Which paper is better?

Oliver Bedford

Well-known member
Messages
111
Reaction score
60
Location
DE
Hi,

I would like to make same B&W photoprints at one of the usual providers here in Germany.

One of them offers Océ Lightjet prints on Ilford Baryt paper, the other one prints on Hahnemühle FineArt Baryta.

Is there any quality difference between the two? Which one would you prefer?

TIA,

Oliver
 
Solution
The Lightjet system is exposing the image onto a traditional B&W silver halide wet process Baryta paper. The Hanemuhle Baryta is an inkjet paper printed on anyone of a number of different inkjet printers with different ink formulations. Very different processes with different aesthetics and different longevity properties. If you go with the LIghtjet output, ask if the print provider also offers selenium toning of the paper and opt for that option if print longevtiy matters to you.

If you go with the Hahnemuhle output and longevity matters to you, ask if the print provider will substitute HN fine art baryta with HN photo rag Baryta or Photo Rag pearl, neither of which have optical brighteners and will produce more long lasting prints if...
They are both very good papers. I couldn't say one was better than the other. The only way you will know which you prefer would be to samples of each. I would suggest getting a print from each at the smallest size they do and comparing them.

Brian A
 
I've tested four different Barytas and the differences between them were minor. You'll probably be satisfied with either one, but it's easy enough to have them print the same image on each paper and see for yourself (I assume they have profiles for you to download?).
 
Thanks for the replies.

Both companies offer ICC profiles.

I think I'll try the cheaper one (by a factor of 3 IIRC).

Regards,

Oliver
 
The Lightjet system is exposing the image onto a traditional B&W silver halide wet process Baryta paper. The Hanemuhle Baryta is an inkjet paper printed on anyone of a number of different inkjet printers with different ink formulations. Very different processes with different aesthetics and different longevity properties. If you go with the LIghtjet output, ask if the print provider also offers selenium toning of the paper and opt for that option if print longevtiy matters to you.

If you go with the Hahnemuhle output and longevity matters to you, ask if the print provider will substitute HN fine art baryta with HN photo rag Baryta or Photo Rag pearl, neither of which have optical brighteners and will produce more long lasting prints if you intend to put the print continuous display (i.e. frame it and hang it on a wall rather than keeping in photo album or print portfolio). Also, if you don't like the appearance of differential gloss and bronzing, the inkjet prints would also benefit from a final post printing spray coating like HN protective spray. The LIghtjet print output won't have any differential gloss or bronzing, so only the selenium toning step becomes the extra step in the process compared to an additional spray coat for the inkjet process.

best,
Mark

http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com
 
Last edited:
Solution
Mark,

thanks for the clarification.

Both providers claim "best archival quality" (whatever that is).

I want a glossy appearance, so I ruled out the Photo Rag and Pearl.

Ok, I'm convinced now that I have to make some test prints. I'll report my findings...

Regards,

Oliver
 
Canson Baryta, for inkjet prints, is my workhorse paper in non-matte. I think you will find it glossy enough.
 
I want a glossy appearance, so I ruled out the Photo Rag and Pearl.

Ok, I'm convinced now that I have to make some test prints. I'll report my findings...

Regards,

Oliver
Hahnemuhle has some pretty confusing naming conventions. HN Photo rag baryta is a glossy "traditional fiber base" type of inkjet paper whereas Photo rag is a matte finish fine art paper and may be what you are thinking of when you say you ruled out the Photo Rag. The Photo Rag Pearl is a beautiful Luster type gloss, lower than the Photo Rag baryta, but I actually think it has very classy finish (its a personal favorite). The HN fine art Baryta is quite similar in gloss to the Photo Rag baryta, only it has an alpacellulose paper base rather than 100% cotton like the Photo Rag Baryta. Also, it has high OBA content (so much so that some people complain it takes on a very slight magenta colorcast in the highlights which they feel looks a bit weird). This high OBA content is also prone to fading with only moderate light exposure doses over time.

The Ilford Baryta also has OBA content, but less so than the HN fineart Baryta and it is embedded in the gelatin emulsion rather than in a top microporous inkjet coating, so it will shift less in whitepoint color over time compared to the HN FineArt Baryta (assuming the lab processes it correctly (aka "archivally processed"), so that the Ilford Baryta paper doesn't have residual chemistry left in it.

--
Mark McCormick
 
Last edited:
I want a glossy appearance, so I ruled out the Photo Rag and Pearl.

Ok, I'm convinced now that I have to make some test prints. I'll report my findings...

Regards,

Oliver
Hahnemuhle has some pretty confusing naming conventions. HN Photo rag baryta is a glossy "traditional fiber base" type of inkjet paper whereas Photo rag is a matte finish fine art paper and may be what you are thinking of when you say you ruled out the Photo Rag. The Photo Rag Pearl is a beautiful Luster type gloss, lower than the Photo Rag baryta, but I actually think it has very classy finish (its a personal favorite). The HN fine art Baryta is quite similar in gloss to the Photo Rag baryta, only it has an alpacellulose paper base rather than 100% cotton like the Photo Rag Baryta. Also, it has high OBA content (so much so that some people complain it takes on a very slight magenta colorcast in the highlights which they feel looks a bit weird). This high OBA content is also prone to fading with only moderate light exposure doses over time.

The Ilford Baryta also has OBA content, but less so than the HN fineart Baryta and it is embedded in the gelatin emulsion rather than in a top microporous inkjet coating, so it will shift less in whitepoint color over time compared to the HN FineArt Baryta (assuming the lab processes it correctly (aka "archivally processed"), so that the Ilford Baryta paper doesn't have residual chemistry left in it.
 
Mark, where do you find out where the OBAs are located at in the paper? I try to avoid OBAs myself, but so many papers have them that it would help to know which ones are going to fade faster than others.
It's easier to find information on the magnitude of OBA fluorescence than it is to find out where the OBAs are located. To find out if a paper has OBA content and how much it fluoresces I know of only two reliable sources. 1) http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm

and 2) http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com/light-fade-test-results/

To figure out where the OBAs are located, I rely on a couple of different techniques: First, one can use a blacklight at a fixed distance and compare some known media (OBA-free, Low OBA, moderate OBA, and High OBA) with the unknown media you want to evaluate. The High OBA media fluoresce like crazy and about the only way they can do that is if some OBA is present in the top ink coating layer. With low and moderate OBA papers, they glow proportionately, but it gets a bit trickier to figure out exactly where the OBAs are located. Typically, the Low OBA fluorescence occurs when the OBAs are embedded in the paper core only and not in any top coatings, but some low and more so the moderate fluorescence will occur sometimes when OBAs exist at differing concentrations in both paper core and a sublayer or top layer. And of course, using UV included/excluded measurements taken with spectrophotometers like the iOnePro2 are invaluable in terms of an objective quantification of the amount fluorescence.

Lastly, the way I most accurately confirm where the OBA content is located is to carefully slice a cross-section of the paper and examine that cross-section under a mixture of UV plus raking visible light using a stereo microscope at between 10 to 100x magnification. Additionally, I know from the media technology and construction what layers I should be expecting to see. RC media, for example, will have TiO2/PE layers sandwiching the paper core, and traditional wet process photographs will use gelatin coatings whereas inkjet media will have microcporous layers more often than not. Almost all media will additionally have some anti curl layers on the back side of the media to counteract the forward curl of the hygrocopic coatings on the image bearing side.

I hope to start adding some cross-sectional media studies and surface texture photos into the Aardenburg test reports sometime in the near future. Each of those reports is very time consuming to prepare, so I just haven't stepped up my game so far to include additional aspects of all of these very interesting modern media.

cheers,
Mark

--

Mark McCormick
 
Last edited:
Mark, where do you find out where the OBAs are located at in the paper? I try to avoid OBAs myself, but so many papers have them that it would help to know which ones are going to fade faster than others.
It's easier to find information on the magnitude of OBA fluorescence than it is to find out where the OBAs are located. To find out if a paper has OBA content and how much it fluoresces I know of only two reliable sources. 1) http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm

and 2) http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com/light-fade-test-results/

To figure out where the OBAs are located, I rely on a couple of different techniques: First, one can use a blacklight at a fixed distance and compare some known media (OBA-free, Low OBA, moderate OBA, and High OBA) with the unknown media you want to evaluate. The High OBA media fluoresce like crazy and about the only way they can do that is if some OBA is present in the top ink coating layer. With low and moderate OBA papers, they glow proportionately, but it gets a bit trickier to figure out exactly where the OBAs are located. Typically, the Low OBA fluorescence occurs when the OBAs are embedded in the paper core only and not in any top coatings, but some low and more so the moderate fluorescence will occur sometimes when OBAs exist at differing concentrations in both paper core and a sublayer or top layer. And of course, using UV included/excluded measurements taken with spectrophotometers like the iOnePro2 are invaluable in terms of an objective quantification of the amount fluorescence.

Lastly, the way I most accurately confirm where the OBA content is located is to carefully slice a cross-section of the paper and examine that cross-section under a mixture of UV plus raking visible light using a stereo microscope at between 10 to 100x magnification. Additionally, I know from the media technology and construction what layers I should be expecting to see. RC media, for example, will have TiO2/PE layers sandwiching the paper core, and traditional wet process photographs will use gelatin coatings whereas inkjet media will have microcporous layers more often than not. Almost all media will additionally have some anti curl layers on the back side of the media to counteract the forward curl of the hygrocopic coatings on the image bearing side.

I hope to start adding some cross-sectional media studies and surface texture photos into the Aardenburg test reports sometime in the near future. Each of those reports is very time consuming to prepare, so I just haven't stepped up my game so far to include additional aspects of all of these very interesting modern media.

cheers,
Mark

--

Mark McCormick
Wow, a lot of work. And here I was hoping the info was just buried somewhere in the technical data sheets. And I do appreciate what info you can provide, but I think I'll still try to minimize my use of any OBA impregnated papers at all.
 
Wow, a lot of work. And here I was hoping the info was just buried somewhere in the technical data sheets. And I do appreciate what info you can provide, but I think I'll still try to minimize my use of any OBA impregnated papers at all.
The best you will get from any of the vendors is a simple qualifier when the product is OBA-free. They will market it as a positive virtue (and it is!). However, sometimes that info is wrong. Iflord marketing staff, for example, erroneously once reported Ilford Gold fiber Silk as being OBA-free. It is not but the misinformation just seems to persist. Other vendors have made that same mistake.

Wilhelm Imaging Research also has an extraordinary number of errors in it's OBA yes or no category included many of it's reports, which is a bit surprising given that confirming OBA-free papers is as simple as using a hand held UV LED flashlight.

cheers,
Mark

http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com
 
Last edited:
Wow, a lot of work. And here I was hoping the info was just buried somewhere in the technical data sheets. And I do appreciate what info you can provide, but I think I'll still try to minimize my use of any OBA impregnated papers at all.
Why? OBAs serve a purpose. They help make prints that pop with bright whites. Is longevity really that important? Many OBA papers will do just fine for many, many years when behind glazing and displayed in typical dim household or museum lighting. Once the OBAs fade your prints might not look much different than if you started with a warmer, non-OBA paper to begin with. I have not gotten to that point in my testing. In a few years I will let you know what happens to my prints under bright lights with no glazing on cheap Canon semigloss with Inkjet Mall K3 inks.
 
Wow, a lot of work. And here I was hoping the info was just buried somewhere in the technical data sheets. And I do appreciate what info you can provide, but I think I'll still try to minimize my use of any OBA impregnated papers at all.
Why? OBAs serve a purpose. They help make prints that pop with bright whites. Is longevity really that important? Many OBA papers will do just fine for many, many years when behind glazing and displayed in typical dim household or museum lighting. Once the OBAs fade your prints might not look much different than if you started with a warmer, non-OBA paper to begin with. I have not gotten to that point in my testing. In a few years I will let you know what happens to my prints under bright lights with no glazing on cheap Canon semigloss with Inkjet Mall K3 inks.

--
Jim, aka camperjim
http://www.specialplacesphoto.com
Two main reasons, if I sell a print I can't in good conscience make a claim that it is "archival" if it contains OBAs since they will fade with time and can alter the color balance. Also I like making my own profiles (mostly out of self defense, as I've encountered too many bad profiles from the manufactures) and OBAs interfere with an accurate profile. I suppose I also feel it is a cheap trick and that if the manufacturers just put a little more effort into paper quality they wouldn't need OBAs in the first place (for cheap RC paper I understand, but why add OBAs to expensive paper?).
 
Two main reasons, if I sell a print I can't in good conscience make a claim that it is "archival" if it contains OBAs since they will fade with time and can alter the color balance. Also I like making my own profiles (mostly out of self defense, as I've encountered too many bad profiles from the manufactures) and OBAs interfere with an accurate profile. I suppose I also feel it is a cheap trick and that if the manufacturers just put a little more effort into paper quality they wouldn't need OBAs in the first place (for cheap RC paper I understand, but why add OBAs to expensive paper?).
That makes sense. I suppose I just sell so few prints that longevity has not been an issue. I was actually thinking of ordering Red River Palo Duro Satin and giving that a try for my low cost everyday paper. For the 13x19 sized prints, my favorite is RR San Gabriel baryta. Unfortunately I had problems with the 17x25 sheets when trying to print in the winter with low humidity.
 
Dear Oliver, which ones did you use ?
 
I ordered test-prints of my photos in 12 x 17 cm on different papers

a) Ilford Baryta (Ilford digital exposure, traditional process)

b) Hahnemühle FineArt Baryta (digital printing)

c) Hahnemühle PhotoRag (digital printing)

a) was ordered from WhiteWall.de, b)+c) from saal-digital.de

Although I was determined to order one of the Barytas (I already have some approx. 40 x 80 B&W prints hanging on the wall and like the high contrast) in the end I've decided to print on the PhotoRag. I've printed around 30 different photos, mostly in the size 12 x 17 but ranging upto 30 x 40, framed behind glas and hanging in less than ideal lighting. Because of the matte finish (really no specular reflection of light) the quality of the photos resembles paintings; the resolution looks a bit higher than on the Barytas. Of course when compared to the Barytas the shadows are not as black and the overall contrast is lower. On the other hand I found the whites to be "whiter", especially when compared to the Hahnemühle, which looks a tad warmer.

The Ilford Baryta was a bit disappointing regarding it's premium price (factor 3 compared to b). I didn't see a significant difference. Smaller variations in black/white-levels, details in the shadows etc. were probably due to different ICC profiles (I use a calibrated monitor; when available I used the ICC profiles for softproofing, all prints came out as expected - no surprises here).

So, if you're not seeking maximum contrast in your B&W prints I'd recommend the PhotoRag.

Regards,

Oliver
 

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top