Choosing Paper for Digital Prints

Published on January 24, 2006 By momijiki In Photography

Glossy? Semi-matte? Matte? "Real" photography printing paper or regular paper? What about fibre printing?

It all depends on your purpose and what you want your picture to look like. Of course, budget plays a part.

Photoshop User Magazine did a great article in their Jan/Feb 2005 issue. The article is called, "The Paper Mill" by Daniel M. East. The article doesn't talk about different types of papers. It's about tests on glossy papers according to the following criteria:
accuracy
balance
sharpness
overall output

Then the papers were ranked using the above criteria along with price and paper weight.

But the article is an interesting place to start when thining about your printing needs and lists points to consider when doing one's own paper/printing tests. Other things the article suggested to consider when doing your own tests or prints are: "price, contrast, drying time, saturation, opacity, overall feel of the paper." I think that one should do some printer tests to see how the photos come out on your printer. Initially, I was buying Canon paper because I had a Canon printer but it was pricey and I actually like how the same photo looks on other papers.

According to this article the top three were Moab Paper Company Kokopelli Photogloss, Konica Minolta Premium Inkjet Photo, Epson Premium Photo.

Armed with this information, I went out to the Shinjuku Yodobashi Camera where there is almost half a floor dedicated to photo printing paper or design printing paper. I was disappointed to find that Moab Paper wasn't sold here (and if this branch of Yodobashi doesn't have it, I'll have a hard time finding somehere, not to mention paying through the nose if I managed to find some).

Konica and Epson are well represented. at this store. An extremely popular paper here that wasn't tested in the article is the Fuji Kassai (different grades available and I'll go through that in another blog, I guess). Canon got an average grade on the survey (likely do to high price).

Why choose glossy?
These will look most like what we consider a traditional photograph. Also, with reasonable care these photopapers are likely to have more archival quality and last a bit longer.

Another plus with glossy. Generally, the paper is quite white and reflective. This means you will get more "pure" color in your image. The tint of the paper won't effect the output (or shouldn't anyway).

Semi-matte: hmmm... I don't find much of this outside of what Canon Inc sells. Choose this paper if you like a more traditional photo but not the shiny reflectiveness. Also, on a glossy paper, the dry ink takes away some of the shine. If you have lots of white space, a semi-matte will cut down on the difference of shine between the printed and non-printed areas. Personally, I also think semi-matte has a softer look.

Matte: provides more of an illustrative effect. More like looking at your photo as if it was in your high school social studies text book though this may not be the best analogy. Another plus, matte finish seems to be a bit more durable. For instance, less prone to getting scratched if you simply leave them sitting on your desk to have junk, pencils and other stuff piled on. Personally, when I make photopostcards to send out, I like to make (and get) matte finish. They just seem like more authentic post cards to me. Dunno why. Just a personal preference.

Fibre. Still experimenting with this. Here is where it really looks more illustrative than "photographic." Why choose fibre? If you want better archival quality and are producing high level photos. My understanding is that fibre is expected for a gallery level print even in digital. If you read my article about Darkroom vs. Photoshop, you read about a guy named Matsu who is a photoshop genius/ artist. Matsu is a professional printer who specializes in digital printing of gallery quality. One is hard pressed to look at his photos and say, "Oh, that's digital!" But Matsu doesn't come cheap. Someday, I'll have to have a conversation about all the stuff he is using. But Matsu is a master, and I'm not even an apprentice yet. Suffice it to say, in my opinion, unless you are using top of the line printers and papers, using fibre will likely produce a digital photo that looks more painterly.

Having said that, I'll probably have to eat these words some day. But I did say I was experimenting still, right?

I've tried printing on regular watercolor paper and have mixed feelings. Neat effects as long as I don't have large areas of black or dark color where the tooth of the paper leaves little tiny white dots showing

Regular Paper: In my opinion, why would you? Generally, photos printed on regular paper don't look that good. The colors are generally muddy, the paper is to thin and the ink soaks through or bleeds. Basically, you are just wasting ink. I've tried some high fine grade papers that are supposed to be good for illustration but have not been too impressed (the Fuji Kassai fine grade (level down from photo grade)-- just too thin. One exception are the papers meant for double sided printing. I tried the Epson. They are heavier and seem to take the ink better.

Well, if I have made any huge glaring errors, feel free to correct me. I'm also interested in hearing opinions. I'll try to write about my fibre printing comparisons sometime this week.

Also, I didn't include photos as a lot of the differences I am writing about aren't visible through computer screen.

Cheers and happy printing!

Comments

No one has commented on this article. Be the first!

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!