Yahoo Groups archive
Thread
2009-10-02 by pr_roark
I'm still making progress in formulating a generic base for carbon printing that will print smoothly on Arches -- as well as other papers. Arches uncoated watercolor paper is the tough one, however. So, it's been my focus. See http://www.paulroark.com/BW-Info/Carbon-7.pdf at 2 for 1600 dpi scans of the 45% test patches of the latest C7 mix compared to Epson K3 LLK and Eboni-6 LM. The smoothness differences are now quite obvious. Paul www.PaulRoark.com
2009-10-02 by Michael King
Paul, Why so keen on it working with Arches uncoated watercolor ? Mike 2009/10/2 pr_roark <paul.roark@...> > > > I'm still making progress in formulating a generic base for carbon printing > that will print smoothly on Arches -- as well as other papers. Arches > uncoated watercolor paper is the tough one, however. So, it's been my focus. > > See http://www.paulroark.com/BW-Info/Carbon-7.pdf at 2 for 1600 dpi scans > of the 45% test patches of the latest C7 mix compared to Epson K3 LLK and > Eboni-6 LM. The smoothness differences are now quite obvious. > > Paul > www.PaulRoark.com <http://www.paulroark.com/> > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
2009-10-02 by pr_roark
Michael King <drmrking@...> wrote: > > Paul, > > Why so keen on it working with Arches uncoated watercolor ? > Arches has a great reputation in the art field and is the only watercolor paper I've found that has an acceptable dmax. None of the inkjet papers has stood the test of time. Coatings of any kind will probably cause problems way down the road, though I am certainly not stopping my use of inkjet papers. The Arches can be surfaced washed with very minimal loss of carbon. This stops the rub-off. The resulting print is very durable and resistant to abrasion. If the paper is not totally flat, a hot press makes it so. The internal gelatin sizing holds the hot pressed flatness. Arches is readily available in sheets and cheaper than most of the best inkjet papers. The watercolor paper is free from the flaking problems of inkjet papers. It can also be easily retouched, tinted, and painted on after the image is printed. It is my intent to merge carbon printing with the watercolor medium. How much watercoloring or tinting is needed to remove the stigma that holds down the prices of photos because they are "multiples" that can be easily reproduced is an open question. However, having the hand of the artist be the last and a significant part of the product may be necessary to avoid the "print" category. Moving the medium up the food chain in terms of how much people will pay for it is an interesting possibility. I'm going to be collaborating with a few watercolorists to see what we can come up with. And, it's an interesting challenge, which is probably enough in and of itself. I've always considered "carbon on cotton" to be a medium that can hold its own with any, but we've been fudging a bit on this with color pigs in the mix and coatings on paper. I think carbon on Arches gets us closer to what I see as a purist medium that does not have to apologize for or feel second rate compared to anything. Paul www.PaulRoark.com
2009-10-02 by Michael King
Paul, Txs for the detailed reply - as always interesting perspective from you. I saw some inkjet sketch prints (carbon?) + watercolor over painting @ at this summers Royal Academy Exhibition in London a few months ago. They were displayed alongside all the other paintings. They looked pretty interesting. Do let us know how this project progresses. Many txs, Mike 2009/10/2 pr_roark <paul.roark@...> > > > Michael King <drmrking@...> wrote: > > > > Paul, > > > > Why so keen on it working with Arches uncoated watercolor ? > > > > Arches has a great reputation in the art field and is the only watercolor > paper I've found that has an acceptable dmax. None of the inkjet papers has > stood the test of time. Coatings of any kind will probably cause problems > way down the road, though I am certainly not stopping my use of inkjet > papers. > > The Arches can be surfaced washed with very minimal loss of carbon. This > stops the rub-off. The resulting print is very durable and resistant to > abrasion. If the paper is not totally flat, a hot press makes it so. The > internal gelatin sizing holds the hot pressed flatness. > > Arches is readily available in sheets and cheaper than most of the best > inkjet papers. > > The watercolor paper is free from the flaking problems of inkjet papers. It > can also be easily retouched, tinted, and painted on after the image is > printed. > > It is my intent to merge carbon printing with the watercolor medium. How > much watercoloring or tinting is needed to remove the stigma that holds down > the prices of photos because they are "multiples" that can be easily > reproduced is an open question. However, having the hand of the artist be > the last and a significant part of the product may be necessary to avoid the > "print" category. Moving the medium up the food chain in terms of how much > people will pay for it is an interesting possibility. I'm going to be > collaborating with a few watercolorists to see what we can come up with. > > And, it's an interesting challenge, which is probably enough in and of > itself. I've always considered "carbon on cotton" to be a medium that can > hold its own with any, but we've been fudging a bit on this with color pigs > in the mix and coatings on paper. I think carbon on Arches gets us closer to > what I see as a purist medium that does not have to apologize for or feel > second rate compared to anything. > > Paul > www.PaulRoark.com <http://www.paulroark.com/> > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
2009-10-03 by tboleyyh
Paul is right, some of my favorite prints have been made on Arches, including the very first inkjet prints I ever made on an "art" paper before there was any coated inkjet papers on the market. I think it's heavy gelatin tub sizing is unique making it take ink a bit better than other watercolor papers. What Paul is working on is very different from what I've done with it, but I can appreciate the effort, the reasons for it, and certainly the choice of this paper. You have a RIP Michael, you should try it. Tyler --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "pr_roark" <paul.roark@...> wrote:
> > Michael King <drmrking@> wrote: > > > > Paul, > > > > Why so keen on it working with Arches uncoated watercolor ? > > > > Arches has a great reputation in the art field and is the only watercolor paper I've found that has an acceptable dmax. None of the inkjet papers has stood the test of time. Coatings of any kind will probably cause problems way down the road, though I am certainly not stopping my use of inkjet papers. > > The Arches can be surfaced washed with very minimal loss of carbon. This stops the rub-off. The resulting print is very durable and resistant to abrasion. If the paper is not totally flat, a hot press makes it so. The internal gelatin sizing holds the hot pressed flatness. > > Arches is readily available in sheets and cheaper than most of the best inkjet papers. > > The watercolor paper is free from the flaking problems of inkjet papers. It can also be easily retouched, tinted, and painted on after the image is printed. > > It is my intent to merge carbon printing with the watercolor medium. How much watercoloring or tinting is needed to remove the stigma that holds down the prices of photos because they are "multiples" that can be easily reproduced is an open question. However, having the hand of the artist be the last and a significant part of the product may be necessary to avoid the "print" category. Moving the medium up the food chain in terms of how much people will pay for it is an interesting possibility. I'm going to be collaborating with a few watercolorists to see what we can come up with. > > And, it's an interesting challenge, which is probably enough in and of itself. I've always considered "carbon on cotton" to be a medium that can hold its own with any, but we've been fudging a bit on this with color pigs in the mix and coatings on paper. I think carbon on Arches gets us closer to what I see as a purist medium that does not have to apologize for or feel second rate compared to anything. > > Paul > www.PaulRoark.com >
2009-10-03 by Bert
Paul, What you are doing and why is exciting to me. I have been printing on Arches cold press ever since my first Epson (1520) and I continue to do so on my 9600. Sometimes the image matches the screen and other it does not. I am using a custom i1 profile. Up until six months ago my images were solely in color. Now I am starting to do B&W. I have not tried B&W on the Arches as yet. My interest in this area stems from the fact that watercolor was a favorite medium when I was in art school many years ago. If I can be of any help please call on me. BertGF P.S. Thanks for the tip of using a hot press to flatten the print. I never thought of that. Flowers are an expression of Life www.cameraflora.com --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "pr_roark" <paul.roark@...> wrote:
> > Michael King <drmrking@> wrote: > > > > Paul, > > > > Why so keen on it working with Arches uncoated watercolor ? > > > > Arches has a great reputation in the art field and is the only watercolor paper I've found that has an acceptable dmax. None of the inkjet papers has stood the test of time. Coatings of any kind will probably cause problems way down the road, though I am certainly not stopping my use of inkjet papers. > > The Arches can be surfaced washed with very minimal loss of carbon. This stops the rub-off. The resulting print is very durable and resistant to abrasion. If the paper is not totally flat, a hot press makes it so. The internal gelatin sizing holds the hot pressed flatness. > > Arches is readily available in sheets and cheaper than most of the best inkjet papers. > > The watercolor paper is free from the flaking problems of inkjet papers. It can also be easily retouched, tinted, and painted on after the image is printed. > > It is my intent to merge carbon printing with the watercolor medium. How much watercoloring or tinting is needed to remove the stigma that holds down the prices of photos because they are "multiples" that can be easily reproduced is an open question. However, having the hand of the artist be the last and a significant part of the product may be necessary to avoid the "print" category. Moving the medium up the food chain in terms of how much people will pay for it is an interesting possibility. I'm going to be collaborating with a few watercolorists to see what we can come up with. > > And, it's an interesting challenge, which is probably enough in and of itself. I've always considered "carbon on cotton" to be a medium that can hold its own with any, but we've been fudging a bit on this with color pigs in the mix and coatings on paper. I think carbon on Arches gets us closer to what I see as a purist medium that does not have to apologize for or feel second rate compared to anything. > > Paul > www.PaulRoark.com >
2009-10-03 by Ernst Dinkla
Bockingford tub sized watercolor paper could be a cheaper alternative to Arches. Not rag but wood free. There is a variety that has an inkjet coating but the original version printed quite good with Generations ink in my experience. -- Met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst Dinkla Gallery Canvas Wrap Actions | Dinkla Grafische Techniek | | www.pigment-print.com | | ( unvollendet ) |
2009-10-03 by ElEstudio
Paul, I can tell you that back in 97, 98, I used some of the inkjets available then (stylus 600 and 1520) with black only on arches hot press. The prints are beautiful and have stood till today (I recall to have read somewhere that the dyes on these printers combined with arches gave a pretty long lasting print for some reason). I'm on a similar quest as you are, though I'm more focused on a layer for the arches paper after printing and washing. I've been playing around with gelatin (pure grenetin), and still have to wait to be able to talk about it, but the logic of the silver-gelatin days (aka darkroom) tells me there's no reason why it shouldn't work. Hopefully it will... just need more free time to continue fooling around with all this renaissance-like-lab mixing of things!!! By the way, I have been following your carbon approach closely for which I thank you, I'm taking a bit of what you've kindly shared with all of us and used it quite succesfully till now. If the gelatin thingy works, I'll let you know! Happy printing to all, Pablo
2009-10-03 by James W Veenstra
Hot press or cold? J Vee On Oct 2, 2009, at 10:46 AM, pr_roark wrote: > I'm still making progress in formulating a generic base for carbon > printing that will print smoothly on Arches -- as well as other > papers. Arches uncoated watercolor paper is the tough one, however. > So, it's been my focus. > > See http://www.paulroark.com/BW-Info/Carbon-7.pdf at 2 for 1600 dpi > scans of the 45% test patches of the latest C7 mix compared to Epson > K3 LLK and Eboni-6 LM. The smoothness differences are now quite > obvious. > > Paul > www.PaulRoark.com > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
2009-10-03 by sagaface
Paul, What an incredible idea. Truly innovative and exciting. I would LOVE to see you develop this successfully as I have been wanting to combine painting with photography ever since I lived in Maine and got to spend a lot of time with the Wyeths' watercolors at the Farnsworth. My own paint medium has always been oils but this combination could be amazing. I, too, will be following your work with this very closely. Thank you so much for sharing all these amazing ways to print. I wouldn't be making beautiful B&W prints without your contributions. Sarah --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "pr_roark" <paul.roark@...> wrote:
> > Michael King <drmrking@> wrote: > > > > Paul, > > > > Why so keen on it working with Arches uncoated watercolor ? > > > > Arches has a great reputation in the art field and is the only watercolor paper I've found that has an acceptable dmax. None of the inkjet papers has stood the test of time. Coatings of any kind will probably cause problems way down the road, though I am certainly not stopping my use of inkjet papers. > > The Arches can be surfaced washed with very minimal loss of carbon. This stops the rub-off. The resulting print is very durable and resistant to abrasion. If the paper is not totally flat, a hot press makes it so. The internal gelatin sizing holds the hot pressed flatness. > > Arches is readily available in sheets and cheaper than most of the best inkjet papers. > > The watercolor paper is free from the flaking problems of inkjet papers. It can also be easily retouched, tinted, and painted on after the image is printed. > > It is my intent to merge carbon printing with the watercolor medium. How much watercoloring or tinting is needed to remove the stigma that holds down the prices of photos because they are "multiples" that can be easily reproduced is an open question. However, having the hand of the artist be the last and a significant part of the product may be necessary to avoid the "print" category. Moving the medium up the food chain in terms of how much people will pay for it is an interesting possibility. I'm going to be collaborating with a few watercolorists to see what we can come up with. > > And, it's an interesting challenge, which is probably enough in and of itself. I've always considered "carbon on cotton" to be a medium that can hold its own with any, but we've been fudging a bit on this with color pigs in the mix and coatings on paper. I think carbon on Arches gets us closer to what I see as a purist medium that does not have to apologize for or feel second rate compared to anything. > > Paul > www.PaulRoark.com >
2009-10-03 by tboleyyh
I couldn't help but reply... we just went to see some Wyeths here at the Seattle Art Museum yesterday. What incredible works of art, it was hard to walk away from them. Such reinforcemnt for the notion that we are making these things, not only content, but a synergy of content, image making, and working of the materials that combine to compel on every level. Additionally, the connection between the artist and the places/people of his life are is a striking example for photographers. I always responded to his work, but the things themselves are overwhelming. Tyler --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "sagaface" <sagaface@...> wrote:
> > Paul, > > What an incredible idea. Truly innovative and exciting. I would LOVE to see you develop this successfully as I have been wanting to combine painting with photography ever since I lived in Maine and got to spend a lot of time with the Wyeths' watercolors at the Farnsworth. My own paint medium has always been oils but this combination could be amazing. > > I, too, will be following your work with this very closely. Thank you so much for sharing all these amazing ways to print. I wouldn't be making beautiful B&W prints without your contributions. > > Sarah > > > --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "pr_roark" <paul.roark@> wrote: > > > > Michael King <drmrking@> wrote: > > > > > > Paul, > > > > > > Why so keen on it working with Arches uncoated watercolor ? > > > > > > > Arches has a great reputation in the art field and is the only watercolor paper I've found that has an acceptable dmax. None of the inkjet papers has stood the test of time. Coatings of any kind will probably cause problems way down the road, though I am certainly not stopping my use of inkjet papers. > > > > The Arches can be surfaced washed with very minimal loss of carbon. This stops the rub-off. The resulting print is very durable and resistant to abrasion. If the paper is not totally flat, a hot press makes it so. The internal gelatin sizing holds the hot pressed flatness. > > > > Arches is readily available in sheets and cheaper than most of the best inkjet papers. > > > > The watercolor paper is free from the flaking problems of inkjet papers. It can also be easily retouched, tinted, and painted on after the image is printed. > > > > It is my intent to merge carbon printing with the watercolor medium. How much watercoloring or tinting is needed to remove the stigma that holds down the prices of photos because they are "multiples" that can be easily reproduced is an open question. However, having the hand of the artist be the last and a significant part of the product may be necessary to avoid the "print" category. Moving the medium up the food chain in terms of how much people will pay for it is an interesting possibility. I'm going to be collaborating with a few watercolorists to see what we can come up with. > > > > And, it's an interesting challenge, which is probably enough in and of itself. I've always considered "carbon on cotton" to be a medium that can hold its own with any, but we've been fudging a bit on this with color pigs in the mix and coatings on paper. I think carbon on Arches gets us closer to what I see as a purist medium that does not have to apologize for or feel second rate compared to anything. > > > > Paul > > www.PaulRoark.com > > >
2009-10-03 by pr_roark
"ElEstudio" <elestudio@...> wrote: >... > I'm on a similar quest as you are, though I'm more focused on a layer for the arches paper after printing and washing. I've been playing around with gelatin (pure grenetin), ... I was into post-printing coatings on matte paper for a while. The "Hydrocote" water-based polyurethane seemed interesting. I actually hit a 2.5 dmax with an Arches test strip that was coated with this. I was never able to scale it up with the smoothness I like, however. I concluded a spray booth and more hardware than I was interested in was going to be needed. >... the logic of the silver-gelatin days (aka darkroom) > tells me there's no reason why it shouldn't work. I hope it works out. >... all this renaissance-like-lab mixing of things!!! Someone might just stumble onto something really nice. One never knows without trying. I obviously think it's a good thing. Paul www.PaulRoark.com
2009-10-03 by pr_roark
James W Veenstra <j_vee@...> wrote: > > Hot press or cold? I'm working with Arches Hot Press 140 lb. -- the "bright white" version. In the past my experience was that Cold Press used about the same profiles and has about the same dmax. So, I think my experience will be fairly uniform across the HP and CP versions of Arches. Paul www.PaulRoark.com
2009-10-03 by sagaface
> I always responded to his work, but the things themselves are overwhelming. Yes, they are indeed. standing in front of them...a totally visceral, jaw-dropping experience.
2009-10-03 by Will
Sarah, Paul and all, Having big fun at this house with a "carbon on carbon on cotton" process. Using Ebony-6 inks to print on Arches or other WC papers from heavily-modified photos. (began with PS find-edges or glowing edges filters) Then *complete* the image with Sumi inks, brushes & methods. This foolishness is an outgrowth of an old love I have for the colors of *black* Sumi inks. I began using Sumi blacks as the pigments for carbon-transfer printmaking years ago. Grinding my own, natch. I'm not quite in the Wyeth league yet (ahem!) but this has stretched my photography further than any new zoom lens could. It drives the *how many megapixels?* folks bats! Will C. "sagaface" wrote:
> > Paul, > > What an incredible idea. Truly innovative and exciting. I would LOVE to see you develop this successfully as I have been wanting to combine painting with photography ever since I lived in Maine and got to spend a lot of time with the Wyeths' watercolors at the Farnsworth. My own paint medium has always been oils but this combination could be amazing. > > I, too, will be following your work with this very closely. Thank you so much for sharing all these amazing ways to print. I wouldn't be making beautiful B&W prints without your contributions. > > Sarah >
2009-10-04 by mantinieri
Hello Paul, I have read your pdf note with interest. Good work! BTW, I by the glycerin at: http://www.newdirectionsaromatics.com/glycerine-vegetable-usp-995-p-540.html It is much cheaper. Cheers, Mantinieri www.mantinieri.com --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "pr_roark" <paul.roark@...> wrote:
> > I'm still making progress in formulating a generic base for carbon printing that will print smoothly on Arches -- as well as other papers. Arches uncoated watercolor paper is the tough one, however. So, it's been my focus. > > See http://www.paulroark.com/BW-Info/Carbon-7.pdf at 2 for 1600 dpi scans of the 45% test patches of the latest C7 mix compared to Epson K3 LLK and Eboni-6 LM. The smoothness differences are now quite obvious. > > Paul > www.PaulRoark.com >
2009-10-04 by pr_roark
"mantinieri" <mantinieri@...> wrote: > > I have read your pdf note with interest. Good work! The final formula and PDF will change. That last-best mix failed the centrifuge test. Part of the balancing is clearly viscosity v. smoothness. The lower viscosity mixes allow a greater load with smoothness. But the settlement rate is too high. So, I'm back to balancing the ingredients at a high enough viscosity that I can live with the (still fast) settlement rate. The Dow surfactant is a significant ingredient, and I think a higher propylene glycol mix than the original C6 base (where it was in the Photo Flo) seems to help. How much is enough is uncertain. I'm pushing the glycerol content back up to hold the carbon pigments in suspension better, both due to its viscosity and higher specific gravity. Paul www.PaulRoark.com
2009-10-04 by markss9876
Hi. Just curious .. is the glycerin used as GLOP, and is anything else necessary to add to it? Thanks. Mark. markss9876s@... (please use this aol e-mail address, as I use my yahoo e-mail for other things. Thanks again). --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "mantinieri" <mantinieri@...> wrote:
> > Hello Paul, > > I have read your pdf note with interest. Good work! > > BTW, I by the glycerin at: > http://www.newdirectionsaromatics.com/glycerine-vegetable-usp-995-p-540.html > > It is much cheaper. > > Cheers, > > Mantinieri > > www.mantinieri.com > > --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "pr_roark" <paul.roark@> wrote: > > > > I'm still making progress in formulating a generic base for carbon printing that will print smoothly on Arches -- as well as other papers. Arches uncoated watercolor paper is the tough one, however. So, it's been my focus. > > > > See http://www.paulroark.com/BW-Info/Carbon-7.pdf at 2 for 1600 dpi scans of the 45% test patches of the latest C7 mix compared to Epson K3 LLK and Eboni-6 LM. The smoothness differences are now quite obvious. > > > > Paul > > www.PaulRoark.com > > >
2009-10-05 by dlruckus
Hi Paul. Have you done any work or testing with the Somerset Velvet uncoated art paper. It has always gotten about the same d'max for me as has Arches. It is, however, vastly smoother on printing with none of the blotchy appearance Arches takes on and less bleed. I don't know how it would take to the washing process as I've not tried that. It's also very bright white for not having OBA content. Regards Duane --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "pr_roark" <paul.roark@...> wrote:
> I'm working with Arches Hot Press 140 lb. -- the "bright white" version. In the past my experience was that Cold Press used about the same profiles and has about the same dmax. So, I think my experience will be fairly uniform across the HP and CP versions of Arches. > > Paul > www.PaulRoark.com >
2009-10-05 by pr_roark
"markss9876" <markss9876@...> wrote: > > ... is the glycerin used as GLOP, I can't speak for Mantinieri, but in the clear base solutions I mix, it is not glop. Glop has a binder in it that coats the pigments. The C6 clear base is a matte base that works with glossy paper only if the pigments are coated, such as the HP PK. Even there, using MIS glop as the dilution base makes for less bronzing. The C6 base I mix is described at http://www.paulroark.com/BW-Info/Ink-Mixing.pdf Paul www.PaulRoark.com
2009-10-05 by pr_roark
"dlruckus" <dlruckus@...> wrote: > > Have you done any work or testing with the Somerset Velvet > uncoated art paper. It has always gotten about the same > d'max for me as has Arches. I have not seen the same dmax with Eboni. Looking at 2200 test strips, Arches can hit 1.62 (thoroughly cured) whereas the Somerset Velvet test strip I just printed and dried with a hair drier hit only 1.46. > It is, however, vastly smoother on printing with none of the > blotchy appearance Arches takes on and less bleed. With the Arches, I find holding the ink limit way down -- to about 25 or 30 -- gives me reasonable smoothness. But, I have no doubt Somerset can be smoother. >... It's also very bright white for not having OBA content. Somerset Velvet has brighteners in it according to my UV light. Paul www.PaulRoark.com
2009-10-05 by santonov2you
Paul, what kind of carts do you use for these experiments on 2200? I think I saw here a warning that old MIS carts with foam will not work with your new base, is it true? Thanks, Sergei
2009-10-06 by pr_roark
"santonov2you" <drumscanner@...> wrote: > > Paul, what kind of carts do you use for these experiments on 2200? I don't keep track of where all the carts come from. I use MIS and inkjetcarts.us as main suppliers of such. > I think I saw here a warning that old MIS carts with foam > will not work with your new base, is it true? The problem was with the 1800 carts that had small sponges in the air inlet. It interacted with the Eboni-6 base. Other ink bases were OK, including the C6 base I often use. The same cart type was used for the C84 on, and 2400. I think MIS is finally out of this batch of carts. Many of the older MIS 2200 carts had foam in them, but it appeared to be OK with Eboni-6. I try to avoid all foam in carts. It actually can work well, but I often put in lots of different versions of the ink in the same cart, rinsing out the old as I go. So, whether foam works or not in general, it does not work for me. Both MIS and inkjetcarts.us have totally foamless carts that seem very similar at this point. Paul www.PaulRoark.com
2009-10-06 by dlruckus
--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "pr_roark" <paul.roark@...> wrote: > > I have not seen the same dmax with Eboni. Looking at 2200 test strips, Arches can hit 1.62 (thoroughly cured) whereas the Somerset Velvet test strip I just printed and dried with a hair drier hit only 1.46. > I don't have a 2200 so I can't replicate that. On my machines, the best I've done with Arches and Eboni is about 1.56. I haven't made exhaustive tests of it with overlaid curves and multiple low limited inks so will have to try it at some point. I did do so with the Somerset a while back but the results weren't spectacular. You can pour 100% Eboni on it and it won't reduce the d'max or flood the paper but it doesn't do much for increasing it either.The 1.46 you got for the Somerset matches my average results for it though. > > Somerset Velvet has brighteners in it according to my UV light. > That surprises me a bit. I don't have a UV light handy here other than a small quartz mercury lamp I use to calibrate a transmission spectro via it's spectral lines, but I don't see anything like would be expected in terms of a blue response to it, if OBAs were present in any quantity, from the Somerset. The lamp does have a strong spectral line at 436nm so some deep blue reflection wouldn't be out of character for even a non OBA paper that isn't too yellow. It makes several EPSON papers, as well as the old Premier Premium Matt and a couple of Red River papers I have here, light up like neon signs in brilliant blue. Somerset's spectral curve as read by a DTP20 looks very similar to other papers I have,including Arches, that are termed as non OBA. Oh well--Live and learn. Here are some comparisons: Paper Spectrum--DTP20 400-700nm =============================== Somerset Velvet uncoated paper 78.95 85.87 90.89 93.39 94.53 95.46 95.72 95.00 94.29 94.76 95.64 96.63 97.28 96.71 95.83 95.24 95.22 96.80 98.23 97.22 95.85 95.49 95.89 97.59 98.99 98.32 97.12 96.11 95.77 96.88 99.14 Lab-- 98.47 0.07 1.12 --------------------------------------------- ARCHES HOT PRESS uncoated paper 75.00 77.67 80.05 82.01 83.83 85.99 87.55 87.55 87.32 88.08 89.26 90.92 92.31 92.39 92.00 91.44 91.43 93.42 95.41 94.99 93.97 93.34 93.42 95.23 96.93 96.73 95.95 95.00 94.59 95.65 97.83 Lab-- 97.08 0.33 4.88 ---------------------------------------------- Name? Cotton Rag uncoated Hawk Mountain 81.63 84.78 87.14 88.42 89.26 90.42 91.27 91.31 91.19 91.51 92.10 93.27 94.25 94.07 93.55 93.08 93.12 94.86 96.43 95.42 93.98 93.50 93.89 96.00 97.69 96.68 95.11 94.33 94.36 95.73 98.21 Lab-- 97.61 0.04 2.52 ---------------------------------------------- Concord Rag coated 76.83 77.96 78.95 79.63 80.53 82.26 84.27 86.24 88.06 89.55 90.75 91.63 92.25 92.71 92.96 92.76 92.69 93.58 94.58 94.86 94.82 94.57 94.53 95.31 96.17 96.63 96.74 96.10 95.62 96.18 97.46 Lab-- 97.18 -0.58 6.72 ---------------------------------------------- Premier Premium Matt coated 36.16 61.94 80.37 89.40 92.54 92.48 90.96 90.23 89.80 90.22 90.51 89.51 88.28 87.68 87.30 86.92 86.72 86.91 87.24 87.39 87.70 88.45 89.47 90.77 92.02 92.88 93.56 94.16 94.71 95.27 95.83 Lab-- 95.23 1.20 -1.10 ---------------------------------------------- EPDSM/Presentation coated 38.75 65.83 84.32 91.46 92.59 92.38 91.48 91.65 92.17 93.10 93.81 93.31 92.69 93.05 93.51 93.41 92.98 92.17 91.45 91.44 91.84 92.61 93.36 93.60 93.76 94.13 94.52 94.91 95.25 95.46 95.58 Lab-- 97.25 -0.59 1.07 --------------------------------------------- EP ARCH WTRCOLOR coated 48.74 67.10 79.90 85.30 86.85 87.81 88.13 88.57 89.02 89.82 90.48 90.37 90.19 90.66 91.23 91.37 91.48 91.92 92.53 93.24 93.88 94.18 94.45 94.92 95.45 96.09 96.57 96.44 96.31 96.67 97.35 Lab-- 96.57 1.05 3.24 ----------------------------------------------- RR Polar Matt coated 29.96 57.87 78.82 91.33 97.18 96.89 94.37 93.48 93.04 93.38 93.50 91.97 90.23 89.57 89.24 88.82 88.43 88.00 87.73 87.76 88.23 89.37 90.71 91.89 92.90 93.52 94.05 94.80 95.50 95.96 96.24 Lab-- 95.68 0.84 -2.66 ---------------------------------------------- RR Ultra Pro Satin coated 33.10 66.77 89.62 98.18 99.10 98.18 96.18 95.17 94.58 94.76 94.93 94.13 93.14 92.56 92.05 91.32 90.72 90.72 90.88 90.75 90.73 91.08 91.64 92.41 93.19 93.75 94.30 94.90 95.65 96.67 97.91 Lab-- 96.60 0.41 -2.76 ----------------------------------------------- Kirkland Glossy coated 38.01 63.88 82.23 90.87 93.73 94.03 93.10 92.98 93.21 94.36 95.22 94.22 92.74 91.80 91.05 90.42 89.88 89.35 88.84 88.19 87.96 88.77 89.86 90.70 91.39 91.73 92.24 93.62 95.15 96.32 97.30 Lab-- 96.16 -1.11 -1.81 --------------------------------------------- Regards Duane
2009-10-06 by pr_roark
"dlruckus" <dlruckus@...> wrote: > > ... On my machines, the best I've done with Arches and Eboni is about 1.56... Mid to high 1.50's is what I normally expect right after drying with a hair drier. On some test strips after thorough curing I see 1.60+, but it's hit or miss. I assume the gelatin sizing is not all that uniform. > > Somerset Velvet has brighteners in it according to my UV light. > That surprises me a bit... That they would make an un-coated paper and then put in brighteners is a bit odd. Given the brightness of the paper that I measured with the spectro, however, it didn't totally surprise me to see it glow under the blacklights. I might add that I have one incandescent blacklight that doesn't have the best ratio of UV to visible light, and the results were marginal. With my fluorescent blacklight, which appears to have much more UV relative to minimal visible light, the Somerset glow was right up there with other brightened papers, and Arches BW was dark. Paul www.PaulRoark.com
2009-10-09 by nancyewilson@sbcglobal.net
Paul, I also will be watching very closely your work with Carbon and Arches. Painting on B&W is something that I have worked on and off for a few years. I have used a medium of artist's tools, including watercolor, oil, pastels, and even colored pencils -- sometimes in the same image. I have another question for this group: I have some old (1 1/2 year)MIS carbon inks that have been setting around unopened. I have recoved 95% from a horrific automobile accident that nearly crused me to death and left me in a hospital bed for six months. As part of my emotional recovery, I have returned to my creative senses of capturing beautiful images and rendering them in as beautiful manner as I can. Now, what do I do with the old inks: Throw them out? Try to use them? They are for both my 1800 and 2200 printers. I don't want to risk damaging either one of my printers. Nancy