Digital BW, The Print

I concur with Robert.  Epson Archival/Enhanced Matte is the best compromise
if you like a smooth paper.  I'm now printing for a wedding I covered, and
EAM is what I'm using.  PhotoRag has deeper blacks (by a couple of
percentage points), but they may not stay that way for long.

As to the question of whether EAM/EEM is "archival," it may depend on how
you define the term.  If "image permanence" is the issue, then EAM appears
to do better in my tests than any of the other popular coated papers except
Eclipse Satine, which did just a hair better but has weak blacks.

Some, however, hold that if a paper has optical brighteners in it, it is not
"archival."  Such brighteners will "burn out" and cause the paper to shift
from a bright (slightly blue) white to a hair yellow after being on display
for a long time.  Most papers do this.  The yellow shift is very slight, but
can be seen if prints are held side-by-side.  Museo and Eclipse Satine Soft
White do not appear to have brighteners, most others do.  I have not seen
any evidence that brighteners shorten ultimate print life.

Some refer to "archival" as meaning long term dark storage capability.  In
the long run, if a paper has significant amounts of acid in it, the acid
will destroy the cellulose paper base.  Traditionally the best papers have
been made of cotton, which is considered nature's purest source of
cellulose.  "Acid free," "rag" (cotton) papers have, thus, traditionally
been considered the safest bets for ultra-long-term storage.

EAM is a wood-pulp-based paper and is not strictly "acid free."

However, wood-pulp paper can be archival according to some experts.  Lignin
is said to be the source of acid in wood pulp.  Epson has represented that
EAM is lignin free.  Also, modern paper processes do not, apparently, use
the acids that the old paper processes used.  As such, EAM could be
archival.

Some, however, use acid test pens to see if a paper is "acid free" and thus
"archival."  EAM does appear to be slightly acidic at least on one side with
these test pens.

I have a test pen, and I find that buffering makes short-lived newsprint
test out better than my archivally-processed silver prints -- which test out
about the same as EAM.  As such, I have not faith that these pens tell us
anything useful.

Silver prints cannot use buffering because of the acid stop bath, probably
among other reasons.  Epson has apparently found that buffering is also
inconsistent with the best image permanence.  Buffering is apparently very
cheap.  It would have been easy for Epson to add some and represent it's
paper as "acid free" if is was consistent with the best image permanence.

So, EAM does not test out as "acid free" with a test pen.  However, if it
has just a slight residual acidity and no acid reserve (lignin), there may
not be enough acidity to matter.

Bottom line -- we just can't be sure whether EAM is suitable for long-term
storage or not.  No cheap, readily-available tests that I am aware of can
measure and accurately predict long-term storage.  If Epson's manufacturer
has truly removed all the lignin and appropriately processed the paper, then
it probably is "archival."

If I don't trust Epson to have properly manufactured the paper, what gives
me more faith that those representing their papers as "rag" and "acid free"
have done a better job?

Since I think that image permanence is still the primary issue, I'm not
spending much time worrying about whether EAM is "archival."  With pure (or
predominantly) pigmented inks (like Piezo, MIS, and the 2000P pigments) EAM
is about as good as it gets.  (This is not the case for the new
Ultrachromes.)  For my museum reproductions, I might use Eclipse Satine.

Paul
http://www.PaulRoark.com



On 8/28/02 8:00 PM, "treadwinkle" <VOLveeta@...> wrote:

> Especially for actor headshots or portraits?  I ordered the
> Hahnem\ufffdhle photo rag and I have to wait.  It's on backorder.  Poor
> poor me. :-)  In the meantime, what are the cone papers like?
> What's your fave!?!?!
>
> treadwinkle
>