Digital BW, The Print

Shilesh,

Your wrote:

>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 weaker blacks. ...
>this is really bad because EAM is THE inexpensive steady
>war-horse ...

Yes, I recalled your post when I ordered my new EAM from atlex.com.  I guess
it was wishful thinking that Epson had taken care of the problem.  I wonder
how long this lot number is going to be out there.

The letter-size EAM I received is lot # 02CC2004M -- the same are yours.
The paper white on it reads: c=0.05, m=0.05, y=0.04, visual=0.05.  The black
is between 1.60 and 1.61.

Several older batches of EAM have white paper readings of c=0.04, m=0.04,
y=0.03, visual=0.04.  So, the new doesn't actually read yellow; it's just
not as bright.  It does have a more yellow look, however.

The blacks on my old EAM samples are not consistent.  On my 1160 I usually
assumed I'd see between 1.64 and 1.65.  A January 2002 test strip that has
been in dark storage (but close to acid paper) reads 1.65.  A test strip I
printed with the 3000 yesterday on the January paper has a black density of
1.66.  I usually do expect slightly darker blacks with the 3000.  The new
EAM, thus, is about 0.05 to 0.06 units weaker in the blacks than was the
January batch.

On the other hand, the batch of EAM I just used up routinely hit 1.68 with
the 3000.

I cut a small piece of EEM off a new roll I purchased.  I don't know the lot
number.  The roll has the expected white paper reading of c=0.04, m=0.04,
y=0.03, visual=0.04.  However, it's blacks only hit 1.64 with the 3000.

So, the paper is just inconsistent.  The new batch that only hits 1.60 with
the 3000, however, is so weak I'm going to complain and see if there is a
possible swap I can make for a different batch number.  I suppose I'll start
with the Epson Connection # (800)463-7766.  If anyone has a better number,
let us know. If that is the only batch, I suppose I'll keep it -- at least
until there is a better lot number out there.

Paul
http://www.PaulRoark.com

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Paul Roark" 
<paul.roark@v...> wrote:
> So, the new doesn't actually read yellow; it's just
> not as bright.  It does have a more yellow look, however.

Makes me wonder if the "new" EAM is actually _old_ EAM, since this 
paper is known to yellow with age.

Dan

Paul:

I get EAM densities of c=0.05, m=0.05, y=0.03, visual=0.05 if I back 
the sheet with a dark sheet, and c=0.04, m=0.03, y=0.01, visual=0.03 
if I back it with a white sheet.  How do you take your density 
measurments?

Jeff Randall
Preston, WA



I --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Paul Roark" 
<paul.roark@v...> wrote:
> Shilesh,
> 
> Your wrote:
> 
> >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 weaker blacks. ...
> >this is really bad because EAM is THE inexpensive steady
> >war-horse ...
> 
> Yes, I recalled your post when I ordered my new EAM from 
atlex.com.  I guess
> it was wishful thinking that Epson had taken care of the problem.  
I wonder
> how long this lot number is going to be out there.
> 
> The letter-size EAM I received is lot # 02CC2004M -- the same are 
yours.
> The paper white on it reads: c=0.05, m=0.05, y=0.04, visual=0.05.  
The black
> is between 1.60 and 1.61.
> 
> Several older batches of EAM have white paper readings of c=0.04, 
m=0.04,
> y=0.03, visual=0.04.  So, the new doesn't actually read yellow; 
it's just
> not as bright.  It does have a more yellow look, however.
> 
> The blacks on my old EAM samples are not consistent.  On my 1160 I 
usually
> assumed I'd see between 1.64 and 1.65.  A January 2002 test strip 
that has
> been in dark storage (but close to acid paper) reads 1.65.  A test 
strip I
> printed with the 3000 yesterday on the January paper has a black 
density of
> 1.66.  I usually do expect slightly darker blacks with the 3000.  
The new
> EAM, thus, is about 0.05 to 0.06 units weaker in the blacks than 
was the
> January batch.
> 
> On the other hand, the batch of EAM I just used up routinely hit 
1.68 with
> the 3000.
> 
> I cut a small piece of EEM off a new roll I purchased.  I don't 
know the lot
> number.  The roll has the expected white paper reading of c=0.04, 
m=0.04,
> y=0.03, visual=0.04.  However, it's blacks only hit 1.64 with the 
3000.
> 
> So, the paper is just inconsistent.  The new batch that only hits 
1.60 with
> the 3000, however, is so weak I'm going to complain and see if 
there is a
> possible swap I can make for a different batch number.  I suppose 
I'll start
> with the Epson Connection # (800)463-7766.  If anyone has a better 
number,
> let us know. If that is the only batch, I suppose I'll keep it -- 
at least

> until there is a better lot number out there.
> 
> Paul
> http://www.PaulRoark.com

Dan,

The only yellowing I've seen with EAM is the same I see with all papers with
optical brighteners in them -- they yellow with strong light exposure.  Once
the OB's have burned out, the paper is slightly yellower, but then it does
not further yellow -- until many years later when the acid may be a problem.
My dark-storage EAM prints are just as bright as the day they were printed.

Paul
http://www.PaulRoark.com


_________________________________________

  -----Original Message-----
  From: Dan Honemann [mailto:dan_honemann@...]
  Sent: Sunday, September 29, 2002 5:53 PM
  To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
  Subject: Re: [Digital BW] New EAM


  --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Paul Roark"
  <paul.roark@v...> wrote:
  > So, the new doesn't actually read yellow; it's just
  > not as bright.  It does have a more yellow look, however.

  Makes me wonder if the "new" EAM is actually _old_ EAM, since this
  paper is known to yellow with age.

  Dan





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

Jeff,

I read densities on a pile of white paper.  I suspect the differences we see
in our readings just reflect the inaccuracies of the machines.  As such, I
suspect only relative densities with the same instrument are accurate enough
to measure the differences we are seeing in the papers.

I asked an X-Rite rep about getting more accuracy -- including more
significant places.  It can be done, but we're looking at many thousands of
dollars.  So, I decided I could live with the limited accuracy.  It at least
beats the scanners I was using.

Paul
___________________________

  -----Original Message-----
  From: Jeff Randall [mailto:jrandall@...]
  Sent: Sunday, September 29, 2002 6:09 PM
  To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
  Subject: Re: [Digital BW] New EAM


  Paul:

  I get EAM densities of c=0.05, m=0.05, y=0.03, visual=0.05 if I back
  the sheet with a dark sheet, and c=0.04, m=0.03, y=0.01, visual=0.03
  if I back it with a white sheet.  How do you take your density
  measurments?

  Jeff Randall
  Preston, WA



  I --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Paul Roark"
  <paul.roark@v...> wrote:
  > Shilesh,
  >
  > Your wrote:
  >
  > >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 weaker blacks. ...
  > >this is really bad because EAM is THE inexpensive steady
  > >war-horse ...
  >
  > Yes, I recalled your post when I ordered my new EAM from
  atlex.com.  I guess
  > it was wishful thinking that Epson had taken care of the problem.
  I wonder
  > how long this lot number is going to be out there.
  >
  > The letter-size EAM I received is lot # 02CC2004M -- the same are
  yours.
  > The paper white on it reads: c=0.05, m=0.05, y=0.04, visual=0.05.
  The black
  > is between 1.60 and 1.61.
  >
  > Several older batches of EAM have white paper readings of c=0.04,
  m=0.04,
  > y=0.03, visual=0.04.  So, the new doesn't actually read yellow;
  it's just
  > not as bright.  It does have a more yellow look, however.
  >
  > The blacks on my old EAM samples are not consistent.  On my 1160 I
  usually
  > assumed I'd see between 1.64 and 1.65.  A January 2002 test strip
  that has
  > been in dark storage (but close to acid paper) reads 1.65.  A test
  strip I
  > printed with the 3000 yesterday on the January paper has a black
  density of
  > 1.66.  I usually do expect slightly darker blacks with the 3000.
  The new
  > EAM, thus, is about 0.05 to 0.06 units weaker in the blacks than
  was the
  > January batch.
  >
  > On the other hand, the batch of EAM I just used up routinely hit
  1.68 with
  > the 3000.
  >
  > I cut a small piece of EEM off a new roll I purchased.  I don't
  know the lot
  > number.  The roll has the expected white paper reading of c=0.04,
  m=0.04,
  > y=0.03, visual=0.04.  However, it's blacks only hit 1.64 with the
  3000.
  >
  > So, the paper is just inconsistent.  The new batch that only hits
  1.60 with
  > the 3000, however, is so weak I'm going to complain and see if
  there is a
  > possible swap I can make for a different batch number.  I suppose
  I'll start
  > with the Epson Connection # (800)463-7766.  If anyone has a better
  number,
  > let us know. If that is the only batch, I suppose I'll keep it --
  at least
  > until there is a better lot number out there.
  >
  > Paul
  > http://www.PaulRoark.com


        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]

Paul:

The backing *does* make a significant difference.  I just wanted to 
eliminate one potential variable by comparing your apples to my 
apples.  I think the majority of the difference between my white 
backing readings and yours is more likely due to the paper lot (I was 
reading off some just opened but older EAM, Lot # 01KK1026M). Of 
course, Swatchbook instrument variability also contributes some to 
the differences.

Jeff Randall

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Paul Roark" 
<paul.roark@v...> wrote:
> Jeff,
> 
> I read densities on a pile of white paper.  I suspect the 
differences we see
> in our readings just reflect the inaccuracies of the machines.  As 
such, I
> suspect only relative densities with the same instrument are 
accurate enough
> to measure the differences we are seeing in the papers.
> 
> I asked an X-Rite rep about getting more accuracy -- including more
> significant places.  It can be done, but we're looking at many 
thousands of
> dollars.  So, I decided I could live with the limited accuracy.  It 
at least
> beats the scanners I was using.
> 
> Paul
> ___________________________
>   -----Original Message-----
>   From: Jeff Randall [mailto:jrandall@c...]
>   Sent: Sunday, September 29, 2002 6:09 PM
>   To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y...
>   Subject: Re: [Digital BW] New EAM
> 
> 
>   Paul:
> 
>   I get EAM densities of c=0.05, m=0.05, y=0.03, visual=0.05 if I 
back
>   the sheet with a dark sheet, and c=0.04, m=0.03, y=0.01, 
visual=0.03
>   if I back it with a white sheet.  How do you take your density
>   measurments?
> 
>   Jeff Randall
>   Preston, WA
> 
> 
> 
>   I --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Paul Roark"
>   <paul.roark@v...> wrote:
>   > Shilesh,
>   >
>   > Your wrote:
>   >
>   > >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 weaker blacks. ...
>   > >this is really bad because EAM is THE inexpensive steady
>   > >war-horse ...
>   >
>   > Yes, I recalled your post when I ordered my new EAM from
>   atlex.com.  I guess
>   > it was wishful thinking that Epson had taken care of the 
problem.
>   I wonder
>   > how long this lot number is going to be out there.
>   >
>   > The letter-size EAM I received is lot # 02CC2004M -- the same 
are
>   yours.
>   > The paper white on it reads: c=0.05, m=0.05, y=0.04, 
visual=0.05.
>   The black
>   > is between 1.60 and 1.61.
>   >
>   > Several older batches of EAM have white paper readings of 
c=0.04,
>   m=0.04,
>   > y=0.03, visual=0.04.  So, the new doesn't actually read yellow;
>   it's just
>   > not as bright.  It does have a more yellow look, however.
>   >
>   > The blacks on my old EAM samples are not consistent.  On my 
1160 I
>   usually
>   > assumed I'd see between 1.64 and 1.65.  A January 2002 test 
strip
>   that has
>   > been in dark storage (but close to acid paper) reads 1.65.  A 
test
>   strip I
>   > printed with the 3000 yesterday on the January paper has a black
>   density of
>   > 1.66.  I usually do expect slightly darker blacks with the 3000.
>   The new
>   > EAM, thus, is about 0.05 to 0.06 units weaker in the blacks than
>   was the
>   > January batch.
>   >
>   > On the other hand, the batch of EAM I just used up routinely hit
>   1.68 with
>   > the 3000.
>   >
>   > I cut a small piece of EEM off a new roll I purchased.  I don't
>   know the lot
>   > number.  The roll has the expected white paper reading of 
c=0.04,
>   m=0.04,
>   > y=0.03, visual=0.04.  However, it's blacks only hit 1.64 with 
the
>   3000.
>   >
>   > So, the paper is just inconsistent.  The new batch that only 
hits
>   1.60 with
>   > the 3000, however, is so weak I'm going to complain and see if
>   there is a
>   > possible swap I can make for a different batch number.  I 
suppose
>   I'll start
>   > with the Epson Connection # (800)463-7766.  If anyone has a 
better
>   number,
>   > let us know. If that is the only batch, I suppose I'll keep it -
-
>   at least
>   > until there is a better lot number out there.
>   >
>   > Paul
>   > http://www.PaulRoark.com
> 
> 
>         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]

----- Original Message -----

From: "Paul Roark" <paul.roark@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, September 29, 2002 7:54 PM
Subject: RE: [Digital BW] New EAM


> Jeff,
>
> I read densities on a pile of white paper.  I suspect the differences we
see
> in our readings just reflect the inaccuracies of the machines.  As such, I
> suspect only relative densities with the same instrument are accurate
enough
> to measure the differences we are seeing in the papers.

Paul,

This is interesting and may explain some of the differences we have seen
between your X-Rite Digital Swatchbook and my Spectrocam. The Spectrocam
came with a ~9x12 black plastic plate and the recommendation to place all
samples on the plastic with nothing else underneath the sample being read.

It does make a small difference too. If I place a single sheet on the plate
my EAM reads C=0.06, M=0.06, Y=0.00, V=0.06. If I stack sheets up I get
C=0.05, M=0.04, Y=0.01, V=0.05. In either case this is still representative
of the faint blue/blue-cyan tint I usually associate with EAM. The batch I
have is a couple of months old.

Martin

Martin,

It sure looks like your graph of my test data.

Note also the name of the new ink.  Then note my message in the B&W Print
forum:
_______________

      Message 17804 of 21045  |  Previous | Next  [ Up Thread ]  Message
Index             Msg #

      From:  "Paul Roark" <paul.roark@v...>
      Date:  Mon Aug 5, 2002  7:43 pm
      Subject:  Re: [Digital BW] PiezoTone-PhotoRag 306 Hr. Fade test




      Richard,

      Sorry for the delayed response, but I've been out of town.

      You wrote:

      >Saturday, July 27, 2002, 8:50:38 AM, Paul Roark wrote:

      >PR> The super inkset, in my view, would be the PT midtones with the
MIS FS
      >PR> black.

      >From reading your charts it seems the MIS FS-N black has less warming
      >and fading than the MIS FS black so why not the PT midtones and the
      >MIS FS-N black? Or are the MIS FN black and MIS FS-N blacks the same
      >(as I think perhaps I had heard here before?)?

      The FS-N, FS, and VM blacks are all the same. If you compare one test
set
      with another, there may be differences in results. The paper makes a
big
      difference. Also, however, there may be minor differences from one
test
      session to another.

      >Also, if one sets up a CFS with the PT midtones and the MIS FS (or
      >FS-N) black would there need to be any adjustments in the drives and
      >curves used? i.e. if I currently use MIS-FS inks with the Piezo
driver
      >(and sometimes with Epson driver/Randall curves) will I also be able
      >to use the same but with the PT midtones inks installed instead of
the
      >MIS-FS midtones?

      I have not directly tried the PT inks, but my impression is that they
may
      have different densities than the original PiezoBW inks. At some point
I
      will probably buy some PT-Selenium cyan and see what it's density is.
If,
      as one test strip I've received suggests, it is denser than the
original
      PiezoBW cyan, I may experiment with diluting it to make it compatible
with
      the FS and original PiezoBW blacks.

      Frankly, I think Cone Editions ought to market a PiezoTone "Museum"
series
      that uses the original PiezoBW black (which I believe is essentially,
if not
      exactly, the same as MIS FS/VM black) and the original densities
(assuming
      the new ones are slightly different -- which is uncertain to me).

      Paul
      http://www.PaulRoark.com


________________
  -----Original Message-----
  From: Martin Wesley [mailto:mwesley250@...]
  Sent: Sunday, September 29, 2002 8:28 PM
  To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
  Subject: Re: [Digital BW] New EAM


  ----- Original Message -----
  From: "Paul Roark" <paul.roark@...>
  To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
  Sent: Sunday, September 29, 2002 7:54 PM
  Subject: RE: [Digital BW] New EAM


  > Jeff,
  >
  > I read densities on a pile of white paper.  I suspect the differences we
  see
  > in our readings just reflect the inaccuracies of the machines.  As such,
I
  > suspect only relative densities with the same instrument are accurate
  enough
  > to measure the differences we are seeing in the papers.

  Paul,

  This is interesting and may explain some of the differences we have seen
  between your X-Rite Digital Swatchbook and my Spectrocam. The Spectrocam
  came with a ~9x12 black plastic plate and the recommendation to place all
  samples on the plastic with nothing else underneath the sample being read.

  It does make a small difference too. If I place a single sheet on the
plate
  my EAM reads C=0.06, M=0.06, Y=0.00, V=0.06. If I stack sheets up I get
  C=0.05, M=0.04, Y=0.01, V=0.05. In either case this is still
representative
  of the faint blue/blue-cyan tint I usually associate with EAM. The batch I
  have is a couple of months old.

  Martin



  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]

> The only yellowing I've seen with EAM is the same I see with all papers
with
> optical brighteners in them -- they yellow with strong light exposure.
Once
> the OB's have burned out, the paper is slightly yellower, but then it does
> not further yellow -- until many years later when the acid may be a
problem.
> My dark-storage EAM prints are just as bright as the day they were
printed.

The yellowing of EAM doesn't bother me in the least. In fact, it's hardly
noticeable compared to the yellowing of fibre-based silver paper that's been
around for a few years.

Perhaps we had all better start looking for an EAM Replacement just in case.

Anybody know of a paper that has a black at least as good as the older
EAM, and is a bit whiter?  Photo Matte easily is whiter, but the blacks
aren't as good. Same with 
Eclipse Satine, better whites, but not blacks. The price will be a
little higher, I'm sure, but I'd not want any paper that costs as much
as  photo rag or any of the hahnemuhle papers.

I seem to recall CD Tobie recommending a Dotworks paper a long time ago;
has anybody tried this paper?

Is there any paper at all from Red River paper that is EAM comparable? I
tried their
sample pack once, and never found any of them to have a rich black.

How about Mitsubishi, or Weber Valentine?

Jerry

Jerry, I do know that Redriver has introduced lots of new or improved
papers over the last 6 months or so. You can probably ask them via
email which ones might be closest to EAM and get the appropriate
sample pack.

I plan to stop by their place in the next couple of weeks and see what
they have and pick up some sample packs. Their offiice/warehouse just
happens to be fairly close to me.

LJ
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jerry Olson" <jerryolson@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, September 30, 2002 10:59 AM
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] New EAM


> Perhaps we had all better start looking for an EAM Replacement just
in case.
>
> Is there any paper at all from Red River paper that is EAM
comparable? I

> tried their
> sample pack once, and never found any of them to have a rich black.
> Jerry
>

Is the yellow appearance of this new batch quite
obvious?  I ask because I received a box of letter
size from Atlex today, but with a different batch
number (02DE2001M).  I compared it to my old batch (it
is so old, it doesn't have the epson watermark on the
back) and it does appear to be warmer, but not by
much.  However, from visual inspection of a printed
image, the blacks do seem a bit weak, almost in line
with eclipse black.  But, since I don't have hardware
to measure the actual difference, it could be my
imagination.  If I hadn't just read about the
different batches, I might not have noticed.

Thom
--- Paul Roark <paul.roark@...> wrote:

> The letter-size EAM I received is lot # 02CC2004M --
> the same are yours.
> The paper white on it reads: c=0.05, m=0.05, y=0.04,
> visual=0.05.  The black
> is between 1.60 and 1.61.
> 
> Several older batches of EAM have white paper
> readings of c=0.04, m=0.04,
> y=0.03, visual=0.04.  So, the new doesn't actually
> read yellow; it's just
> not as bright.  It does have a more yellow look,
> however.
> 
> The blacks on my old EAM samples are not consistent.
>  On my 1160 I usually
> assumed I'd see between 1.64 and 1.65.  A January
> 2002 test strip that has
> been in dark storage (but close to acid paper) reads
> 1.65.  A test strip I
> printed with the 3000 yesterday on the January paper
> has a black density of
> 1.66.  I usually do expect slightly darker blacks
> with the 3000.  The new
> EAM, thus, is about 0.05 to 0.06 units weaker in the
> blacks than was the
> January batch.
> 
> On the other hand, the batch of EAM I just used up
> routinely hit 1.68 with
> the 3000.
> 
> I cut a small piece of EEM off a new roll I
> purchased.  I don't know the lot
> number.  The roll has the expected white paper
> reading of c=0.04, m=0.04,
> y=0.03, visual=0.04.  However, it's blacks only hit
> 1.64 with the 3000.
> 
> So, the paper is just inconsistent.  The new batch
> that only hits 1.60 with
> the 3000, however, is so weak I'm going to complain
> and see if there is a
> possible swap I can make for a different batch
> number.  I suppose I'll start
> with the Epson Connection # (800)463-7766.  If
> anyone has a better number,
> let us know. If that is the only batch, I suppose
> I'll keep it -- at least
> until there is a better lot number out there.
> 
> Paul
> http://www.PaulRoark.com
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> 
> 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
> "flames."
> - 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
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 
> 
>

>
>
>I seem to recall CD Tobie recommending a Dotworks paper a long time ago;
>has anybody tried this paper?
>


It was called Nature Jet...very reasonably priced rag type paper and 
did a beautiful job with Epson dye inks for 1270 / 80, but bronzed a 
bit with the MIS ARCH PIGMENTS.  Went away when sprayed, but that is 
somewhat of a pain.

Bill

-- 

bill agee studio
capistrano beach, ca / laguna beach, ca

http://www.redsilver.com

Phil Morse posted that the 13 x 19 EAM/EM sheets he recently got were 
not less white/more yellow.
Has everyone else who ordered 13 x 19 EAM/EEM recently been as lucky 
as Phil? I guess we could cut it down to size.

Are there other sizes, hopefully A4, of EAM/EEM which are not less 
white/more yellow?

Thanks.

Sam McCandless                samcc@...

Is Hahnemuehle PhotoRag Duo, suitably cut down, a good, if expensive, 
note-card stock for the MIS VM Sepia-Neutral ink set? I send too few 
holiday cards for the expense to amount to much. And I need to learn 
to print on PR anyway.

I thought I might use both the heavier, 308-gsm PR Duo for unfolded 
cards (S-N image on one side and note on the other) and the lighter, 
196-gsm PR Duo for folded cards with a S-N image on the front. Any 
other printing I could do either with S-N or, on a second pass in 
another 1160, with MediaStreet Enhanced Generations with the Gen4 K 
replaced by the S-N K.

I assume the lighter Duo is heavy enough for folded cards? And that 
it folds ok in one direction or the other; does anyone know which? Or 
whether VM ink on the heavier Duo is scuff-resistant enough to be 
used as a postcard rather than in an envelope?

Are envelopes available in a complementary color? I guess a match is 
too much to hope for unless Hahnemuehle does them. I like Crane's 
envelopes partly because I find their square-flap "Announcement Flap" 
A2, A6, and A7 envelopes easier to print and write on. Either their 
bright, Fluorescent White (what a name!) or their Pearl White would 
probably be better with PhotoRag than Crane's warmer Natural White?

In addition to any advice about any of the above, I'd also be curious 
to know what those of you who print your own B&W-image cards do with 
other papers too.

Thanks.

Sam