N Surface

[chop61]

Is there an RC paper available that kinda, sorta, is pretty close to-the N surface on the old Kodak RC paper?

 

[Paul Verizzo]

You bet!

Is there an RC paper available that kinda, sorta, is pretty close to-the N surface on the old Kodak RC paper?

I was startled to see your thread topic; I, too, am...am...yes, a lover of "not glossy."

The Arista.edu Ultra/Foma is 99% dead ringer for N. Only if you hold the two side by side with the right light can you see a slight difference, very slight.

It's interesting that under the Arista brand, it is called semi-matte, just like Kodak describes N. Yet, under the parent Foma brand, they called it matte.

The Varycon "mat" is just that, like your door mat, dull, BTW.

Kodak still makes N in its color line.

 

[Silverhead]

It's interesting that under the Arista brand, it is called semi-matte, just like Kodak describes N. Yet, under the parent Foma brand, they called it matte.

Yeah, but this is nothing new. Different companies almost always have their own definition of what matte or glossy is. Kentmere lists their Kentona surface as glossy, even though it's blatantly different from the glossy in their VC FB and RC. It's more of a semi-gloss, which I actually like a lot.

 

[chop61]

The Arista.edu Ultra/Foma is 99% dead ringer for N. Only if you hold the two side by side with the right light can you see a slight difference, very slight. /QUOTE]


Ah, you answered me two for one, since I was also wondering who makes Arista Paper. I just don't care for a pebbled, pearl, "Matte" surface.

 

[brian steinberger]

I think that part of the reason why so many people are turned off by RC paper initially is because most people start with the glaring gloss of glossy RC. I know I don't like it. It's ok for contact sheets, but that's about it. I personally love Ilfords Pearl RC paper. It is beautiful stuff.

 

[Saganich]

It is the reason I never use it. I'll have to trysome pearl RC

 

[Paul Verizzo]

Yeah, but this is nothing new. Different companies almost always have their own definition of what matte or glossy is. Kentmere lists their Kentona surface as glossy, even though it's blatantly different from the glossy in their VC FB and RC. It's more of a semi-gloss, which I actually like a lot.

While the English language has a lot of possible wiggle room in defining an item to match a word, the paper companies seem to be off in their own dictionary. Maybe there has always been this problem, but that doesn't mean I accept it. It's really not difficult to find common ground, and I don't find "buy a box and try it" a logical response to determining the surface.

Matte is not semi-matte. Matte is essentially non-reflective, semi-matte is somewhat. Kodak has from time to time called the N surface "smooth lustre."

Using a letter designation like Kodak does removes all doubt what a surface is. You know what it is, from paper to paper.

Ilford's Pearl, BTW, pretty well matches to Kodak's E, "fine grain, lustre." It's a nice surface, a little glossier than N. I used it a lot - can I say this here? - in inkjet printing.

 

[Steve Smith]

It would be nice to have common terminology for paper surfaces.

Some of the products my company makes are membrane switch panels for domestic, medical and industrial equipment. The outer graphic layer of these is usually printed onto polyester with a surface treatment. This treatment is denoted by the percentage gloss level. The three main types we use are 92 (high gloss), 60 (anti-glare) and 40 (matt). The 60 is similar to Ilford's pearl.

A similar system to this where each manufacturer's rated paper conformed to the same standard would be helpful.


Steve.