Digital BW, The Print

Ernst Dinkla <edinkla@...> wrote:
>
> ...
> No watercolor but Arches 88 for silkscreen printing is one of the 
> smoothest cotton papers. 

In my tests that paper also had an incredibly neutral tone with the Eboni-6 approach.  The dmax was low, however.

Here's the context of the search.  The local museum I've done the digital restoration for thinks the images ought to be archived on an uncoated paper.  They don't entirely trust either electronic storage or coated papers for very long term storage and retrieval -- who knows when.  So, I'm trying to find the smoothest un-coated paper so that the image and not the texture of the paper is what will be retrieved if the images are actually ever needed.  While smoothness is obviously a primary characteristic, the dynamic range of the paper is also relevant.  The more range (which argues for Arches), the less the paper texture will be exaggerated by any need to increase contrast for subsequent reproduction.  Note that these images would be in mylar sleeves and acid free boxes, so rub-off is not the major issue it is with books.


 
> BTW, Red River Zeppelin SemiGloss 160gsm is a dual sided, 
> dye compatible paper. As far as I can judge it, the Tecco
> EFI Proof 9155 Duo-Semimatte 170gsm dual sided, dye 
> compatible, is the same paper, weight will be 
> somewhere in between.
> Is that a Paper you could use for publications etc?

I'm not sure.  I'll try some of the Red River.  

The reactions I've had from the a couple people making books as, basically, the compilation of their photographic life's work show no interest in the dyes.  The longevity of carbon pigments is important for these book makers. 

For these people the paper issues include rub-off and being able to have the bias of the paper such that the book pages will open easily and appropriately.  A soft paper like H. Photo Rag opens well, but the surface is way too sensitive.  The sizing of Arches eliminates it -- too stiff.  I've also heard the opinion that the inkjet receptor coating on the back of a paper increases the amount of "rub off" (or capture via some other mechanism) of the pigments off the surface of the paper it's pressed against.  (I'm not sure what the mechanism of alleged "attraction" might be.)  

Ideally, a thin, un-coated paper might be best for these book makers also, but finding one that has a good dmax with pigments is going to be a problem.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com