Digital Silver Gelatin has arrived...

[D. Bryant]

I was one of the people lucky enough to see Don H.'s prints today. The paper is really, really nice (and so were Don's images on the paper!). Don had some luster surface paper for comparsion and I definitely preferred the Harmon. It has the nicest surface I have seen so far in terms of not being too glossy and not have the luster-like stipple.

Hopefully there will be competition in this category and it will drive the prices down!

Doug
---
www.BetterScanning.com

I will echo Dougs comments about the prints that Don H. showed us today. I was very very impressed. IMO, it's the best version of these new generation papers that I've seen. Of course it didn't hurt looking at Don's work either. I was really impresed when comparing a print made on Ilford MGIV and looking at the same image printed on the new Harmon FB.

And the color prints were just as impressive!

Don Bryant

[Ken Allen]

the alumina likely refers to the material used to create the microceramic coating. Alumina is used in many of the pigment ink compatible papers. We usually dont know e actly which ones use what materials because the manufactures protect that information.
Ill have to check this paper out but im skeptical that its any better than the crane museo silver rag. I tested so many and most have some mfg problem that keeps me from using them. Others seem to be good but not enough for me to switch.
Can you provide a comparison to crane museo silver rag?
best,
ken Allen

[Remigius]

Ken,

While not being able to provide some "scientific" comparison between the teo (CMSR and HFG), I have recently printed some bw photos on both papers. My impressions:

CMSR: not completely glossy, has some texture, slightly warm overall tone, good contrast/density, strong, almost carton like paper weight
HFG: very glossy (and thus very sensitive to fingerprints!), no texture, very white, high denstiy, paper weight feels a bit less than the CMSR

In both cases, the photos look very crisp, maybe a little crisper on the HFG (maybe a tad more density). I have used the factory profile for the HFG on the 3800 (which seems to be excellent), but only ABW with the "premium luster" paper setting for the CMSR (maybe there's room for improvement - I'll try a factory profile next time). Now for me it becomes really difficult, as both papers have their charm. The look is clearly different. While HFG seems to come close to a traditional glossy silver fiber print, CMSR imho establishes its own class that cannot be compared to other papers I have seen (which admittedly aren't that many, I'm afraid). All in all I'm very undecided on which paper to use in the long term.

Cheers, Remigius.

[gr82bart]

Hmmm ... maybe it's just me, but I find it a bit flawed to generalize this paper as digital silver gelatin (actually it should be digital gelatin silver, but I'll leave that to grammar/spelling fascists with OCD ). To me, true digital silver gelatin prints are those that are printed on a Lambda or Lightjet using paper such as Ilford new Digital Fibre Base (I don't know what it's called), Fuji Crystal Archive, Kodak whatever it's called, etc... and developed in chemicals. You know, like the 'old' way.

Sorry folks, inkjets are a medium (dye sublimation, etc...) all on it's own and are not silver gelatin at all. The way I see it, if you're making an inkjet, then be proud of it and call it what it is - an inkjet (or glicee if you're a pretentious marketing type ... oops, let that one slip).

OK, rant over, nothing more to see here, back to the original thread.

Regards, Art. (Notice my use of emocons for the sarcastically challenged?)

[Greg Lockrey]

Hmmm ... maybe it's just me, but I find it a bit flawed to generalize this paper as digital silver gelatin (actually it should be digital gelatin silver, but I'll leave that to grammar/spelling fascists with OCD ). To me, true digital silver gelatin prints are those that are printed on a Lambda or Lightjet using paper such as Ilford new Digital Fibre Base (I don't know what it's called), Fuji Crystal Archive, Kodak whatever it's called, etc... and developed in chemicals. You know, like the 'old' way.

Sorry folks, inkjets are a medium (dye sublimation, etc...) all on it's own and are not silver gelatin at all. The way I see it, if you're making an inkjet, then be proud of it and call it what it is - an inkjet (or glicee if you're a pretentious marketing type ... oops, let that one slip).

OK, rant over, nothing more to see here, back to the original thread.

Regards, Art. (Notice my use of emocons for the sarcastically challenged?)

You have a point. It's not really digital silver gelatin, but merely looks similar to silver gelatin.

Inkjet and Proud.

[Don Hutton]

Hmmm ... maybe it's just me, but I find it a bit flawed to generalize this paper as digital silver gelatin (actually it should be digital gelatin silver, but I'll leave that to grammar/spelling fascists with OCD ). To me, true digital silver gelatin prints are those that are printed on a Lambda or Lightjet using paper such as Ilford new Digital Fibre Base (I don't know what it's called), Fuji Crystal Archive, Kodak whatever it's called, etc... and developed in chemicals. You know, like the 'old' way.

Sorry folks, inkjets are a medium (dye sublimation, etc...) all on it's own and are not silver gelatin at all. The way I see it, if you're making an inkjet, then be proud of it and call it what it is - an inkjet (or glicee if you're a pretentious marketing type ... oops, let that one slip).

OK, rant over, nothing more to see here, back to the original thread.

Regards, Art. (Notice my use of emocons for the sarcastically challenged?)

The point you're choosing to ignore, is that a lot of folks are interested in making B&W inkjet prints which feel and resemble traditional wet fiber prints. Until now, IMO, this has not been possible - it's certainly been possible to make excellent (outstanding) B&W prints with an inkjet, but we haven't, until now seen a combination of materials which would allow one to produce prints which have that same look and feel as traditional wet process fiber based prints. This Harman paper has, in my opinion, changed that. It isn't silver gelatin - it's ink. No one suggested otherwise.

[gr82bart]

The point you're choosing to ignore, is that a lot of folks are interested in making B&W inkjet prints which feel and resemble traditional wet fiber prints.

No Don, I'm definitely not choosing to ignore it. Quite the opposite.

Regards, Art.

[tim atherton]

I quite like the new Ilford Paper. It's very good. It's main weakness is that it's very susceptible to scratching and surface damage, especially lots of little micro scratches.

It's much less tough than the Crane Silver Rag, which has a very tough surface.

I still really like the Crane btw - not quite as "photographic paper" looking, but very good - almost a unique look in its own right. And I've always liked slightly warmer papers for a lot of stuff so that doesn't bother me.

Both are good. Blacks are pretty close. The Ilford may be a touch sharper (but both are pretty darned sharp). Slightly different surfaces. Possibly (??) better longevity of the subsrtate on the Crane - but no real tests out yet - and no OBA's to fade on the Crane either.

[Jack Flesher]

It's main weakness is that it's very susceptible to scratching and surface damage, especially lots of little micro scratches.

Sorry Tim, but I just don't see this. Not picking on you because I have heard a few others report the same thing and just trying to get to the bottom of it. My prints have proven to be VERY durable. I have shown them to dozens of folks who have handled them normally and none of them exhibit any of this supposed fragility other folks are claiming. In fact, they still look like they did the day I printed them for the most part. Makes me wonder if there is a difference between the inks? All of mine have been printed with Epson K3 inks --- what printer are you using?


Cheers,

[Peter Langham]

Tim,

Are you refering to the Harman paper or the new Ilford barayta paper?
(this is where it is going to get confusing!)
Peter