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.
Glossy Paper
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]
Fiber-based silver gelatin lookalikes
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]
Lustre and Semigloss Paper
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.
Matte 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]
Watercolor and finely-textured paper
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]
Coarsely-textured paper
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]