Digital BW, The Print

On 3/15/03 10:02 AM, "Victor Simon" ibsimon@... wrote:

>....I've tested about ten papers, and pro glossy is the only 
>thing I've seen that significantly reduces bronzing.
>I have just two concerns:
>(1) Can't get a handle on permanence....Posters on other 
>lists mention the paper yellowing over time; one fellow 
>mentioned the only hard number I've seen - epson claiming 
>180 years, under glass, with the archival (not ultrachrome) 
>inks. I suspect this number, if correct, may have been 
>issued when epson was less conservative in their claims, 
>plus it's based on the more permanent inkset.
>
>(2) Paper becomes wavy with heavy ink laydown?  I can vary 
>laydown on the 2200, but I haven't messed with this yet.... 
>but the posts I've read about waviness said it was a big-print 
>problem.

Vic,

My testing of Pro Glossy has been limited to the Eps C80's 
"Durabrite" Black ink, which is matte, and said to be the same 
as the Ultrachrome Matte-K. (My 2200 just came in. I won't be 
clearing space for it for another week, so I can't report 
on how Pro Glossy looks with the UC Blacks --Photo and Matte--
till then). Like you, I have found bronzing to be markedly 
lower with Pro Glossy than with the other glossy papers I've 
tried. I'd add that because I've been using a matte-K (which 
doesn't penetrate like UC Photo-K) I've had to varnish the print 
to keep the (matte)ink from smudging -- and I've found the 
resulting print to be gorgeous -- the very subtle highlight 
details from my pyro-processed negatives are better maintained 
than with any other paper I've used, and they are there both 
pre- and post-varnishing. For me, this is a big Pro Glossy feature. 

To your question about permanence. Wilhelm's site reports (in 
"Print permanence results for Epson papers ...." dated 11/02)that 
"Glossy Paper(Photo Weight)", the roll version of Pro Glossy, showed  
"50 years" for the UC ink 2200 (and "over 100 years" for the Arc ink 
Epsons). I no longer take Wilhelm's year-numbers as really solid; 
however, relative to his findings for other papers with UC-ink, 
Pro Glossy is quite respectable. And, also, since the UC-ink vs 
Arc-ink results are based on all the inks in two inksets, the yellow 
ink alone (with it's "greater gamut for reduced permanence" tradeoff 
may be the weak point that halves the UC's permanence vs. the Arc's).
For my own test, I've just put a Pro Glossy / C80 K-only print on an 
interior shutter in a South window. The conditions that assault a 
print there are formidable (high temp, large temp swings, high 
humidity, large humidity swings); My plan is to leave it there for 
5-6 months, and, then, check for Pro Glossy yellowing, ink fade and 
shifting, and changes in the physical surface -- I feel I must do this 
sort of test with any paper/ink combo before selling prints done on it. 

I'm not aware of the posts on other lists that have reported on 
problems like yellowing, etc. with Pro Glossy. I'd much appreciate a 
reference to some of these. Also, if you've found out what type of 
receptive layer it has (clay, micro-ceramic, swellable polymer,...). 
 

Regarding Pro Glossy showing waviness with heavy ink laydown: I haven't 
had any problem with waviness due to ink laydown, but I've wondered 
about whether a print on Pro Glossy would stay flat enough -- the paper 
is quite limp without any ink on it (no long fibers to keep it straight,
I guess). I haven't checked out this worry with an actual mounting test
yet;(since I've only had the C80 to work with to date, the prints I've 
done are smaller than the ones from the 2200 I'll be mounting later). 
If flatness is an issue with Pro Glossy, I'll probably wind up securing 
it to the mount board with "#568 cold-mount adhesive" that conservators 
have OK'd as a long-term archival solution;(Light Impressions sells it). 

I hope something in the above is helpful. The visual features of Pro 
Glossy (great tone delineation, and the air-dried glossy look) are 
what make it attractive to me. The yellowing that you are concerned 
about, and maybe some other negatives that show up later, could turn 
out to be show-stoppers. I wish I could know this now, but my guess is 
Ill be in limbo until July, when my "South Window" test-period ends.           


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]