First Impressions: Hahnemühle Fine Art Papers
We have loaded new inks into our Canon Pro-1100 and replaced the maintenance cartridge. Now it's time to do some test prints.
First, I prepared the 2 images for print. These photos were taken with the LG G5 for the flower and the iPhone XS Max for the town image between 2016 and 2020. Their file sizes were between 1.4 and 2 megabytes. So to rid the images of any pixelation I used Topaz Gigapixel to enhance them for enlargements, which increased their sizes to about 30 and 45 megabytes. After that, I edited the images in Adobe Lightroom and Capture One.
I chose to test Hahnemühle fine art papers, focusing on their textured and Baryta stock. I picked Hahnemühle because it is one of the oldest paper companies, and its reputation among my peers influenced my decision. I bought four sample packs, each containing two sheets of each paper type. So far, I have tried three of the papers, and I'm impressed with the results. The first prints featured a flower on a steel table. I printed a large 17x22 image on Canon Pro Luster paper as my reference. The two 8.5x11 images were printed on Hahnemühle Fine Art Baryta gsm 300 with a satin finish. This paper is thicker than I am used to; it feels like cardstock. It held together well, especially in the blacks and shadows.
Next, I decided to try the Hahnemühle 13x19 papers, specifically choosing the matte fine art/textured option. The decision wasn’t straightforward, as each paper had a watercolor surface made of 100% cotton, which produced similar whiteness in the images, ranging from 87% to 88.5%. The difference was not significant. I narrowed my choices down to the William Turner and the Museum Etching paper, ultimately selecting the Museum Etching paper for this round. I have to admit that when I first held my image printed on this paper, I felt somewhat withdrawn. The colors appeared muted, and the blacks seemed muddy. I had to come to terms with the fact that this was my first experience seeing my work on a paper that wasn’t a luster finish, and I am still learning how to print my images at home. After a couple of days of observing my image from a distance and up close, using my loupe to carefully examine different parts, I began to appreciate what this paper had to offer. In the end, it won me over.
Now that I had tested the Hahnemühle Baryta and the Museum Etching paper, it was time to test one that was close to the Canon Pro Luster paper, but not a luster paper, if that even makes sense. I printed my target image on the Canon paper, as I did with the flower image. Then I looked at what the next sample pack had to offer; there were 2 types of the matte fiber papers, a glossy, a luster, and lastly a pearl surface. I went with the Hahnemühle Pearl, and let me say, it knocked me out. I found something special in this paper. I was drawn to the overall look of the image, with its bright whites and exceptional shadow retention. This was going to be my go-to fine art paper for this surface. The only thing I would want to test and compare is Red River's Arctic White paper.
Self-printing has been an incredibly rewarding experience for me since I started printing my images at home since April. I'm eager to experiment with several more sample papers from Hahnemühle, and I can't wait to share the outstanding results.
Here’s a link to the Hahnemuhle sample packs that B&H Photo offers.
Above (L-R) (8.5×11) Hahnmühle Fine Art Baryta Satin 300 gsm , (17×22) Canon Pro Luster 260 gsm
Below (L-R) Hahnmühle Museum Etching 350 gsm, Hahnemühle Pearl 310 gsm , Canon Pro Luster 260 gsm
Left: Hahnemühle Museum Etching Paper 350 gsm Right: Hahnemühle Pearl 310 gsm
