Digital BW, The Print

Michael Poster wrote:
> Thanks for all the input so far. I'm beginning to think there are a lot of 
> great papers out there ;o)
> 
> A few more questions if you can bear with me:
> 
> ** Seems so many of the recommended and highly regarded papers use OBAs. 
> There are some beautiful, expensive pictures being made on papers with OBAs 
> and sold to collectors as digital gains credibility. And it's clear to me 
> that many people making prints on these papers have *very* specific ideas 
> of what their prints should look like. Are the makers concerned with what 
> the prints will look like over time?

Standard photographic base paper comes from one source, Felix Schoeller 
in Germany (www.felix-schoeller.com - pick English at the bottom if your 
German is a little rusty).  They make 190,000 tonnes of the stuff every 
year.  So a company like say Ilford buys the base paper already coated 
with polyethelene for RC papers, puts their emulsion on top, cuts it to 
the proper size packages it, and ships it out the door.  Kodak takes the 
same polyethelene coated paper, and puts their emulsion on it, cuts it 
to size, packages it, and ships it out the door.

If your making an inkjet paper, no reason you can't use the same paper, 
with a different coating on it, one that accepts ink instead of light. 
Considering that I have darkroom RC prints over 20 years old that have 
not exhibited any paper failure....  As for OBA's it depends, if they 
are coated on the paper and then the receiving layer ontop of that, then 
it would depend on the chemical composition of the OBA and the ink as 
the paper is protected by the polyethelene coating it received in the 
factory.

Funny statistic no photographic paper can be more then 3.5m in both 
dimensions, as that is the width of the paper making machine used at F.S.

> ** Are the typical specs (cotton, etc.) for the papers that have been 
> suggested enough to inspire confidence in their archival qualities? 
> Ultimately it must be a wait and see situation, but most printers seem to 
> be relying on Wilhelm's tests to some degree regarding archival issues. 
> Wilhelm has actually tested few of these I think. Is it likely that an 
> untested paper will fare as well as a tested paper so long as the published 
> specs are similar?

I don't know about the rag papers, again it depends on the base 
materials where they came from, what it's coated with, and what 
reactions there are between the paper, coatings and ink used.  Wilhelm 
uses a form of accelerated testing, so your storage conditions also come 
into effect, if your storage conditions are more like the test 
conditions, then the assumed conditions, your mileage will vary.....
> 
> ** I'm wondering if there's a paper weight sweet spot (for me at least). 
> The 190gsm range seems just a tad light, but I'm afraid the 300 range is 
> going to make me jump through hoops feeding my 2200. I'd prefer to feed 
> normally (through the top). Some of these papers come in what seems to me 
> to be a good compromise weight of about 250gsm. Will this weight top-feed 
> easily?

Check your printer manual, it should give you the maximum weight of 
paper that will feed through, the key is paper stiffness, typically 
heavier paper is stiffer.  My HP does a 180 with paper just before the 
print head, and it states a limit of 200gsm which I think would be about 
right.  The best test would be to buy a small pack of the paper you want 
and test it.
W





> ** Premier Hot Press has been mentioned a few times and it was on my very 
> short list before I asked. Does it fall short in any way that I might not 
> discover in short term testing of my own? Are there decent canned profiles 
> available so I can test this paper?
>