Hello Kevin,
>What do I need to know about these two papers for B&W printing on
>my R2400?
These are good questions and the answers are all intertwined, so it
can be confusing, but I'll have a go at it.
>In the past I've used the Epson Enhanced Matte for daily printing
>and the Aurora Art for my "best" work.
Not sure what you mean by "daily printing" so let me first put forth a
couple of concepts that my paper comments will be based on so they
will make better sense. I think in terms of proof prints and final
prints. Any print that I give away or sell is a final print and I
want it to be my best quality work because it's going out there in the
world and who knows who will ultimately see it or where it will end
up. So I want final prints to always be on good looking archival
papers.
Proof or test prints are prints made during the workup of an image.
The only time I send these out into the world is if they are a "proof"
in the sense of showing, for example, a portrait customer a sample for
approval or selection. Otherwise these get torn in half and go into
the recycle bin when the workup is done and are never seen by anyone else.
>However, I find that the Epson paper has a bit more pop and slightly
>better dmax and shadow detail.
EEM is a really good looking paper, with contrast, density and dmax
very similar to many of the very best matte papers. Unfortunately
it yellows rapidly and is not acid free, so is not suitable for final
prints. However these three qualities, along with being less
expensive, make it an excellent paper for proof prints. It's not much
help when test prints look different than final prints, so EEM allows
us to make good test prints without using the more expensive papers.
That's its main claim to fame and it's very popular for that.
EEM's appearance is especially close to that of Photo Rag (PR) and
Velvet Fine Art (VFA), two of my favorites and ones which pretty much
set the standard for matte paper dmax. With K3 inks, VFA is a
particularly close match to EEM (no surprise since both are Epson
papers). My images rarely need much, if any, adjusting when printed
on VFA. PR is almost as close a match. Other papers require slightly
more adjusting (for example, Innova papers have similar contrast but
print a bit darker, requiring a slight density adjustment). But
generally speaking EEM is right in the middle of the pack for many top
notch papers and for proofing it's hard to beat.
>I was under the impression that the Aurora would last longer (more
>archival) due to the fact that it was cotton and has no OBA's.
That's probably true, but just for clarification, "Archival" primarily
refers to acid free. Cotton doesn't automatically mean acid free, and
non-cotton paper doesn't automatically mean non-archival either.
There are many fine alpha-cellulose acid free archival papers, with
and without OBAs. There are also different kinds of OBAs. Not all
OBA-containing papers lose their whiteness like EEM, and not everyone
considers the presence of OBAs to mean non archival. Each paper has
to be judged on it's own merits. I've got prints on Hawk Mtn's fine
Condor and Merlin papers, and Moab's Kayenta, all bright white papers,
that have been around the house, unprotected, for several years and
still haven't lost their whiteness. My older VFA and PR prints also
look great. Some of these are 5+ years old now. All have OBAs.
>As I understand it there's two factors in judging a paper's
>archivability: 1- image fading and 2- yellowing of paper. Is
>this the case?
Yes, ink fading and paper yellowing are two different things, and not
necessarily related. EEM yellows rapidly (literally in a few weeks,
probably because of some kind of short lived OBA), but good ink on it
doesn't fade quickly. I've got an EEM Eboni BO print that's been
getting direct sunlight on my window sill for over four years now.
It's dingy looking from the yellowed paper but the ink hasn't faded.
Who knows, it might last just as long as a VFA print before fading.
But inks do fade more quickly on some papers than others. This
Wilhelm web page lists the longevity of several papers with K3 inks
(see page 3 for the ABW results)
http://www.wilhelm-research.com/epson/R2400.html
>If so, what does that mean for the two papers in question.
If you want an archival paper that looks as good as EEM then I
recommend VFA for the 2400 (or PR if you don't like VFA's texture).
IMO these are the closest match, especially in the dmax dept. Most
others, like Aurora, have lesser dmax (see article #5 at the link
below). I have a 2400 and have tried lots of papers with it. I've
found that VFA has slightly better dmax than PR with K3 ink, where PR
wins with MIS inks. EEM, besides yellowing quickly (even if you like
the look), is not acid free and will probably eventually develop acid
stains.
I hope this helps.
Regards,
Clayton
Info on black and white digital printing at
http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm