Digital BW, The Print

On 5/5/02 8:21 AM, "Paul Roark" <paul.roark@...> wrote:

> I think the ratings are for image life, not paper life. I think image
> permanence is still the big issue for the industry, not paper life.

Personally, I think this reflects the difference in papers.
 
> Do the Ultrachrome inks have some dyes in them?  EAM/EEM is not a good paper
> for dyes, and Epson has consistently reiterated this.

No they are 100% pigment.  What's the status of dyes in the MIS quad inks?
I remember that Piezo quad inks do have dyes in the non-black
position...your recent formula seem to use the pigment inks for toning.
What's the scoop on MIS FS, FS-N, VM, and VM-Sepia.  Which have dyes and
which don't?

> If I find evidence that EAM/EEM paper is only expected to last 30 years,
> I'll stop using it.  However, with the Epson 2000P and 7500 pigments, I
> believe EAM/EEM still has the top rating -- which seems to vary between
> "more than 100 years" to "200 years" depending on where one sees the claim.

Are these Wilhelm years?  I think perhaps Epson has entered the real world
now.  I think they are licking their wounds over calling EAM archival!  A
paper that is not acid free will yellow substantially in 30
years...regardless of light level.  Its possible that EAM might make it 200
years in Wilhelm's fade tests and not last 30 years in real life because of
its paper composition.  That's why I use 100% rag, acid free papers...then
it isn't a variable.

Robert