Digital BW, The Print

http://www.moabpaper.com/index.asp?PageAction=VIEWCATS&Category=112

I'm a longtime fan of Kayenta. Unfortunately, it looks like I'll be
forced to deal with with what seems a New York City front
organization. Maybe a deal I can't refuse. 

RIP Kayenta (whiter alternative to EEM, two sided, cheap, hi rez)....

HELLO Lasal (like all Moab, a name from my neighborhood
http://www.fs.fed.us/r4/mantilasal/

Lasal MAY BE BETTER. (All I've got is the info on the website and some
background gossip on alpha-cellulose future)

COMPARE the minimal Kayenta info from graveyard page to Lasal page:
two improvements for sure (gained gsm, got $1 less expensive per 50 in
letter size) ... MAYBE one more improvement: the new stuff's described
as "smooth" whereas Kayenta's faintly textured (or maybe smooth isn't
an improvement...eye of beholder). 

WORRIES are:

a) Kayenta's 205 gsm feeds reliably in stacks from my 2200 for
multiple prints ... I suspect Lasal's heavier gsm won't.

b) Kayenta's somewhat unsmooth surface is literally (loupe) higher
resolution (detail) than some other papers... I hope Lasal's is as
good in that respect.

C) Dmax? I don't measure, I make prints. Kayenta looks fabulous behind
glass or in an estar sleeve, better than nude, and it doesn't benefit
by photo sprays in my tests. I hope Lasal's as good. Only a few papers
are as white as Kayenta, and those don't seem to stay that way.

Alpha-cellulose (and SE Asian farmed-bamboo-based papers from Ilford's
Chinese successor) are the FUTURE. 

I doubt anyone will see ANY merit in cotton, currently 4X the price of
AC because of coatings, treatments, and PT Barnum factor. Consider
what WILL be (or become) equal or better archival characteristics of
there more advanced materials, along with upcoming "air-dried silver"
appearance and the brilliant unwhitened-white inherent in
alpha-cellulose. All sorts of textures will become available with
alpha-cellulose. We'll see more a-c manufacturers/distributors. I've
mentioned this before :-)

Does anybody know where to get Kayenta 13x19? 
A web search hasn't turned up any in that 
size and some places that were regular 
stockers don't have any at all.

I just sent out a profile target for it and 
now I find out it's discontinued! If you've 
used it in rolls, does it flatten easily? 
I've tried some Epson papers in rolls and 
hated dealing with the curl, but Kayenta is 
softer, so maybe that's an alternative.

I've tried a half dozen or more other papers, 
but Kayenta was the only bright white, matte, 
smooth paper that gave me prints I like with 
the benefit of being double sided for when 
I'm doing test prints. Maybe I'll have to try 
it's "replacement" - LaSal and hope for the best.

Thanks,

Frank

Speaking of bright white papers, I just received a box of Red River papers
to try.  Their new Polar Matte is a very bright white, high dmax paper with
almost an identical tonal distribution with the 3-MK setup as Premier Art's
Matte BW.  It's a single-sided, acid free, 255 gsm paper that is
competitively priced.  

See http://www.redrivercatalog.com/browse/cat=2&prod=13.htm 

The new Polar matte is quite different from the samples I had from a few
years ago.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

Yep! One of the nicest acid-free matte papers for the money I found 
when I was searching for a replacement for EEM which is not acid free. 
Very nice ink laydown(no bloches-good resolution) with K3, with Dmax 
around 1.70 with an ICC/ABW aproach on an Epson R2400, if you like that 
cool look that is. They use that Polar coating on a number of different 
stock grades, single and double sided. They are upgrading their 
coatings to an even cooler(bluer) type(type 2.0) and many of the 
original Polar stocks are on fire sale, like two for one. I just 
stocked up.
Lou

Does the coating have brighteners? I guess it must have to achieve the 
bright white.

I'm interested in cutting some 36" rolls of paper into 17".  Can I do 
this on a regular chop saw?  What kind of results will I get.  (Blade 
is typical woodworking combination blade, sharp.)

Arthur

	A r t h u r  .  F i n k  .  P h o t o g r a p h y
	-------------------------------------------------
	Ten New Island Avenue         . land 207.766.5722
	Peaks Island, Maine 04108     . cell 207.615.5722
	www.arthurfinkphoto.com  . af@...

	More dance images  www.f64gallery.com/arthur.html

You can but:
You have to use a very sharp and very fine tooth blade. After it's  
cut you will have paper dust near the cut, do the best you can to  
vacuum that up or it will find its way to your print head. And as  
always watch your fingers in case it bites.
Mark

On Jun 16, 2007, at 7:57 PM, Arthur Fink wrote:

> I'm interested in cutting some 36" rolls of paper into 17".  Can I do
> this on a regular chop saw?  What kind of results will I get.  (Blade
> is typical woodworking combination blade, sharp.)
>
> Arthur

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "alistair_owens" 
<owens@...> wrote:
>
> Does the coating have brighteners? I guess it must have to achieve 
the 
> bright white.

Yeah sure does, Alistair and the new 2.0 coatings are even brighter
(bluer). They sent me a mini sampler and they are a bit too blue-white 
for my taste. For some reason they state their new 2.0 ultra luster is 
warmer than the old. I asked for a couple of full sized sample sheets 
with the order I just placed so we'll see.I would like to find a paper 
that prints as nice as Ilford smooth pearl that's a touch warmer and 
acid free. My recent trials are finding that a tall order to fill. 
(Note: if anybody know of a fav that fits that bill, SHOUT at me. 
thanks)

Anyway, don't be afraid to try out some of the cooler papers. some 
things look good on them. Moab Kayenta is/was a good one, too. of 
course they also give real pop to that "other" kind of printing.
Lou

Moab is DIRECTLY selling its remaining Kayenta. Lasal is the
replacement. I've not seen it yet, but it's probably even better than
Kayenta...and cheaper. Here's one link with Kayenta inventory, as well
as Lasal.

http://www.moabpaper.com/index.asp?PageAction=VIEWCATS&Category=141






--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "kolwicz@..."
<kolwicz@...> wrote:

>
> Does anybody know where to get Kayenta 13x19? 
> A web search hasn't turned up any in that 
> size and some places that were regular 
> stockers don't have any at all.
> 
> I just sent out a profile target for it and 
> now I find out it's discontinued! If you've 
> used it in rolls, does it flatten easily? 
> I've tried some Epson papers in rolls and 
> hated dealing with the curl, but Kayenta is 
> softer, so maybe that's an alternative.
> 
> I've tried a half dozen or more other papers, 
> but Kayenta was the only bright white, matte, 
> smooth paper that gave me prints I like with 
> the benefit of being double sided for when 
> I'm doing test prints. Maybe I'll have to try 
> it's "replacement" - LaSal and hope for the best.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Frank
>

Polar Matte is as white as Kayenta, but it's very different otherwise.

Kayenta is two-sided, PM is one-sided. PM's surface seems identical to
EEM whereas Kayenta is lightly grained (I've not yet seen Lasal). 

PM is even whiter than EEM, cause for concern...will it yellow even
more rapidly than EEM? In my experience EEM starts yellowing in months
whereas Kayenta has shown no evidence in the two years I've used it.

Moab Entrada Bright, is not as extremely white as Polar Matte is said
to be more resistant to yellowing than many whitened cotton papers
because it's not AS white as they are. That was considered by Moab
when they created the paper. 

Some say alpha-cellulose has a whiteness permanance advantage over
cotton because it's not whitened in the same way...it isn't a
fundamentally non-white (natural/cream) paper the way cotton papers
all are. 



--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "alistair_owens"
<owens@...> wrote:

>
> Does the coating have brighteners? I guess it must have to achieve the 
> bright white.
>

I have been using PM for years and haven't seen it yellow. Now I can't speak
to the new PM, but I have not seen any reports that suggest that it did or
will. Why would anyone put EEM and PM in the same sentence about yellowing?
Sure you can have a concern about brighteners and whiteness, but why imply
yellowing unless you've seen it?

 

Eric Neilsen Photography

4101 Commerce Street

Suite 9

Dallas, TX 75226

http://e.neilsen.home.att.net

http://ericneilsenphotography.com

Skype ejprinter

  _____  

From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of djon43
Sent: Sunday, June 17, 2007 8:37 AM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Digital BW] Re: Red River Polar Matte (was Moab Kayenta > Lasal
...)

 

Polar Matte is as white as Kayenta, but it's very different otherwise.

Kayenta is two-sided, PM is one-sided. PM's surface seems identical to
EEM whereas Kayenta is lightly grained (I've not yet seen Lasal). 

PM is even whiter than EEM, cause for concern...will it yellow even
more rapidly than EEM? In my experience EEM starts yellowing in months
whereas Kayenta has shown no evidence in the two years I've used it.

Moab Entrada Bright, is not as extremely white as Polar Matte is said
to be more resistant to yellowing than many whitened cotton papers
because it's not AS white as they are. That was considered by Moab
when they created the paper. 

Some say alpha-cellulose has a whiteness permanance advantage over
cotton because it's not whitened in the same way...it isn't a
fundamentally non-white (natural/cream) paper the way cotton papers
all are. 

--- In DigitalBlackandWhit
<mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint%40yahoogroups.com>
eThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "alistair_owens"
<owens@...> wrote:
>
> Does the coating have brighteners? I guess it must have to achieve the 
> bright white.
>

 



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

Out of curiosity I measured all matte papers that I have in house. I 
used X-Rite DTP20UV:

                L        a        b      R        G        B
------------------------------------------------------------------
PremierArtBW    94.14    1.05    -2.02   238.86   237.55   242.05
Moab Kayenta    96.16    0.49    -2.29   243.33   243.71   248.36
EEM             96.68   -0.28     0.61   245.25   245.55   244.21
Moab Entrada W  97.06    0.59    -0.83   247.13   246.16   248.14
Epson ScrapBook 96.87   -0.06     2.01   247.18   245.90   242.01
PremierArtFA    96.73    0.06     2.03   247.03   245.42   241.63
------------------------------------------------------------------

Results are a bit of surprise for me: I thought that PremierArtBW
is actually brighter than PremierArtFA (205), or that EEM will have 
the most neutral tone from all measured papers.

--Sergei

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Eric Neilsen" 
<e.neilsen2@...> wrote:
>
> I have been using PM for years and haven't seen it yellow. Now I 
can't speak
> to the new PM, but I have not seen any reports that suggest that it 
did or
> will. Why would anyone put EEM and PM in the same sentence about 
yellowing?
> Sure you can have a concern about brighteners and whiteness, but 
why imply
> yellowing unless you've seen it?
> 
>  
> 
> Eric Neilsen Photography
> 
> 4101 Commerce Street
> 
> Suite 9
> 
> Dallas, TX 75226
> 
> http://e.neilsen.home.att.net
> 
> http://ericneilsenphotography.com
> 
> Skype ejprinter
> 
>   _____  
> 
> From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of 
djon43
> Sent: Sunday, June 17, 2007 8:37 AM
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [Digital BW] Re: Red River Polar Matte (was Moab Kayenta > 
Lasal
> ...)
> 
>  
> 
> Polar Matte is as white as Kayenta, but it's very different 
otherwise.
> 
> Kayenta is two-sided, PM is one-sided. PM's surface seems identical 
to
> EEM whereas Kayenta is lightly grained (I've not yet seen Lasal). 
> 
> PM is even whiter than EEM, cause for concern...will it yellow even
> more rapidly than EEM? In my experience EEM starts yellowing in 
months
> whereas Kayenta has shown no evidence in the two years I've used it.
> 
> Moab Entrada Bright, is not as extremely white as Polar Matte is 
said
> to be more resistant to yellowing than many whitened cotton papers
> because it's not AS white as they are. That was considered by Moab
> when they created the paper. 
> 
> Some say alpha-cellulose has a whiteness permanance advantage over
> cotton because it's not whitened in the same way...it isn't a
> fundamentally non-white (natural/cream) paper the way cotton papers
> all are. 
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhit
> <mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint%40yahoogroups.com>
> eThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "alistair_owens"
> <owens@> wrote:
> >
> > Does the coating have brighteners? I guess it must have to 
achieve the 

> > bright white.
> >
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Sergei Antonov"
<antonovsergei@...> wrote:
>
> Out of curiosity I measured all matte papers that I have in house. I 
> used X-Rite DTP20UV:
> 
>                 L        a        b      R        G        B
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> PremierArtBW    94.14    1.05    -2.02   238.86   237.55   242.05
> Moab Kayenta    96.16    0.49    -2.29   243.33   243.71   248.36
> EEM             96.68   -0.28     0.61   245.25   245.55   244.21
> Moab Entrada W  97.06    0.59    -0.83   247.13   246.16   248.14
> Epson ScrapBook 96.87   -0.06     2.01   247.18   245.90   242.01
> PremierArtFA    96.73    0.06     2.03   247.03   245.42   241.63
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Results are a bit of surprise for me: I thought that PremierArtBW
> is actually brighter than PremierArtFA (205), or that EEM will have 
> the most neutral tone from all measured papers.
> 
> --Sergei
> 
> Hi, Sergei,

Could you please explain those numbers for those of us who cannot
fathom their significance.  Is there a summation you can come up with?
 Thanks.
>

Yahoo messed my table. This time I inserted dots to fix spacing.

................L....... a....... b... R..... G..... B
------------------------------------------------------------------
PremierArtBW....94.14... 1.05... -2.02 238.86 237.55 242.05
Moab Kayenta....96.16... 0.49... -2.29 243.33 243.71 248.36
EEM.............96.68...-0.28.... 0.61 245.25 245.55 244.21
Moab Entrada BW 97.06... 0.59....-0.83 247.13 246.16 248.14
Epson ScrapBook 96.87...-0.06.... 2.01 247.18 245.90 242.01
PremierArtFA....96.73... 0.06.... 2.03 247.03 245.42 241.63
------------------------------------------------------------------

These numbers are results of mesurements that I took for some papers
that I have available: EEM means Epson Enhanced Matte, PremierArt FA
means PremierArt FineArt Matte 205, other names should be
understandable. The first 3 columns are Lab measurements, the last 3 are
the same data in RGB. As you could see, PremierArtBW that visually looks
very white and bright (for me at least) is actually the darkest of all
six. EEM has the most neutral tone. In general, difference in L is
minimal for 5 of six measured papers, visually they are quite different
when compared under the same illumination.



--Sergei


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "sanhodo"
<sschaffell@...> wrote:
>
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Sergei Antonov"
> antonovsergei@ wrote:
> >
> > Out of curiosity I measured all matte papers that I have in house. I
> > used X-Rite DTP20UV:
> >
> > L a b R G B
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------
> > PremierArtBW 94.14 1.05 -2.02 238.86 237.55 242.05
> > Moab Kayenta 96.16 0.49 -2.29 243.33 243.71 248.36
> > EEM 96.68 -0.28 0.61 245.25 245.55 244.21
> > Moab Entrada W 97.06 0.59 -0.83 247.13 246.16 248.14
> > Epson ScrapBook 96.87 -0.06 2.01 247.18 245.90 242.01
> > PremierArtFA 96.73 0.06 2.03 247.03 245.42 241.63
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > Results are a bit of surprise for me: I thought that PremierArtBW
> > is actually brighter than PremierArtFA (205), or that EEM will have
> > the most neutral tone from all measured papers.
> >
> > --Sergei
> >
> > Hi, Sergei,
>
> Could you please explain those numbers for those of us who cannot
> fathom their significance. Is there a summation you can come up with?
> Thanks.
> >
>




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

OK, take three with the table.
_______________L_____a....... b______R______G______B
------------------------------------------------------------------
PremierArtBW_____94.14... 1.05... -2.02__ 238.86__ 237.55__ 242.05
Moab Kayenta_____96.16... 0.49... -2.29__ 243.33__ 243.71__ 248.36
EEM___________ 96.68...-0.28.... 0.61__ 245.25__ 245.55__ 244.21
Moab Entrada BW__97.06... 0.59....-0.83__ 247.13__ 246.16__ 248.14
Epson ScrapBook___ 96.87...-0.06.... 2.01__ 247.18__ 245.90__ 242.01
PremierArtFA_____96.73... 0.06.... 2.03___ 247.03__ 245.42__ 241.63
------------------------------------------------------------------

I hope it will be better this time


>
> These numbers are results of mesurements that I took for some papers
> that I have available: EEM means Epson Enhanced Matte, PremierArt FA
> means PremierArt FineArt Matte 205, other names should be
> understandable. The first 3 columns are Lab measurements, the last 3
are
> the same data in RGB. As you could see, PremierArtBW that visually
looks
> very white and bright (for me at least) is actually the darkest of all
> six. EEM has the most neutral tone. In general, difference in L is
> minimal for 5 of six measured papers, visually they are quite
different
> when compared under the same illumination.
>
>
>
> --Sergei
>
>
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "sanhodo"
> sschaffell@ wrote:
> >
> > --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Sergei
Antonov"
> > antonovsergei@ wrote:
> > >
> > > Out of curiosity I measured all matte papers that I have in house.
I
> > > used X-Rite DTP20UV:
> > >
> > > L a b R G B
> > > ------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > PremierArtBW 94.14 1.05 -2.02 238.86 237.55 242.05
> > > Moab Kayenta 96.16 0.49 -2.29 243.33 243.71 248.36
> > > EEM 96.68 -0.28 0.61 245.25 245.55 244.21
> > > Moab Entrada W 97.06 0.59 -0.83 247.13 246.16 248.14
> > > Epson ScrapBook 96.87 -0.06 2.01 247.18 245.90 242.01
> > > PremierArtFA 96.73 0.06 2.03 247.03 245.42 241.63
> > > ------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Results are a bit of surprise for me: I thought that PremierArtBW
> > > is actually brighter than PremierArtFA (205), or that EEM will
have
> > > the most neutral tone from all measured papers.
> > >
> > > --Sergei
> > >
> > > Hi, Sergei,
> >
> > Could you please explain those numbers for those of us who cannot
> > fathom their significance. Is there a summation you can come up
with?
> > Thanks.
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>




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

Eric, the answer to your angry question is obvious: Paper distributors
have said for several years that whiteners on cotton paper will
eventually fade or even yellow. You know that as well as anyone. 

Some paper manufacturers use restraint with whiteners in order to
minimize that problem. That's specifically what Moab is said to have
done with Moab Entrada Bright, while intentionally marketing Moab
Entrada Natural for people who were maximum-worried about changes.

Polar white is remarkably white. It appears to be a "Super Enhanced
Matte." Given that it's reasonable to wonder (as I did) if the
longevity of its white is questionable...that's a reasonable thing to
wonder about with ANY whitened paper. 

You have not used Polar for long long because it hasn't been around
for long.

***While I hope nothing yellows as rapidly as EEM does (did), it's 
prudent to openly wonder about the future of a similarly priced,
almost identical looking, heavily-brightened paper. 

***AND it's especially worthwhile to wonder about it on this specific
Forum, of all Forums. :-)

 

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Eric Neilsen"
<e.neilsen2@...> wrote:
>
 I have not seen any reports that suggest that it did or
> will. Why would anyone put EEM and PM in the same sentence about
yellowing?
> Sure you can have a concern about brighteners and whiteness, but why
imply

> yellowing unless you've seen it?
> 
>

Eric, Yellowing may or may not be the same phenomenon as loss of
whiteness. Some think they're both a concern, you may not: Eye of
beholder. 

The current Polar White is said to be a new formulation...that's why I
questioned your length of experience with it. 

I meant no disrespect. don't doubt you've had many years of experience
with an earlier formulation.

The only information I have on whitening is in the perhaps-valid 
marketing information of paper distributors. Moab, for example, has
stated in its marketing that whiteners were moderated in Entrada
Bright in order to minimize changes, implying directly that whiteners
were problems for people who wanted maximum stability.

Eric, If you can link scientific information on whitening, please do. 

I'd like to know why one 100% rag paper would have problems with
whitening and another would not. 
 

John 


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "djon43"
<djon43@...> wrote:

>
> Eric, the answer to your angry question is obvious: Paper distributors
> have said for several years that whiteners on cotton paper will
> eventually fade or even yellow. You know that as well as anyone. 
> 
> Some paper manufacturers use restraint with whiteners in order to
> minimize that problem. That's specifically what Moab is said to have
> done with Moab Entrada Bright, while intentionally marketing Moab
> Entrada Natural for people who were maximum-worried about changes.
> 
> Polar white is remarkably white. It appears to be a "Super Enhanced
> Matte." Given that it's reasonable to wonder (as I did) if the
> longevity of its white is questionable...that's a reasonable thing to
> wonder about with ANY whitened paper. 
> 
> You have not used Polar for long long because it hasn't been around
> for long.
> 
> ***While I hope nothing yellows as rapidly as EEM does (did), it's 
> prudent to openly wonder about the future of a similarly priced,
> almost identical looking, heavily-brightened paper. 
> 
> ***AND it's especially worthwhile to wonder about it on this specific
> Forum, of all Forums. :-)
> 
>  
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Eric Neilsen"
> <e.neilsen2@> wrote:
> >
>  I have not seen any reports that suggest that it did or
> > will. Why would anyone put EEM and PM in the same sentence about
> yellowing?
> > Sure you can have a concern about brighteners and whiteness, but why
> imply
> > yellowing unless you've seen it?
> > 
> >
>

The paper I am using and talking about is Polar Matte by Red River. That is
the paper that was being talked about. Sure it is legitimate to ask
questions about yellowing or even to speculate about it. But it seemed to me
that your implication was that Red River's Polar Matte  was just too good to
me true and it must be highly suspect like EEM. EEM was a paper that was
well known to have yellowed in more than one version and over more than a
year or two. I have seen and heard about yellowing with that paper for over
4 years, not so for RR Polar matte.  I am not angry, but rather disturbed.
It gets a little tiresome reading the rants about this and that without some
balance of thought. While your post did have some of that, it also had an
implication that Polar matte was going to yellow with out any evidence that
it had in the past or would into the future. Have papers from Red River
shown a problem like EEM? None that I've seen or heard about. 

 

As to why papers yellow? I can only guess as I do not study this in depth.
But what is this thing we call paper made out of and what is making it
appear white? Air, light and immediate contact with another material
certainly come to mind. What do those bring to the table?, particles that
can and do alter the state of the paper and its coating. I have no direct
links for you on these effects.  

 

And in countless posting, John, this is the first time I've seen your name.
Thanks. If I have time this week, which I doubt, I'll go over to Red River
and see this new paper. I might even ask a question or two : ) 

 

Eric 

 

Eric Neilsen Photography

4101 Commerce Street

Suite 9

Dallas, TX 75226

http://e.neilsen.home.att.net

http://ericneilsenphotography.com

Skype ejprinter

  _____  

From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of djon43
Sent: Monday, June 18, 2007 7:47 AM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Digital BW] Re: Red River Polar Matte (was Moab Kayenta > Lasal
...)

 



Eric, Yellowing may or may not be the same phenomenon as loss of
whiteness. Some think they're both a concern, you may not: Eye of
beholder. 

The current Polar White is said to be a new formulation...that's why I
questioned your length of experience with it. 

I meant no disrespect. don't doubt you've had many years of experience
with an earlier formulation.

The only information I have on whitening is in the perhaps-valid 
marketing information of paper distributors. Moab, for example, has
stated in its marketing that whiteners were moderated in Entrada
Bright in order to minimize changes, implying directly that whiteners
were problems for people who wanted maximum stability.

Eric, If you can link scientific information on whitening, please do. 

I'd like to know why one 100% rag paper would have problems with
whitening and another would not. 


John 

--- In DigitalBlackandWhit
<mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint%40yahoogroups.com>
eThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "djon43"
<djon43@...> wrote:
>
> Eric, the answer to your angry question is obvious: Paper distributors
> have said for several years that whiteners on cotton paper will
> eventually fade or even yellow. You know that as well as anyone. 
> 
> Some paper manufacturers use restraint with whiteners in order to
> minimize that problem. That's specifically what Moab is said to have
> done with Moab Entrada Bright, while intentionally marketing Moab
> Entrada Natural for people who were maximum-worried about changes.
> 
> Polar white is remarkably white. It appears to be a "Super Enhanced
> Matte." Given that it's reasonable to wonder (as I did) if the
> longevity of its white is questionable...that's a reasonable thing to
> wonder about with ANY whitened paper. 
> 
> You have not used Polar for long long because it hasn't been around
> for long.
> 
> ***While I hope nothing yellows as rapidly as EEM does (did), it's 
> prudent to openly wonder about the future of a similarly priced,
> almost identical looking, heavily-brightened paper. 
> 
> ***AND it's especially worthwhile to wonder about it on this specific
> Forum, of all Forums. :-)
> 
>.

.

 
<http://geo.yahoo.com/serv?s=97359714/grpId=3702311/grpspId=1705019182/msgId
=86178/stime=1182170914/nc1=4543832/nc2=3848616/nc3=3848432> 
 



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

Thanks, djon43, but the only 13" they list is 
the roll, which is why I asked about the 
curl. I may have to change to 11x17, but I'd 
rather not, if there's some Super B out there.

The LaSal is a possibility, but it is brand 
new, unknown, and I'd have to have it 
profiled, too. This is not impossible, just 
another expense at a time when I'm recovering 
from the disaster of mixed inks due to bad 
advice from MIS and the approximately $500 in 
direct and indirect expenses I've had in 
replacing my CFS and the contaminated inks 
will all new ones.

Frank

Also, you should both be aware that micro porous papers are VERY GOOD
at picking up atmospheric polutants that will yellow the paper. This
is one very good reason to seal the paper or at least mount in under
glass ASAP.

John Nollendorfs

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "djon43"
<djon43@...> wrote:
>
>  
> 
> Eric, Yellowing may or may not be the same phenomenon as loss of
> whiteness. Some think they're both a concern, you may not: Eye of
> beholder. 
SNIP

> The only information I have on whitening is in the perhaps-valid 
> marketing information of paper distributors. Moab, for example, has
> stated in its marketing that whiteners were moderated in Entrada
> Bright in order to minimize changes, implying directly that whiteners
> were problems for people who wanted maximum stability.
> 
> Eric, If you can link scientific information on whitening, please do. 
> 
> I'd like to know why one 100% rag paper would have problems with
> whitening and another would not. 
>  
> 
> John 
> 
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "djon43"
> <djon43@> wrote:
> >
> > Eric, the answer to your angry question is obvious: Paper distributors
> > have said for several years that whiteners on cotton paper will
> > eventually fade or even yellow. You know that as well as anyone. 
> > 
> > Some paper manufacturers use restraint with whiteners in order to
> > minimize that problem. That's specifically what Moab is said to have
> > done with Moab Entrada Bright, while intentionally marketing Moab
> > Entrada Natural for people who were maximum-worried about changes.
> > 
> > Polar white is remarkably white. It appears to be a "Super Enhanced
> > Matte." Given that it's reasonable to wonder (as I did) if the
> > longevity of its white is questionable...that's a reasonable thing to
> > wonder about with ANY whitened paper. 
> > 
> > You have not used Polar for long long because it hasn't been around
> > for long.
> > 
> > ***While I hope nothing yellows as rapidly as EEM does (did), it's 
> > prudent to openly wonder about the future of a similarly priced,
> > almost identical looking, heavily-brightened paper. 
> > 
> > ***AND it's especially worthwhile to wonder about it on this specific
> > Forum, of all Forums. :-)
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Eric Neilsen"
> > <e.neilsen2@> wrote:
> > >
> >  I have not seen any reports that suggest that it did or
> > > will. Why would anyone put EEM and PM in the same sentence about
> > yellowing?
> > > Sure you can have a concern about brighteners and whiteness, but why
> > imply
> > > yellowing unless you've seen it?
> > > 
> > >
> >
>

>Sure it is legitimate to ask
> questions about yellowing or even to speculate about it. 

Whew, thought I was on AOL for a minute! But I wasn't referring just
to Polar Matte, not to it's most recent iteration, and not just to
yellowing. And I don't have the slightest notion that PM yellows. I've
only seen that in EEM. 

I do assume that since PM is blue-white, it will become warmer with
time, like other blue-whites in our world. That's not like EEM's
yellowing. 

But it seemed to me
> that your implication was that Red River's Polar Matte  was just too
good to
> me true and it must be highly suspect like EEM. 

Paper distributors commonly say or hint that ultra-brights will likely
lose their whiteness. 


EEM was a paper that was
> well known to have yellowed in more than one version and over more
than a
> year or two.

I posted that a long time ago and was attacked for it.
 
>I am not angry, but rather disturbed....It gets a little tiresome
>reading the rants about this and that without some balance of thought.

Polar seems the ultimate whitened paper. I raised questions about
whitened coatings. You flipped out. Too much coffee.

 it also had an
> implication that Polar matte was going to yellow 

That Polar looks like EEM on steroids is obvious: because it's so
heavily whitened, I wonder what that means in the future...same
question with all whitened papers. I didn't suggest that it yellows.

> 
> As to why papers yellow? I can only guess

Chill. We know why EEM yellows. My question had to do with whiteners. 

> 
If I have time this week, which I doubt, I'll go over to Red River
> and see this new paper. I might even ask a question or two : ) 

Don't tire them out :-)  

John

>  
> 
> Eric 
> 
>

visually they are quite
> different
> > when compared under the same illumination.

That strongly suggests the measuring device/technique is faulty ("not
calibrated") ... it evidently isn't adequate for photographic (visual)
purposes. 


> > > > Results are a bit of surprise for me: I thought that PremierArtBW
> > > > is actually brighter than PremierArtFA (205), or that EEM will
> have
> > > > the most neutral tone from all measured papers.

Your eyes are what counts. The data is apparently a distraction at best.

Hi John. I believe that there is more than one type of whitener that
can be used. Some are more expensive than others, is my understanding.
Perhaps there are also differences in these that allow far longer
effectiveness. In any case the yellowing (or actually non-blueing) can
be from fading of the OBA such that the natural paper color comes
through Or can, as in the case of EEM, be from the acid content of a
paper rising due to breaking down of it's lignans and the destuction
of the paper over time, in addition to the early fading of it's OBA
content.

Regards
Duane


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "djon43"
<djon43@...> wrote:

>
>  

> 
> I'd like to know why one 100% rag paper would have problems with
> whitening and another would not. 
>  
> 
> John 
> 
>

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "djon43" 
<djon43@...> wrote:
>
>  visually they are quite
> > different
> > > when compared under the same illumination.
> 
> That strongly suggests the measuring device/technique is faulty 
("not
> calibrated") ... it evidently isn't adequate for photographic 
(visual)
> purposes. 
> 

Do you mean my eyes are not calibrated? It is true, my spectro was 
calibrated, and I don't think numbers are wrong. What I was trying to 
tell is paper with cooler tone looks more "white", which is supported 
by the measurements.

> 
> 
> Your eyes are what counts. The data is apparently a distraction at 
best.
>

Well, I don't agree with that. I spent a lot of paper and inks trying 
to get good QTR profiles without using spectro -- and without 
success. Eyes doesn't help a lot in this process. Scanner, by the 
way, doesn't help either, even profiled scanner.

Here's another option when using a chop saw. Mount the (plywood) blade backward so it doesn't grab at the paper. I've used this for other purposes and it worked fine but I haven't tried it for a roll of paper. Perhaps someone here has tried it. Anyone?
  -Michael K


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

I'd be afraid to forget to switch it back. : )   But on the dust issue, I
just tape my up with bags so the dust doesn't get all over. 

 

Eric Neilsen Photography

4101 Commerce Street, Suite 9

Dallas, TX 75226

214-827-8301

http://ericneilsenphotography.com

 

Skype : ejprinter

  _____  

From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Michael-K
Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2007 3:46 PM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Digital BW] Re: Cutting paper rolls

 

Here's another option when using a chop saw. Mount the (plywood) blade
backward so it doesn't grab at the paper. I've used this for other purposes
and it worked fine but I haven't tried it for a roll of paper. Perhaps
someone here has tried it. Anyone?
-Michael K

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

 



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

> Do you mean my eyes are not calibrated?

What many people don't realise is that the lenses of your eyes become 
increasingly yellow with age. Anyone over 40/50 will see less blue than they 
used to. I just had my lenses replaced at 65 because of mild cataracts, and 
the difference is amazing -  not just that I can now manually focus lenses 
again, but that everything is so much bluer! I now wear yellow-tinted 
sunglasses, and prefer D50 on my monitor to the D65 that I used to like!

Bob Frost.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Sergei Antonov" <antonovsergei@...>

Bob,
I'm thinking to have cataracts removed also. Did you put RESUM lenses in? Was a surgery a problem in any way? How much does it cost?
Thanks!

Bob Frost <bob@...> wrote:                                  > Do you mean my eyes are not calibrated?
 
 What many people don't realise is that the lenses of your eyes become 
 increasingly yellow with age. Anyone over 40/50 will see less blue than they 
 used to. I just had my lenses replaced at 65 because of mild cataracts, and 
 the difference is amazing -  not just that I can now manually focus lenses 
 again, but that everything is so much bluer! I now wear yellow-tinted 
 sunglasses, and prefer D50 on my monitor to the D65 that I used to like!
 
 Bob Frost.

 ----- Original Message ----- 
 From: "Sergei Antonov" <antonovsergei@...> 
 
 
     
                       


  
  
  
 Incoming and outgoing mail scanned by AVG 
 www.grisoft.com
  


       
---------------------------------
Looking for a deal? Find great prices on flights and hotels with Yahoo! FareChase.

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