Baryta budget alternative

Started 8 months ago | Discussions
ChicagoRob
ChicagoRob Senior Member • Posts: 1,088
Re: A suggestion
2

al404 wrote:

My TOP favorite ( not cheap ) are

- Hahnemühle Photo Rag Pearl 320

- MOAB Juniper Baryta Rag 305

This is Fotospeed EU seller but is closed until October 15 and it doesn't have in stock

https://www.fine-art-papiere.de/fotospeed-267/

Hahnemuhle Photo Rag Pearl is the finest “art” paper I’ve ever used, and I’ve used plenty. It does a fine job on my Pro-100, but comes alive on my Pro-10 with full overcoat. Color, detail and micro-contrast are amazing.

al404
OP al404 Regular Member • Posts: 494
Re: A suggestion

ILFORD paper arrived sooner than expected

I'm not really interested at Baryta and Cotton Rag because in that price range I have many option that I preferred but I want to mention that Gold fiber gloss is not gloss at all and doesn't really have that Baryta uneven surface

The Rag is interesting but I use occasionally

Not the 2 more interesting: Smooth Pearl and Smooth Gloss

The are 310 so pretty thick, less bright white that Canson Photosatin Premium that is the first I got to do some testing.

Paper doesn't look yellow if you look it alone but is warmer near Canson that looks more bright white

the only thing I'm concerned and I don't really know how it can effect the paper and ink over time is

OBA Content: Yes

Acid Free: NO

somebody more experienced can tell me if is something to be concerned about?

tecnica sheet

https://ilford.com/wp-dev/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/GPSPP_v3_19032019.pdf

mike earussi Veteran Member • Posts: 9,298
Re: A suggestion
1

al404 wrote:

ILFORD paper arrived sooner than expected

I'm not really interested at Baryta and Cotton Rag because in that price range I have many option that I preferred but I want to mention that Gold fiber gloss is not gloss at all and doesn't really have that Baryta uneven surface

The Rag is interesting but I use occasionally

Not the 2 more interesting: Smooth Pearl and Smooth Gloss

The are 310 so pretty thick, less bright white that Canson Photosatin Premium that is the first I got to do some testing.

Paper doesn't look yellow if you look it alone but is warmer near Canson that looks more bright white

the only thing I'm concerned and I don't really know how it can effect the paper and ink over time is

OBA Content: Yes

Acid Free: NO

somebody more experienced can tell me if is something to be concerned about?

tecnica sheet

https://ilford.com/wp-dev/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/GPSPP_v3_19032019.pdf

OBAs fade and turn yellow over time if exposed to UV light. This is not a problem if your photo is not exposed to either sunlight (directly or indirectly) or to fluorescent light or is framed behind UV blocking glass. The common LED light used today has little if any UV light.

Not being "Acid Free" just means it's not buffered with calcium carbonate. This is primarily a problem if the paper is exposed to high humidity which can activate the acid in the paper which will start to destroy it over time. 100% cotton paper is naturally acid free in that it contains no lignin, a component of wood that turns acid as it decomposes.

This is not a paper that can be sold/advertised as archival. It is a standard RC Luster paper just like all the other luster papers on the market. I've been told by people in the industry that all luster paper sold throughout the world is made in one or two paper coating factories in Europe and then just relabeled with whatever brand is selling it.

 mike earussi's gear list:mike earussi's gear list
Sigma SD1 Merrill Sigma 70mm F2.8 DG Macro Art Sigma 105mm F2.8 EX DG Macro Sigma 17-50mm F2.8 EX DC OS HSM Sigma APO Macro 180mm F2.8 EX DG OS HSM +1 more
Mark McCormick Senior Member • Posts: 1,563
Re: A suggestion
2

mike earussi wrote:

OBAs fade and turn yellow over time if exposed to UV light. This is not a problem if your photo is not exposed to either sunlight (directly or indirectly) or to fluorescent light or is framed behind UV blocking glass. The common LED light used today has little if any UV light.

Although eliminating UV radiation on display reduces fading typically by 2-4x the blue wavelength region is still potent enough to cause fading over time. It's still an exposure dose issue with respect to light induced fading and discoloration of prints on display.

All (yes, all) resin coated (RC) media on the market today contain both Ti02 and OBAs in various coating layers. The proximity and concentration of these components results in light induced low intensity staining/yellowing (LILIS) which is worse than just OBA fading by itself. Both the media manufacturers and their consumers seem to be little aware of this issue because it requires an extended light fade testing protocol to identify how much the product will be affected by LILIS. A typical light fade test where measurements are made immediately after exposure misses the problem.

I have identified only three RC media to date that exhibit significantly less (but are not free of) LILIS. One is Epson Proofing Paper White Semimatte. The others are HP Universal Instant-dry Satin Photo Paper and HP Universal Instant-dry Gloss Photo Paper. These media confine the OBAs to the paper-core and keep it out of the resin coated/TiO2 pigmented coatings which make RC photo paper RC photo paper. But there's still some interaction between the TiO2 and OBAs at that coating/base interface, so some residual LILIS still happens, but its far less noticeable compared to RC media where the OBAs are also incorporated directly into the RC/TiO2 layer as well.

Epson Proofing Paper White Semimatte has an interesting semi matte surface which can appeal to many photographers, IMHO, but this media is a little on the thin side (about 9 mil) and only available in roll format or Super B (13x19") sheet size, thus making it less widely available for the inkjet photo market.

"HP universal Instant-dry" photo paper is only available in rolls AFAIK, and is also in the 9 mil thickness range so if feels a little more like an economy photo paper, but at least the two surfaces are more typical satin and glossy finishes that photographers seem to prefer. Also note that HP's nomenclature is very confusing. For example, HP also offers "HP universal" papers and "HP Premium Instant-dry" papers but they are not the same formulation as the two "HP universal instant dry" photo papers which I'm referring to above. The "premium" stuff is only premium because it is thicker, but it's also loaded with OBAs in the RC/TiO2. The "universal" stuff is thinner and bluer-white also due to loading of OBAs in the RC/TiO2 layer.

It would be very easy for the manufacturers to offer photographers an OBA-free version of RC media, and that would improve light fade resistance of RC photo papers dramatically, but as long as consumers aren't demanding it (probably because they are unaware of the issue), the manufacturers will continue to have no incentive to improve the product. Ironically, we do now see the LILIS problem manifesting in real world display conditions, but it's showing up mostly in traditional wet processed RC media because those prints are now older, yet the yellowing is being attributed to bad processing when some of it is simply the light induced yellowing issue in the RC layers. It takes approximately 10-20 megalux hour light exposure dose on display (a couple of decades on continuous display for many typical home display situations) for the yellowing to manifest and since the majority of RC prints end up in shoe boxes or photo albums, it's tricky to assess the "archival worthiness" of RC photo papers. They can indeed last a long time in good to excellent condition if care is taken to protect them from long term continuous display environments.

-- hide signature --
Gesture Veteran Member • Posts: 9,702
Re: A suggestion
1

Thanks, Mark.

OP: Can't usually get "something for nothing," but there are plenty of fine RC papers if we accept them for what they are.  Epson and, then, Canon seem to have the US market saturated, but I've used the HP RC papers, also, and they are fine.  The names are kind of meaningless.  HP Soft Gloss could be called Luster if it were Canon or Epson.  I don't use an analyzer, but all the brands and the surfaces (Glossy, Semi-Glossy) work the same to me.

Drew Hendrix of Red River appeared on Jose Rodriguez Sunday show recently.  He noted, as in this thread, that there is a small group that actually produce our inkjet papers.  In some cases, the paper substrate of a fine art paper may be processed in one location, then inkjet coated elsewhere by specialists in another plant.  Mark, correct me if I am wrong.

Also, as Mark intimates, we would be great if the major photofinishing that use inkjet printing would use these better papers (the HP rolls he mentioned), but who knows?

Red River achieves economy by the volume of its orders and by buying in huge rolls and doing all the cutting and boxing in the US.

It is interesting to me that Epson paper will say made in Japan.

HP Premium Plus Soft-Gloss in made in Germany.

Outside Red River, the best values I have found are:

*Canon Premium Pro Matte-really nice hand feel and a slight, enhancing texture for a consumer paper, despite the name

*Staples et al double-sided matte paper

*Canon doubled-sided 100 cotton paper (2 weights, Bright and Natural White)

al404
OP al404 Regular Member • Posts: 494
Re: A suggestion

I test print on Ilford Galerie Prestige Smooth Pearl and it is a great paper with excellent Dynamic Range and fine details and also 310 g/m2, very close to Hahnemuhle Photo Rag Pearl that for me is the GOLD stand with Moab Juniper Baryta Rag 305 ( I really like the texture )

I just bought 100 sheets A4 for 77€ I think is a great value for money, HP and Canon are more expensive

al404
OP al404 Regular Member • Posts: 494
Re: A suggestion

This is the only video I found about it

NAwlins Contrarian Veteran Member • Posts: 6,978
OBAs and UV filtration
1

the only thing I'm concerned and I don't really know how it can effect the paper and ink over time is

OBA Content: Yes

...

somebody more experienced can tell me if is something to be concerned about?

OBAs fade and turn yellow over time if exposed to UV light. This is not a problem if your photo is not exposed to either sunlight (directly or indirectly) or to fluorescent light or is framed behind UV blocking glass. The common LED light used today has little if any UV light.

I think we need to point out here that if you print on a paper containing a substantial amount of OBAs and then display the print behind glass that substantially filters out UV light, then the paper will not look the same once displayed as it looked out of the printer. AFAIK there is no way to have it both ways: the paper is designed to look a certain way by being exposed to UV light and then using that to affect the visible appearance. If you prevent it from getting that exposure, then it won't look like it was designed to look.

 NAwlins Contrarian's gear list:NAwlins Contrarian's gear list
Nikon Coolpix S30 Canon PowerShot S120 Sony Alpha DSLR-A580 Sony DT 16-50mm F2.8 SSM Tamron SP 70-300mm F/4-5.6 Di USD +5 more
Mark McCormick Senior Member • Posts: 1,563
Re: OBAs and UV filtration
1

NAwlins Contrarian wrote:

...I think we need to point out here that if you print on a paper containing a substantial amount of OBAs and then display the print behind glass that substantially filters out UV light, then the paper will not look the same once displayed as it looked out of the printer. AFAIK there is no way to have it both ways: the paper is designed to look a certain way by being exposed to UV light and then using that to affect the visible appearance. If you prevent it from getting that exposure, then it won't look like it was designed to look.

+1.

So, two facts to keep in mind. First, In the absence of UV radiation falling on the print surface, blue wavelength photons still have enough energy to cause print fading, albeit not as potent as the UV energy in natural daylight by a factor of 2-4x.

Second, OBAs work by absorbing UV radiation (the peak absorption value for OBAs is about 370 nm). This energy excites the colorless OBA dyes such that they fluoresce strongly by then further emitting blue wavelength light. This fluorescence is what the viewer observes to make the paper appear brighter and more blue-white in appearance. Take away the UV radiation (by framing under UV blocking glazings or by adding UV absorbing overcoats or by using LED or other lighting that doesn't emit UV radiation) and you shut down the "bright white" fluorescence effect in papers containing OBAs.

You'd be surprised how many professional framers don't know about OBAs and thus try to sell you more expensive UV blocking glazings (museum glass, OP3 plexiglass, and the like) without any awareness as to whether the print has OBA content or not. The visual appearance of a print with any appreciable amount of OBAs will be immediately impacted and appear to look more yellowish and duller in overall appearance. Some folks may not notice. Discerning viewers will indeed notice the result of this immediate loss in fluorescence.

-- hide signature --
mike earussi Veteran Member • Posts: 9,298
Re: OBAs and UV filtration

Mark McCormick wrote:

NAwlins Contrarian wrote:

...I think we need to point out here that if you print on a paper containing a substantial amount of OBAs and then display the print behind glass that substantially filters out UV light, then the paper will not look the same once displayed as it looked out of the printer. AFAIK there is no way to have it both ways: the paper is designed to look a certain way by being exposed to UV light and then using that to affect the visible appearance. If you prevent it from getting that exposure, then it won't look like it was designed to look.

+1.

So, two facts to keep in mind. First, In the absence of UV radiation falling on the print surface, blue wavelength photons still have enough energy to cause print fading, albeit not as potent as the UV energy in natural daylight by a factor of 2-4x.

Second, OBAs work by absorbing UV radiation (the peak absorption value for OBAs is about 370 nm). This energy excites the colorless OBA dyes such that they fluoresce strongly by then further emitting blue wavelength light. This fluorescence is what the viewer observes to make the paper appear brighter and more blue-white in appearance. Take away the UV radiation (by framing under UV blocking glazings or by adding UV absorbing overcoats or by using LED or other lighting that doesn't emit UV radiation) and you shut down the "bright white" fluorescence effect in papers containing OBAs.

You'd be surprised how many professional framers don't know about OBAs and thus try to sell you more expensive UV blocking glazings (museum glass, OP3 plexiglass, and the like) without any awareness as to whether the print has OBA content or not. The visual appearance of a print with any appreciable amount of OBAs will be immediately impacted and appear to look more yellowish and duller in overall appearance. Some folks may not notice. Discerning viewers will indeed notice the result of this immediate loss in fluorescence.

Mark, maybe you've hit upon the strategy of how OBAs actually work. Their real purpose is to help sell the print while it's displayed in a plastic bag that doesn't block UV light. Then once it's framed the customer has forgotten how the print looked before framing and is happy with the framed result.

Very clever really.

 mike earussi's gear list:mike earussi's gear list
Sigma SD1 Merrill Sigma 70mm F2.8 DG Macro Art Sigma 105mm F2.8 EX DG Macro Sigma 17-50mm F2.8 EX DC OS HSM Sigma APO Macro 180mm F2.8 EX DG OS HSM +1 more
NAwlins Contrarian Veteran Member • Posts: 6,978
Re: OBAs and UV filtration

I think we need to point out here that if you print on a paper containing a substantial amount of OBAs and then display the print behind glass that substantially filters out UV light, then the paper will not look the same once displayed as it looked out of the printer. AFAIK there is no way to have it both ways: the paper is designed to look a certain way by being exposed to UV light and then using that to affect the visible appearance. If you prevent it from getting that exposure, then it won't look like it was designed to look.

+1.

...

OBAs work by absorbing UV radiation (the peak absorption value for OBAs is about 370 nm). This energy excites the colorless OBA dyes such that they fluoresce strongly by then further emitting blue wavelength light. This fluorescence is what the viewer observes to make the paper appear brighter and more blue-white in appearance. Take away the UV radiation (by framing under UV blocking glazings or by adding UV absorbing overcoats or by using LED or other lighting that doesn't emit UV radiation) and you shut down the "bright white" fluorescence effect in papers containing OBAs.

That raises an interesting point of speculation: is the increasing use of LED lighting going to increasingly render ineffective the addition of OBAs to photo papers? If so, will OBAs be removed? Replaced by something else?

You'd be surprised how many professional framers don't know about OBAs and thus try to sell you more expensive UV blocking glazings (museum glass, OP3 plexiglass, and the like) without any awareness as to whether the print has OBA content or not. The visual appearance of a print with any appreciable amount of OBAs will be immediately impacted and appear to look more yellowish and duller in overall appearance.

Nah, I'm enough of a cynic that I wouldn't be surprised. The difference between people charging money and real professionals (who both know what they're doing and act accordingly) can be pretty stark. I'm reminded of Ferris Bueller's Day Off and the guy parking the Ferrari: "I'm a professional!"

Some folks may not notice. Discerning viewers will indeed notice the result of this immediate loss in fluorescence.

What people do and don't notice never ceases to amaze me. And art snobs can be pretty bad, maybe about like wine snobs. "Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss things; small minds discuss wine." - Attributed to Fran Lebowitz.

 NAwlins Contrarian's gear list:NAwlins Contrarian's gear list
Nikon Coolpix S30 Canon PowerShot S120 Sony Alpha DSLR-A580 Sony DT 16-50mm F2.8 SSM Tamron SP 70-300mm F/4-5.6 Di USD +5 more
UtenteMac Regular Member • Posts: 138
Re: A suggestion
1

Yep, on Amazon they often have 100 A4 sheets for around 75-80€, which is why Smooth Pearl has become my standard for good to best quality prints on that size.
Most of them get stored in an album with archival plastic bags. Very few of them get framed in simple IKEA frames with no special glasses. 
Sure I’m concerned about OBA but at the same time I know I’m no artist and frankly when I’ll be gone I think my prints will at best kept in a closed warehouse, or maybe just thrown away ^_^

al404
OP al404 Regular Member • Posts: 494
Re: A suggestion

Actually Fotospeed PF Luster is cheap but I did not see it and can't tell how it does compare

https://fotospeed.com/pf-lustre-275.html

Does anyone know what is the cheaper ( good quality like Canso, Hahnemühle ) cotton base paper with semi gloss / gloss finish?

UtenteMac Regular Member • Posts: 138
Re: A suggestion

al404 wrote:

Actually Fotospeed PF Luster is cheap but I did not see it and can't tell how it does compare

https://fotospeed.com/pf-lustre-275.html

Does anyone know what is the cheaper ( good quality like Canso, Hahnemühle ) cotton base paper with semi gloss / gloss finish?

Can't really tell the difference since I've never bought Fotospeed papers.

However I created a custom profile for the Ilford Smooth Pearl (via a UK based fellow forum member) and it's much larger than the PF Luster profile provided by Fotospeed on their website for my R3000 with OEM inks.

jrkliny
jrkliny Veteran Member • Posts: 4,592
Re: OBAs and UV filtration
1

NAwlins Contrarian wrote:

What people do and don't notice never ceases to amaze me. And art snobs can be pretty bad, maybe about like wine snobs. "Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss things; small minds discuss wine." - Attributed to Fran Lebowitz.

And perhaps small minded photographers just discuss OBAs.

I have prints from decades ago that were made with high OBA papers. Some have been displayed under harsh conditions for long periods of time. I can see no signs of deterioration. I even tried doing a reprint to see if that would show a noticeable difference. I just wasted my time. I have tried putting a print next to a 100 watt light bulb that was on for about 12 hours a day. I also put that same print in a west facing window for a few months. It looked the same as the control stored in the dark.

Let us face it. Few of us will have prints still being shown in galleries and museums 50 or 100 years from now. If so the curators will need to deal with the issue. Fading of pigments is still a bigger issue than OBAs. In the meantime for most pigment prints even on OBA papers, results are going to look good 50 years from now for works continuously displayed without glazing under high illumination:

Epson UltraChrome K3 fade tests with Red River Paper (redrivercatalog.com)

-- hide signature --
 jrkliny's gear list:jrkliny's gear list
Canon EOS 90D Canon EF-S 10-22mm F3.5-4.5 USM Canon EF 35mm F2.0 Canon EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM Canon EF-S 60mm f/2.8 Macro USM +6 more
pjog Regular Member • Posts: 188
Re: Baryta budget alternative

If a baryta paper is what you want, can you get Sihl Baryta Satin? It is very good value when available in the UK, and has no OBAs.

al404
OP al404 Regular Member • Posts: 494
Re: Baryta budget alternative

On their website it says "Manufactured exclusively from cellulose fibres" as far as I know only cotton based parer are OBA free

Mark McCormick Senior Member • Posts: 1,563
Re: Baryta budget alternative
2

al404 wrote:

On their website it says "Manufactured exclusively from cellulose fibres" as far as I know only cotton based parer are OBA free

Optical brighteners can be and are added during the paper manufacturing step to either wood pulp papers or cotton papers. Hence, any base sheet can have or not have OBAs. But neither traditional wet process photo nor inkjet paper manufacturing stops at the paper base manufacturing step. Coatings are now added, indeed multiple coating layers in some of today's best inkjet media. OBAs can and indeed typically do get added into some of those coating layers. Both the amount and location of OBAs in the various coating layers along with the amount of UV energy reaching the print surface while on display determine how much fluorescence the final media product will exhibit. The visual effect on display is quite variable.

Simply put, OBAs make whites appear to be "whiter" which is why they are so popular. Virtually every popular laundry detergent on the market today has OBAs to make your clothing look brighter and thus perceived by the consumer to be cleaner. The paper and coating industries apply the same logic which is why so many photo papers contain OBAs.

But make no mistake. OBAS always reduce the "archival" properties of the media because they are fugitive dyes, especially when added to microporous coatings, so printing with a pigmented inkjet printer on an OBA containing paper creates a "hybrid dye-pigment" print   Folks can rationalize print permanence in many different ways. And prints can be cared for in many different ways. The more one understands how the media behaves in real world environments, the more opportunity there is to care for the print wisely and get it to last a long time.

Easiest way to determine OBAs and even to some degree the magnitude of the optical effect which may get compromised when UV blocking glazings are used is to shine a UV LED flashlight on the print surface. Lots of OBAs....Lots of "bright blue glow" from the flashlight. Place a UV blocking glazing over the paper...little or no "blue glow".

Note: LEDs intended for indoor lighting have almost no UV content. UV LEDs are specially formulated to emit UV radiation, the peak is typically 365 or 395nm. The 365nm variety is better for detecting the paper fluorescence, but both wavelength UV LEDs will get the paper to fluoresce noticeably when OBAs are present.

-- hide signature --
Gesture Veteran Member • Posts: 9,702
Re: Baryta budget alternative
1

I believe that of all the 100 percent cotton double sided matte papers: Moab Entrada, Red River Aurora, two of many: including Canon, Freestyle Sales.

If the paper is Natural White: No OBAs.

If the paper is Bright White: OBAs present.

NAwlins Contrarian Veteran Member • Posts: 6,978
Re: OBAs and UV filtration

What people do and don't notice never ceases to amaze me. And art snobs can be pretty bad, maybe about like wine snobs. "Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss things; small minds discuss wine." - Attributed to Fran Lebowitz.

And perhaps small minded photographers just discuss OBAs.

Fair enough. But FWIW, I don't claim to be an artist, a great photographer, or an arbiter of what is or isn't good / important art. My photography is mostly for my own interest and amusement, and hopefully to leave my kids with something they're glad to have. After that, if anyone else appreciates it and/or regards it as worthwhile art, great, but I don't make that claim.

OTOH, many of the technical issues interest me as an amateur engineer and scientist.

I have prints from decades ago that were made with high OBA papers. Some have been displayed under harsh conditions for long periods of time. I can see no signs of deterioration. I even tried doing a reprint to see if that would show a noticeable difference. I just wasted my time. I have tried putting a print next to a 100 watt light bulb that was on for about 12 hours a day. I also put that same print in a west facing window for a few months. It looked the same as the control stored in the dark.

I have experienced some notable deterioration, very visible stuff, with a relatively small number of my photos. The worst was probably a print from one of the major services, displayed in my office, where it got relatively direct early-morning sunlight. Especially because it was a B&W image, it yellowed very noticeably over maybe about eight years, at which point I got a new print. Can I prove that light exposure degrading OBAs caused the yellowing? No. It merely seems to be the most likely cause.

 NAwlins Contrarian's gear list:NAwlins Contrarian's gear list
Nikon Coolpix S30 Canon PowerShot S120 Sony Alpha DSLR-A580 Sony DT 16-50mm F2.8 SSM Tamron SP 70-300mm F/4-5.6 Di USD +5 more
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads