I use this image a lot for printer tests. It has three things that are useful in evaluating prints:
- the sky has some very delicate highlights, especially the top left quartile, where it is easy to lose highlight detail and have a big white blob instead.
- The trees on the left and right of the photo are very dark and it is easy to lose shadow detail and have two black blobs.
- The colours in the sky and the water contain lots of subtle shades of red and a colour cast is very easy to spot.
After re-reading Michael's article, the words "your mileage may vary" resonated with me and I decided to examine my motivations for choosing fine art paper to see if I can sort out why I had such a negative reaction to this paper.
First of all, I have no background in traditional black and white photography. While I've been taking pictures for years, I only really got interested in photography when it intersected with my other passion: computers. I don't get all misty-eyed when people talk about the look and feel of old black and white photos. In fact, I find the whole aura around silver gelatin on fibre (basically silver Jello on cardboard) rather baffling. Cotton rag papers seem much better to me - they handle better and have a nice texture. If you're interested in delving further into the history of photo papers, here's the Wikipedia article.
Second, my personal style seems to be evolving towards a gentle, pastel-rich type of image. Here's an example of a photo that typifies the look that I like right now:
This is a print that borders on magic realism. It reminds me of some of Ken Danby's work and I like the subtlety of the colours in the water and sky as well as the way the paddle boat seems to transcend reality. In short, I was delighted when this came off the printer.
Given my current personal style, here are the criteria that I've decided to look for in fine art paper. Remember, your mileage may vary!
- Lifespan: I've had bad experiences with fading dye inks on RC papers and don't want to go there again. I'd like to think that my art is going to outlive me.
- Colour accuracy and ability to differentiate between subtle colour differences. I don't have the equipment or know-how to do my own profiles, so I use manufacturer's profiles and depend on them to be accurate.
- Esthetics: I love paper that feels good to the touch, looks good in a frame and gives people the impression that I cared enough about my work to print it on a fine art paper.
- Price: given two papers of equal attractiveness and functionality, the cheapest will win out.
- High Dmax: the ability to print the blackest blacks is useful to people whose style features high contrast. Right now, that isn't me, so I rank high Dmax last in the list.
- Papers based on cotton rag with no or minimal optical brighteners
- Papers that are either based on wood fibre (with the potential to contain harmful lignin), or contain optical brighteners or both.
Cotton Rag, no optical brighteners
- Moab Somerset Photo (mould-made, no OBA's, claimed dMax 1.75)
- Moab Somerset Enhanced Velvet 225 (cotton, minimal OBA's)
- Hahnemuhle Photo Rag Pearl 320 (cotton, OBA-free)
- Moab Colorado Fiber Satine or Gloss 245 (alpha-cellulose base, OBA's, claimed dMax of 2.4
- Ilford Galerie Gold Fibre Silk 310 (alpha-cellulose base, OBA's, baryta coated)
- Harman Photo Gloss FB AI (alpha-cellulose base, baryta-coated)
- Hahnemuhle FineArt Baryta 325 (alpha-cellulose base, baryta-coated)
- Hahnemuhle FineArt Pearl 285 (base not specified, contains OBA's)
- Hahnemuhle Photo Rag Satin 310 (cotton, OBA's)