Digital BW, The Print

was headed out the door with a portfolio of quadtone prints (all in 
plastic sleaves).  then I noticed that the edge at the open end of 
the sleave on all the prints had turned yellow!  also, a number of 
prints that had been stacked up for a few weeks all had gone yellow!  
This crap is certainly not archival.  What is the next step for 
archival quality and the same printing results?  I am getting worried 
about the prints that I have already sold (with my claims of archival 
quality etc.).

thanks,

mark

Mark,

If you are using EAM, it might be old stock since EAM has been 
replaced with EEM.  Both papers have brightners which make the paper 
appear whiter.  If you expose this paper to strong sunlight or let 
the paper get a little age on it, the brightners will fade and the 
natural yellowish paper base will show up.  Generally, this color 
should be stable.  However, the paper is not archival....that's why 
Epson changed the name to EEM.  The paper is not acid free and after 
about 30 years, the acid should start attacking the paper.

If you like the way your images look on EAM/EEM, you might use Epson 
Velvet Fine Art paper for your print sales....it has the same 
coating, but the brightners appear to be stable and the paper is 
acid free.  This paper is the same paper as Somerset Photo Enhanced, 
but it has the Epson coating.

Many printers are using PhotoRag....but this paper prints with a 
lower Dmax if you are using Ultrachrome inks.  If you are using 
PiezoTone inks, PhotoRag gives a higher Dmax with this ink, so this 
would be a good choice for your fine art prints.

There are other acid free fine art papers available.  Several online 
vendors sell them.

Ron
www.harrisimages.com


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Mark Hahn" 
<markhahn2000@y...> wrote:
> was headed out the door with a portfolio of quadtone prints (all 
in 
> plastic sleaves).  then I noticed that the edge at the open end of 
> the sleave on all the prints had turned yellow!  also, a number of 
> prints that had been stacked up for a few weeks all had gone 
yellow!  
> This crap is certainly not archival.  What is the next step for 
> archival quality and the same printing results?  I am getting 
worried 
> about the prints that I have already sold (with my claims of 
archival 

> quality etc.).
> 
> thanks,
> 
> mark

Hello Mark,

> was headed out the door with a portfolio of quadtone prints (all in 
> plastic sleaves).  then I noticed that the edge at the open end of 
> the sleave on all the prints had turned yellow!  also, a number of 
> prints that had been stacked up for a few weeks all had gone
yellow!  

The yellowing of EAM has been discussed in this forum for many months.


>What is the next step for archival quality and the same printing 
>results?  

I have found that PhotoRag is very close to EAM, requiring very
little, if any, change.  It is also widely regarded as one of the best
cotton papers.  When I first got into this I tried samples of all the
then available papers and liked PR the best.  It was a happy
coincidence that it is nearly identical to EAM in tonality, so I use
EAM for proofing and PR for final prints.


Regards,
Clayton


Info on black and white digital printing at    
http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Hahn [mailto:markhahn2000@...] 
> Sent: Saturday, August 30, 2003 2:56 PM
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [Digital BW] EAM turns yellow!
> 
> 
> was headed out the door with a portfolio of quadtone prints (all in 
> plastic sleaves).  then I noticed that the edge at the open end of 
> the sleave on all the prints had turned yellow!  also, a number of 
> prints that had been stacked up for a few weeks all had gone yellow!

I've heard this so many times about EAM.  I've never used it, mainly
because Heavy Weight Matte is cheaper and I keep hearing that HWM is
actually rated higher for it's archival qualities.  People have sent me
prints made on EAM and I see nothing special about the look or feel of
the paper.  What is it that people love so much about it?

Thanks,
Ed
http://lightandsilver.com

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Ed 
Mathews" <ed@l...> wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Mark Hahn [mailto:markhahn2000@y...] 
 prints had turned yellow!  also, a number of 
> > prints that had been stacked up for a few weeks all had gone 
yellow!
> 
> I've heard this so many times about EAM.  I've never used it, 
mainly
> because Heavy Weight Matte is cheaper and I keep hearing 
that HWM is
> actually rated higher for it's archival qualities.  People have 
sent me
> prints made on EAM and I see nothing special about the look 
or feel of
> the paper.  What is it that people love so much about it?

The yellowing of Epson Archival Matte paper is what had caused 
Epson to rename the product as "Enhanced Matte". The 
discoloration was presumably (and ironically) caused by the 
paper's optical brighteners, which I assume is still present in the 
Enhanced Matte (EEM). The Heavyweight Matte is probably just 
as good for fade-resistance but without the yellowing problem. It 
is not quite as bright nor as heavy as Enhanced Matte, but  prints 
very similarly, and as you say--is cheaper.
Phil

On Sat, 30 Aug 2003, Ed Mathews wrote:

> 
> People have sent me
> prints made on EAM and I see nothing special about the look or feel of
> the paper.  What is it that people love so much about it?
> 

The blacks.  I haven't found anything yet that beats its Dmax when using UltraChrome inks.

--Tom

Ron,

>... the paper is not archival... The paper is not acid free and after
>about 30 years, the acid should start attacking the paper.

Note that Wilhelm appears to have changed his prediction for EEM.  He now
gives the paper a 110 year dark storage estimated life.  See:

http://www.wilhelm-research.com/ep9600%20print%20permanence.html

Paul
http://www.PaulRoark.com

Hi Ron,

I remember you recommending this on another list before, but I haven't had a chance to try Velvet Fine Art yet.  I did just get some of the Epson branded Somerset Velvet and haven't opened it yet.  Do you happen to know how Epson's Somerset Velvet differs from Velvet Fine Art? 

Thanks
--Tom 

On Sun, 31 Aug 2003, harrisimages wrote:

> 
> If you like the way your images look on EAM/EEM, you might use Epson 
> Velvet Fine Art paper for your print sales....it has the same 
> coating, but the brightners appear to be stable and the paper is 
> acid free.  This paper is the same paper as Somerset Photo Enhanced, 
> but it has the Epson coating.
>

Thanks all.  I guess you ignore a lot of problems until they effect 
you.  I'll try some PR if you're not seeing any yellowing.  This was 
a last minute thing and I probably over reacted a bit... only 
actually had to pull one photo that I really wanted to show... also 
realized that the yellowing was mostly apparent under incandecent 
light and not the cooler gallery lighting so no one notice the more 
minor edge yellowing... but it was a rude shock.  Sure, the paper is 
old stock... something like 6-12 months old, but come on, when it is 
called "archival matte" you wouldn't think it would go bad that 
fast.  The other issue is that my air conditioner was broken and I 
was on the swamp cooler for the last week which raises the humitidity 
in the house which was probably the real driver.

mark

...
> I have found that PhotoRag is very close to EAM, requiring very
> little, if any, change.  It is also widely regarded as one of the 
best
> cotton papers.  When I first got into this I tried samples of all 
the
> then available papers and liked PR the best.  It was a happy
> coincidence that it is nearly identical to EAM in tonality, so I use
> EAM for proofing and PR for final prints.
> 
...

Paul,

I had noticed Wilhelm's update.....but, what does it mean....is he 
ignoring the acid in the paper and the burning out of the 
brightners?  Has Epson recently changed the EEM recipe?  Or is he 
only looking at the stability of the ink on the EEM coating.  And, 
exactly what does he mean by B&W printing using full color 
Ultrachrome inks?  How is he making these B&W prints?  Is he using 
the "monochrome" option in the Epson driver....note the "monocrhome" 
choice is not the same as choosing "black ink only." Or is he using 
a RIP like ImagePrint, which doesn't use Yellow in printing B&W 
using color inks....thereby, increasing print life.  If he is not 
using ImagePrint, then how much longer can we expect ImagePrint B&W 
prints to last? Does Wilhelm publish more than just numbers of years 
anwhere? Can you shed any light on these questions?

In my own very harsh Louisiana sun tests of a couple of weeks 
duration with B&W prints using a 2200 with Ultrachrome inks and 
ImagePrint 5.5 on both Epson Enhanced Matte and Epson Velvet Fine 
Art, the image appears to be very stable.  After a few days the 
brightners burn out of EEM and the paper takes on a faint yellowish 
color, which seems to become stable after a few days.  I see almost 
none of this with EVFA, which has the same coating as EEM and which 
is acid free.

Thanks!

Ron
www.harrisimages.com

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Roark" 
<paul.roark@v...> wrote:
> Ron,
> 
> >... the paper is not archival... The paper is not acid free and 
after
> >about 30 years, the acid should start attacking the paper.
> 
> Note that Wilhelm appears to have changed his prediction for EEM.  
He now

> gives the paper a 110 year dark storage estimated life.  See:
> 
> http://www.wilhelm-research.com/ep9600%20print%20permanence.html
> 
> Paul
> http://www.PaulRoark.com

On Sun, 31 Aug 2003, Paul Roark wrote:

> 
> Note that Wilhelm appears to have changed his prediction for EEM.  He now
> gives the paper a 110 year dark storage estimated life.  See:
> 
> http://www.wilhelm-research.com/ep9600%20print%20permanence.html
> 

I noticed that too and was very surprised.  

His notes indicate that he runs his dark storage test at a constant relative humidity of 50% and that higher temperatures and higher RH could cause accelerated yellowing.  The big unknown here is how much does yellowing accelerate with higher RH.

Also, his dark storage test applies to prints that are framed, boxed, or sleeved to protect them from the open atmosphere.  He does mention that low-level air pollutants may cause, "significant yellowing within a relatively short period of time."  Again, we don't know what level of pollutants or how much it accelerates yellowing.

The only test where he uses unframed prints is his "bare-bulb" test; EEM B&W prints still did rather well in it, but again that uses a constant RH this time at 60%.  Also, I would bet that the air in his test lab is of fairly high quality.

I think the air quality issue could explain why people see results that often appear contradictory to Wilhelm's published data.

--Tom

On Sun, 31 Aug 2003, Mark Hahn wrote:

> 
> The other issue is that my air conditioner was broken and I 
> was on the swamp cooler for the last week which raises the humitidity 
> in the house which was probably the real driver.
> 

That would do it.  Check out the notes for Wilhelm's tests at the link that Paul provided.

--Tom

In a message dated 8/31/2003 8:49:30 AM Pacific Daylight Time, tom@... 
writes:

> If you like the way your images look on EAM/EEM, you might use Epson 
> >Velvet Fine Art paper for your print sales....it has the same 
> >coating, but the brightners appear to be stable and the paper is 
> >acid free.  This paper is the same paper as Somerset Photo Enhanced, 
> >but it has the Epson coating.
> 
I doubt very much much Epson is Buying Sumerset Enhanced and using an"Epson 
coating" This rebranding of papers with a new name and the resellers claiming 
they use there own special coating turned out to be all BS. 
There where several renamed versions of the entire Hahnemuhle line of papers, 
and they where and are all the same regardless who's name was on the package.
Even Ilford's lastest Fine art paper is Hahnemuhles William Turner!


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

Tom wrote, in part:

>> Note that Wilhelm appears to have changed his prediction for EEM.
>>He now gives the paper a 110 year dark storage estimated life.  See:
>>http://www.wilhelm-research.com/ep9600%20print%20permanence.html

>I noticed that too and was very surprised.    His notes indicate
>that he runs his dark storage test at a constant relative
>humidity of 50% and that higher temperatures
>and higher RH could cause accelerated yellowing.
>The big unknown here is how
>much does yellowing accelerate with higher RH.  ...

I agree.  In my earlier post on this I noted the cynic in me wondered
whether the paper had changed ... or something else.  The something else
could well be the testing standards.

I think the bottom line is that Epson Enhance (aka "Archival") Matte is not
archival.

>Also, his dark storage test applies to prints that are framed, boxed, or
>sleeved to protect them from the open atmosphere.  He does mention that
>low-level air pollutants may cause, "significant yellowing within a
>relatively short period of time."  Again, we don't know what level of
>pollutants or how much it accelerates yellowing.  ...

Yep, lots of unknowns in these tests and predictions.

Stick with buffered, un-brightened cotton for the maximum life.

Ron wrote, in part:

>I had noticed Wilhelm's update.....but, what does it mean....is he
>ignoring the acid in the paper and the burning out of the
>brighteners?

I assume he must have standards that allow the usual brightener yellowing,
because lots of even cotton papers have brighteners and, in my tests, yellow
the same as EEM/EAM.  Usually after this initial yellowing -- which really
just turns the paper a cream color similar to some un-brightened papers --
the paper becomes stable, at least in my fade tests.  As such, I've assumed,
and Epson representatives have said, that the yellowing Wilhelm noted in the
earlier 30-year prediction was due to acid attacking the paper.

>...

>In my own very harsh Louisiana sun tests of a couple of weeks
>duration with B&W prints using a 2200 with Ultrachrome inks and
>ImagePrint 5.5 on both Epson Enhanced Matte and Epson Velvet Fine
>Art, the image appears to be very stable.  After a few days the
>brighteners burn out of EEM and the paper takes on a faint yellowish
>color, which seems to become stable after a few days.  I see almost
>none of this with EVFA, which has the same coating as EEM and which
>is acid free.

That seems consistent with what I see.  I think the Epson "Fine Art"
papers do not have brighteners in them.

I like EEM for display and general printing.  However, I'd never sell a
display print on that paper or use the paper for re-producing old family
photos, given what we now know.

Paul
http://www.PaulRoark.com

So if EEM is just for proofing - is anyone using 
Heavyweight Matte for their work?  I prefer its color
base over EEM, and if I remember correctly it has
pretty much the same storage/archival potential.

That and the price is spectacular, as well as the
blacks - very rich and velvety.

Don


--- Thomas Fors <tom@...> wrote:
> 
> 
> On Sat, 30 Aug 2003, Ed Mathews wrote:
> 
> > 
> > People have sent me
> > prints made on EAM and I see nothing special about
> the look or feel of
> > the paper.  What is it that people love so much
> about it?
> > 
> 
> The blacks.  I haven't found anything yet that beats
> its Dmax when using UltraChrome inks.
> 
> --Tom
> 
> 
> 


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com

I've seen something to the effect, but does anyone
know of a chart or cross reference list of Hahnemuhle
repackaged papers?

Don

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com

Tom,

Epson Velvet Fine Art paper has the same coating as EEM.  This is 
not true of Epson's Somerset Velvet (I haven't tried this paper 
myself.).  If you are printing with the Epson 2200 using Ultrachrome 
inks and ImagePrint and you like the strong Dmax (close to 1.8) on 
EEM, you will get the same on EVFA.  If you print on PhotoRag, Dmax 
drops to around 1.63. I don't know what you get on Epson's Somerset 
Velvet, but if it is the same as Somerset Photo Enhanced Velvet, 
Dmax is about 1.6.....I have tried this paper.

Ron

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Thomas Fors 
<tom@f...> wrote:
> 
> Hi Ron,
> 
> I remember you recommending this on another list before, but I 
haven't had a chance to try Velvet Fine Art yet.  I did just get 
some of the Epson branded Somerset Velvet and haven't opened it 
yet.  Do you happen to know how Epson's Somerset Velvet differs from 
Velvet Fine Art? 

> 
> Thanks
> --Tom

Over at www.epson.com you can read:

"Artists and photographers require a variety of media surfaces for 
their professional work. Epson is proud to introduce its first 
cotton paper for the desktop market, Velvet Fine Art Paper. With a 
base that is 100% cotton rag, buffered and acid free, this paper is 
coated with our popular Enhanced Matte coating, giving exceptional 
color gamut and high D-Max."

Over at www.inkjetart.com you can read:

"EPSON Velvet Fine Art Paper - This paper uses the original Somerset 
Velvet paper base (from St. Cuthberts Mill), but the coating is 
totally different, and this is done by Epson."

I have no way of independently verifying this information....but, 
the paper looks and feels like Somerset Photo Enhanced paper and 
prints like Epson Enhanced Matte. 

Ron 



--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, sdmey4@a... 
wrote:
> In a message dated 8/31/2003 8:49:30 AM Pacific Daylight Time, 
tom@f... 
> writes:
> 
> > If you like the way your images look on EAM/EEM, you might use 
Epson 
> > >Velvet Fine Art paper for your print sales....it has the same 
> > >coating, but the brightners appear to be stable and the paper 
is 
> > >acid free.  This paper is the same paper as Somerset Photo 
Enhanced, 
> > >but it has the Epson coating.
> > 
> I doubt very much much Epson is Buying Sumerset Enhanced and using 
an"Epson 
> coating" This rebranding of papers with a new name and the 
resellers claiming 
> they use there own special coating turned out to be all BS. 
> There where several renamed versions of the entire Hahnemuhle line 
of papers, 
> and they where and are all the same regardless who's name was on 
the package.

> Even Ilford's lastest Fine art paper is Hahnemuhles William Turner!
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Hahn [mailto:markhahn2000@yahoo.com] 
> Sent: Saturday, August 30, 2003 11:56 AM
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [Digital BW] EAM turns yellow!
> 
> 
> was headed out the door with a portfolio of quadtone prints (all in 
> plastic sleaves).  then I noticed that the edge at the open end of 
> the sleave on all the prints had turned yellow!  also, a number of 
> prints that had been stacked up for a few weeks all had gone yellow!  
> This crap is certainly not archival.  What is the next step for 
> archival quality and the same printing results?  I am getting worried 
> about the prints that I have already sold (with my claims of archival 
> quality etc.).
> 
Mark,

Sorry to hear about your problem. That is a really terrible thing to have
happen to you.

What kind of sleeves were the prints in? Type of plastic that is. Awhile
back there was an issue with the reaction of Somerset Velvet and the release
agents used in some plastic sleeves.

While the optical brighteners will fade an slightly yellow with time it
should take a long exposure to UV light. Had prints been stored with the
open end of the sleeves toward a strong light source?

I am curious as to why this happened to you. I don't use EAM or EEM for
finished prints preferring Photo Rag and German Etching but I do use a lot
of it for proofing and work prints. After 2.5 years I have not experienced
anything like you describe. I wonder if it a paper batch related problem or
something in your particular environment. In any case a change in paper
would seem to be in order.

Martin Wesley
http://www.carolyn.cc/Guests/MartinWesley/pages/MW_01.html
http://www.borderless-photos.de/guests.html

Why believe all that you read? Especially from Epson, have you forgotten the "prints 
turning orange"? 
Why use a old paper? If  you read here most of the pro's use EEM for proofing and 
Hahnemuhle for prints that are sold or displayed. It never ceases to amaze me the 
lengths that people go to to try to save a penny when they have spent thousands on 
equipement.  In saying that, it looks as if using EEM and the UC inks will work out just 
fine if you want to take the risk.
I believed that Injetmall inks and plugin was the way to go...Wrong....I find out that 
the inks were crap and now they have dropped the plugin after telling me that you 
could see the dots with the Epson driver but you couldn't with their plugin. So why 
are they now going to use it?

As I said, don't believe all that you read.


Barry

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "harrisimages" <harris@s...> 
wrote:

> Over at www.epson.com you can read:
> 
> "Artists and photographers require a variety of media surfaces for 
> their professional work. Epson is proud to introduce its first 
> cotton paper for the desktop market, Velvet Fine Art Paper. With a 
> base that is 100% cotton rag, buffered and acid free, this paper is 
> coated with our popular Enhanced Matte coating, giving exceptional 
> color gamut and high D-Max."
> 
> Over at www.inkjetart.com you can read:
> 
> "EPSON Velvet Fine Art Paper - This paper uses the original Somerset 
> Velvet paper base (from St. Cuthberts Mill), but the coating is 
> totally different, and this is done by Epson."
> 
> I have no way of independently verifying this information....but, 
> the paper looks and feels like Somerset Photo Enhanced paper and 
> prints like Epson Enhanced Matte. 
> 
> Ron 
> 
> 
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, sdmey4@a... 
> wrote:
> > In a message dated 8/31/2003 8:49:30 AM Pacific Daylight Time, 
> tom@f... 
> > writes:
> > 
> > > If you like the way your images look on EAM/EEM, you might use 
> Epson 
> > > >Velvet Fine Art paper for your print sales....it has the same 
> > > >coating, but the brightners appear to be stable and the paper 
> is 
> > > >acid free.  This paper is the same paper as Somerset Photo 
> Enhanced, 
> > > >but it has the Epson coating.
> > > 
> > I doubt very much much Epson is Buying Sumerset Enhanced and using 
> an"Epson 
> > coating" This rebranding of papers with a new name and the 
> resellers claiming 
> > they use there own special coating turned out to be all BS. 
> > There where several renamed versions of the entire Hahnemuhle line 
> of papers, 
> > and they where and are all the same regardless who's name was on 
> the package.
> > Even Ilford's lastest Fine art paper is Hahnemuhles William Turner!
> > 
> > 
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I live in a very sunny part of the world! Northern California...I use EEM and have had 
no problems with it. but for resell prints I use HPR..
If you read Paul Roake's last post it looks like he agrees with this. But please 
remember that we are dicussing paper and not ink sets...

Barry

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "D. Hill" <hill14701@y...> 
wrote:

> So if EEM is just for proofing - is anyone using 
> Heavyweight Matte for their work?  I prefer its color
> base over EEM, and if I remember correctly it has
> pretty much the same storage/archival potential.
> 
> That and the price is spectacular, as well as the
> blacks - very rich and velvety.
> 
> Don
> 
> 
> --- Thomas Fors <tom@f...> wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > On Sat, 30 Aug 2003, Ed Mathews wrote:
> > 
> > > 
> > > People have sent me
> > > prints made on EAM and I see nothing special about
> > the look or feel of
> > > the paper.  What is it that people love so much
> > about it?
> > > 
> > 
> > The blacks.  I haven't found anything yet that beats
> > its Dmax when using UltraChrome inks.
> > 
> > --Tom
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
> http://sbc.yahoo.com

it's tucked away in the files section of this very group

> -----Original Message-----
> From: D. Hill [mailto:hill14701@...]
> Sent: Sunday, August 31, 2003 11:01 AM
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [Digital BW] Hahnemuhle
>
>
> I've seen something to the effect, but does anyone
> know of a chart or cross reference list of Hahnemuhle
> repackaged papers?
>
> Don
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
> http://sbc.yahoo.com
>
>
> 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/
>
>
>

From John Cone's (Inkjetmall/Piezography) recent post on here "RE: [Digital
BW] Re: Septone system (LONG)"


 > FYI, EEM turned yellowish brown rather rapidly (at 100 hours) in our
tests

> and we have abandoned it as an "archival" paper. It may allow
> EPSON inks to
> "test" better, but the paper discoloration is too gross to be
> considered as
> a long-term material. I would appreciate hearing your view on
> that paper in
> that regard and if you have seen that in your test

From John Cone's (Inkjetmall/Piezography) recent post on here "RE: [Digital
BW] Re: Septone system (LONG)"


 > FYI, EEM turned yellowish brown rather rapidly (at 100 hours) in our
tests

> and we have abandoned it as an "archival" paper. It may allow
> EPSON inks to
> "test" better, but the paper discoloration is too gross to be
> considered as
> a long-term material. I would appreciate hearing your view on
> that paper in
> that regard and if you have seen that in your test

it's tucked away in the files section of this very group

> -----Original Message-----
> From: D. Hill [mailto:hill14701@...]
> Sent: Sunday, August 31, 2003 11:01 AM
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [Digital BW] Hahnemuhle
>
>
> I've seen something to the effect, but does anyone
> know of a chart or cross reference list of Hahnemuhle
> repackaged papers?
>
> Don
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
> http://sbc.yahoo.com
>
>
> 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/
>
>
>

Perhaps this has something to do with why Epson changed the "A" in 
EAM to an "E".

Tim wrote:

>From John Cone's (Inkjetmall/Piezography) recent post
>on here "RE: [DigitalBW] Re: Septone system (LONG)"

>> FYI, EEM turned yellowish brown rather rapidly (at 100 hours)
>>in our tests
>> and we have abandoned it as an "archival" paper. It may allow
>> EPSON inks to
>> "test" better, but the paper discoloration is too gross to be
>> considered as
>> a long-term material. I would appreciate hearing your view on
>> that paper in
>> that regard and if you have seen that in your test

All I see in my testing is what I believe to be rather normal "yellowing" of
the optical brighteners, which is common with all such brightened papers.
EAM/EEM appears "normal" in this regard.

Note that in Jon's post he also observed, "Submitting silver prints to
accelerated light tests usually cracks their surfaces anyway."  This makes
me wonder about the test conditions.  Are his test conditions cracking the
surfaces of silver prints?   I have put silver prints in my tester for short
durations and never seen any surface cracking (also no fading).

Jon is using a Xenon lamp which I believe is very bright.  It may be very
hot also.  With an appropriate daylight filter, it can put out a spectrum
that is similar of daylight -- but that may include UV that is beyond what
my test samples are exposed to.  If the Xenon lamp is being used with no
filter, I'm not sure what the UV content of the light is.

I test with fluorescent light which is probably not as bright or hot, and
probably has a lower UV content.  Wilhelm also tests with fluorescent
lights, and is more careful than most about the temperature of the papers.

So, perhaps some of the differences we are observing result from the test
conditions.  High humidity and high temperature probably accelerate the
acidic reactions.  Perhaps higher UV is also a factor.

I think we all agree now that EEM/EAM is not "archival."  However, it still
has the best image quality per $ as far as I'm concerned.  So, it makes an
excellent and affordable paper for many uses.  It just has a limited life
that may be very limited in extreme conditions.

Paul
http://www.PaulRoark.com

This is very promising. What inks and workflow are you using with it? By saying that it prints like EEM do you mean that two prints of the same image on the two papers look  exactly the same?
 
thanks,
Alessandro

-----Original Message-----
From: harrisimages [mailto:harris@...]

 
<snip>
 
"EPSON Velvet Fine Art Paper - This paper uses the original Somerset 
Velvet paper base (from St. Cuthberts Mill), but the coating is 
totally different, and this is done by Epson."

I have no way of independently verifying this information....but, 
the paper looks and feels like Somerset Photo Enhanced paper and 
prints like Epson Enhanced Matte. 

Ron 



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

Alessandro,

Yes, prints on EEM and EVFA are nearly identical.  I am using the 
standard Ultrachrome inks on the Epson 2200.  For printing I am 
using ImagePrint 5.5 available from www.colorbytesoftware.com. So, I 
do all my general printing and proofing on EEM and make my fine art 
prints on EVFA.

When printing with ImagePrint, I am using their furnished ICC paper 
profiles. 

I do find that prints made on EVFA paper using the above method seem 
to have more "depth" than when printed on EAM/EEM.

Ron  


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Alessandro 
Pardi" <alessandro.pardi@i...> wrote:
> This is very promising. What inks and workflow are you using with 
it? By saying that it prints like EEM do you mean that two prints of 
the same image on the two papers look  exactly the same?

>  
> thanks,
> Alessandro

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paul Roark [mailto:paul.roark@verizon.net] 
> Sent: Sunday, August 31, 2003 11:43 PM
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: RE: [Digital BW] EAM turns yellow!
> 
(snip earlier)
> 
> All I see in my testing is what I believe to be rather normal 
> "yellowing" of the optical brighteners, which is common with 
> all such brightened papers. EAM/EEM appears "normal" in this regard.
> 
> Note that in Jon's post he also observed, "Submitting silver 
> prints to accelerated light tests usually cracks their 
> surfaces anyway."  This makes me wonder about the test 
> conditions.  Are his test conditions cracking the
> surfaces of silver prints?   I have put silver prints in my 
> tester for short
> durations and never seen any surface cracking (also no fading).
> 
> Jon is using a Xenon lamp which I believe is very bright.  It 
> may be very hot also.  With an appropriate daylight filter, 
> it can put out a spectrum that is similar of daylight -- but 
> that may include UV that is beyond what my test samples are 
> exposed to.  If the Xenon lamp is being used with no filter, 
> I'm not sure what the UV content of the light is.
> 
(snip earlier)
 
Paul,

Very true and leads me to point out that one of the possible flaws in
"display life" of "fade" testing is that the test conditions may provide the
activation energy that would not be encountered in real life situations.
Chemical reactions occur at different rates. Some chemical reactions, like
the formation of a latent image on film, require an input of energy to get
things started. This is called activation energy and you can think of it as
the push need to get the ball rolling down hill. For some reactions the
activation energy is high and you have to push the ball over a small or
large hump before it starts to roll on its own.

I am concerned that while very bright light sources are needed to simulate
long years of exposure in testing prints, the high intensity may be
providing the activation energy to trigger reactions that would never occur
except under extraordinary conditions. The good side of this is that
anything that holds up under these torture tests is probably really good
materials to work with. On the other hand they may be giving the false
impression that other materials are inferior when they would actually be
fine under normal conditions. Impossible to say. So we need to continue the
comparative testing but keep referencing it to real world experience as time
goes on.

As to the cracking gelatin two things would have had to happen. One the
gelatin would have had to get very hard and two either the paper or the
gelatin layer dimensionally changed size. Like you I would guess heat but
the high intensity light alone might do it. I have boxes of old family
photos ranging from modern back into the 1880's. Almost all of them have
failed to stand the test of time but none of them show any signs of a
cracked gelatin layer. Even thinking of the faded, sun blasted color prints
in real estate office windows I have not seen this happen in real life.

So this is an excellent example of the fade testing results producing a
"false negative." If we did not know any different, we would be inclined to
rule out silver fiber as a choice for making photographs.

Martin Wesley
http://www.carolyn.cc/Guests/MartinWesley/pages/MW_01.html
http://www.borderless-photos.de/guests.html