Metallic Paper

[Ben Rubinstein]

I prefer chemical prints to inkjet, I find they have more depth due to the image being within the paper rather than on top of it. My personal opinion.

B&W printed on the usual colour paper is pretty muddy in general though Kodak is better than Fuji in my experience. I have printed on metallic paper (my lab and I concur feels that the Kodak Endura thrashes the Fuji Pearl) and although it does look a bit gimmicky, behind glass it just looks like a high contrast paper without the muddiness of the regular Fuji/Kodak offerings. I use Ilford HiGloss (Cibachrome for LED printing and with about 10 times the DR) for colour and absolutely love it. I've sent off two B&W's for printing on the Endura Metallic and am interested to see if it will work out as a good solution for me.

Anyone have any thoughts about metallic? Is is too cheap, not fine art enough?

 

[etrigan63]

Dale Photo & Digital does metallic prints and, depending on the image, they can be quite spectacular. They tend to increase contrast a little and add an iridescent sheen to the image. David printed one of my Grand Canyon HDR images on 20x30 metallic paper and it was amazing. Dale Photo & Digital won't steer you wrong.

 

[LJL]

Ben,
Have not gone back to chemical from inkjet myself, as I like doing the printing. I used to do a lot of Cibachrome before, so I do understand what you are talking about with respect to depth of prints and colors. That being said, some of the newer inks, printers and especially papers (fiber based, baryta, etc.) in the inkjet realm are able to turn out very impressive, detailed, deep color, stunning B/W prints, every bit as comparable or in some cases, better than chemical prints. That is my opinion, and not trying to negate the chemical prints, but more to offer consideration for inkjet that is quite advanced today. The metallic prints you are asking about, and that Carlos describes, do have a very different and interesting look to them. (I have had a few made and am not unhappy with the results....just prefer doing my own printing, and no way I am going back to chemicals on my own.) They do impart more contrast, but for some images, things can look quite stunning and somewhat unique. I do not think it is too gimmicky, as you mention, but have seen it pushed in that direction a bit more through marketing, and that might reduce some of the uniqueness and interesting look for some things.

Basically, things coming off of inkjet printers today are really impressive, and I would offer that they should not be dismissed too quickly if looking for really nice printing. I understand your expressed preferences, so am not suggesting one is "better" than the other. That being said, inkjet prints made on some the newer papers easily rival or exceed some of the chemical prints I have seen done on the papers you mention. Worth making the comparisons yourself, if you have the interest.

LJ

 

[kdphotography]

Kodak's Metallic paper is unique----and I wish there were a comparable inkjet media. You do have to select images that will look good on metallic, and probably moreso for B&W images. When it works, it can be quite stunning. Almost my entire series in Canada (www.houseoflandscapes.com) is printed on metallic, including two panoramics 30x70. Otherwise, back to the Epson...

 

[carbonmetrictree]

There is a metallic inkjet paper at Booksmart Studio, it's a bit expensive but I've heard that B/W prints printed right are absolutely stunning.

 

[Ben Rubinstein]

Thanks folks, I'm no stranger to doing metallic prints, wanted to hear others opinions, I'm based in the UK, I use BPD Photech the lab all the landscape pros use, I have a good relationship with the guy who runs the printing!

LJ, I wasn't referring to depth of colour, it's the look of the ink sitting on the surface rather than being within the paper that I don't like.