics and the color of the paper base.
A tossup with Hahnemuhle and Moab Juniper with a slight edge to Hahnemuhle Photo Rag Baryta probably because i got used to it before Juniper. Moab double sided for hand made books and smaller prints (8.5x11).
So the answer is more complicated for me, than just one brand. My go-to semi-gloss paper was ALWAYS Ilford Gold Fibre Silk. I loved it for both b&w AND color; I thought it was exceptional for both, and believe me, I tested a ZILLION papers against each other and still have those test sheets. But GFS was discontinued. Gold Fibre Gloss feels more "raggy" to me, more natural, but it doesn't quite hold the highlights the way GFS did. PLUS, it started to become harder and harder for stores to keep Ilford papers in stock, especially once the pandemic hit. For mat prints (which I do less often) I use Moab Entrada Rag Bright. I feels the Optical brighteners don't cut down on longevity enough to bother me, and I feel I can get brighter highlights of course, than with Rag Natural. If I want a lot of texture, it's Hahnemuhle William Turner or Museum Rag.
It's the semi-gloss side, which is most of my work, that's trickier. I use Ilford GFG some of the time, but when I can't get it, my tests showed that Canson Photographique II has ALMOST the same response as GFG for less money. The highlights are sometimes depressed from what they are with GFG but it's so slight I think it may be my imagination (or my densitometer--which can barely see it as well). But lately I started using Moab Juniper. I was turned onto it by Anchor Editions' prints of Dorothea Lange photos, some of which were done on Juniper. I haven't done enough with it to really have formed a permanent opinion, but I'm interested to keep working with it.
Sorry to take so much column-space, but I did SUCH extensive testing when Ilford discontinued GFS that I thought maybe my sharing some extra detail might be worth it to some readers.
Ps. We'll probably not use a densitometer to measure blacks/whites/midtones ummmm.... 'cause. Mine is ancient and probably not worth the time as it has not seen use since my wet darkroom days. We are also pretty confident that our viewing booth along with apparent DMAX and apparent contrast under standardized lighting conditions is more along what other people will see in prints. When "numbers" are close and my in-person evaluation over time consistently goes with what I see that will trump numbers every time (true for other things like monitors, etc, etc,etc). Given my extremely esoteric familiarity with math and specific error analysis techniques I could probably figure out the "why" when numbers disagree with what "should be" but that would lead me to an academic answer that is probably different and gives me no better results next time nor allows me to permanently eliminate or reconcile that next time. OTOH, if the numbers are VERY different the result will be apparent in a controlled viewing environment so they are not worth much unless one is using them as some "proof" of better-ness.
Thank you for sharing, we really appreciate it and no worries about "space" as we do not actually print out all the responses ;-)
We'll keep some of those ilford papers in mind as we set out towards putting together our tests for this particular exercise. We are going to limit the scope ring now to baryta papers (we'll probably widen that out to semigloss papers that are not baryta down the road). Obviously we can't test EVERY paper but we did want some place to start and put together a decent inventory so as to be useful to the community when looking at trying something "new" against their own workhorse. I am not familiar enough with the ilford inkjet papers to even know which of those you mentioned are baryta papers or not but I'll take a look and if they seem to be widely available we'll consider them to be on the list based on your extensive evaluations.
My go-to baryta for a decade has been Canson. However, Epson joined the club about 6 years ago with its "Legacy" papers, including a baryta -- and more, such as Platine, also made by Canson. In fact, as I suspected from the nomenclature, the Legacy papers are made by Canson.
I did a basic comparison then, which has proven to be one of my most popular posts, over time.
I'll take a look. I mentioned my extremely quick use of the Canson baryta has had me chomping at the bit to do more comprehensive examination. I really loved the look of it for the one and only print I made on a sheet from a sample pack they gave us (I think at PPE but I forget).
Admittedly, I use baryta sparingly. My real go-to is the platine, which I absolutely love. It's a true 100% cotton rag paper with a satin finish that most reminds me of the (Ilford) fibre-base papers that I used in my darkroom days. There's nothing else I've found that better approximates the look I prefer for the "vintage" images I used to make with the wet process.
Not sure what all the excitement is about Baryta papers? I use Moab papers [now Estrada Rag Bright 300] and Awagami from time to time. I also favor Hahnemühle and Canson, neither of which are Baryta, as far as I know. I don't want to ignore Canon which provides a reasonably priced Pro Premium Matte, a Premium Fine Art Rough and a superb Pro Platinum when glossy is called for. What is the attraction that many have for Baryta?
We LOVE mat papers and are super familiar with many. We'll probably end up doing a comparison of those with assessments of application down the road.
Simply put Baryta papers use barium sulphate to some degree as their coating material, the same way and same look as to traditional cotton fiber silver halide papers. Typically they have a soft gloss that is far more "natural looking" like an air dried fiber gloss darkroom print. The barium sulfate gives a very bright white and high dmax for contrast without looking like a piece of plastic like many gloss and semigloss Digital papers with look a lot more like "RC" plastic coated darkroom papers of old.
While inkjet baryta papers can and probably do have some degree of OBA agents they also can have none while maintaining that bright white high contrast look which I care about a lot and is one of the things I hope to evaluate. I am not a big fan of papers that are heavy handed with the optical brightening agents as they tend to introduce what could be considered considerable metamerism under different lighting conditions. It also can be a matter of taste. For instance I happen to like Entrada natural far more than Entrada bright but others feel the opposite.
In any case while there are gloss/semigloss non-baryta inkjet papers that probably look really good as a general rule most of the baryta papers in this class consistently look better in my personal opinion for general work in BW and color. We also have not done a critical comparison of baryta papers EVER so we're going to do that and hopefully share meaningful observations with the community.
Ps. Canon papers are on our list but my basic understanding is that the papers we'd look at are actually made by one of the other large paper manufacturers for canon. My guess is they are fairly similar but we'll find out.
Thanks for your prompt and detailed reply, RWB. Will the packaging of papers indicate that they are baryta? I am looking at an air dried print from my darkroom days now and I see that the look is similar to Luster or Semi-Gloss digital papers. The darkroom image has more reflectivity than the same image on a cotton rag paper with pearl finish. I prefer the pearl finish paper for that particular image.
RE your Ps -- I recall seeing on a box of Pro Premium Matte that it was made in Germany (the current box says the paper is Japan made) and I note that the Fine Art Rough is from Switzerland. It's very nice, more natural than white and a fine 320 gsm.
Just like the darkroom days, surfaces/surface gloss will vary by brand and type but unlike darkroom days there aren't many other factors that will affect the surface (water conditions, drying time, drying environment, humidity, etc, etc). That's ONE of the things we want to look at in a detailed comparison along with d-max, base color, degree and appearance of OBA's, weight, feel, contrast, color rendition/gamut (in a semi-subjective), manufacturer's profiles (for those that don'e do their own profiling)... on and on we hope to give people some guidance in selection based on their work and tastes.
It's a mixed bag with labeling but if it is a baryta it will either be in the name, on the box, or the very least described on the website.
One of the things I do not like about a lot of inkjet "pearl" papers is that they appear to me like the old RC semigloss/pearl papers which tend to have a very regular artificial surface texture where air dried fibre gloss black and white papers that I used tended to look more organic with an overall similar level of gloss but never mirror like.
Recently confirmed a gallery show of my old body of concert work from the 70's and 80's. I needed to upgrade my ancient Epson R3000 and ended up with their P900. I've always used Epson paper for general work but Moab Entrada bright for my print portfolio of current work. I've also tried some Red River papers. For the show I ended up testing and loving the Juniper Baryta. I'll be printing 11X14 and 17X22 color and black and white. One paper to rule them all. Really happy with my choice. Prints looking awesome.
Super glad the Juniper worked out for your show (congratulations by the way) it's FANTASTIC when given the opportunity to show your work in person, in print. I love those events so much better than on-line!!!
I mentioned in another comment that I am surprised at how low the poll is for Moab Juniper, I think it is a great baseline/workhorse which is why it is our standard baryta semigloss kind of good for anything when in doubt and doesn't have a ton of surface glare in iffy display conditions and really good resolution/detail for a paper with its degree of surface texture.
I cannot wait to do the comparison tests with Juniper as the baseline using our newish print viewing booth as that allows super critical inspection and shows EVERYTHING in terms of color, surface, base tone differences, etc, etc.
You're so right about prints and in person. Many have seen my images on-line but I know the impact of a large print will likely be a whole different experience. I know the images so well but when one of the 17X22 prints come out of the printer even I'm kind of in awe. All my other prints before looked like they were 'on' the paper. Now they look like they're 'in' the paper, like a great old darkroom print.
I checked “Other” as the equivalent of “all of the above.” Each paper has a range of qualities (maybe sometime an “idiosycracy” in the eye of the beholder/printer) and each is sometimes the right paper for a particular image. I mainly hope for more entries in the paper sweepstakes, as any paper that can make it in the marketplace probably has something especially appealing about it.
I am with you there. I casually looked at the poll results and was sort of surprised that Juniper was so low compare to the other options I put out there. I would have guessed it would be even but maybe I am out of touch or Moab is more known for the mat papers??
I love MOAB Juniper, but also use Canson baryta, Red River Big Bend 310, and Hahnemuehle papers. I use Moab more frequently than the others. Bought a 100-sheet box and have never regretted it.
Hi Dan. I agree. We do love Moab here in our studio. Their commitment to quality and consistency is unquestioned. But as our Master Printer, Bob is always the curious sort and he is hell bent on staying on top of what is going on in the field of all kinds of papers.
The one time we did a random "test" of one image on the Canson I think it was love at first sight, maybe lust at first sight so I can't wait to really to see a variety of images on that. Maybe it's that I had the impression it looked A LOT like an Agfa gloss fibre I used to use a lot in the darkroom when air dried.
BTW, to prevent abrasions when printing on the Epson P900, I had to use Epson's profile tool to create a paper type with a .41 thickness and need to use that type for all the Baryta papers. It may just be my particular printer - it was one of the earliest ones that they shipped. The prints are beautiful.
I think the Juniper is 305gsm which we don't have any problems with on the Canon Pro1000 printers we use for sheets but we'll keep an eye out obviously. The biggest issue we've had across all heavy/stiff papers is when they are curled up on the edges even a hair. Then we get print head strikes.
Les has a special secret recipe when using paper with a slight curl towards the print surface, I'm sure I can encourage him to share it here ;-)
The bigger issue we have is with roll paper for something super heavy and stiff like Juniper and it's close to the end of the roll. Auto loading just doesn't work on the large Canon's so we have to resort to treating it like a sheet after flattening it with our super special homemade print flattening device. Not a huge issue but when we are hosting a workshop we cannot use short end of rolls, too much error and time.
I actually liked the first version of Canson Baryta more than the Baryta II, but it's still an excellent paper. I bought a box of the matte Baryta, but have only tried one or two prints on it. It's quite flat and I haven't yet figured out which images would be a good fit for it. Hahnemuehle is great and there is variety among their baryta papers, but all are quite expensive. Red River's baryta is excellent - similar to the Moab.
I hope the Canson drive-by test I did a while ago and was impressed with was the new and not the "old". I guess we'll find out.
Sounds like you've gone through a lot of the testing yourself that we're planning. ;-)
Been very pleased with Red River Big Bend 310. Printed a 9-image project yesterday,6 B&W 3 color. Had intended to do the color on something else but decided that consistent is better than right every time, as I was told 45 years ago. Originally came to it as an alternative to Epson Exhibition Fiber, which ti matches up against nicely.
I'll have to put red river on the list. I've consistently heard a lot of good things from fans but it keeps slipping my mind.
I know from a couple of friends that they are very accommodating in regards things like custom sizes, special goers for the grain to be one way, etc. Nice folks.
Yes, I like that they have a lot of size variety, like 9x13 and 11x14, among others.
I use Hahnemuhle Photorag Baryta as my go to B&W and Canson Baryta Prestige or Platine Fiber Rag for color. As far as mat papers I use primarily Canson Rag Photographique.
Any particular reason you could share as to the different choice for BW vs color on the baryta papers?
Love this discussion. Very helpful. MOAB Juniper is what I started with after my initial paper tests when I first started printing my own work; however, when it was recently on back-order for a good while I was forced to choose another comparable paper. I decided on Red River Palo Duro SoftGloss Rag, with their Big Bend 310 a close runner up. Since then I’ve stuck with Red River. But I do love the Juniper paper as well.
We are going to do our best to do a thoughtful comparison and kind of a guide book based on our observations for as many different baryta papers as we can "afford". Hopefully it will serve as a jumping off point for people in terms of taste, the kinds of pictures they make, and their own aesthetics. A tall order but we'll try.
Such a guide would be a great and much needed up-to-date resource. I would certainly be willing to contribute if you should opt to open up a crowdfund of some sort for it.
thanks for the encouragement. We were going to do this no matter what as I am convinced that while we give great advice for people attending our intro to fine art printing workshop (in terms of learning one semigloss and one mat paper well before randomly exploring others willy-nilly) we get a ton of questions about other specific papers that we'd love to have some. degree of authority when answering those.
We did open up (very subtly) paid subscriptions last week and have a few (I guessed we'd have zero) but we appreciate even a couple here and there as it helps finance a portion of things like this... one subscription pays for a box of small paper which is fantastic and hopefully as we go forward it will make doing things like this more and more possible.
Excluding yr sponsorship I'm sure you would otherwise pick Hahnemühle! Order a sample pack and I'm sure you would agree the Germans have the winner :-)
Fred, thanks for your comment. Speaking for both me and Bob, I have to say that we are not easily swayed by our sponsorships. We have an understanding with them that our commitment to integrity overrides all. Having said that, the fact is we love Moab papers for their quality, consistency and wonderful service.
Now, the fact is that we do use Hahnemuhle papers and have for two decades. We love their William Turner and Museum Etching papers, as well as others. As far as Baryta papers go, we have just purchased some of Hahnemuhle's offerings and will run them against the other barytas that we have. Please stay tuned for the results, which will start appearing soon here.
Best wishes,
Les
Les and Robert,
I came across these articles and thought you might be interested
https://photopxl.com/canson-baryta-photographique-ii/
https://photopxl.com/canson-baryta-photogrphique-ii-matt-cbp2m/
https://photopxl.com/red-river-palo-duro-baryta-fiber-300/
Keep up the good work!
Walt
Walt, thanks so much for these links. Much appreciated and I can see they will be helpful.
We have been receiving boxes of baryta papers for our comparisons and we thank all of our paid subscribers for helping support our efforts to bring you unvarnished (no OBAs!) reviews of papers, equipment, display options and more. We will begin publishing the reviews and comparisons soon, so please stay tuned.
Also, please understand that our reviews will not be technical, lab-bench based analyses. They will be based on our combined experience after decades of printing thousands of images on a wide variety of papers, for our use and for many other photographers, as well as testing pre-production papers for paper companies and our own studio use.
We'll take a look, thank you so much for taking the time to point these out.
Ps.
The box of Canson we ordered is expected today with more baryta papers on the way!!! Thank you to our paid subscribers that have helped to fund the materials for the upcoming results of comparing a variety of these great papers!!!
I use both Moab and Hahnemuhle papers, my personal favorite baryta paper is Hahnemuhle fine art baryta satin. I prefer both the surface characteristics and the color of the paper base.
A tossup with Hahnemuhle and Moab Juniper with a slight edge to Hahnemuhle Photo Rag Baryta probably because i got used to it before Juniper. Moab double sided for hand made books and smaller prints (8.5x11).
MOAB Juniper is superb, though insanely expensive. Red River’s baryta is OBA free, alpha cellulose, and super nice for a lot less.
on the list.
So the answer is more complicated for me, than just one brand. My go-to semi-gloss paper was ALWAYS Ilford Gold Fibre Silk. I loved it for both b&w AND color; I thought it was exceptional for both, and believe me, I tested a ZILLION papers against each other and still have those test sheets. But GFS was discontinued. Gold Fibre Gloss feels more "raggy" to me, more natural, but it doesn't quite hold the highlights the way GFS did. PLUS, it started to become harder and harder for stores to keep Ilford papers in stock, especially once the pandemic hit. For mat prints (which I do less often) I use Moab Entrada Rag Bright. I feels the Optical brighteners don't cut down on longevity enough to bother me, and I feel I can get brighter highlights of course, than with Rag Natural. If I want a lot of texture, it's Hahnemuhle William Turner or Museum Rag.
It's the semi-gloss side, which is most of my work, that's trickier. I use Ilford GFG some of the time, but when I can't get it, my tests showed that Canson Photographique II has ALMOST the same response as GFG for less money. The highlights are sometimes depressed from what they are with GFG but it's so slight I think it may be my imagination (or my densitometer--which can barely see it as well). But lately I started using Moab Juniper. I was turned onto it by Anchor Editions' prints of Dorothea Lange photos, some of which were done on Juniper. I haven't done enough with it to really have formed a permanent opinion, but I'm interested to keep working with it.
Sorry to take so much column-space, but I did SUCH extensive testing when Ilford discontinued GFS that I thought maybe my sharing some extra detail might be worth it to some readers.
Ps. We'll probably not use a densitometer to measure blacks/whites/midtones ummmm.... 'cause. Mine is ancient and probably not worth the time as it has not seen use since my wet darkroom days. We are also pretty confident that our viewing booth along with apparent DMAX and apparent contrast under standardized lighting conditions is more along what other people will see in prints. When "numbers" are close and my in-person evaluation over time consistently goes with what I see that will trump numbers every time (true for other things like monitors, etc, etc,etc). Given my extremely esoteric familiarity with math and specific error analysis techniques I could probably figure out the "why" when numbers disagree with what "should be" but that would lead me to an academic answer that is probably different and gives me no better results next time nor allows me to permanently eliminate or reconcile that next time. OTOH, if the numbers are VERY different the result will be apparent in a controlled viewing environment so they are not worth much unless one is using them as some "proof" of better-ness.
Thank you for sharing, we really appreciate it and no worries about "space" as we do not actually print out all the responses ;-)
We'll keep some of those ilford papers in mind as we set out towards putting together our tests for this particular exercise. We are going to limit the scope ring now to baryta papers (we'll probably widen that out to semigloss papers that are not baryta down the road). Obviously we can't test EVERY paper but we did want some place to start and put together a decent inventory so as to be useful to the community when looking at trying something "new" against their own workhorse. I am not familiar enough with the ilford inkjet papers to even know which of those you mentioned are baryta papers or not but I'll take a look and if they seem to be widely available we'll consider them to be on the list based on your extensive evaluations.
My go-to baryta for a decade has been Canson. However, Epson joined the club about 6 years ago with its "Legacy" papers, including a baryta -- and more, such as Platine, also made by Canson. In fact, as I suspected from the nomenclature, the Legacy papers are made by Canson.
I did a basic comparison then, which has proven to be one of my most popular posts, over time.
https://raymondparkerphoto.com/comparing-canson-infinity-and-epson-legacy-papers-a-brief-review/
Thanks,
I'll take a look. I mentioned my extremely quick use of the Canson baryta has had me chomping at the bit to do more comprehensive examination. I really loved the look of it for the one and only print I made on a sheet from a sample pack they gave us (I think at PPE but I forget).
Definitely on the list.
Admittedly, I use baryta sparingly. My real go-to is the platine, which I absolutely love. It's a true 100% cotton rag paper with a satin finish that most reminds me of the (Ilford) fibre-base papers that I used in my darkroom days. There's nothing else I've found that better approximates the look I prefer for the "vintage" images I used to make with the wet process.
Not sure what all the excitement is about Baryta papers? I use Moab papers [now Estrada Rag Bright 300] and Awagami from time to time. I also favor Hahnemühle and Canson, neither of which are Baryta, as far as I know. I don't want to ignore Canon which provides a reasonably priced Pro Premium Matte, a Premium Fine Art Rough and a superb Pro Platinum when glossy is called for. What is the attraction that many have for Baryta?
Sandy,
We LOVE mat papers and are super familiar with many. We'll probably end up doing a comparison of those with assessments of application down the road.
Simply put Baryta papers use barium sulphate to some degree as their coating material, the same way and same look as to traditional cotton fiber silver halide papers. Typically they have a soft gloss that is far more "natural looking" like an air dried fiber gloss darkroom print. The barium sulfate gives a very bright white and high dmax for contrast without looking like a piece of plastic like many gloss and semigloss Digital papers with look a lot more like "RC" plastic coated darkroom papers of old.
While inkjet baryta papers can and probably do have some degree of OBA agents they also can have none while maintaining that bright white high contrast look which I care about a lot and is one of the things I hope to evaluate. I am not a big fan of papers that are heavy handed with the optical brightening agents as they tend to introduce what could be considered considerable metamerism under different lighting conditions. It also can be a matter of taste. For instance I happen to like Entrada natural far more than Entrada bright but others feel the opposite.
In any case while there are gloss/semigloss non-baryta inkjet papers that probably look really good as a general rule most of the baryta papers in this class consistently look better in my personal opinion for general work in BW and color. We also have not done a critical comparison of baryta papers EVER so we're going to do that and hopefully share meaningful observations with the community.
Ps. Canon papers are on our list but my basic understanding is that the papers we'd look at are actually made by one of the other large paper manufacturers for canon. My guess is they are fairly similar but we'll find out.
Thanks for your prompt and detailed reply, RWB. Will the packaging of papers indicate that they are baryta? I am looking at an air dried print from my darkroom days now and I see that the look is similar to Luster or Semi-Gloss digital papers. The darkroom image has more reflectivity than the same image on a cotton rag paper with pearl finish. I prefer the pearl finish paper for that particular image.
RE your Ps -- I recall seeing on a box of Pro Premium Matte that it was made in Germany (the current box says the paper is Japan made) and I note that the Fine Art Rough is from Switzerland. It's very nice, more natural than white and a fine 320 gsm.
Just like the darkroom days, surfaces/surface gloss will vary by brand and type but unlike darkroom days there aren't many other factors that will affect the surface (water conditions, drying time, drying environment, humidity, etc, etc). That's ONE of the things we want to look at in a detailed comparison along with d-max, base color, degree and appearance of OBA's, weight, feel, contrast, color rendition/gamut (in a semi-subjective), manufacturer's profiles (for those that don'e do their own profiling)... on and on we hope to give people some guidance in selection based on their work and tastes.
It's a mixed bag with labeling but if it is a baryta it will either be in the name, on the box, or the very least described on the website.
One of the things I do not like about a lot of inkjet "pearl" papers is that they appear to me like the old RC semigloss/pearl papers which tend to have a very regular artificial surface texture where air dried fibre gloss black and white papers that I used tended to look more organic with an overall similar level of gloss but never mirror like.
Recently confirmed a gallery show of my old body of concert work from the 70's and 80's. I needed to upgrade my ancient Epson R3000 and ended up with their P900. I've always used Epson paper for general work but Moab Entrada bright for my print portfolio of current work. I've also tried some Red River papers. For the show I ended up testing and loving the Juniper Baryta. I'll be printing 11X14 and 17X22 color and black and white. One paper to rule them all. Really happy with my choice. Prints looking awesome.
Ps. maybe not a ton of people even know Moab makes a baryta paper??
Super glad the Juniper worked out for your show (congratulations by the way) it's FANTASTIC when given the opportunity to show your work in person, in print. I love those events so much better than on-line!!!
I mentioned in another comment that I am surprised at how low the poll is for Moab Juniper, I think it is a great baseline/workhorse which is why it is our standard baryta semigloss kind of good for anything when in doubt and doesn't have a ton of surface glare in iffy display conditions and really good resolution/detail for a paper with its degree of surface texture.
I cannot wait to do the comparison tests with Juniper as the baseline using our newish print viewing booth as that allows super critical inspection and shows EVERYTHING in terms of color, surface, base tone differences, etc, etc.
You're so right about prints and in person. Many have seen my images on-line but I know the impact of a large print will likely be a whole different experience. I know the images so well but when one of the 17X22 prints come out of the printer even I'm kind of in awe. All my other prints before looked like they were 'on' the paper. Now they look like they're 'in' the paper, like a great old darkroom print.
I checked “Other” as the equivalent of “all of the above.” Each paper has a range of qualities (maybe sometime an “idiosycracy” in the eye of the beholder/printer) and each is sometimes the right paper for a particular image. I mainly hope for more entries in the paper sweepstakes, as any paper that can make it in the marketplace probably has something especially appealing about it.
I am with you there. I casually looked at the poll results and was sort of surprised that Juniper was so low compare to the other options I put out there. I would have guessed it would be even but maybe I am out of touch or Moab is more known for the mat papers??
Yes I do use it along with Fotospeed smooth cotton 300. Another one is PermaJet FB Gold Silk 315 (baryta paper)
Fotospeed it is
Do you use the Fotospeed Platinum Baryta 300?
Is this some sort of rebranded Hahnemühle/Canson/Etc for the UK market and this retailer? UK only? Curious.
Looking at it right now as I am completely unfamiliar.