Digital BW, The Print

Dear Mantinieri

Thank you for this and your other interesting postings.  I agree with much
of what you have said, however I think you need to add another process to
your list - Platinum/Palladium.  It meets all of your requirements and is as
archival as your other examples.

David Whistance

PS - I am afraid that by your standards I have "sold out" and use the Cone
K7 inks for my proper B&W prints.
  -----Original Message-----
  From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of mantinieri
  Sent: 05 November 2008 23:02
  To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
  Subject: [Digital BW] Re: Archivability of Epson luster/semi-gloss paper?


  Dear Clayton,

  thanks for being interested in my opinions.

  Most of the aging processes you mentioned and the tests you also
  mentioned (south window test, Wilhelm Research tests, Inkjet Mall
  tests, etc.) are based on effect of UV rays on the materials of the
  print. The UV do not make chemical reactions (they are photons), but
  rather, physical reaction: they break some molecules and create free
  radicals which are very reactive and cause the actual degradation,
  mostly trough oxidation. But the molecule to be broken must be there
  in the first place. Therefore UV's only accelerate the process of aging.

  Aging is almost always a consequence of oxidation. The documents in
  the churches or monastery hardly received any UV because sacred
  documents were never exposed to publics. They were, instead, conserved
  accurately by religious peoples (like the monks in the monastery).
  Some of them deteriorated any way and some others, as Paul observed,
  are still intact. Isn't the reason that obvious?
  It depends on the substances contained in the paper and the ink.

  You are certainly right. Impurities are among the culprit. They are
  mostly heavy metals, oxidizing very quickly. The purest pigments dont
  fade (remember, though, that paintings are coated with linseed oil,
  which protects them from pollutants not from UV). Not the only
  culprit: whatever is in the paper (including sizing) and the inks
  makes a large contribution.

  My suggestion for making fine art print is: shop in a fine art store,
  not in computer store. We are lazy and pretend to make fine art prints
  by clicking the mouse on the print button of your computer program.
  Corporations know that and sell us their quick solutions with the
  illusion of turning a newbie into an artist overnight.
  Fine art is never quick. How many hours did you spend in your darkroom
  washing and toning your fiber based silver prints? Those who did it
  know the answer.
  Another suggestion I would give is: do not trust the hype from large
  corporations. Fifteen years ago I was making Cibachrome in my
  darkrooms and sold them as 100 years archival, as was the hype of the
  time. I process them myself: fresh chemicals and long wash in running
  water. The ones I have today (stored in a dark place), all have
  shifted colors!!!

  Today, I would recommend two processes for fine-art printing:

  1) Silver-gelatine printing on fiber based paper, with appropriate
  washing and toning. If the chemicals are washed away, what remains are
  just the paper, the gelatine and the toned silver. All very long lived.

  2) Inkjet printing with appropriate paper, ink and methodology. By
  appropriate I mean the following:
  a) Papers. Please, stop at Blick or any other large fine art store and
  just touch a fine art (uncoated) paper made with 100% cotton. Can you
  tell the difference from a coated inkjet paper? They are made to last
  centuries
  b) learn to print on that paper. It is not easy. You need to
  experiment as any artist does. Understand that those papers reacts in
  a different way than inkjet paper, and also from one another. Paul
  Roark and Clayton Jones are the people to learn from.
  c) Forget about that bloody d-max. It has nothing to do with the
  beauty of your artwork. If you print with ink, you must compare your
  print with similar techniques like lithography, etching or
  "acquaforte" (I dont know the English translation for it), not with
  photographs. If you want to make fine art with high d-max, go back to
  your darkroom
  d) ink. This is the difficult part. Fine art artists prepare their own
  oil paints or inks starting from pure pigments. The only premade ink
  that I know to be suited in fine art is India ink (in Italy, China
  ink). We tested it in an inkjet and it is a nightmare, because you
  need to keep the printing head wet all the time (as with Rapidograph
  pens). Preparing your own inkjet fine art ink is very easy because you
  can do that with natural ingredients. What makes it impossible today
  is that you will not find over the shelves the pigments with the
  correct diameter (much smaller than what available at fine art stores
  for oil paints). I have tried to purchase them in small quantities and
  had no success. Therefore, we need to use what is available
  commercially and trust the seller. OEM ink usually has dyes and
  pigments (for better d-max and colder tones). Personally, I stay clear
  of it. Brands I am comfortably with are: MIS Eboni, IS Matte Black and
  Cone's.
  e) dilute them with your own base made with natural substances (as all
  fine art dilutives - also India ink contain all natural ingredients).
  You know what you put in. It will probably not hold in suspension the
  pigments for long time. Then, shake them often and prepare them as
  freshly as you can (as you would do with the chemicals in your darkroom).
  f) wash you final print in running water. It takes away the chemicals
  that were in the pre-made ink.

  Mantinieri
  www.mantinieri.com

  --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Clayton Price
  <clay@...> wrote:
  >
  > 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]
  >



  


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