Digital BW, The Print

At 7:02 PM +0000 8/6/05, Tony Bonanno wrote:
>[snip]
>
>Just picked up some Epson Matte Paper Heavyweight. Doing a quick
>comparison print (with QTR B&W), I don't see much difference from
>Epson Enhanced Matte.  Looking at the Wilhelm site, the Heavyweight
>matte appears to have very good archival properties. 
>
>Those of you in the know, help me out.  What am I missing about this
>Heavyweight matte paper ???  Couldn't find much on the Epson site.
>
>It is much more economical than EEM.
>
>[snip]

A few years back, Tony, I believe EMPH was offered and promoted for 
use with Epson's dye-based ink set. While their Archival Matte, as it 
was then called, was said to be better for pigment-based inks, which 
I think might then have actually been hybrid, pigment- and dye-based, 
at least in the case of the K (to make it more black). But of course 
Archival Matte wasn't really archival. And under fire on that score, 
Epson changed its name to Enhanced Matte. I was never clear on 
whether and if so how the paper was changed, but I think I remember 
EEM having a slightly different weight, as well as a more defensible 
name.

Heavyweight Matte, I don't remember changing. I think it might still 
be recommended only for the dye-based inks, but perhaps only because 
EEM's coating is thought to be better for the pigmented inks. Both of 
these matte papers have, I believe, been used mostly for proofs. And 
I think EAM/EEH has gotten more use than EMPH partly because prints 
on EEM better mimic a final, show-and-sell version on more expensive 
paper which might really be archival, at least with pigment inks.

But EMPH might have changed without my noticing: I was surprised to 
see you say it has very good archival properties and that it's much 
more economical than EEM. Then I'd think it would have a lot of uses, 
and I need to do my homework on it. So I hope you'll post about your 
experience with it.
--
Sam