Digital BW, The Print

>By EEM do you mean Epson Enhanced Matte (i.e. the old EAM?)

Yes, Epson Enhanced Matte (also sold as Epson Archival Matte outside the
U.S.) has, in my view, a better image quality than UltraSmooth.

>Isn't that acidic as well as possible use of brighteners?

Yes.  It, like most papers, including traditional "archival" silver print
paper, has brighteners that will cause it to yellow from extended light
exposure about 0.03 units.  Then is stabilizes.  That may not cause any
other negative effects on long-term storage.

EEM is also acidic.  This will cause problems for long-term storage.  It is
probably also one reason the paper performs so well.  Buffering is cheap.
Epson engineers appear to have avoided it for both economic and performance
reasons.  I'm experimenting with post-printing deacidification, and the Wei
T'o #12 spray appears to work.  It's in fade testing now.

I'm not suggesting museums will accept EEM/EAM equally, but I suspect a
deacidified, buffered EEM will have a better image than UltraSmooth and will
have a very long life, if not being "archival" -- whatever that means.

I don't see EEM's market shrinking much.  I think Eclipse and other cotton
papers that flake and have other performance problems will be the papers
that UltraSmooth replaces, especially if the UltraSmooth is priced below
them.

Paul
http://www.PaulRoark.com

_________________________________________

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Roark" <
paul.roark@v...> wrote:
> My testing of Epson UltraSmooth paper showed a dmax with Epson drivers and
> Museum/MIS 7600 matte black that was less than EEM.  Also, EEM beat it on
> smoothness.  The sample I was sent was thicker than EEM but felt
thinner --
> the cotton softness that I'm not fond of.  While I'll probably use the
paper
> for my museum old-photo restorations, I'll probably continue to use EEM
for
> my personal work.
>
> I have not heard any price for the paper.  I think its popularity will be
> largely affected by the price.
>
> Paul
> http://www.PaulRoark.com