Digital BW, The Print

Steve wrote:

>... over here the Ilford smooth is extremely cheap and
>although coating and peel off have been royal pains,
>I do love the look.

What do you mean "coating and peel off?"  Are you coating the prints after
printing to protect them?  Have you found coatings that work well -- or not?

I heard someone once comment that a matte spray on RC paper gives a more
matte look without loosing much of the dmax, but I have not yet tried that.


Andre wrote:

>Would you venture a guess as to [Ilford Smooth Pearl's]
>lightfastness with the UC inkset (either Epson's or the
>upcoming MIS inkset )

Not yet.  I'll eventually do a comparison fade test of at against an Epson
paper that Wilhelm has tested.

One thing that really intrigues me is the "barrier" aspect of RC paper.
Some refer to RC paper as a "barrier" substrate.  My conclusion with our
polyurethane coatings is that moisture is getting through the back of the
paper.  Perhaps in part for this reason coating doesn't seem to have much
effect on fading, which is said to be greatly affected by moisture and
oxygen.  If we can coat the front of an RC paper, I wonder if we can get a
superior encapsulation that would make a difference.

I think the longevity of RC papers might be limited by the nature of the
polyethylene used.  The old photo RCs got a bad reputation not only from the
developers that were often incorporated, but also due to cracking of the RC
plastic.  One article indicated this was due to a by-product of the titanium
dioxide OP used as it oxidized and broke down, and that this problem has
been solved -- at least by some manufacturers.  So, I'm just not sure how
long the best of the current RC papers might last.

I, frankly, think that advanced "RC" materials might be superior to paper as
an inkjet substrate, especially if we can seal the front with a good
coating.  But, until they prove themselves, I suspect the "fine art" people
won't touch them.

Paul
http://www.PaulRoark.com