Is it worth it with Baryta's - thinking of going back to RC papers!

[narikin]

After months going through many rolls of extremely expensive baryta art papers, I'm thinking of returning to regular Epson papers for my fine art printing needs.

I've had it with super pricey rolls of media that you can hardly touch without scratching, or that flake off spoiling otherwise good prints, or that have a curl that fights you every time, or have a poor factory profile, or that come in short 40' rolls instead of 50 or 100.  Also my prints are not handled  - they go straight from printing to framer, so you can forget about 'feel' and 'weight' etc.

OBA's - yes I know about those, but many papers with OBA's do well on Aardenberg - really well.  Like Epsons and Canons, giving good long life in fade tests.  Some others with no OBA's dont keep up with these... so thats not a decider. (I'm also not into matt art papers, so lets leave those aside)

So.. my question is: are my pictures really going to  suffer? Is the Gamut/DMax of Epson Premium Semi Glossy significantly worse than Canson Baryta Photographique? or Hahnemuhle Baryta Pearl?  Is there really an obvious difference?  Can someone with a gamut plotting system see huge leaps when they go to a Baryta profile over a regular photo paper.

Maybe I've just forgotten why we bother - can someone remind me?!

[Josh-H]

LOL - sounds like you are a might 'confused' - And really... its no wonder given the plethora of papers out there on the market nowadays. I mean it has gotten to the point where it is almost ridiculous and it really is getting hard to ignore the hype each manufacturer inevitably puts out with each new paper they release. The temptation to keep looking for that new or next silver bullet is very tempting with photographic papers. However...

I try and always harken back to some very good advice I was once heard (I cant credit it who it was as I dont remember) and that is - ignore the hype of new papers. Pick two or three papers you really like (regardless of what others think) and then get really good at printing with them.

If one is forever changing papers its impossible to get really good at printing with 'a' particular paper. If on the other hand... that is all you print on then one learns all the subtleties of the paper and how to coax the best from it. Nowdays I am down to just two papers - Moab Somerset Museum Rag (a matt paper I am just in love with) and Hahnemuhle PhotoRag Baryta for gloss. These papers work for me. They may not do so for you - and I am not recommending them. Just making an example of the fact that I am down to only two papers.

Now I do try new papers from time to time - in fact I have a cut sheet here of Moabs new Lasal Exhibition Luster I picked up this afternoon to try out tonight. But a new paper has to really blow me away to get me to switch camps. Moab Somerset Museum Rag did this for me. The Hahnemuhle PhotoRag Baryta I just found the best of the Barytas (for me).

Citing myself again as an example: When framing my work I have come to discover that I prefer matt papers as the glass gives the overall 'package' some gloss. I find gloss papers to reflective under glass in most cases. You have ruled out matt papers - so enough said on that score. And its just personal opinion on my part.

Turning to your question - Are Baryta papers worth it?

Depends.

Depends on what you are looking for. You mention 'feel' is not important as your work is immediately framed. Therefore, if a luster paper offers you as good or better dmax and overall results than a Baryta then there is no good reason to use a Baryta (ignoring for a minute the 'tooth' of the paper). Its that simple.

Personally, I have tried a good number of the Baryta papers (but far from all of them) and spoken with photographers who have also tried them as well as others. I like the 'feel' and the 'tooth' of the PhotoRag Baryta paper - it really reminds me of air dried darkroom paper. But its dam expensive and its dmax is questionably better (to my eye no better) than something like Ilford smooth Pearl at less than 1/2 the price.

From your post it sounds to me like you have already talked yourself out of Baryta papers - and thats ok. They are not silver bullets; nor are they a pre-requisite for a fine art image. They are just the latest incarnation of in vogue inkjet papers that there are some very good reasons to like (for some photographers). Metallic papers are now coming on strong.. being marketed as 'Cibachrome replacements' - time will tell wether they become the new in vogue papers.

So.. I say.. if you have a luster paper you are fond of - print on it and enjoy it and dont feel down for a moment if you are not printing on a more expensive Baryta paper.

[NikoJorj]

Also my prints are not handled  - they go straight from printing to framer, so you can forget about 'feel' and 'weight' etc.

At this condition, I'd said that you may go back to RCs without too many regrets...

I'd also second what Josh said :

If one is forever changing papers its impossible to get really good at printing with 'a' particular paper.

[Ernst Dinkla]

After months going through many rolls of extremely expensive baryta art papers, I'm thinking of returning to regular Epson papers for my fine art printing needs.

I've had it with super pricey rolls of media that you can hardly touch without scratching, or that flake off spoiling otherwise good prints, or that have a curl that fights you every time, or have a poor factory profile, or that come in short 40' rolls instead of 50 or 100.  Also my prints are not handled  - they go straight from printing to framer, so you can forget about 'feel' and 'weight' etc.

OBA's - yes I know about those, but many papers with OBA's do well on Aardenberg - really well.  Like Epsons and Canons, giving good long life in fade tests.  Some others with no OBA's dont keep up with these... so thats not a decider. (I'm also not into matt art papers, so lets leave those aside)

So.. my question is: are my pictures really going to  suffer? Is the Gamut/DMax of Epson Premium Semi Glossy significantly worse than Canson Baryta Photographique? or Hahnemuhle Baryta Pearl?  Is there really an obvious difference?  Can someone with a gamut plotting system see huge leaps when they go to a Baryta profile over a regular photo paper.

Maybe I've just forgotten why we bother - can someone remind me?!

The essential question is whether RC papers have less "archival" properties. Archival in the broad sense of longevity of its construction. The light and gas fading isn't unfavorable at all for several RC qualities, not on the paper white, not on the printed image. For example the Canon Heavyweight Satin Photographic Paper 300 gsm, some Epson Premium qualities. All three with FBA content. What is missing is a true test on the polyethylene barrier degradation, the white one at the front side of the paper base, the transparent one at the back, their bond to the paper, the bond of the inkjet coating to the front barrier. Both in framed condition and in bare exposure, handled by people, archived in albums. Let some fiber based papers and matte art papers run in that test as well. I think we will get some nice surprises.

There are two Epson RC papers with little or no FBA content. The one with the highest reflection but warm is the Epson Proofing White Semimatte 256gsm. I found only one photographer (outside the proofing world) who uses it and he has samples 2 years old, not specially archived and they look well he wrote me. He is very pleased with the paper. He uses the paper for proofing prints that will finally be printed on Ilford Gold Fibre Silk. I have seen it comes close to that look but it has even more similarity with Canson Baryta Photographique, Platine Fiber Rag and Innova FibaPrint White Gloss IFA09. Lower in weight though. Unprinted samples checked. I have to order a roll, I´m intrigued by that paper. Someone could check the profile gamuts of Canson Platine Fiber Rag and this paper for the same printer. They should exist for the Epson 3800. About the same white paper reflectance so only the inkjet coating properties, ink absorption etc, could make the difference.

When the Fiber and Baryta papers were introduced I have been sceptic whether that wasn´t the next hype in inkjet papers. On some points I was plain wrong, barite has some nice qualities as a whitening agent. On the other hand I am still not convinced that all cotton is superior to alpha cellulose, that polyethylene or the improved copolymers used today for barriers are not archival at all. I stick to that idea till proven wrong. As a silkscreen printer I have worked with a wide range of media from rag papers to plastics. There are some traditional myths in the fine arts and photography world that should get their testing.

Paper manufacturers could improve the look of RC papers that they resemble the baryta papers of the analogue period, there have been analogue RC papers that came close too in that period. Barite and RC are not a contradiction either, barite and some FBA content neither.


met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst Dinkla

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

[Josh-H]

I've just done some test print on the new Moab Lasal Exhibition Luster RC paper.
The initial results and my impressions may be of interest:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=51504.msg423937#msg423937

[Alan Goldhammer]

When the Fiber and Baryta papers were introduced I have been sceptic whether that wasn´t the next hype in inkjet papers. On some points I was plain wrong, barite has some nice qualities as a whitening agent. On the other hand I am still not convinced that all cotton is superior to alpha cellulose, that polyethylene or the improved copolymers used today for barriers are not archival at all. I stick to that idea till proven wrong. As a silkscreen printer I have worked with a wide range of media from rag papers to plastics. There are some traditional myths in the fine arts and photography world that should get their testing.

Exactly right.  From a chemical perspective, it really should not matter much if the base is cotton rag or alpha cellulose as long as the alpha cellulose processing step gets rid of the lignin.  I also think we have come a long way since Kodak introduced RC paper for traditional photography in the early 1970s.  I remember making a bunch of prints and thinking that this was really great since I did not have to spend a lot of time clearing hypo.  Unfortunately, the prints degraded rather quickly souring me on RC paper for a long time.  Barite (or baryta) has been used in the past as a photo paper whitening agent.  I've got some traditional B&W prints on barite based paper that still look as good as the day they came out of the selenium toning bath.  The real problem we have at this point is too many papers (some of which are probably identical save for the tradename on the package) and not enough knowledge about their long term stability.

[teddillard]

I try and always harken back to some very good advice I was once heard (I cant credit it who it was as I dont remember) and that is - ignore the hype of new papers. Pick two or three papers you really like (regardless of what others think) and then get really good at printing with them.

If one is forever changing papers its impossible to get really good at printing with 'a' particular paper. If on the other hand... that is all you print on then one learns all the subtleties of the paper and how to coax the best from it.
So.. I say.. if you have a luster paper you are fond of - print on it and enjoy it and dont feel down for a moment if you are not printing on a more expensive Baryta paper.

Josh, this is the best advice I've seen...  I often say the same, and this goes back to my darkroom days, and paper, as well as film.  I kept seeing a new emulsion come out and get touted as the hot setup by all the photo mags.  Now, I understand that's what moves the industry, but I never left my Tri-X/D76, Dektol and Ilford routine, simply because I knew how to get the best print from that combination.

Coming from a strong printmaking (in the Graphic Arts sense- etching, litho, serigraph, like that) background as well, I had a long run with watercolor papers until Bill Atkinson made a comment to me- once a print is under glass, the material is really not apparent anymore...  so why would you print an image that needs a huge gamut on a lesser-gamut watercolor media?  Why indeed... 

All that said, I do feel that inkjet printing gives you a unique opportunity to experiment with different types of surfaces, and you're missing something very important if you don't take advantage of that.  It's a huge departure for me, and largely a result with a piece I wrote on Bruce Keyes, who experiments with surfaces and types of media relentlessly...  when I asked him how he felt about the old-school Zone-inspired methods of visualization, limiting your methods and all that stuff, he said "I don't see the point of saddling my students with all that outdated BS!" 

So my horizons are a little more open than they used to be, but still, I think you have to use the right tool for the job, and to do that, you have to know your tools...  and you can only do that by following my Grandpappy's advice:  "...make print after print after print after print.  THEN you'll learn how to make a print!"

[narikin]

Thanks all for your thoughtful replies. Yes, like Ernst, I am feeling that there's a lot of hype/marketing around Baryta's and all cotton 'art' papers, when great RC papers exist that are affordable, physically durable, lay flat, have great gamut, good white point, long fade resistance, and a nice range of finishes.  Behind a frame, who cares about their 'feel'?

I am perplexed how I can go through multiple 100ft rolls of Epson Premium SemiGloss 250, without a single fault, but find spots, emulsion flakes, holes and dust every 3 feet on Hahnemuhle or Canson paper at 4-8x the price.  Can someone explain why ?

It boils down to this: if my images will truly look better, with deeper blacks and purer colors on Baryta's, then I will struggle on,  but I am beginning to doubt that core issue.

[Ernst Dinkla]

Maybe I should explain a bit more. I'm using Photorag for ten years now and will continue to use it. I'm using German Etching as long. The last is a paper with issues but a texture/feel clone without the issues isn't around. Museum White possibly to a degree and then I still have customers that will ask questions. I use William Turner. I have a watercolor textured paper. I think Moab Entrada and Cansone Rag Photographique could be improvements on the matte papers I have. I use HM Baryta Rag and it works, HP Baryta less well, Innova and Harman qualities not.  I have a wider range of RC papers that give no problems at all. There is no nice matte RC quality. I use HP Matte Litho-Realistic and I like it. There is no nice warm dual sided in that category: price + weight. I use a lot of different matte papers, inkjet coated or not for book like productions etc.

This is not about rejecting anything that isn't an RC paper. I love the matte papers and actually started using gloss paper later. And I have learned to deal with paper issues in the printer and after printing. Have invested time to get the best from what a paper can deliver. There is however one thing that I do not like and that is using tools and media with a so called superior quality if I do not see that quality or can not measure that quality.

There is a Jobo Autolab 1000 with a bottle of Rodinal next to it and rolls 120 of Tri-X still in the fridge. It has been like that 40 years ago. I have not touched it for 6 months though but it could happen again next week. Amateur photographer but I know that feeling for media you trust and know.


met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst Dinkla

New: Spectral plots of +250 inkjet papers:
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm

[teddillard]

Thanks all for your thoughtful replies. Yes, like Ernst, I am feeling that there's a lot of hype/marketing around Baryta's and all cotton 'art' papers, when great RC papers exist that are affordable, physically durable, lay flat, have great gamut, good white point, long fade resistance, and a nice range of finishes.  Behind a frame, who cares about their 'feel'?
...
It boils down to this: if my images will truly look better, with deeper blacks and purer colors on Baryta's, then I will struggle on,  but I am beginning to doubt that core issue.

Jeese, I waffle so much on this question...   but your comment on the black just brought something to mind.  We're just about to release a new paper, it's to replace our Angelica Bright White Velvet, cleverly called "Angelica Bright White Velvet II", and I've been working with it a lot lately.  It's a Somerset Velvet kind of thing, and it's just plain yummy.  (My highest level of praise.)  But one of our friends, Bob Bergeron, sent over a B/W print with a full-on black-as-you-can-print area that just knocked my socks off.  It's not really just the feel of the paper, it's how the ink sits on it, and there's nothing like rich black ink on a bright white velvet paper...  there I go again, back to my litho days!  (At least I don't have to carry those big stones around and breath lacquer thinner anymore!)

[MHMG]

Coming from a strong printmaking (in the Graphic Arts sense- etching, litho, serigraph, like that) background as well, I had a long run with watercolor papers until Bill Atkinson made a comment to me- once a print is under glass, the material is really not apparent anymore...  so why would you print an image that needs a huge gamut on a lesser-gamut watercolor media?  Why indeed... 

I've heard it mentioned many times that you can't tell media texture differences once they are framed under glazing. Is it just me that thinks this comment isn't entirely true?  While reflection control glazing that uses a microetched surface to scatter the light does indeed obscure most media qualities, I have no trouble spotting a luster-type surface from a glossy or matte underneath normal glass or acrylic, and an even easier time when the glazing is a true reflection-control material like True-vue Museum glass. I admit I can't tell smooth matte watercolor papers like HN photo rag from others in the same class unless one was loaded with OBAs and the other not, so I concede there is certainly some truth to the statement.  But as an overarching rationale not to concern oneself with visual surface appearance of the media, this statement seems a little too broad in its assessment.

As for the "archivalness" of RC versus the new "traditional Fibre" inkjet papers like Canson Platine or HN photo Rag Baryta, I think we have a lot of research still ahead of us, and ultimately, documented failures in the field are going to help us figure it out. We know that the early problems with TiO2 embedded in the PE layer (i.e., light triggers free-radical generation by the TiO2 which in turn embrittles the PE over time and causes cracking) has been greatly improved with additional chemistry like anti-oxidants, but has the problem been reduced to the point where it is no worse than other cracking/flaking mechanisms which routinely affect hygroscopic coatings like traditional gelatin? This situation is very hard to quantify in the laboratory because one needs to create the right conditions of light plus heat and humidity cycling (the cycling initiates the cracking). My colleagues in the field that do this type of research, myself included, have a long way to go on these subtle physical failure mechanisms.  So, sometimes it's wise simply to choose more well known media coating and paper base configurations.  Trouble is, microporous coatings themselves are a new hygroscopic coating entity, and in their own right have brittleness issues that can lead to cracking/delamination over time in cyclical environments.  To summarize, it's not easy to pick the ultimate winners on overall physical and chemical durability of modern media.  Almost every system has certain strengths and weaknesses, and the real-world environment in which the print is located will also have a say in which system is "best" under the chosen conditions. That said, the more information we have on various failure mechanisms, the more informed a decision can be made.

On the issue of yield problems with some of the expensive new media compared to RC media:  RC base paper was developed in the photographic industry, and the precision-extruded PE layers (which hide many small paper base flaws) are typically coated under very exacting "clean room" manufacturing conditions. The inkjet receptor coatings are added later by many more vendors, often under less perfect manufacturing conditions, but they at least have a near-perfect base upon which to apply their coatings. So, the final defect level can be very low. Compare this manufacturing mode to the new "digital fine art" media that are derivatives of traditional paper mill-made fine art papers. These wonderful old mills often have little or no control over dust and dirt in the paper slurry, and the defects and fiber irregularities which find their way into the finished paper are usually prized rather than shunned by the artists who use these historic papers for watercolors, pastels, etc, to achieve a very hand crafted look. Contrast the hand-crafted expectation of subtle and often coveted print irregularities to digital print buyers' expecations where they insist the digital print provider give them flawless defect-free prints.  Even in the "good-ole" darkroom days printmakers were given the liberty of a dust spot or two plus some hand applied spotting on the print. But now many customers want perfection coming off the printer, and the only way to get that with today's digital fine art media is to accept a relatively high print rejection rate and make up for the yield issues in the price the customer pays for this perfection. The look of hand-craftedness plus the goal of flawless prints at the limits of human eye resolution is a very challenging balancing act. RC papers will definitely get you to flawless prints more easily, but some customers will object that the finished piece doesn't have a "fine art" look or feel to it, even when looking at it under glass

kind regards,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com

[natas]

I know the feeling as well. I tried all the Baryta's out there and when they came out fine I loved the look but I too got tired of them easily scratching or flaking. You have to be very careful with them. I even had issues derolling them at times.

I have standardized on 4 papers.

Epson Exhibition Fibre - You will see some issues here and there but no where close to the Barytas (from my experience)
Epson Premium Luster - This is what I use for cheap prints and it looks really good
Epson Hot Press natural - Great paper
BreathingColor Lyve Canvas

People love the EEF. So far I have gone through 3 24inch rolls of this stuff and I rarely have to do reprints because of a flaw.

[Alan Goldhammer]

I've heard it mentioned many times that you can't tell media texture differences once they are framed under glazing. Is it just me that thinks this comment isn't entirely true?  While reflection control glazing that uses a microetched surface to scatter the light does indeed obscure most media qualities, I have no trouble spotting a luster-type surface from a glossy or matte underneath normal glass or acrylic, and an even easier time when the glazing is a true reflection-control material like True-vue Museum glass. I admit I can't tell smooth matte watercolor papers like HN photo rag from others in the same class unless one was loaded with OBAs and the other not, so I concede there is certainly some truth to the statement.  But as an overarching rationale not to concern oneself with visual surface appearance of the media, this statement seems a little too broad in its assessment.

I also find that it's easy to tell the difference between paper surfaces

As for the "archivalness" of RC versus the new "traditional Fibre" inkjet papers like Canson Platine or HN photo Rag Baryta, I think we have a lot of research still ahead of us, and ultimately, documented failures in the field are going to help us figure it out. We know that the early problems with TiO2 embedded in the PE layer (i.e., light triggers free-radical generation by the TiO2 which in turn embrittles the PE over time and causes cracking) has been greatly improved with additional chemistry like anti-oxidants, but has the problem been reduced to the point where it is no worse than other cracking/flaking mechanisms which routinely affect hygroscopic coatings like traditional gelatin? This situation is very hard to quantify in the laboratory because one needs to create the right conditions of light plus heat and humidity cycling (the cycling initiates the cracking). My colleagues in the field that do this type of research, myself included, have a long way to go on these subtle physical failure mechanisms.  So, sometimes it's wise simply to choose more well known media coating and paper base configurations.  Trouble is, microporous coatings themselves are a new hygroscopic coating entity, and in their own right have brittleness issues that can lead to cracking/delamination over time in cyclical environments.  To summarize, it's not easy to pick the ultimate winners on overall physical and chemical durability of modern media.  Almost every system has certain strengths and weaknesses, and the real-world environment in which the print is located will also have a say in which system is "best" under the chosen conditions. That said, the more information we have on various failure mechanisms, the more informed a decision can be made.

Thanks for the information on TiO2; this was a facet of its chemistry that I was not aware of.  I often wondered by baryta was chosen as the whitening agent instead of TiO2, it must be this photochemistry which as far as I know is absent from Barium Sulfate.  There is a lot going on in terms of paper and coating as well as ink stability that we need to know about.  Even so, if one considers where we are today versus even 10 years ago, it's pretty amazing.   

[Ernst Dinkla]

I
Epson Exhibition Fibre - You will see some issues here and there but no where close to the Barytas (from my experience)
Epson Premium Luster - This is what I use for cheap prints and it looks really good

A nice illustration for the subject of this thread.
The two show an unexpected ranking if it is about color fading, paper white shift.


met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst Dinkla

New: Spectral plots of +250 inkjet papers:
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm

[narikin]

I've heard it mentioned many times that you can't tell media texture differences once they are framed under glazing. Is it just me that thinks this comment isn't entirely true?  While reflection control glazing that uses a microetched surface to scatter the light does indeed obscure most media qualities, I have no trouble spotting a luster-type surface from a glossy or matte underneath normal glass or acrylic, and an even easier time when the glazing is a true reflection-control material like True-vue Museum glass.

Thanks for your thoughtful comments Mark. (and Ernst) I should have been clearer - of course you can spot the surface even when glazed (its been causing me a lot of problems and is why I rejected papers like Platine - too much stipple) But, what I meant was the heavyweight 'art feel' - i.e. the weight and nature of the paper material - people fetish over cotton rag papers or old watercolor style papers, and sure when you handle them, its a great feeling, but once framed... its all gone, except the surface.

If you want a flat sharp photograph, then you don't usually want stipple texture ruining your detail, so.... what to do?
For this reason my compromise was Harman Baryta Gloss (ex FBAI) which has a great 'polished gloss' surface, free of texture, or to use the new flat ultra smooth matt papers. Sadly both of these scratch in an instant, so are virtually unworkable in bigger sizes that need rolling to ship to framers. They will be damaged 90% of the time.  Epson Premium Glossy does not damage easily... and looks 99% the same under glass - hence my original questioning of the whole Baryta/Fine art premise, until they can make them more durable.

[JRSmit]

Thanks all for your thoughtful replies. Yes, like Ernst, I am feeling that there's a lot of hype/marketing around Baryta's and all cotton 'art' papers, when great RC papers exist that are affordable, physically durable, lay flat, have great gamut, good white point, long fade resistance, and a nice range of finishes.  Behind a frame, who cares about their 'feel'?

I am perplexed how I can go through multiple 100ft rolls of Epson Premium SemiGloss 250, without a single fault, but find spots, emulsion flakes, holes and dust every 3 feet on Hahnemuhle or Canson paper at 4-8x the price.  Can someone explain why ?

It boils down to this: if my images will truly look better, with deeper blacks and purer colors on Baryta's, then I will struggle on,  but I am beginning to doubt that core issue.

I use sheet paper and to date the max size is A3+. In direct comparison, ie a baryta (Harman FBAI, Hahn FotragBaryta) print side to side with a non baryta print, the baryta print is more appealing, more 3-dimensional. Downside of the barytas is that the papers are not flat, thus need to be flattened somehow to prevent the printhead from touching the paper. So i use it only for cases where the best print possible is needed. Also if put behind glass in a frame the differences are minimal.

[Alan Goldhammer]

I use sheet paper and to date the max size is A3+. In direct comparison, ie a baryta (Harman FBAI, Hahn FotragBaryta) print side to side with a non baryta print, the baryta print is more appealing, more 3-dimensional. Downside of the barytas is that the papers are not flat, thus need to be flattened somehow to prevent the printhead from touching the paper. So i use it only for cases where the best print possible is needed. Also if put behind glass in a frame the differences are minimal.

I've never had a head strike with Ilford Gold Fiber Silk on either an Epson 2880 and 3880; it's a very flat paper unlike every Hahnemuhle paper I print on where there is edge curl almost from the get go.

[NikoJorj]

I've never had a head strike with Ilford Gold Fiber Silk on either an Epson 2880 and 3880; it's a very flat paper unlike every Hahnemuhle paper I print on where there is edge curl almost from the get go.

Lucky you then! I have many head strikes using it in a R1800.
Like clogging, it may well be very dependant on hygrometry/temperature/wind variations/moon phase/chi of the room...