Digital BW, The Print

I just opened my first box of letter size EEM, and it appears to be slightly
different than any of the batches of EAM that I've had.  The front and back
are noticeably brighter white.  Also, of course, the Epson logo is gone.
Sadly, the Abbey acid test pen shows no change in its acidity.

The X-Rite spectrophotometer readings for the papers are as follows
(C,M,Y,Visual):

		Front				Back

EAM:	.04, .04, .02, .04;	.04, .05, .07, .04;

EEM:	.04, .03, .01, .04	.04, .04, .06, .04.

Paul
http://www.PaulRoark.com

I agree, EEM is brighter white than EAM. Question is, why were we ever 
told these were the "same" paper? Were they the same before, but now 
EPSON has brightened the EEM? Or were we misled from the start? Either 
we were misled from the start, or our ability to depend on a given 
paper formulation remaining consistent enough for color management 
techniques to be meaningful are held suspect. Either way, it's 
disappointing to think we cannot get accurate information from EPSON on 
these issues.

/eddie

On Friday, December 20, 2002, at 01:50  PM, Paul Roark wrote:

> I just opened my first box of letter size EEM, and it appears to be 
> slightly
> different than any of the batches of EAM that I've had.  The front and 
> back
> are noticeably brighter white.

Paul Roark wrote:

>I just opened my first box of letter size EEM, and it appears to be slightly
>different than any of the batches of EAM that I've had.  The front and back
>are noticeably brighter white.  Also, of course, the Epson logo is gone.
>Sadly, the Abbey acid test pen shows no change in its acidity.
>
>The X-Rite spectrophotometer readings for the papers are as follows
>(C,M,Y,Visual):
>
>		Front				Back
>
>EAM:	.04, .04, .02, .04;	.04, .05, .07, .04;
>
>EEM:	.04, .03, .01, .04	.04, .04, .06, .04.
>
>
>  
>
Well, looking forward to see how it prints for you...

The color differences could simply be a result of age, we saw some very 
old and yellowish  EAM out there towards the end of production (as 
reported by some here and elsewhere)..

As for the back, I would expect some difference since the logo is not 
printed on it..

At least we'll have some valid measurements.

Who knows, I could be wrong, won't be the first time I've been the 
recipinent of less than perfect information..

OTOH, that EPSON rep was still wrong about other papers and inks, so, 
 given I had my info fromother EPSON and non-EPSON sources, it made 
logical sense to go with that.
Keith

 

"Just some guy," and founder of the Multiverse's largest EPSON printer 
User Community (highly recommended by Vogon Poets and MegaDodo 
Publications), at:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EPSONx7x_Printers/
 
"For the rest of you out there, the secret is to bang the rocks together 
guys"

 




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

Eddie Gilbert wrote:

>I agree, EEM is brighter white than EAM. Question is, why were we ever 
>told these were the "same" paper? Were they the same before, but now 
>EPSON has brightened the EEM? Or were we misled from the start? Either 
>we were misled from the start, or our ability to depend on a given 
>paper formulation remaining consistent enough for color management 
>techniques to be meaningful are held suspect. Either way, it's 
>disappointing to think we cannot get accurate information from EPSON on 
>these issues.
>
>
>  
>
The possibility is that very little EPSON staff may actually know..  So 
much of this is proprietary.. Japan might well tell them it is the same, 
if the coating is the same, but the base is slightly different.

Heck, the small differences Paul shows in the spectro could be the 
result of the same paper specs being outsourced to a new contractor for 
production of the uncoated stock.. Sadly, I doubt EPSON would find 
noting that necessary when talking about the paper in the overall 
sense..   Witness how we found ot about the Chinese ink outsourcing, 
people finding their old profiles were not working..
Keith

 

"Just some guy," and founder of the Multiverse's largest EPSON printer 
User Community (highly recommended by Vogon Poets and MegaDodo 
Publications), at:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EPSONx7x_Printers/
 
"For the rest of you out there, the secret is to bang the rocks together 
guys"




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

I tried EEM in 8.5 x 11 and 13x19 last night. The 8.5x11 has a 
noticible cream or yellow tint compared to the 13x19. Also, the 13x19 
has NO LOGO on the back whereas the 8.5x11 has the logo.
Frank

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Roark" 
<paul.roark@v...> wrote:
> I just opened my first box of letter size EEM, and it appears to be 
slightly
> different than any of the batches of EAM that I've had.  The front 
and back
> are noticeably brighter white.  Also, of course, the Epson logo is 
gone.

> Sadly, the Abbey acid test pen shows no change in its acidity.
> 
> The X-Rite spectrophotometer readings for the papers are as follows
> (C,M,Y,Visual):
> 
> 		Front				Back
> 
> EAM:	.04, .04, .02, .04;	.04, .05, .07, .04;
> 
> EEM:	.04, .03, .01, .04	.04, .04, .06, .04.
> 
> Paul
> http://www.PaulRoark.com

Paul is the code SO41341 ?
thanks
Frankg

> I just opened my first box of letter size EEM, and it appears to be 
slightly
> different than any of the batches of EAM that I've had.  The front 
and back
> are noticeably brighter white.  Also, of course, the Epson logo is 
gone.

> Sadly, the Abbey acid test pen shows no change in its acidity.
> 
> The X-Rite spectrophotometer readings for the papers are as follows
> (C,M,Y,Visual):
> 
> 		Front				Back
> 
> EAM:	.04, .04, .02, .04;	.04, .05, .07, .04;
> 
> EEM:	.04, .03, .01, .04	.04, .04, .06, .04.
> 
> Paul
> http://www.PaulRoark.com

Eddie wrote:

>I agree, EEM is brighter white than EAM.
>Question is, why were we ever told these were the "same" paper? ...

I'd guess Epson said that to be able to dump the old stock.  But, I also
agree that the employees may not have known otherwise themselves.

I do think this is a difference that exceeds what I ever saw in the many EAM
batches I've purchased.  I think Epson is trying to respond to the "yellow"
issues relating both to its lack of brightness when new compared to LPM and
Eclipse and to the aging yellowness, but that is going to be much harder to
test.  I suspect, however, that the Wilhelm tests were "ongoing" so that the
new EEM could be tested.

>... it's disappointing to think we cannot get accurate
>information from EPSON on these issues.

Yes.  On the other hand, why should they be different than most other
companies?

Frank wrote:

>... is the code SO41341 ?

Yes.

Paul
http://www.PaulRoark.com
___________________________________________

On Friday, December 20, 2002, at 01:50  PM, Paul Roark wrote:

> I just opened my first box of letter size EEM, and it appears to be
> slightly
> different than any of the batches of EAM that I've had.  The front and
> back
> are noticeably brighter white.

I'm seriously beginning to wonder about the ethics of Epson.  I filled
in my rebate coupon, enclosed the receipt, with the date plainly on the
front, and the company name was at the top (Inkjet Goodies). Also the
UPC code from the box was there, the receipt was stapled to it.  

I just got the whole thing back and they said I hadn't included a
receipt with the date of purchase.  (I of course had).

Now I'm wondering if I can get the whole thing back to them before the
rebate period runs out.  I think this is just a scam they use to try and
get out of paying the rebate.  This is the second time that epson has
pulled this on me.

This time, I'll write a letter, circle the date, and insure-register the
package so someone will have to sign for it.

Jerry





Eddie Gilbert wrote:

> 
> I agree, EEM is brighter white than EAM. Question is, why were we ever
> told these were the "same" paper? Were they the same before, but now
> EPSON has brightened the EEM? Or were we misled from the start? Either
> we were misled from the start, or our ability to depend on a given
> paper formulation remaining consistent enough for color management
> techniques to be meaningful are held suspect. Either way, it's
> disappointing to think we cannot get accurate information from EPSON on
> these issues.
> 
> /eddie
> 
> On Friday, December 20, 2002, at 01:50  PM, Paul Roark wrote:
> 
> > I just opened my first box of letter size EEM, and it appears to be
> > slightly
> > different than any of the batches of EAM that I've had.  The front and
> > back
> > are noticeably brighter white.
> 
> 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/

Just though I'd mention I was reading  Harald Johnson's book "Mastering 
Digital Printing" today...

It says:

"EEM formerly EAM"

I'm wondering if they are simply having QC problems...  One person 
reports the tone seems the same as their older packages, and others 
report that it seems much brighter, and Paul has Spectro data to support 
that..

I'm wondering if they are using more than one source for the stock 
uncoated media now..?
Keith

 

"Just some guy," and founder of the Multiverse's largest EPSON printer 
User Community (highly recommended by Vogon Poets and MegaDodo 
Publications), at:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EPSONx7x_Printers/
 
"For the rest of you out there, the secret is to bang the rocks together 
guys"

 


{ The P.O.V. Image Service Website is still at http://www.p-o-v-image.com/ }






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

I'm expecting delivery of 12 boxes tomorrow, when it comes, I'll test
and add my 5 cents.

Jerry



"Editor P.O.V. Image Service" wrote:

> 
> Just though I'd mention I was reading  Harald Johnson's book "Mastering
> Digital Printing" today...
> 
> It says:
> 
> "EEM formerly EAM"
> 
> I'm wondering if they are simply having QC problems...  One person
> reports the tone seems the same as their older packages, and others
> report that it seems much brighter, and Paul has Spectro data to support
> that..
> 
> I'm wondering if they are using more than one source for the stock
> uncoated media now..?
> Keith
> 
> 
> 
> "Just some guy," and founder of the Multiverse's largest EPSON printer
> User Community (highly recommended by Vogon Poets and MegaDodo
> Publications), at:
> 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EPSONx7x_Printers/
> 
> "For the rest of you out there, the secret is to bang the rocks together
> guys"
> 
> 
> 
> { The P.O.V. Image Service Website is still at http://www.p-o-v-image.com/ }
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> 
> 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/