Digital BW, The Print

I recently took delivery on some new EAM from Atlex.com, and it seems to be
a slightly different coating than previous batches.  The paper looks a bit
yellow, in fact, the X-Rite says it is just 0.01 density units darker.  The
blacks are weak -- 1.61 v. 1.68 for the last batch -- and the profile is
different.  I tweaked my 3000 curves to adjust to the new coating, but I'm
not happy with this batch of EAM.  (It is still called "Archival" matte.)
The Dmax is about the same as Legion Photo Matte, and the paper looks yellow
and dull in comparison.

Has anyone who has noticed this difference contacted Epson about it?
Frankly, I want the old coating.  This new batch of paper I received just is
not as good.

I also took delivery of a MediaStreet.com package of their Royal Renaissance
(189), which they claim is PhotoRag.  It is packaged incorrectly.  The side
marked "Print this side" is the back of the paper.  Use the "tongue" or
"lips" test.  The sticky side is the coated side.

I had not used Royal Renaissance of PhotoRag 189 before.  I find it is very
sensitive to the pizza wheels of the 3000 -- the most affected paper I've
used.  Have others noticed the problem of surface blemished caused by the
printer's wheels?

Paul
http://www.PaulRoark.com

Paul,

I posted a message about a month ago on new EAM being warmer.  The 
paper I bought was also from Atlex, 8.5 x 11, Lot No. 02CC2004M. I 
found the same Lot No. at the local CompUSA, equally warm. And yes, 
it has weeker blacks. What size did you order? I have not contacted 
Epson yet, but perhaps we should.  I am not sure if this is a 
manufacturing anomaly, or if they have a new paper/coating.  
Honestly, this is really bad because EAM is THE inexpensive steady 
war-horse, or was until now.  I have yet to find another inexpensive 
paper with the attributes of EAM. I hope Epson rectifies this 
situation. 

Shilesh

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Paul Roark" 
<paul.roark@v...> wrote:
> I recently took delivery on some new EAM from Atlex.com, and it 
seems to be
> a slightly different coating than previous batches.  The paper 
looks a bit
> yellow, in fact, the X-Rite says it is just 0.01 density units 
darker.  The
> blacks are weak -- 1.61 v. 1.68 for the last batch -- and the 
profile is
> different.  I tweaked my 3000 curves to adjust to the new coating, 
but I'm
> not happy with this batch of EAM.  (It is still called "Archival" 
matte.)
> The Dmax is about the same as Legion Photo Matte, and the paper 
looks yellow
> and dull in comparison.
> 
> Has anyone who has noticed this difference contacted Epson about it?
> Frankly, I want the old coating.  This new batch of paper I 
received just is
> not as good.
> 
> I also took delivery of a MediaStreet.com package of their Royal 
Renaissance
> (189), which they claim is PhotoRag.  It is packaged incorrectly.  
The side
> marked "Print this side" is the back of the paper.  Use 
the "tongue" or
> "lips" test.  The sticky side is the coated side.
> 
> I had not used Royal Renaissance of PhotoRag 189 before.  I find it 
is very
> sensitive to the pizza wheels of the 3000 -- the most affected 
paper I've
> used.  Have others noticed the problem of surface blemished caused 
by the

> printer's wheels?
> 
> Paul
> http://www.PaulRoark.com

Paul, this morning I opened a new EAM from Atlex and noticed the same 
tthing. It is much yellower than before. I haven't contacted anyone 
yet about it


Vinny
http://www.wulfsden.com


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Paul Roark" 
<paul.roark@v...> wrote:
> I recently took delivery on some new EAM from Atlex.com, and it 
seems to be
> a slightly different coating than previous batches.  The paper 
looks a bit
> yellow, in fact, the X-Rite says it is just 0.01 density units 
darker.  The
> blacks are weak -- 1.61 v. 1.68 for the last batch -- and the 
profile is
> different.  I tweaked my 3000 curves to adjust to the new coating, 
but I'm
> not happy with this batch of EAM.  (It is still called "Archival" 
matte.)
> The Dmax is about the same as Legion Photo Matte, and the paper 
looks yellow
> and dull in comparison.
> 
> Has anyone who has noticed this difference contacted Epson about it?
> Frankly, I want the old coating.  This new batch of paper I 
received just is
> not as good.
> 
> I also took delivery of a MediaStreet.com package of their Royal 
Renaissance
> (189), which they claim is PhotoRag.  It is packaged incorrectly.  
The side
> marked "Print this side" is the back of the paper.  Use 
the "tongue" or
> "lips" test.  The sticky side is the coated side.
> 
> I had not used Royal Renaissance of PhotoRag 189 before.  I find it 
is very
> sensitive to the pizza wheels of the 3000 -- the most affected 
paper I've
> used.  Have others noticed the problem of surface blemished caused 
by the

> printer's wheels?
> 
> Paul
> http://www.PaulRoark.com

Paul wrote:

<<I had not used Royal Renaissance of PhotoRag 189 before.  I find it is
very
sensitive to the pizza wheels of the 3000>>

Paul,

I've used a fair amount of the PR 188 and somewhat less of the Duo paper in
my 3000 in recent months. I haven't experienced any problems with the pizza
wheels leaving tracks on my prints.

However, not long after I got my 3000 a few years ago, I removed a few of
the pizza wheels that seemed to be particularly bothersome at the time. I've
never reinstalled them and I'm "track-free."

Tom Keesling
Intelligent Design, Inc.

Message-ID: <an8u1f+gdmm@...>
User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Length: 577
X-Mailer: Yahoo Groups Message Poster
X-Yahoo-GPoster: T21g=mLsf9h8itAK


Paul Roark wrote:
> 
> I recently took delivery on some new EAM from Atlex.com, and it seems to be
> a slightly different coating than previous batches.  The paper looks a bit
> yellow,

I just opened a package of 50 count Matte Paper Heavyweight (02BC0012)
and it is a warmer toned paper then in previous packages. In fact the 
whole packaging is different. I think this must be the way Epson is 
going on the whole paper matte paper product line for the future. Makes 
me wonder "what are they thinking?". It must have something to do with 
the news UC inks.
Donna Lasater

Paul,

Initially, I thought RR and H. Photo Rag were the same but then I wasn't so 
sure, so I stuck with HPR.

Does your 3000 cause pizza wheels on the H. Photo Rag brand?  

I remember being told by Media Street, at the time RR was introduced, that 
its coating might be different.

Helene


> I had not used Royal Renaissance of PhotoRag 189 before.  I find it is very
> sensitive to the pizza wheels of the 3000 -- the most affected paper I've
> used.  Have others noticed the problem of surface blemished caused by the
> printer's wheels?
> 



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