Digital BW, The Print

I made new 2400 prints on EEM, Ilford Glossy and Epson Photo Paper plus BO and QTR prints on my 2100 on EEM.


This time I increased the scanning resolution to 1200 DPI (Epson 4870, Vuescan, color negative)


Photoshop's color picker values taken at random from the EEM print at actual pixels: 249, 249, 247; 234, 234, 233: 253, 255, 251.


If I duplicate the background layer, desaturate the duplicate and change the blending mode to difference, there is none.


However, some color dots start to appear at a magnification of about 200 per cent. The Ilford print is till dead neutral.


I do not know the reason. It could be print or the scanner or the increased scanning reolution or the scanning software or the monitor or a combination thereof.


The EEM and the QTR (2100, OEM inks) prints are identical.


If one changes the brightness or the contrast of the file, the coloration changes, too.


There are no color dots visible on a fine BO (EEM, Epson Matte Black. 2100) print, but of course it looks terrible at this kind of magnification!


The main thing is that the prints look monochromatic at normal viewing distance. Who would ever show a 1200 DPI scan of a photograph at this kind of magnification?


Epson Premium Glossy being too glossy and "plastic-like", the Epson Photo Paper print is most alike my very old gelatine silver prints. It is a pity that the paper is not archival.


I am not fond of glossy prints, but the juries of international exhibitions seem to be, especially in tha Far East. My favorite is a slightly warm varnished print on good fine art paper.


Ukko Heikkinen


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

Ukko,

You know that is a very good point! All of these rc papers look
plastic to me and is one of the very reasons I hated type c prints
after they changed over to that surfce for automated speed reasons in
chemical photography.

Epson used to make, possibly still do make, a paper called Glossy
Paper Photo Weight. I used it for some things on my 10K about 4 years
ago and even with that duller Cf inkset I was able to make the reds
saturate and that was impossible with other media. The thing I liked
about that paper is that it looked just like an air dried fiber print,
glossy but not plastic glossy. I never tried it with monochrome.

There were two problems with it,first was its permanence like you
mentioned, which even Epson agreed was probably poor. Second, was the
fact that it scratched so easily in the printer. Nearly every other
print I did with it on different rolls came up scratched. Epson
finally replaced it all for me with something else.

A year after I forgot all about that paper I went to an Epson seminar
and they had all kinds of prints hanging up and some with that paper
(that they warned was not archival at that time also). I noticed every
single one of those prints had small scratches on them also but apart
from that (which is enough!) those prints looked so nice. That paper
didn't have a ton of ob's in it either like the Premium rc line and
the gloss differential was minimal if I remember correctly.

I keep wondering every year when someone is going to come up with a
very stable paper that doesn't scratch that looks like this. They
never do. It isn't so much that I want to "mimic" an air dried silver
print, it's just that those prints were quite brilliant but easy to
look at and the media made you think of the image and not the surface
it was printed on. I think glossy papers still have a long way to go
before I'll become excited about them for use with pigments.

It could be the rc papers are simply easer to manufacture so that is
what they've settled on for production reasons.

John



Epson Premium Glossy being too glossy and "plastic-like", the Epson
Photo Paper
print is most alike my very old gelatine silver prints. It is a pity
that the
paper is not archival.

(Pardon my jumping in.)

Epson Premium Glossy Photo Paper and UltraSmooth share the top spots on the
Wilhelm dark storage ratings (see 9800 test at
http://www.wilhelm-research.com/epson/9800.html) at > 300 years.  Both are
also OBA free.

Glossy paper has a huge dmax, and when sprayed or laminated glossy paper is
probably the most physically durable medium we have.  Between the paper and
coating technologies, I think the surface will be whatever we want.
Bronzing is going to be history soon (and already is if coated or
laminated).

"RC" or "barrier" papers have, in my view, a huge future even at the high
end.   

(But tape-hung matte under glass -- or, better yet, in a www.clearbags.com
envelope -- is still the easiest.)

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

Hi Paul,

Yea I like those Clear Bags too and so do my clients! 

You've certainly done your homework in regard to papers of all types.
I didn't know that the Premium RC Epson media was ob free. When I lay
down a print done on E.P. Luster beside rag papers such as Innova
Cotton that have some obs, it is far brigher. I just assumed this was
from added brightening chemicals. Something is in there to make them
so brilliant.

I think your comment about post treatment is critical. It would be
nice if we didn't have to go through all that but its an imperfect
world. Even with the new K3 inkset there is still some gloss
difference but not as bad.

As to Wilhelms test data, I still wonder about the long term effects
of climate and temperature on that rc base. I have numerous prints in
my closet that I've dragged all over the country in the last 20 years.
Most of the fiber prints look the same as they always did. But all of
the rc prints, whether color or black and white (that I fixed and
washed myself) seem brittle and dried out to me. Now some of this may
have to do with the chemical processing but I still wonder what this
plastic would look like in 30 years much less 300.

On a side note - you might know something about this - that company
Breathing Color called me and tried to sell me on a new canvas they
have just released with a "whole new" type of brightening process that
does not involve the yellowing ob's now used in other inkjet products.
What are they talking about what is it. I've always wondered why they
couldn't just use some form of Titanium white pigment for brightening
canvas and paper as has been used for centuries in other art media
without apparent problems, .... or did it yellow too...

John



--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Roark"
<paul.roark@v...> wrote:
> (Pardon my jumping in.)
> 
> Epson Premium Glossy Photo Paper and UltraSmooth share the top spots
on the
> Wilhelm dark storage ratings (see 9800 test at
> http://www.wilhelm-research.com/epson/9800.html) at > 300 years. 
Both are
> also OBA free.
> 
> Glossy paper has a huge dmax, and when sprayed or laminated glossy
paper is
> probably the most physically durable medium we have.  Between the
paper and
> coating technologies, I think the surface will be whatever we want.
> Bronzing is going to be history soon (and already is if coated or
> laminated).
> 
> "RC" or "barrier" papers have, in my view, a huge future even at the
high
> end.   
> 
> (But tape-hung matte under glass -- or, better yet, in a
www.clearbags.com

> envelope -- is still the easiest.)
> 
> Paul
> www.PaulRoark.com

I see from that chart that P.Luster does have some OB's and P. Glossy
does not. Strange. Why wouldn't the P.Glossy need them too..

John,


Yes, Luster does have brighteners in it; Premium Semigloss and Gloss don't.


> As to Wilhelms test data, I still wonder about the long term effects
> of climate and temperature on that rc base.

I agree, the polyethylene barrier is an issue I'm concerned with too.
Overall, I think we are best off with the pigs encapsulated inside a
sandwich of polyethylene and some laminate or coating.  Protecting the pigs
from the environment seems like a good thing to do.  But, how good these
barrier substances are adds some uncertainty.  For coating I like either a
Wilhelm test or the use of a substance that has been used and accepted by
the conservationist types (like Rohm & Haas B72 [Lascaux]).

I'm somewhat encouraged when I see that polyethylene is what is used in join
replacement technologies.  Of course, there are probably all sorts of
different types of this basic chemical, but it seems to be highlight thought
of for a number of purposes.  The Wilhelm accelerated aging tests also give
some confidence, although accelerated aging testing has much more
uncertainty to it than accelerated fade testing. 

> ... 20 years.
> Most of the fiber prints look the same as they always did. But all of
> the rc prints, whether color or black and white (that I fixed and
> washed myself) seem brittle and dried out to me. Now some of this may
> have to do with the chemical processing but I still wonder what this
> plastic would look like in 30 years much less 300.

That is basically my experience also.  I don't fully trust the RC yet -- may
never.  But it has attributes that make it a very strong contender for many
uses.

> On a side note ...
> Breathing Color called me and tried to sell me on a new canvas they
> have just released with a "whole new" type of brightening process that
> does not involve the yellowing ob's now used in other inkjet products.

There are, apparently, a number of different brighteners.  Many seem to be
dyes that absorb UV and re-emit as bluish light.  Dyes fade.  That is what
the "yellowing" appears to be.  

There is no way to know how long a new brightener will last without testing
it -- just another source of uncertainty.

> ... I've always wondered why they
> couldn't just use some form of Titanium white pigment for brightening
> canvas and paper as has been used for centuries in other art media
> without apparent problems, .... or did it yellow too...

I, too, thought everyone would just use titanium white, but Kodak says it
was that brightener that wrecked the early RC papers.  Titanium dioxide (I
think that's what was used) apparently put out very reactive oxidants that
cracked the early polyethylene.  (Titanium dioxide is apparently even being
used in a direct solar hydrogen generator.  It seems to act as a catalyst
when light hits it, breaking up water [humidity] into its constituents,
which then, apparently, proceed to attack whatever is around.) 

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com 

> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Roark"
> <paul.roark@v...> wrote:
> > (Pardon my jumping in.)
> >
> > Epson Premium Glossy Photo Paper and UltraSmooth share the top spots
> on the
> > Wilhelm dark storage ratings (see 9800 test at
> > http://www.wilhelm-research.com/epson/9800.html) at > 300 years.
> Both are
> > also OBA free.
> >
> > Glossy paper has a huge dmax, and when sprayed or laminated glossy
> paper is
> > probably the most physically durable medium we have.  Between the
> paper and
> > coating technologies, I think the surface will be whatever we want.
> > Bronzing is going to be history soon (and already is if coated or
> > laminated).
> >
> > "RC" or "barrier" papers have, in my view, a huge future even at the
> high
> > end.
> >
> > (But tape-hung matte under glass -- or, better yet, in a
> www.clearbags.com
> > envelope -- is still the easiest.)
> >
> > Paul
> > www.PaulRoark.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other resources as
> they are often being updated.
> 
> 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:
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
> them short.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames.
> Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the
> membership without notice.
> - Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W
> printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be removed from
> the membership.
> - By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and
> guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group Owner
> and Moderators. See "Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines" in the Files
> section:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/
> 
> BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT
> YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE "OWNER" AND
> "MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO
> YOU FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR
> EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF
> PROFITS, GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE
> "OWNER" AND "MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN
> ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE
> OR THE INABILITY TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii)
> UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii)
> STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT
> YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE
> PRINT YAHOO GROUP.
> 
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
> 
> 
> 
>