HP B 9180 Paper Impressions

I tried a lot of different paper for the HP B9180 printer and I’ve recorded my impressions here. The results should be the same for the HP B8850 which seems to be the same printer with no ethernet or LCD screen.

A Note About Bronzing

Gray-only inks on glossy paper are basically unusable from this printer. The composite gray option (or just printing a grayscale image in color mode) almost eliminates bronzing (except at very extreme angles), but isn’t quite as neutral. Before I got my printer profiled, I found that adding just a touch of sepia color to black and white images when printing in color mode often makes them look better (most people can’t even tell) and eliminates the perception of color cast (because the whole image is warm). The soft gloss/luster papers hide this problem to some extent, but I would say that none of them eliminate the problem enough to be acceptable (to the contrary of some manufacturer’s claims). If you want to print glossy B&W prints, it’s definitely worth getting your printer profiled, which gives me pretty good results.

Spraying prints seems to solve the problem completely, and is probably a good idea anyway for people selling or displaying prints for a long time. I tried Sureguard Clear Gloss which was very unpleasant to work with (it really smells awful and catches dust) but which worked very well. The sprayed photos are very glossy using this coating, and feel thicker and more durable. Spraying luster paper also works well. On the Polar Satin, it makes the bumps a little smoother, and overall makes the paper a little shinier, but keeps the overall impression.

I also tried ClearStar ClearShield which is water based and doesn’t smell as bad, but no amount of special rollers or brushes could get the coating to go on smoothly without bubbles. Unless you have a spraying rig, don’t bother.

Most of the good-quality gloss papers feel and look are very similar. I have found the largest difference is the way that they take ink. There is a surprising variety of problems with this test image of the Taiwanese flag:

The bright red portions of the flag force the printer to lay a thick layer of magenta and yellow ink. The darker areas require an additional layer of black ink which tends to overload most papers. In all cases, changing the printer from “Best” to “Max DPI” improved the results slightly, and reducing ink density by one stop solved the problem completely with some loss of saturation. Different paper settings didn’t seem to improve the results over these adjustments, so I did most of my testing with the HP Advanced Photo Paper selected.

These are listed in descending order; I would recommend any of the first group for the B9180. Looking at the results, I can’t distinguish any quality difference between these papers other than the surface differences. The rest all have visible problems in areas of high ink density.

Recommended

• Pictorico Hi-Gloss (PGHG) White Film: This astonishing media gave the highest quality output of any paper here. It is a white plastic sheet with truely glass-like glossiness. The images come out very, very bright and very, very sharp, and it takes heavy ink perfectly. The film has the least bronzing and gloss differential of any gloss or semi-gloss paper here because the surface is so shiny, it actually matches the glossiness of the ink. The visible gloss differential is the darker areas that appear more matte. If you can control the lighting such that nobody will see a specular reflection off of the photo (such as in a gallery where there is a spotlight above the photo), this is the only non-matte media where grayscale inks might be acceptable without spraying. It looks best at large sizes with high-contrast scenes that showcase the paper’s extremely bright whites and super deep glossy blacks. Unfortunately, this stuff is unbelievably expensive (looks like $1.50–$2.00 for a letter-sized sheet), or I would get a whole bunch of it. [Manufacturer sspec]
• Red River Polar Pearl Metallic: A really cool paper, I have been wondering why nobody can come out with an inkjet equivalent to Metallic lab paper. The effect is inddeed very similar to Kodak Endura Metallic paper. The surface of the Red River is a bit less shiny, and the pigmented ink makes a bit less shiny again. But the “metallic” feel still comes through, and unless you look directly at a specular reflection, you’d say the paper is exceptionally shiney due to the reflective effect of the base layer. This paper takes ink very well, and has exceedingly deep blacks and bright colors. The base is a tad bit creamy, like a pearl, when compared to most other high-gloss papers. [Manufacturer spec]
• Harman Crystaljet Gloss RC: Takes ink very well, feels nice, and is less expensive than most of the other options here. The back is blank and a little less plasticy than most. [Manufacturer spec]
• 
  Red River Arctic Polar Gloss: Takes heavy ink with no pooling or gloss differential. It has a good weight and feel, with a blank back. What more could you want? Compare the close-up scan at right to the Kodak paper below. [Manufacturer spec]
• Lumijet Ultra Glossy II: I suspect this is the same as Red River Artic Polar Gloss. Get whichever you can find cheaper. [Manufacturer spec]
• Moab Lasal Photo Gloss: This paper is very similar to the Red River paper, but just a tad bit warmer. It works very well, but was a few percent more expensive when I checked. [Manufacturer spec]
• HP Advanced Photo Paper: This is very similar to the polar gloss above, but there is an HP logo on the back which I don’t like (maybe I’m shallow). I also thought the bronzing using grayscale inks was a little worse than using the Polar Gloss above, which may mean color images will have more color shifting issues. It seems surprisingly cheap. [Manufacturer spec]
• Pictorico Photo Gallery Glossy Paper: By far the glossiest of any of the gloss papers, this is almost as glossy as the white film above, with very little paper texture left. Unfortunately, this also means it shows fingerprints much better than any of the other papers here. It is annoying curly, even before printing, which makes it more difficult to load in the specialty media tray than most. Prints, however, are excellent. It takes heavy ink well and the results are bright and crisp. It is on the expensive side for these papers, and harder to find, so I’ve put it down a little on this list, but if you want to hand somebody a 4×6 that has the maximum impact (aside from the white film, which might be too weird), this would be the one to get. [Manufacturer spec]
• See Inkpress Fiber Gloss in the Fiber section below for another good glossy one to try.

Acceptable

• Inkpress Photo Chrome RC U-Glossy: I strongly suspect this is the same paper is Epson Glossy Premium Photo paper. It is the same weight, has exactly the same glossy texture (most glossy papers have slightly different textures), the same back texture. It takes ink the same, too, with the same amount of gloss differential in areas of heavy ink. This is a little cheaper and doesn’t say anything on the back, so I’d recommend it. [Manufacturer spec]
• Epson Premium Photo Paper: This paper feels nice and has no ink pooling, but areas of heavy ink show noticeable gloss differential: these areas appear more matte than the rest of the image. This paper is not bad and I have a good-sized box of it, but there are better options. If you want this, get the Inkpress above, which seems to be the same paper rebranded for a little less money. [Manufacturer spec]
• Red River UltraPro Gloss: The surface and paper feels remarkably similar to the Red River Polar paper above, and the comparison page doesn’t help very much either. However, this paper does not take the ink as well as the polar paper, with a slight texture added in the dark areas of the flag, like the Kodak below, but not as severe. I would pass on this paper. [Manufacturer spec]

• Pooling in dark areas	Minus one ink density

  Kodak Professional Glossy: A somewhat disappointing aper rom Kodak because it did not accept large amounts of ink very well. The dark areas in the flag were pretty bad, with a heavy mottled texture. Although reducing ink density solves the problem, it also reduces contrast and saturation. Compare the images at right to the Red River Polar paper at the top. Last, it is more expensive in larger quantities than the Red River or HP papers, so I would definitely not recommend it. [Manufacturer spec]
• Hahnemühle Art Print Photo Glossy Premium: I was excited about this one because of the Hahnemühle name and because it was a glossy paper like I normally use. It takes the ink very well, as well as any of the best papers here (much better than the previous couple), with nice dark blacks and no funny issues in areas of heavy ink. However, this paper is ridiculously light-weight: it seems like they coated some bright white copier paper, and if you gave somebody one of these photos, they would probably laugh at you and wonder where on earth you got this funny paper. I don’t get the point. In addition, it seems to come only in packs of 10 for about $10, making it the least economical non-fancy-rag paper here. [Manufacturer spec]

Not Recommended

• Inkpress White Gloss Film: Small pieces of this stuff do not like to be fed in the specialty media tray. It is curly and thin, and gets caught easily, and even when I fed it in, the printer mangled it pulling it back. It seems to work OK in the regular tray, but print quality is so awful that it doesn’t matter. The ink pools much, much worse than any other paper here. Too bad, because it looks and feels great, and isn’t nearly as expensive as the Pictorico. [Manufacturer spec]

These papers all have no plastic (“resin”) and are mostly semi-gloss.

Recommended

Executive summary: The Harman, Ilford, and Pictorico Gekko are the best papers for the B9180 (possibly excepting Pictorico Film). If you want a more glossy paper with some texture, get the Harman. If you want it a little more gloss, get the Harman. Note that the example scans are only to show texture: I did the adjustments at different times and so contrast is not realistic.

• 
  Ilford Galerie Gold Fibre Silk: This is the newest paper in the category and possibly the best. The surface is on the matte end, possibly a little more like traditiona lustre surfaces compared to the others here. It is a little creamier than the Harman Gloss. I sometimes get head strikes on this as I describe in the Harman section. [Manufacturer spec]
• 
  Harman Gloss FB Al: The paper is the perfect color, a little creamier than pictorico, but whiter than Museo Silver Rag, and is buttery smooth (Silver Rag has a visible splotchy paper pattern when held up to the light). The texture is very similar to Pictorico: more glossy than any of the others luster ones. It takes ink perfectly, and is very bright, super sharp, and has extremely good contrast. Unfortunately, I have noticed recently that I sometimes get head strikes on this paper I don’t have a good solution; I have been leaving a little empty space at the top which I crop off later. Let me know if you have any fixes for this. [Manufacturer spec]
• Pictorico Gekko Green: Surface texture is similar to the Harman but a little less glossy. The base is more like Silver Rag and lacks the buttery smooth texture of the Harman, so I rank it a bit lower. It’s off-white more toward gray as compared to the creamyness of Harman. It has unusually low gloss differential. Currently it seems to only be available in small packages with limited size options, and pricing seems a bit higher than Harman. [Manufacturer spec]
• 
  Pictorico Photo Gloss (“Pearl Finish”): Pictorico’s confusingly named “Photo Gloss” is actually not so glossy (the corner of the box says “Pearl Finish”); their real gloss paper is called “Photo Gallery Gloss.” You could probably use it in many of the same situations as the others here if weight and “Rag” isn’t important because it has almost exactly the same texture as Colorado Fiber Gloss. It would make a great proofing paper for rag-type outputs, yet embarassingly for many of the more expensive papers, this takes the B9180’s ink better. I think this is supposed to be a low-end paper from Pictorico, but they did an excellent job. Compared to an Ilford FB print I have, the Silver Rag and the Pictorico Photo Gloss are on opposite sides, with the Pictorico being shinier and the silver rag having a finer texture. It is just slightly less shiney than the Harman. [Manufacturer spec]
• 
  Inkpress Fiber Gloss: Except for the Oriental, this is the only glossy one in this section that is truely glossy in the traditional sense. It has a similar feel to the Oriental except that it’s a little thinner, whiter (optical brighteners, I assume), with just a little less smooth surface (much like most of the papers in the glossy section). It takes ink well, and gives an excellent sharp saturated image. Easily competitive with the best RC glossy papers while being fiber based, it’s biggest downside is that it looks so much like them, it doesn’t feel special like, for example, Crane Museo Silver Rag does. [Manufacturer spec]
• Moab Colorado Fiber Satine: Like the gloss but with a more matte surface. This is more matte than any of the other papers in this section. This gives less punch, but basically no bronzing with gray inks. It also didn’t pool like the glossy version (this could be the printer using different amounts of ink when I selected “satin-matte” mode. I like the look of the glossy better. [Manufacturer spec]

Acceptable

• 
  Crane Museo Silver Rag: This used to be my favorite paper, but it has been supplanted by imore modern ones that take ink better (this one is a little like the Kodak Professional Glossy in areas of unusually heavy ink). The texture is unique and nice, more of a “sand” texture than most of the others. It is the warmest of the papers in this section, and I think it could be a little whiter. It’s also a little cheaper than the better papers, and doesn’t have any problems absorbing inks for grayscale photos, so it is still an excellent choice for many applications. [Manufacturer spec]
• Moab Colorado Fiber Gloss: A nice surface, very similar to the Pictorio, it is most glossy of the luster surfaces here and gives lots of punch. It has lower frequency bumps, and is thinner than all but the Pictorico. It doesn’t take heavy ink well, worse than the Crane, and it wasn’t completely dry out of the printer. (See above for ink pooling discussion.) This paper requires glossy mode at Max DPI and –1 ink density to avoid ink pooling in heavy areas. When there are no ink problems, this paper is great. [Manufacturer spec]
• Hahnemühle Photo Rag Baryta: Pretty similar to Crane Museo Silver Rag but maybe a bit smoother. Has problems with heavy ink not soaking in. [Manufacturer spec]
• Hahnemühle Photo Rag Satin: This paper has a very interesting coating, shared with the Lumijet Photo White Satin. It is very similar to the Hahnemühle Fine Art Pearl but thinner and a little more matte. The fibers of the paper show through more and kind of catch the light, and since they’re gloss coated, they give it an almost sparkly appearance. Under the right light this paper is amazing, under the wrong light, it can be kind of annoying. I do think it has kind of a three-dimensional, lifelike look to it. Note that gray inks produce unacceptable gloss and something sort of like bronzing, so you’ll want to stick to composite B&W prints. I honestly couldn’t decide where to put this paper in my list; color and blacks are excellent, but the texture is both good and bad. You’ll have to try it yourself. Note: use the photo rag paper setting when printing to get good blacks. [Manufacturer spec]
• Lumijet Photo White Satin: This is the non-rag, optically-brightened version of Hahnemühle Photo Rag Satin above (Lumijet is also made by Hahnemühle). Other than being thinner and whiter, it looks the same. [Manufacturer spec]
• Hahnemühle FineArt Pearl: This paper has a fine gridlike pattern to it, which I don’t particularly like, but the texture is much less distracting than the Innova, and also has somewhat less gloss. (See above for ink pooling discussion.) [Manufacturer spec]

Not Recommended

• Standard soft gloss	Max DPI	Max DPI with -1 ink density

  Innova F-Type Gloss (FibraPrint White Gloss): F-type If this is trying to look like a typical silver gelatin print, it fails because it has a much coarser texture than you will usually see. It has the same ink problems as the FineArt Pearl, but also has a very fragile surface that is damaged by the B9180. And not just pizza wheel marks, either: the regular rollers leave a visibly scuffed line down the sheet. The surface has kind of a sticky rubber feel which seems to interact poorly with the rubber wheels on the printer. [Manufacturer spec]
• Oriental Graphica FB: This paper is supposed to be similar to the well-known black-and-white photographic paper by the same company. The paper is extremely thick, but the surface of this paper is very soft and easily scratched, and I found it scuffed slightly even getting it out of the package. It does not like the ink from the B9180 at all. Even on straightforward color images that all other papers work correctly with, this paper has visible pooling and an uneven color surface, almost like printing on swellable paper for a dye-based printer. I would not use this paper at all with this printer. For someting similar that works well, try Inkpress Fiber Gloss. [Manufacturer spec]

I found all of these papers exhibit some amount of gloss differential between areas of ink and areas of almost no ink, and gray-only prints inks still have some bronzing. Although both of these problems are much less than on the gloss surfaces, any of the papers below will probably have unacceptable bronzing for black-and-white prints. Composite grayscale images look great on any of them.

Recommended

• Inkpress Photo Chrome RC Lustre: This paper looks and feels almost idential to the Moab Lasal and the Red River Polar Satin. It is as matte as a “luster” paper can get, but feels like an RC paper. It is cheaper and gives identical quality to the Red River, although is a little thinner. [Manufacturer spec]
• Red River [Arctic] Polar Satin: This has a finer texture than the Kodak paper below, but ink absorption was much better. Using “gloss” and “satin” printer settings both producted excellent results, with no extra textures resulting from ink pooling. It has the feel of traditional photo paper, and is currently my standard luster paper. The “arctic” version is more blue-white, I prefer the regular. [Manufacturer spec]
• Lumijet Genuine Pearl II: Very similar to the Lasal Photo Luster below, but a little cheaper. [Manufacturer spec]
• Moab Lasal Photo Luster: The paper has almost the exact same texture as the Red River Polar Satin above, but the surface gloss is somewhat lower than either the Red River or the Kodak. This means there is a little higher gloss differential between ink and no-ink areas. It takes the ink very well, though, with no pooling problems. [Manufacturer spec]

Acceptable

• Kodak Professional Lustre “E”: This is one of my favorite surfaces and I often order my traditional prints on Kodak Endura with this surface (I like it a little better than the Fuji version of luster). However, it produced texture from pooling problems almost as bad as the glossy Kodak Professional paper. [Manufacturer spec]
• Red River UltraPro Satin: Almost exactly the same texture as the Kodak E surface, but with a slightly more matte look and a little more cream color. Unfortunately, it shows some added texture in areas of heavy ink, much like the UltraPro Gloss and the Kodak Lustre. And, although Red River claims it almost eliminates bronzing, I found gray-ink-only bronzing to be unacceptable. It probably doesn’t matter if you pick this or the Kodak, but I like the Kodak slightly better. [Manufacturer spec]

Not Recommended

• Lumijet Glossy Two Sides: This is actually more like luster paper than glossy, despite the name. It also isn’t very good. It has some serious gloss differential and other problems with heavy ink that I can’t quite describe. [Manufacturer spec]
• Inkpress Print Plus Semi Gloss: Dull and lifeless, this paper has worse blacks and worse highlights than the better matte papers. Inkpress recommends a matte setting for some papers, so I tried that as well in addition to Satin-Matte. It didn’t work at all. Definitely not recommended, which is surprising because the Inkpress RC Lustre has a similar texture and works great. [Manufacturer spec]

I’ve heard that Ilford Smooth Pearl doesn’t work well with the B9180, which is too bad because I like their pearl paper.

I have grouped “Rag” and photo matte papers here together, marking the rag ones. This list is presented in the order I would take them if I had only one matte photo surface to print on. The first three are almost the same (counting the two Photo Rag variants as one). The Photo Rag Bright White is the whitest, then Museo, then Photo Rag. Museo is the thickest (though it also comes in a lighter-weight version), then Photo Rag. Either the Red River Polar or the Lumijet are excellent medium-priced papers to keep around.

Recommended

• Hahnemühle Photo Rag/Bright White [Rag]: The Photo Rag and Photo Rag Bright White seem to be the same except that bright white has more optical brighteners or bleach or something. These papers probably set the standard for smooth matte rag photo paper, and work very well with this printer. [Manufacturer spec]
• Bergger PN32 [Rag]: Very nice natural color similar to that of the natural Photo Rag. This has a very smooth surface, smoother than most rag papers. This is excellent paper, with the smoothness helping up-close image quality over Photo Rag. But it costs so much more than the (already very expensive) Photo Rag, I am not sure this is worth it. [Manufacturer spec]
• Moab Entrada Bright/Natural [Rag]: Very similar across the board to Photo Rag. This has just a tad more texture, but is sharp and has nice dark blacks. It also comes in different weights and with and without optical brighteners. [Manufacturer spec]
• Red River Polar Matte: Very smooth and white, takes ink nicely, and relatively inexpensive. [Manufacturer spec]
• Lumijet White Velvet: Seems to be a cross between Photo Rag and Museum Etching paper in terms of texture. It is 25% rag and is much less expensive. Very nice feel and similar performance as those two excellent papers. [Manufacturer spec]
• Crane Museo [Rag]: This paper has a slightly deeper texture than most here. The blacks are quite good, but the paper I have got a little scuffed in the package: the highest parts of the bumps became a little shinier rubbing against the paper above it, which is visible in dark areas of the resulting photo. Probably if you get a big box of it this isn’t as much of an issue, but my little sampler wasn’t so great. [Manufacturer spec]
• Moab Lasal Photo Matte: Whiter than most of the matte papers, this takes ink very well, is sharp, and gives nice deep blacks. [Manufacturer spec]
• Red River Premium Matte: Quality-wise, Premium Matte really deserves to be in the middle of the “Acceptable” section below. But it is the cheapest of the high-quality matte papers and is available in a lot of different sizes and weights, which I think makes it worthwhile having around (I got a big box of lightweight 13x19 paper for messing around with). It is off-white more toward gray, whereas most papers tend toward cream. The blacks aren’t as good as the Red River Polar Matte, but are much better than the Aurora Art. [Manufacturer spec]

Acceptable

• Innova Photo Smooth Cotton [Rag]: Very close to the crane above. This paper isn’t quite as white and the blacks are not quite as punchy, so I would choose the Crane first every time. That said, this would be a fine paper to live with. It also comes in different weights, with the thickest being an astonishing 450gsm. Seems almost identical to Art Duo (below) except single sided. [Manufacturer spec]
• Hahnemühle FineArt Natural Art Duo: This paper is so similar to Innova Photo Smooth Cotton that it’s hard to tell them apart in terms of color, weight, or photo quality. This one has very slightly more texture to it. If you want something like this, I’d just get the cheapest, unless you need the two-sided feature of the Art Duo. [Manufacturer spec]
• Lumijet Photo Art: Relatively thin but with good performance, this paper doesn’t really stand out. It is relatively smooth like the most common matte papers. Considering the same brand makes Lumijet White Velvet (thicker though more textured) for only a tiny bit more money, I don’t see the point. No optical brighteners. [Manufacturer spec]
• Red River Aurora Art [Rag]: I tried the “natural” version of this rag paper (they also make a whitened version). A good compromise between color and brightness. [Manufacturer spec]
• Harman Matte FB/Warmtone: This paper has a great color, smooth but slightly dimpled texture, and feel. The coating takes ink well and is super sharp and has nice blacks. However, there seems to be a flaking problem with bits of the coating falling off and leaving white pinprick spots, and you can scrape the coating off with your fingernail. I would only use this for prints behind glass or for coating. If you are coating, the results can be magical, and I think this is the best paper hands down. [Manufacturer spec]

Not Recommended

• Lumijet Matte Two Sides: Almost exactly like Red River Premium Matte 50lb paper, but costs twice as much. It doesn’t perform poorly, but you can spend your money better. [Manufacturer spec]
• Inkpress Fine Art Matte [Rag]: All of the matte InkPress papers performed about the same in terms of print quality, with not very good blacks. Even right out of the printer, when next to a several-month old Hahnemühle Photo Rag print, the Photo Rag sparkles with deep blacks, and the Inkpress looks kind of flat and lifeless. The Fine Art Matte and the Print Plus Matte looked very similar, with the Fine Art having 25% cotton, so I ranked it higher based on that. [Manufacturer spec]
• Inkpress Print Plus Matte: See the Fine Art Matte section above for a discussion on the Inkpress matte papers. This paper is made out of wood, so it will age the worst, but it looked better than the rag below. [Manufacturer spec]
• Inkpress Picture Rag: See the Fine Art Matte section above for a discussion on the Inkpress matte papers. Picture Rag has the worst Dmax of the bunch, though it probably will last the longest. [Manufacturer spec]
• Red River GreenPix Photo Matte: This is a medium-heavy recycled matte photo paper. The blacks are definitely on the low end of the scale, but the paper feels and looks fine. I think the blacks get worse over time, too, I went back and looked at my old print and it seemed almost as bad as the FibraPrint. I don’t think you would want to use this even if having recycled paper is important to you. [Manufacturer spec]
• Innova Ultra Smooth FibraPrint: By far the worst of the smooth-surfaced photo matte papers here in terms of black density. At first I thought I might have messed up, so I re-printed my black-and white test image. [Manufacturer spec]
• Inkpress Proofing Matte: This is like really thin, cheap plain inkjet paper, yet it costs more. Yay! [Manufacturer spec]

Recommended

• Hahnemühle Museum Etching [Rag]: The least textured paper I have put in the “textured” section, this seems to be a somewhat textured version of Photo Rag. It has approximately the same texture as Innova Soft Texture Art, but prints as well as and is even thicker than Photo Rag. This would be my pick for a high-end, slightly textured matte paper. See also Lumijet White Velvet (also from Hahnemühle) with just a tad less texture for much less money. [Manufacturer spec]
• Hahnemühle FineArt Torchon [Rag]: This paper is so bumpy is has a three-dimensional feel to it, and if you hold it up to the light, you can see the varying thickness of it. However, they have made the bumps low-frequency enough to not interfere with the inkjet drops, so the image comes out looking miraculously smooth. This is also great for holding because of the look and texture; I used this for the menus and name cards at my wedding. The coatings on all of the Hahnemühle papers are excellent. For one stop less texture, try Hahnemühle Museum Etching above. [Manufacturer spec]
• 
  Hahnemühle Art Print Pastell: Sadly not nearly as thick as the Somersets below, this paper feels somewhat like high quality construction paper. However, as you can see from the scan on the right the dot distribution is better than either of the Somersets. Although it has significantly more texture than the Somerset Velvet, the bumps are smoother, which I think means the ink droplets aren’t as affected by the texture. [Manufacturer spec]

• Textured	Velvet

  Somerset Photo Enhanced Textured and Velvet: These papers are really thick, with nice bright colors and good blacks. The velvet is just slightly textured, held at arm’s length it is impossible to tell that the paper is textured at all. The textured version is more noticeably textured, but not so much that it interferes with the image; it is probably the most textured you can get without looking too weird, but, it does affect the smoothness of the image. In the example on the right, you can see the dot pattern to be noticeably better, although still not as good as the Hahnemühle above. [Manufacturer spec]
• Lumijet Museum Parchment: Like a poor man’s version of Hahnemühle Torchon paper. It has almost exactly the same texture, but is thinner and cheaper. It takes ink nicely. [Manufacturer spec]
• Lumijet Photo White: Similar texture to Museum Etching, but thinner (though still pretty thick) and with optical brighteners. Good to try if you can get a good price (I notice that smaller sheets are about the same price as Photo Rag, which is not worth it). [Manufacturer spec]

Acceptable

• Hahnemühle German Etching: Compared to the Hahnemühle Museum Etching, this has a finer but deeper texture which is arranged in a grid-like pattern. I think the texture is a little too deep and it interferes with getting a smooth looking image. The surface also seems to have more of a tendency to flake off, so I’ve given it a lower ranking than even the Somerset above despite the blacks being noticeably better. [Manufacturer spec]
• Bergger PN33: Somewhat similar to William Turner, but with lower-frequency dots and more randomness in the pattern. You have to worry about the coating flaking off, and will definitely want to brush it before printing to loosen it. At least on my test, the flaking was not quite as bad as on William Turner, but I could be wrong. You can also spray it to prevent most of the flaking problems. You will definitely want to get a sample pack before committing to this one. [Manufacturer spec]

Not Recommended

• Hahnemühle FineArt William Turner [Rag]: Hahnemühle describes this paper as “toothy,” which basically means that it’s got lots of little fuzz sticking up. This means that if you touch it after you print on it, all the fuzz comes off and leaves white spots on the photo (flaking). It’s nice looking, but the extent of this problem seems to be a deal-breaker. [Manufacturer spec]
• 
  Innova Soft Texture Art: The very light texture on this paper could have just as easily landed it in the matte papers section above, but I decided to keep it next to it’s cousin below. Something about this paper doesn’t like the HP ink, or the texture is just the right size to divert the ink in a bad way. Blacks aren’t great, but not as bad as the Innova Ultra Smooth FibraPrint and the GreenPix from the matte section, or the Cold Press Art below. [Manufacturer spec]
• 
  Innova Cold Press Art: Icky icky icky. The texture on this paper is a little bigger that the Somerset Enhanced Textured, but where that one has a uniform wave pattern, the Innova is smooth but with a random pattern of lowered spots. The texture is pretty distracting for normal photos, but more importantly, the D-max (darkness) is abysmal. Although it is smoother up close than the Soft Texture Art above, the “looking through haze,” feeling is so bad it makes it the the worst looking paper here. [Manufacturer spec]

Canvas

• Hahnemühle Art Print Canvas: I had trouble loading this canvas into the specialty media tray because it was so floppy and curly. It didn’t go straight back when the printer pulled it in, and got caught on something, so you’ll probably want something at least 11 inches long because you will manually push it out the back when loading (I used a half sheet to conserve paper). This canvas has a pretty smooth surface with a rectangular grid pattern, and it gives a very nice bright image. [Manufacturer spec]

Canvas-Textured Paper

• 
  Red River Linen: This is similar to the canvas textured paper listed above, but with a finer linen-style texture. I like it a little less because it looks more like textured paper or a photographic print with a pressed texture than something natural. The finer texture will be more appropriate for more images, but I’m not sure what the point is, and its blacks aren’t as dark as most papers. [Manufacturer spec]

Other

• Pictorico PolySilk Fabric: Pictorico Poly Silk is a thin polyester fabric with a printable surface. It only comes in larger sizes, is rather expensive, and there is almost no information on the web about it. The saturation and density of this material is not very good. Given a thin fabric such as this, and the fact that you’re not really saturating the fibers with the ink, this is about as good as you can expect. Unless you have the ink density set too high, the images come out very sharp, which is impressive for a fabric. I think the common thing would be for this fabric to be used to make something like a tie or a stuffed thing. You will want to put a heavier piece of white fabric behind it to give it some strength and to make the image more clear. If you are into making those things, PolySilk is a great material, but is probably bad for everybody else. I don’t see any use for this for display purposes in places that inkjet canvas is commonly used. [Manufacturer spec]
• Inkpress Backlight Film: A unique paper, this is sort of like the white films, but more translucent and with a matte top surface. The image is very sharp. The blacks and the saturation were poor with the glossy paper setting, and a smidge little better with “Satin-Matte” selected. Weirdly, the image with the matte setting looks terrible held up to the light, which I guess ruins the point. The glossy image looks correct but washed out when held up to the light. I’m not really in the market for this stuff, so I’m not really sure what to look for. [Manufacturer spec]