Paper Chase - Another End of Year Report (2008)

The last time we brought things together in the magazine was Paper Chase 12, back in February 2006. Almost three years on, it is timely to take a step back and examine the way that the paper scene has moved on, especially as we are writing our 40th issue of Professional Imagemaker. Paper Chase has been ever-present in the magazine.

Paper making is an ancient art and so we can expect few changes in the underlying, substrate materials. The major changes therefore are in the coating technology. The other changes that have impinged upon us are the increasing quality of the inkjet printers and the expansion of the product ranges of paper offered by each supplier. Back in Paper Chase 12 we tested the first three sheets of a new material called 'Fibre Base Gloss' which was badged with the Permajet label. By the time we had got to Paper Chase 22 we were testing 30 such 'baryta' papers and there were still some we had not managed to locate samples of! Baryta then, was the big mover since the last summary and it has consistently exhibited best-in-class properties on all the measures applied to it. Baryta coating even found its way onto a canvas substrate with spectacular results.

Testing methodology

This has only changed slightly, except that as quality and colour precision have risen we have needed better and better statistics before we have taken the hyperbole from the dictionary and placed them on the page! It is true to say that we have been able to report something recordbreaking in nearly ever Paper Chase since the last roundup. Thankfully there are very few poor papers around today, the cut-throat market sees off anything below par. The confusion for the consumer is the choice, it is truly bewildering.

 One of the changes since 2006 is the availability of colour profiling and its penetration into the enthusiast's end of the market. Once the province of specialists only, many users now have at least one form of colour measuring device and the paper providers themselves have become expert in making profiles for the range of popular printers, on each of their surfaces. The profiles are of more variable quality than the papers themselves and, if the instructions provided are anything to go by, some people have a poor understanding of the profile-making process. Some are made with too few patches leading to banding, some distort print saturation and many do not handle shadow separation correctly. However, the drift upwards of inkjet quality has ensured that printer-to-printer variations are now smaller than ever, particularly in the wide-format machines.

Some of the supplier-profiles are as good, or superior to, those we have made ourselves, due to a fortuitous match between the test-bed machines of the paper supplier and our own machines. However, in all but a small handful of cases, we have always managed to improve the audit statistics by fine tuning a profile. It depends on how much paper a supplier sends us for review, but we generally test papers in the following sequence:

1. Using the paper provider's profile if available, if not, the standard printer profiles using the closest media match.
2. Using our own bespoke profile, 'as made'.
3. Using our own, bespoke profile after an iterative finetuning process.

Within this framework there are variations. For example, the paper supplier's instructions may specify an either/or for the media choice (eg Velvet Fine Art or Watercolor Radiant White). In the case of Hahnemühle these two options produced radically different results, with Velvet Fine Art being much superior. In the case of specialist proofing papers we sometimes go through as many as four iterations, tweaking the profile, re-auditing the result, then readjusting the profile, before we reach contract proofing standards. Even with contract proofing, the goalposts have been moved. No sooner had we achieved compliance with the 2006 standards than they halved the tolerance on us! To date we have not tweaked our way inside the 2008 specifications. To put this level of compliance into perspective there are differences between the way that the ink is squirted down when using Epson's High Speed 'on' or 'off' settings. There are differences between one side of a 24" sheet and the other and finally you have to ensure that temperature and humidity are within 'normal' bounds. The heat wave of the 2007 summer caused havoc with proofing in some places. These levels of precision are standards that the jobbing photographer can only dream of, and we would urge caution before starting to worry about them! With few exceptions you can create commercially acceptable photographic prints from any paper/printer combination once you have sorted out the settings.

How to pick a paper

How do you decide upon a paper? Inkjet paper is relatively expensive and unless you are minted you can ill-afford to go out and buy a large selection. This leaves two possibilities, to ask the proud owner of a print you admire what they used or to obtain one of the many sample packs that are made for the purpose. If you ask another print-maker ensure that you are not seduced by the qualities of the image. A pretty girl (or hunky male for the ladies) is quite likely to influence your view of a paper surface. I had a proof of one of Trevor Yerbury's images lying around while preparing the last magazine. All male visitors commented upon the image, nobody mentioned an obvious flaw in the colour management that I was trying to sort out! This is how it should be, the image is always the most important feature of a print, otherwise there would be a market for images of Macbeth Charts!

If you choose to sift through a sample set, start by writing, in soft pencil, on the back of every piece of the paper, which surface it is. Nothing is more infuriating than making a masterpiece on an anonymous piece of paper and not knowing how you went about it. Also make notes on the back of the samples and, as far as possible, try to use the same image over and over. If there are only two types of each paper in a sample box you might be better buying two boxes. We have frequently made a profile with piece one then goofed piece two and been left with no idea how a paper performs. With only two pieces you might try the manufacturer's profile for a colour print on one piece and a monochrome on the other. The situation is analogous to the choosing of a film/developer combination – the sound advice was always to stick with a combination until you understood it rather than flitting around from pillar to post in search of some illusive master-solution. Don't forget that you can arrange to print on one half of a piece of paper and then put the paper back in the printer and do another test – make sure you know which is which! This is vital if you have only one sample of a type in the box.

We have had a peep on the web for sample packs and have selected three suppliers as examples, see also the table for who is at the Convention.

Fotospeed www.fotospeed.com
FS Pack containing two sheets of each of the FS range of Fotospeed papers, usually 16 pieces but it changes as the product range is updated. A4 £8.47

On-Line Paper www.on-linepaper.co.uk  On-line Paper have been supplying the industry for 10 years now and occupy a unique position in that they can provide both samples and media from a wide range of sources. They have what they call 'range packs' for Hahnemühle, Innova, Museo, Olmec, St Cuthbert's Mill, and Permajet. They also provide a very interesting pack which gathers together the fibre base look-alikes (baryta and baryta-like) from a variety of manufacturers.

Permajet www.permajet.com  Permajet have a comprehensive range of products in all types of surface. They provide a 30-sheet, A4 pack containing 24 different papers for £14.99

The Examination Sequence

Visual Examination
1. Is the print intact? No head strikes, no obvious
banding, no ink bleed or smudging?
2. Is the Granger Chart clean, no obvious flaws, banding or distortions (which might indicate a missed patch row or failure in the spectro)?
3. Is the grey neutral to the eye?
4. What is the lowest RGB value in the shadows where separation is made?
5. What is the brightest white that is differentiated from paper white?
6. Is there any banding in the continuous grey gradient and are the shadows neutral?
7. Is there any evidence of bronzing or gloss differential?
8. Is the skin tone of the girl in the hat correct? Check the hair for banding. Is the hat an off-white cream?
9. View the print in daylight, low-energy fluorescent light, D65 light and ultraviolet light (the last for OBA activity).

Colour Audit by Measurement

1. The colour accuracy across the Macbeth Color Checker 24 Chart.
2. The accuracy of the greys for density, linearity
and colour bias.
3. Accuracy of skin tone reproduction for a spectrum of racial types at 60% brightness vale.
4. Accuracy of a set of 'landscape' tones including leaf greens, soils and sky tones.
5. Accuracy of the FOGRA swatch set (2006) for all patches, the primary colours and the maximum value recorded. Maximum and average value are
toleranced.
6. Consistency of the test colours at either side of the reference scale.
7. The Dmax for a black made from zero RGB points.
8. The Metameric Index measured on a 50% grey swatch between D65 Illuminant and Tungsten,
Illuminant A.
9. Examination of the spectral trace of the base white paper tone to determine the level of OBA activity.

All measurements are made at D50/2° conditions.

The ink drying time is assessed if appropriate, based on the drying curve showing less than 1 delta E change between readings.

As you will realise from the lists these are objective tests, enabling numerical figures of merit to be applied to any parameter. The final test is always to make some real prints of real subjects, preferably including a monochrome and preferably at a minimum of A3 in size. With canvas media we usually also assess water resistance and measure the effect of applying a water-based giclée varnish. If relevant we may apply a spray varnish to a matt paper. In some instances we report the effect of varnish upon the colour audit measurements and in rare cases we will actually make profile targets that are varnished for the ultimate precision. For proofing paper trials we will examine the audit data, make a calculation of the profile adjustments and re-run the entire process.

The Size Conundrum – size still matters

Although we are ostensibly a 'metric units' country in the UK, you would be hard pressed to notice as you scan through a picture-frame catalogue. Taking the excellent Ultimat product, as an example (www.ultimat.co.uk), they have templates for 50 options in inches and just two (A4 and A3) in metric DIN-sizes. The story is similar for GF Smith, their slip-in folders are all imperial sizes. (For balance we should point out that Nielsen Bainbridge provide a mix of Imperial and DIN sizes.)

In general the European inkjet paper market is furnished with A4, A3 and A3+ (the so-called Super-A3) as the common sizes. This is bolstered by 13", 16", 17", 24" and 44" rolls which enable the creation of DIN sized prints, but only with a bit of trimming here and there. This is a pain as it forces many photographers to trim their print output, an additional process that carries with it the need for a clear working space (very rare in this office!) and a risk of damage to print or fingers with a slip of the scalpel.

Recognising this, John Herlinger, of Fotospeed, has begun to offer some inkjet products in the old-fashioned 10x8 size and has been amazed at the level of interest. When we last spoke he was running about trying to source enough boxes to keep ahead of the demand. Presently the size is available only in the most popular pigment-friendly lustre surface but plans are afoot to expand this range to the glossy surfaces.

The 'standard' sizes in the DIN A range are listed below. You will note that none of them look enticing, easy-to-use integers like 10x8 or 16x12! This is because they derive from the A0 sheet which is almost exactly one square metre and each successive smaller sheet is made by folding the larger sheet in half (www.cl.cam.ac.uk). This is possible because the height-to-width ratio is exactly the square root of 2 (1.414). It is this that gives the DIN sheet its rather long aspect ratio of 1.41:1 rather than the generally more pleasing 10x8, with a ratio of 1.25:1. Now we can throw into the mix the ratio of length to breadth of the digital SLR and we find another set of obscure ratios which mean that cropping (ie 'wasting pixels') is inevitable.

The names of the traditional paper sizes are also quaint by today's clinical, numerical letter and single digit number. Foolscap, Crown, Post, Demy, Music Demy, Royal, Elephant and Imperial are just a few of the names that younger readers will never have heard!

Join today and receive a fantastic free gift:

1. Monopod for Free - Valued at up to £44.99
2. Lastolite Tri-Grip for Free - Valued at up to £59.00
3. Lowepro Compu Daypack for FreeValued at up to £89