Digital BW, The Print

Richard Smallfield <r.smallfield@...> wrote:
>
> How does the dmax of the Alise compare with PremierArt Matte BW - aka Premium Matte?

The Alise dmax is higher than the old PA Matte BW, which was very good.

The PA Matte BW was an alpha cellulose based paper that was not considered "fine art" quality by some.

The PA Smooth (Hot Press) papers like the 205 and 325 are un-brightened papers with a cotton base.  The 205 is also sold by Epson as "Premier Art Scrapbook" paper.  It has been claimed by Epson to be its most archival paper.  In my fade tests I think it -- or rather the images on it -- have done slightly better than any other paper.

Premier Art Smooth BW is the same base, but with brighteners in the coating.  The BW, however, has a better dmax than the 205.  The 325 also usually has a better dmax -- sometimes hitting 1.69.  This suggests to me that there are some differences among these papers.

I've never been told whether the Alise uses the same base as these other papers.  It is cotton, but beyond that I'm not sure what the paper base similarities or differences are.  The coating is different than the PA Smooth BW, having a delta Lab B with carbon that is more typical of standard inkjet papers -- being more than that with the Smooth base papers.  This is unfortunate from my perspective, but the PA Smooth BW has an adequate dmax.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com 



 (I don't understand why they would discontinue such a good paper.)
> 
> thanks,
> Richard
> 
> At 11:23 a.m. Thursday 17/09/2009, you wrote:
> >"paulmwhiting" <paulmwhiting@> wrote:
> >>... Alise loaded in my R1800 (see earlier post), rear manual feed. 
> >>...It's quite simply the best print I've ever pulled! ...
> >
> >Try the Premier Art Smooth 325 R-1800 3-MK profile. I think PA 325 prints almost exactly like the Alise, but with a somewhat lower dmax. I've profiled both on the 1400 with the 3-MK curves, and the linearization graphs are very parallel. The 205 is slightly different. All 3 use the same ink limits.
> >
> >Paul
> >www.PaulRoark.com 
> 
> ____________
> http://www.richardsmallfield.com
>