Digital BW, The Print

Chris,

>You lay out your reasoning in some detail. What you say makes sense.

Appropriate paper has been a serious problem.  I didn't bother to get a 3000
until I knew EAM would be available in rolls.  It was a great leap forward,
in my view, and it remains at the top of my list.

>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.

In the past, when EAM was called "Archival Matte" the issue just disappeared
when I said I was using Epson's "Archival Matte" paper.  They trusted Epson
to not use that name unless they felt the paper had staying power.  I must
admit that approach may just sweep the issue under the rug for
unsophisticated buyers.  Now, with Epson's new name for the paper, I'm not
sure the issue is going to be dealt with as easily.  Also, with the museum
I'm working with I may well want to use the Eclipse Satine paper so that I
can say the magic words "acid free" & "rag" or "cotton."  For many
traditional and more sophisticated buyers these magic words are probably
necessary.

> Also, how have you dealt with the watermark issue -- or has
>it been an issue for you?

Luckily, when I was doing cards with it I still had enough EAM without water
marks to finish those projects.  The roll paper does not have watermarks.
(At least it didn't.  I have a new, unopened EEM roll that I have not
checked.)  With the display prints it would not be a problem for me anyway.

Paul
http://www.PaulRoark.com


--- 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
> > 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