Digital BW, The Print

You lay out your reasoning in some detail. What you say makes sense. 
I'm curious to know, however, if you've had to explain to prospective 
print buyers your preference for EAM over other more expensive "art" 
papers. Also, how have you dealt with the watermark issue -- or has 
it been an issue for you? For myself, I'm very happy with the EAM 
using the VM inkset on my 1160. What I sometimes feel is lacking is a 
semi-matte option. I'll have to go to Brightcube for that. 

Chris Hargens 

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Paul Roark" 
<paul.roark@v...> wrote:
> 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@b...> wrote:
> 
> > Especially for actor headshots or portraits?  I ordered the
> > Hahnemühle 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
> >