Digital BW, The Print

Mantinieri,

Sounds interesting, but I would certainly have these tested thoroughly before making any major claims about papers without receptor coating being that much superior to the the rag papers with receptor coating with the inks we have today. Possibly, but does anyone know for sure?

In describing the concept of Carbon inkjet formulas, you are not dealing with the same compounds that one sees in ancient graphite drawings for instance. :-). I've heard than analogy before :- ), applied to carbonized monochrome inks that did pretty badly in accelerated tests. I've heard so many bogus claims that I'm suspicious of any of them anymore.

What we are dealing with in the digital inkjet printmaking world is VERY finely ground  carbon substances that do not perform the same way a graphite pencil drawing would. I"ve used that analogy myself and I'm afraid it was just wrong.  ( I just saw a few carbon ink drawings by Leonardo done about 1500 last week and to me they looked perfect, other than the paper yellowing some. The color and density looked great. 

For some things a dmax of 1.58 might be sufficient, but for most of what I do I'm so used to 1.68-1.78 (HP) that to go down that far would make my clients scream "flat".

But even so, I would love to see how this system you are using is testing. I don't think the inkjet paper formulations are perfected yet either. Personally I don't think it is only the media that is causing a lot of these uneven results with monochrome prints, but a lot of it is the nature of the inks themselves. You can see wide variety of the same papers with different inks testing very differently, and vice versa. Mark can comment more intelligently. 

John


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "mantinieri" <mantinieri@...> wrote:
>
> Mark,
>   
>   I have abandoned inkjet coated papers long ago and only use now uncoated, fine art paper for my limited edition prints.
> 
> Although Arches watercolor get very high Dmax with my ink (1.55.1.58), it is not the paper I like the most. It is heavily sized and the Hot Press samples I have tested have a surface that it is too smooth for my tastes.
> Rather, my research is restricted to etching and printmaking papers: less sized and very beautiful surface. After all inkjet printing is, indeed, a printing process rather than a watercolor process.
> 
> At present, I standardized on two papers:
> 1) Hot Press Pescia, 100% cotton. It has quite a low Dmax of its own (about 1.45-1.49), but Dmax goes past 2.0 with the Carbon-gelatin process I apply afterward (see, for example, http://www.mantinieri.com/techniques.html ).
> 
> 2) For prints that are not coated, the uncoated paper I liked the most is the Pescia Velata for Editions. It is a special paper for limited editions books and portfolios. The Dmax (with no coating nor spraying of any kind is at least 1.59). Its look is superior (IMHO) to Arches. Unfortunately it is 100% Cellulose and I do not know if it can be considered archival. Older "archival" silver prints where also made on 100% Cellulose.
> 
> While still researching for a 100% cotton uncoated paper to use without the Carbon-gelatin process, I wonder if I can submit for imaging fade test two samples with the technique described above.
> Namely, a Pesci HP with Carbon-gelatine process and un uncoated, Pescia Velata for Editions).
> 
> Thank you very much.
> 
>   Mantinieri
> 
> http://www.mantinieri.com
> 
> 
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "pr_roark" <paul.roark@> wrote:
> >
> > There are some new results on in the Aardenburg Imaging fade tests relating to the materials we use.  
> > See http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com/
> > 
> > To see the latest full results you should pony up the fees so that we can keep this resource going.
> > 
> > Among other results, the 20 MLux Hours results for the 1800 Eboni 3-MK are there.  Also in the set of test results are Epson ABW, HP, PiezoTone Selenium and Sepia, as well as K6 neutral.
> > 
> > I must confess I was a little disappointed.  The H. Photo Rag tone shift stopped the 3MK from getting an I* rating of 100 for every patch (no other inkset did either).  However, if the paper white and the next lightest patch are excluded, all the rest got the top rating.  Surprisingly, not all the PhotoRag showed this same tone shift.  Samples of the paper clearly vary (or others were smart enough to lay their paper in the sun for a while before printing it).
> > 
> > If we look just at the 50% patch, so that we have a fair comparison that would include the HP Z3100 inkset and a PiezoTone selenium (where Portfolio K was used -- not a fair comparison to full pigment), the results are consistent with my view that 100% carbon is a very valid approach.  The Cone carbon Sepia and Eboni 3MK had the lowest delta E's of the group.
> > 
> > Paul
> > www.PaulRoark.com
> >
>