I think Buxton is a pretty good paper too. For me, it prints a lot cooler in tone than platine or COT320, all other things being equal. It definitely has some deep blacks, but I think the shadows seem to block up a bit more than some other papers. This may be an exposure issue though, and maybe it just is slightly faster than those other papers. It also will allow you to make a 100% platinum print that really looks great. Of course, between the $14.50 paper and $1100/oz platinum, screw ups on a pure pt print tend to be sort of disheartening.

If you want an ultra-cheap, ultra available paper for palladium, check out Southworth 100% Rag resume paper from Office Depot. It has a watermark that makes it good only for small prints, but it makes a surprisingly nice palladium print with no additional treatment needed.

Quote Originally Posted by Dana Sullivan View Post
Tried out the Ruscombe Buxton 160gsm paper today. Talk about a gorgeous paper to work with! It coats exceptionally smoothly and evenly, and the final prints are superb. Very good blacks, with only the slightest hint of solarization. Although there is a slight amount of surface texture, the image is very crisp and clean, and there are none of the emulsion absorbtion issues you see with other papers. I give Dr. Michael Ware high marks for his work in developing this paper. Bravo! (clap, clap)

Overall, I'd rate it right up there with COT-320 in terms of image quality. I'd say it's probably my new 'favorite' paper, but the $14.50 price for a 22x30 sheet is a little frightening. I definitely want to add this to my catalog, as it would make a great 'premium' paper to go along with the 'budget' papers like Stonehenge and Weston Diploma.

Next up: Testing Fabriano Artistico.