Digital BW, The Print

This 300-hour fluorescent-light test compared standard EAM/FS-N to EAM that
had been deacidified with ammonia gas and Bookkeeper spray on the back.
Additionally, one of the deacidified EAM test strips was coated with 2 coats
of Hydrocote Polyshield Gloss polyurethane.

The bottom line is that the deacidification of the EAM made no difference in
how the paper printed or faded.

The coated test strip did fade less at the 50% point -- 0.03 units of visual
density fade for the coated print with no warming versus 0.05 units of fade
with 0.01 unit warming for the uncoated test strips.

The coated 100% black patch did appear to fade more (from 2.41 to 2.35 v.
1.62 to 1.60), but I've discovered that the black dmax of the
polyurethane-coated prints always decreases over the first week -- the time
it takes polyurethane to cure completely.  This could be a decrease is the
surface gloss.  So, I'm probably measuring this effect more than fading.
I'll do some comparative tests with fully-cured coated prints soon.

This test again seems to show that the newest EAM yellows less than the old
EAM.  The paper white in the current test warmed only 0.01 unit (both coated
and non-coated test strips).  With the old EAM I typically measured
approximately 0.03 units of warming in 300 hours.  (And it stabilized at
this point.)

I pulled an old set of test strips to re-measure and verify this, and the
old test strip 50% patch faded the exact same amount as the current test.
So, if there were other variables, they didn't affect the 50% fade rates.

On the old EAM the black was 1.67 versus the 1.62 that I get on current EAM.
Perhaps (and I'm speculating here) Epson sacrificed dmax in order to at
reduce the yellowing of the paper.  (My Abbey acid test pen shows no
difference in the acidity of the papers or coatings.)

Paul
http://www.PaulRoark.com