I haven't tried any of the Moab papers as of yet. Or the new to me Canson paper but, After trying a couple Canson sample packs I'm pretty confident I could try some of these papers you are trying & be happy with using Canson papers alone. Looking forwards reading your review. Thanks for threads up.
20+ years ago, when I started printing, I bought every recognized paper I could find (yes: spending a lot of $$$) and ran my own tests. In the years since, it has become a habit to test new papers. I found the Canson brands to be more to my liking than any other. (I was initially hooked by Arches Velin Museum Rag.) I found the Canson products to be diverse, and pretty much capable to taking both color and Piezography inks. I like the way they deal with tonal values and allow a long reach into the shadows and black, if your printing technique supports that. I like their papers so much that I applied for (and received) a Fine Art Printer certification from them. There are other papers I use, but for final client prints, I almost always choose Canson.
The Arches 88 is indeed a very white OBA-free paper and a common go-to when I don't want texture, or the whiteness is called for by the image.
I have no horse in the race, as I get no benefits from being Canson Certified, other than the accolade. I pay full price for the papers I use, but it always makes me feel good to share my delight in quality papers.
If your experience with Canson products matches mine, you are in for a treat.
Thanks for the input. As I said, I cannot believe I ignored the Arches specifically for so long assuming that it had OBA's (which are fine for some things but generally not for a lot of work that I print - my own or other people's so I don't use them much). Personally I like the current Canson Baryta the best but only a minor difference from others in the surface.
Just today I finished illustrating my first serious comparison of the Arches Aquarelle on a larger number of prints for a current project. The other three will follow using the same photographs. Just need to find the time... soon.
two years ago I moved from Hahnemuehle Rag to Canson's Arches 88 and won't go back. I've since started using their Baryta Photographique II and for heavy texture their Aquarelle.
I had to be convinced to re-try a baryta paper. I wasn’t impressed on my first attempt as I felt it a tad too warm for my B&Ws. I can’t even remember whose paper it was but probably a Hahnemuehle. After becoming a fan of Arches 88 I submitted to my friend’s option and tried Canson baryta and it is now my favorite for a B&W image where some glossiness is appreciated. The Aquarelle is new for me, I’m still on my first box of A3+ but I’m loving the texture. I was a fan of Hahnemuehle’s William Turner but the downside was the flaking. Even brushing before printing didn’t completely solve the issue which is a shame since I really loved that texture for desert images. Plus, I had to handle and store it more carefully with interleaving sheets.
Thanks for the info. Ps. My fav baryta is The Canson (Photographique II) but the differences between the ones we compared were subtle and very much preference based vs any clear superiority. (Go search in the archive for our comparison if you missed it). I never had the issue with the William Turner, sounds like a defective batch but I'll have to use it again and see if that's common. It's been a LONG time. Stay tuned as I'll be comparing the Aquarelle as I'll be comparing it to some other "water color" cold press like papers.
I used the Arches 88 a few years back for my B&W Jazz photos. It was the right fit for contrast as well as subject. I thought to use it for my landscape/seascape and went to Moab Entrada Coldpress which would not be right for the jazz. Right now I'm use Photographgraphique Baryta II Matt for some Medieval Church frescos. It's all a fun game of mix and match. THank goodness I can print; otherwise, talking about papers would be futile. Thanks Bob and Les
I like all of them (in the right application)... The funny thing is that BFK is almost as "white" as the "pure white". We'll be sharing our observations shortly. I am assuming you have this in heavy rotation?
I use it on occasion, after seeing what it could do. It’s the reason I prefer matte prints. Now I explore various matte papers, preferably with texture.
The somersets ALL have varying degrees of texture, more than 88 (obviously) and > Entrada but < Entrada Coldpress. And HahnM Museum Etching which is similar to Coldpress in amount but different in shape/appearance... William Turner is interesting is that it is a lot of texture but fine/deep pattern. And Torchon is kind of like Rives but deeper and more pronounced.
I love Torchon because it’s extra. Epson Wstercolor was fantastic; unfortunate that it was discontinued. Now I like the Natural line from Hahnemuhle, and other bits and bobs.
Since their release I have been using and experimenting with the Canon Arches line of papers. The Aquarelle is, as you know, very highly textured and hence IMO has limited application when used for fine art printing. Unfortunately, the ever-increasing cost of these Arches papers might tend to limit their use...especially when one is "experimenting" and trying to find a line of papers that can be used to print a group of images. It is costly to cut 11x17 Canson to 11x14.
One of my good friends who is a DC based photographer shoots only B/W on a Leica Monochrome camera. He had a showing last month of "Resistance" photographs printed on Canson BFK Rives Pure White. This is one of the matte papers that was released with Arches 88 a couple of years ago. It contains no OBAs and has a very good white and good tonal range. I'm getting ready to explore these papers as a possible substitute for Moab Entrada.
I haven't tried any of the Moab papers as of yet. Or the new to me Canson paper but, After trying a couple Canson sample packs I'm pretty confident I could try some of these papers you are trying & be happy with using Canson papers alone. Looking forwards reading your review. Thanks for threads up.
20+ years ago, when I started printing, I bought every recognized paper I could find (yes: spending a lot of $$$) and ran my own tests. In the years since, it has become a habit to test new papers. I found the Canson brands to be more to my liking than any other. (I was initially hooked by Arches Velin Museum Rag.) I found the Canson products to be diverse, and pretty much capable to taking both color and Piezography inks. I like the way they deal with tonal values and allow a long reach into the shadows and black, if your printing technique supports that. I like their papers so much that I applied for (and received) a Fine Art Printer certification from them. There are other papers I use, but for final client prints, I almost always choose Canson.
The Arches 88 is indeed a very white OBA-free paper and a common go-to when I don't want texture, or the whiteness is called for by the image.
I have no horse in the race, as I get no benefits from being Canson Certified, other than the accolade. I pay full price for the papers I use, but it always makes me feel good to share my delight in quality papers.
If your experience with Canson products matches mine, you are in for a treat.
Thanks for the input. As I said, I cannot believe I ignored the Arches specifically for so long assuming that it had OBA's (which are fine for some things but generally not for a lot of work that I print - my own or other people's so I don't use them much). Personally I like the current Canson Baryta the best but only a minor difference from others in the surface.
Just today I finished illustrating my first serious comparison of the Arches Aquarelle on a larger number of prints for a current project. The other three will follow using the same photographs. Just need to find the time... soon.
two years ago I moved from Hahnemuehle Rag to Canson's Arches 88 and won't go back. I've since started using their Baryta Photographique II and for heavy texture their Aquarelle.
Would love to hear your experiences on both Arches papers.
I had to be convinced to re-try a baryta paper. I wasn’t impressed on my first attempt as I felt it a tad too warm for my B&Ws. I can’t even remember whose paper it was but probably a Hahnemuehle. After becoming a fan of Arches 88 I submitted to my friend’s option and tried Canson baryta and it is now my favorite for a B&W image where some glossiness is appreciated. The Aquarelle is new for me, I’m still on my first box of A3+ but I’m loving the texture. I was a fan of Hahnemuehle’s William Turner but the downside was the flaking. Even brushing before printing didn’t completely solve the issue which is a shame since I really loved that texture for desert images. Plus, I had to handle and store it more carefully with interleaving sheets.
Thanks for the info. Ps. My fav baryta is The Canson (Photographique II) but the differences between the ones we compared were subtle and very much preference based vs any clear superiority. (Go search in the archive for our comparison if you missed it). I never had the issue with the William Turner, sounds like a defective batch but I'll have to use it again and see if that's common. It's been a LONG time. Stay tuned as I'll be comparing the Aquarelle as I'll be comparing it to some other "water color" cold press like papers.
I used the Arches 88 a few years back for my B&W Jazz photos. It was the right fit for contrast as well as subject. I thought to use it for my landscape/seascape and went to Moab Entrada Coldpress which would not be right for the jazz. Right now I'm use Photographgraphique Baryta II Matt for some Medieval Church frescos. It's all a fun game of mix and match. THank goodness I can print; otherwise, talking about papers would be futile. Thanks Bob and Les
Arches BFK is the bomb.
I like all of them (in the right application)... The funny thing is that BFK is almost as "white" as the "pure white". We'll be sharing our observations shortly. I am assuming you have this in heavy rotation?
I use it on occasion, after seeing what it could do. It’s the reason I prefer matte prints. Now I explore various matte papers, preferably with texture.
The somersets ALL have varying degrees of texture, more than 88 (obviously) and > Entrada but < Entrada Coldpress. And HahnM Museum Etching which is similar to Coldpress in amount but different in shape/appearance... William Turner is interesting is that it is a lot of texture but fine/deep pattern. And Torchon is kind of like Rives but deeper and more pronounced.
I love Torchon because it’s extra. Epson Wstercolor was fantastic; unfortunate that it was discontinued. Now I like the Natural line from Hahnemuhle, and other bits and bobs.
Since their release I have been using and experimenting with the Canon Arches line of papers. The Aquarelle is, as you know, very highly textured and hence IMO has limited application when used for fine art printing. Unfortunately, the ever-increasing cost of these Arches papers might tend to limit their use...especially when one is "experimenting" and trying to find a line of papers that can be used to print a group of images. It is costly to cut 11x17 Canson to 11x14.
One of my good friends who is a DC based photographer shoots only B/W on a Leica Monochrome camera. He had a showing last month of "Resistance" photographs printed on Canson BFK Rives Pure White. This is one of the matte papers that was released with Arches 88 a couple of years ago. It contains no OBAs and has a very good white and good tonal range. I'm getting ready to explore these papers as a possible substitute for Moab Entrada.