Just to return to this thread, I know that it looks like the acid
contents of papers is far from the most important attribute, but I
thought I'd report what I found.
I think it was Paul who mentioned that there may be differences
between surface acidity and the acid levels found in the paper.
I'm awash in discarded test prints here so I used my pH pen on a few
and tore them open to expose the paper inside.
It's not precise but yellow-green is acidic and blue is basic. I use
the term "base" to refer to the exposed paper fibers within glossy and
matte papers
Here's what I found:
Epson Premium Semi-gloss: acidic surface, neutral-basic base
Pictorico Premium Photo Glossy: acidic-neutral surface, basic base
Epson Premium Semi-matte: neutral-basic surface, basic base
Epson Premium Luster: acidic surface, basic base
Innova SW Cotton 315: basic surface, basic base
Fuji Crystal Archive glossy (thin version): basic surface, basic base
Epson Ultra Premium glossy: basic surface, basic base
Museo Crane Silver rag: acidic surface, basic base
Harman FB Al Baryta Glossy: basic surface, basic base
> -----Original Message-----
> From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of
mantinieri
> Sent: 05 November 2008 23:02
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [Digital BW] Re: Archivability of Epson luster/semi-gloss
paper?
>
>
> Dear Clayton,
>
> thanks for being interested in my opinions.
>
> Most of the aging processes you mentioned and the tests you also
> mentioned (south window test, Wilhelm Research tests, Inkjet Mall
> tests, etc.) are based on effect of UV rays on the materials of the
> print. The UV do not make chemical reactions (they are photons), but
> rather, physical reaction: they break some molecules and create free
> radicals which are very reactive and cause the actual degradation,
> mostly trough oxidation. But the molecule to be broken must be there
> in the first place. Therefore UV's only accelerate the process of
aging.
>
> Aging is almost always a consequence of oxidation. The documents in
> the churches or monastery hardly received any UV because sacred
> documents were never exposed to publics. They were, instead, conserved
> accurately by religious peoples (like the monks in the monastery).
> Some of them deteriorated any way and some others, as Paul observed,
> are still intact. Isn't the reason that obvious?
> It depends on the substances contained in the paper and the ink.
>
> You are certainly right. Impurities are among the culprit. They are
> mostly heavy metals, oxidizing very quickly. The purest pigments dont
> fade (remember, though, that paintings are coated with linseed oil,
> which protects them from pollutants not from UV). Not the only
> culprit: whatever is in the paper (including sizing) and the inks
> makes a large contribution.
>
> My suggestion for making fine art print is: shop in a fine art store,
> not in computer store. We are lazy and pretend to make fine art prints
> by clicking the mouse on the print button of your computer program.
> Corporations know that and sell us their quick solutions with the
> illusion of turning a newbie into an artist overnight.
> Fine art is never quick. How many hours did you spend in your darkroom
> washing and toning your fiber based silver prints? Those who did it
> know the answer.
> Another suggestion I would give is: do not trust the hype from large
> corporations. Fifteen years ago I was making Cibachrome in my
> darkrooms and sold them as 100 years archival, as was the hype of the
> time. I process them myself: fresh chemicals and long wash in running
> water. The ones I have today (stored in a dark place), all have
> shifted colors!!!
>
> Today, I would recommend two processes for fine-art printing:
>
> 1) Silver-gelatine printing on fiber based paper, with appropriate
> washing and toning. If the chemicals are washed away, what remains are
> just the paper, the gelatine and the toned silver. All very long
lived.
>
> 2) Inkjet printing with appropriate paper, ink and methodology. By
> appropriate I mean the following:
> a) Papers. Please, stop at Blick or any other large fine art store and
> just touch a fine art (uncoated) paper made with 100% cotton. Can you
> tell the difference from a coated inkjet paper? They are made to last
> centuries
> b) learn to print on that paper. It is not easy. You need to
> experiment as any artist does. Understand that those papers reacts in
> a different way than inkjet paper, and also from one another. Paul
> Roark and Clayton Jones are the people to learn from.
> c) Forget about that bloody d-max. It has nothing to do with the
> beauty of your artwork. If you print with ink, you must compare your
> print with similar techniques like lithography, etching or
> "acquaforte" (I dont know the English translation for it), not with
> photographs. If you want to make fine art with high d-max, go back to
> your darkroom
> d) ink. This is the difficult part. Fine art artists prepare their own
> oil paints or inks starting from pure pigments. The only premade ink
> that I know to be suited in fine art is India ink (in Italy, China
> ink). We tested it in an inkjet and it is a nightmare, because you
> need to keep the printing head wet all the time (as with Rapidograph
> pens). Preparing your own inkjet fine art ink is very easy because you
> can do that with natural ingredients. What makes it impossible today
> is that you will not find over the shelves the pigments with the
> correct diameter (much smaller than what available at fine art stores
> for oil paints). I have tried to purchase them in small quantities and
> had no success. Therefore, we need to use what is available
> commercially and trust the seller. OEM ink usually has dyes and
> pigments (for better d-max and colder tones). Personally, I stay clear
> of it. Brands I am comfortably with are: MIS Eboni, IS Matte Black and
> Cone's.
> e) dilute them with your own base made with natural substances (as all
> fine art dilutives - also India ink contain all natural ingredients).
> You know what you put in. It will probably not hold in suspension the
> pigments for long time. Then, shake them often and prepare them as
> freshly as you can (as you would do with the chemicals in your
darkroom).
> f) wash you final print in running water. It takes away the chemicals
> that were in the pre-made ink.
>
> Mantinieri
> www.mantinieri.com
>
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Clayton Price
> <clay@> wrote:
> >
> > Until not so long ago, all the Epson papers were acidic. Complaints
> > by many about the longevity of Epson Archival Matte paper, rather
> > than correct the problem, resulted in them changing the name to
> > Enhanced Matte. The pH remained the same - definitely in the acidic
> > range - around 5.5, as I recall. So much for Epson - who as
> > Mantinieri pointed out, is a large corporation who makes their money
> > from paper and inks, especially, which is the reason one can buy a
> > variety of quite good printers for very reasonable prices.
> >
> > That said, there are some errors in Mantinieri's logic -
> > First is Silica - one of the more stable compounds
> > around - Silicon Dioxide (basically sand, and the major
ingredient of
> > glass). It's formula, SiO2 already has the maximum number of Oxygen
> > atoms possible, and really doesn't react with the paper. Documents
> > over 100 years old in Italy or anywhere else could have a variety of
> > chemicals and UV causing degradation - Why? Because papers had all
> > kinds of impurities and very likely were most any pH, since for the
> > most part there was no science to help them with the manufacturing
> > process. And I'm curious how he could know they weren't exposed to a
> > high UV content? After all, putting them behind glass, is a
> > relatively recent museum occurrence when looked at within the time
> > frame of history!
> >
> > Back to the present, both the current Epson inks (Ultra Chrome K3,
> > and Jon Cone's Piezo inks both use some variation of Ethylene Glycol
> > as the major carrier to hold the dispersed pigments. Perhaps there's
> > some chemical reactions, but if the inks are truly pigments, the
> > chances are they remain mostly archival and stable. There could very
> > well be some reactions with certain papers, which could cause
> > staining, yellowing, etc. Am I wrong that Wilhelm only tests the
> > inks, but not the papers?
> >
> > For whatever it's worth. real world testing of ink/paper
> > combinations, IMO, work best in a window, with a lot of sun. My
> > experience with Cone's inks has been that they hold up extremely
> > well, even after six consecutive months in a south facing window.
> > I've not done this with the Epson Inks yet - I'm tending to assume
> > the testing I've read is mostly accurate. I print almost everything
> > on Photo Rag paper, which I know is pH neutral.
> >
> > If that doesn't impress you, consider - that putting a watercolor
> > painting in the window will give you perhaps 3 or 3 days before
> > noticeable fading starts to occur. (And that is primarily from UV &
> > oxidation). However if you take a look at 16th and 17th century
> > paintings, you'll almost never see color degradation, other than
dirt
> > and varnishes darkening with time. When those paintings are cleaned
> > up, the experts tell us that they are almost exactly like they were
> > when created. Why is this? It's because high quality pigments hardly
> > ever oxidize or fade from UV.
> >
> > That said, who in their right mind would put a priceless painting
> > into a UV or bright sun situation? Ditto for watercolors, both
> > contemporary and historic, as well as old and new photographs -- no
> > matter what process they were crafted from?
> >
> > Finally, I'd ask Mantinieri what process you would use and/or
suggest
> > to others, for creating our own contemporary photographic prints
that
> > will last? Certainly "C" Prints both conventional and digital (both
> > of which use the same chemistry) are no more archival than some
other
> > processes, no matter what the hype about them is, and my guess is
> > that they would be less archival than carbon pigment prints on
cotton
> > pH neutral papers.
> >
> > Clayton Price
> >
> > Mantinieri wrote: .... You can assume that
> > the substances present in the paper, paper sizing and the ink are
> > quite natural, given the status of chemistry at that time and that
> > the amount of UV seen by those documents is pretty low, given
the way
Show quoted textHide quoted text
> > theyare conserved. Nonetheless, the old documents deteriorate. The
> > main culprit is not UV. It is oxidations....
> >