Yahoo Groups archive

Digital BW, The Print

Index last updated: 2026-04-28 22:56 UTC

Thread

RE: Epson Professional Glossy

RE: Epson Professional Glossy

2003-03-15 by John/Julie Gittins

On 3/15/03 10:02 AM, "Victor Simon" ibsimon@... wrote:

>....I've tested about ten papers, and pro glossy is the only 
>thing I've seen that significantly reduces bronzing.
>I have just two concerns:
>(1) Can't get a handle on permanence....Posters on other 
>lists mention the paper yellowing over time; one fellow 
>mentioned the only hard number I've seen - epson claiming 
>180 years, under glass, with the archival (not ultrachrome) 
>inks. I suspect this number, if correct, may have been 
>issued when epson was less conservative in their claims, 
>plus it's based on the more permanent inkset.
>
>(2) Paper becomes wavy with heavy ink laydown?  I can vary 
>laydown on the 2200, but I haven't messed with this yet.... 
>but the posts I've read about waviness said it was a big-print 
>problem.

Vic,

My testing of Pro Glossy has been limited to the Eps C80's 
"Durabrite" Black ink, which is matte, and said to be the same 
as the Ultrachrome Matte-K. (My 2200 just came in. I won't be 
clearing space for it for another week, so I can't report 
on how Pro Glossy looks with the UC Blacks --Photo and Matte--
till then). Like you, I have found bronzing to be markedly 
lower with Pro Glossy than with the other glossy papers I've 
tried. I'd add that because I've been using a matte-K (which 
doesn't penetrate like UC Photo-K) I've had to varnish the print 
to keep the (matte)ink from smudging -- and I've found the 
resulting print to be gorgeous -- the very subtle highlight 
details from my pyro-processed negatives are better maintained 
than with any other paper I've used, and they are there both 
pre- and post-varnishing. For me, this is a big Pro Glossy feature. 

To your question about permanence. Wilhelm's site reports (in 
"Print permanence results for Epson papers ...." dated 11/02)that 
"Glossy Paper(Photo Weight)", the roll version of Pro Glossy, showed  
"50 years" for the UC ink 2200 (and "over 100 years" for the Arc ink 
Epsons). I no longer take Wilhelm's year-numbers as really solid; 
however, relative to his findings for other papers with UC-ink, 
Pro Glossy is quite respectable. And, also, since the UC-ink vs 
Arc-ink results are based on all the inks in two inksets, the yellow 
ink alone (with it's "greater gamut for reduced permanence" tradeoff 
may be the weak point that halves the UC's permanence vs. the Arc's).
For my own test, I've just put a Pro Glossy / C80 K-only print on an 
interior shutter in a South window. The conditions that assault a 
print there are formidable (high temp, large temp swings, high 
humidity, large humidity swings); My plan is to leave it there for 
5-6 months, and, then, check for Pro Glossy yellowing, ink fade and 
shifting, and changes in the physical surface -- I feel I must do this 
sort of test with any paper/ink combo before selling prints done on it. 

I'm not aware of the posts on other lists that have reported on 
problems like yellowing, etc. with Pro Glossy. I'd much appreciate a 
reference to some of these. Also, if you've found out what type of 
receptive layer it has (clay, micro-ceramic, swellable polymer,...). 
 

Regarding Pro Glossy showing waviness with heavy ink laydown: I haven't 
had any problem with waviness due to ink laydown, but I've wondered 
about whether a print on Pro Glossy would stay flat enough -- the paper 
is quite limp without any ink on it (no long fibers to keep it straight,
I guess). I haven't checked out this worry with an actual mounting test
yet;(since I've only had the C80 to work with to date, the prints I've 
done are smaller than the ones from the 2200 I'll be mounting later). 
If flatness is an issue with Pro Glossy, I'll probably wind up securing 
it to the mount board with "#568 cold-mount adhesive" that conservators 
have OK'd as a long-term archival solution;(Light Impressions sells it). 

I hope something in the above is helpful. The visual features of Pro 
Glossy (great tone delineation, and the air-dried glossy look) are 
what make it attractive to me. The yellowing that you are concerned 
about, and maybe some other negatives that show up later, could turn 
out to be show-stoppers. I wish I could know this now, but my guess is 
Ill be in limbo until July, when my "South Window" test-period ends.           


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

Re: [Digital BW] RE: Epson Professional Glossy

2003-03-15 by Robert Morrison

This paper is rated for 50 years on Epson's website.  Copy the below URL
into your browser and then hit the print permanence ratings link.

http://www.epson.com/cgi-bin/Store/ProductMediaSpec.jsp?BV_SessionID=@@@@081
8095891.1047760648@@@@&BV_EngineID=cadcgjiffgimbfdmcfjgckidnk.0&infoType=Ove
rview&oid=-10391&category=Paper+%26+Media


I don't think this paper is the final answer...but I think we will see more
like it with better archival characteristics in the new future.  I know from
speaking with  their product manager that the surface of the Epson Pro
Glossy is exactly what Oriental was aiming for with their new Fiber-Based
paper which is soon to be released.  I'm sure we will see others not far
behind.  Personally, given their investment in the BW photo paper market,
I'd be betting on Ilford to release a paper like this in the next year or
so...particularly once the Oriental paper is released.  I have no doubt that
papers like this with a photo black will be the future of BW digital
output...you just can't get the blacks with matte papers and pigment blacks.

Robert
Show quoted textHide quoted text
On 3/15/03 10:27 AM, "John/Julie Gittins" <jgittins2@...> wrote:

> On 3/15/03 10:02 AM, "Victor Simon" ibsimon@... wrote:
> 
>> ....I've tested about ten papers, and pro glossy is the only
>> thing I've seen that significantly reduces bronzing.
>> I have just two concerns:
>> (1) Can't get a handle on permanence....Posters on other
>> lists mention the paper yellowing over time; one fellow
>> mentioned the only hard number I've seen - epson claiming
>> 180 years, under glass, with the archival (not ultrachrome)
>> inks. I suspect this number, if correct, may have been
>> issued when epson was less conservative in their claims,
>> plus it's based on the more permanent inkset.
>> 
>> (2) Paper becomes wavy with heavy ink laydown?  I can vary
>> laydown on the 2200, but I haven't messed with this yet....
>> but the posts I've read about waviness said it was a big-print
>> problem.
> 
> Vic,
> 
> My testing of Pro Glossy has been limited to the Eps C80's
> "Durabrite" Black ink, which is matte, and said to be the same
> as the Ultrachrome Matte-K. (My 2200 just came in. I won't be
> clearing space for it for another week, so I can't report
> on how Pro Glossy looks with the UC Blacks --Photo and Matte--
> till then). Like you, I have found bronzing to be markedly
> lower with Pro Glossy than with the other glossy papers I've
> tried. I'd add that because I've been using a matte-K (which
> doesn't penetrate like UC Photo-K) I've had to varnish the print
> to keep the (matte)ink from smudging -- and I've found the
> resulting print to be gorgeous -- the very subtle highlight
> details from my pyro-processed negatives are better maintained
> than with any other paper I've used, and they are there both
> pre- and post-varnishing. For me, this is a big Pro Glossy feature.
> 
> To your question about permanence. Wilhelm's site reports (in
> "Print permanence results for Epson papers ...." dated 11/02)that
> "Glossy Paper(Photo Weight)", the roll version of Pro Glossy, showed
> "50 years" for the UC ink 2200 (and "over 100 years" for the Arc ink
> Epsons). I no longer take Wilhelm's year-numbers as really solid;
> however, relative to his findings for other papers with UC-ink,
> Pro Glossy is quite respectable. And, also, since the UC-ink vs
> Arc-ink results are based on all the inks in two inksets, the yellow
> ink alone (with it's "greater gamut for reduced permanence" tradeoff
> may be the weak point that halves the UC's permanence vs. the Arc's).
> For my own test, I've just put a Pro Glossy / C80 K-only print on an
> interior shutter in a South window. The conditions that assault a
> print there are formidable (high temp, large temp swings, high
> humidity, large humidity swings); My plan is to leave it there for
> 5-6 months, and, then, check for Pro Glossy yellowing, ink fade and
> shifting, and changes in the physical surface -- I feel I must do this
> sort of test with any paper/ink combo before selling prints done on it.
> 
> I'm not aware of the posts on other lists that have reported on
> problems like yellowing, etc. with Pro Glossy. I'd much appreciate a
> reference to some of these. Also, if you've found out what type of
> receptive layer it has (clay, micro-ceramic, swellable polymer,...).
> 
> 
> Regarding Pro Glossy showing waviness with heavy ink laydown: I haven't
> had any problem with waviness due to ink laydown, but I've wondered
> about whether a print on Pro Glossy would stay flat enough -- the paper
> is quite limp without any ink on it (no long fibers to keep it straight,
> I guess). I haven't checked out this worry with an actual mounting test
> yet;(since I've only had the C80 to work with to date, the prints I've
> done are smaller than the ones from the 2200 I'll be mounting later).
> If flatness is an issue with Pro Glossy, I'll probably wind up securing
> it to the mount board with "#568 cold-mount adhesive" that conservators
> have OK'd as a long-term archival solution;(Light Impressions sells it).
> 
> I hope something in the above is helpful. The visual features of Pro
> Glossy (great tone delineation, and the air-dried glossy look) are
> what make it attractive to me. The yellowing that you are concerned
> about, and maybe some other negatives that show up later, could turn
> out to be show-stoppers. I wish I could know this now, but my guess is
> Ill be in limbo until July, when my "South Window" test-period ends.
> 
> 
> [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
> &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 http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> 
> 
>

Re: [Digital BW] RE: Epson Professional Glossy

2003-03-15 by Carl Schofield

On Saturday, March 15, 2003, at 03:43  PM, Robert Morrison wrote:
> I don't think this paper is the final answer...but I think we will see 
> more
> like it with better archival characteristics in the new future.  I 
> know from
> speaking with  their product manager that the surface of the Epson Pro
> Glossy is exactly what Oriental was aiming for with their new 
> Fiber-Based
> paper which is soon to be released.  I'm sure we will see others not 
> far
> behind.  Personally, given their investment in the BW photo paper 
> market,
> I'd be betting on Ilford to release a paper like this in the next year 
> or
> so...particularly once the Oriental paper is released.  I have no 
> doubt that
> papers like this with a photo black will be the future of BW digital
> output...you just can't get the blacks with matte papers and pigment 
> blacks.

Another paper that also gives a pseudo air dried glossy look with the 
UC inks/2200 is the relatively inexpensive Pictorico Premium Photo 
Glossy paper (not the more expensive and very high gloss Photo Gallery 
Glossy).  It produces nice looking B&W prints without bronzing using 
the QuadtoneRIP, Premium Glossy paper setting, and with the Photo Black 
ink installed.  The only thing I don't like about this paper is the 
weight and thickness (210 gsm, 8.3 mils) - a bit flimsy.  I also look 
forward to the release of the new Oriental fiber based paper.

Re: Epson Professional Glossy

2003-03-20 by John/Julie Gittins

On 3/15/03 2:14PM, "Victor Simon" ibsimon@... wrote:

>This post (snipped) from ... on Epson2000 group mentions yellowing:
>>"Archivability is only considered as fair by Epson
>>and based upon my experience here is why: Much like the Archival
>>(Enhanced) Matte, the paper yellows quite easily over time when
>>displayed. This can be almost eliminated by using a print sleeve or
>>lamination (you can use both hot and cold lamination with this paper)
>>or minimized a great deal under glass".
>I had a discussion with JT at US Inkjet (866-874-6553), and he said the 
>Pro Glossy is a cast coated paper;  if I remember correctly, this 
>is a paper where the inkjet coating is applied straight to paper, with 
>no barrier, and no RC material involved.  Maybe the paper yellows 
>because it's not rag, and thus the comparison to Epson Enhanced Matte.  

Vic,

Sorry to be so late getting back with this.
I took my PH-pen to Eps Pro Glossy. The printing surface AND the paper's 
middle layer were definitely alkaline. The back surface was dead neutral. 
That is, unlike Eps Enhanced Matte, not a trace of acidity anywhere. 
So I don't have a clue about where the reported yellowing might come from. 
While EPG's print surface is not very white, I suppose it could have some 
optical brighteners that yellow; if OBs do cause yellowing in EPG, that 
effect should peak in the short-run, rather than continue progressing 
over the long-run.
EPG strikes me as having some unusual features. The back surface looks 
like it's an RC base for the sheet, but you find it's just a thin layer 
when you tear it. The middle is very white, and, then, there's the coated 
off-white front,which has a very shiny granular quality. This composition 
is unlike that of any other paper I've checked out. All the other glossy 
inkjet papers I've seen are smoother, like ferrotyped traditional prints 
-- the closest match for EPG's surface I've found is on traditional 
chem-processed air-dried Ilford Galerie Fiber Base, my favorite from my 
darkroom days; (Oriental's traditional FB Glossy is much smoother than 
the Ilford FB Galerie; I'm curious whether the soon-to-be-released Oriental 
FB inkjet paper will have the same surface as its FB chem paper). 
I like the EPG surface a lot. My hunch is that all its glossy granules 
reflect light in some way which results in the image looking more dimensional, 
as well as like a traditional air-dried glossy. Whatever it is that's going on, 
it looks good to me. 

Regards,
John      



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

Forte POLYWARMTONE PLUS FB Museum Weight

2003-03-20 by Tim Atherton

Sorry guys,

not a new inkjet paper...

Having not done much real darkroom work for a fair time, I just got hold of
some of this newish paper to try for the first time for contact prints.

Well... 8x10 contact prints on it are just stunning... detail, depth,
incredible blacks... and now I'm just depressed, looking it my inkjet
printers and old bottles of inks!

In all honesty, all my experiments with various quads still don't compare
:-(

Oh well - maybe that new inkjet paper from forte will be the magic bullet!

tim

Re: [Digital BW] Re: Epson Professional Glossy

2003-03-20 by Robert Morrison

On 3/20/03 9:20 AM, "John/Julie Gittins" <jgittins2@...> wrote:

> (Oriental's traditional FB Glossy is much smoother than
> the Ilford FB Galerie; I'm curious whether the soon-to-be-released Oriental
> FB inkjet paper will have the same surface as its FB chem paper).

Oriental tells me that the surface will be identical to their fiber based
chem papers.

Robert

Move to quarantaine

This moves the raw source file on disk only. The archive index is not changed automatically, so you still need to run a manual refresh afterward.