Digital BW, The Print

Jerry wrote:

>When you compare EEM and EAM paper side by side, the EEM is whiter. I
>can't imagine ANYone not being able to
>see the difference. It's quite noticeable.

Keith wrote:

>... if there has been an actual formulaic change, then EEM
>could easily be the same as "new" EAM... but different
>from old EAM..  ugh!

I think the changes in whiteness and dmax are beyond what one would expect
from a mere batch-to-batch or even supplier variation.  I would guess there
is a formula change.  And, with the new EAM I just received from Atlex, I'd
say that the formula change is for both.  If it is just variation among
batches and manufacturers, then Epson has a serious quality control issue.

If I were Epson, I would try to find a formula for the paper that helped me
with the Wilhelm testing.  (Did you notice the EEM tests are not done -- or,
perhaps more accurately, reported?  They may not be released until Epson
finds a "fix" for the yellowing problem that is sufficient to get decent
results.)

I also think the UC ink's huge pigment load may be an issue that calls for a
paper formula change.  The "waviness" I saw with the Matte Black was not
present with the newest EEM I have.  After all, the old EAM formula was
optimized for the Archival inks, and they have a pigment load half that of
the UC inks.

I must say, however, when I received the EAM boxes for Atlex I was really
hoping for the old stuff -- acid and all.  I really miss the high dmax of
the older paper.

Keith, good luck getting accurate information out of Epson employees.  I
find as many different stories as employees I talk to -- right up to the
chief of the U.S. Pro Graphics division.  Short of a high Epson official in
Japan, I doubt anyone knows what is going on, but they'll not hesitate to
tell you inaccurate information as if it were the absolute truth.

Paul
http://www.PaulRoark.com