Choosing the best fine art & photo papers - just what is baryta, why does it vary between printers.

Looking at high quality paper for printing your photos and artwork. What is 'baryta' paper - is it special or is it just marketing. How papers are marketed and what to look for, if you want great prints.
Do the names of papers actually tell you much about them? What does quality mean, and why can baryta papers vary so much with different printers and ink types.
I've tested many different paper and printer combinations. See here for videos/articles
www.northlight-images.co.uk/p...
I've many videos about selling prints and the business side of photoraphy in their own play list
-----------------
If you'd like to make a small donation, I have a Kofi page:
"Buy me a coffee" ko-fi.com/keithcooper
-----------------
My articles and videos are always free to access.
Any help with running this channel is gratefully received.
-----------------
I also have some affiliate links which earn me a commission if used.
US Amazon photo/print gear: amzn.to/3l9vJC6
B&H Photo: www.bhphotovideo.com/?BI=2008...
Adorama: www.adorama.com/?...

[@kenblair2538]

Great Video, Keith . I just love it , when you dispel these marketing myths . Thanks. KB

[@KeithCooper]

Glad you enjoyed it! As ever - thanks to the person who asked me the question ;-)

[@black-and-light]

Most helpful video. Thanks for that and nice weekend, Keith

[@KeithCooper]

Thanks, you too!

[@flol3266]

Was searching for explanations of the different paper types. Not a lot of content out there regarding that topic. Thanks for that.

[@KeithCooper]

Glad it was helpful!

[@deraldart]

great. packed with info and attitude that i like. congrats on your new computer.

[@KeithCooper]

Much appreciated... The new Mac Studio renders videos about 10 times the frame rate of my [souped up] 2012 Mac Pro - but the Mac Pro is full of disks!

[@martincregg]

Very informative. I had no idea about this… feel suitably educated. Thanks.

[@KeithCooper]

Thanks - one of those vids which came from someone's question on a forum.

[@metalmick99]

Thanks for this, Keith. I'm new to the printing of my photos, and was wondering about these marketing terms. You explained it clearly and I think, thoroughly. I look forward to further clips from you.

[@KeithCooper]

Glad it was helpful! Good suppliers will provide profiles, for better print quality. There are many smaller suppliers who do an excellent job in this area

[@TobiasSteiner]

Thank you Keith! I'm a hobby artist (digital painting) looking into fine art printing options (folks are starting to ask for prints) and stumbled on your videos. Very informative and answered so many questions I had that I just couldn't find sufficiently answered elsewhere. I'm fairly certain you've convinced me to take the leap into a Canon Pro-300 which seems perfect for someone at my level. Thank you so much for your in depth insight! 🙏

[@KeithCooper]

That's excellent - glad to have helped!

[@stevenscarborough9376]

Good video that I enjoyed watching! FYI, my current setup (Canon Pro-1000) also includes a Benq calibrated monitor. I mostly print B&W and use the B&W printing feature in the Canon Print Studio Program. My go-to papers for most of my uses are two Canson offerings: 1) Baryta Photographique II and 2) BFK Rives. Moreover, I also find that Hahnemuhle Photo Rag 308 works very well, similar to BFK Rives.

[@KeithCooper]

Thanks I've not actually tested many Canson ones I do have set of Hahnemuhle's everyday range which I'll be looking at when I'm back from my holidays...

[@nickm8134]

Thanks, Keith. This raises an interesting challenge for those of us who are both creator and customer, i.e. those of us who only make prints for ourselves. We really need to develop the skill of separating our wants as photographers, e.g. 'the best' cameras, lenses, software, printers, inks, papers etc., and our needs as customers, i.e. great quality prints.

[@KeithCooper]

Thanks - This is so true For myself I get an occasional touch of realism from my commercial work.

[@BrunoChalifour]

Those needs should be the same: quality, shouldn't they? And as such they are actually the same.

[@giuseppevella4368]

Bravo, complimenti!

[@KeithCooper]

Thanks

[@andrewnewton6524]

Another great no nonsense video, which has certainly made me consider the marketing element to papers. By example I recently acquired some matt paper at a low price. I was very pleased with the picture quality but thought it would be great if I could get similar but in a heavier weight. However your video has made me reconsider. Once it's mounted the only important thing is how the print looks and no one will know what weight the paper is. Many thanks for producing thought provoking content

[@KeithCooper]

Thanks - glad to have helped!

[@BrunoChalifour]

"Matt" has to do with the reflectance of the surface of the paper, not how thick or dense the paper is. The density/weight (grammage) of the paper is a totally different story, that can also be different from its thickness. The thickness of the paper does help the way the photographer or printer or the framer handles them and may protect them from creases. Where you are right is that once framed it does not seem to matter anymore.

[@ctrl_alt_del]

Very informative ! Thank you !! Looking forward to you mac studio videos! I have noticed some issues printing from photoshop , which makes me default to epson print layout. Can't wait to see if you have any solutions .... 👍👍

[@KeithCooper]

Thanks - I'm taking a quite slow approach in moving stuff to the new machine, so I can be sure it's not problems from stuff which has collected/lived on my Mac since Snow Leopard [10.6] ;-) It will be a while since I'm on holiday later this month - email me at Northlight if you've any specific queries or things to check?

[@mikebither312]

Thanks!

[@KeithCooper]

Thanks - appreciated!

[@ytuberization]

Thanks, Keith! Would be great in future to hear your opinion on these new matte Baryta papers, e.g. Canson Baryta Photographique Matte. In magazine tests they are described as game changers with significantly improved tonal differentiation in the darks, high color gamut etc.

[@KeithCooper]

Thanks - that does depend on someone sending me some to test [I can't afford to buy paper just for testing]

[@MKWHD]

I can tell you that it is great. A bit too smooth for my taste but to each his own.

[@gosman949]

@@MKWHD by smooth, do you mean not contrasty? Sounds perfect to me.

[@ytuberization]

No, I think it is related to the surface structure. A reviewer recently compared it to the surface of an Aspirin, and I think this is spot on. I did a first test and while it might be a great paper, overall appearance reminds me to the cheap matte RC papers…a bit lifeless

[@gosman949]

@@ytuberization the Red Rivers are great!

[@davidw2454]

Hi Keith, been watching you video with great interest and am soon to get back into printing again, so I’m mainly as B&W photographer and was wondering what was the difference between using the bringers B&W mode bs ICC profiles was, is one better than the other, p.s looking to use Hahnamule Matt photo rag

[@KeithCooper]

Thanks - For the 8550 and any other printers, see the written printer reviews - not the supplemental videos. All have detailed B&W sections www.northlight-images.co.uk/photography-articles-and-reviews/printing-paper-reviews-articles/

[@julesbeland6253]

Hi Keith, very informative as usual. Do you only rely on the paper supplier for ICC profiles (assuming one exist for your printer) or do you always create your own? Thank you

[@KeithCooper]

Thanks I've got all the kit to make high end profiles, so I never use the manufacturer ones. It's part of my printer/paper testing - I use more patches than many suppliers. That's not to say the Mfr. ones are no good, just that I'm lucky enough to have the kit and software ;-) It's not a worthwhile expenditure for most people [I've done test and development work with X-Rite and Datacolor for over 15 years]

[@BrunoChalifour]

Well there are the tools and the workers. All tools and workers have their limitations, and they can add up. Sometimes (and I know a few professionals including myself that have given up on creating our own icc profiles for various reasons) the manufacturer's profile are right. One cannot generalise though; in the case they are not adjustment are also easy.

[@dummatube]

I like your new Mac set-up Keith! Are you still running everything at 4000ºK for video or changed your lighting and screens to 5600ºK or 6500ºK. I switched to remote dimmable 5600ºK LED room lighting and my print viewing rig in my editing room and calibrated the monitors to 5600ºK. Best thing I ever did!

[@KeithCooper]

4000K just for video - the setup for these monitors is purely for testing - the Mac Studio will move to the 'work' part of the office in due course. Lighting is still what it is - never been that bothered for the main office - just so it's light enough so I can write...

[@LePetitMondedeMichel]

A very interesting subject on names and what it means for photographers, for sure if you put Baryta on a box of paper it will become a higher brand product. Great video as always.

[@KeithCooper]

Thanks - glad it was of interest!

[@BrunoChalifour]

Well, baryta has a cost. It is an added cost and is more expensive than RC. There used to be only one place in the world coating baryta (Kodak used to send their papers to Germany for that and that is why, among other commercial reasons, they pushed the RC papers. Now I do not know of any baryta paper that is produced from a poor base (cotton or cellulose) are these papers are defined to a specific market that looks for quality and durability.

[@chusfoose]

Have you used HP brand plotter? I have a problem with my HP T130 plotter, for some reason when I print on photographic paper, the black color comes out with quite a blue tone, in fact it doesn't come out black, any idea what I could be doing wrong? It only happens to me with photographic paper.

[@KeithCooper]

I don't ever use 'plotters' I'm afraid - my testing is far more oriented towards photo/art printing Likely it's an ink/paper mismatch - have you tried another type of paper? It could also be that colour management is not working properly...

[@sednasix6608]

10:52 - can you please expand on this exact bit. I recently printed a BW photo on a fine art paper and found it to have a slight pink tinge to it. You say it's something you'd have to adjust - where do you even start adjusting that if the photo looks "right" on your screen already but the print comes out with that tinge?

[@KeithCooper]

I can't say really - so many unknowns... See here for example www.northlight-images.co.uk/fine-tuning-black-and-white-photo-printing/ Or check the B&W printing sections of any of my [written] printer reviews

[@oscarb.3631]

Of the two papers I've settled on as my main papers for most prints, one is called "baryta" by the distributor and one isn't, though the one that isn't baryta to me looks more like a baryta than the one that is. After this video I think it's quite likely that I have no idea what baryta actually looks like (if there even is a "look"), so it doesn't really matter. I look forward to the review of the BenQ monitor, as I'm currently in the market to upgrade my monitor. Interested in your thoughts on whether the 4k is worth the price premium. Thanks!

[@KeithCooper]

Yes - there is a hefty marketing element in the names ;-) It's interesting to see the two monitors I've got on the Mac Studio at the moment - one is the SW2700, so it's quite similar to the SW272Q My initial feelings are that for serious work at 4k resolution I'd want 32" and that on a Mac, for 27" the 272Q might fit better with my eyesight. [I have no win PC using experience this century!] Once the Mac Studio heads over to the 'work' part of my office, it will connect to a SW321 and SW320, with the second video inputs of each going to the Mac Pro under the desk. I don't expect every bit of software I currently use to migrate over, but this isn't a new experience, I've been tinkering with and looking after Macs since 1988 ;-)

[@BrunoChalifour]

What would help would be your giving the name of the other paper and some of us may be able to give you an answer assuming we agree on what a baryta paper "should look like"... I believe more in what it is,... (or yourself do a search).

[@Maxime-ho9iv]

Very interesting video even tho I got confused watching it. As far as I'm concerned, my 2 suppliers of choice which are Canson and Hahnemuehle are both quite strict in their use of the term Baryta in their paper names. The ones where they say Baryta actually contains Barium Sulphate. This is the expected behavior (obviously). Also, I think we're going a bit too far with this paper thing: artists do choose their paper based on their artistic intent. We don't have to flagellate ourselves. It is important, and it's not just a technicality, nor only marketing. I have the strong conviction that the photograph is the art, i.e. the printed object. You're not making an image on the Internet, you're making a photograph (i.e. it's printed, it's an object with its own existence and properties). You print proofs, you adapt, and you finally get what you wanted to get, on paper, so of course the paper is an integral part of that. And I have to disagree on the statement that it's a "photographer" thing, it's not. Each paper will produce something different which you not only have to consider but to look for, and those differences will be perceived, even tho people may not be able to straight up identify or put a name on it. If you're a painter, your audience may not instantly recognize wether your canvas has gesso on it, or wether that gesso has been sanded or not, or if it's mat or glossy, or textured, etc. but they will perceive your art including those choices, and if you had decided for something else it surely would have been perceived differently.

[@KeithCooper]

Thanks... I've seen reactions to paper vary an awful lot, from not even noticed to commented on before the image ;-) As with all these things, I'd expect as many opinions as there are photographers - I'm only really addressing photographers in some areas here, although my general note concerning wariness about marketing should extend to anyone making prints.

[@gosman949]

Baryta from Red River is some of my favorite papers.

[@KeithCooper]

Yes, I've tried some after they sent me some samples

[@BrunoChalifour]

How many others have you tried? I am asking as their colour rendition is rather specific if not idiosyncratic compared to Canson, Ilford, Epson and Hahnmuhle.

[@gosman949]

@@BrunoChalifour you are probably asking Keith but I have tried most of their papers as I live in the Dallas area near their plant. Not sure what you mean by your question?

[@BrunoChalifour]

@@gosman949 No, I am asking you.

[@gosman949]

@@BrunoChalifour while I have samples of Canson and Hahnmuhle, I haven't tried them yet. I find Epson and Red River to be comparable. Illford is a paper I don't care to try because of limited supply. I just like supporting a local business in Red River with their excellent customer service. You can actually visit their plant and a lady at the front, can show you samples of all of their papers. And if don't mind, they even sell seconds that are greatly reduced in price.

[@diegomilanese3930]

dear Keith, I am a your follower and I have a question. Since yesterday I have been trying a recent type of baryta matt paper and I had color cast problems (dominant blue-green). I print black and white, I prepare the 16Bit RGB file, then I export it and open it and print directly from Epson Print Layout of Epson, in advanced B&W mode on an Epson Pro 3800 printer (so I don't use ICC profiles). I have never had obvious color cast problems with other papers, but with this one I had to apply a correction of Horizontal +8 and Vertical -2 to obtain an acceptable neutral tone print. (I can be more precise via email if you find it useful). I was wondering if you too have had to make strong color corrections with this type on baryta papers or if you think it is the paper-printer combination that could be the problem. Thank you!

[@KeithCooper]

I've not had any papers of this sort to test, but a new sort of paper may always show up issues. If I get to see some, I'll do some proper B&W testing, but 8/2 is not that extreme a correction - of course I need to get a spectrophotometer out to test properly ;-) I still need a company to send me paper before I can do testing!

[@diegomilanese3930]

Thanks for your reply, Keith. the paper in question is the Canson infinity II Baryta Matt. So far I have used Epson, Hahnemuehle and Innova papers with no noticeable problems. I noticed that Canson provides profiles for this Baryta Matt for many Epson printers, but not for the Pro 3800. Perhaps the reason behind this is that setup with this printer is not so easy. However, I don't have a spectrophotometer, I only wasted two sheets of paper to get close to the neutral tone, perhaps because when I was young I studied as a photochromist :-) thanks, I always follow your tutorials!

[@KeithCooper]

Thanks I'll see what's available

[@claudeboussemaere5018]

@@diegomilanese3930 I print on Canson Baryta Matt with an old Epson R3000 (Ultrachrome K3 vivid magenta). While I mostly print very warm on this paper with QuadTone RIP using solely the 3 grey inks, I obtained neutral prints using ABW and Keith's test image: definitely no cast requiring H+8 correction. Beware that under certain TL lighting I do indeed see an ugly green cast. Maybe you could print a test image using ABW (neutral) on multiple paper types and compare under different lightings. Also note that once you put a glass in front, the appearance will change.

[@diegomilanese3930]

@@claudeboussemaere5018 Thank you. I always judge the print in natural light and I made the corrections only after several hours of drying the paper, because as soon as it came out of the printer the greenish cast was much stronger. I also printed the same image on an Epson paper which always gives me a neutral tone and I noticed that this too gave me a slight green cast, although less than the previous one. Then a suspicion occurred to me: I had just replaced the maintenance cartridge and then I shook all the ink cartridges one by one. I'll do the tests again...

[@ronboe6325]

My Studio is da bomb. Some bits run blazingly fast, others, merely a bit quicker. But I think you'll feel spoiled in no time. :D

[@KeithCooper]

Yes - the video rendering was the biggest jump I've seen yet.

[@thomaseriksson6256]

Thank you good information, I’m not looking forward to get the right paper when I start printing BW in a few years. So it will be museum quality paper when I printing A2 because no one cares about my pictures, I just dump them to British Museum. .

[@KeithCooper]

We are seeing plenty of new papers coming along...

[@fredwestinghouse2945]

Related question to the one I asked earlier. A well known supplier has two glossy papers: Ultra and Premium. The (very sparse) marketing blurb is nearly identical for both papers. The only difference is: the Ultra is 300gsm and the Premium is 255gsm. Funny, I always thought "premium" meant "the best", and so it would be the heavier paper. But then, what do I know? The Ultra, being 300gsm, is priced about 23% above the Premium. So, if everything else is equal, then that is Marketing BS - because, as you say, bar photographers who sell prints, and want to market the "quality of the paper", for everybody else, there is no difference. Either way, (I am being s****ed) I have to waste money - I am forced to either buy into the Marketing BS and get the more expensive paper, or, I have to buy both papers and do tests for myself.

[@KeithCooper]

Ah paper marketing... I think my general views were known before this video ;-) Ultra and premium are pure marketing. Whether you choose to regard this as BS is entirely up to you. With any marketing, this stuff is aimed at real identified user groups... ;-) For myself, my default lustre paper has for years been a [300gsm] third party one where I know the original maker as well as the brand it sells under. Widely mentioned in my written printer reviews over the years... I'm glad I don' sell paper...

[@BrunoChalifour]

Yes labelling and marketing often try to obfuscate real information that can be found though. The easiest answer and solution is try them both and choose the one that works for you.

[@fredwestinghouse2945]

Why not buy the cheapest paper? As an example, I want to buy a smooth gloss paper. Seller has a "basic" one, 100gsm, and a "marketed" one, 300 gsm. Otherwise, everything else is the same. Both papers from a reputable seller, provides ICC profiles etc. So, for a hobbyist, not bothered about archivability, how the paper feels in the hand etc, why not buy the cheapest paper? In all your testing over the years, have you found any real and siginificant difference between cheap and expensive papers?

[@KeithCooper]

There is cheaper and properly cheap... If someone provides profiles they are not properly in the cheap category... ;-) Cheap papers are just not very predictable - I've had ones where the ink rubs off or sometimes just never seems to dry properly. I do want prints which will last more than a few weeks, so I avoid third party inks and super-cheap papers Some don't care about this, so if the results are what you are after, go for it...

[@BrunoChalifour]

Because you may not have an icc profile for that type of paper and will not be able to control colour and NB rendition. Because it may degrade faster than better ones and your image with it. One can always buy the cheapest but also be ready to get what they pay for, don't you think? So, agreed, in the end it may just be a matter of expectations.