Does anyone use Ilford (Imaging) Inkjet papers??

[Dusty Negative]

Folks,

I've spent a combined total of 45 minutes or so trying to do research on Ilford (Imaging) Inkjet papers. I'm new to printing, and made the mistake of buying a box of ILFORD GALERIE Prestige Gold Mono Silk. I fell immediately in love. Then I discovered that it's been discontinued. Then I discovered that BH and Adorama seem to be out of quite a lot of Ilford Inkjet papers, regardless whether PRESTIGE or not. Then I discovered that there appear to be 1,874 different types of Ilford Galerie (Prestige and otherwise) papers that seem to be in various stages of discontinuation, name changes, branding changes, etc.

So...if anyone in the US actually uses Ilford Inkjet papers, where are you getting your paper and what iteration/versions are you using??

Cheers.

 

[jtk]

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/sear...stige gold fibre&N=0&InitialSearch=yes&sts=ps

I used that a lot ... yes, the name did change repeatedly which led to dealership problems. The name, before they started their branding games, was simply "Ilford Gold Fibre Silk."

Epson is a more stable company than Ilford and has a virtually identical, but more neutral inkjet paper (I think that's "Exhibition Fibre"). Brexit will undoubtedly make the Ilford brand problematic.

https://www.itsupplies.com/Paper-and-Media-s/153.htm This has been the ultimate source for the past decade IMO.

 

[Dusty Negative]

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?Ntt=ilford galerie prestige gold fibre&N=0&InitialSearch=yes&sts=ps

I used that a lot ... yes, the name did change repeatedly which led to dealership problems. The name, before they started their branding games, was simply "Ilford Gold Fibre Silk."

Epson is a more stable company than Ilford and has a virtually identical, but more neutral inkjet paper (I think that's "Exhibition Fibre"). Brexit will undoubtedly make the Ilford brand problematic.

https://www.itsupplies.com/Paper-and-Media-s/153.htm This has been the ultimate source for the past decade IMO.

That's very helpful, jtk. Thank you so much. If you go on the Ilford Imaging site, their marketing blurbs even confuse the issue...although 'Prestige' seems to be a retired line, they still pepper some of their new Galerie blurbs with that title. It's as if their own marketing folks aren't sure what is going on. Shame. In any event, I'll check out those links. IT Supplies looks promising. I've had several orders from B&H show up with smashed corners, so I am not going to order from them any more. Amazon does a better job with packaging but seems to have a limited selection.

 

[Alan9940]

I haven't bought Ilford inkjet paper for years because I had a nice stock of the two main ones I use: Gold Fibre Silk and Prestige Smooth Pearl. Always purchased from B&H.

 

[wyofilm]

This is what I use on a Canon PIXMA Pro-10 printer.

I am very happy with the outcome, though I am no expert.

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/872747-REG/Ilford_2001744_Galerie_Prestige_Smooth_Pearl.html

 

[Dusty Negative]

One of the things that impressed me about the Gold Mono Silk (keeping in mind again that I am a printing newbie) was its near RC-paper like surface. By that I mean, when looking through a loupe, the paper appeared very similar to silver halide/emulsion paper. When I look at Canson Infinity's Rag Photographique, by contrast, I can clearly see grooves in the paper that give it a machined look. Of course, identifying that without the benefit of a loupe would clearly be much more difficult.

So, I don't know if my excitement over the Gold Mono Silk is misplaced...perhaps many papers have that darkroom paper look/feel?

 

[Alan9940]

I loved Gold Mono Silk, but couldn't get it to print on either my Epson 3880 or Epson R2880 without head strikes. I tried everything I could think of to make it work, but finally gave up. Actually, I think the edge curling issue may have been one of the reasons it was pulled from the market.

 

[Dusty Negative]

I loved Gold Mono Silk, but couldn't get it to print on either my Epson 3880 or Epson R2880 without head strikes. I tried everything I could think of to make it work, but finally gave up. Actually, I think the edge curling issue may have been one of the reasons it was pulled from the market.

I read about that issue. I've only printed a couple of works on my Canon Pixma Pro 10, but haven't noticed any curling or other problems.....yet.

 

[chriscrawfordphoto]

I use two of the Ilford inkjet papers. Gold Fibre Silk, and Gallerie Smooth Gloss.

The Gold Fibre Silk is my favorite for my exhibition prints, both color and black and white. Its a fiber based paper with a surface that looks like an air-dried glossy fiber base silver paper. The only difference between this paper and the Mono Silk paper was that the Mono paper had optical brighteners to make it look 'whiter.' These arent a good idea anyway, as they fade over time. Best to use papers without brighteners like the Gold Fibre Silk, which is still available.

The Smooth Gloss is an RC paper and gives a look similar to glossy RC papers used in the darkroom for both color and BW. I use it for commercial work and proofing, as the quality is nice and it is relatively inexpensive. They make a pearl surface version, too, for those who like a textured surface.

 

[Dusty Negative]

I use two of the Ilford inkjet papers. Gold Fibre Silk, and Gallerie Smooth Gloss.

The Gold Fibre Silk is my favorite for my exhibition prints, both color and black and white. Its a fiber based paper with a surface that looks like an air-dried glossy fiber base silver paper. The only difference between this paper and the Mono Silk paper was that the Mono paper had optical brighteners to make it look 'whiter.' These arent a good idea anyway, as they fade over time. Best to use papers without brighteners like the Gold Fibre Silk, which is still available.

The Smooth Gloss is an RC paper and gives a look similar to glossy RC papers used in the darkroom for both color and BW. I use it for commercial work and proofing, as the quality is nice and it is relatively inexpensive. They make a pearl surface version, too, for those who like a textured surface.

Looks like that's +2 for Gold Fibre Silk = Gold Mono Silk. I will order some of that and see. Many thanks.

 

[Dusty Negative]

Ordered some Gold Fiber Silk and printed out a few test prints. It reacts similarly to Gold Mono Silk, but seems to respond better to yellows and oranges (a caucasian face, in this case) than the Gold Mono Silk; seems to respond about the same to reds and blues. It also has a bit less of a sheen...something I personally like. Seems to be a good paper with more pop than matte but not as much sheen as a glossy. Nice indeed. Thanks to all who offered their opinion.

 

[Dusty Negative]

This is what I use on a Canon PIXMA Pro-10 printer.

I am very happy with the outcome, though I am no expert.

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/872747-REG/Ilford_2001744_Galerie_Prestige_Smooth_Pearl.html

Can you compare it to the Gold Fiber Silk? Presumably, as a 'Pearl' it may have even less of a sheen?

 

[Alan9940]

Can you compare it to the Gold Fiber Silk? Presumably, as a 'Pearl' it may have even less of a sheen?

Not to answer for wyofilm, but having used both of these substrates myself IMO the sheen of Galerie Prestige Smooth Pearl looks "plasticy" and has a pebbly appearance with oblique light glancing off the paper surface; whereas, the Gold Fibre Silk has a subdued gloss that appears very smooth (very similar to a gloss silver gelatin print.) Plus, the base tone of the Gold Fibre Silk is warmer than the Smooth Pearl which I much prefer for my B&W digital images.

 

[Dusty Negative]

Not to answer for wyofilm, but having used both of these substrates myself IMO the sheen of Galerie Prestige Smooth Pearl looks "plasticy" and has a pebbly appearance with oblique light glancing off the paper surface; whereas, the Gold Fibre Silk has a subdued gloss that appears very smooth (very similar to a gloss silver gelatin print.) Plus, the base tone of the Gold Fibre Silk is warmer than the Smooth Pearl which I much prefer for my B&W digital images.

Interesting. My vocabulary for this arena is sorely lacking. I agree that GFS has a "subdued gloss" but it, too, has a texture that is not exactly completely smooth (like the Gold Mono Silk nearly was). My limited tongue would call it "finely fibrous," which almost sounds like the finale of a Limerick.

 

[Alan9940]

My limited tongue would call it "finely fibrous," which almost sounds like the finale of a Limerick.

Not so lacking. I would agree with your assessment of the GFS surface. I guess my point was that Smooth Pearl has a "rougher" texture vs GFS. Don't get me wrong, I really like Smooth Pearl and have used it for many images. For my B&W work, though, if I'm not printing in the wet darkroom I prefer GFS for these images.

Oh, how I wish Mono Silk was still available and that it didn't have the feeding issues that many (including me) experienced with it. It was a spectacular paper for B&W!

 

[jtk]

These various papers perform differently with Canon pigments, Canon inks, and Epson pigments.

Personally, I dislike "pearl" surface because it generally seems to be pebble-surface rather than looking like some level of fiber-surface. Papers that are used for illustration rather than photography seem never to "pearl surface." I recall that when "pearl" first appeared on the market it was intended to minimize handling evidence in drugstore prints.

 

[Dusty Negative]

These various papers perform differently with Canon pigments, Canon inks, and Epson pigments.

Personally, I dislike "pearl" surface because it generally seems to be pebble-surface rather than looking like some level of fiber-surface. Papers that are used for illustration rather than photography seem never to "pearl surface." I recall that when "pearl" first appeared on the market it was intended to minimize handling evidence in drugstore prints.

I had a box of Pearl RC that I used briefly last year. Couldn't really get the hang of it...blacks didn't seem as deep as glossy but the surface was still...well...glossy. Or at least too glossy for my taste while not giving deep blacks. I have no doubt most of that was user error, but I just didn't have the opportunity to work with it very much.