Digital BW, The Print

Paul,

Nice post. I just want to ad that from the research I did that un-buffered,
lignin free, acid free papers have a natural pH of about 6.0 which will test
"acid" with the test pens. The primary purpose of the test pens was to be a
quick check to see if the paper is buffered or un-buffered.

Considering that Epson had to anticipate that their papers would be used
with their dye inks and that buffering and dyes are bad for each other, it
is not surprising that EAM is an un-buffered paper.

Martin Wesley

http://www.borderless-photos.de/guests.html



----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Roark" <paul.roark@...>
To: "DigitalB&WPrint" <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2002 8:06 AM
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] What's your favorite paper & "archival"


> 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
> >
>
>
>
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and
other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to
unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same
page.
>
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or
&amp;amp;quot;flames.&amp;amp;quot;
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
resources on the homepage.
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>