Any other swellable polymer papers?

[Paul Verizzo]

It appears that only HP and Ilford are making any. Any others?

 

[nche11]

Kodak had several swellable photo paper long time ago. Don't know if they are still sold. I still have some in my stack of photo paper.

 

[Redbrickman]

Ilford have decided to stop production of the Galerie classic Pearl which is one of their most popular swellable papers. I too am looking for alternatives.

 

[Paul Verizzo]

Ilford have decided to stop production of the Galerie classic Pearl which is one of their most popular swellable papers. I too am looking for alternatives.

Are you kidding me??????? Any sourcing on that? I mean, not that I might have missed that, the intertubes is a big place.

Ilford still has it very much on their web page and it's available from the online stores in all the sizes. If Classic is a goner, then we dye adherents are really at loss for appropriate media.

I guess being instant dry is more important than long life, eh? OTOH, HP has done well with dye inks and their polymer paper with most consumers not having a clue of the differences with Epson, Canon, etc.

If Ilford Classic is soon to be history, that leaves the HP products. (Kodak did stop making the Ulitma.) Frankly, the HP glossy give almost perfect "outta the box" color vs. the Classic, not so much. That's with Canon OEM inks. I just have an emotional attachment going back to wet darkroom days for Ilford and Pearl. And support the little guys. Oh yeah, the paper stock of Ilford is the whitest of the brands I own.

HP Preium is available in glossy (natch) and "Satin." Canon uses the descriptor Satin for its Semi-Gloss on the box, although not elsewhere. Anyone have experience on how HP Satin compares to other products?

(Based on traditional wet darkroom practices, my thinking is that the finish gamut is Glossy, Luster (Kodak E surface), other Luster/Pearl/Semi-Gloss, Satin, Matte.) BTW, Arista II, has the Kodak E finish, which is why I believe it to be Premier Imaging product. PI says that their Luster is Kodak E surface, and the paper weight is exactly the same.

 

[Redbrickman]

Paul,

I saw reference to the demise of the Galerie classic pearl on Dpreview first. I then noticed that 7dayshop were selling it all out and they had stated that it was discontinued.

I can't understand Ilford's marketing stance because it is/was a popular paper especially for dye based photo printing. I have not had time to look for alternatives but did manage to buy a pack of A3 last week. I am now looking for more of the pearl before it disappears

Please report back if you know of any good alternative paper.

 

[Paul Verizzo]

Thanks, RBM! I guess I will stop my Classic experiments and not order any A3, which I was about to do. If I get around to it, I'll ask Ilford. They've been good in the past responding to inquiries. I'll let folks know what the response is.

That leaves HP, fortunately good papers, and as I said, great color outta the box on the 9000.

The alternative, besides Canon paper, is going microporous non-Canon and sealing it via lamination or liquids. I'm doing a LOT of experimentation on this as I speak. First, different materials, then toasting in the Florida summer sun. I've even ordered "platina" shellac flakes to make my own very clear shellac. The "Clear" in the spray can ain't so much.

My first 'speriments with Krylon artist's UV varnish and Minwax Polycrylic are disappointing. The former adds a lot of yellow (and is sort of expensive) and the latter faded out colors on Ilford Smooth. I also have bought fabric UV potion and insofar as unwanted color, seems to be very good.

Before I received my Canon Pro II (or is it Plus, lordy, the nomenclature of Canon!) I presumed it was polymer due to the reasonably long life claimed. Imagine my surprise when I gave it the sliding finger test, and later internet confirmed! So the question begs, how does Canon get obviously superior results from its microporous papers? Is it a hybrid? In my research I did stumble across and old HP page describing photo paper construction, and they mentioned a hybrid. I need to find that again.

I may just stick with Canon, despite fewer options and the desire that all photogs have to find The Holy Grail, something better. The prices are right, too.

 

[Paul Verizzo]

OK, here's the HP "hybrid" info. Note that this page is geared to wide format commercial printers.....which HP has long had a significant market share as "plotters."

https://h30406.www3.hp.com/campaigns/2009/events/.../photo_papers.pdf

 

[Redbrickman]

That link doesn't seem to go anywhere.

Perhaps a kind Mod on here could move the thread to Papers and Other Media as I think it would get more notice there and maybe a few more posts.

I'm looking forward to your test results as I also have the Pro9000 MKII.

 

[RogerB]

Before I received my Canon Pro II (or is it Plus, lordy, the nomenclature of Canon!) I presumed it was polymer due to the reasonably long life claimed. Imagine my surprise when I gave it the sliding finger test, and later internet confirmed! So the question begs, how does Canon get obviously superior results from its microporous papers?

According to the results on Aardenberg Imaging, the Ilford Classic papers are far better than the Canon Photo Paper Pro for light fading with the 9000 and OEM inks. Shame that Ilford doesn't see a big enough opportunity with them.

Take a look here http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com/cgi-bin/mrk/_4899c2hvd19kb2NfbGlzdC80 (You need to sign up to see the full reports, and if you're serious about print life you could make a contribution too!)

 

[nche11]

The swellable photo paper is too easy to get humidity damage. A touch of your finger could leave a permanent mark on the surface. So practically it is a useless paper regardless it prints and looks better. Have you checked out the Kirkland brand glossy photo paper from Costco? It was rumored that it was actually made by Ilford. It gives you the look of a swellable paper but it is almost like a resin coated paper. I tried it by washing a print under a water faucet. It washed off maybe 20% of the ink. This is pretty good because it basically eliminates or minimizes the damage from handling by hands.