I have seen it mentioned often so I like to ask why people seem to use this paper more than other Epson papers? or am I forming the wrong conclusion?

I tend to use Ilford's smooth pearl more but it's very similar to luster. It's a very nice photo paper and works well with pigment inks. Give it a try.

Doug

Thanks Doug.

I too use Ilford Pearl for some prints.

Henry

It's pretty straightforward. Epson premium luster paper is relatively cheap (like, around $100 for a 24"x100' roll). It provides a very dark D-max with Epson K3 inks, also with HP's Z3100 ink set. It provides a very wide color gamut. The base color is a bit blue compared to many fine art papers, but this gives it a very bright perceived white.

I find it works quite well for black & white images due to the bright white and very deep blacks, and for high saturation color images. The main downside is an annoying stippled surface texture, but this is only apparent when you catch a reflection, so it's much less of an issue behind glass. The weight of the paper is also just a bit light for portfolio work.

I would add that this is the paper that most customers think of as "photo paper." It has a plastic base with a luster finish, just like they get at the local drugstore/wallymart/photofinisher. While photographers love the feel of high-end double-weight fiber paper, that's not a "real photo" to many people. And since those people pay my salary, I'll continue to provide luster paper.

It's also an historical thing. For several years Epson was the only pro/semi-pro inkjet game in town, and Premium Luster was the most affordable+tolerable of the Epson photo papers.

I use the Epson Ultra Premier Presentation Paper Matte (aka Enhanced Matte, aka Archival Matte) for my color prints almost exclusively. On occasion I switch to the Ilford Smooth Pearl (cheaper than the Epson Premier Lustre and indistinquishable in my eyes) when an image's saturation and deep shadows can't be produced on the Matte.

A large matte print behind glass appears very flat and shows no reflection off the surface, and the print does not ripple. Not so with other papers like the Smooth Pearl, or glossys. Behind glass, in addition to the reflection from the surface, a large Smooth Pearl (or glossy) print will show ripples when viewed at an angle. Very much like what you will see on a traditional print. Some may consider that a "feature" of these paper.

The simple reason why many photographers, including some fine art photographers with the most exacting standards of print quality like Joseph Holmes and Bill Atkinson, use Premium Luster paper is that they believe strongly that their photographs look best on that paper. (The Epson Luster has the highest D-Max of all of the Epson papers.) I know that they don't like the tactile qualities of the Luster paper, but they feel that the image is paramount, not the hand of the paper. Moreover, so long as the print is going to be framed under glass anyway, the hand of the paper becomes somewhat moot.

Premium luster (and the smooth pearl) prints need to by dry mounted to prevent wrinkling with changes in humidity. Properly mounted the prints are stable and have an excellent look behind glass.

To those that don't like the luster or pearl surface try the premium semi-gloss or any of the similar papers from canon, hp, kodak, etc. You'll find more noticable gloss differential and it does not look anywhere near as good if the glass touches the paper when framed without a mat. As others noted the luster/pearl surfaces are also more desirable to customers as they don't look as inkjety and look more like a traditional photo.

Personally I prefer the slight extra heft to the ilford product and it seems to me to be a little less susceptible to denting or creasing but it might just be my imagination.

Doug

Agreed. Also, I have talked with Joseph Holmes and the data on the archival properties is important as well. Specifically, he mentioned the "Displayed Prints Framed with UV Filter" number of 165 years.

--John

I sometimes wonder if we are all being taken for an expensive ride by the paper manufacturers. I base this on a limited (very) palette of choice: Epson Heavyweight Matt 167gsm (that´s heavyweight?); Jessops Heavyweight Photo Matt 230gsm and also Hahnenuehle Photo Rag Bright White 310gsm.

I´m using an HP 9180 and before that I used a pair of bog-standard Epson C82 and C66 printers with the Epson paper only.

How happy am I with these? Mixed felings, to say the least! The Epson material at 167gsm feels like toilet paper compared with the other two; the Hahne stuff is a disaster with model skin - just too much unwanted paper texture, and the Jessops material, for all its own-brand lack of marque glamour, produces the best skin of them all with Epson being quite good in that area too. I think you can only buy Jessops in the UK - I get it brought out to Spain by a friend.

BUT, and as you will have noticed, a capital one at that, only the Hahne offers any hope of longevity.

So what can one use that looks great for skin, is matt and lives longer than any one of us is likely to so do?

On the topic of price - I shall not go there; I already have stress problems enough.

Rob C

I haven't seen any wrinkles on my 18 x 24 luster prints mounted with either t-hinges or edge grips.

I think you are either very lucky or have a much more stable humidity range than I would expect from MO.

I have noticed wrinkling at one time of the year or another with nearly every large print. It's not a permanent effect and I'm sure it's caused by the layers in the paper expanding/contracting in the humidity by different amounts.

Doug

Mort:
I would say that 20x24 and above the rippling becomes a BIG problem. I am delivering 5 30x36" prints for sale to a customer next week and have arranged to have them framed for the customer by my framer that cold mounts the prints.
Regards, Howard

Hi Doug and Howard. I reexamined three of my 18 x 24 prints that I still have access to (three I have in my home), and I'm not seeing any wrinkles or waviness. All three of these were mounted to foam core using Lineco See-Thru Mounting Strips, with a little room between the edges of the print and the strips to allow for expansion and contraction of the print. These prints were trimmed to 22 x 28, and matted/framed to 24 x 30. I no longer have access to any of my earlier t-hinge mounted prints, so I can't comment on them.

You two certainly have a lot more experience on this than I do - I really have only printed and mounted a few dozen such prints. Maybe the Lineco Mounting Strips are somehow avoiding this problem. Or maybe it's just that at this time of year, with the dry air, there normally would be no wrinkles.

It could be a number of things but around here fall would be the worst time for this due to large CHANGES in humidity. Do you have forced-air heat? Furnace humidifier? Are you in southern MO were it seems to be damp all the time? Is the picture frame nearly air tight? Could be a number of things, I guess, but if you notice the wrinkles, dry mounting is the facelift. I'd show you if I could but all the prints I have on hand are drymounted.

Doug

Hi Doug. I have forced air heat, but no furnace humidifier. I'm in mid-Missouri. The picture frames are not air tight.

Now that I'm aware of the issue, I'll keep a closer eye on the prints. Maybe they've been wrinkled in the past and I've just never noticed. However, I'm beginning to think the mounting strips, with gaps to allow for expansion and contraction, may be a part of the answer. I was introduced to these by a framer I've used, and he sweared by them (even for larger than 18 x 24 prints).

Regards,
Mort.

From what I've noticed it's only a temporary effect so if your mounting method either prevents it or it doesn't happen often enough to notice that's great. For the resin coated papers like the luster or smooth pearl I usually recommend dry mounting and that's what I have done to my own prints. I've never noticed it with matte papers.

Doug