A little over a year ago, an article on Luminous Landscape compared some of the then new Baryta based fine art papers. Though somewhat interested, I decided to wait a while and see where things “settled”.  The title is appropriate for me as well ... I’m really not trying to plagiarize or anything, but the fact is I’ve spent a couple of months now with several papers trying to determine which ones to use.

One qualification for me, and why I’ve used “sort of” in my title,  is not all of the papers in my testing use Baryta.  In fact, the “gold standard” which I prefer is one that doesn’t contain Baryta ... Epson Exhibition Fiber.  But the goal of all of these papers is a surface which accepts Photo Black ink, and can deliver deep blacks, great color saturation, and detail which rivals output that before was limited to the Resin Coated papers, such as Premium Glossy and Luster.

Sometimes I get a little over the top in technical stuff ... pixel peeping and all of that.  My background is a mixed bag of photographer, high end custom printing, high volume production photo printing, and high volume studio systems.  But I’m not an engineer - heck, I dropped out of college to start my business.  This means that despite getting over analytical sometimes, I’m also very dependent on logic and personal preferences. When selecting a paper of choice among the myriads of possibilities, for me it is more about “I like this better than that”.  While some may easily be able to say this paper is better because of x, y, and z, all of these papers are nice and images printed on them look terrific. 

The four papers I have been testing are Epson Exhibition Fiber (EEF), Ilford Galarie Gold Fiber Silk, Harmon Gloss FB IL, and Hahnemuhle Fine Art Baryta (or FAB).  The latter three all use Baryta as a means to maximize white and create an optimum surface for the inks.  Side by side they are all different in surface characteristics. 

I’ve written a couple of previous articles about two the papers, Epson Exhibition Fiber and Ilford Galarie Gold Fiber Silk (wow ... is that name too long or what).  My opinion of the Epson has just gotten stronger ... I just love the way my images look on this paper.  I also like how closely images printed on EEF match those printed on Epson Premium Luster. This allows be to test output on a less expensive paper, knowing it will translate well to the final paper.

With such a bias toward one media, it becomes difficult to be “objective” and fair to the others, since what I don’t like about the others is often because they lack a quality I find in the EEF.  I love Epson Exhibition Fiber, although I know there are some that criticize it for using OBA’s or that it’s “too” white. I believe the paper is more than adequate from an archival perspective, and I don’t have any problem with OBA’s ... I would  rather get 10 or 20 great years of viewing an image at the expense of some slight downside in OBA’s fading rather than having to settle for less of an experience now just so the print looks closer to the same 50 years from now. I’m a realist here ... I don’t know that many of my images will be around 50 years from now, so why not look at and enjoy a better print for the next decade or two, instead of worrying about something that has little chance of ever being an issue.  This may not apply to everyone out there .. perhaps you are doing very high end portraits of very important people.  Still, I’m guessing the image will still look really good on EEF once the OBA’s fade, just won’t look quite as good as when it was first printed.  Who knows ... 50 years from now we might not even be using paper.

My goal for this battle was to find a roll paper that delivered as closely as possible the same experience as EEF.  While none of them are the equal of EEF to me, I have settled on one that is close and will work for images larger than 24x30.

You may want to read the reference article to start with.  It’s a little more technical than I want to get into (and even talks a little about baryta and its history in photographic imaging). I find all 4 papers deliver good blacks, good shadow detail and rich colors.  All are good papers and while I may like one better than another, don’t take that to mean one is bad ... it just doesn’t have a characteristic that the others do.

All four papers use PK inks.  I created my own profiles, and actually used the target prints to compare some of the qualities.  Gloss differential is pretty much non-existent on the EEF.  Both the Harmon and the Hahnemuhle showed slightly more than the EEF, and the Ilford shows a little more than those.  I stress the word little .. I didn’t find enough Gloss Differential on any of them to be objectionable.  I also could see no signs of bronzing on any of the prints, and ProfileMaker targets usually show this problem pretty easily.

The Harmon in hand isn’t much different than RC papers .. not real thick or heavy.  The Ilford is a little thicker and feels more like a true paper, with EEF being next, and the Hahnemuhle feeling the “thickest” and heaviest of the 4.  Personally I didn’t like how the Harmon felt ... I guess for a fine art paper I have an expectation of something a little heavier.  The Ilford was a little better, and the EEF and Hahnemuhle both seemed like what one would expect a fine art paper to feel like in hand.

The surface of the Harmon is very glossy and very smooth.  For purist’s, or images with a lot of find detail, it may be a great choice.  With such a smooth gloss finish I believe it is the sharpest of the 5 papers, but I don’t believe it is different enough to justify using it.  Bottom line for me, the paper is just not interesting ... it has no character ... it’s just a “photo” paper.

Ilford is a little less glossy than the other 3 ... bordering on a slight matt like sheen. It is also very smooth, and to me the surface also lacks some “character” that would set it apart as a fine art paper.

The Epson finish is spectacular.  A very subtle egg shell texture, with a soft and very even “sheen” to the finish.  This allows detail to be sharp, yet gives the paper some nice character (and yes, you can see surface differences of the paper even when under glass).  Fantastic.

That leaves Hahnemuhle.  It is closer to the Epson than it is the other two.  It has a subtle “stipple” texture ... probably more pronounced than the Epson, but still subtle and pleasing.  It has a similar “sheen” to the Epson and side by side these two are very similar.

The Hahnemuhle and the Harmon seem the most neutral.  The Ilford is a slightly warmer, and the Epson slightly cooler.  On color images, I’m not sure this is a factor at all.  I do very little black and white, so those that do may find this of more importance than I do.

All of these papers seem to have somewhat fragile surfaces.  It’s not as much about the color flaking off as it is about little dents and dings from pressure.  Some printers may have problems leaving such marks, but I saw none from my 11880 or 7900.  Another problem with handling is the ends of the sheets for Hahnemuhle FAB and Harmon Gloss FB are a little “curled” when they come out of the box, ... enough curl they will catch on the exit guides of the printers.  Epson Exhibition Fiber seems to be flat out of the box and stays flat ... no end curl at all.  Some tell me my dry climate (winter+Utah=very dry) increases this curl.  I’ll probably need to de-curl the edges before printing if I continue to use sheets.  I used both the Hahnemuhle and Ilford on rolls without any problems.

So for me, Epson Exhibition Fiber is my paper of choice. Yes, it’s the most expensive, although I stocked up and saved about 30% when Epson ran their buy 2 get 1 free special.  For images larger than 24x30 ,you’ve probably guessed it - I’ve decided on Hahnemuhle FAB ... unless Epson starts producing Exhibition Fiber in rolls.