Photo paper thickness vs value perception

[Alexey]

I just printed a series of similar black and white prints from the same shoot on various, same sized baryta-style papers. All papers I used were textured medium-gloss. Among them Moab Juniper Baryta, Epson Exhibition Fiber, Canson Platine Fiber, Canson Baryta II, Moab Colorado Glossy and Colorado Satine.
These papers are in the similar price range, have similar (air-dried type) textures and image quality is close. But handling final prints, I was shocked at how differently they feel in hand. Some papers, Like Moab Baryta, feel very substantial and solid. Others, like Canson Baryta II, feel so flimsy in comparison that prints don’t quite feel as professional or substantial. To the point where I feel I need to reprint images that were done on lighter papers, so that final user does not think less of the images printed on thinner lighter papers.

Am I the only one whose perception of the final image is greatly affected by the paper weight and thickness? I feel like thicker paper gives so much more perceived value to the final work. Is there someone who actually prefers thinner paper, given that image quality is the same? Do you or your clients appreciate thicker papers?

 

[Innocentius]

I just printed a series of similar black and white prints from the same shoot on various, same sized baryta-style papers. All papers I used were textured medium-gloss. Among them Moab Juniper Baryta, Epson Exhibition Fiber, Canson Platine Fiber, Canson Baryta II, Moab Colorado Glossy and Colorado Satine.
These papers are in the similar price range, have similar (air-dried type) textures and image quality is close. But handling final prints, I was shocked at how differently they feel in hand. Some papers, Like Moab Baryta, feel very substantial and solid. Others, like Canson Baryta II, feel so flimsy in comparison that prints don’t quite feel as professional or substantial. To the point where I feel I need to reprint images that were done on lighter papers, so that final user does not think less of the images printed on thinner lighter papers.

Am I the only one whose perception of the final image is greatly affected by the paper weight and thickness? I feel like thicker paper gives so much more perceived value to the final work. Is there someone who actually prefers thinner paper, given that image quality is the same? Do you or your clients appreciate thicker papers?

Before I answer, I thould state that I am no fulltime photographer. It is a hobby nowadays that pays some bills and makes holidays possible. I think it is 15 - 30% of my annual income (along with the phototrips I organize)

But last decade I lost track which production values customers wanted, A few examples:

- paying me to take High Res / Razorsharp photos of children (FF or MF), to have them printed on sloppy canvas and slap that on the wall,

- wanting A3+ sized, professionally printed pictures to frame in the cheapest frame they can find - with reflecting plexiglas (and slap that on the wall).

- looking at a preview on my monitor, taking a picture with their phone and thanking me because they now have the pic they want for their instagram.

Et cetera, et cetera.

They will probably choose the heavier, thicker paper over quality of the print... As longs as it fits a frame from fleabay

 

[ChicagoRob]

Am I the only one whose perception of the final image is greatly affected by the paper weight and thickness? I feel like thicker paper gives so much more perceived value to the final work. Is there someone who actually prefers thinner paper, given that image quality is the same? Do you or your clients appreciate thicker papers?

I have similar feelings regarding paper thickness. Most of the papers I work with run between 300-320 gsm, and I do like the way they feel in the hand. However, I wouldn’t mind if Canson, Hahnemuhle, etc., made them in lighter weights, since most of my serious photos end up matted and framed(where perceived quality, as determined by weight and thickness, doesn’t really matter). Canson Rag Photographique, which is one of my favorite matte papers, comes in two weights. They are very close in terms of IQ, so I always go with the lighter version, since it’s cheaper.

 

[Gesture]

Good points. And funny post.

I think 230 gsm is the threshold of "feels substantial." I usually pick the lighter weight when there is an option just so it moves through the printer easier.

Often, more of an issue for me is that some "papers" feel more like card stock versus "paper."

 

[NAwlins Contrarian]

Am I the only one whose perception of the final image is greatly affected by the paper weight and thickness? I feel like thicker paper gives so much more perceived value to the final work. Is there someone who actually prefers thinner paper, given that image quality is the same? Do you or your clients appreciate thicker papers?

Taste is such a personal thing, but basically I agree with you: thicker papers feel more luxurious, higher quality, etc. But I would add: in my own personal opinion, stiffer papers also seem to the touch more luxurious. All else being equal, thicker papers are stiffer. But the base makes a huge difference in stiffness: RC papers have low stiffness, and alpha cellulose papers have higher stiffness than cotton papers. My head tells me that cotton is better / higher-quality. But just in terms of immediate tactile reaction, to me alpha cellulose seems higher-quality. I suspect that others who do not know a lot about photo papers would have this same instinctive reaction.

Two qualifiers:

(1) I don't have paying clients, only friends, relatives, and business associates to whom I sometimes give prints; and

(2) like Chicago Rob, I use the thinner version of the excellent Canson Rag Photographique because it feeds better and is less expensive.

 

[RGBCMYK]

Love heavy papers but there is a limit. I have some EPSON Somerset Velvet that is produced in the 36x44 inch sheets and it is an amazing 505 gms and I understand for sheets to be that size they need the extra dimensional stability and it is really beautiful but I wish they would make smaller sheets in the 400gms size, I think it would blow your mind

 

[Keith Cooper]

This 'feel' of papers is well known to people selling papers.

I know someone who regularly used to sell at camera clubs/shows and always featured papers with a good 'feel' when handing out samples.

They noted that they sold papers to the people putting paper into the printer, not the people buying prints.

For people selling the end results (prints), they noted that much more attention was paid to the economics and how the paper performed, but even knowledgeable photographers could be swayed by the feel of a new paper ;-)

They also got box inserts so that A3+ for example fitted into an A2 box to give an extra 'presentation' feel.

Then there is the choice of photos used in marketing displays - similar to the camera companies 'use this camera/lens' and your photos will look more like this famous photographer illusion.

 

[JS6699]

I'm working on some smaller print folios to sell and I think paper feel is important for this but for prints for the wall, paper thickness is never something a client comments on. They don't handle that size print, I do.

The papers I prefer the final print on tend to be thicker. I wish they were a little thinner to help with printing from a roll.

So I don't worry about feel for photos destined to be framed. It is an important consideration for prints intended to be handled.

J

 

[DVSh]

I prefer heavy papers for larger prints. Thin papers prone to crease and it is more difficult to prevent it as print size increases. Cotton papers are less stiff than alpha cellulose and feel more luxury when handling.

 

[Gesture]

Good point.

 

[jrkliny]

Thicker papers feel more substantial. They cost more. The print quality is no better.

Cotton papers feel better. They cost more. The print quality is no better.

Personally I decided long ago that I was interested in how my prints look when being displayed. "Feel" has no importance too me. Thickness is a minor concern because thin papers are difficult to handle and can crease.

I prefer semi-gloss/luster papers because of the detail and saturation they can capture. Of course the downside is the sheen especially if the lighting is not ideal. I spent a lot of time comparing various papers. It was hard to detect any differences. Then I realized that most of the differences that were detectable vanished if I used my own ICC profiles instead of those provided by the manufacturer. In addition any slight differences are undetectable for framed prints behind glazing.

I have sold some prints. All were framed and the clients never handled the paper. At point time I thought it was important to have a printed portfolio in a nice box. That is an obsolete idea. Gallerists and curators don't want to be bothered. If you can capture their attention, they will look at an online presentation and only look at prints when they are making a final decision.

Fortunately my analysis has saved me tons of money. I have stacks of prints in archival storage boxes. Most were printed on inexpensive Red River UltraPro Satin. For the few sales I make, I am likely to print on Red River Palo Duro Satin which has no OBAs and is still fairly cheap. A few years ago I bought some Palo Duro SG cotton rag paper for the highest "quality". The box has not been opened.

 

[ChicagoRob]

It's not just about "substance" or "feel." A major concern for many serious printers is a paper's archival qualities. The bottom line, in most cases, is that if you want acid-free, lignin-free, OBA-free papers, you're pretty much locked into heavy papers(alpha cellulose, or rag) Also, there are many who prefer a low-gloss surface similar to non-ferrotyped, silver gelatin papers of the past. The closest RC facsimile is satin or luster, of which neither is the same.

 

[jrkliny]

It's not just about "substance" or "feel." A major concern for many serious printers is a paper's archival qualities. The bottom line, in most cases, is that if you want acid-free, lignin-free, OBA-free papers, you're pretty much locked into heavy papers(alpha cellulose, or rag) Also, there are many who prefer a low-gloss surface similar to non-ferrotyped, silver gelatin papers of the past. The closest RC facsimile is satin or luster, of which neither is the same.

I am happy with a print longevity of 47 years on display without any glazing or other sort of UV protection. And that is for the cheapest of the Red River papers.

https://www.redrivercatalog.com/infocenter/printlifeepsonultrachromek3.html

I guess that means I am not a "serious" printer because I do not need rag paper or even OBA free for all of my prints.

 

[Mark McCormick]

I am happy with a print longevity of 47 years on display without any glazing or other sort of UV protection. And that is for the cheapest of the Red River papers.

https://www.redrivercatalog.com/infocenter/printlifeepsonultrachromek3.html

I guess that means I am not a "serious" printer because I do not need rag paper or even OBA free for all of my prints.

And I guess the referenced 47 year print life rating means at 46 years the prints will look like new, but at year 48 they will be ready for the trash heap :-D

--
Mark McCormick

 

[jrkliny]

Criteria for testing by the Image Permanence Institute at the Rochester Institute of Technology are listed here:

https://www.redrivercatalog.com/infocenter/archivalcopyexp.htm

The source for the criteria are described as consistent with recommendations from:

ANSI/NAPM IT9.9-1996

 

[Mark McCormick]

Criteria for testing by the Image Permanence Institute at the Rochester Institute of Technology are listed here:

https://www.redrivercatalog.com/infocenter/archivalcopyexp.htm

The source for the criteria are described as consistent with recommendations from:

ANSI/NAPM IT9.9-1996

Those endpoint specs and the densitometric testing methodology as practiced by both IPI and WIR worked OK, not great, when estimating "easily noticeable fade" for color chromogenic materials back in the 1970s-1990s, but today's multi-colorant inkjet systems typically don't fade like color chromogenic systems. Hence, the IPI and WIR tests and ISO recommendations are long overdue for an overhaul for use with modern digital inkjet processes.

That said, the manufacturers are happy to stick with this legacy testing methodology and endpoint specifications because it never underestimates when easily noticeable fading will occur. Very often it significantly overestimates the point where the image shows "easily noticeable fade" which in turn creates better test scores than many of the today's inkjet systems deserve. This is an advantage to the manufacturers as long as the public doesn't call them out on it, hence no pressure on their part to do anything different. Feel free to shoot the messenger

 

[DotCom Editor]

If the print is behind a mat and behind a sheet of glass; to paraphrase Chicago: Does anybody really know what paper it is?

 

[Dweeble]

Following with interest....as a rule I agree, heavier has more presence....but I'm starting to use some of the very thin washi paper from Awagami, and that OOZES presence! Obv it has a certain look which won't suit every style and image but when it does.....wow.

 

[Alexey]

What kinds of images work best on Awagami paper?

 

[Dweeble]

I'm still learning my way round. The tick and thin stuff are obv very different, but both have a real warmth.

From where I am now, they're perhaps not for images which need to be seen crisp and sharp but do give depth and interest for B+W and a lovely glow for colour.

Gte a sample pack and have a play, you'll have fun!