Yahoo Groups archive

Digital BW, The Print

Index last updated: 2026-04-28 22:56 UTC

Thread

Re: [Digital BW] What's your favorite paper & "archival"

Re: [Digital BW] What's your favorite paper & "archival"

2002-08-29 by Paul Roark

I concur with Robert.  Epson Archival/Enhanced Matte is the best compromise
if you like a smooth paper.  I'm now printing for a wedding I covered, and
EAM is what I'm using.  PhotoRag has deeper blacks (by a couple of
percentage points), but they may not stay that way for long.

As to the question of whether EAM/EEM is "archival," it may depend on how
you define the term.  If "image permanence" is the issue, then EAM appears
to do better in my tests than any of the other popular coated papers except
Eclipse Satine, which did just a hair better but has weak blacks.

Some, however, hold that if a paper has optical brighteners in it, it is not
"archival."  Such brighteners will "burn out" and cause the paper to shift
from a bright (slightly blue) white to a hair yellow after being on display
for a long time.  Most papers do this.  The yellow shift is very slight, but
can be seen if prints are held side-by-side.  Museo and Eclipse Satine Soft
White do not appear to have brighteners, most others do.  I have not seen
any evidence that brighteners shorten ultimate print life.

Some refer to "archival" as meaning long term dark storage capability.  In
the long run, if a paper has significant amounts of acid in it, the acid
will destroy the cellulose paper base.  Traditionally the best papers have
been made of cotton, which is considered nature's purest source of
cellulose.  "Acid free," "rag" (cotton) papers have, thus, traditionally
been considered the safest bets for ultra-long-term storage.

EAM is a wood-pulp-based paper and is not strictly "acid free."

However, wood-pulp paper can be archival according to some experts.  Lignin
is said to be the source of acid in wood pulp.  Epson has represented that
EAM is lignin free.  Also, modern paper processes do not, apparently, use
the acids that the old paper processes used.  As such, EAM could be
archival.

Some, however, use acid test pens to see if a paper is "acid free" and thus
"archival."  EAM does appear to be slightly acidic at least on one side with
these test pens.

I have a test pen, and I find that buffering makes short-lived newsprint
test out better than my archivally-processed silver prints -- which test out
about the same as EAM.  As such, I have not faith that these pens tell us
anything useful.

Silver prints cannot use buffering because of the acid stop bath, probably
among other reasons.  Epson has apparently found that buffering is also
inconsistent with the best image permanence.  Buffering is apparently very
cheap.  It would have been easy for Epson to add some and represent it's
paper as "acid free" if is was consistent with the best image permanence.

So, EAM does not test out as "acid free" with a test pen.  However, if it
has just a slight residual acidity and no acid reserve (lignin), there may
not be enough acidity to matter.

Bottom line -- we just can't be sure whether EAM is suitable for long-term
storage or not.  No cheap, readily-available tests that I am aware of can
measure and accurately predict long-term storage.  If Epson's manufacturer
has truly removed all the lignin and appropriately processed the paper, then
it probably is "archival."

If I don't trust Epson to have properly manufactured the paper, what gives
me more faith that those representing their papers as "rag" and "acid free"
have done a better job?

Since I think that image permanence is still the primary issue, I'm not
spending much time worrying about whether EAM is "archival."  With pure (or
predominantly) pigmented inks (like Piezo, MIS, and the 2000P pigments) EAM
is about as good as it gets.  (This is not the case for the new
Ultrachromes.)  For my museum reproductions, I might use Eclipse Satine.

Paul
http://www.PaulRoark.com
Show quoted textHide quoted text
On 8/28/02 8:00 PM, "treadwinkle" <VOLveeta@...> wrote:

> Especially for actor headshots or portraits?  I ordered the
> Hahnem\ufffdhle photo rag and I have to wait.  It's on backorder.  Poor
> poor me. :-)  In the meantime, what are the cone papers like?
> What's your fave!?!?!
>
> treadwinkle
>

Re: [Digital BW] What's your favorite paper & "archival"

2002-08-29 by scho_2000

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Paul Roark" <paul.roark@v...> 
wrote:

> Since I think that image permanence is still the primary issue, I'm not
> spending much time worrying about whether EAM is "archival."  With pure 
(or
> predominantly) pigmented inks (like Piezo, MIS, and the 2000P pigments) 
EAM
> is about as good as it gets.  (This is not the case for the new
> Ultrachromes.)

Paul
Do you have any info on stability of the Ultrachrome inks?  I've heard rumors 
that the yellow ink in particular is a problem.
Carl

RE: [Digital BW] What's your favorite paper & "archival"

2002-08-30 by Paul Roark

Carl,

No, I don't have any information on the Ultrachrome inks at this time.

Paul
__________________
Show quoted textHide quoted text
  -----Original Message-----
  From: scho_2000 [mailto:scho@...]
  Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2002 12:19 PM
  To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
  Subject: Re: [Digital BW] What's your favorite paper & "archival"


  --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Paul Roark" <paul.roark@v...>
  wrote:

  > Since I think that image permanence is still the primary issue, I'm not
  > spending much time worrying about whether EAM is "archival."  With pure
  (or
  > predominantly) pigmented inks (like Piezo, MIS, and the 2000P pigments)
  EAM
  > is about as good as it gets.  (This is not the case for the new
  > Ultrachromes.)

  Paul
  Do you have any info on stability of the Ultrachrome inks?  I've heard
rumors
  that the yellow ink in particular is a problem.
  Carl


        Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
              ADVERTISEMENT



  Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and
other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:

  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint

  If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to
unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same
page.

  Please follow these basic guidelines:
  - Include your full name with your message.
  - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
  - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
them short.
  - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
  - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or
&amp;amp;quot;flames.&amp;amp;quot;
  - Complete your Yahoo profile.
  - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
resources on the homepage.




  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



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

Re: [Digital BW] What's your favorite paper & "archival"

2002-08-30 by Martin Wesley

----- Original Message -----
Show quoted textHide quoted text
From: "scho_2000" <scho@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2002 1:18 PM
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] What's your favorite paper & "archival"


> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Paul Roark" <paul.roark@v...>
> wrote:
>
> > Since I think that image permanence is still the primary issue, I'm not
> > spending much time worrying about whether EAM is "archival."  With pure
> (or
> > predominantly) pigmented inks (like Piezo, MIS, and the 2000P pigments)
> EAM
> > is about as good as it gets.  (This is not the case for the new
> > Ultrachromes.)
>
> Paul
> Do you have any info on stability of the Ultrachrome inks?  I've heard
rumors
> that the yellow ink in particular is a problem.
> Carl
>

Carl,

John Paul Caponigro gave the following values in his review of the
Ultrachrome in the Sept./Oct. issue of Photo Techniques:

Preliminary Henry Wilhelm "longevity ratings" in 7-color mode:

Premium Glossy Photo Paper - 90+ years
Somerset Velvet for Epson - 80+ years
Premium Luster Photo Paper - 50+ years
Premium Semimatte Photo Paper - 40+ years
Enhanced Matte Paper - 30+ years

I gather the "+" signs indicate that testing is still in progress.

Martin Wesley

http://www.borderless-photos.de/guests.html

Re[2]: [Digital BW] What's your favorite paper & "archival"

2002-08-30 by Richard Sintchak

Thursday, August 29, 2002, 10:02:09 PM, Martin Wesley wrote:

MW> Carl,

MW> John Paul Caponigro gave the following values in his review of the
MW> Ultrachrome in the Sept./Oct. issue of Photo Techniques:

MW> Preliminary Henry Wilhelm "longevity ratings" in 7-color mode:

MW> Premium Glossy Photo Paper - 90+ years
MW> Somerset Velvet for Epson - 80+ years
MW> Premium Luster Photo Paper - 50+ years
MW> Premium Semimatte Photo Paper - 40+ years
MW> Enhanced Matte Paper - 30+ years

MW> I gather the "+" signs indicate that testing is still in progress.


I thought in general Glossy papers were less "archival" than the Matte
papers?  Seems opposite here though.

Best regards,
 Richard  

mailto:richard@...

Re: [Digital BW] What's your favorite paper & "archival"

2002-08-30 by scho_2000

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., Richard Sintchak <richard@c...> 
wrote:
> Thursday, August 29, 2002, 10:02:09 PM, Martin Wesley wrote:
> 
> MW> Carl,
> 
> MW> John Paul Caponigro gave the following values in his review of the
> MW> Ultrachrome in the Sept./Oct. issue of Photo Techniques:
> 
> MW> Preliminary Henry Wilhelm "longevity ratings" in 7-color mode:
> 
> MW> Premium Glossy Photo Paper - 90+ years
> MW> Somerset Velvet for Epson - 80+ years
> MW> Premium Luster Photo Paper - 50+ years
> MW> Premium Semimatte Photo Paper - 40+ years
> MW> Enhanced Matte Paper - 30+ years
> 
> MW> I gather the "+" signs indicate that testing is still in progress.
> 
> 
> I thought in general Glossy papers were less "archival" than the Matte
> papers?  Seems opposite here though.
There are some very different numbers for longevity on the Epson Australia 
web site: http://www.epson.com.au/misc/2100_ed_popup.html
Problem is I don't know which are correct - if any.

Re: What's your favorite paper & "archival"

2002-08-30 by tzinzunzan2000

You lay out your reasoning in some detail. What you say makes sense. 
I'm curious to know, however, if you've had to explain to prospective 
print buyers your preference for EAM over other more expensive "art" 
papers. Also, how have you dealt with the watermark issue -- or has 
it been an issue for you? For myself, I'm very happy with the EAM 
using the VM inkset on my 1160. What I sometimes feel is lacking is a 
semi-matte option. I'll have to go to Brightcube for that. 

Chris Hargens 

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Paul Roark" 
<paul.roark@v...> wrote:
> I concur with Robert.  Epson Archival/Enhanced Matte is the best 
compromise
> if you like a smooth paper.  I'm now printing for a wedding I 
covered, and
> EAM is what I'm using.  PhotoRag has deeper blacks (by a couple of
> percentage points), but they may not stay that way for long.
> 
> As to the question of whether EAM/EEM is "archival," it may depend 
on how
> you define the term.  If "image permanence" is the issue, then EAM 
appears
> to do better in my tests than any of the other popular coated 
papers except
> Eclipse Satine, which did just a hair better but has weak blacks.
> 
> Some, however, hold that if a paper has optical brighteners in it, 
it is not
> "archival."  Such brighteners will "burn out" and cause the paper 
to shift
> from a bright (slightly blue) white to a hair yellow after being on 
display
> for a long time.  Most papers do this.  The yellow shift is very 
slight, but
> can be seen if prints are held side-by-side.  Museo and Eclipse 
Satine Soft
> White do not appear to have brighteners, most others do.  I have 
not seen
> any evidence that brighteners shorten ultimate print life.
> 
> Some refer to "archival" as meaning long term dark storage 
capability.  In
> the long run, if a paper has significant amounts of acid in it, the 
acid
> will destroy the cellulose paper base.  Traditionally the best 
papers have
> been made of cotton, which is considered nature's purest source of
> cellulose.  "Acid free," "rag" (cotton) papers have, thus, 
traditionally
> been considered the safest bets for ultra-long-term storage.
> 
> EAM is a wood-pulp-based paper and is not strictly "acid free."
> 
> However, wood-pulp paper can be archival according to some 
experts.  Lignin
> is said to be the source of acid in wood pulp.  Epson has 
represented that
> EAM is lignin free.  Also, modern paper processes do not, 
apparently, use
> the acids that the old paper processes used.  As such, EAM could be
> archival.
> 
> Some, however, use acid test pens to see if a paper is "acid free" 
and thus
> "archival."  EAM does appear to be slightly acidic at least on one 
side with
> these test pens.
> 
> I have a test pen, and I find that buffering makes short-lived 
newsprint
> test out better than my archivally-processed silver prints -- which 
test out
> about the same as EAM.  As such, I have not faith that these pens 
tell us
> anything useful.
> 
> Silver prints cannot use buffering because of the acid stop bath, 
probably
> among other reasons.  Epson has apparently found that buffering is 
also
> inconsistent with the best image permanence.  Buffering is 
apparently very
> cheap.  It would have been easy for Epson to add some and represent 
it's
> paper as "acid free" if is was consistent with the best image 
permanence.
> 
> So, EAM does not test out as "acid free" with a test pen.  However, 
if it
> has just a slight residual acidity and no acid reserve (lignin), 
there may
> not be enough acidity to matter.
> 
> Bottom line -- we just can't be sure whether EAM is suitable for 
long-term
> storage or not.  No cheap, readily-available tests that I am aware 
of can
> measure and accurately predict long-term storage.  If Epson's 
manufacturer
> has truly removed all the lignin and appropriately processed the 
paper, then
> it probably is "archival."
> 
> If I don't trust Epson to have properly manufactured the paper, 
what gives
> me more faith that those representing their papers as "rag" 
and "acid free"
> have done a better job?
> 
> Since I think that image permanence is still the primary issue, I'm 
not
> spending much time worrying about whether EAM is "archival."  With 
pure (or
> predominantly) pigmented inks (like Piezo, MIS, and the 2000P 
pigments) EAM
> is about as good as it gets.  (This is not the case for the new
> Ultrachromes.)  For my museum reproductions, I might use Eclipse 
Satine.
Show quoted textHide quoted text
> 
> Paul
> http://www.PaulRoark.com
> 
> 
> 
> On 8/28/02 8:00 PM, "treadwinkle" <VOLveeta@b...> wrote:
> 
> > Especially for actor headshots or portraits?  I ordered the
> > Hahnemühle photo rag and I have to wait.  It's on backorder.  Poor
> > poor me. :-)  In the meantime, what are the cone papers like?
> > What's your fave!?!?!
> >
> > treadwinkle
> >

Re: [Digital BW] What's your favorite paper & "archival"

2002-08-30 by Martin Wesley

----- Original Message -----
Show quoted textHide quoted text
From: "scho_2000" <scho@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, August 30, 2002 6:08 AM
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] What's your favorite paper & "archival"


> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., Richard Sintchak <richard@c...>
> wrote:
> > Thursday, August 29, 2002, 10:02:09 PM, Martin Wesley wrote:
> >
> > MW> Carl,
> >
> > MW> John Paul Caponigro gave the following values in his review of the
> > MW> Ultrachrome in the Sept./Oct. issue of Photo Techniques:
> >
> > MW> Preliminary Henry Wilhelm "longevity ratings" in 7-color mode:
> >
> > MW> Premium Glossy Photo Paper - 90+ years
> > MW> Somerset Velvet for Epson - 80+ years
> > MW> Premium Luster Photo Paper - 50+ years
> > MW> Premium Semimatte Photo Paper - 40+ years
> > MW> Enhanced Matte Paper - 30+ years
> >
> > MW> I gather the "+" signs indicate that testing is still in progress.
> >
> >
> > I thought in general Glossy papers were less "archival" than the Matte
> > papers?  Seems opposite here though.
> There are some very different numbers for longevity on the Epson Australia
> web site: http://www.epson.com.au/misc/2100_ed_popup.html
> Problem is I don't know which are correct - if any.
>
Interesting. Looks like the Epson data is from in house testing and the data
Caponigro used was from Wilhelm. So even if you test this stuff you still
really don't know how long it will last!

Martin Wesley

Re: [Digital BW] What's your favorite paper & "archival"

2002-08-30 by Martin Wesley

Paul,

Nice post. I just want to ad that from the research I did that un-buffered,
lignin free, acid free papers have a natural pH of about 6.0 which will test
"acid" with the test pens. The primary purpose of the test pens was to be a
quick check to see if the paper is buffered or un-buffered.

Considering that Epson had to anticipate that their papers would be used
with their dye inks and that buffering and dyes are bad for each other, it
is not surprising that EAM is an un-buffered paper.

Martin Wesley

http://www.borderless-photos.de/guests.html



----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Roark" <paul.roark@...>
To: "DigitalB&WPrint" <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2002 8:06 AM
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] What's your favorite paper & "archival"


> I concur with Robert.  Epson Archival/Enhanced Matte is the best
compromise
> if you like a smooth paper.  I'm now printing for a wedding I covered, and
> EAM is what I'm using.  PhotoRag has deeper blacks (by a couple of
> percentage points), but they may not stay that way for long.
>
> As to the question of whether EAM/EEM is "archival," it may depend on how
> you define the term.  If "image permanence" is the issue, then EAM appears
> to do better in my tests than any of the other popular coated papers
except
> Eclipse Satine, which did just a hair better but has weak blacks.
>
> Some, however, hold that if a paper has optical brighteners in it, it is
not
> "archival."  Such brighteners will "burn out" and cause the paper to shift
> from a bright (slightly blue) white to a hair yellow after being on
display
> for a long time.  Most papers do this.  The yellow shift is very slight,
but
> can be seen if prints are held side-by-side.  Museo and Eclipse Satine
Soft
> White do not appear to have brighteners, most others do.  I have not seen
> any evidence that brighteners shorten ultimate print life.
>
> Some refer to "archival" as meaning long term dark storage capability.  In

> the long run, if a paper has significant amounts of acid in it, the acid
> will destroy the cellulose paper base.  Traditionally the best papers have
> been made of cotton, which is considered nature's purest source of
> cellulose.  "Acid free," "rag" (cotton) papers have, thus, traditionally
> been considered the safest bets for ultra-long-term storage.
>
> EAM is a wood-pulp-based paper and is not strictly "acid free."
>
> However, wood-pulp paper can be archival according to some experts.
Lignin
> is said to be the source of acid in wood pulp.  Epson has represented that
> EAM is lignin free.  Also, modern paper processes do not, apparently, use
> the acids that the old paper processes used.  As such, EAM could be
> archival.
>
> Some, however, use acid test pens to see if a paper is "acid free" and
thus
> "archival."  EAM does appear to be slightly acidic at least on one side
with
> these test pens.
>
> I have a test pen, and I find that buffering makes short-lived newsprint
> test out better than my archivally-processed silver prints -- which test
out
> about the same as EAM.  As such, I have not faith that these pens tell us
> anything useful.
>
> Silver prints cannot use buffering because of the acid stop bath, probably
> among other reasons.  Epson has apparently found that buffering is also
> inconsistent with the best image permanence.  Buffering is apparently very
> cheap.  It would have been easy for Epson to add some and represent it's
> paper as "acid free" if is was consistent with the best image permanence.
>
> So, EAM does not test out as "acid free" with a test pen.  However, if it
> has just a slight residual acidity and no acid reserve (lignin), there may
> not be enough acidity to matter.
>
> Bottom line -- we just can't be sure whether EAM is suitable for long-term
> storage or not.  No cheap, readily-available tests that I am aware of can
> measure and accurately predict long-term storage.  If Epson's manufacturer
> has truly removed all the lignin and appropriately processed the paper,
then
> it probably is "archival."
>
> If I don't trust Epson to have properly manufactured the paper, what gives
> me more faith that those representing their papers as "rag" and "acid
free"
> have done a better job?
>
> Since I think that image permanence is still the primary issue, I'm not
> spending much time worrying about whether EAM is "archival."  With pure
(or
> predominantly) pigmented inks (like Piezo, MIS, and the 2000P pigments)
EAM
> is about as good as it gets.  (This is not the case for the new
> Ultrachromes.)  For my museum reproductions, I might use Eclipse Satine.
>
> Paul
> http://www.PaulRoark.com
>
>
>
> On 8/28/02 8:00 PM, "treadwinkle" <VOLveeta@...> wrote:
>
> > Especially for actor headshots or portraits?  I ordered the
> > Hahnem\ufffdhle photo rag and I have to wait.  It's on backorder.  Poor
> > poor me. :-)  In the meantime, what are the cone papers like?
> > What's your fave!?!?!
> >
> > treadwinkle
> >
>
>
>
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and
other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to
unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same
page.
>
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or
&amp;amp;quot;flames.&amp;amp;quot;
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
resources on the homepage.
Show quoted textHide quoted text
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>

Move to quarantaine

This moves the raw source file on disk only. The archive index is not changed automatically, so you still need to run a manual refresh afterward.