Foma Velvet compared to Ilford MG ART 300

On my screen the Foma looks way better.

thefizz said:

On my screen the Foma looks way better.

Click to expand...

I'd agree but the poster has described what may be wrong with the Ilford Art 300. However if there are people out there who need to see the true difference in order to make a choice then it is unfortunate that what seems to be the better of the two papers in some respects does not show up here

I do constantly worry if scans can tell us anything and yet there is no other way on a forum

pentaxuser

pentaxuser said:

if scans can tell us anything and yet there is no other way on a forum

Click to expand...

If the material has any surface texture and any gloss, a scan will often make things look worse than reality - the gold-standard repro method would be to photograph the print under cross polarisation which will negate the texture - not terribly difficult to do, but needs lighting kit and a solid camera support system.

Lachlan Young said:

If the material has any surface texture and any gloss, a scan will often make things look worse than reality

Click to expand...

I agree.

I regularly scan prints for Instagram or my own personal web site and I will be keeping doing that. But scans are of no use for a look-and-feel analysis as they do not convey the unique properties of each paper. These scans are not flattering at all for either Foma or Ilford. Best way to compare is to add a small pack (10 sheets) on your next photographic order and try it out of yourself.

I am sorry, but I am not at all happy with these files and I will remove the links for my earlier post.