«

"Darrell A. Larose" <> wrote in message news:gpb31k$3o1$...

>I really miss Kodak Ektalure "G" paper! I printed a lot of stuff on it, it was just a nice portrait paper, slightly warm (Ivory)
>base and a warm tone. Does anyone here have an inkjet match for it?
>
> Darrell Larose
> Photo Technician

As a printer who enjoyed brilliance and sharpness in prints,
I detested that "bubbly-surfaced" black-and-white-free paper
that made everything look like the prints had aged badly - and
I could never figure out why anyone would want to use it...! 8^)
--DR

"George Kerby" <> wrote in message news:C5DEBCFD.247CC%...
> On 3/12/09 10:56 AM, in article gpbbc4$hgf$, "David
> Ruether" <> wrote:
>> "Darrell A. Larose" <> wrote in message
>> news:gpb31k$3o1$...

>>> I really miss Kodak Ektalure "G" paper! I printed a lot of stuff on it, it
>>> was just a nice portrait paper, slightly warm (Ivory)
>>> base and a warm tone. Does anyone here have an inkjet match for it?
>>>
>>> Darrell Larose
>>> Photo Technician

>> As a printer who enjoyed brilliance and sharpness in prints,
>> I detested that "bubbly-surfaced" black-and-white-free paper
>> that made everything look like the prints had aged badly - and
>> I could never figure out why anyone would want to use it...! 8^)
>> --DR

> That's why there is more than vanilla...

[Note the "8^)"...;-]
But, why would anyone want "BAD" when "GOOD" is available,
and no more expensive...??? I guess maybe someone somewhere
really would want to use "raspberry-royal (red streaks) with chocolate
chunks (brown splotches)" paper if it were available, huh?... 8^)
But, really, if one starts with neutral coloring and the best possible
blacks and whites in a print paper, one can then do anything else.
Anything less than that is very limiting... (which is not to say that I did
not start out with a warm-toned "silk"-surfaced paper when I began
making paper prints ever so ridiculously long ago - and two of them are
[embarrassingly] in the collection of the Museum of Modern Art... 8^).
--DR

"George Kerby" <> wrote in message news:C5DEDF26.247F6%...
> On 3/12/09 3:08 PM, in article gpbq3q$j5o$, "David
> Ruether" <> wrote:

>> ....if one starts with neutral coloring and the best possible
>> blacks and whites in a print paper, one can then do anything else.
>> Anything less than that is very limiting... (which is not to say that I did
>> not start out with a warm-toned "silk"-surfaced paper when I began
>> making paper prints ever so ridiculously long ago - and two of them are
>> [embarrassingly] in the collection of the Museum of Modern Art... 8^).
>> --DR

> I dunno about all of that, but one paper that most people hated when I was
> working at a "Camera Store" in the late 70's was called "E" surface. It had
> a raised surface resembling a fine 'mesh', much like a screen on a window.
> It was universally hated by my customers, but Kodak was using it, I guess to
> make copies of the prints more difficult, since the irregular surface
> produced myriad of reflections.

Yup, that was the surface I used, but made by Luminos...8^(
I also likely over washed those prints - so now metallic silver
has probably migrated to the paper surface, spoiling them
even further, sigh...! I liked the Luminos E surface at the time
for the deep blacks without the need for a high gloss to get
them. Much better papers arrived later, though...
--DR