Digital BW, The Print

Cathy,

That post sounds rather familiar for some reason <<g>>.

My take on the EAM is that it is demonstrating good image permanence 
properties and at the same time gives indications that it is not 
optimized for maximum paper life.

Paper permanence and image permanence are really two different 
issues. It won't be very satisfying if the paper survives but the 
image has faded out. Likewise having the paper dissolve under an 
image is not acceptable. We need both and we just don't have any good 
solid information or conclusive proof.

The third leg of the issue is image quality and I personally think 
EAM is great. Nice tonality, good blacks, bright white, smooth 
surface and a sharp image. These needed to be weighed on the scale 
with the permanence issues. Do you choose to make an image that has 
slightly lower image quality to gain longer life? That's a tough 
question.

I am inclined to not worry about what has already been printed on 
EAM. I think it will last just fine for a very long time or those 
window tests of Jerry's would be showing catastrophic failure. 
(Jerry, the next time you do this hang up a piece of the daily 
newspaper, a magazine page and a page out of a paper back book to 
give us some perspective.)

I am also inclined not to use it anymore. I am trying to find a paper 
that has EAM's image stability and print qualities but also has the 
properties of an archival paper. While I am finding some likely 
candidates, Legion Photo Matte, Eclipse Satine, the soon to arrive 
Hahnemule Watercolor Rag Smooth (HWRS) none of them precisely matches 
EAM's print quality.

So we are each going to have to make our own decisions weighing image 
permanence, paper permanence and image quality.

Martin Wesley



--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Cathy Van Berg" 
<vanbergc@y...> wrote:
> I hate to beat this dead horse any more, but I went back and re-
read 
> all the posts about EAM Archival Qualities.  I wanted to be sure I 
had 
> gotten clear info from the discussion.  There are many views to 
> consider, I know.  I also know people believe what they want to 
> believe, but (IMHO) I have enough doubt about this paper not to get 
> near it for selling archivally sound prints. (Cheap enough for 
> proofing though...do you really get what you pay for?)
> 
> Believe what you want, Do what you will...
> Cathy
> 
> 
> I pulled out just one post from the Piezo3000 archives:
> 
> "If that is what it is supposed to be, they [Epson] have a major 
> problem in quality control and/or product stability after it leaves 
> the factory.
> 
> I tested EAM with both the Light Impressions and Lineco paper pH 
> testing pens.
> 
> Both indicated that there was a neutral or basic coating on the 
> front. The pens dissolve this coating but if applied lightly they 
> turned blue (LM pen) or lavender (Lineco pen).
> 
> The back also appears to be coated and this tests acid with both 
> pens. The coating might be to improve mechanical handling in 
> converting.
> 
> Tearing the paper I checked the core and it tests acid with both 
pens.
> 
> Steadman reported similar results on different batches.
> 
> Now I am willing to believe that it might have been manufactured as 
> an acid free and lignin free paper with no added pH buffers. These 
> would test slightly acid, pH = 6.0, after exposure to the 
atmosphere 
> and certainly with the application of an acid coating.
> 
> However, there is obviously no alkaline reserve in the paper. It 
does 
> not meet ASTM or ISO standards for permanent document paper and 
would 
> not qualify for purchase by any U.S. Federal government agency, 
many 
> individual states nor some European governments. Is it going to 
self 
> destruct real fast? Probably not. Is it going to last as long as a 
> buffered paper? No way."
> 
> 
(snip)