Wow, do I love Canson Rag Photographique

[JConrad]

I just picked up a box of this stuff after seeing a few sample prints. I'd been looking for a nice matte paper for my black and white prints, and it was hard because I have generally disliked every matte paper I've ever seen or used. Most of the cheaper matte papers feel like I'm printing on cheap cardstock. Some of the better matte papers are 'close', but not exceptional. A bit too washed out or lacking that exceptional fine detail I get with my two preferred semi-gloss papers (Hahnemuhle FineArt Pearl and Red River San Gabriel Fiber). I liked the Hahnemuhle Photo Rag papers, but the plain photo rag has a somewhat sterile rendition that is good but not great, and the photo rag bright white looks really nice but uses a ton of OBAs, which I reticent to use.

The Canson Rag Photographique, though: wow. Brilliant black and white prints, wonderful texture and feel, outstanding contrast, very deep blacks for a matte paper, and the color prints are equally stunning: such rich color and simply incredible detail in the final prints. Absolutely wonderful matte paper...making me a convert for using matte. Definitely will be using it for a large portion of my B&W work, and I really like it for color work for certain images, though not all. Just really impressed.

 

[soloryb]

I just picked up a box of this stuff after seeing a few sample prints. I'd been looking for a nice matte paper for my black and white prints, and it was hard because I have generally disliked every matte paper I've ever seen or used. Most of the cheaper matte papers feel like I'm printing on cheap cardstock. Some of the better matte papers are 'close', but not exceptional. A bit too washed out or lacking that exceptional fine detail I get with my two preferred semi-gloss papers (Hahnemuhle FineArt Pearl and Red River San Gabriel Fiber). I liked the Hahnemuhle Photo Rag papers, but the plain photo rag has a somewhat sterile rendition that is good but not great, and the photo rag bright white looks really nice but uses a ton of OBAs, which I reticent to use.

The Canson Rag Photographique, though: wow. Brilliant black and white prints, wonderful texture and feel, outstanding contrast, very deep blacks for a matte paper, and the color prints are equally stunning: such rich color and simply incredible detail in the final prints. Absolutely wonderful matte paper...making me a convert for using matte. Definitely will be using it for a large portion of my B&W work, and I really like it for color work for certain images, though not all. Just really impressed.

Canson Rag Photographique; 310 or 210 gsm? The 210-gsm shows more reflectance in the blue wavelengths than the 310, which should make it slightly cooler - perfect for my mountain color landscapes and B&W snow-on-trees images.

The Rag Photo 210 is my next Canson paper to get. I already love their baryta, Platine and especially the Aquerelle Rag 240-gsm.

soloryb

 

[JConrad]

I'm using the 310. I tend to like thicker papers.

 

[Hugowolf]

I just picked up a box of this stuff after seeing a few sample prints. I'd been looking for a nice matte paper for my black and white prints, and it was hard because I have generally disliked every matte paper I've ever seen or used. Most of the cheaper matte papers feel like I'm printing on cheap cardstock. Some of the better matte papers are 'close', but not exceptional. A bit too washed out or lacking that exceptional fine detail I get with my two preferred semi-gloss papers (Hahnemuhle FineArt Pearl and Red River San Gabriel Fiber). I liked the Hahnemuhle Photo Rag papers, but the plain photo rag has a somewhat sterile rendition that is good but not great, and the photo rag bright white looks really nice but uses a ton of OBAs, which I reticent to use.

The Canson Rag Photographique, though: wow. Brilliant black and white prints, wonderful texture and feel, outstanding contrast, very deep blacks for a matte paper, and the color prints are equally stunning: such rich color and simply incredible detail in the final prints. Absolutely wonderful matte paper...making me a convert for using matte. Definitely will be using it for a large portion of my B&W work, and I really like it for color work for certain images, though not all. Just really impressed.

Canson Rag Photographique; 310 or 210 gsm? The 210-gsm shows more reflectance in the blue wavelengths than the 310, which should make it slightly cooler - perfect for my mountain color landscapes and B&W snow-on-trees images.

I haven't seen this while profiling both papers. The 210 is more prone to influence of any backing material, being less opaque than the 310. If you are using the Canson provided profiles, the 210 profile definitely is skewed noticeably cooler, but that isn’t due to the paper, it is the profile.

The Rag Photo 210 is my next Canson paper to get. I already love their baryta, Platine and especially the Aquerelle Rag 240-gsm.

There are really no not-good Canson papers. I just wish someone would come up with a cotton paper with the texture and resolution holding properties of Hahnemühle German Etching, without the OBA content, small as it is, I’d prefer a more natural colored paper.

The Montval and Etching papers are also excellent. The Rives BFK has been around for at least a couple of hundred years, in a non-inkjet coated form, and is one of the best velvet textured papers around.

If you like lighter-weight papers, then Epson’s Velvet Fine Art paper is very, very good. A fine paper in the Japanese tradition of quality over weight.

Brian A

 

[soloryb]

I just picked up a box of this stuff after seeing a few sample prints. I'd been looking for a nice matte paper for my black and white prints, and it was hard because I have generally disliked every matte paper I've ever seen or used. Most of the cheaper matte papers feel like I'm printing on cheap cardstock. Some of the better matte papers are 'close', but not exceptional. A bit too washed out or lacking that exceptional fine detail I get with my two preferred semi-gloss papers (Hahnemuhle FineArt Pearl and Red River San Gabriel Fiber). I liked the Hahnemuhle Photo Rag papers, but the plain photo rag has a somewhat sterile rendition that is good but not great, and the photo rag bright white looks really nice but uses a ton of OBAs, which I reticent to use.

The Canson Rag Photographique, though: wow. Brilliant black and white prints, wonderful texture and feel, outstanding contrast, very deep blacks for a matte paper, and the color prints are equally stunning: such rich color and simply incredible detail in the final prints. Absolutely wonderful matte paper...making me a convert for using matte. Definitely will be using it for a large portion of my B&W work, and I really like it for color work for certain images, though not all. Just really impressed.

Canson Rag Photographique; 310 or 210 gsm? The 210-gsm shows more reflectance in the blue wavelengths than the 310, which should make it slightly cooler - perfect for my mountain color landscapes and B&W snow-on-trees images.

I haven't seen this while profiling both papers. The 210 is more prone to influence of any backing material, being less opaque than the 310. If you are using the Canson provided profiles, the 210 profile definitely is skewed noticeably cooler, but that isn’t due to the paper, it is the profile.

Not using either one yet, just researching which to get.


Red=Canson Rag Photographique 210-gsm, Green=310-gsm (SpectrumViz.jar)

Note the slightly blue-shifted 210 compared to the 310.

I just installed the Canson RP 210 and 310 profiles and see a slight difference in the LR histogram between the two - with the 210 blue regions shifted to the left (bluer) compared to the 310. Visually I cannot discern a difference in the soft proof screen appearance of the two, but obviously the histograms say it's there.

You said you don't see this in your own generated profiles and that the way Canson performed the profile creations is what is causing this blue shift in the 210. I assume you attribute this to the 210 being thinner paper and therefore more prone to background bleed through during the actual scanning process - where it wasn't done quite right?

Why couldn't the blue-shift be caused by both the bleed-through (Canson incorrect profile creation) as well as the natural bluer reflectance of the 210 paper itself? Both factors would end up showing a blue-shifted histogram and slightly bluer paper.

I guess I'll just have to wait until I print both the 210 and the 310 to see if there's a significant difference and whether or not I prefer one over the other. BTW, that 310 is a lot more expensive than the 210, so it would have to be a big difference for me to spend the extra $$$.

The Rag Photo 210 is my next Canson paper to get. I already love their baryta, Platine and especially the Aquerelle Rag 240-gsm.

There are really no not-good Canson papers. I just wish someone would come up with a cotton paper with the texture and resolution holding properties of Hahnemühle German Etching, without the OBA content, small as it is, I’d prefer a more natural colored paper.

I got some Canson PhotoArt HD canvas to play with and was not impressed with it compared to BC Crystalline White. Otherwise, all the other Canson papers I've tried were either fantastic or better.

The Montval and Etching papers are also excellent. The Rives BFK has been around for at least a couple of hundred years, in a non-inkjet coated form, and is one of the best velvet textured papers around.

I'll try that Rives BFK after the RP 310 and 210.

If you like lighter-weight papers, then Epson’s Velvet Fine Art paper is very, very good. A fine paper in the Japanese tradition of quality over weight.

I actually prefer heavier weight and/or thicker papers and was only looking at the lighter weight papers so that they would feed through printer rollers (ipf6400) better and be easier to control the curl. I'm not too experienced with this WF roll printer yet.

Brian A

This passion for fine art papers is becoming expensive, but I think I'm becoming addicted.

soloryb

 

[Howard Moftich]

if you think the 310 is expensive, wait till you see the BFK.

 

[soloryb]

if you think the 310 is expensive, wait till you see the BFK.

I already looked. :-(

soloryb

 

[Hugowolf]

...

Canson Rag Photographique; 310 or 210 gsm? The 210-gsm shows more reflectance in the blue wavelengths than the 310, which should make it slightly cooler - perfect for my mountain color landscapes and B&W snow-on-trees images.

I haven't seen this while profiling both papers. The 210 is more prone to influence of any backing material, being less opaque than the 310. If you are using the Canson provided profiles, the 210 profile definitely is skewed noticeably cooler, but that isn’t due to the paper, it is the profile.

Not using either one yet, just researching which to get.

Note the slightly blue-shifted 210 compared to the 310.

I looked at Ernst's plots when you brough this up. and I was actually suprised by the difference in the two paper, which visully look no different, but I haven't measured them in a while.

I just installed the Canson RP 210 and 310 profiles and see a slight difference in the LR histogram between the two - with the 210 blue regions shifted to the left (bluer) compared to the 310. Visually I cannot discern a difference in the soft proof screen appearance of the two, but obviously the histograms say it's there.

Used to use the 310 profile for both papers, it was definitely warmer, though I think the 210 profile may have been more acurate.

You said you don't see this in your own generated profiles and that the way Canson performed the profile creations is what is causing this blue shift in the 210. I assume you attribute this to the 210 being thinner paper and therefore more prone to background bleed through during the actual scanning process - where it wasn't done quite right?

Yes, possibly due to using an overly high white backing board for scanning, the 210 being thinner is less opaque and would be more prone to that. BUt that is just conjecture on my part.

Why couldn't the blue-shift be caused by both the bleed-through (Canson incorrect profile creation) as well as the natural bluer reflectance of the 210 paper itself? Both factors would end up showing a blue-shifted histogram and slightly bluer paper.

The reason for profiles is to correct for that. You should see no differences, except in the areas were no ink goes down.

I guess I'll just have to wait until I print both the 210 and the 310 to see if there's a significant difference and whether or not I prefer one over the other. BTW, that 310 is a lot more expensive than the 210, so it would have to be a big difference for me to spend the extra $$$.

I have a good stock of both, so I haven't bought in a while. But the 210 used to be very close in price to the 310. I only use the 210 for 'spacial' things, such as when the paper has to be scored and folded or for dry mountng where it is easier to trim from foam and gator than the 310.

The Rag Photo 210 is my next Canson paper to get. I already love their baryta, Platine and especially the Aquerelle Rag 240-gsm.

...

The Montval and Etching papers are also excellent. The Rives BFK has been around for at least a couple of hundred years, in a non-inkjet coated form, and is one of the best velvet textured papers around.

I'll try that Rives BFK after the RP 310 and 210.

Yes, as Howard points out, it isn't a cheap paper.

If you like lighter-weight papers, then Epson’s Velvet Fine Art paper is very, very good. A fine paper in the Japanese tradition of quality over weight.

I actually prefer heavier weight and/or thicker papers and was only looking at the lighter weight papers so that they would feed through printer rollers (ipf6400) better and be easier to control the curl. I'm not too experienced with this WF roll printer yet.

...

This passion for fine art papers is becoming expensive, but I think I'm becoming addicted.

It will be just fine. You will not need therapy, you will run out of storage space first.

Brian A

 

[soloryb]

This passion for fine art papers is becoming expensive, but I think I'm becoming addicted.

It will be just fine. You will not need therapy, you will run out of storage space first.

Brian A

Thanks Brian, I feel better already.

My wife thinks I should print everything on 8.5X11 copy paper - to save both money and space.

soloryb

 

[jrkliny]

This passion for fine art papers is becoming expensive, but I think I'm becoming addicted.

It will be just fine. You will not need therapy, you will run out of storage space first.

Brian A

Thanks Brian, I feel better already.

My wife thinks I should print everything on 8.5X11 copy paper - to save both money and space.

soloryb

With some of the Canon deals -- 5 packs for the price of one plus free shipping -- I think some of my 8 1/2x11 semi-gloss cost less than copy paper.

 

[Hugowolf]

My readings are a little different than Ernst's, but not too different. The 210 shows slightly more spectral reflectance but its plot parallels the 310 from 440 nm to 710 nm with the 210 being less than 2% greater at all wavelengths. My plots show no cross over at 570 mn; the 210 always shows slightly a higher reflectance, except at the beginning, where they are about equal.

I used three sheets of 210 on top of one another, to counter any greater opacity of the 310. Five reading averaged for both papers.

Rag 310 L=97.80, a=0.49, b=1.43
Rag 210 L=98.18, a=0.33, b=1.35







It is good to have a spectrophotometer again, although my pockets are now a lot lighter.

Brian A

 

[E Dinkla]

Brian,

It could have been a bad batch I measured or an older 310 sheet and a young 210 sheet or my mistake in measuring and writing the data down. However when I put the other results of more Canson cotton papers without OBA next to the CRP results I do not see an alarming difference between them and the 210 does not deviate much either from that bundle. Batch differences exist and I know as I sometimes measure a new sample to look for real changes in the production and see a small shift. Usually not enough to justify a replacement of the old measurement. You measurement confirms more than that it challenges my data.

Which spectrometer and UV enabled? I used an UV enabled Eye 1 Pro with X-rite Share Excel export for the measurements. It is described at the SpectrumViz page.

The samples are deliberately put on an OBA free museum mounting board underneath to represent expected display conditions, that condition is shown in the solid line of the spectral plot and is shown in the cited Lab values. That mounting board has a lower white reflectance than both the CPR 210 and 310 have, check their black background spectral plots against the mounting board plot from the PTFE map. Which makes the higher white reflection of the 210 versus the 310 more odd if we would go by a difference in weight only. I observe the same in your measurement (more pronounced though) and assume that Canson added extra whitening agent (not necessarily OBA related) to the 210 to increase the white reflection, having an effect more to the blue side of the spectrum than to the red side, the higher transparency of the 210 is still present at the red side in my spectral plot and does not differ much compared to other papers with similar weight classes. Your wider separation is caused by using 3 sheets on top of one another, each will contain the extra whitening agent so multiply the effect. With one sheet the crossing of both would have been there too I guess, possibly shifted more to the red end. Spectrometers we use are not 1:1 identical in their results either.

I may have one regret on the way I created SpectrumViz measurement method: a mounting board or other substrate with a similar white reflectance level but with a more straight spectral plot would show thinner papers spectral deviations better, now the mounting board spectral distribution shows through. It probably still represents daily display conditions better though. Anyway the specific deviations can be seen in the measurements on the black background. Stacking more sheets of the inkjet paper for measurements would not have shown its relative opaqueness as shown between the measurement on black and on mounting board white so I avoided that. It exaggerates the spectral distribution of a paper too in a sense so the practice of using more sheets on top of one another in profile target readings may not be correct either if that thin paper is mounted on another paper/board later on. It is different for a book. Then again measuring on a black background has sense when the pages are printed dual sided with much text. Compromises everywhere.

Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst
700+ inkjet paper white spectral plots: OBA content etc.
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm

 

[Hugowolf]

...

Which spectrometer and UV enabled? I used an UV enabled Eye 1 Pro with X-rite Share Excel export for the measurements. It is described at the SpectrumViz page.

I used an i1 Pro 2, UV enabled, D50/2

UV cut might be a useful measurement too, but not as useful as UV enabled.

The samples are deliberately put on an OBA free museum mounting board underneath to represent expected display conditions, that condition is shown in the solid line of the spectral plot and is shown in the cited Lab values. That mounting board has a lower white reflectance than both the CPR 210 and 310 have, check their black background spectral plots against the mounting board plot from the PTFE map. Which makes the higher white reflection of the 210 versus the 310 more odd if we would go by a difference in weight only. I observe the same in your measurement (more pronounced though) and assume that Canson added extra whitening agent (not necessarily OBA related) to the 210 to increase the white reflection, having an effect more to the blue side of the spectrum than to the red side, the higher transparency of the 210 is still present at the red side in my spectral plot and does not differ much compared to other papers with similar weight classes. Your wider separation is caused by using 3 sheets on top of one another, each will contain the extra whitening agent so multiply the effect. With one sheet the crossing of both would have been there too I guess, possibly shifted more to the red end. Spectrometers we use are not 1:1 identical in their results either.

I may have one regret on the way I created SpectrumViz measurement method: a mounting board or other substrate with a similar white reflectance level but with a more straight spectral plot would show thinner papers spectral deviations better, now the mounting board spectral distribution shows through. It probably still represents daily display conditions better though. Anyway the specific deviations can be seen in the measurements on the black background. Stacking more sheets of the inkjet paper for measurements would not have shown its relative opaqueness as shown between the measurement on black and on mounting board white so I avoided that. It exaggerates the spectral distribution of a paper too in a sense so the practice of using more sheets on top of one another in profile target readings may not be correct either if that thin paper is mounted on another paper/board later on. It is different for a book. Then again measuring on a black background has sense when the pages are printed dual sided with much text. Compromises everywhere.

I don't know if there is a right way and a wrong way, and certainly the idea of using archival backing board is more likely to give results closer to a more real life situation. Unfortunately, without an identical board, my results can't be compared directly.

I also didn't measure the back side of the front side with black backing, both useful measurements. I have matte black material that I use when scanning or photo-reproduction of two-sided text documents where the paper isn't opaque enough to hide the text on the verso.

Thanks for your comments Ernst.

Brian A