I read the article & was surprised by the number of voices chiming in agreement. My own opinion is that inkjet papers are ever so much better in QC than they were just 3-5 years ago.
If I dissent from the complaints in the Ctein article & comments, then perhaps I brand myself as a philistine who grinds out defective prints; but I can't imagine coming up with what he says is his rejection rate. He singles out Harman for special criticism, & I've found only a few defective sheets in 17x25 boxes (though I gave up using their rolls, because its thickness plus strong curl made it vulnerable to print-head contact).
When making large prints I usually make smaller work prints of parts of the image, so I have a ready use for the few sheets with surface imperfections that I encounter. So from my standpoint Ctein has had a statistically rare run of bad luck, or has blown up the problem larger than it looms in my experience.
Kirk
