Digital BW, The Print

Until not so long ago, all the Epson papers were acidic. Complaints  
by many about the longevity of Epson Archival Matte paper, rather  
than correct the problem, resulted in them changing the name to  
Enhanced Matte. The pH remained the same - definitely in the acidic  
range - around  5.5, as I recall.  So much for Epson - who as  
Mantinieri pointed out, is a large corporation who makes their money  
from paper and inks, especially, which is the reason one can buy a  
variety of quite good printers for  very reasonable prices.

That said, there are some errors in Mantinieri's logic -  
																		First is Silica - one of the more stable compounds  
around - Silicon Dioxide (basically sand, and the major ingredient of  
glass).  It's formula, SiO2 already has the maximum number of Oxygen  
atoms possible, and really doesn't react with the paper. Documents  
over 100 years old in Italy or anywhere else could have a variety of  
chemicals and UV causing degradation - Why?  Because papers had all  
kinds of impurities and very likely were most any pH, since for the  
most part there was no science to help them with the manufacturing  
process. And I'm curious how he could know they weren't exposed to a  
high UV content? After all, putting them behind glass, is a  
relatively recent museum occurrence when looked at within the time  
frame of history!

Back to the present, both the current Epson inks (Ultra Chrome K3,  
and Jon Cone's Piezo inks both use some variation of Ethylene Glycol  
as the major carrier to hold the dispersed pigments. Perhaps there's  
some chemical reactions, but if the inks are truly pigments, the  
chances are they remain mostly archival and stable. There could very  
well be some reactions with certain papers, which could cause  
staining, yellowing, etc. Am I wrong that Wilhelm only tests the  
inks, but not the papers?

For whatever it's worth. real world testing of ink/paper  
combinations, IMO, work best in a window, with a lot of sun. My  
experience with Cone's inks has been that they hold up extremely  
well, even after six consecutive months in a south facing  window.  
I've not done this with the Epson Inks yet - I'm tending to assume  
the testing I've read is mostly accurate.  I print almost everything  
on Photo Rag paper, which I know is pH neutral.

If that doesn't impress you, consider - that putting a watercolor  
painting in the window will give you perhaps 3 or 3 days before  
noticeable fading starts to occur. (And that is primarily from UV &  
oxidation). However if you take a look at 16th and 17th century  
paintings, you'll almost never see color degradation, other than dirt  
and varnishes darkening with time. When those paintings are cleaned  
up, the experts tell us that they are almost exactly like they were  
when created.  Why is this? It's because high quality pigments hardly  
ever oxidize or fade from UV.																					

That said, who in their right mind would put a priceless painting  
into a UV or bright sun situation? Ditto for watercolors, both  
contemporary and historic, as well as old and new photographs -- no  
matter what process they were crafted from?

Finally, I'd ask Mantinieri what process you would use and/or suggest  
to others, for creating our own contemporary photographic prints that  
will last? Certainly "C" Prints both conventional and digital (both  
of which use the same chemistry) are no more archival than some other  
processes, no matter what the hype about them is, and my guess is  
that they would be less archival than carbon pigment prints on cotton  
pH neutral papers.

Clayton Price

Mantinieri wrote:																											.... You can assume that  
the substances present in the paper, paper sizing and the ink are  
quite natural, given the status of chemistry at that time and that  
the amount of UV seen by those documents is pretty low, given the way  
theyare conserved. Nonetheless, the old documents deteriorate. The  
main culprit is not UV. It is oxidations....








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