Digital BW, The Print

Just to return to this thread, I know that it looks like the acid
contents of papers is far from the most important attribute, but I
thought I'd report what I found.

I think it was Paul who mentioned that there may be differences
between surface acidity and the acid levels found in the paper.

I'm awash in discarded test prints here so I used my pH pen on a few
and tore them open to expose the paper inside.  

It's not precise but yellow-green is acidic and blue is basic.  I use
the term "base" to refer to the exposed paper fibers within glossy and
matte papers

Here's what I found:

Epson Premium Semi-gloss: acidic surface, neutral-basic base
Pictorico Premium Photo Glossy: acidic-neutral surface, basic base
Epson Premium Semi-matte: neutral-basic surface, basic base
Epson Premium Luster: acidic surface, basic base
Innova SW Cotton 315: basic surface, basic base
Fuji Crystal Archive glossy (thin version): basic surface, basic base
Epson Ultra Premium glossy: basic surface, basic base
Museo Crane Silver rag: acidic surface, basic base
Harman FB Al Baryta Glossy: basic surface, basic base


>   -----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....
>   >