[6.05 lb] I have printed in the darkroom for forty five years. After switching to digital I looked for a paper that would come closet to the look I got on Ilford glossy papers. One was Ilford Gold Silk Fiber which has been discontinued. I was recommended Canon Infinity Baryta Photographique ll by a B&H employee who prints on it. After printing my black and white and color images I am now using it exclusively. The paper has a great range of tones and has a beautiful black. The paper, which is thick, has the feel of the paper that I used in the darkroom. Other photographers who I showed it too were impressed with how beautiful the paper looks and the feel of it. Those who printed in the darkroom thought that it is very similar to the papers used in the darkroom. They were particularly impressed with the blacks.

I just printed a scanned negative from the 1970s (see photo) and was able to get more of a range from it and shadow detail than I did with any other paper that I've used so far.

[6.05 lb] I have printed in the darkroom for forty five years. After switching to digital I looked for a paper that would come closet to the look I got on Ilford glossy papers. One was Ilford Gold Silk Fiber which has been discontinued. I was recommended Canon Infinity Baryta Photographique ll by a B&H employee who prints on it. After printing my black and white and color images I am now using it exclusively. The paper has a great range of tones and has a beautiful black. The paper, which is thick, has the feel of the paper that I used in the darkroom. Other photographers who I showed it too were impressed with how beautiful the paper looks and the feel of it. Those who printed in the darkroom thought that it is very similar to the papers used in the darkroom. They were particularly impressed with the blacks.

I just printed a scanned negative from the 1970s (see photo) and was able to get more of a range from it and shadow detail than I did with any other paper that I've used so far.

[Alpha Cellulose] Very nice heavy weight paper that is like fiber base silver prints.

[19 x 5.9 x 5.8"] I'm giving the Baryta Photographique II a tentative 5 stars because it's an excellent paper, but I don't know whether I'll end up liking it as much as the original Baryta Photographique.



For some time, I have done most of my serious printing on the original Baryta Photographique, which I consider a superb paper. All but one or two of the prints I've exhibited over the past year or two has been on that paper. So I was very eager to compare the new Photographique II when my first box arrived today.

The most obvious change I don't personally like at first blush. The original had a subtly textured surface--less than a typical luster paper, perhaps more like a satin, but very nice. The new paper has considerably less texture. I don't know whether I would consider it a satin or a slightly textured semigloss, but it's less texture than I'm accustomed to. However, I've only looked at a test print and haven't put anything behind glass yet. I may come to like the new surface once I have more experience with it. It may well show a little more detail than the old paper when behind glass because of the smoother surface.

On the positive side, the new paper has a slightly wider dynamic range. The old paper was very good in this regard, so the difference is small, and I suspect one wouldn't notice it in many prints. However, I can see it in the test print, particularly in the highlights, and it may be apparent in some prints.

Color rendition seems quite similar, which is to say excellent.

[19 x 5.9 x 5.8"] I'm giving the Baryta Photographique II a tentative 5 stars because it's an excellent paper, but I don't know whether I'll end up liking it as much as the original Baryta Photographique.



For some time, I have done most of my serious printing on the original Baryta Photographique, which I consider a superb paper. All but one or two of the prints I've exhibited over the past year or two has been on that paper. So I was very eager to compare the new Photographique II when my first box arrived today.

The most obvious change I don't personally like at first blush. The original had a subtly textured surface--less than a typical luster paper, perhaps more like a satin, but very nice. The new paper has considerably less texture. I don't know whether I would consider it a satin or a slightly textured semigloss, but it's less texture than I'm accustomed to. However, I've only looked at a test print and haven't put anything behind glass yet. I may come to like the new surface once I have more experience with it. It may well show a little more detail than the old paper when behind glass because of the smoother surface.

On the positive side, the new paper has a slightly wider dynamic range. The old paper was very good in this regard, so the difference is small, and I suspect one wouldn't notice it in many prints. However, I can see it in the test print, particularly in the highlights, and it may be apparent in some prints.

Color rendition seems quite similar, which is to say excellent.

[Alpha Cellulose] I love the tonality and exceptional color gamut and dmax. Great paper.

[Alpha Cellulose] I've test a lot of paper for my B&W photos. I've found this paper to be excellent, providing deep blacks, as well as holding detail in shadows & within bright highlight area.

[Alpha Cellulose] I've test a lot of paper for my B&W photos. I've found this paper to be excellent, providing deep blacks, as well as holding detail in shadows & within bright highlight area.

[6.05 lb] I use only Canson paper and this is the one that I print the most.

[96%] I am a regular Canson user and thought I'd try this paper out. I was wonderfully surprised. It has a soft sheen, great color and weight.
Definitely would recommend it.