Digital BW, The Print

sinar001 wrote:
> One of the main problems with papers coated for pigmented inks, is
> they tend to be "micro porous". Unless this micro porous coating is
> sealed after printing, it is vulnerable to atmospheric degradation.
> This includes ozone, which can quickly oxidize dyes and degrade
> pigments too!
>
> Of course we are also faced with the various optical brightners used.
> Some will actually turn yellow, as they fade. 
>
> When RC substrates became prevalent in B&W and color papers 25-30
> years ago, there was concern about how archival the RC coated base
> was. Early batches of papers were notorious for  exhibiting a
> "cracked" look when exposed to UV. But of course, Kodak in the 70's
> didn't think a print needed to last longer than 5-10 years. ;-)
>
> Arches paper, of course uses a gelatin tub sizing, which could be
> considered a "coating". But this paper has been around for a long
> time, and seems to have accumulated a pretty good track record. The
> same can not be said for the majority of the inkjet coated papers out
> there. And the coatings and processes seem to change all the time. It
> seems the only papers with consistency for the last 10 years come from
> Crane and that German company. 
>
> It will be interesting how the new baryta papers stack up. I like the
> look of the Ilford paper. I just wish they had used a rag paper base,
> but I guess the new premium buffered wood pulp papers should be pretty
> good for 50-100 years?
>
> John Nollendorfs
>   

If I remember correctly, all of the old darkroom papers from Kodak, 
Ilford, etc. were alpha cellulose papers. I don't remember any that were 
cotton rag. When archivally processed, they did fine. I don't see any 
reason why alpha cellulose papers for inkjet wouldn't do at least as 
well. Or am I missing something here?
--
Bruce Watson