Digital BW, The Print

I`m also a bit dissapointed about Hanhemule " Photo Rag "
It `s surface is not so smooth .
I hoped more for EAM smoothness with much more  weight  .
Well, I think EAM is white enough for me too ....
( Phot Rag is a bit more yellow )
Some suggestions ?

Jann,

If you want to go in that direction, then there is the Legion Photo 
Matte which is maybe a tiny, tiny bit smoother than EAM and 
significantly brighter. Works well with cooler inks as the base 
almost has a touch of blue. Very nice with the MIS VM with the 
neutral curve. Not such a good match with the Piezo inks to my eye.

I rather like the HPR surface myself. Not too smooth, not too rough. 
But we all have our own preferences. I am just glad to see the 
selection continue to widen. In another year there will be something 
for just about everyone!

Martin

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Jann Lipka " <polski@s...> 
wrote:

> I`m also a bit dissapointed about Hanhemule " Photo Rag "
> It `s surface is not so smooth .
> I hoped more for EAM smoothness with much more  weight  .
> Well, I think EAM is white enough for me too ....
> ( Phot Rag is a bit more yellow )
> Some suggestions ?

you guys!  LPM and EAM are brighter because they use brighteners!
These papers will eventually be the same white (or worse) as the ones 
that don't use whiteners. I know this is a touchy subject that isn't 
completely proven yet so I guess we will see.

 The idea with Photo Rag was to produce a very archival 100% rag paper 
(supposedly Hahnemühle German Etching 310/Orwell is not a 100% rag 
paper)  I think they intentionally didn't make it as smooth as EAM 
because then it would feel even cheaper, you know? People want a $5 
sheet of paper to look a little different.

Why are you guys still considering EAM when it's coating and base paper 
are both acidic? Not to mention the Epson markings on back!

How does Epson Fine Art Smooth (I haven't used it yet) compare to Photo 
Rag?

-mikeH


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Martin Wesley" <
mwesley250@e...> wrote:

> Jann,
> 
> If you want to go in that direction, then there is the Legion Photo 
> Matte which is maybe a tiny, tiny bit smoother than EAM and 
> significantly brighter. Works well with cooler inks as the base 
> almost has a touch of blue. Very nice with the MIS VM with the 
> neutral curve. Not such a good match with the Piezo inks to my eye.
> 
> I rather like the HPR surface myself. Not too smooth, not too rough. 
> But we all have our own preferences. I am just glad to see the 
> selection continue to widen. In another year there will be something 
> for just about everyone!
> 
> Martin
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Jann Lipka " <polski@s...> 
> wrote:
> > I`m also a bit dissapointed about Hanhemule " Photo Rag "
> > It `s surface is not so smooth .
> > I hoped more for EAM smoothness with much more  weight  .
> > Well, I think EAM is white enough for me too ....
> > ( Phot Rag is a bit more yellow )
> > Some suggestions ?

Hi Mike,

Well Hahnemule German Etching and Photo Rag also have brighteners and 
the only one I am sure doesn't is Museo.

Remember there are three factors, paper permanence (which we know a 
lot about), image permanence (which we know little about other than 
some comparision testing) and finally artistic considerations.

EAM is still a favorite with many people because of its good blacks, 
white base and it has a very smooth tonal range. It has also 
demonstrated good image permanence in a number of tests people have 
devised. Unfortunately it is not acid free and its paper permanence 
is in doubt. The OBA content is there but window fading reports 
suggest the fadeout of the oBA is not a big problem.

LPM is even brighter and has perhaps even deeper blacks and is non-
acid. Not image permanece data but paper permanence should be in 
the "archival range". Good tonality but may be too white for some 
people's tastes. Looks like it probably has lots of OBA and we do not 
know how they will fade out.

At the moment I would take the LPM over the EAM because of the acid 
issue. Likewise the Eclipse Satine. Hope to get some answers on the 
image permanence and OBA fade in the near future.

I have not seen any of the Epson Fine Art Smooth. I believe it is 
available only in rolls. So I can't comment on that one.

I think that a lot of people will risk some of the archival and OBA 
issues to have brighter, smoother papers for their work. So still no 
easly answers 

Martin



--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., mh@t... wrote:
> you guys!  LPM and EAM are brighter because they use brighteners!
> These papers will eventually be the same white (or worse) as the 
ones 
> that don't use whiteners. I know this is a touchy subject that 
isn't 
> completely proven yet so I guess we will see.
> 
>  The idea with Photo Rag was to produce a very archival 100% rag 
paper 
> (supposedly Hahnemühle German Etching 310/Orwell is not a 100% rag 
> paper)  I think they intentionally didn't make it as smooth as EAM 
> because then it would feel even cheaper, you know? People want a $5 
> sheet of paper to look a little different.
> 
> Why are you guys still considering EAM when it's coating and base 
paper 
> are both acidic? Not to mention the Epson markings on back!
> 
> How does Epson Fine Art Smooth (I haven't used it yet) compare to 
Photo 
> Rag?
> 
> -mikeH
> 
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Martin Wesley" <
> mwesley250@e...> wrote:
> > Jann,
> > 
> > If you want to go in that direction, then there is the Legion 
Photo 
> > Matte which is maybe a tiny, tiny bit smoother than EAM and 
> > significantly brighter. Works well with cooler inks as the base 
> > almost has a touch of blue. Very nice with the MIS VM with the 
> > neutral curve. Not such a good match with the Piezo inks to my 
eye.
> > 
> > I rather like the HPR surface myself. Not too smooth, not too 
rough. 
> > But we all have our own preferences. I am just glad to see the 
> > selection continue to widen. In another year there will be 
something 
> > for just about everyone!
> > 
> > Martin
> > 
> > --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Jann Lipka " 
<polski@s...> 

> > wrote:
> > > I`m also a bit dissapointed about Hanhemule " Photo Rag "
> > > It `s surface is not so smooth .
> > > I hoped more for EAM smoothness with much more  weight  .
> > > Well, I think EAM is white enough for me too ....
> > > ( Phot Rag is a bit more yellow )
> > > Some suggestions ?

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Martin Wesley" 
<mwesley250@e...> wrote:
> I have not seen any of the Epson Fine Art Smooth. I believe it is 
> available only in rolls. So I can't comment on that one.

The Epson Smooth Fine Art is available two ways: in 24"x30" 
sheets, at a whopping 425gsm; and in 24"x50' rolls, at a more 
standard 225gsm.

This has been my main printing paper for months now. 
According to Robert Rex of Crane yesterday, it has no OBA's, 
which was a relief. (Crane makes the paper, but Epson markets 
it with their name). Subjectively, I would rate the paper base color 
as "white"; it's not creamy in any way. So this is good to get a 
paper that's white, and yet not having any brighteners.

Several people have expressed concern over using the sheet 
weight in smaller printers like the 1280 or 1160 or 3000. I don't 
know whether or not it's too heavy to move through those paper 
transports. I use the 7000 Epson, and it works great with that.

But I LOVE the weight of the sheets. Even at 8x10 size, it feels 
like a substantial piece in your hand. The 225gsm roll weight, 
especially when printed large, at about 20x24, just feels kinda 
mamby-pamby, like you're afraid to touch it because it would 
crimp too easily. But the sheet weight is killer. Cut down in 
quarters, you'd get a 12"x15" sheet out of a master; the cost 
would be about $1.90 per 12x15.

I do believe it's designed primarily for pigmented inks, ie 
7500/9500, and honestly I don't know the risk of running a 
"pigment paper" with dyes or hexes or Piezo, in terms of 
fading/shifting,etc.

Here's a PDF with more info:
http://prographics.epson.com/pdf/SmoothFineArt.pdf

-Mark Tucker

Mark,

My Epson 1280 seems to feed very well and swallows 350 gsm Eclipse 
Velvet without a problem so I would suspect that it would have a 
reasonable shot at feeding the 425 Epson Smooth Fine Art.

The problem is still the $200+ cost for a package of sheets to see if 
I like or not, and my lack of a cutter to get it down to 8.5x11 and 
11x17 sizes. My Rotatrim is only 20". In the long haul I have enough 
to do without having to convert all the paper I use.

As soon as it is available in desktop sizes I will definately give it 
a try since it sounds like a wonderful paper.

Martin

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Mark Tucker" <mark@m...> 
wrote:
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Martin Wesley" 
> <mwesley250@e...> wrote:
> > I have not seen any of the Epson Fine Art Smooth. I believe it is 
> > available only in rolls. So I can't comment on that one.
> 
> The Epson Smooth Fine Art is available two ways: in 24"x30" 
> sheets, at a whopping 425gsm; and in 24"x50' rolls, at a more 
> standard 225gsm.
> 
> This has been my main printing paper for months now. 
> According to Robert Rex of Crane yesterday, it has no OBA's, 
> which was a relief. (Crane makes the paper, but Epson markets 
> it with their name). Subjectively, I would rate the paper base 
color 

> as "white"; it's not creamy in any way. So this is good to get a 
> paper that's white, and yet not having any brighteners.
> 
> Several people have expressed concern over using the sheet 
> weight in smaller printers like the 1280 or 1160 or 3000. I don't 
> know whether or not it's too heavy to move through those paper 
> transports. I use the 7000 Epson, and it works great with that.
> 
> But I LOVE the weight of the sheets. Even at 8x10 size, it feels 
> like a substantial piece in your hand. The 225gsm roll weight, 
> especially when printed large, at about 20x24, just feels kinda 
> mamby-pamby, like you're afraid to touch it because it would 
> crimp too easily. But the sheet weight is killer. Cut down in 
> quarters, you'd get a 12"x15" sheet out of a master; the cost 
> would be about $1.90 per 12x15.
> 
> I do believe it's designed primarily for pigmented inks, ie 
> 7500/9500, and honestly I don't know the risk of running a 
> "pigment paper" with dyes or hexes or Piezo, in terms of 
> fading/shifting,etc.
> 
> Here's a PDF with more info:
> http://prographics.epson.com/pdf/SmoothFineArt.pdf
> 
> -Mark Tucker

At 03:36 PM 9/6/01 -0000, you wrote:
{snip}
> EAM is still a favorite with many people because of its good blacks, 
> white base and it has a very smooth tonal range. It has also 
> demonstrated good image permanence in a number of tests people have 
> devised. Unfortunately it is not acid free and its paper permanence 
> is in doubt. The OBA content is there but window fading reports 
> suggest the fadeout of the oBA is not a big problem.

the other thing to consider when using a paper containing OBA's is what
light will the print be ultimately viewed in.  OBA's can shift the
appearance of the image (and paper color) when viewed in flouresent light
vs. daylight vs. incandescent light.  sort of a metamaric effect.
 
{snip}
> I have not seen any of the Epson Fine Art Smooth. I believe it is 
> available only in rolls. So I can't comment on that one.
> Martin

ESFA is available in rolls (225 gsm) and also sheets (425gsm).  contact me
off-list at rrex@... for more info.

thanks
robert rex
PLEASE NOTE:  WHEN REPLYING, ENSURE THAT EMAIL ADDRESS READS--

chameleon@...


IF THE "pop" IS PRESENT IN THE EMAIL ADDRESS, 
DELETE THE "pop."  
THIS IS IMPORTANT, 
OTHERWISE I WILL NOT RECEIVE YOUR MESSAGE.

At 05:28 PM 9/6/01 -0000, you wrote:
>  Mark,
> 
> My Epson 1280 seems to feed very well and swallows 350 gsm Eclipse 
> Velvet without a problem so I would suspect that it would have a 
> reasonable shot at feeding the 425 Epson Smooth Fine Art.
> 
> The problem is still the $200+ cost for a package of sheets to see if 
> I like or not, and my lack of a cutter to get it down to 8.5x11 and 
>". In the long haul I have enough 
> to do without having to convert all the paper I use.
> 
> As soon as it is available in desktop sizes I will definately give it 
> a try since it sounds like a wonderful paper.
> 
> Martin

I have fed our Museo 365 gsm through Epson 750, 1270 and 2000P with good
success.  I have not tried the ESFA 425gsm though.  Also, the 365 gsm
should be able to go through your cutter fairly well.  (I have cut it on a
hand guillotine in our lab.)

the other thing to consider is $200 for 20 sheets of 24x30 equates to about
120 8 1/2 x 11, which then translates to $1.67/8 1/2 x11 sheet (this for
the 425 gsm ESFA).

similarly, our Museo 365 gsm at $250 for 25 24x36 sheets would yield 8
sheets of 
8 1/2 x 11, so 200 sheets  8 1/2 x 11 at $1.25/sheet.

just some self-promoting thoughts...hope i didn't offend anyone.
thanks for your attention
robert rex
PLEASE NOTE:  WHEN REPLYING, ENSURE THAT EMAIL ADDRESS READS--

chameleon@...


IF THE "pop" IS PRESENT IN THE EMAIL ADDRESS, 
DELETE THE "pop."  
THIS IS IMPORTANT, 
OTHERWISE I WILL NOT RECEIVE YOUR MESSAGE.

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., Robert Rex <chameleon@i...> 
wrote:
> At 03:36 PM 9/6/01 -0000, you wrote:
> {snip}
> > EAM is still a favorite with many people because of its good 
blacks, 
> > white base and it has a very smooth tonal range. It has also 
> > demonstrated good image permanence in a number of tests people 
have 
> > devised. Unfortunately it is not acid free and its paper 
permanence 
> > is in doubt. The OBA content is there but window fading reports 
> > suggest the fadeout of the oBA is not a big problem.
> 
> the other thing to consider when using a paper containing OBA's is 
what
> light will the print be ultimately viewed in.  OBA's can shift the
> appearance of the image (and paper color) when viewed in flouresent 
light
> vs. daylight vs. incandescent light.  sort of a metamaric effect.

This is very true. We each work under our own blend of lights or have 
our favorite viewing location for our prints but once they go out in 
the world we no longer have any control of how they will be viewed. 
If the UV content of the light is low, the contribution of the OBA's 
will be less and their life longer.

Robert, I would suggest to you that a paper company that could bring 
to market a paper with OBA's that don't fade and are "archival" would 
have a real winner. I remember you mentioned there were some none 
fading but very expensive OBA's. Perhaps a small amount of these 
could be used or blended with less expensive OBA's to reach a 
compromise position.

From your posts, I know that Crane is setting a very high standard in 
this regard but I think that you will miss a portion of the market 
that will either take their chances with the OBA's because they like 
them a great deal or have an application where long life is not an 
issue. Crane might want to consider keeping Museo but adding a new 
paper using the same base but incorporating an OBA.

Martin


 (snip)