Photo paper printing question

[Mary]

I have a Pixma IP4000. I have always used Kodak double sided soft gloss
double sided photo paper 8X11" which I like, but I can't find it any
more here (I'm
in Toronto,Canada). I don't care much for glossy photo paper and many
packages are now "high gloss" but I'll keep looking. I saw Kodak matte
50 pak which says
8 ml thickness and another possibility is package of 100 with 6 ml
thickness.
The one I like but can't find is 7ml thickness and package of 25.
Does thickness of photo paper make much difference in how long
photos last, quality of the print, or anything else?. I don't want to
order
online as I should be able to get suitable photo paper in a store here.

Mary

 

[Bob Headrick]

I have a Pixma IP4000. I have always used Kodak double sided soft gloss
double sided photo paper 8X11" which I like, but I can't find it any
more here [snip]
The one I like but can't find is 7ml thickness and package of 25.
Does thickness of photo paper make much difference in how long
photos last, quality of the print, or anything else?. I don't want to
order online as I should be able to get suitable photo paper in a
store here.

Thickness by itself does not mean much as what really matters is the
coating which is relatively thin. A thicker paper will feel more like a
"real" photo. A different thickness specification may indicate a
different manufacturer, or a different formulation or even just more
aggressive "rounding" by marketing.

Regards,
Bob Headrick, MS MVP Printing/Imaging

 

[Arthur Entlich]

Unfortunately, change of thickness often indicates a different
manufacturing source. Just because a product is packaged as Kodak or
another brand doesn't mean it is either made by Kodak, or the same
product that was offered previously. Many companies "brand" other
company's product.

The thickness itself, if that is the only change, mainly alters the feel
of the paper thickness. 9-10 mil (ml usually means milliliter) is
usually as thick as a good quality photo paper, 7-8 is a lighterweight
photo, 5-6 is pretty lightweight, and more likely to develop rippling
when wet in highly inked areas. The paper is more vulnerable to folds,
and other defects with any rough handling.

I wouldn't use it beyond proofs, personally.

Art

 

[Mary]

Unfortunately, change of thickness often indicates a different
manufacturing source. Just because a product is packaged as Kodak or
another brand doesn't mean it is either made by Kodak, or the same
product that was offered previously. Many companies "brand" other
company's product.

The thickness itself, if that is the only change, mainly alters the feel
of the paper thickness. 9-10 mil (ml usually means milliliter) is
usually as thick as a good quality photo paper, 7-8 is a lighterweight
photo, 5-6 is pretty lightweight, and more likely to develop rippling
when wet in highly inked areas. The paper is more vulnerable to folds,
and other defects with any rough handling.

I wouldn't use it beyond proofs, personally.

I don't think I can't recall seeing any photo paper in stores which were
9-10 ml, but maybe
7-8 ml is good enough for my purposes - photos of family get-togethers,
scenery on vacation, etc.
I like printing my own photos, and thats why I got a new printer (Canon
IP 4000). I like the double
sided soft glass with Kodak name on it. I have used the same photo paper
for the last couple
of years and it has consistently printed the same quality which seems to
be quite good. It is 7 ml.
I won't get 5-6 ml. I just don't want to get print photos on photo paper
which don't last more than a year or so.
I keep my photos in photo albums or send them to relatives. Thank you
for your help Art.

Mary

 

[Mary]

I have a Pixma IP4000. I have always used Kodak double sided soft gloss
double sided photo paper 8X11" which I like, but I can't find it any
more here [snip]
The one I like but can't find is 7ml thickness and package of 25.
Does thickness of photo paper make much difference in how long
photos last, quality of the print, or anything else?. I don't want to
order online as I should be able to get suitable photo paper in a
store here.

Thickness by itself does not mean much as what really matters is the
coating which is relatively thin. A thicker paper will feel more like a
"real" photo. A different thickness specification may indicate a
different manufacturer, or a different formulation or even just more
aggressive "rounding" by marketing.

Thanks Bob. If thickness does not mean a lot, is it best for me to look
for an all round medium priced good photo paper quality for taking
photos of get togethers at Christmas or vacations?. Nothing too
expensive, but not cheap photo paper either. Sounds like a photo paper
of 7 ml or 8 ml would be ok for me as I want it to feel like a "real"
photo as you said.

Mary

 

[Arthur Entlich]

Hi Mary,

Good luck in choosing the paper that best fits your needs. Today there
are many varieties. I see photo papers up to 11-12 mil on the regular
market, but they may not make it into big box stores, which tend to
carry a more general selection on the lower cost side.

Art

 

[Mary]

Hi Mary,

Good luck in choosing the paper that best fits your needs. Today there
are many varieties. I see photo papers up to 11-12 mil on the regular
market, but they may not make it into big box stores, which tend to
carry a more general selection on the lower cost side.

Thank you Art. I'll look around but living in Toronto, most stores you
find photo paper in *are* big box stores.
I guess you just have to buy and try out different kinds of photo papers
and find one you which suits you. I won't buy anything lower than 7 ml
thickness though but will see if I can find something around 8 or 9 ml..

Mary

 

[Arthur Entlich]

I also live in Canada, and in fact, living in a much smaller
metropolitan area, probably have less options. Check out photo stores
like Henry's or Toronto Camera (it that now Lens and Shutter?). These
stores cater to photographers and have many types of inkjet paper, from
costly watercolor and specialty canvases to heavy gloss and matte photo
papers, and everything in between.

Art

 

[Mary]

I also live in Canada, and in fact, living in a much smaller
metropolitan area, probably have less options. Check out photo stores
like Henry's or Toronto Camera (it that now Lens and Shutter?). These
stores cater to photographers and have many types of inkjet paper, from
costly watercolor and specialty canvases to heavy gloss and matte photo
papers, and everything in between.

I have a Henrys not too far from me. Its just outside a big mall. I've
bought a few cheap things there like camera batteries, but when I was
looking for a camera, their prices were more expensive than other stores
were charging for the same cameras. More serious photographic types
seem to go there - which is not me But I will check it out next time
I'm in that area. As to Toronto Camera, I checked the phone book and see
a Toronto Camera Centres which is downtown if thats the place you mean.
I couldn't find any Lens and Shutter in the phone book. I'm in
Scarborough, which is the suburbs and have no need to go downtown as
there are lots of stores and malls near me where I can drive to. I see
you live in western Canada which is nice compared to our traffic and
pollution - typical large city. Never been to western Canada but have
relatives in Vancouver. Looks beautiful. Anyway, thanks Art. I am sure I
will find something.

Mary

 

[measekite]

Canon Tech support recommends Epson paper if you do not want to use
Canon paper. All of the Canon support staff agree that Kodak paper is
not recommended for the Canon Pixma series in that the results produced
are inferior when compared with Canon and Epson papers. I also find
that Ilford papers and Costco paper (presumed to be Ilford) work great.

 

[Mary]

Canon Tech support recommends Epson paper if you do not want to use
Canon paper. All of the Canon support staff agree that Kodak paper is
not recommended for the Canon Pixma series in that the results produced
are inferior when compared with Canon and Epson papers. I also find
that Ilford papers and Costco paper (presumed to be Ilford) work

great.

Actually, I found Kodak soft gloss (double sided) worked very nicely
with both my Canon IP 1500 and Canon IP 4000. I would still be using it,
but can't find it at two stores where I used to get it. I have never
tried Canon paper or Epson or Ilford with any of my Canon printers so
can't comment. I prefer soft gloss or semi gloss. I don't like glossy
much. I don't have a membership at Costco and would not buy enough to
warrant paying for a membership.

Mary

 

[Ron Baird]

Greetnigs Measekite,

That is interesting Measekite, are you saying that the tech support teams at
Canon do not recommend Kodak papers? I am interested in this as they have
supplied Kodak with specific information and several of their printers to do
research at finding optimum settings for Kodak paper. We include those
settings in Kodak software and make the information available on the Kodak
web site. Actually, we do the same thing for most printer manufacturers. I
know that Kodak works diligently at providing paper that will work well in
most all printers. So this kind of information is of interest.

I will share your notes with that team as they will want to know what Canon
is sharing.

Talk to you soon, and thanks for the revelation.

Ron Baird
Eastman Kodak Company

 

[Burt]

Greetnigs Measekite,

That is interesting Measekite, are you saying that the tech support teams
at Canon do not recommend Kodak papers? I am interested in this as they
have supplied Kodak with specific information and several of their
printers to do research at finding optimum settings for Kodak paper. We
include those settings in Kodak software and make the information
available on the Kodak web site. Actually, we do the same thing for most
printer manufacturers. I know that Kodak works diligently at providing
paper that will work well in most all printers. So this kind of
information is of interest.

I will share your notes with that team as they will want to know what
Canon is sharing.

Talk to you soon, and thanks for the revelation.

Ron Baird
Eastman Kodak Company

Ron - As we all know, MK posts authoritative sounding comments that he
attributes to Canon techs, magazine articles, etc. The problem is that the
"facts" are taken out of context and passed through the murky recesses of
MK's brain before being put out to the newsgoup. I would guess that he
never put a piece of Kodak paper through his Canon ip4000 printer. I did
try Kodak glossy photo paper about three years ago in an Epson stylus 900
(dye based) printer. It stayed damp and easily smeared for a very long
time, when cross-lighted it showed swelling (like bas relief) in areas that
had more ink laid down, and also exhibited bronzing in dark areas. I
communicated with a Kodak rep on this NG (I think it may have been you),
downloaded the Kodak printing software as suggested, and tried all the
suggested settings. For whatever reason, the paper never produced great
results for me. In addition I didn't want to do photo editing in Photoshop
and then have to print from the Kodak software. I did try it subsequently
with my Canon i960 and had similar results. These comments come from my own
personal experience and not a second hand report of questionable value. I
expect that in the intervening years Kodak has come out with newer paper
surfaces that may work better than the paper I had tried.

 

[Taliesyn]

Ron - As we all know, MK posts authoritative sounding comments that he
attributes to Canon techs, magazine articles, etc. The problem is that the
"facts" are taken out of context and passed through the murky recesses of
MK's brain before being put out to the newsgoup. I would guess that he
never put a piece of Kodak paper through his Canon ip4000 printer. I did
try Kodak glossy photo paper about three years ago in an Epson stylus 900
(dye based) printer. It stayed damp and easily smeared for a very long
time, when cross-lighted it showed swelling (like bas relief) in areas that
had more ink laid down, and also exhibited bronzing in dark areas. I
communicated with a Kodak rep on this NG (I think it may have been you),
downloaded the Kodak printing software as suggested, and tried all the
suggested settings. For whatever reason, the paper never produced great
results for me. In addition I didn't want to do photo editing in Photoshop
and then have to print from the Kodak software. I did try it subsequently
with my Canon i960 and had similar results. These comments come from my own
personal experience and not a second hand report of questionable value. I
expect that in the intervening years Kodak has come out with newer paper
surfaces that may work better than the paper I had tried.

Yes, same Kodak rep. Insisted poor printings on Kodak Premium were a
result of me using aftermarket ink. However, he could not explain why
same inks produced brilliant images on Canon PhotoPaper Pro, Epson
Glossy, and yes, Dollar Store glossy paper (20 sheets for a $1.00) -
every bit a good as Canon's own inks. Ink problem? - I think not. Paper
problem? - I think so! Why? Same inks worked just fine on Kodak Ultra.
Kodak Premium I cannot recommend. I have a box of it on hand, bought at
Costco, used only for "throwaway/test" prints. One paper I do recommend,
as proven by its overwhelming acceptance by this newsgroup, is Costco's
Kirkland Glossy. I buy the 8.5 x 11 size. It works great no matter how I
slice it (4x6,5x7,8x10). Pun intended!

-Taliesyn

 

[phreak]

And how do YOU know this??

Canon Tech support recommends Epson paper if you do not want to use
Canon paper. All of the Canon support staff agree that Kodak paper is
not recommended for the Canon Pixma series in that the results produced
are inferior when compared with Canon and Epson papers. I also find
that Ilford papers and Costco paper (presumed to be Ilford) work great.

 

[measekite]

Ron Baird wrote:

Greetnigs Measekite, That is interesting Measekite, are you saying that the tech support teams at Canon do not recommend Kodak papers?

Correct and the Canon factory rep I spoke with told me the same thing.  While Canon recommends Canon paper they told me that Epson would be a second choice.


I am interested in this as they have supplied Kodak with specific information and several of their printers to do research at finding optimum settings for Kodak paper. We include those settings in Kodak software and make the information available on the Kodak web site. Actually, we do the same thing for most printer manufacturers. I know that Kodak works diligently at providing paper that will work well in most all printers. So this kind of information is of interest. I will share your notes with that team as they will want to know what Canon is sharing. Talk to you soon, and thanks for the revelation. Ron Baird Eastman Kodak Company "measekite" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...



Canon Tech support recommends Epson paper if you do not want to use Canon paper. All of the Canon support staff agree that Kodak paper is not recommended for the Canon Pixma series in that the results produced are inferior when compared with Canon and Epson papers. I also find that Ilford papers and Costco paper (presumed to be Ilford) work great. Mary wrote:



"Arthur Entlich" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:NZi6h.311262$1T2.164438@pd7urf2no...



Hi Mary, Good luck in choosing the paper that best fits your needs. Today there are many varieties. I see photo papers up to 11-12 mil on the regular market, but they may not make it into big box stores, which tend to carry a more general selection on the lower cost side.



Thank you Art. I'll look around but living in Toronto, most stores you find photo paper in *are* big box stores. I guess you just have to buy and try out different kinds of photo papers and find one you which suits you. I won't buy anything lower than 7 ml thickness though but will see if I can find something around 8 or 9 ml.. Mary



Art Mary wrote:



"Arthur Entlich" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:65%5h.308577$R63.8690@pd7urf1no...



Unfortunately, change of thickness often indicates a different manufacturing source. Just because a product is packaged as Kodak



or



another brand doesn't mean it is either made by Kodak, or the same product that was offered previously. Many companies "brand" other company's product. The thickness itself, if that is the only change, mainly alters the



feel



of the paper thickness. 9-10 mil (ml usually means milliliter) is usually as thick as a good quality photo paper, 7-8 is a



lighterweight



photo, 5-6 is pretty lightweight, and more likely to develop



rippling



when wet in highly inked areas. The paper is more vulnerable to



folds,



and other defects with any rough handling. I wouldn't use it beyond proofs, personally.



I don't think I can't recall seeing any photo paper in stores which



were



9-10 ml, but maybe 7-8 ml is good enough for my purposes - photos of family



get-togethers,



scenery on vacation, etc. I like printing my own photos, and thats why I got a new printer



(Canon



IP 4000). I like the double sided soft glass with Kodak name on it. I have used the same photo



paper



for the last couple of years and it has consistently printed the same quality which



seems to



be quite good. It is 7 ml. I won't get 5-6 ml. I just don't want to get print photos on photo



paper



which don't last more than a year or so. I keep my photos in photo albums or send them to relatives. Thank



you



for your help Art. Mary



Art Mary wrote:



I have a Pixma IP4000. I have always used Kodak double sided soft



gloss



double sided photo paper 8X11" which I like, but I can't find it



any



more here (I'm in Toronto,Canada). I don't care much for glossy photo paper and



many



packages are now "high gloss" but I'll keep looking. I saw Kodak



matte



50 pak which says 8 ml thickness and another possibility is package of 100 with 6 ml thickness. The one I like but can't find is 7ml thickness and package of 25. Does thickness of photo paper make much difference in how long photos last, quality of the print, or anything else?. I don't want



to



order online as I should be able to get suitable photo paper in a store



here.



Mary

 

[Ron Baird]

Hi Measekit,

Thanks for the review, it will help. We want to know what our customers think, and of course, what our peers are saying. Usually in a support environ, comments about others products are not made as the respondent does not know the technical details of the competitive material.

As to the other notes here, I can say that Kodak does test (and thoroughly) how to best use Kodak paper in any of the popular printers. Since I am not sure of your end use, I am not sure how you measure quality? At Kodak we have spent literally millions of dollars in test environments to make sure that what we offer is the best possible. Also, we have research (used to be about 1 billion a year) to come up with products that would be universal.

The current papers we offer include new emulsion technology that not only is capable of great image quality but also provides good protection.

Regardless, I appreciate the feedback and the chance to review.

Sorry I did not reply sooner but I was off having fun

Talk to you soon, and happy holidays.

Ron Baird
Eastman Kodak Company


Ron Baird wrote:
Greetnigs Measekite,

That is interesting Measekite, are you saying that the tech support teams at
Canon do not recommend Kodak papers? Correct and the Canon factory rep I spoke with told me the same thing. While Canon recommends Canon paper they told me that Epson would be a second choice.

I am interested in this as they have
supplied Kodak with specific information and several of their printers to do
research at finding optimum settings for Kodak paper. We include those
settings in Kodak software and make the information available on the Kodak
web site. Actually, we do the same thing for most printer manufacturers. I
know that Kodak works diligently at providing paper that will work well in
most all printers. So this kind of information is of interest.

I will share your notes with that team as they will want to know what Canon
is sharing.

Talk to you soon, and thanks for the revelation.

Ron Baird
Eastman Kodak Company



Canon Tech support recommends Epson paper if you do not want to use Canon
paper. All of the Canon support staff agree that Kodak paper is not
recommended for the Canon Pixma series in that the results produced are
inferior when compared with Canon and Epson papers. I also find that
Ilford papers and Costco paper (presumed to be Ilford) work great.

Mary wrote:

Hi Mary,

Good luck in choosing the paper that best fits your needs. Today there
are many varieties. I see photo papers up to 11-12 mil on the regular
market, but they may not make it into big box stores, which tend to
carry a more general selection on the lower cost side.

Thank you Art. I'll look around but living in Toronto, most stores you
find photo paper in *are* big box stores.
I guess you just have to buy and try out different kinds of photo papers
and find one you which suits you. I won't buy anything lower than 7 ml
thickness though but will see if I can find something around 8 or 9 ml..

Mary



Art

Mary wrote:




Unfortunately, change of thickness often indicates a different
manufacturing source. Just because a product is packaged as Kodak

or

another brand doesn't mean it is either made by Kodak, or the same
product that was offered previously. Many companies "brand" other
company's product.

The thickness itself, if that is the only change, mainly alters the

feel


of the paper thickness. 9-10 mil (ml usually means milliliter) is
usually as thick as a good quality photo paper, 7-8 is a

lighterweight


photo, 5-6 is pretty lightweight, and more likely to develop

rippling

when wet in highly inked areas. The paper is more vulnerable to

folds,


and other defects with any rough handling.

I wouldn't use it beyond proofs, personally.

I don't think I can't recall seeing any photo paper in stores which

were

9-10 ml, but maybe
7-8 ml is good enough for my purposes - photos of family

get-togethers,

scenery on vacation, etc.
I like printing my own photos, and thats why I got a new printer

(Canon

IP 4000). I like the double
sided soft glass with Kodak name on it. I have used the same photo

paper

for the last couple
of years and it has consistently printed the same quality which

seems to

be quite good. It is 7 ml.
I won't get 5-6 ml. I just don't want to get print photos on photo

paper

which don't last more than a year or so.
I keep my photos in photo albums or send them to relatives. Thank

you

for your help Art.

Mary



Art

Mary wrote:



I have a Pixma IP4000. I have always used Kodak double sided soft

gloss


double sided photo paper 8X11" which I like, but I can't find it

any

more here (I'm
in Toronto,Canada). I don't care much for glossy photo paper and

many


packages are now "high gloss" but I'll keep looking. I saw Kodak

matte


50 pak which says
8 ml thickness and another possibility is package of 100 with 6 ml
thickness.
The one I like but can't find is 7ml thickness and package of 25.
Does thickness of photo paper make much difference in how long
photos last, quality of the print, or anything else?. I don't want

to


order
online as I should be able to get suitable photo paper in a store

here.


Mary

 

[measekite]

First all results done with any paper and using any printer is always done with the factory recommended ink.  I never use inferior inks.

That said I print and prefer Canon printers over Epson and HP.  As for Lexmark I consider them ink dispensers except for their Laser Printers.

I personally use a Canon IP4000.

Now I was over a friends house and used their Epson R300.  I also brought over a test print that was done on my Canon printer using Costco/Kirkland (believed to be Ilford Gallerie Smooth Glossy) paper.  I then printed out the same photo (no adjustments) using Canon Photo Paper Pro and Kodak Premium Glossy paper.  The Epson on Canon Photo Paper Pro results looked good but still inferior to the Canon/Costco results but the Epson on Kodak results look distinctively inferior to either of the previous results.

Also the Kodak package said 4x6 but the paper measured 4x6.5.  That seemed kind of weird also for a Company that used to be a photographic leader (never in cameras) in the film, paper, and chemicals field.

Ron Baird wrote:

Hi Measekit,



 



Thanks for the review, it will help. We want to know what our customers think, and of course, what our peers are saying. Usually in a support environ, comments about others products are not made as the respondent does not know the technical details of the competitive material.



 



As to the other notes here, I can say that Kodak does test (and thoroughly) how to best use Kodak paper in any of the popular printers. Since I am not sure of your end use, I am not sure how you measure quality?  At Kodak we have spent literally millions of dollars in test environments to make sure that what we offer is the best possible. Also, we have research (used to be about 1 billion a year) to come up with products that would be universal.



 



The current papers we offer include new emulsion technology that not only is capable of great image quality but also provides good protection.



 



Regardless, I appreciate the feedback and the chance to review.



 



Sorry I did not reply sooner but I was off having fun



 



Talk to you soon, and happy holidays.



 



Ron Baird



Eastman Kodak Company



"measekite" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...



Ron Baird wrote:

Greetnigs Measekite, That is interesting Measekite, are you saying that the tech support teams at Canon do not recommend Kodak papers?

Correct and the Canon factory rep I spoke with told me the same thing.  While Canon recommends Canon paper they told me that Epson would be a second choice.


I am interested in this as they have supplied Kodak with specific information and several of their printers to do research at finding optimum settings for Kodak paper. We include those settings in Kodak software and make the information available on the Kodak web site. Actually, we do the same thing for most printer manufacturers. I know that Kodak works diligently at providing paper that will work well in most all printers. So this kind of information is of interest. I will share your notes with that team as they will want to know what Canon is sharing. Talk to you soon, and thanks for the revelation. Ron Baird Eastman Kodak Company "measekite" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...



Canon Tech support recommends Epson paper if you do not want to use Canon paper. All of the Canon support staff agree that Kodak paper is not recommended for the Canon Pixma series in that the results produced are inferior when compared with Canon and Epson papers. I also find that Ilford papers and Costco paper (presumed to be Ilford) work great. Mary wrote:



"Arthur Entlich" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:NZi6h.311262$1T2.164438@pd7urf2no...



Hi Mary, Good luck in choosing the paper that best fits your needs. Today there are many varieties. I see photo papers up to 11-12 mil on the regular market, but they may not make it into big box stores, which tend to carry a more general selection on the lower cost side.



Thank you Art. I'll look around but living in Toronto, most stores you find photo paper in *are* big box stores. I guess you just have to buy and try out different kinds of photo papers and find one you which suits you. I won't buy anything lower than 7 ml thickness though but will see if I can find something around 8 or 9 ml.. Mary



Art Mary wrote:



"Arthur Entlich" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:65%5h.308577$R63.8690@pd7urf1no...



Unfortunately, change of thickness often indicates a different manufacturing source. Just because a product is packaged as Kodak



or



another brand doesn't mean it is either made by Kodak, or the same product that was offered previously. Many companies "brand" other company's product. The thickness itself, if that is the only change, mainly alters the



feel



of the paper thickness. 9-10 mil (ml usually means milliliter) is usually as thick as a good quality photo paper, 7-8 is a



lighterweight



photo, 5-6 is pretty lightweight, and more likely to develop



rippling



when wet in highly inked areas. The paper is more vulnerable to



folds,



and other defects with any rough handling. I wouldn't use it beyond proofs, personally.



I don't think I can't recall seeing any photo paper in stores which



were



9-10 ml, but maybe 7-8 ml is good enough for my purposes - photos of family



get-togethers,



scenery on vacation, etc. I like printing my own photos, and thats why I got a new printer



(Canon



IP 4000). I like the double sided soft glass with Kodak name on it. I have used the same photo



paper



for the last couple of years and it has consistently printed the same quality which



seems to



be quite good. It is 7 ml. I won't get 5-6 ml. I just don't want to get print photos on photo



paper



which don't last more than a year or so. I keep my photos in photo albums or send them to relatives. Thank



you



for your help Art. Mary



Art Mary wrote:



I have a Pixma IP4000. I have always used Kodak double sided soft



gloss



double sided photo paper 8X11" which I like, but I can't find it



any



more here (I'm in Toronto,Canada). I don't care much for glossy photo paper and



many



packages are now "high gloss" but I'll keep looking. I saw Kodak



matte



50 pak which says 8 ml thickness and another possibility is package of 100 with 6 ml thickness. The one I like but can't find is 7ml thickness and package of 25. Does thickness of photo paper make much difference in how long photos last, quality of the print, or anything else?. I don't want



to



order online as I should be able to get suitable photo paper in a store



here.



Mary