Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Printing: Printers, Papers and Inks => Topic started by: mlondon on February 27, 2010, 08:13:46 pm
-
I really like Epson's Exhibition Fiber, great colors, great blacks, great range, etc. However it scratches extremely easy.
I'm getting ready to print out a large number of prints for gifts to people I have photographed in China.
I think that for many of them, once I give them the print, it may not be as well cared for as the paper demands.
I could use something like Premium Luster, but it doesnt have the same qualities or weight.
Can anyone recommend a good alternative to the Exhibition Fiber that still has the weight and feel of a traditional photographic print,
but with a more robust surface that is not as susceptible to scratching (and finger prints for that matter.)
Many thanks.
Matthew
-
I've tried a lot of them, and to me they all seem about the same - they're all pretty fragile. Then again, I handle all of them pretty carefully so I don't really know if one is perhaps a little better .. I just get the sense that a little better really doesn't get you what you are asking for.
Perhaps you can present the gift in such a way it suggests care? Or since the recipients may not see the value of what you are giving, a lovely print on a more durable paper such as luster may be enough.
-
I've tried a lot of them, and to me they all seem about the same - they're all pretty fragile. Then again, I handle all of them pretty carefully so I don't really know if one is perhaps a little better .. I just get the sense that a little better really doesn't get you what you are asking for.
Perhaps you can present the gift in such a way it suggests care? Or since the recipients may not see the value of what you are giving, a lovely print on a more durable paper such as luster may be enough.
Good points... I do present them carefully, but no control over what happens next. A Luster surface for sure is stronger, just wish there was a thicker one than the Premium Luster.
-
Exhibition Fibre with Premier Art Spray or something equivalent. Seals the print and makes it pretty indestructible. Check out John Paul Caponigro site or the Premier Arts site. Might be the way to go if you are not going to mat them.
Or have them printed on a photo printer. There are some great B&W papers out there for digital prints on traditional silver halide photo paper.
-
I really like Epson's Exhibition Fiber, great colors, great blacks, great range, etc. However it scratches extremely easy
I agree with the PremierArt (or Hahnemühle) protective spray, although in my experience the closest thing to "indestructible" is Renaissance wax. I tried it on a couple of different matte papers and it was terrible, and it took the ink off of the two canvas prints I tried it on, but it worked beautifully on Exhibition Fiber and Canson Baryata. Just apply it thinly and very gently.
-
Can anyone recommend a good alternative to the Exhibition Fiber that still has the weight and feel of a traditional photographic print,
but with a more robust surface that is not as susceptible to scratching (and finger prints for that matter.)
Exhibition Fiber is less susceptible to scratching than say, Harman's Gloss FB AL baryta paper. I recently mailed a couple of 17"x22" prints on EF in mailing tubes and they reached their destination without harm.
Have you tried Hahne's Photo Rag Baryta? No conclusions on durability yet- I've several prints stored loose that I'm testing for scratching but might be worth checking out.
Paul
-
I wary of adding any protective sprays to images as I don't think that they have been fully evaluated in terms of archival preservation. I have mailed out over 40 prints on both the Epson paper and Ilford Gold Fibre in four inch diameter tubes. The image face is protected by a sheet of archival paper as it is rolled. I include an instruction sheet that gives clear instructions about handling and framing. I've have had no reports of print damage and have heard back from a couple of framers who indicated that the surface was unblemished. This is about as good as you can do unless you are going to do all the matting and framing prior to shipment.
-
I wary of adding any protective sprays to images as I don't think that they have been fully evaluated in terms of archival preservation. I have mailed out over 40 prints on both the Epson paper and Ilford Gold Fibre in four inch diameter tubes. The image face is protected by a sheet of archival paper as it is rolled. I include an instruction sheet that gives clear instructions about handling and framing. I've have had no reports of print damage and have heard back from a couple of framers who indicated that the surface was unblemished. This is about as good as you can do unless you are going to do all the matting and framing prior to shipment.
Thank you for you thoughts...
I guess I didnt make myself clear enough in my original posting.
The spray is not an option as I will be making about 100 8x10.5' and dont have time or space.
These prints will probably never be framed, which is the point of my posting.
Many of them will be for people in rural areas, without the money or access to such things.
I dont have the ability to carry dozens of small frames around with me.
So really just looking for a thicker paper that has a good strong surface and good colors/blacks.
The archivabilyt will help as they will most likely not be stored under protective glass and/or away from UV.
-
So really just looking for a thicker paper that has a good strong surface and good colors/blacks.
What about just using Epson premium glossy or luster paper? In my casual scratch testing both are far more durable than any of the fancy baryta papers. The feel "in hand" is not as luxurious but that may be a compromise you have to make.
Assuming you are using a pigment printer image life should be good.
Or you can also try a matte paper, like Moab Entrada Rag. Depending on the image's color pallet, color rendition is very good although blacks won't be as deep as on Epson EF. But scratch resistance is good, and I like the texture and "heft" of the paper.
Paul
-
If Luster doesn't have enough weight for you then this completely unscientific test will not help, but...
Early last year I made a typical test print on a number of papers including Epson Luster, Epson Semigloss, Epson Exhibition Fiber, Harman FB AL, and Ilford GFS. I know these are not all in the same class or price range, but I just wanted to see what people like. The prints were made on an Epson 7900 with good profiles for all of the papers. Over a week or so several people saw these prints and each was asked to pick a first and second choice as to which one they like best. These people included some regular folks who aren't into photography or printing at all, a couple who dabble in photography, and a frame shop owner of 30 years.
The results:
1. Exhibition Fiber (100% chose this as their favorite)
2. Epson Semigloss (this came in second, closely followed by Luster)
When questioned further, those who didn't pick Luster essentially said the surface is "too sparkly", or the surface gets in the way of the image. No one picked Ilford GFS, which I happen to like and use quite a bit. Comments revolved around the paper being too warm or "too yellow". Comments about the Harman (previously said Ilford by mistake) mostly said it was "too shiny".
Epson Semigloss is quite sturdy and also resistant to fingerprints. If you ignore the finer points of the surfaces, it's overall sheen is similar to EEF, without all the tiny specular highlights of Luster. FWIW I've abandoned Luster when this sort of paper is needed.
-
Hahnemuhle Fine Art Pearl is, IMO, the most durable surfaced inkjet paper out there, and should be the first choice if you're looking for excellent handling characteristics. The inkset of the printer you're using is also a factor that shouldn't be overlooked. Canon's new Lucia EX inks (in the 6300 and 8300) have hugely improved and best-of-class scratch resistance. Use of the gloss optimizer found in HP's Z series and Epson high gloss inkset (R1900) also improve scratch resistance dramatically.
I have a 2 inch tall stack of sample prints (from a variety of printers and papers) that I show to clients and at workshops. These prints get handled by a lot of people and it's impressive how messed up the cotton rag prints get, for example, and how exceptionally well the HFA Pearl prints hold up relative to the others.
-
Thank you for you thoughts...
Many of them will be for people in rural areas, without the money or access to such things.
I dont have the ability to carry dozens of small frames around with me.
So really just looking for a thicker paper that has a good strong surface and good colors/blacks.
The archivabilyt will help as they will most likely not be stored under protective glass and/or away from UV.
Understand. The other option might be to send them over in polypropylene envelopes or the equivalent. Image would show through nice and clear but there would be the added protection. If they want to take it out of the envelope they can. I think you may have to make some compromises in terms of the paper if this kind of approach is not acceptable. A number of suppliers carry such envelopes; I get mine from Archival Methods (http://www.archivalmethods.com/).
-
These prints will probably never be framed, which is the point of my posting.
Many of them will be for people in rural areas, without the money or access to such things.
Given these conditions, I think the best approach is to compromise IQ somewhat and use an RC paper as suggested above.
-
It's amazing how epson leads the way with paper.
Back in the day with enhanced matt, and now with Exhibition fiber.
Does anyone know the history of this paper? Who makes it who coats it?
Granted Hahnemuhle photorag baryta is killer but way expensive. I scooped up
a ton of EEF on sale. I don't mind the look of GFS but it curls too much
in the printer, especially in winter under dry conditions, same with the new canson
baryta lots of moisture differential leading to curls and he'd strikes. The platine looks
like a decent alternative to hahn's PRB and silver rag any other opinions on it?
But so far the EEF is the choice! Once cured overnight it's actually pretty scratch resistant.
-
Over a week or so several people saw these prints and each was asked to pick a first and second choice as to which one they like best. These people included some regular folks who aren't into photography or printing at all, a couple who dabble in photography, and a frame shop owner of 30 years.
The results:
1. Exhibition Fiber (100% chose this as their favorite)
Epson Semigloss is quite sturdy and also resistant to fingerprints. If you ignore the finer points of the surfaces, it's overall sheen is similar to EEF, without all the tiny specular highlights of Luster. FWIW I've abandoned Luster when this sort of paper is needed.
This is my point exactally, the Exhibition Fiber paper has that "wow" quality that even someone who is not a photographer notices instantly, and sets it apart from all the other papers I've used.
To the other poster asking about who makes the Exhibition Fiber, it is Innova.
I have not tried the Epson Semigloss. Is it thicker than the Luster? If so, that might be my best choice.
-
This is my point exactally, the Exhibition Fiber paper has that "wow" quality that even someone who is not a photographer notices instantly, and sets it apart from all the other papers I've used.
To the other poster asking about who makes the Exhibition Fiber, it is Innova.
I suspect in large part it is because of the optical brightening agents in the EEF paper. The disturbing thing is how quickly the paper white fades in stability testing. I like the paper but don't believe that it meets archival standards. You don't see the same amount of fading in either the Ilford GFS or Museo Silver Rag, the other two gloss finish papers I print on.
-
The disturbing thing is how quickly the paper white fades in stability testing. I like the paper but don't believe that it meets archival standards. You don't see the same amount of fading in either the Ilford GFS or Museo Silver Rag, the other two gloss finish papers I print on.
Source for this? And does the EEF get yellower than the Ilford (which is very warm to start with).
Personally I think EEF looks good for many other reasons than just it's white point. Texture is perfect, fine detail holds up extremely well, and blacks and greys are rich and full. Just the right amount of "sheen" .. .not too glossy and not to dull (which is what I dislike with Ilford GFS). Add to that it just stays flat compared to all the others ...
-
I have not tried the Epson Semigloss. Is it thicker than the Luster? If so, that might be my best choice.
Epson Semigloss is not thicker than Luster. Both are 10 mils thick. That's why I said this wouldn't help if Luster was not thick enough for you. My thought was that if you were thinking of using Luster you might get closer to the look you want (though not the feel) by using Semigloss. Luster and Semigloss have very similar properties and tend to feel less like paper and more like plastic - a property of most resin coated papers. But the Semigloss lacks the "sparkly" surface of Luster, which can be a little obtrusive. Semigloss is far more durable than EEF.
-
Epson Semigloss is not thicker than Luster. Both are 10 mils thick. That's why I said this wouldn't help if Luster was not thick enough for you. My thought was that if you were thinking of using Luster you might get closer to the look you want (though not the feel) by using Semigloss. Luster and Semigloss have very similar properties and tend to feel less like paper and more like plastic - a property of most resin coated papers. But the Semigloss lacks the "sparkly" surface of Luster, which can be a little obtrusive. Semigloss is far more durable than EEF.
I ordered some today !
Thanks for all your feedback.
-
Source for this? And does the EEF get yellower than the Ilford (which is very warm to start with).
Personally I think EEF looks good for many other reasons than just it's white point. Texture is perfect, fine detail holds up extremely well, and blacks and greys are rich and full. Just the right amount of "sheen" .. .not too glossy and not to dull (which is what I dislike with Ilford GFS). Add to that it just stays flat compared to all the others ...
Wayne,
The Aardenburg (http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com/index.html) site has solid data on all of the papers with Epson ink sets. I think the printers may be different in one of the cases. I was struck by how the white and paper white of the Epson paper changed dramatically relative to the other two papers. I don't know about whether it takes a turn towards yellow or not as that is not reported. It was striking that the worst patches in the test for the Epson paper were the white and paper white while the other colors held up pretty well. Maybe this is fine for a print with little white and lots of color but I would be quite wary of using the paper for critical B&W printing.
You are right about it staying flat. It's the best of all the glossy papers that I have used in that regard.
Alan
-
Wayne,
I was struck by how the white and paper white of the Epson paper changed dramatically relative to the other two papers. I don't know about whether it takes a turn towards yellow or not as that is not reported.
Alan
Actually, the data necessary to understand both direction and magnitude of the color changes is indeed listed in the AaI&A test reports. One needs to compare the "Before" and "After" measured LAB values located in the listed tables. Tables of this data are provided at 10 Megalux hour exposure intervals, so one can track the changes as the exposure dose accumulates. Of course, a basic knowledge of the CIELAB color model is needed to understand this data, but I've always believed that with a little effort, photographers and printmakers can come up to speed on what changes in L*, a*, and b* mean to them visually. Hence, I include the measured LAB data for all tested colors including media white point and maximum printed black value in the reports. Magnitude and direction of color change, plus each system's color strengths and weaknesses can be deduced by looking at these results.
Whether OBA burnout is of consequence depends on your tolerance for fade and discoloration, and that tolerance undoubtedly changes depending on the image content and on the circumstances. I don't particularly care about photos discoloring when they are stuck with magnets on my refrigerator, but I do care when I've spent serious money on a fine art print or believe the photo in question has significant historic value! Moreover, if initial highlight color and tone weren't important to discriminating printmakers and print buyers, then paper manufacturers wouldn't bother adding OBAs in the paper at all, and we wouldn't be obsessing over UV-included or UV-excluded spectral measurements or insisting on optical brightener compensation in our ICC profiling applications. Nor would we worry about the particular whiteness of the overmat harmonizing with the media highlights when we frame our prints or concern ourselves with the light transmission properties of the glazing materials. Thus, the rationale that OBA burnout merely reverts the paper to a more "natural" media white point overlooks the subtle color qualities that many strive for in their initial print quality, and it also overlooks the fact that OBA burnout will not necessarily be uniform from one corner of the print to the others. This non-uniform burnout is more likely when induced by gas fading, but non uniform OBA burnout can also occur by light fading because many prints are not illuminated very uniformly in their long term display areas. I have a print by Yosuf Karsh where the "archival mat" board it's dry mounted to (and signed so not possible to replace) exhibits subtle light induced yellowing that is more pronounced at the bottom than at the top of the print due to the way the natural daylight struck the print on display over a period of about twenty years. Ironically, it's an OBA-free mat board, but clearly has some other unwanted ingredients that discolored with light exposure over time.
In case it appears I"m OBA bashing here, I do want to stress that I'm not one who advocates you should use only OBA-free papers. Some OBA-containing papers perform admirably in my tests, and some OBA-free papers exhibit whitepoint bleaching that is comparable in magnitude to OBA burnout (but generally moving "cooler and brighter" rather than towards yellow). Thus, whether we are talking about OBA-containing or OBA-free media, one has to test the printer/ink/media combination specifically in order to determine the system performance.
cheers,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com (http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com)
-
Matthew:
Having worked in China for several years handling cultural exchanges and press & publications affairs, I have some sense of the conditions awaiting your 100 gifts. I guarantee that, despite a rough passage, they will be received with honor and end up on at least 99 walls. Many Americans, after an effusive thanks for that farewell banquet and generous hospitality, never follow up with any contact, let alone a smashing EEF 8.5 x 10 photo.
Cost and shipping convenience are factors: you might try something like Ultra Clear Sealable bags from lightimpressionsdirect.com, with same size Cardstock Paper Inserts, along with a good stiff mailing envelope. That should look very nice without breaking the bank. They're not going to museums, and recipients who wish can have them framed according to individual taste and at minimal expense. They'll be glad to get them and it will be worth the trouble.
BTW I've had unacceptable backorder delays from Light Impressions recently, so you should discuss the items' suitability and availability on the phone first with more than one supplier.
Lynn
-
Thanks Lynn,
Very good suggestions.
I'm curious about your work in China. Please PM me.
Matthew
-
At the risk of being off topic, reading this thread brought to mind a somewhat relevant incident from the past.
My wife, who has a good eye for color, made the unflattering comment that some prints I was making looked as if they were already a hundred years old. She said this because the paper I used was "so yellow looking". The paper was in fact from a sample pack of a 100% cotton fine art paper that contains no OBAs. I commented that this is a very good paper, and though it may look old and yellow, it'll look exactly like this forever.
Personally, I think printing an image that needs bright whites and wide dynamic range on a warm fine art paper so it can look consistently less than optimal for the next 150 years isn’t a very good idea. I’d love to have the longevity of fine art cotton rag paper in something that looks like Epson’s Exhibition Fiber, but it just doesn’t exist. So what is one to do? My own answer is that the first priority has to be realizing the maximum potential of the image in the print. My second priority is making prints that last as long as possible without detracting from the images, given current technology. I've read (I think in a Kodak white paper) that without direct comparison to an unfaded reference, it takes something like a 20% - 30% change before a person who is familiar with the original can detect a change. Assuming the ability of a print owner to detect a change is what matters, and given that no print owner will have an unfaded reference or be taking spectrophotometer measurements over the years for comparison, many high quality OBA containing papers can hang framed on an interior wall for a very long time without any detectable change.
I'm not trying to champion OBAs or any particular paper, but it's easy to get caught up in the numbers and print images on inappropriate papers because of them when it's not truly necessary.
-
Personally, I think printing an image that needs bright whites and wide dynamic range on a warm fine art paper so it can look consistently less than optimal for the next 150 years isn’t a very good idea. I’d love to have the longevity of fine art cotton rag paper in something that looks like Epson’s Exhibition Fiber, but it just doesn’t exist. So what is one to do? My own answer is that the first priority has to be realizing the maximum potential of the image in the print. My second priority is making prints that last as long as possible without detracting from the images, given current technology. I've read (I think in a Kodak white paper) that without direct comparison to an unfaded reference, it takes something like a 20% - 30% change before a person who is familiar with the original can detect a change. Assuming the ability of a print owner to detect a change is what matters, and given that no print owner will have an unfaded reference or be taking spectrophotometer measurements over the years for comparison, many high quality OBA containing papers can hang framed on an interior wall for a very long time without any detectable change.
I'm not trying to champion OBAs or any particular paper, but it's easy to get caught up in the numbers and print images on inappropriate papers because of them when it's not truly necessary.
This is an opinion I can agree with. Testing properties of papers: fading, staining, discoloration, remains important however. There are grades of whiteners and optical whiteners and the methods to apply them that differ. The paper base can be bad or excellent. The papers have the same whiteness to the eye but show very different results in practice. Tests can reduce that risk. Epson's Exhibition Fiber paper isn't the worst example in its category.
I wouldn't buy Kodak white papers, not literal, not figurative. I think it refers to the image itself not the paper color. Your wife probably would notice a paper white shift like that instantly. If you insist on a bright white paper to start with why not ask for one that keeps that whiteness? Framing it will ask for UV transmitting glass, acrylic, otherwise the OBA wouldn't act anyway. There are some papers though not Bright White (blueish) that have a high reflectance without the use of OBAs. New and better qualities will appear, with and without OBA.
met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst Dinkla
Try: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/ (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/)
-
... If you insist on a bright white paper to start with why not ask for one that keeps that whiteness?
I didn’t mean to imply that we should not pick the longest lasting paper we can, provided it has the required whiteness, surface, and sheen required, or that we should not pay attention to paper tests. The issue is that within reason I don’t want longevity tests to trump the importance of maximizing the potential of an image, even if that maximum potential will have a more finite lifetime as a result. I say “within reason” because no one wants to print on a paper that will change before their eyes. So the tests are definitely needed, along with some common sense, in order to pick a paper that will make the image look the way it needs to look while maximizing print life within that constraint.
The Kodak white paper may well be relative to the image and not paper white, but I think the general concept that a person is far less able to detect a change without direct comparison to an unchanged reference is a valid one, especially when the changes take place slowly over many years.
One final anecdote… I’ve had people and decorators interested in prints come for second or third looks bringing cloth swatches, carpet samples, and even bird feathers with them to see whether the print “will work” in their rooms. That’s fine, but I’d be willing to bet the prints will last no longer than their couch, drapes, or carpeting. I’m not sure about the bird. The point of course is that the vast majority of prints will succumb to other forces long before they show any changes in the paper. I can’t hazard a guess as to how many of today’s prints will be cherished by someone’s descendants a century from now, but I’d guess the number will be very few.
-
If someone buys a print from me (usually prints 13x19 or larger) I cut a piece of foam core at least 2" per side wider than the print, using photo corners to hold the print to the foam core, then seal it in a clear poly bag. This does two things, first, it helps provides enough protection to get the print to its destination with out damage, second, it still can be displayed until it gets to the framer. The cost of doing this is minimal, and the person buying the print really appreciates it.
-
Hi all, OP here.
Thanks for all. I'm taking some Exhibition Fiber in sleeves and the rest in a combination of Premium Luster and Semi-Gloss. The Semi-Gloss is ok, not great, but tough.
Off to China!
-
I've read (I think in a Kodak white paper) that without direct comparison to an unfaded reference, it takes something like a 20% - 30% change before a person who is familiar with the original can detect a change. Assuming the ability of a print owner to detect a change is what matters, and given that no print owner will have an unfaded reference or be taking spectrophotometer measurements over the years for comparison, many high quality OBA containing papers can hang framed on an interior wall for a very long time without any detectable change.
I don't want to drag this off topic either, but the well known Kodak studies on consumer tolerances for objectionable fade don't really give us a good reference for image reproduction quality in more discerning applications like fine art prints. The kodak study was about consumer tolerances for easily noticeable and objectionable fading of photos in the consumer photo finishing market. The study thus used chromogenic color print technology which can fade quite differently in appearance compared to many inkjet systems, and it sought to determine levels of fade that would likely cause the typical consumer to actually object to overall print quality. This is a far different market than the market where my fellow printmakers are discussing the nuances of EEF paper texture and color compared to other expensive papers! The Kodak study derived the 30% density loss figure largely from mid point density areas in the prints (e.g., 1.0 density patches fading to about 0.7, etc) that could trigger typical consumer objections in overall image quality. This 30% density loss figure of merit is about balanced fade. Imbalanced fading in the color channels is less forgiving, and was found to be about 10-15% to most consumers. I don't disagree with those findings at all, but for fine art applications the tolerance values will drop much lower than that. We need to put it in proper context when dealing with high quality image reproduction versus "good enough to serve some purpose" print reproduction quality.
If you want to visualize a 30-35% "faded" but still balanced color appearance, take a look at newspaper print reproduction quality and compare to high quality glossy magazine image reproduction. Just look at representative output which strives for decent color balance. Newsprint white-to-black dynamic range is a very good example of that 30-35% Kodak cited density loss compared to reproduction densities in high-end book and magazine reproductions. While newsprint does indeed serve it's intended purpose and the newsprint buyer isn't complaining about image quality, does it really take a side by side comparison to recognize the significant image quality improvements afforded by 30% more printable density range? If you now remove richer more colorful prints from view, you may even start to become more appreciative of low cost plain paper print quality. However, to say that a 30% density change in image reproduction aim points goes essentially unnoticed without a dual-stimulus viewing condition (i.e., two prints side-by-side) is a real stretch. Hence, I don't believe the Kodak research means people can't notice density losses less than 30% without an unfaded comparison print handy, just that typical consumers won't complain about it when the print in question is an inexpensive photo finished print. And of course, some images have a wide tolerance for reproduction aimpoints, for example, a deep sunset being reproduced as a much lighter "sunrise: picture without anyone really being able to figure out what time of day it was really taken. Other images are far less forgiving. Ask any B&W printmaker how important the absolute image hue throughout the tonal range is to his/her artwork.
Which brings us now back on topic to EEF. Much of the appeal of EEF is indeed it's initial media white point. In LAB numbers, it has a b* value of about -5 (measured with UV-included spectral measurements on a Gretag Spectrolino). Increasingly negative b* values produce increasingly "bluish white" media white points and increasingly positive b* values appear increasingly "yellowish white" under D50 lighting. The typical media white a* values also come into play, but let's save that discussion for another day. Yellowishness versus buishness resides mainly with the b* value. Photographers are responding favorably to EEF's OBA-induced "bluish white" paper color which incidentally depends on UV content in the illumination, so as others have noted, if you want the viewer to see the appeal of the EEF bright white color, you can't use conservation framing that blocks the UV.
Papers without any OBA can achieve b*=0, but +2 to + 4 is very common. The super bright white OBA loaded papers will get to about -9 or -10 b* (again, UV included data). A change of 1.0 unit on the b* scale is considered my most color geeks to be a "just noticeable" difference in color. Looking at the measured values of many inkjet papers, the full b* range for commonly encountered media white points covers a range of approximately 10 b* increments. To put this into more perspective, the I* metric (also based on CIELAB colorimetry) that I use in my tests for color and tonal accuracy evaluations would rate an error in desired media white point of 1 b* unit (instrumental error removed) at 90% color accuracy, a 5b* change at 50% color accuracy, and a 10b* change at 0% color accuracy. In other words, if you took a brand new warm white paper and compared it to a brand new very cool white paper, the discrepancy could be about 10b* units, and the I* metric would say there was little or no retained color accuracy if you desired the cool white paper but ended up with the warm paper or vice versa. Many people are happy to use all of these media whitepoints interchangeably for their images, so one could successfully argue that for some end-users none of this media white point discussion matters one wit. Yet the profiling process usually adjusts the image colors relative to the chosen whitepoint, and many people like Dean's wife do easily perceive the impact that media white point can have not only on paper appearance but well into the overall image appearance as well. Simply put, media whitepoint color constancy (appearance under different illunminant conditions) and retention of color accuracy over time are both important factors to consider for discerning buyers.
In my own work, I try to balance all of these factors including color constancy, long term stability, and appropriate illumination and framing choices. I do use both OBA and OBA- free papers, but I hold my selections to a tighter initial whitepoint range from about -3 to + 2 b* values for color printing, and up to +4 b* value for certain warm toned B&W images. I consider the UV included/UV excluded color difference for each paper (which indicates potential problems with UV blocking conservation framing choices), and I evaluate how the initial whitepoint holds up in lightfade tests. If the OBA performance doesn't do well in light fade testing, it has a high probability of being gas fade sensitive as well, Gas-induced OBA burnout can occur far more rapidly and non uniformly than light induced OBA burnout. There are no clearcut recommendations when others ask about paper preferences or alternative, but some papers do maintain their initial qualities much better than others, and I would add scuff resistance to the pile of important factors to consider. Discriminating printmakers simply need to be aware of the subtle and not so subtle aspects of OBA use in fine art inkjet papers and then make an informed choice. The best way to evaluate all of these OBA dependent issues is with instrumentation and knowledge of what the CIELAB values mean to visual appearance. That's why I include the media white and max black values measured both UV included and UV excluded on the description page of each AaI&A test report. Its a real pain to gather that data, but it's important information for discerning printmakers.
cheers,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com (http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com)
-
Breaking protocol here by not quoting, but I just wanted to thank Mark for his post.
I'm a fan of EEF but now I begin to see why I like it and understand the trade offs with it. I still plan to continue to use it as my first choice, even if it is not perfect given OBA content, because the framed prints I've made from it (museum glass, etc) simply look better than the other papers I have tried up to this point with my images. That being said, I recently have begun printing on my long awaited Canson Baryta paper and while it too has OBA content, it is a touch warmer, not quite as "bright", and has some of the most gorgeous three-quarter tone to upper mid tone range I've seen, and I definitely can see it being my alternate paper choice for images that don't benefit from the "brightness" of the EEF. I still haven't found a non OBA paper that thrills me although a single sample of Canson Platine Fiber Rag (I believe) looked pretty good.
-m
-
The point of course is that the vast majority of prints will succumb to other forces long before they show any changes in the paper. I can’t hazard a guess as to how many of today’s prints will be cherished by someone’s descendants a century from now, but I’d guess the number will be very few.
I'm pretty much in agreement in your well stated posts. The concept in your statement is a point which I make regularly. I've been ask why I don't print on a Canon printer whose prints have greater longevity than the Epson ... my normal reply is they all last a very long time, followed by a comment similar to this one.
I love photography and I love making great images, but I also know I'm no Ansel Adams or Yosef Karsh. I also believe that if preserving a modern digital photograph for centuries is really that important, doing so with a print isn't the way to go about it.
-
I love photography and I love making great images, but I also know I'm no Ansel Adams or Yosef Karsh. I also believe that if preserving a modern digital photograph for centuries is really that important, doing so with a print isn't the way to go about it.
I'm sure many people share your point of view. However, the history of photography informs us that the print is probably the best way to preserve a photographic image. Camera originals, whether they be traditional film or digital, are not easily "human readable" (color slides being the exception) and if people can't hold them up and view them directly, there is a much higher likelihood the object (film negative, or digital file) will be discarded rather than taking the time to first decipher what it means by printing optically, scanning, or worse yet..having to migrate from an old computer format to a new one using obsolete and difficult-to-find computer hardware.
BTW, you don't have to be a great artist to generate historically important images or at the very least, images that will be very sentimental to your children and grandchildren. Future generations are more likely to be able to view and to hang onto a printed digital photo book of some of your favorite images than your computer's failing hard drive.
regards,
Mark
-
I'm sure many people share your point of view. However, the history of photography informs us that the print is probably the best way to preserve a photographic image. Camera originals, whether they be traditional film or digital, are not easily "human readable" (color slides being the exception) and if people can't hold them up and view them directly, there is a much higher likelihood the object (film negative, or digital file) will be discarded rather than taking the time to first decipher what it means by printing optically, scanning, or worse yet..having to migrate from an old computer format to a new one using obsolete and difficult-to-find computer hardware.
BTW, you don't have to be a great artist to generate historically important images or at the very least, images that will be very sentimental to your children and grandchildren. Future generations are more likely to be able to view and to hang onto a printed digital photo book of some of your favorite images than your computer's failing hard drive.
regards,
Mark
Count me as one of them. Let's face the facts, photography is a fairly new medium and we can actually make better prints today than we could 100 years ago. We haven't had photographs for 200 years, I believe the first was a french man. We can view digital files very easy today and as screens get thinner (think e-readers) viewing photographs will look and feel just like the "real" thing.
I agree that you don't need to be a great artist or even be an artist or photographer to generate a historically important image, who knows how long it's historically important, that's another question. We have amateur photos and videos from Kennedy assassination, plane on the Hudson, WTC terrorist attacks, Oklahoma bombings etc. obviously they are what they are, nobody stood there for 10 hours preparing for the shot.
Maybe someday we will have an ssd that is "archival". I'm assuming our prints will look better in 10 years than they do now and probably they will look better in 100 years than in 10 more years. However, I'd imagine at some point the human eye will be the weak link. I still believe that paper will not last forever and that we will continue to be able to print. The problem is, that unless you are world famous, your children, grand children and great grand children will probably hang their own images on their walls. I do have some of my father's photographs hung, especially from WWII but not many from my grand-father. Let's not forget that we are taking more photographs than ever before and I personally only print a rare few that IMHO are worth printing. I hope future generations like them, if not they can print their own!
-
Let's not forget that we are taking more photographs than ever before and I personally only print a rare few that IMHO are worth printing. I hope future generations like them, if not they can print their own!
Precisely! You are editing your photos for importance in a way that neither I nor any curator in the future can do for you as well as you can do for us. And you are printing them, and this is increasing the probability that someone else will find them important and appreciate that you guided them to the subject matter that was of concern to you and your generation. This is really what photography is all about. Recording a "decisive moment" as Henri Cartier-Bresson liked to describe it. Yes, I love the fine art print made by an artist with real genius, but truth be told, give me an amateur's photograph with a sentiment, a point of view, a family relevance any day of week and I appreciate it's humble but enduring value. That's what I really love about photography. And the print format is a great way to deliver it!
cheers,
Mark
-
I'm sure many people share your point of view. However, the history of photography informs us that the print is probably the best way to preserve a photographic image. Camera originals, whether they be traditional film or digital, are not easily "human readable" (color slides being the exception) and if people can't hold them up and view them directly, there is a much higher likelihood the object (film negative, or digital file) will be discarded rather than taking the time to first decipher what it means by printing optically, scanning, or worse yet..having to migrate from an old computer format to a new one using obsolete and difficult-to-find computer hardware.
BTW, you don't have to be a great artist to generate historically important images or at the very least, images that will be very sentimental to your children and grandchildren. Future generations are more likely to be able to view and to hang onto a printed digital photo book of some of your favorite images than your computer's failing hard drive.
regards,
Mark
Some good points. However, I take exception to an assumption that the history of photography and image preservation is an indication of the future. The fate of silver halide products as compared to digital is like comparing apples to oranges, and I personally believe that efforts to preserve the original data is the best way to insure historically significant images are available in the future, even though there might be the challenge of conversion of that data in the future for images whose importance merit preserving. I also do not automatically assume the current technology will be superseded and abandoned when it comes to standard image file formats - while new formats and technology's may come along that doesn't mean the computers of tomorrow won't still easily read the standard formats of today. (one good reason the camera makers, computer makers, and software companies should get together and really drive a common capture format such as DNG to be a standard). I see no valid comparison of yesterdays technology to the present and future when it comes to longevity of the original data.
As far as the last paragraph, who knows what value will be placed on my images in the future. Since my background is portrait photography, certainly some sentimental value may remain for many, but then that sentimental value will have little to do with whether the image has faded or yellowed a little bit, and those prints have little likelihood of physically surviving past the point in time they would fade anyway. As far as significant works that might be collected, there aren't many photographers who are in that elite group, I'm not one. When I sell a scenic to someone I certainly don't imply the thing is going to last 100's of years. I'm pretty confident it will look fine for many many years.
If a museum or serious collector ever comes my way, then yes, I may be a little more concerned, and perhaps produce something a little different than what I print to decorate the lobby in a doctors office.
But that's just my 2 cents worth ... we all have our opinions and yours is certainly well founded in your background and expertise. Guess we each have to decide how we feel about this on an individual basis.
-
... Since my background is portrait photography, certainly some sentimental value may remain for many, but then that sentimental value will have little to do with whether the image has faded or yellowed a little bit, and those prints have little likelihood of physically surviving past the point in time they would fade anyway.
I sometimes do restoration and reproduction work on antique photographs. These are usually photographs of someone's ancestor, and often from the late 1800 or early 1900s. They're always yellowed and have some significant damage. Interestingly enough, people want the damage (scratches, creases, stains) fixed, but they always want the "fixed" reproduction to retain the same old yellowed color as the original. In other words, they want the finished piece to look exactly like the original would if it had not been creased, torn or otherwise physically damaged. I'm not trying to say that paper yellowing is desirable, but I've always thought this was an interesting aspect of what people seem to want.
-
[...] and given that no print owner will have an unfaded reference [...], many high quality OBA containing papers can hang framed on an interior wall for a very long time without any detectable change.
In addition to all that Mark and the others said, I'll have another objection : if any newer (or whiter, OTOH) print is hanged within sight of the first print, that will make a reference.
Interestingly enough, people want the damage (scratches, creases, stains) fixed, but they always want the "fixed" reproduction to retain the same old yellowed color as the original.
For B&W, certainly ; we're used to see some toning, sometimes pushed to some sepia extremes, and moreover that kind of yellow tone does indeed says "this is an old photograph".
However, considering any color print more than 15 years old with the usual ugly color shifts, I'd rather think that the majority would ask to have the colors back in the ballpark.
But anyway, we're right in the "consumer market" criteria here, where the main problem is image readability, not conservation.
I'm not shocked by discolored family snapshots as long as they're readable, but I fully expect the paintings of my grand-grandmother, or the watercolors of my mother, to keep their tone and hues intact. Not that they have a great financial value of course, but if they fade, displaying them becomes a moot point.
So, don't underestimate the will of your grandchildren to keep a remembering of you in a decent state on their walls.
-
For B&W, certainly ; we're used to see some toning, sometimes pushed to some sepia extremes, and moreover that kind of yellow tone does indeed says "this is an old photograph".
Excellent point. I almost always add warm tone to my B&W prints, so optical brighteners would seem to be pointless. On a slightly warm paper, such as Gold Fibre Silk, the results are quite pleasing.
Rob
-
I sometimes do restoration and reproduction work on antique photographs. These are usually photographs of someone's ancestor, and often from the late 1800 or early 1900s. They're always yellowed and have some significant damage. Interestingly enough, people want the damage (scratches, creases, stains) fixed, but they always want the "fixed" reproduction to retain the same old yellowed color as the original. In other words, they want the finished piece to look exactly like the original would if it had not been creased, torn or otherwise physically damaged. I'm not trying to say that paper yellowing is desirable, but I've always thought this was an interesting aspect of what people seem to want.
Think of it as being the same as an antique piece of furniture, people love the distressed marks on an old piece of furniture and the tarnished brass hardware, repairing it sometimes can devalue it significantly. The same for cars unless a full restoration is done with matching numbers and everything as it came from the factory the car will be worth less.
As Wayne has stated, most of us are not in the realm of Ansel and who knows how well he'll be known in 10,000 years. Time keeps on moving and to worry about a print lasting 100-200-300 or maybe 1000 years is silly. Enjoy the prints today and don't worry about what happens when you are no longer here.
"Precisely! You are editing your photos for importance in a way that neither I nor any curator in the future can do for you as well as you can do for us."
I'm not that arrogant to believe that statement! I believe the digital images will be readable far into the future and I believe photo editing software will get better and easier as will printers. Someday we will be able to scan a print and print it exactly as the original.
-
Think of it as being the same as an antique piece of furniture, people love the distressed marks on an old piece of furniture and the tarnished brass hardware, repairing it sometimes can devalue it significantly. The same for cars unless a full restoration is done with matching numbers and everything as it came from the factory the car will be worth less.
As Wayne has stated, most of us are not in the realm of Ansel and who knows how well he'll be known in 10,000 years. Time keeps on moving and to worry about a print lasting 100-200-300 or maybe 1000 years is silly. Enjoy the prints today and don't worry about what happens when you are no longer here.
"Precisely! You are editing your photos for importance in a way that neither I nor any curator in the future can do for you as well as you can do for us."
I'm not that arrogant to believe that statement! I believe the digital images will be readable far into the future and I believe photo editing software will get better and easier as will printers. Someday we will be able to scan a print and print it exactly as the original.
Image fading that made headlines was the Ektacolor 1960-70's affair. No important historic images and no fine art photography but plain images of new borns, marriages, graduates, that bleached and cracked to non existence within ten years and the marriage and portrait photographers had no answer to the customer complaints and got no compensation from Kodak. Even the color negatives were affected. No desktop scanners then to archive the prints in another way. For many familes a lost period in their albums. In my opinion that is more a disaster than the loss of an Adams print. The stupid thing was that before and after Kodak had better processes. At the same time other manufacturers had better processes. If someone asks me what chromogene process to use elsewhere I advice them to get Fuji Crystal Archive at least. For any purpose including holiday pics. The price difference can not be a reason to avoid the better choice. Very often it is only ignorance that delivers a second rate product. It isn't about the importance of the photographer, printer ... today or tomorrow ... it is about what your customer gets when you print his images or your images. If we discussed centuries of print life this all may be anal but in reality inkjet printing right now varies between 1 year and 200 years for fading properties, white paper shifts included. In fact we are lucky with inkjet printing that Wilhelm shifted his attention so fast from analogue to digital. Otherwise we could have done worse in naivety.
met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst Dinkla
Try: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/ (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/)
-
I believe the digital images will be readable far into the future and I believe photo editing software will get better and easier as will printers.
Tools (software, printers...) are one thing, but human will and disponibility is another.
As long as editing will be a human choice, it will still be tedious to edit 50.000 pictures in search of a few golden nuggets, so you may do your grandchildrens a favor by storing well-made prints of your few top images besides the HD containing your LR library and raw files.
-
QUOTE (Gemmtech @ Mar 4 2010, 06:56 PM) (http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/style_images/1/post_snapback.gif) (http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?act=findpost&pid=350881)I believe the digital images will be readable far into the future and I believe photo editing software will get better and easier as will printers.
Yes, but when I print, I am not trying to faithfully recreate the digital file on paper, I tweak white balance, contrast, brightness, make local adustments to convey the effect I want. At that point the digital file with parametric adjustments saved with it or pixel adjustments saved in or with it at that point is specific to the intended output device. So I do have an interest in preserving the actual print (to the extent I think anyone in the future will actually care about the work I produced).
-
Yes, but when I print, I am not trying to faithfully recreate the digital file on paper, I tweak white balance, contrast, brightness, make local adustments to convey the effect I want. At that point the digital file with parametric adjustments saved with it or pixel adjustments saved in or with it at that point is specific to the intended output device. So I do have an interest in preserving the actual print (to the extent I think anyone in the future will actually care about the work I produced).
But here again it seems you are assuming that for some reason we will decide in the future that things need to be printed differently .. that we will throw away and make obsolete current technologies such as color management and device profiles so that your tweaked image data printed won't look good. True we may not need them, but probably because they become more automated and built in rather than suddenly decide that this value of red now represents a different color of red than it does today.
I have an interest in the print itself lasting for a very long time as well, but not to the extreme (century or two) ... I just feel the ability to protect the physical print for that long is a near impossibility unless it has so much value now it's very existence is already extremely important. My main interest is that the print looks as great as possible for the next decade so, rather than compromise how it looks in the present so it may look closer to the same a century from now when it has little chance of surviving that long anyway.
(I guess I've said this too many time in this thread ...sorry)
-
I have an interest in the print itself lasting for a very long time as well, but not to the extreme (century or two) ... I just feel the ability to protect the physical print for that long is a near impossibility unless it has so much value now it's very existence is already extremely important. My main interest is that the print looks as great as possible for the next decade so, rather than compromise how it looks in the present so it may look closer to the same a century from now when it has little chance of surviving that long anyway.
Wayne, take a look at the digital scan of an original ambrotype image of the Hyde House on the "about us" page" of my website.
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com/about.html (http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com/about.html)
This vintage ambrotype is on loan to me from a 6th generation member of the Hyde family. Reverend Alvan Hyde built the home that now doubles as my family residence and as the facility for Aardenburg Imaging & Archives in 1792. It was added on to in 1837 when it became a private school for boys (Franklin D. Roosevelt's father attended school here), and the ambrotype I reproduced on my webpage is the earliest known photograph of the house. Dating to 1857 the photographer is unknown, but the original image has survived 143 years and is still going strong! The home has a very rich history and is on now the National Historic register, but no Hyde family member in the 1860's, 70's or even into the 1900's could have envisioned this unique provenance. The photo began life more or less as a "snapshot" of interest probably only to the Hyde family. No one took the time to record the photographer's name, yet the Hyde family managed to hang onto this "positive print" generation after generation. They couldn't have easily done so if the process was only able to last a decade or two on its own. We might have some second or third generation copies, but not the vintage print with all of its aesthetics in tact. Ambrotypes are actually made by the wet collodion process on glass that when underexposed and backed with a black backing become a positive "print". The gutta percha case (earliest thermoplastic resin comprised of shellac and sawdust) has suffered some physical damage, but the image itself is in outstanding condition. By today's standards it looks dark and muddy, but the process was not capable of producing clean highlights, and in fact, this image is in pristine condition and looks essentially like the day it was made. Image permanence matters!
My point is simply that human readable prints with inherent chemical and physical stability have a proven track record which digital images still lack. And they establish an aesthetic of the times that later copies aren't always able to convey. Stable prints also give future generations the time to sort out what and who was important. The more stable the process, the better the odds to span a generation or two in decent shape... unattended for extended periods of time. IMHO, this is a key weakness of digital images. It's not that digital files can't theoretically survive well into the future. It's that they need active maintenance to do, and active ongoing maintenance leaves little room for human error.
-
Wayne, take a look at the digital scan of an original ambrotype image of the Hyde House on the "about us" page" of my website.
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com/about.html (http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com/about.html)
This vintage ambrotype is on loan to me from a 6th generation member of the Hyde family. Reverend Alvan Hyde built the home that now doubles as my family residence and as the facility for Aardenburg Imaging & Archives in 1792. It was added on to in 1837 when it became a private school for boys (Franklin D. Roosevelt's father attended school here), and the ambrotype I reproduced on my webpage is the earliest known photograph of the house. Dating to 1857 the photographer is unknown, but the original image has survived 143 years and is still going strong! The home has a very rich history and is on now the National Historic register, but no Hyde family member in the 1860's, 70's or even into the 1900's could have envisioned this unique provenance. The photo began life more or less as a "snapshot" of interest probably only to the Hyde family. No one took the time to record the photographer's name, yet the Hyde family managed to hang onto this "positive print" generation after generation. They couldn't have easily done so if the process was only able to last a decade or two on its own. We might have some second or third generation copies, but not the vintage print with all of its aesthetics in tact. Ambrotypes are actually made by the wet collodion process on glass that when underexposed and backed with a black backing become a positive "print". The gutta percha case (earliest thermoplastic resin comprised of shellac and sawdust) has suffered some physical damage, but the image itself is in outstanding condition. By today's standards it looks dark and muddy, but the process was not capable of producing clean highlights, and in fact, this image is in pristine condition and looks essentially like the day it was made. Image permanence matters!
My point is simply that human readable prints with inherent chemical and physical stability have a proven track record which digital images still lack. And they establish an aesthetic of the times that later copies aren't always able to convey. Stable prints also give future generations the time to sort out what and who was important. The more stable the process, the better the odds to span a generation or two in decent shape... unattended for extended periods of time. IMHO, this is a key weakness of digital images. It's not that digital files can't theoretically survive well into the future. It's that they need active maintenance to do, and active ongoing maintenance leaves little room for human error.
I understand your point, but I still don't agree. I don't have a problem with your perspective although I do believe you are far more emotionally attached to it than most.
Pointing out a single image from that long ago which has survived isn't a testament to longevity of the medium, only the potential longevity of the medium. The image has value because it survived, but in fact had it not, it would not be missed. There are untold images (probably hundreds of billions) of images made over the last 150 years that have long since ceased to exist for a lot of reasons. To assume that we won't be able to preserve digital data and reproduce an image so we're better off figuring out how to preserve a print is just that, an assumption. But the inkjet prints we make will still fall victim to all of the same challenges that they have always faced, some will be just fine ... especially those that become important enough to be taken care of, but most will end up like they have in the past ... gone. What history has proven to us is the physical print is pretty fragile and even ones of great value have been lost despite being cared for very carefully through things like fires, war, floods, earthquakes, etc.
I think each person has to decide this for themselves.
-
Some people need to study history and geological time graphs. Do you realize that 143 years is NOTHING, it wont change a straight line on a time-line graph of the earth. How long do you want a print to survive? And for what purpose? "Everything about this house
Was born to grow and die" Great lyrics, except maybe it should be earth instead of house! Unfortunately there's no way to make a print today last for 10000 years. As time goes by more and more photographs will be taken making the photographs of today irrelevant including AA. da Vinci, Rembrant, Renoir, van Gogh, Monet, An-He etc. they will at some point become irrelevant, it's just a matter of time and we can reproduce their wonderful works of art and make them so good that they can fool a lot of experts. What's the point? Read what Wayne has written, you are emotionally attached to something that will mean nothing in 143 years not to speak of 10143 years. This entire fascination with "archival" prints and paintings etc. is so bizarre, it just doesn't make any sense. Enjoy what you like today, tomorrow somebody might enjoy the same, chances are they wont.
Nothing on earth has been preserved to it's original state, over time everything degrades (I guess not gold). The Great Pyramids do not look the same as when they were built and neither does the Parthenon and eventually they will cease to exist; are they "archival"? There will come a day when they are gone and more than likely forgotten, just like our prints.
-
This entire fascination with "archival" prints and paintings etc. is so bizarre, it just doesn't make any sense. Enjoy what you like today, tomorrow somebody might enjoy the same, chances are they wont.
Hi Wayne and Gemmtech. I stand corrected.
kind regards,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com (http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com)
-
Hi Wayne and Gemmtech. I stand corrected.
kind regards,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com (http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com)
Both Wayne and I understand completely what you are saying and we get it, the emotional part of wanting to preserve a print. What happens after we die? Then our "Works of Art" are entrusted, bequeathed etc. to more than likely a member of our family. Then what? Maybe as in van Gogh's case our mothers or brothers or other family members box them up, store them somewhere, burn them or throw them in the trash (Yes, a lot of van Gogh's work were thrown in the trash).
So the question will remain, how long do you want a print to last? And who will be the custodian of it in the years to come? Who will care enough to want to save it and take it from house to house? As Wayne has stated many times something will probably happen to the print before it even fades, maybe a woman thinks it's a Picasso ("The Actor" at the MET) and falls into it
I believe most of us here store prints and files the same? I have a folder with all my print versions which I believe are the best of the best so that nobody has to look at 1,000,000 images in order to find the "good" ones. And I do keep my favorite prints in dark storage in sleeves in drawers laying flat, but unless I become famous (or infamous ) my children will probably be the only people to care as I did for my parent's prints.
I think it's nice to want to preserve photographs, I'm just not sure how practical it is to accomplish that task.
For the record, I love vintage photographs and have quite a few from my parents / family members. I have scanned and stored all of my favorites and have even printed some of them to make them look as the original, because I wanted each of my siblings to have one.
-
I really like Epson's Exhibition Fiber, great colors, great blacks, great range, etc. However it scratches extremely easy.
I'm getting ready to print out a large number of prints for gifts to people I have photographed in China.
I think that for many of them, once I give them the print, it may not be as well cared for as the paper demands.
I could use something like Premium Luster, but it doesnt have the same qualities or weight.
Can anyone recommend a good alternative to the Exhibition Fiber that still has the weight and feel of a traditional photographic print,
but with a more robust surface that is not as susceptible to scratching (and finger prints for that matter.)
Many thanks.
Matthew
Matthew:
I'm a little late, but if weight is important, you might consider:
PremierPhoto Premium Photo Luster Heavyweight - 12 mil -
Available at Atlex. I find the paper equal to Epson and it's 12 mil vs 10.4 for Epson semigloss