Digital BW, The Print

Harvey,

You wrote:

>... I must take issue with the 'acid pen' and the 'buffered' papers ...

>I still maintain that buffering has, so far, shown itself to be detrimental
>to inkjet inks and also, that if
>the paper has an acid component (using wood pulp instead of cotton, or
>'rag' fibers')  the buffering agents
>will be overwhelmed in the long run and self destruct.

I think I agree with this.  From what I've heard buffering has a negative
impact on image permanence -- which may not correlate with paper permanence,
of course.  Also, I think the fact that the newspaper I get tests as
non-acid with the pen and yet self-destructs very quickly shows that cheap
buffering can fool the pens (and government regulations, perhaps) while not
solving the problems.

However, I also seem to remember reading that wood pulp can be used to make
good paper if the lignin is removed.  Apparently that is the acid reserve in
cheap, wood-based paper.  The process by which the paper is made also
appears to be critical.

So, the question for mass-market (read inexpensive) paper might be whether a
lignin-free, wood-pulp paper without buffering can be stable.  My reading
indicates that is what Epson tried to do with "Archival matte."  Of course,
that fact that they are changing the name may indicate that their latest
research indicates the paper is not archival.  (The legal department must
have been pulled into the issue only after the marketing department came up
with the EAM name.)

>It is my feeling that if one wants long term stability
>(like on the old photos) one should use rag papers,
>which have slight amounts of buffering agents in them...hopefully enough to
>neutralize acid atmosphere over time, ...

I think I'm going to start using EAM for display prints only (where image
permanence is primary) and Museo for the old photo reproductions (where long
term dark storage is the issue).

Paul
http://www.PaulRoark.com