mid range photo surface papers and OBAs

[Mark D Segal]

The typical bound book or photo album structure does help to cover the album page surfaces to a large degree, but air tends to penetrate first at the edges. You will see the first signs of yellowing around the edges of book pages for that reason. ................. That said, choosing more durable media for long term permanence goals clearly has great merit whenever maintaining a more optimum long term storage environment is not able to be guaranteed (as happens a lot ).

cheers,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com

Your conclusion is unassailable. Just to be clear, the first thing I looked at before I posted my findings last night, obviously, was the edges of the pages. So far the dark storage experience for me has been very positive, but that's only fifteen years, and I come back to my initial question: is there a way to predict the period of time over which the OBA fading would remain unapparent under these storage conditions?

[MHMG]

So is there any value to the WIR tests at all?   I guess you could say I now have a few concerns. .

I discussed some of the differences between WIR and AaI&A testing methodologies (e.g., densitometric versus colorimetric measurements and failure criteria ) in another recent LULA thread.
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=95330.msg782143#msg782143

The entire thread is well worth reading for folks who care about print permanence issues.

There are other key differences as well between WIR and AaI&A test methods that can lead to different relative rankings for some printer/ink/media combinations in testing, but given the fact that so little  product-specific print permanence information gets published these days (or in the past for that matter), I think people interested in this topic will be best served to compare and contrast whatever results are publicly available for similar tested systems.

cheers,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com

[Mark D Segal]

Yes, and as I mentioned there, I think reply #73 says it all in terms of where we stand today. The state of industry support for more rigorous testing criteria is of course unsurprising, which is unfortunate.

[MHMG]

Your conclusion is unassailable. Just to be clear, the first thing I looked at before I posted my findings last night, obviously, was the edges of the pages. So far the dark storage experience for me has been very positive, but that's only fifteen years, and I come back to my initial question: is there a way to predict the period of time over which the OBA fading would remain unapparent under these storage conditions?

Unlike certain chromogenic color dyes used in traditional color print process (i.e. Ektacolor, Fujicolor, etc., papers processed in RA4 chemistry) OBAs are thermally stable (labs can test them using Arrhenius equation as the accelerated dark storage test methodology). Hence, OBAs can last a very long time, i.e., indefinitely, in dark storage as can some of the most fugitive naturally occurring organic dyes and the majority of dye-based inks used in inkjet printing. The key is to prevent ozone and other deleterious gases from reaching the print surface and also to prevent any light-induced OBA fading prior to dark storage because the light degraded OBAs can then further exhibit additional yellow staining, (i.e. I'm seeing mounting evidence in my research that the light induced fade reaction by-products don't remain colorless after being retired from an illuminated display environment where some degradation has already occurred).

These dark storage factors are where the OBA vulnerability lies, and they are hard to avoid year after year, generation after generation. That's why I generally avoid OBA containing papers in my own printmaking. When I do choose a paper containing some OBAs, I will only select papers that get rated as "yes (low)" in the AaI&A database column labeled "Optical Brightener".  And even there, I further look for papers in the yes/low category where the OBA is constrained just to the paper core and not located in any of the front side coatings. HN photo Rag is the quintessential example of one such paper. You can determine these OBA locations yourself with a blacklight and a magnifying loop trained on the cross-sectional edge of the paper. BTW, very very few RC photo type papers, essentially just some of the so-called proofing papers, fit the bill. Typical RC photo papers use OBAs liberally in the Polyethylene (PE) subbing layers and often in the microporous ink receptor layers (which makes them highly vulnerable to photo oxidation and ozone degradation).

best,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com

[Mark D Segal]

OK, thanks Mark. This is really valuable. Using HN Photo Rag as a reference point for "acceptable" use of OBAs, how would you rate your known samples of Ilford Gold Fibre Silk or Canson Baryta Photographique in relation to that?

[MHMG]

OK, thanks Mark. This is really valuable. Using HN Photo Rag as a reference point for "acceptable" use of OBAs, how would you rate your known samples of Ilford Gold Fibre Silk or Canson Baryta Photographique in relation to that?

I personally have mixed feelings about IGFS and Canson Baryta Photographique. I really love the texture and initial white point, but I don't use it personally because the back coating will not allow me to back print (I'm a big fan of metadata on the verso of my prints). That said, these papers do fit my "yes/low" criterion for OBA content, but that content is likely in one of the subbing layers and not just in the paper core.

One way I can tell these two different brands are more than likely coming from the same coating plant and sharing the same front and back side coating technology (paper base is probably different) is that they have a somewhat unique signature for the light-induced low intensity staining (LILIS) issue I alluded to earlier. The LILIS effect appears rather quickly (in just a few weeks time) after removing the samples from the light exposure unit compared to other media that also exhibit the LILIS effect.  Because some of my measurements of the test samples after each exposure interval in AaI&A testing don't always occur as fast as I would like (I can't afford staff to help me always make the report updates in a more timely fashion), some of the tests reports show some dips in the I* curves and then some "recovery" at the next exposure interval when the measurements are made more promptly. The LILIS stain is thus light bleachable, but it returns once the sample is again retired to a dark storage condition. IGFS and CIBP thus show the LILIS effect quickly enough to be detected  in my routine light fade testing practices whereas with most other products that exhibit the phenomenon it usually takes much longer (several months as opposed to several weeks) to show up in the retired samples.  Consequently, accelerated light fade tests alone don't always give us the full picture of all light induced changes that will occur over time. One has to go back and add in dark storage effects many months after the testing to complete the evaluation (I'm currently working on how best to present these finding of my research, but time is always my worst enemy).

For the CIBP and the IGFS, the visual appearance changes due to the LILIS effect are subtle and not very easily noticed by anyone but the most discriminating viewers. Nevertheless, the additional stain level is measureable, and it causes these products to flirt with the AaI&A Conservation display rating criteria limits in a way where just slightly altering the rating specification would rank this product for better or worse ratings  Anyway, another reason for my mixed feelings about IGFS and CIBP, but I think to keep things in perspective, the LILIS issue is perhaps not very serious with respect to the CIBP and IGFS media for most printmakers, certainly no where near as bad as many RC papers like Epson Premium Luster.  EPL is one paper that exhibits the LILIS phenomenon quite strongly in samples I've retired from light fade testing over the past few years...so much so that I would have to put it solidly in the "not recommended" category along with EEF for fine art prints made for "archival" purposes, all things considered.


cheers,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com

[Mark D Segal]

Thanks Mark, that's very interesting and helpful. Because of how much I enjoy the richness/gamut of IGFS/CIPB I have no hesitation printing with them; they are the papers I've used that come closest to not requiring soft-proofing (which I still do anyhow), and they are relatively affordable in the niche of high-quality papers. One needs to balance these advantages against the longevity considerations, but from what you say above, it would seem one can be more relaxed using these papers compared with EPL and EEF, which I also avoid.

[Alan Goldhammer]

OBAs require UV light in order to fluoresce and repeated excitation of the molecules can eventual cause a chemical change that is dependent on the molecule in quesiton such that it no longer fluoresces.  This is the common "yellowing" of the paper effect which Mark Segal observed on his refrigerator print; it's also called burn out.  Dark storage eliminates this factor as no UV light - no excitation of the OBA and thus no burn out.  As noted by Mark M-G, ozone is also a culprit here and dark storage is not going to help out if there are high ambient levels of ozone.  If one has a house in the Los Angeles smog bowl or Mexico City there will be very large ambient ozone levels compared to Toronto Canada and one would have serious concerns about ozone damage.  It's going to be time dependent as well.  I'm not sure whether protective sprays are helpful here or not as the back side of the paper which might be unsprayed could allow ozone penetration.  It's also important to note that if the spray is a UV protecting spray, the OBA is effectively neutered.

I agree with Mark M-G that printing on non-OBA containing papers is the best approach.  My personal favorite paper in this regard is Museo Silver Rag which does better than IGFS in stability testing.  I wish we had a more complete data set on ink sets over on Mark M-G's site but that requires funding.  Until the larger community both photographers and suppliers step up to the plate this won't happen.  We will continue to have to extrapolate across what is already done in terms of the available data.

[Mark D Segal]

Alan, have you seen any data on the gamut volume (measured in ColorThink Pro) and DMax of Museo SIlver Rag/Epson x900 inkset?

[Alan Goldhammer]

Alan, have you seen any data on the gamut volume (measured in ColorThink Pro) and DMax of Museo SIlver Rag/Epson x900 inkset?

No I have not.  I have measured Dmax myself with my 3880 and it gives a deeper black than IGFS.  I measured the black spot on the Outback test print and if I recall correctly, IGFS measured 2.3 and Museo Silver Rag was 2.45.  I've looked at wire frame comparisons of the two profiles using the ArgyllCMS tools and Silver Rag was bigger.  I think there is an Argyll tool to calculate gamut volume, I'll have to check and see.  It's also important to note that the surface of Silver Rag is different from IGFS

[Mark D Segal]

No I have not.  I have measured Dmax myself with my 3880 and it gives a deeper black than IGFS.  I measured the black spot on the Outback test print and if I recall correctly, IGFS measured 2.3 and Museo Silver Rag was 2.45.  I've looked at wire frame comparisons of the two profiles using the ArgyllCMS tools and Silver Rag was bigger.  I think there is an Argyll tool to calculate gamut volume, I'll have to check and see.  It's also important to note that the surface of Silver Rag is different from IGFS

Alan, I think the DMax difference you quote is likely to be imperceptible to the human visual system in prints. A 3880, while a superb printer, doesn't have as large a gamut as the 4900, so I would still be interested in seeing if anyone with a 4900 and ColorThink Pro could report a comparative gamut volume from profiles of this paper made for a 4900. I was looking to do this myself - no big deal - except for the fact that this paper seems unavailable from all the mainline outlets in the Toronto area. Perhaps I need to look harder, otherwise I would need to bring in a package from the US and it's expensive to start with, even more so with delivery costs. May do so "next year" anyhow. Have a happy new year.

[deanwork]

I did some work yesterday with the Hah Photorag Baryta that I quit using years ago due to the silver spec issue. That issue seems to be resolved and I am very happy to have this paper to use again.

I also printed the same files with the Canson Platine and I am happy to be revisiting that media as well. Both are non oba papers but the Canson is whiter. The Canson Platine is also much sharper. I had forgotten this. I've been using the Hah pearl surface papers for the last few years, which I also like. For some things I might have to actually use less sharpening of the file.

With the Platine there is a big difference in resolution compared to the Hahnemuhle papers. I just think their coating is more refined as is also evidenced by the Rag Photographique / Photorag comparison.

However, I like the texture of the Hah Photorag Baryta better. It just seems more natural to me and less shiny in areas of solid color and black. The Platine has a little of the machine made texturizing pattern. But they are both great. I'm having a hard time deciding on which to stock in roll form. I might end up using both for different projects. The Platine also bronzes a lot more with my Canon and HP inks and really needs to be sprayed. That's not a problem because I'm going to do that anyway. Bronzing of blacks is also more prominent with the Photorag Baryta than the pearl surface Hah papers with the Canon inks,

john

[Mark D Segal]

You may recall Mark Dubovoy's review of Canson Platine here: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/the_paper_that_almost_got_away.shtml

[Pic One]

So to throw out a couple questions:
No holds barred, which paper is the longest lasting that contains a smooth finish?  ie. which paper would you choose for a photo album with a hope of the photos in it lasting in the best possible condition for over 200 years?

Taking a paper such as Museo Silver Rag, which starts already somewhat yellowed (ie. "warmer") vs. neutral, and then noticing its decrease in paper white from original is less, any different than taking eg. Canson Baryta Photo and just resigning ourselves to the paper turning into Silver Rag over time?   if the other colors adjust evenly, that is.

I realized that one paper I have a box of (Red River San Gabriel Baryta) lists in its specs that it has no OBAs, so purely from that standpoint, perhaps this meets the OP's criteria?    Certainly a more affordable baryta paper anyway.

[TylerB]

thank you for your suggestion about Red River San Gabriel Baryta. I too ran across it in my search and was interested, unfortunately they don't sell 44" rolls for some reason.

[Pic One]

You must have noticed that almost all the RC papers, gloss to matte, have OBA content with the exception of some proofing papers that either have little or no OBA content. I use Epson Proofing White SemiMatte RC that has a tiny bit of OBA in the paper base according Mark McCormick. The surface may not be everyone's taste but for portraits it should be good. Good gamut BTW.


Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst

http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
December 2014 update, 700+ inkjet media white spectral plots

I'm now also looking at the Red River Palo Duro Satin..  I think a relatively newer paper.  Though a RC it supposedly is a warmer-toned, low OBA content paper.   Could potentially meet a coated low OBA criteria.     Has anyone tried this paper yet?

[MHMG]

I'm now also looking at the Red River Palo Duro Satin..  I think a relatively newer paper.  Though a RC it supposedly is a warmer-toned, low OBA content paper.   Could potentially meet a coated low OBA criteria.     Has anyone tried this paper yet?

From the description page on the RR website: "Palo Duro Satin features a subtle surface texture and elegant warm tone, because it contains minimal optical brighteners in the base stock and none in the coating".

If Palo Duro Satin truly has no OBA in  the coating, and by coating it means both ink receptor layer and PE subbing layer, then this product fits the description of an RC proofing paper. If so, it stands a good chance of having good white point stability both on display and when removed from display to dark storage.   I will prioritize it on my "to do" list for light fastness/dark stain testing, but first I'm trying to raise the funding for testing of the newest Epson Ultrachrome HD ink set (released with the new P600 printer) on several types of media.  Please see the AaI&A homepage for details on this project.  The Palo Duro Satin would be a good one to to include in this round of testing.

cheers,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com

[Mark D Segal]

............The Canson Platine is also much sharper. ............. With the Platine there is a big difference in resolution compared to the Hahnemuhle papers.
......
john

As I had heard good things about Platine and seeing your comments on sharpness and resolution, as I mentioned the other day, given it was on sale, I decided I should finally try it. I ran some tests using 13*19 sheets in both colour and B&W, using very high resolution files (the B&Ws are from a Sony A7R, the colour is Bill Atkinson's printer test page). In my case, I am using an Epson 4900 and the comparison paper is Ilford Gold Fibre Silk (IGFS), which is my standard printing paper. Between these two papers and from the Epson 4900 with the Epson HDR inkset, there is zero perceptible difference in sharpness or resolution in any of these prints. Rendition of shadow detail is also pretty much the same. There is also extremely little difference in the appearance of the unprinted paper white.

The major difference in my case is that I think the Platine with its cotton rag backing created a huge clogging issue which never before arose with this printer in the middle of a printing session. It is proving very stubborn to rectify as well. I think I shall need at least another round of print-clean (done three already) to flush out whatever started gumming up the works. Printing with IGFS this kind of thing simply hasn't happened before. Normally, I only get broken nozzle checks if the printer had been left too long without being used. Unless this is a big coincidence with the cause being something else, it seems to be that this paper/printer combination isn't healthy and I shall not be switching to it. At its normal pricing the Platine is about twice as costly as the IGFS with no apparent advantage in respect of image quality - at least none that I could see. I used custom profiles for both papers, made in the same way with the same profiling kit (X-Rite Pulse Elite).

[Jager]

I've long-used Canson's Baryta Photographique (IGFS' long-lost, separated-at-birth-twin) as my go-to paper.  Like you, Mark, I see little detail difference between that and Platine Rag.  What I really like about the Platine is the - to me - more luxuriant feel of the cotton vs. cellulose base.

I've never observed any flaking or dusting with the Platine.  But if it is somehow the cause of clogging that would be very disheartening.  Are you seeing any paper shedding, Mark?

[Mark D Segal]

I've long-used Canson's Baryta Photographique (IGFS' long-lost, separated-at-birth-twin) as my go-to paper.  Like you, Mark, I see little detail difference between that and Platine Rag.  What I really like about the Platine is the - to me - more luxuriant feel of the cotton vs. cellulose base.

I've never observed any flaking or dusting with the Platine.  But if it is somehow the cause of clogging that would be very disheartening.  Are you seeing any paper shedding, Mark?

Hi Jeff,

I know - different strokes for different folks - literally in this case - but I never got any jollies from feeling the back of prints. The only things that matter to me are what the photo looks like and whether it will endure. So for me in this case there is zero trade-off between the feel of the paper and the high cost and inconvenience of using it. With an Epson 4900 one can't see evidence of paper dust where it would matter most, and no, looking at what one can see, I don't - but this is perhaps inconsequential because we are dealing with nozzles that are smaller than human hairs, so I suspect that sub-visible particulates could mess them up. Anyhow, this is a hypothesis based on circumstantial evidence of two highly unusual coincidental factors: use of this paper and clogging mid session. It could be something else altogether. No way of knowing.