Digital BW, The Print

On 8/19/02 12:48 PM, "George Hartzell" <hartzell@...> wrote:

> Robert,
> 
> How did you reach the conclusion that they contain brighteners.  I put
> some samples under a black light and didn't observer any significant
> fluorescing (especially compared to the peice of laser printer paper
> laying next to them).
> 
> g.

Same way...but I would encourage you to use other coated inkjet papers for
comparison.  Look at the front side of the paper vs. the back side of the
paper.  The front side tells you about the coating and the back side tells
you about the paper.  I have tested both papers from several different
samples and they have always had brighteners.  Make sure to do your testing
in the dark (except for the black light). That said I have some William
Turner from Hahnemuhle that has OB's in the coating and other lots that
don't.  With Hahnemuhle...nothing is for sure...texture, coating integrity,
OB's etc. regularly vary from lot to lot (which incidentally isn't marked).
The even worse news is that Hahnemuhle lots are really small...making
frequent change even more likely. Hahnemuhle makes poor quality paper...that
just happens to have the best blacks.  Another thing that I've recently
discovered about Hahnemuhle papers is that quad prints printed on them are
not as waterfast as other common coated inkjet papers.  My guess is that
this has to do with the coating.  I've always guessed that Hahnemuhle uses
polyvinylalcohol as at least part of their coating and this would be
consistent with poorer waterfastness.

For reference,

Museo, Epson Fine Art and Eclipse Satine Soft White are OB free while most
other papers have OB's.  EAM or EHM...whatever you would like to call it is
an appropriate positive OB control.

Robert