Luminous Landscape Forum

Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Printing: Printers, Papers and Inks => Topic started by: chez on December 19, 2010, 08:02:02 pm

Title: Epson Exhibition Fiber clone
Post by: chez on December 19, 2010, 08:02:02 pm
I read somewhere on this form about another version of the EEF that is distributed by another source. Can someone let me who else makes this paper and what the name of this paper is.

thanks  harry
Title: Re: Epson Exhibition Fiber clone
Post by: hsmeets on December 20, 2010, 04:03:56 am
I read somewhere on this form about another version of the EEF that is distributed by another source. Can someone let me who else makes this paper and what the name of this paper is.

thanks  harry

I read a remarks by Keith Cooper / Northlight Images that he found the EFF to be surprisingly similar to Innova's IFA49. It could be more likely that the Epson EFF is the clone and not the other way around.
Title: Re: Epson Exhibition Fiber clone
Post by: neile on December 20, 2010, 10:28:55 am
I specifically asked about this through a friend who has close contacts at Epson, and they insist that while there are plenty of rumours out there, EFF is different than the Innova.

Neil
Title: Re: Epson Exhibition Fiber clone
Post by: Aristoc on December 20, 2010, 02:21:25 pm
If you do find such a thing it is prob. going to cost the same, if that is what you're looking for a clone.
Title: Re: Epson Exhibition Fiber clone
Post by: keith_cooper on December 20, 2010, 02:50:37 pm
There are slight differences in the surface finish between the Innova and Epson, which I'm rather glad of, since the Epson TPP (ExFib in the US) is the only paper so far to exhibit any surface marking in our 8300.

The paper companies are very coy about admitting who they deal with (they may not even be allowed to) but from looking at the two papers together I find the IFA 49 very close (but not the same).

After talking with a different paper supplier, selling their own branded papers, I found out a lot more about this. Unfortunately the info was strictly for my own use in producing some profiles for them, so I can't freely discuss it, other than to point out the well known fact that there are only a limited number of paper mills and a limited number of specialised coaters

Title: Re: Epson Exhibition Fiber clone
Post by: narikin on December 20, 2010, 04:41:58 pm
Its basically the same as Innova IFA49, give or take a tiny bit of tweaking.   Keith was certainly not the original one to unravel this. 

If you want to compare papers, use Ernst's Spectrum Viz:
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm

from this you can see who makes what pretty effectively,
eg:  Canson Baryta Photographique and Ilford Galerie Gold Fibre Silk. have a surprisingly similar plot  ;)

Title: Re: Epson Exhibition Fiber clone
Post by: keith_cooper on December 20, 2010, 06:40:50 pm
 ...Keith was certainly not the original one to unravel this. 

Nope, never made any claim to that :-)

As 'paper design' and printers get better, I do have to admit finding it more and more difficult in saying that any one combination is superior to another, without just saying that it's because I like the look of X+Y better than A+B for a particular image of mine...

Title: Re: Epson Exhibition Fiber clone
Post by: deanwork on December 20, 2010, 11:53:53 pm
Innova was the first by at least a couple of years to produce this paper.  After Crane produced the Silver Rag, Innova was the first to make a brighter white fiber gloss media, then followed by Ilford, then everyone else. We were using the Innova US Gloss and the Semi-Gloss, that I like better, a long time before Epson got into those products.

The differences between the Innova  and EEF are the weight. The EEF wasn't available in rolls for a long time because of its thickness, which as many have pointed out isn't always a good thing, depending on your printer. If they offer it in rolls now I assume it isn't as thick and difficult to flatten.

I recently bought a roll of the Moab Colorado and it looks and profiles the same as the Innova. I assume Innova makes this for a number of companies now, maybe with very subtle differences so they can claim they aren't the same. Epson used to say the same thing about the papers that Premier Art made for them, and continue to make for them too, with very subtle differences if any. Epson has always contracted out their paper production of course. Since they are such a big customer I'm sure their suppliers are sworn to keep their mouths shut about it.

j
Title: Re: Epson Exhibition Fiber clone
Post by: keith_cooper on December 21, 2010, 05:27:52 am
It seems to be a more fragile surface on the TPP/ExFib which leads to marking in our iPF8300, rather than any weight difference. I've run noticeably thicker media through it with no marking.
Title: Re: Epson Exhibition Fiber clone
Post by: Ernst Dinkla on December 21, 2010, 05:56:32 am

I recently bought a roll of the Moab Colorado and it looks and profiles the same as the Innova. I assume Innova makes this for a number of companies now, maybe with very subtle differences so they can claim they aren't the same. Epson used to say the same thing about the papers that Premier Art made for them, and continue to make for them too, with very subtle differences if any. Epson has always contracted out their paper production of course. Since they are such a big customer I'm sure their suppliers are sworn to keep their mouths shut about it.

j

Spectrum plots are quite identical between the Moab Colorado Fiber Gloss (and Satin) and Innova IFA49.

I expect to add more Epson papers to the list within the next two weeks. Someone has a sample book that I don't have and Epson didn't respond so far.

There will be Tecco papers added too.



met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst Dinkla

New: Spectral plots of +180 inkjet papers:
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm


Title: Re: Epson Exhibition Fiber clone
Post by: narikin on December 21, 2010, 07:16:07 am
Spectrum plots are quite identical between the Moab Colorado Fiber Gloss (and Satin) and Innova IFA49.

I expect to add more Epson papers to the list within the next two weeks. Someone has a sample book that I don't have and Epson didn't respond so far.
Ernst Dinkla

Thanks Ernst, I was hoping to see Epson's 'own' paper range in there sometime.
Maybe I can send you a USA sample pack if you like?

SpectrumViz and Aardenberg are two new and extremely useful resources now. we did not have either of these a year/18months ago.

with all this talk of EEF/Innova IFA49/ Moab Colorado, then you look up EEF on Aardenberg and find it has really POOR longevity.  All those FWA's going bad and ruining the images.

I am mad about it as I used EEF for a large important exhibition in 2008, at great expense, that was all very costly to frame. d'oh.  Thanks to Aardenberg and Ernst I am now wiser. But back then Epson marketed it as a premium paper for Exhibition prints, hence the name and the price!  :(
Title: Re: Epson Exhibition Fiber clone
Post by: deanwork on December 23, 2010, 05:04:33 pm
Wow, I just checked out Aardenburg and the obas are burning out rapidly on the EEF. Just don't 'exhibit' it in daylight.  I assume the same for the Moab Colorado and the Innova as well. So much for bright white fiber gloss.

At the same time I looked at the results of the Hahnemuhle Photorag Baryta and Photorag Pearl and they are holding up extremely well. The base color of the PR Baryta isn't going anywhere.

By the way the Cone Type 5 100% rag is just as good as the Silver Rag and a lot cheaper. It is producing the absolute best gloss results with the HP Z series and the black and white color is perfect and no bronzing visible..... and I love the texture, even with small things.

john
Title: Re: Epson Exhibition Fiber clone
Post by: Light Seeker on December 23, 2010, 05:29:57 pm
By the way the Cone Type 5 100% rag is just as good as the Silver Rag and a lot cheaper. It is producing the absolute best gloss results with the HP Z series and the black and white color is perfect and no bronzing visible..... and I love the texture, even with small things.

I have both EEF and Cone Type 5. I bought EEF to take my Cone Selenium prints to a cooler tone than one gets with Type 5 (i.e. variety). I found it very interesting to compare colour prints made on both (3800). One would think that EEF's bright white surface would make this paper punchier. However, in spite of it's warmer tone I found Cone Type 5 punchier than EEF. It's also a Baryta paper, so it's sharper.

Type 5 is OBA free and John's right, the texture is beautiful. I chose it over Photorag Baryta and Photorag Pearl (and EEF). It's worth a look if a slightly warmer tone would suit your work.

Terry.
Title: Re: Epson Exhibition Fiber clone
Post by: Aristoc on December 23, 2010, 07:29:22 pm
if you print black and white on EEF, Hah Photo Rag Baryta, Pearl...aren't the colours going to look different with each paper?
Title: Re: Epson Exhibition Fiber clone
Post by: neile on December 23, 2010, 09:06:24 pm
What is this "Cone Type 5"? Never heard of it!

Neil
Title: Re: Epson Exhibition Fiber clone
Post by: deanwork on December 23, 2010, 09:24:39 pm
http://shopping.netsuite.com/s.nl/c.362672/sc.13/category.28018/.f

I did a color test yesterday with the Atkinson target and the color rendition looks good, as good as Silver Rag and PR Baryta so I ordered a 44" roll. Good price in rolls and excellent for monochrome with all these printers.

john
Title: Re: Epson Exhibition Fiber clone
Post by: Light Seeker on December 23, 2010, 09:43:00 pm
if you print black and white on EEF, Hah Photo Rag Baryta, Pearl...aren't the colours going to look different with each paper?

I make black and white prints with dedicated monochrome inks and yes, each paper will interact with the inks and produce a different "tone". The choice of paper is part of the creative process for me.

Terry.
Title: Re: Epson Exhibition Fiber clone
Post by: neile on December 24, 2010, 12:35:48 am
I make black and white prints with dedicated monochrome inks and yes, each paper will interact with the inks and produce a different "tone". The choice of paper is part of the creative process for me.

Terry.

Reminds me of being in the darkroom making lith prints, where different combos of developer/dilution and paper produce different results :)

Neil
Title: Re: Epson Exhibition Fiber clone
Post by: narikin on December 24, 2010, 06:18:58 am
Type 5 is OBA free and John's right, the texture is beautiful. I chose it over Photorag Baryta and Photorag Pearl (and EEF). It's worth a look if a slightly warmer tone would suit your work.

where does it say Cone Type5 its OBA free? I can't see that on the sales page linked.
if it is, they should make more of that fact.

Yes I think the fact that Aardenberg allowed the EEF paper report out for free shows how seriously bad a result it is. I can imagine a class action lawsuit happening, as they promote it specifically for exhibiting, and its one of the worst papers you could use for that.
Title: Re: Epson Exhibition Fiber clone
Post by: Ernst Dinkla on December 24, 2010, 06:46:36 am

Yes I think the fact that Aardenberg allowed the EEF paper report out for free shows how seriously bad a result it is. I can imagine a class action lawsuit happening, as they promote it specifically for exhibiting, and its one of the worst papers you could use for that.

It isn't in the list of Digigraphie certified papers. Looks like the use of different standards by Epson.

It would be interesting to compare that list with Aardenburg's test results.


met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst Dinkla

Try: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/




Title: Re: Epson Exhibition Fiber clone
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on December 24, 2010, 07:55:13 am
It isn't in the list of Digigraphie certified papers. Looks like the use of different standards by Epson.

It would be interesting to compare that list with Aardenburg's test results.


met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst Dinkla
I do see it listed under the Euro tradename: 'Traditional Photo Paper' at:  http://www.digigraphie.com/uk/digigraphie-explained/technologies-and-materials.htm  I had not seen this website before and think it's rather silly.  Why can't any of us who use these materials be certified? 
Title: Re: Epson Exhibition Fiber clone
Post by: JohnBrew on December 24, 2010, 08:46:02 am
I know Michael was using EEF for some shows at one point. It might be helpful if he would weigh in on this subject as to how those prints are holding up today. This information about the longevity of EEF is quite worrisome for me as I recently printed several large prints with this paper for a gallery.
Title: Re: Epson Exhibition Fiber clone
Post by: deanwork on December 24, 2010, 10:06:46 am
The Cone type 5 is a natural rag paper, like Silver Rag and Photorag Baryta. It is very easy to see that it has no coolish obas.

One quick way to see if a paper has the fugitive optical brightening agents (besides witnessing it's bluish color) is to look at your print in tungsten light and then quickly shift it to daylight by taking it out the front door or whatever. You will see a fairly radical shift in the brightness of the print as the brighteners flouresce with exposure to the uv light in daylight. They also contribute to metamerism, where the paper base changes the actual lighter value print hues in different light sources.

The other sure way to test that is look at it under a uv "black light" like a grow light from Home Depot. The EEF will absolutely glow like its radioactive, as will Enhanced Matte, the Innova bright white media, etc, etc. If you look at a natural base paper or the new line of Canson fine art media that is not made with traditional oba's then you won't see this flourescing in daylight.

Canson is using a white pigment formula to brighten their results. I compared a Canson Edition Etching print I did last night to one done with a non brightened Innova Smooth Texture print and the Canson blew it away in brilliance and dynamic range. I assume this is where all the manufactures will go eventually ( after millions of prints have turned gray of course). The  whole Canson line is in test at Aardenburg now but need to progress for six months or so before we'll know anything solid. Thank God for Aardenburg. He's showing things we suspected for a decade but couldn't prove scientifically.

The big confusion of the oba paper burnout is in my opinion Wilhelm. He gives these totally unrealistic years of stability numbers to some really bad papers, then puts in very tiny print at the bottom of the chart that one should avoid obas. Duh. He never really got into testing/publishing paper base changes directly which is a real problem with his methods and the printer manufactures ads. It isn't just Epson though by a long shot. Look at Wilhems >240 year numbers for the HP Pro Satin or the Canon bright rc media. Not realistic. Mark is showing the white oba going fast there too in daylight. So, if you care about permanence (most don't really) paper is critical. But the 90 year behind glass figure for EEF is just silly.

It's not just rc bright media either. My submission of Premiere Alise Bright White burned out ulta rapidly. They make a lot of the Epson matt papers. Their bright white one is a real problem. I don't even want to think about Red River. I have so many Red River Premium Matte prints around here, even in flat files that have turned gray in just a few years. Those obas are really pathetic.

This is exactly why we have Aardenburg and why every one needs to join to make sure he stays afloat. There are like 35 new papers that just went into test this week. So, it keeps expanding the knowledge base.

john

Title: Re: Epson Exhibition Fiber clone
Post by: Ernst Dinkla on December 24, 2010, 11:02:29 am
I do see it listed under the Euro tradename: 'Traditional Photo Paper' at:  http://www.digigraphie.com/uk/digigraphie-explained/technologies-and-materials.htm  I had not seen this website before and think it's rather silly.  Why can't any of us who use these materials be certified? 

My mistake.

Well, would you like to use Traditional Photo Paper with a certification and a bad test by Aardenburg or select a paper that tests well with the last? I have not seen an extra Epson warranty on the media within the Digigraphie system.


met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst Dinkla

New: Spectral plots of +180 inkjet papers:
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm


Title: Re: Epson Exhibition Fiber clone
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on December 24, 2010, 11:45:10 am
My mistake.

Well, would you like to use Traditional Photo Paper with a certification and a bad test by Aardenburg or select a paper that tests well with the last? I have not seen an extra Epson warranty on the media within the Digigraphie system.


met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst Dinkla

New: Spectral plots of +180 inkjet papers:
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm



I find it extremely weird that most all the papers listed are matte (certainly with the exception of the TPP, all the Epson papers are and I think the Hahnemuhle papers as well).  Does this mean that whoever makes these decisions thinks that gloss papers don't meet the criteria?  Curious.
Title: Re: Epson Exhibition Fiber clone
Post by: MHMG on December 24, 2010, 12:13:38 pm
I know Michael was using EEF for some shows at one point. It might be helpful if he would weigh in on this subject as to how those prints are holding up today. This information about the longevity of EEF is quite worrisome for me as I recently printed several large prints with this paper for a gallery.

Based on the AaI&A conservation display rating for EEF, I would not expect anyone to have seen OBA burnout with this paper under typical gallery display conditions since it has only been on the market for a few years.  However, one might notice a subtle change of paper color in just a few years in an EEF print framed under glass that is placed in a bright interior display space (e.g. a lobby or atrium in a commercial building with lots of skylights). You can also induce the OBA burnout with ozone very easily for unprotected prints in just a matter of weeks or months, plus if you try the proverbial artist's "window fade test" in a south facing window, you should be able to see the OBA burnout effect in a matter of weeks.

That said, it is instructive to put all the longevity information we have on EEF and other papers into perspective. EEF does indeed underperform in Aardenburg testing compared to other "traditional fiber" type inkjet papers the printmaker might choose, and the reason is it's reliance on very high levels of OBA to get the nice "cool bright white" appearance that many people love about EEF. Yet when using Epson Ultrachrome ink sets it still achieves similar or better scores compared to other widely used and highly esteemed processes in photography (e.g., Lambda and Lightjet prints made with Fuji Crystal Archive paper). So, as long as the collector is informed about the limitations of one's chosen print process, appropriate care can be taken to ensure many decades of display where the print will remain in excellent condition.

Light Fastness Ratings are designed to be quantifiably objective, but the criteria that give rise to these ratings are definitely subjective:

WIR rates EEF at 90 years of "display life" using any of the Epson Ultrachrome ink sets (k3, K3VM, HDR) when the print is framed under glass. AaI&A rated one publicly accessible sample made on an Epson 4800/OEM K3/EEF system at 29-79 megalux hours of light exposure for a print framed under acrylic glazing. Acrylic has more UV absorption than glass but not so complete as to totally shut down OBA fluorescence.  Other EEF samples in test at AaI&A with various Epson Ultrachrome ink sets have generated similar scores.  This megalux hour exposure range translates to the WIR "display life" time scale of about 15-40 years. Other than the minor glass versus acrylic differences in the rating methods and some differences in light sources used by the two laboratories, why is there such a large apparent discrepancy between the two laboratories' rating results?  A major reason is that AaI&A Conservation Display (CD) ratings are based on visual criteria to show "little or no noticeable fade" whereas WIR ratings are based on visual criteria that show "easily noticeable fade". Both of these subjective visual endpoints for allowable fade are justifiable, and we actually need to look at more than one point on the fading curve to fully characterize a system, but IMHO, Aai&A CD ratings are more suitable for fine art applications while WIR ratings are entirely appropriate for consumer photofinishing applications.
 
Another important distinction between WIR and AaI&A ratings is that WIR, indeed all other testing labs other than AaI&A, rates the product performance according to a single limiting factor being exceeded in the test, whereas AaI&A expresses a lower limit and an upper limit in its conservation display (CD) ratings. The range expressed in AaI&A's CD rating reflects a real world reality that our ability to notice fade in a specific print on display is in fact image-content dependent. For example, if OBA burn out  is a weak link in the system and the media color starts to turn yellow, the viewer will observe the change sooner in an image with large areas of highlight colors (e.g., a white wedding dress) compared to, say, a borderless framed print of a landscape scene that may have some specular highlights but no dominant areas where media discoloration can easily show through.

Suffice to say, OBA burnout rarely triggers the WIR "paper discoloration" limit factor because the WIR criteria were originally developed for traditional color process where yellow stain formation in the highlights, not OBA burnout, was a major issue that consumers were first likely to notice. On the other hand, OBA burnout, paper bleaching, and other subtle modes of discoloration are definitely picked up and factored into AaI&A test scores because the AaI&A criteria for allowable changes use tighter visual limits based on CIELAB colorimetry. My contention is that if artists and collectors can see and appreciate the initial differences in paper white color between slightly cool white papers and slightly warm white papers, then fade test criteria suitable for fine art applications should be able to identify and distinguish papers that change from cool white to warm white or vice versa during testing.

Lastly, I would add that the OBA burnout performance for EEF is not unique by any means. For example, if you check the CD ratings in the AaI&A database for Hahnemuhle Fine Art Baryta (a relatively bright white paper), you will see comparable performance to EEF when printing with Epson OEM ink sets.  Most inkjet paper vendors are trying to provide a wide range of media colors and surface textures based on market research concerning customer preferences and tastes, so there are plenty of bright white and warm white papers out there, plus many in between. Only way to know for sure about media white point stability is to test it.
Title: Re: Epson Exhibition Fiber clone
Post by: narikin on December 24, 2010, 12:26:58 pm
Yes that 'Digigraphie' seems more and more like marketing BS. Aardenberg shows EEF falling from acceptability at ~28 years on a K3 inkset, (if you accept 1Mlux= 1year) -whereas Digigraphie says: "The guarantee: Durability tests done by the independant institutes Wilhelm and LNE, from 60 to 100 years and beyond."  hmmm. [edit: while I was writing this mark replied at more length, above]

I too got suckered by Epson EEF and Innova for valuable exhibition works. They won't get a single dollar of my money ever again.
 
Title: Re: Epson Exhibition Fiber clone
Post by: deanwork on December 24, 2010, 12:38:59 pm
Yea it is important to realize that, as Mark pointed out with the Hahnemuhle Fine Art Baryta, most of these companies are offering good and bad media and not really distinguishing them clearly in regard to longevity or suitability for "fine art", whatever that means.

Regardless of how Wilhelm wants to describe his end point, there is no way that EEF is getting anywhere close to 90 years without the white base going gray unless they are in the dark behind glass. But the Hahnemuhle FAB, the one with a lot of whiteners is even more bizarre. It starts out an ugly pink color that is so bad that even the free 24" roll they gave me has remained in the closet unused. Just got to keep your eyes open and do your own homework. The companies are not going to do it for you. We've learned that the hard way.

john
Title: Re: Epson Exhibition Fiber clone
Post by: deanwork on December 24, 2010, 12:44:55 pm
Mark, if you are still around..... what are your thoughts about the replacement of the previously mentioned obas with newer formulas of whitening colorants as Canson most notably is using now with good effect.

john
Title: Re: Epson Exhibition Fiber clone
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on December 24, 2010, 01:16:14 pm
Mark, if you are still around..... what are your thoughts about the replacement of the previously mentioned obas with newer formulas of whitening colorants as Canson most notably is using now with good effect.

john
If you are referring to baryta, there should not be a problem as Barium Sulphate (baryta) is chemically stable and does not undergo the type of light induced degradation that a flourescent dye does.  The other compound that has extreme whiteness is Titanium Dioxide and this is commonly used in paints.  I think it's more expensive than Barium Sulphate which may be the reason paper manufacturers don't use it.
Title: Re: Epson Exhibition Fiber clone
Post by: MHMG on December 24, 2010, 01:41:49 pm
Yea it is important to realize that, as Mark pointed out with the Hahnemuhle Fine Art Baryta, most of these companies are offering good and bad media and not really distinguishing them clearly in regard to longevity or suitability for "fine art", whatever that means.

john

I do believe the printmaking community including this one on LL has learned a lot about OBAs in the past few years. Paper vendors tend to acknowledge the issues obliquely, but never come right out and just tell it like it is.  I'm very gratified that AaI&A has been able to contribute to the end-user's knowledge base, and I think Ernst's growing spectral plot database of inkjet papers is also a tremendous new resource for those of us who are serious printmakers.   Many vendors just aren't willing to pay for the necessary testing, and to compound the challenges of testing even more, the testing itself has been in need of an overhaul for some time.  Most of the commonly cited test methods were developed prior to the advent of multi-colorant inkjet prints.

Bright white papers are really popular (ya think?), and there are many end-users out there who truly don't care about long term durability. You have all heard the various rationales many times, ie. "I can always reprint", "If I don't like how it looks on day one, who cares whether it lasts or not", or my personal favorite about OBA burnout, "Well, the paper will just revert to the "natural color" it would have been if it didn't have OBAs" (NOT), etc. etc.  But I humbly suggest that a discerning printmaker, given reasonable longevity information upon which to make an informed choice, can often find a paper that is both pleasing at the start and durable over time as well. Moreover, while the strengths and limitations of OBA-free versus OBA-containing papers are becoming more widely known, serious printmakers should also not lose sight of the fact that there are significant paper/ink chemistry interactions as well which even with pigmented ink sets can lead to significant differences in overall longevity performance of the selected ink/paper combinations.


cheers,
Mark
http:/www.aardenburg-imaging.com
Title: Re: Epson Exhibition Fiber clone
Post by: MHMG on December 24, 2010, 01:52:44 pm
Mark, if you are still around..... what are your thoughts about the replacement of the previously mentioned obas with newer formulas of whitening colorants as Canson most notably is using now with good effect.

john

Most of the Canson papers I have in test only entered light fade testing recently, so I think we need to let the tests run further. But not to wimp out here, I will say that I have already seen a little paper bleaching in Canson Platine Fiber Rag (it's going to go a little whiter and cooler, but no where near the extent that some high OBA papers go in the opposite direction).  Whether this bleaching effect will trigger or contribute to a lower CD rating remains to be seen (e.g., sometimes paper color changes can actually counter balance ink fade effects). it hasn't yet, and it's also important to note that bleaching effects tend occur quickly in test and then come to a pretty abrupt stop. All in all, I'm optimistic that many of the Canson papers combined with Major OEM ink sets will do very well in AaI&A testing, but I wouldn't be surprised to see a few surprises!

kind regards,
Mark
Title: Re: Epson Exhibition Fiber clone
Post by: Light Seeker on December 24, 2010, 03:49:25 pm
where does it say Cone Type5 its OBA free? I can't see that on the sales page linked.
if it is, they should make more of that fact.

The newsletter linked below has a reference to OBA's, fyi. . .

http://shopping.netsuite.com/s.nl/c.362672/it.I/id.226/.f

Terry.
Title: Re: Epson Exhibition Fiber clone
Post by: Light Seeker on December 24, 2010, 04:03:20 pm
Reminds me of being in the darkroom making lith prints, where different combos of developer/dilution and paper produce different results :)

Neil

There are some good examples of this shown in the link below.

The first two b/w images are made using the same monochrome ink set, but one print is made on EEF and the other on Cone Type 5. You can clearly see how each paper tones the image differently, with EEF pulling it cooler. The same test is repeated with a second ink set (same two papers), and then again with a split tone ink set (again on EEF and Type 5).

http://shopping.netsuite.com/s.nl/c.362672/it.I/id.238/.f

Black and white images can exhibit such beauty.

Terry.
Title: Re: Epson Exhibition Fiber clone
Post by: natas on December 24, 2010, 11:16:30 pm
I haven't tried it yet (still have 2 rolls of EEF) but Breathing color has a new paper. Check it out: http://www.breathingcolor.com/action/bc_shop/205/
Title: Re: Epson Exhibition Fiber clone
Post by: narikin on December 25, 2010, 06:23:00 am
The newsletter linked below has a reference to OBA's, fyi. . .

http://shopping.netsuite.com/s.nl/c.362672/it.I/id.226/.f

Terry.

thanks Terry, but that wording is a little odd:
"This is the paper that has similar non-OBA color"
which seems like clever weasel words for: it has got OBAs, but is the same color as non OBA paper.

I think if it had no OBA's they would say it clear and proud, and they don't.
When it makes Ernst SpectraViz, then we will know for sure.

I would love to be wrong,but as EEF shows us, scepticism is the best approach

Title: Re: Epson Exhibition Fiber clone
Post by: Ernst Dinkla on December 25, 2010, 07:45:04 am
I haven't tried it yet (still have 2 rolls of EEF) but Breathing color has a new paper. Check it out: http://www.breathingcolor.com/action/bc_shop/205/

IF spectral plots tell anything then Breathing Color Vibrance Rag could be in the class of Pictorico GKR, Hahnemühle Photo Rag Satin. Similar low amount of FBA distributed equallly in coating and cotton paper base and a sufficient amount of normal whitening agents to fill the gap between 450 and 650 Nm. It is a big IF as the spectral plots show the FBA and whitening agents effect but do not tell what qualities are used.

Be aware that some other Breathing Color paper qualities rely more on FBA content in the coating for their white reflectance though additional whitening agents are there too and in the paper base. More chances of fading I suspect.

John's comment on Hahnemuehle FAB, I guess he means Baryta FB 350, the one Michael wept aside in a review with a similar comment.
It is totally relying on FBA content (both in coating and base) for reflection in the blue spectrum, has  a deep dip from 450 to 650 Nm (absence of other whitening agents), and then relies on the paper base for the red end reflection. That is resulting in an odd pink color which shifts terribly with changing lighting. It has to have very good FBA quality ingredients if that one has to keep that "color". Michael wrote that Hahnemühle commented that it suited European taste. Wonder if they refer to the taste in the Biedermeier period :-)



met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst Dinkla

New: Spectral plots of +180 inkjet papers:
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm





Title: Re: Epson Exhibition Fiber clone
Post by: deanwork on December 25, 2010, 10:31:40 am
Look at it under daylight and then tungsten, its an easy test even without a black light.

In a related note not all oba content is fatal. Look at the many tests at Aardenburg with Hahnemuhle Photorag. It has a small about of traditional oba colorants but is still holding up well. With Hahnemuhle matt papers apparently the oba is added in the paper manufacture, not in the receptor coating stage. This is another thing that makes a difference, along with the amount used.  When you see a media look really bright and bluish, well that's a signal to look out and pull out your can of toxic uv spray.

j
Title: Re: Epson Exhibition Fiber clone
Post by: Farmer on December 25, 2010, 03:05:10 pm
Many vendors just aren't willing to pay for the necessary testing,

That's true, but what drives vendors decisions on costs is whether they can recover those costs in the price to the market.  The market is always demanding a higher quality at a lower price (fair enough).

Unless testers can quantify to vendors the extra value that the market is prepared to pay (and remember that the market is far, far bigger than just fine art print makers) and then relate that to the cost of testing, it's always going to be a struggle to get them to pay for the testing.

We have also reached the point where the bar has been raised well above that of many alternative or traditional photographic printing methods such that expectations now would be utterly unreasonable just a few years ago.  That's a good thing, in my opinion, but from time to time I think it's worth acknowledging the new field on which we play.  An artist, with a digital capacity, can offer something significantly less than 100+ years if a client understands the limitation but prefers the presentation (indeed, for exhibition work, stability beyond a few years probably shouldn't matter compared to presentation of the image in the best/preferred manner for the artist).

It's a little like pixel peeping at times - we can become too focussed on numbers and fail to step back and look at the overall results.
Title: Re: Epson Exhibition Fiber clone
Post by: chez on December 25, 2010, 06:18:46 pm
Phil, you bring up a good point about obsessing about numbers. Can someone tell me what the expected lifetime of a traditionally printed photo is. I know my wedding photos have faded and we've been married 28 years in April.
Title: Re: Epson Exhibition Fiber clone
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on December 25, 2010, 07:14:11 pm
Phil, you bring up a good point about obsessing about numbers. Can someone tell me what the expected lifetime of a traditionally printed photo is. I know my wedding photos have faded and we've been married 28 years in April.
Archivally processed and selenium toned B&W prints will last a very long time.  I've seen three large Ansel Adams retrospectives and his prints look fine.  Color prints are another matter.  Most will show significant fading after a short time because of the dyes used.  Supposedly the Cibachrome process and dyes were the most stable but I've seen fading of those.
Title: Re: Epson Exhibition Fiber clone
Post by: Ernst Dinkla on December 25, 2010, 07:36:29 pm
Phil, you bring up a good point about obsessing about numbers. Can someone tell me what the expected lifetime of a traditionally printed photo is. I know my wedding photos have faded and we've been married 28 years in April.

The struggle to get more fade resistant prints (and films) may have started with the complaints of wedding photographers and their customers. Wedding pictures less than 10 years old had faded and the films too. 1968-1977 Ektacolor prints. Agfacolor paper Type 4 printed from 1974 to 1982 were even worse. In 1978 Wilhelm presented data that showed that the existing acceleration tests on fading could have unexpected reciprocity failures. It started his involvement in photo preservation and a long battle with Kodak. For some people wedding pictures may belong to the non important photo documents but for others it belongs to the most important ones they have. The Agfacolor disaster led to a class action suite in 1985 which was settled in 1987. Your prints could have been made on that material. Right now analogue prints have Wilhelm test results that should give them a lifetime of 17 to 40 years (Fuji Crystal Archive) depending on the paper/process selected. So how prosaic the image content may be, for a customer it may be an important image. Not mentioning art etc.


Edit: Years and numbers quoted from Henry's book The Permanence and Care of Color Photographs.


met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst Dinkla

Try: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/

Title: Re: Epson Exhibition Fiber clone
Post by: MHMG on December 25, 2010, 08:12:37 pm
The struggle to get more fade resistant prints (and films) may have started with the complaints of wedding photographers and their customers. Wedding pictures less than 10 years old had faded and the films too. 1968-1977 Ektacolor prints. Agfacolor paper Type 4 printed from 1974 to 1982 were even worse. In 1978 Wilhelm presented data that showed that the existing acceleration tests on fading could have unexpected reciprocity failures. It started his involvement in photo preservation and a long battle with Kodak. For some people wedding pictures may belong to the non important photo documents but for others it belongs to the most important ones they have. The Agfacolor disaster led to a class action suite in 1985 which was settled in 1987. ...


Actually, the fading of photographs has been a concern almost from the inception of photographic print making. "So serious was the problem that in 1855 the Photographic Society formed a committee to examine the causes of fading; this committee, chaired by Roger Fenton, received support from an equally concerned Prince Albert, who contributed £50 to its funds." (source: http://www.rleggat.com/photohistory/history/fading.htm)

cheers,
Mark
Title: Re: Epson Exhibition Fiber clone
Post by: MHMG on December 25, 2010, 08:48:39 pm
That's true, but what drives vendors decisions on costs is whether they can recover those costs in the price to the market.  The market is always demanding a higher quality at a lower price (fair enough).

Well, in this inkjet age, it's not even realistic anymore to expect the vendors to test all material processes that printmakers choose to use. I can make very beautiful prints on Epson Exhibition Fiber paper using my Canon ip8100. Would Canon pay for that test? Would Epson? Of course not, but we are certainly free to use such a combination in our work. Hence, the Aardenburg digital print research program that lets end-users submit samples made with the processes they actually prefer to use. If the combination is commercially available there is now a way it can be tested. I don't think we can realistically expect the vendors to support these non OEM branded material combinations, but there are more of these mix-and-match inkjet processes in use today than totally OEM branded solutions.

We have also reached the point where the bar has been raised well above that of many alternative or traditional photographic printing methods such that expectations now would be utterly unreasonable just a few years ago.  That's a good thing, in my opinion, but from time to time I think it's worth acknowledging the new field on which we play.  An artist, with a digital capacity, can offer something significantly less than 100+ years if a client understands the limitation but prefers the presentation (indeed, for exhibition work, stability beyond a few years probably shouldn't matter compared to presentation of the image in the best/preferred manner for the artist).

It's a little like pixel peeping at times - we can become too focussed on numbers and fail to step back and look at the overall results.

Yup, I can cite a thousand reasons why the kind of print longevity testing I do is no longer important to the vast majority of photographers. On the other hand, let me offer one pragmatic example that indicates why I continue to test. The current street price of a 50 foot roll of 17 inch wide Museo Portfolio Rag 300gsm is about $136 in the U.S. That's 2.72 per lineal foot. The current price of a 39 foot roll of 17 inch wide Hahnemuhle Photo Rag 308gsm is about $116 ($2.97 per lineal foot). Both papers have very similar surface texture, initial image quality, and media whitepoint color. Given that they are very similar indeed, it is clear that Museo Portfolio Rag wins on price per lineal foot.  I have a Canon ipf5000. The AaI&A Conservation display rating for Museo Portfolio Rag when printed on the iPF5000 with Canon OEM Lucia inks is 60-94 Megalux hours.  For HN Photo Rag printed on the same iPF5000/OEM Lucia ink system the Conservation Display rating  is 116-156 Megalux hours. 60-94 Megalux hours exposure dose is a pretty darn good score (equivalent to 30-47 years for "little or no noticeable fade" at 500 lux-12 hours per day display conditions), but the HN Photo Rag is nearly twice as good. Does it matter? That's for the individual user to decide, but clearly, the HN Photo Rag has superior light fastness properties on my printer, and as a serious printmaker I can convey that information to my clients.  Some won't care, but some will.
Title: Re: Epson Exhibition Fiber clone
Post by: Farmer on December 26, 2010, 04:47:55 am
There's absolutely nothing wrong with testing and publishing results.

There failure, if you like, in the system is that most users and many (perhaps even most, if we're honest) photographers don't really understand how it all goes together.  Lightfastness, gasfastness, OB issues, etc, etc.  You need to understand your customers in order to understand what is required to suit their needs.  If you just assualt the customers with techincal babble (regardless of how accurate it is), it adds little to no value.

The customer isn't an expert (most times).  They probably won't look after the print in ideal conditions. 

So, keep on testing, but we need to educate photos, print makers and customers as to what the testing really means and how they can use the results to create/obtain the products that they want.
Title: Re: Epson Exhibition Fiber clone
Post by: MHMG on December 26, 2010, 09:18:51 am
There's absolutely nothing wrong with testing and publishing results.

There failure, if you like, in the system is that most users and many (perhaps even most, if we're honest) photographers don't really understand how it all goes together.  Lightfastness, gasfastness, OB issues, etc, etc.  You need to understand your customers in order to understand what is required to suit their needs.  If you just assualt the customers with techincal babble (regardless of how accurate it is), it adds little to no value.

The customer isn't an expert (most times).  They probably won't look after the print in ideal conditions.  

So, keep on testing, but we need to educate photos, print makers and customers as to what the testing really means and how they can use the results to create/obtain the products that they want.

hmmm, I thought an education component was a big part of the AaI&A website. Admittedly, the research that I publish isn't easy to distill into a simple soundbite.  People who are interested in this complex subject matter have to be willing to invest some personal time in the learning process.
Title: Re: Epson Exhibition Fiber clone
Post by: JohnBrew on December 26, 2010, 09:36:58 am
Thanks for your work, Mark. I joined up yesterday  ;D  because these issues are important to me and ultimately important to the galleries which represent my photography. Neither of us need someone coming in several years after a sale complaining of fading or deteriation of a print due to factors beyond our control or knowledge.
Title: Re: Epson Exhibition Fiber clone
Post by: Farmer on December 26, 2010, 04:21:58 pm
hmmm, I thought an education component was a big part of the AaI&A website. Admittedly, the research that I publish isn't easy to distill into a simple soundbite.  People who are interested in this complex subject matter have to be willing to invest some personal time in the learning process.

And there's the rub.  The information being provided is good (very good), but consumers, by and large, are not going to take the time to learn the subject.  As in most fields, it becomes the responsibility of the experts to present the information in a meaningful way that allows a layman to comprehend it and to make a reasonably informed decision.  This might be in conjunction with specific advice from some party (the artist or the print maker and so forth).

Most people are not mechanics or engineers and yet most people manage to make a decent decision about which motor vehicle to buy to suit their needs.  If they purchase from a reputable dealer, even better are the chances of success.  If they read publications designed for the end user, they'll do even better.  Thus, a very complex piece of machinery is made accessible to the public in a way that allows them to make informed and reasonable decisions.  Of course, we all know about the dealers who will spin any old story to get a sale, but for the most part the professionals in the industry and their related press make honest and accurate information available.

At the moment, in print making, we have a vast array of numbers, opinions, testing methods, focus of testing, areas in which no testing is done, and a lack of presentation to the end users as to how to apply this to their needs.  Whilst it's wonderful to debate and discuss this material, doing so amongst ourselves has only a limited immediate benefit to the end users.  Long term, it should strengthen the industry which should flow on, but right now - today - it's not really helping people to make good purchases and it's not helping a lot of artists and print makers make appropriate decisions, either, as we're caught up with the mass of numbers.
Title: Re: Epson Exhibition Fiber clone
Post by: Light Seeker on December 26, 2010, 06:50:06 pm
thanks Terry, but that wording is a little odd:
"This is the paper that has similar non-OBA color"
which seems like clever weasel words for: it has got OBAs, but is the same color as non OBA paper.

I think if it had no OBA's they would say it clear and proud, and they don't.
When it makes Ernst SpectraViz, then we will know for sure.

I would love to be wrong,but as EEF shows us, scepticism is the best approach

I understand your scepticism Narikin. I too assume there are OBA's unless I see something that states otherwise. So, after reading positive comments from a print maker I have the highest regard for (Tyler Boley) when the paper first came out, I asked Inkjet Mall Tech Support about OBA's. This is what they e-mailed back. . . .

"Type 5 is a natural white paper, so no OBA's."

When I put EEF under my black light it glows (rather nicely). When I put Type 5 under my black light it does not.

Type 5's paper base measures as follows (ColorMunki). . . .  L*98.531816, a*0.021066, b*2.585261. It has a very pleasing, warm tone, as confirmed by the positive b* value. I can't see the need for OBA's in a paper with a positive b* value like this. EEF conversely, will have a significant negative b* value.

I'd be happy to send Ernst a couple of pieces to measure for SpectraViz. Maybe we can work something out off-line.

Terry.
Title: Re: Epson Exhibition Fiber clone
Post by: MHMG on December 26, 2010, 07:11:31 pm

At the moment, in print making, we have a vast array of numbers, opinions, testing methods, focus of testing, areas in which no testing is done, and a lack of presentation to the end users as to how to apply this to their needs.  Whilst it's wonderful to debate and discuss this material, doing so amongst ourselves has only a limited immediate benefit to the end users.  Long term, it should strengthen the industry which should flow on, but right now - today - it's not really helping people to make good purchases and it's not helping a lot of artists and print makers make appropriate decisions, either, as we're caught up with the mass of numbers.

Right, but as the saying goes, "All journeys begin with a first step".  Amongst that mass of numbers you think trip so many people up, I know that more than one person without engineering or science background has still managed to identify the OBA burnout issue with EEF by taking the time to study various results in the AaI&A lightfastness database.  They've taken the first step  :)

kind regards,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com
Title: Re: Epson Exhibition Fiber clone
Post by: deanwork on December 26, 2010, 10:29:38 pm
And there you go. The "layman" doesn't have to have a lot of intelligence or scientific capability to do that simple test with a simple uv light. If that is too much trouble, to hell with them.

It matches up with the Aardenburg data- lots of bluish oba bad. This is certainly not new information! We've known this for over a decade in the inkjet business for God's sake. What IS new is Mark giving us great comparisons between the manufacturers various products with various inks, and now we also have uv coatings to apply if we still want this brightness and the very long term is not important. So the next time you hear the term 'Ultra', 'Premium', 'Gallery', 'Exhibiton', 'Pro', or whatever bullshit, just think for yourself. It isn't that difficult.

john



When I put EEF under my black light it glows (rather nicely). When I put Type 5 under my black light it does not.

Type 5's paper base measures as follows (ColorMunki). . . .  L*98.531816, a*0.021066, b*2.585261. It has a very pleasing, warm tone, as confirmed by the positive b* value. I can't see the need for OBA's in a paper with a positive b* value like this. EEF conversely, will have a significant negative b* value.

I'd be happy to send Ernst a couple of pieces to measure for SpectraViz. Maybe we can work something out off-line.

Terry.
[/quote]
Title: Re: Epson Exhibition Fiber clone
Post by: Ernst Dinkla on December 27, 2010, 06:09:33 am

I'd be happy to send Ernst a couple of pieces to measure for SpectraViz. Maybe we can work something out off-line.

Terry.

Nice gesture Terry.

There are some paper manufacturers/suppliers/distributors in the USA with as it seems unique papers yet their distribution is mainly happinng in North America. I do have sheets of Hawk Mountain but they are at least 5 years old so I it is not correct to measure them and compare them to fresh sheets from other sources. I would love to receive the Cone paper but be aware that I live in The Netherlands. A package of USA only distributed sheets coming my way could be an option if someone in the US collects them first. Going through the SpectrumViz list will show fast enough what is already present.

I have a sample book of Epson papers now and the package of Tecco papers arrived. Holiday's occupation. Related to the US distribution: what are the Epson qualities that have a different name in the USA-Europe ?


met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst Dinkla

New: Spectral plots of +180 inkjet papers:
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
Title: Re: Epson Exhibition Fiber clone
Post by: Farmer on December 27, 2010, 04:15:37 pm
Right, but as the saying goes, "All journeys begin with a first step".  Amongst that mass of numbers you think trip so many people up, I know that more than one person without engineering or science background has still managed to identify the OBA burnout issue with EEF by taking the time to study various results in the AaI&A lightfastness database.  They've taken the first step  :)


I agree with you, Mark, in regard to the first step.  The danger, though, is that artists or print makers or buyers are frightened away from some products because of some "bad" aspect.  It's only bad if it translates to being so for their intended use.  That's where part of the problem is.  Saying something's bad or not as good or what have you, but if the reasoning and situation doesn't convey to the end user then all they see is "bad" without understanding that it may not matter for their use.

It's a complex issue and distilling it down for the layman has risks that must be considered in order to maintain the integrity and benefit of the testing.

When someone first provides a product that tests to have light fastness at 1000+ years via your testing, should the market eschew all other products because they are not in the same order of magnitude?  I'm sure you would say no.  That's the point.  Not everyone understands more than the headline number and that's what we need to fix.  Not just for the professionals and the enthusiasts, but for the majority.  First step, for sure - I totally agree - but we need to keep marching and sometimes arguments and discussions in a place like this get so bogged down over a tiny numerical variation that progress seems unlikely.
Title: Re: Epson Exhibition Fiber clone
Post by: MHMG on December 27, 2010, 06:59:53 pm

When someone first provides a product that tests to have light fastness at 1000+ years via your testing, should the market eschew all other products because they are not in the same order of magnitude?  I'm sure you would say no.  That's the point.  Not everyone understands more than the headline number and that's what we need to fix.  Not just for the professionals and the enthusiasts, but for the majority.  First step, for sure - I totally agree - but we need to keep marching and sometimes arguments and discussions in a place like this get so bogged down over a tiny numerical variation that progress seems unlikely.

Precisely why Aardenburg light fastness test results are expressed as megalux hours of exposure and not "years of life". Choose a low enough real world light level and numerous traditional and modern photographic prints won't fade due to light in 1000+ years. They may fade for other reasons, but not light exposure.  Thus, your suggested goal has already been met!

"Years of life" is a good example of the kind of soundbite you seem to suggest that the "layman" requires. The industry has certainly obliged.  But to express any light fade rates in terms of "Years on display" requires a critical assumption about average daily light levels in the display environment. That's a fool's game because the uninformed public takes these "light standardized" ratings as gospel for how the prints will age in many different environments and without bothering to ask what the prints will actually look like when they reach the quoted age number (e.g., some fade, lots of fade, or totally unrecoverable image). Real world light levels of prints on display, even in just one individual's home, typically vary by two sometimes three orders of magnitude. So, go ahead and make three prints using the same materials and process. Place them in three different locations in your home where you might like to have them on display. One may fade noticeably in 2 years, another in 20, and another in 200. How would you rate the product in terms of display life? I choose not to convolute the real world light levels into the rating, so I stick with megalux hours. Then anyone (with a wee bit of knowledge) can use a simple table (and a light meter for more accuracy if they wish) to figure out that the brightest location described above will fade the print 100 times faster than the safest location, and they can complete their own "display life" prediction based on a rational knowledge of their chosen display environment.  The formula is 6th grade math, maybe not even.

As far as getting too bogged down in a discussion "in a place like this", you may be right. But I think many LL readers are interested and would rather hold these discussions here than not hold them at all. What's the alternative? Quit discussing print permanence in this forum because some people think the subject matter is too difficult or too corrupted with false claims and faulty research?

With respect to EEF which is after all what got this thread started, a balanced perspective on the pros and cons of EEF means the OBA burnout issue needs to be understood, but obviously that's just one of many factors that buyers will want to consider.  I believe people should not feel any buyer's remorse if they really like the look and feel of EEF (and apparently many photographers do). However, printmakers may want to think twice about labeling prints with high OBAs an "archival pigment print" since OBAs are fugitive dyes.  With Epson OEM K3, K3VM and HDR inks EEF exhibits moderate lightfastness but not as robust as other papers in this "traditional Fiber" class of inkjet papers.  I doubt there are logical alternatives which improve on the lightfastness properties unless the OP is willing to try a somewhat less "cool white" paper, (e.g., IGFS. Canson infinity Baryta, etc). Those papers have some OBAs as well but the amounts, locations, and chemistry within the various layers help those products to perform significantly better in Aai&A light fade testing.

I  certainly don't believe we are morally obligated to always choose the most stable process, but I do think it's better to be informed rather than ignore the print permanence issues because the subject matter can't be easily reduced to a simple soundbite. But if you insist, ponder this relatively simple and entirely truthful statement:

Framed under glass and using reasonable conditions for humidity, temperature, and light levels, plus allowing for some discoloration and embrittlement that won't destroy the functional or aesthetic value of the object, even an image printed with ordinary dyes on the most acid-choked, lignin-filled news paper pulp can easily last over a century on display!


So, if a century of "display life" meets your personal standards without getting bogged down in those pesky details, then you no longer need to be concerned about print permanence issues.

kind regards,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com
Title: Re: Epson Exhibition Fiber clone
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on December 27, 2010, 07:42:15 pm

With respect to EEF which is after all what got this thread started, a balanced perspective on the pros and cons of EEF means the OBA burnout issue needs to be understood, but obviously that's just one of many factors that buyers will want to consider.  I believe people should not feel any buyer's remorse if they really like the look and feel of EEF (and apparently many photographers do). However, printmakers may want to think twice about labeling prints with high OBAs an "archival pigment print" since OBAs are fugitive dyes.  With Epson OEM K3, K3VM and HDR inks EEF exhibits moderate lightfastness but not as robust as other papers in this "traditional Fiber" class of inkjet papers.  I doubt there are logical alternatives which improve on the lightfastness properties unless the OP is willing to try a somewhat less "cool white" paper, (e.g., IGFS. Canson infinity Baryta, etc). Those papers have some OBAs as well but the amounts, locations, and chemistry within the various layers help those products to perform significantly better in Aai&A light fade testing.
I'm continually amazed by the performance of Ilford Gold Fibre Silk.  If you look at the reflection response that Ernst has on his site, it's level and without a huge spike that EEF and other OBA-loaded papers have.  It seems to hold the color values quite well under the Aardenberg testing and best of all it's reasonably priced.  The only thing I don't like about it is the tactile sensation; it reminds me too much of the old resin coated papers of the 1970s.  I won't print a folio on it for that reason. 

Alan
Title: Re: Epson Exhibition Fiber clone
Post by: Farmer on December 27, 2010, 09:15:44 pm
Mark,

I'm not suggesting at all that we shouldn't discuss these things here (or similar).  I greatly appreciate the effort you've put into the responses in this thread, for example.

I think in a large degree that we agree.  I'm just concerned when I see some people (not you) quoting figures as absolutes as to which should be used over another.  That concern stems from the various issues I've already mentioned.

At this point in the game, I'm personally more interested in gasfastness, but not to the point of ignoring lightfastness at all.
Title: Re: Epson Exhibition Fiber clone
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on December 28, 2010, 08:59:16 am
At this point in the game, I'm personally more interested in gasfastness, but not to the point of ignoring lightfastness at all.
Isn't this the easiest problem to resolve?  All one needs to do is let the print fully degas which is pretty trivial.  Light fading is another problem that you at least need to apprise the customer/recipient of your print.  If they get it framed and hang it in a place where there is full sun exposure or the wrong kind of lighting, fading would be a big issue.  I think Mark's numbers are just that numbers and it's up to us to make use of them in the best manner possible. 

Alan
Title: Re: Epson Exhibition Fiber clone
Post by: MHMG on December 28, 2010, 11:40:05 am
Alan, you are referring to what most people call "off-gasing" of inkjet prints.  I think Farmer is probably talking about the effect of air pollutants like ozone.  Here's a paper on the AaI&A website that gives a real world example of both light fade issues and gas fade issues. Definitely not a soundbite, but hopefully of value to those who would like to learn a little more about print permanence issues:

http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com/cgi-bin/mrk/_4569ZGxkLzBeMjAwMDAwMDAwMTIzNDU2Nzg5LyoxMzM=

OBA loaded papers like EEF also have considerable sensitivity to ozone. Framing under glass dramatically reduces gas fade problems (essentially eliminating external contamination but not the potential contamination that can be produced within the frame's own microclimate), However, in situations where one wants to display without glazing, airborne gaseous pollutants and good ole' fashioned dirt and grease particles in the air will take their toll on a print as much if not more so than light fading in many cases.

Appropriate Gas fade testing equipment is in the $100 K range in terms of capital equipment costs. AaI&A has the technical know-how to perform this type of testing. However, it would take a lot more AaI&A members' and sponsors' funds to support such an effort...not likely in this current economy. Perhaps a more pragmatic approach would be for various testing labs to coordinate their testing activities by sharing resources and seeking sponsors that would get on board with that approach. This approach would even allow the same sample batches to get tested under different testing regimens and a collective database of information to be maintained...I'm just tossing the idea out there...

kind regards,
Mark
Title: Re: Epson Exhibition Fiber clone
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on December 28, 2010, 12:51:15 pm
Alan, you are referring to what most people call "off-gasing" of inkjet prints.  I think Farmer is probably talking about the effect of air pollutants like ozone.  Here's a paper on the AaI&A website that gives a real world example of both light fade issues and gas fade issues. Definitely not a soundbite, but hopefully of value to those who would like to learn a little more about print permanence issues:

http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com/cgi-bin/mrk/_4569ZGxkLzBeMjAwMDAwMDAwMTIzNDU2Nzg5LyoxMzM=

OBA loaded papers like EEF also have considerable sensitivity to ozone. Framing under glass dramatically reduces gas fade problems (essentially eliminating external contamination but not the potential contamination that can be produced within the frame's own microclimate), However, in situations where one wants to display without glazing, airborne gaseous pollutants and good ole' fashioned dirt and grease particles in the air will take their toll on a print as much if not more so than light fading in many cases.

Yes, and I misinterpreted the point he raised in the post.  Thanks for posting the link to the article.  It's interesting that indoor ozone levels would be high enough to cause serious degradation of the OBAs (or it could be that the OBAs are exquisitely sensitive).  I would presume that up in the Berkshires, ozone levels would be considerably lower than in a smog basin such as the San Fernando valley in the LA area.

Alan
Title: Re: Epson Exhibition Fiber clone
Post by: Farmer on December 28, 2010, 03:43:21 pm
Thanks, Mark - that's exactly what I'm talking about.

To see the damage that can occur just because, for example, a print was hung over a vinyl lounge or in an area that had air flow from a kitchen or near an air conditioner and so forth.  These sorts of things can pretty much destroy some prints in a matter of a few years.

Combined resources for testing of this nature would be a great idea, but I suspect that it may be politically difficult to achieve?