Digital BW, The Print

Epson "Semimatte" and "Semigloss" (250 weight) are both in Epson's "Premium
Photo Paper" category and look very similar.  I think the Semi-gloss (I'm
separating the names for clarity) might have been originally made for the
7500, although it is not available in the U.S. in large sizes.  If one looks
at the papers that Epson is planning to make available in large sizes (17"
wide") for the 4000, the Semi-matte is on the list but not the Semi-gloss.  

 

I've wondered why there are two papers so much alike and what the
differences are.

 

I have initially favored the Semi-gloss due to its higher dmax, a surface
that (after spraying) looks more like my old silver prints, and its better
Wilhelm ratings.

 

Typical of what I've seen with "barrier"/"RC" papers, the dmax readings drop
a bit with "curing" (or whatever happens over the span of a few days).  This
morning the dmax readings are: 

 

            Unsprayed Semi-matte:  1.88      (was initially 1.97)

            Sprayed Semi-matte:     207       (was initially 2.12)

 

            Unsprayed Semi-gloss:  2.03      (was initially 2.23)

            Sprayed Semi-gloss:      2.28      (was initially 2.40)

 

 While Wilhelm testing rates the dark-storage lives of both papers at over
200 years, the Premium Semi-gloss does better in the category of fade
resistance.  

 

For "Black and White" prints (Epson driver, so there is a fair amount of
color in there), Wilhelm has a number of categories.  Framed with a UV
filter, the Semi-gloss rates >150 years.  (Only UltraSmooth does a little
better at 175.)  The Semi-matte rates >100 years.

 

So, why would Epson be favoring the Semi-matte for the U.S. large format
market?

 

I think the answer is that it has less bronzing.  Unsprayed, Semi-matte has
a small but significant advantage in having less bronzing than the
Semi-gloss.  After being sprayed, both look good to me, but the Semi-matte
still has a slight advantage.

 

Paul

www.PaulRoark.com <http://www.paulroark.com/>  

 



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