Digital BW, The Print

Ernst Dinkla <edinkla@...> wrote:
>
> pr_roark schreef:
> 
> > Oddly, the 205 weight did better than the heavier version.
> 
> Intrigues me but too many variables: ...

I agree it's not a solid, 100% result.  While I tried to eliminate as many variables as possible by only comparing results from the same test session, rotating the light to be sure there was no unevenness there, aging all the samples to eliminate the "cure" (initial changes), still, I see my results as more "suggestive" than solid proof.

Consistent with my results is that the H. Photo Rag 188 seems to have, on average, had less of a change in the paper base than the HPR 308 in the Aardenburg tests.  I didn't compare same-inkset ink fade results, if they even exist.  Again, I'm not sure at all this is a significant result aside from it showing, perhaps, that the thinner paper should not be seen as a negative in terms of light fastness.  

Initially I'd assumed that the thicker papers would do better.  That just does not appear to be true.

I wonder if Epson still stands by its statements (still on it's web page) that the Scrapbook paper (205 gsm) is its most archival paper.  It's also one of the cheapest cotton papers at Atlex.com.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com