Digital BW, The Print

On 05/29/2011 04:12 PM, David Kachel wrote:
>>>> Could you give more information on what is bad in today's inkjet RC
> papers? Any reference to recent tests? I have been looking for that
> kind of information over the last 5 years.
>
> These papers appeared in the early 1970's as an attempt to shorten
> processing times for analog photographic papers.
> The early ones lasted only weeks before yellowing and cracking. The latest
> may last a few years if you are lucky. Some test prints made for me a few
> years ago on an Epson printer were yellowed and cracked within two years.
> (The store was demonstrating image quality, not paper quality.)
>
> A plastic coated paper has no possible benefit if you are not printing a wet
> process image on it and only the faster processing if you do. In addition,
> they look awful compared to "real" papers.
>
> I guarantee you that you can find all the people you want to tell you they
> are "OK" and all the problems have been solved. If there is any "proof" that
> the latest plastic paper released last Tuesday is bad too, I don't know
> about it and wouldn't look at it if I did. From the very beginning the
> manufacturers have always said the papers are just fine\ufffd BUT, they are
> working on fixing the problems.
>
> Here's the way to approach this: Assume all the problems with RC papers have
> been fixed. Bottom line; there are gorgeous cotton and fiber papers out
> there that will last for centuries and run circles around RC papers
> visually. So the only reason to use RC papers is because they are cheaper.
>
> I call them trash papers and keep some around for making throw away prints.
> I would never even consider selling someone a fine art print on RC paper.
>
>
> David Kachel

I have Henry Wilhelm's book "The permanence and care etc" and know the 
stories on RC papers as used in the analogue period, Color and B&W. That 
information is old hat in my opinion, nice to know how bad it was, how 
bad it can be, but not the last word on the properties of today's RC 
inkjet papers.

Your optimism about all the aspects of cotton and fiber papers is not 
shared by me while I have printed a lot with good inks on cotton, fiber, 
baryta papers. There are enough jobs/purposes where good RC papers 
function better and last longer with properties like good ink fade 
resistance, tear strength, humidity resistance, coating abrasion 
resistance at printing time and in handling later on. The dynamic range 
and gamut can be up to the best non-RC gloss papers. I have not seen 
alarming reports describing RC barrier cracking or delamination of 
inkjet RC papers while they usually get rougher treatment. They have 
been in use for about 15 years now in the inkjet industry. The Baryta 
and Fiber inkjet papers not 5 years yet and their usual destination is 
behind glass so for a protected life. I did read about Baryta coating 
cracks, paper transport artefacts, etc.  In general there is no "arty" 
inkjet print around older than 30 years and the inkjet prints made 
before 1995 are not exactly champions in archival qualities.

So I do not share your opinion on them. If you had good references to 
tests that proved your opinion is right I would have welcomed that but 
there still is that question for me: "what is actually wrong with inkjet 
RC papers". I have printed on cotton and alpha-cellulose papers since 
the early 70's; silkscreen, lithography etc. for artists so I know what 
a nice paper can be, what artists like in a paper and I share some of 
those feelings. However I would not reject RC papers just for the "RC" 
content.


-- 
Met vriendelijke groeten,   Ernst

Try: http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/

|      Dinkla Grafische Techniek      |
|         www.pigment-print.com        |
|                 ( unvollendet )                 |