Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Printing: Printers, Papers and Inks => Topic started by: FrankG on July 04, 2015, 12:03:06 am
-
I haven't used Ilford Gold Fibre Silk for a few years. I understand there was a change in the production. Can someone that may have participated in a thread discussing this change, please provide a link for me to read up on where the paper is at now.
For a project I am about to purchase 2 boxes of 11x17 Canson Baryta Photographique but thought I'd first consider IGFS
(anyone know who has the best prices in or near Toronto?)
Thank you
Frank
-
Hi Frank, I've been using IGFS as my mainstay paper for years and right through the transition of company ownership using both the previous production and the current one. They are completely interchangeable, no need to reprofile if you use custom profiles; if you use Ilford's profiles I advise downloading the most recent ones from their website because they have improved their profiles.
I buy mine at CCBC-Club (http://www.ccbc-club.com/), 7 Labatt Street Toronto (perpendicular to the East side of River Road between Dundas and Queen). They keep their prices very competitive and over time as your purchases accumulate they apply small discounts to future purchases. I also buy my Epson inks there. They will ship, but I prefer collecting paper on the spot. Shipping carries risk of damage to the boxes from bumping corners. If the paper corners get creased it could create a mess when run through the printer. I like the way Epson packages their high-end papers in boxes with an inside all-round buffer between the box and the paper. Ilford and many others don't do this.
-
Mark
Thank you for confirming IGFS is the same and as good as it ever was. I'll check out ccbc. Haven't used them for a very long time. They were on King st back then.
F
-
It's called Prestige - I assume this is the same as Gallerie ?
ccbc don't seem to carry 11x17in
http://www.ccbc-club.com/?s=1
-
Frank. This paper is not manufactured in 11*17 inches. Don't worry about the "Prestige" business - that's just marketing; they changed their naming conventions even before the bankruptcy, but it's the identical material.
Yes - they had to close the King St. store because their lease was up and the property owner wanted the space back.
-
if you use Ilford's profiles I advise downloading the most recent ones from their website because they have improved their profiles.
Thanks for the heads up on the improved profiles Mark. Would you recommend using the latest profiles just with the current version of IFGS or would there also be a benefit with the older paper from before Ilford in Switzerland went bankrupt? I ask because I have a small amount of the old paper remaining, and whilst I'd usually be happy to try out different profiles I'd prefer an informed opinion before committing some sheets of it to an experiment.
Thanks in advance.
Dan
-
Dan, it's the same paper so if an improved profile works better with the new paper it should also work better with the old. But the only way to know for sure with your printer and your colour management set-up is to try it. A sheet or two of paper isn't a big deal in a life-time of printing. And if you don't like the new profile or were happier with the old one you can always go back to it as long as you don't delete it from your profiles folder.
-
Dan, it's the same paper so if an improved profile works better with the new paper it should also work better with the old. But the only way to know for sure with your printer and your colour management set-up is to try it. A sheet or two of paper isn't a big deal in a life-time of printing. And if you don't like the new profile or were happier with the old one you can always go back to it as long as you don't delete it from your profiles folder.
Ok, thanks Mark, I'll give the new profile a try. My hesitation is only because I have a very limited supply of the old IGFS, so I'm grateful for your clarification.
-
It is not the same paper. It has a higher OBA content.
Brian A
-
Your evidence?
-
There are older threads on the subject and this one mentions identical papers from other sources which can be cheaper to purchase:
http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=100684.0
Identical; the paper being produced by one company and just getting different labels in the distribution channels.
Edit: there has been a change in the IGFS since Ilford's collapse/resurrection. The new IGFS has a slightly higher OBA content compared to the version before. The new one is identical to the also recently introduced Felix Schoeller and Hahnemühle varieties as described in the linked thread. Whether Canson's version will follow that path I could not test yet. I expect that anyway. There will be information on their coatings from another source I respect but we have to wait.
Another edit for your convenience: https://www.vistek.ca/search/PrinterPapers/581.aspx 11x17" in Toronto at a lower price than the other brands have.
Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
December 2014 update, 700+ inkjet media white spectral plots
-
On page 210 of hia colour management book, Andrew Rodney recommends: examine the LAB values of the paper white. If a negative b* value is measured, there is a good reason to suspect optical brighteners. The other test to perform is to produce a white document in Photoshop in LABand convert that to the printer profile in question using the Absolute Colorimetric intent. If the b* value is negative as seen in the info palette set to read that color model, the paper probably contains optical brighteners.
I have done both of these tests - the first for the old and new versions of IGFS, and the second for the IGFS/4900 custom profile I made using the same instrument as that with which I performed these tests. SO here are the results:
First, the Ilford spec sheet for this paper: L=97.0, a* = -0.5, b* = 0.2.
Second: OLD IGFS as I measured it: L=97.5; a* = -0.3, b* = 0.9
Third: NEW IGFS as I measured it: L = 97.2; a* = -0.3, b* = 1.12
Fourth: Readings of paper white in Photoshop through the Profile: b* = 1.0
So if anything, no blue in b* and the new paper is a tad warmer than the old one - an irrelevant difference for practical purposes. If there are OBAs in this paper, it would take a different kind of testing to find them. If I remember correctly, Aardenburg may have seen such.
-
So if anything, no blue in b* and the new paper is a tad warmer than the old one - an irrelevant difference for practical purposes. If there are OBAs in this paper, it would take a different kind of testing to find them. If I remember correctly, Aardenburg may have seen such.
There are definitely OBAs in IGFS. Negative b* values are indeed a telltale sign of incorporated OBAs, but any paper with b* still positive but very close to 0.0 may have OBAs in the formulation as well, typically only in the paper core (e.g. Hahnemuhle Photo Rag), but OBA is still being used to tweak the paper warmth closer to a perfect neutral (under D50 Illuminant). Another good way to check for OBA is an inexpensive black light that can be purchased at stores like Home Depot, or online. An excellent way to really get good instrumented results is to do both UV included and UV excluded measurements with a spectro like i!Pro2 and calculate the difference in b* value. . i!Pro2 also supports the new M1(UV included) condition as well as the M2 condition (UV excluded). The older legacy MO standard is a UV included measurement as well, but the new M1 condition uses higher UV output, so OBA containing papers will read a little more blue under M! than M0.
IGFS's OBA content is actually more problematic than would seem by initial LAB measurements. The product exhibits low intensity light induced staining (LILIS) over and above the expected loss of fluorescence over time. This LILIS phenomenon has gone very much under reported in the print longevity ratings games. It's an industry wide problem that needs to be better addressed in the conservation literature and in modern light fade testing procedures. Whether the IGFS media whitepoint stability over time is good enough for you will depend on your personal tolerance for highlight yellowing in your prints over time. but there are some good media on the market today that do not have the LILIS problem, and there are others that have it pretty bad, particularly some very popular RC photo papers.
I'm working on a new publication regarding Light Induced discoloration to be released on the AaI&A website as soon as I can complete it, but regrettably I've run into a little writer's block. It's a tricky paper to write because if it is written only for other imaging experts then the problem will stay buried in the technical literature as it has been for the last decade or more. The photography and printmaking community needs to be brought up to speed on the situation, but this audience doesn't necessarily have an awareness of the LAB scale or other metrics needed to quantify the magnitude of this light induced media staining problem.
cheers,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com
-
Thanks Mark, I was hoping you would enter this discussion. It could be my instrument (XRite Pulse) is not picking up the OBA because it may be UV-cut; I'm trying to get clarity on this because when it was still current it had a UV cut/no-cut factory installed option. As I bought it second-hand I'm not yet able to get clarity on that detail. Do you have any reliable evidence to suggest differences of OBA content between the new and old IGFS? (BTW, that Pulse is still generating excellent profiles for me - my latest has an IGFS/4900 gamut volume of 977,000 and an overall dE of 1.07 measured from a print of the appropriately configured GM-CC.)
Thanks for bringing the LILIS issue to our attention - one would never have known otherwise. Do you have any idea how long IGFS prints could remain in dark storage before signs of this trouble would become apparent? And what lusterish media on the market with roughly equivalent DMax and gamut would be free of this problem?
-
Thanks Mark, I was hoping you would enter this discussion. It could be my instrument (XRite Pulse) is not picking up the OBA because it may be UV-cut; I'm trying to get clarity on this because when it was still current it had a UV cut/no-cut factory installed option. As I bought it second-hand I'm not yet able to get clarity on that detail. Do you have any reliable evidence to suggest differences of OBA content between the new and old IGFS? (BTW, that Pulse is still generating excellent profiles for me - my latest has an IGFS/4900 gamut volume of 977,000 and an overall dE of 1.07 measured from a print of the appropriately configured GM-CC.)
I don't have any of the latest IGFS in house. If you want to send me a small piece of your new versus old, I would be happy to measure and report back. I just stepped up to a new i!Pro2 because I want to update my tests to the new M1 measurement condition, and i need more speed than my old spetrolinos in order to deal with the new testing procedure I"m working out to track the LILIS issue.
Anyway, if you have papers high OBA papers like EEF in house, you can try reading them with your Xrite pulse and compare to the UV inc/UVexc data I list in the description page of each AaI&A test report. Also, you can cheack against Ernsts's spectrum vis measurements. This should help you figure out if your Pulse is UV excluded (M2) or UV included (older M0 condition like my spectrolinos).
Thanks for bringing the LILIS issue to our attention - one would never have known otherwise. Do you have any idea how long IGFS prints could remain in dark storage before signs of this trouble would become apparent? And what lusterish media on the market with roughly equivalent DMax and gamut would be free of this problem?
The stain can begin to form in just a few weeks after the print is retired to dark storage after sufficient light exposure on display. The extra staining can commence after there is any OBA burnout, so some will form in as little as 10 Mlux hours of light exposure, and it gets increasingly worse as light exposure dosage goes up and as more time in dark storage occurs. What makes things tricky about LILIS is that high intensity light sources can reversibly bleach the stain back to low levels, a good reason why conventional accelerated tests fail to discover the issue because the sample are usually measured immediately after the light exposure step. But the stain returns with further dark storage, so the bleaching effect is not a viable deterrent. There is a definite reciprocity law effect which clearly needs more study, but what I mean is that there is some light intensity level on display where the bleaching of the stain should match the low intensity generation of the stain. The bleaching affect is not a good solution or safe haven because it appears that at typical room display intensities, the stain generation out paces the light bleaching effect. Hence, we should be able to see the problem in real world samples, and indeed now that I know what to look for, I've got friends and colleagues finding real world samples! Fuji Crystal Archive II paper shows the effect, and I've seen real world examples with just 15 years on display at light levels of about 200 lux for 12 hours per day, a condition where this system would get an industry rating of 80+ years. Anyway, because the problem is related to OBAs and perhaps TI02 whiteners as well, it's not just an inkjet media issue. It is present in silver gelatin RC and traditional fiber prints that have OBAs present to varying degrees. Conservators probably assumed any stains in chromogenic color papers were due to bad processing or thermal stability problems with the residual color couplers, but LILIS is going to build unwanted stain as well.
If you want to avoid LILIS problems with glossy/luster type media, the best advice I can give for now is to stay clear of RC photo papers and non RC media with moderate or high levels of OBA. Use OBA free non RC papers like Hahenmuhle PHoto Rag Pearl, Canson Platine, etc. The RC media can build particularly high levels of stain (b* values of 15 to 25... that's yellow!). I suspect OBAs embedded in Ti02-PE layers is aggravating the OBA degradation and discoloration rate in the RC papers, but more study needed.
The yellowing can easily reach levels in some media that would certainly preclude sensible claims of 100+ year ink and media display life performance for fine art prints. Good examples of the LILIS problem can be found in ID#s 224 and 225 in the AaI&A database. These samples use HP's very stable Vivera pigments but were printed on two popular RC photo papers. The media can sadly become a very weak link in the system when high stability pigmented inks are used.
later,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com
-
Hi Mark,
Thanks ever so much for the extended explanation of the LILIS factor. It sounds scary, but I suppose very critical is the length and intensity of exposure to light. I've just looked through several of my book-albums printed on IGFS starting from 2008 when I first used it, and I see zero evidence of any staining whatsoever, but these albums have been sitting nicely on shelves for about 7 years now seldom opened [so why print them one may ask, but that's another talk-show :-) - that has surfaced in our house :-)].
Thanks for the suggestion re sleuthing the UV state of my Pulse. I'll try it if I find the right paper unprinted. As well I shall send you samples of old and new IGFS. Could you please ping me with an address where you would like them sent to.
Cheers,
Mark
-
... Could you please ping me with an address where you would like them sent to.
Cheers,
Mark
Done,
cheers,
Mark
-
On page 210 of hia colour management book, Andrew Rodney recommends: examine the LAB values of the paper white. If a negative b* value is measured, there is a good reason to suspect optical brighteners. The other test to perform is to produce a white document in Photoshop in LABand convert that to the printer profile in question using the Absolute Colorimetric intent. If the b* value is negative as seen in the info palette set to read that color model, the paper probably contains optical brighteners.
Negative b* values may be indicative of OBA content, but there are plenty of papers with low OBA content that have low positive b* values.
Although not 100% proof, looking at the paper's spectral reflectance distribution is a much better indicator of the presence of OBAs: a local maximum around 440 nm where light is emitted from the energy absorbed just below there towards the UV range where the distribution curve shows a precipitous drop.
A good way to test if your device is UV cut is bright white office paper. The stuff just shouts OBAs.
Brian A
-
Brian, yes I'm aware of that possibility, why I was not too definitive in my response. MHMG is professionally equipped to sleuth this and we've made an arrangement. Should be interesting. Thanks.
-
Recycling of an old message at LL:
A screenshot of the respective paper's spectral plots. It looks like with every incarnation of IGFS: Galerie, Galerie Prestige, New Galerie Prestige, the level of OBA went up. The top plot, yellow/green/blue, is the merging of the new generation of IGFS clones; Hahnemühle Photo Silk Baryta 310, Ilford N (New, autumn 2014>) Galerie Prestige Gold Fibre Silk 310, Felix Schoeller J23160 True Baryta 310.
On the BASO4 content that should go along with the Baryta labelling I had/have my doubts too:
http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=68837.0
Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
-
..............
Use OBA free non RC papers like Hahenmuhle PHoto Rag Pearl, Canson Platine, etc. The RC media can build particularly high levels of stain (b* values of 15 to 25... that's yellow!). I suspect OBAs embedded in Ti02-PE layers is aggravating the OBA degradation and discoloration rate in the RC papers, but more study needed.
.............
later,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com
Mark, Forgot to mention that while this advice may solve one problem, it could invite another: printer clogs. For example, my 4900 absolutely dislikes Canson Platine. The amount of cleaning I needed to do after running just a few 13*19 sheets of that stuff through the printer was extra-ordinary and intolerable on a regular basis. I think the "rag" aspect, whatever it's made of, sheds particulates that clog this printer badly. Now it could be fine with less temperamental printers in this respect, but just a word of caution. It would be good, for example, to see what experience users of the new P800 will have with these papers, and it shouldn't take too long to learn how those combinations work.
-
Mark, Forgot to mention that while this advice may solve one problem, it could invite another: printer clogs. For example, my 4900 absolutely dislikes Canson Platine. The amount of cleaning I needed to do after running just a few 13*19 sheets of that stuff through the printer was extra-ordinary and intolerable on a regular basis. I think the "rag" aspect, whatever it's made of, sheds particulates that clog this printer badly. Now it could be fine with less temperamental printers in this respect, but just a word of caution. It would be good, for example, to see what experience users of the new P800 will have with these papers, and it shouldn't take too long to learn how those combinations work.
There is the Epson Proofing White Semi-Matte, OBA content negligible but an RC paper. Wide gamuts possible on that paper and no coating particles or paper fibers floating in the air from that paper. Aardenburg-Imaging has a test still running for EPWSM with promising results so far. How well PE barriers and their bond to the paper base and inkjet coating stand time is another question. Mechanical aspects of inkjet coatings have not been tested (or the test results were never published) for any inkjet paper we discuss in this forum.
Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
December 2014 update, 700+ inkjet media white spectral plots
-
It's not bad - gamut volume is 832.6k versus 977k for IGFS. Minimum L* = 6, whereas for IGFS about 4~4.5, all for an Epson 4900.
-
With an Alpha Cellulose base like IGFS but without OBA or very low OBA: the recently introduced HM FineArt Baryta Satin 300, coating similar to PhotoRag Baryta. Calumet Brilliant Museum Silver Gloss Natural 300, Inkpress Baryta 307. Innova IFA19 Fibaprint Warmtone Gloss 300, Sihl 4848 MClass Satin Baryta 290, Tecco Baryt Ivory BTI 290. More gloss with a Harman and a Bergger version.
Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
December 2014 update, 700+ inkjet media white spectral plots
-
Thanks Ernst - that's enough to pick from - some may not be available in Canada, but others would be.
-
With an Alpha Cellulose base like IGFS but without OBA or very low OBA: the recently introduced HM FineArt Baryta Satin 300, coating similar to PhotoRag Baryta...
Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
December 2014 update, 700+ inkjet media white spectral plots
HM FineArt Baryta Satin still doesn't seem to be available in the U.S, at least not at any of my usual dealers. Does anyone know where to obtain some in the U.S.?
thanks,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com
-
There is the Epson Proofing White Semi-Matte, OBA content negligible but an RC paper. Wide gamuts possible on that paper and no coating particles or paper fibers floating in the air from that paper. Aardenburg-Imaging has a test still running for EPWSM with promising results so far. How well PE barriers and their bond to the paper base and inkjet coating stand time is another question. Mechanical aspects of inkjet coatings have not been tested (or the test results were never published) for any inkjet paper we discuss in this forum.
Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
December 2014 update, 700+ inkjet media white spectral plots
Yes, Epson Proofing White Semi-Matte is one I'm watching very closely in my tests. Cross-sectional analysis shows that unlike nearly all RC photo papers on the market today, EpPPWSM only has OBAs in the paper core but non in the critical image-side TiO2-PE layer. It's still early on in test, but I can already detect the LILIS effect in the other RC photo papers in this batch of samples (Batch M1 in the AaI&A database). I have not been able to detect it so far in the EpPPWSM, so this paper is the one to watch because it potentially points the way to much better RC Photo papers in the near future if the manufacturers begin to pay attention to the LILIS issue.
I am now working on an improved light fade testing procedure(i.e., a test with combined light and dark storage cycles) designed to more carefully track and report the LILIIS phenomenon for any media where it exists. EpPPWSM will be one of the first samples to go into that new testing sequence as will EPPL and IGFS. :)
cheers,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com
-
HM FineArt Baryta Satin still doesn't seem to be available in the U.S, at least not at any of my usual dealers. Does anyone know where to obtain some in the U.S.?
thanks,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com
Mark,
I think Jim hints here that he has it available and at a 10% discount;
http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=101878.0
Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
December 2014 update, 700+ inkjet media white spectral plots
-
Mark,
I think Jim hints here that he has it available and at a 10% discount;
http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=101878.0
Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
December 2014 update, 700+ inkjet media white spectral plots
Ernst, thank you. I bought a pack of 25 sheets, letter-size paper. It should arrive in a day or two. I'm excited to compare to my favorite "traditional fiber" paper, HN Photo Rag Pearl,... and no matter what I think of it for my personal use, some of the sheets will wind up in light fastness studies no doubt :)
kind regards,
Mark
-
Following up on measurements of old and new IGFS. I received samples from Mark Segal, one marked "old", one marked "new". I also went into the Aardenburg Archives and pulled a "very old" sample of IGFS. I still have a small box of some IGFS purchased in 2008 when IGFS was very new to the market. Measuring M0, M1, and M2 conditions on a new i1Pro2 spectrophotometer the sheets read as follows
IGFS very old: M0 L= 98.5, a= 0.4, b= 0.7 M1 L= 98.6, a= 0.5, b= 0.0 M2 L= 98.5, a= -0.1, b= 2.2
IGFS old: M0 L= 98.2, a= 0.5, b= 0.1 M1 L= 98.2, a= 0.7, b= -0.5 M2 L= 98.1, a= 0.0, b= 1.9
IGFS new: M0 L= 97.9, a = 0.5, b= 0.1 M1 L= 98.0, a= 0.7, b= -0.7 M2 L= 97.9, a= 0.0, b= 2.0
Mark Segal's old versus new samples appear to be within a normal batch to batch tolerance, suggesting that production of IGFS under new managment is essentially the same as recent production before the bankruptcy. The very old sample I have from 2008 does suggest that OBA content was a little lower when IGFS first went into production. Although OBAs can lose flourescence by ozone, the sample I have was in a PP bag inside the box, so I'm inclined to believe that sometime during production under original management IGFS OBA content did get tweaked a small amount. The M1 readings are up in blueness by approximately -0.5 units is not easily nor repeatibly noticed by even the most discerning viewers. I cut a sample of the very old stock to same dimensions as Mark supplied to me, shuffled them, and tried to reliably pick out each one. I did this little experiment several times, and succeeded in three-out-of-three correct sample ID less than half the time.
I have also attached a UV blacklight photo with five samples in view from left to right: Epson EEF paper, IGFS very old, IGFS old, IGFS new, and lastly Canson Platine. EEF on the left has very high OBA content, Platine has zero (it's a bit brighter than the dark table surface only because I added a little visible fill light, about 4x under exposure, along with the blacklight to be able to separate the Platine paper surface from the dark background. As can be seen in the photo, EEF glows brightly :), the very old IGFS slightly less than the newer IGFS samples, and Platine is clearly staking the No OBA ground, while Mark's old versus new samples do show ever so slight difference in fluorescence (older slightly less glow than newer) but again, I would conclude that to be typical manufacturing variances.
Lastly, note that the UV excluded M2 measurements for b* versus the UV included M0 legacy and M1 measurements clearly detect the presence of OBAs in IGFS. No matter what the marketing guys have said in the past or nowadays, IGFS has and always did have some OBA content. Its presence is also easily confirmed in the blacklight photo.
best,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com
-
Thanks Mark - I think you've nailed it.
-
Mark Segal's old versus new samples appear to be within a normal batch to batch tolerance, suggesting that production of IGFS under new managment is essentially the same as recent production before the bankruptcy. The very old sample I have from 2008 does suggest that OBA content was a little lower when IGFS first went into production. Although OBAs can lose flourescence by ozone, the sample I have was in a PP bag inside the box, so I'm inclined to believe that sometime during production under original management IGFS OBA content did get tweaked a small amount. The M1 readings are up in blueness by approximately -0.5 units is not easily nor repeatibly noticed by even the most discerning viewers. I cut a sample of the very old stock to same dimensions as Mark supplied to me, shuffled them, and tried to reliably pick out each one. I did this little experiment several times, and succeeded in three-out-of-three correct sample ID less than half the time.
I have also attached a UV blacklight photo with five samples in view from left to right: Epson EEF paper, IGFS very old, IGFS old, IGFS new, and lastly Canson Platine. EEF on the left has very high OBA content, Platine has zero (it's a bit brighter than the dark table surface only because I added a little visible fill light, about 4x under exposure, along with the blacklight to be able to separate the Platine paper surface from the dark background. As can be seen in the photo, EEF glows brightly :), the very old IGFS slightly less than the newer IGFS samples, and Platine is clearly staking the No OBA ground, while Mark's old versus new samples do show ever so slight difference in fluorescence (older slightly less glow than newer) but again, I would conclude that to be typical manufacturing variances.
best,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com
Mark,
I agree that the differences are subtle between the oldest, older and new IGFS, even close enough to stay compatible with the ICC profiles, as I have written before. I do not think the differences are batch variations, it looks like the batch variations within its generations are smaller. I find more confirmation in the fact that the three clones of the new generation have identical spectral plots and see the same in clones of older generations, they fit either the oldest or the older spectral plot of IGFS.
That could mean there have been three batches produced since 2008 and equally split to different brands or the differences in the batches have been that minute it is not visible in the spectral plots and we see three generations of IGFS here. I exclude the possibility that clones could be made in different facilities and become that identical. My vote goes to three generations of IGFS + rebrands. Subtle differences that could be batch differences but are more likely generation differences. Whether the generations are created in/on different facilities/equipment or have changed components is harder to tell. All IMHO.
Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
December 2014 update, 700+ inkjet media white spectral plots
-
OK, so what's the bottom line? For practical purposes whether one uses left over stock of old paper or the new paper it's essentially the same product and can be expected to have about the same longevity profile? And likewise for rebranded clones of the same basic paper? Am I missing anything important?
-
OK, so what's the bottom line? For practical purposes whether one uses left over stock of old paper or the new paper it's essentially the same product and can be expected to have about the same longevity profile? And likewise for rebranded clones of the same basic paper? Am I missing anything important?
Not missing much I think. For color management there will not be much difference if the coatings also act the same with the inks and practice says they do. Ilford ICC profiles are not renewed? On longevity with A-M IGFS etc tests; the paper white shift starts earlier than ink patches failure with HP Vivera pigment inks but Epson (pre P800) yellow ink patches change faster than the paper white shift. It is an OBA content paper. No tests for the latest generation IGFS etc and there might be no reason for extra tests if Mark sees no differences in the paper's components.
Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
December 2014 update, 700+ inkjet media white spectral plots
-
Thanks Ernst - useful insights. On the profiles question, Ilford - under the new regime, did publish a new set of profiles - or at least it appears so, as they are renamed. They're very good, but I get yet more accurate results with my custom profile of course. On the testing, again under the new regime and for the first time, instead of general statements from Ilford about "long-lasting: etc., the box now says "WIR Certified" - for whatever that is worth. Nonetheless, I still think it would be useful for Mark M-G to go ahead and test for what WIR doesn't, if he can do so. Can you or Mark tell from what we now know whether the OBA content is high or low, whether it is in the base or the surface, and therefore whether it portends obvious fading and as of what timing?
-
...Can you or Mark tell from what we now know whether the OBA content is high or low, whether it is in the base or the surface, and therefore whether it portends obvious fading and as of what timing?
Well, the fluorescence in IGFS is low, but that doesn't really tell us everything we would want to know about the location and concentration of the OBAs, nor of the OBA resistance to fade and discoloration over time. All samples I've tested of IGFS do exhibit the low-intensity light-induced staining (LILIS) effect. In fact, ironically, IGFS was the first paper in which I detected the problem without fully understanding what was causing the variations I was seeing in my sample measurements, but that said, it's no where near as bad as many RC papers like Epson Premium Photo Luster. So, at this point in time, it's hard for me to put all of the LILIS issue into perspective and to respectfully quantify how much media discoloration is too much from a fine art print perspective. EPPL is definitely too much, as are essentially all other OBA containing RC photo papers on the market today because the OBAs are embedded in the TiO2-PE layers which is unquestionably a bad match of ingredients. I can no longer recommend any RC photo papers at this time for fine art applications, and I say this knowing full well that EPPL is a very popular paper as are many other RC photo papers on the market today. There is one RC "proofing" paper with no OBAS in the PE layers that is promising, Epson Proofing Paper White SemiMatte, which I'm currently testing and which so far is not exhibiting the LILIS effect. All that said, IGFS is not an RC paper yet it does have plenty of TiO2 (which may be a key to aggravating the LILIS effect) along with a lesser amount of BaSO4 (determined from some recent XRF studies I did), but more research is needed. The light-induced yellowing I detect with IGFS is not nearly as pronounced at the yellowing I'm measuring in nearly all RC type media, but it's there nonetheless, and thus there are other "traditional fiber base" media which do not show the yellowing issues and thus would be a safer choice at this time for printmakers trying to achieve long lasting prints.
Understanding the light induced discoloration problem in modern media is a work in progress. I'm doing what I can on a shoestring budget to figure it out. The industry and other testing labs have been AWOL on this issue. Even when very robust pigmented ink sets are used to create the image, any claims of 100+ year longevity on RC photo papers need to be taken in the context of under reported media yellowing problems.
best,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com
-
Thanks Mark - we owe you one for hitting on this issue and taking it as far as you have been able to till now - I think it needs to be researched to the core and some way needs to be found for funding this work - maybe a Kickstarter campaign? Ilford has led us to believe for the longest time that IGFS is of archival quality and many have been using it extensively for years. I wonder whether Canson Baryta Photographique would be similar in this regard.
-
... I wonder whether Canson Baryta Photographique would be similar in this regard.
Yes, I have confirmed that CIBP shares the exact same LILIS behavior as IGFS. A couple of weeks ago, I got access to some portable XRF (x-ray flourescence) equipment at the nearby Williamstown Art Conservation Center, and I examined several papers for inorganic material composition. Among various papers I tested CIPB and IGFS, and their XRF "signatures" were also identical. Both papers use TiO2 as a major whitening agent, some BaSO4 as well. While the BaSO4 signal did qualify them as Baryta papers, it should be understood they aren't anywhere near a traditional full Baryta photo paper, IMHO, but they do look good initially, so I can appreciate their popularity. Because neither paper is an RC photo paper, it's the presence of the TiO2 which is an intriguing aspect of these products.
We've discussed CIPB and IGFS similarities several times before in this forum. My best guess is that the image receptor coatings including all subbing layers and layers on the verso are the same chemistry being coated in the same coating plant. The base sheet, however, may come from different sources, i.e., CIBP paper base being supplied by Canson, IGFS using a paper supplied from a different mill. The base sheet differences would add very minor differences to the two products because most of the visual appearance and printing properties will be determined by the coatings.
I've been giving a lot of thought, actually rethinking the whole "color of white" idea for modern media, and also the notion that an OBA containing paper merely returns to its "natural" color when the fluorescence quits. First, the enduser doesn't know what that underlying color actually is without actually placing the paper under full UV block illumination to shut down the OBA fluorescence, but it is likely to land in a "still looks nominally white" media color range. Second, the LILIS effect and other yellowing/discoloration reactions can take the paper to even higher yellowed states over time which is definitely not the original "natural" underlying state. Whether the viewer can detect a problem in a "single stimulus" viewing environment (i.e., there is no unchanged reference print to compare to) appears to lie in the viewer's knowledge and sophistication, but in my research I"m beginning to focus on this perceived "color of white". For nominally "white" appearing papers, modern media seem to go from a b* value of -10 (yup, that's blue) to a very warm white state with b* = +4 or 5 (think Hahnemuhle Bamboo). Any b* values higher than approximately +5 then begin to bring us to creamy or tan colored papers that most people would not judge as white. Likewise, the vast majority of cool white papers that serious printmakers typically prefer will further be constrained on the cool white end of the scale to about -5. So, the b* scale for "white" papers appears to be about -5 to +5. Now here's where accurate versus plausible color gets interesting. if a paper with initial b* at -5 lost fluorescence and perhaps further discolored over time bringing its final b* state to +5, the I* metric would dutifully report that the media white color accuracy had reached zero, but the unsuspecting viewer might still accept the paper as a satisfactorily "white" paper based on the fact that it would still classify as a "plausible" warm white paper just within the -5 to +5 b* range. The printmaker's very carefull initial highlight color image edits would also be shifted by the change in paper color, but that's another story and also one dependent on viewer sophistication as well.
The LIILS effect for the IGFS is not as severe as what I'm seeing in many RC photo type papers, so it looks like the IGFS may end up in the +5 to +7 b* zone,, i.e., significantly changed but still a plausible white color. That said, I need to do more research on the reaction rates. The LIIS effect in IGFS and CIPB can be detected in very short dark storage time intervals (just a few weeks), but I don't know how far it has gone towards completion. My discontinued samples are only a few years old now and have been kept at ordinary room temperature, so where they are now in color isn't necessarily where they are going to remain as more dark storage time accumulates. Some more yellowing may still take place over more time. That's where more study is needed, but one thing is certain, some papers have already shown discoloration in my tests to +10, +15, even up to +25 b* values. Some of these discontinued test samples now look like the color of a creamy manilla folder. >:( It's hard for me to accept the notion that such poor white point stability constitutes an "archival" paper, yet some of these bad apples are very popular papers today and enjoying those "archival" claims. IMHO, these poorly performing papers really need to be flagged and perhaps even taken off the market or reformulated, so that printmakers who care about print longevity can more easily avoid them.
I think IGFS is sitting right on the debatable threshold of acceptability. I personally don't use it because there are better papers with similar initial whitepoint color that is retained much better over time. Canson Platine and HN PHoto Rag Pearl (my personal favorite in the glossy/luster FA category) come to mind, and there are other FA papers as well not exhibiting any serious yellowing problems in my tests.
best,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com
-
Hi Mark,
This gets more interesting as it goes along. Quick reaction: Firstly, I reconfirm I think this is most valuable work that needs to be brought to its full extent. Secondly, I question whether you are being a tad generous to the issue in allowing for as much as +/- 5 on the b*axis as the benchmark range of acceptability for archival purposes. I'm pretty sure I can see differences within a smaller range. But this also depends on how you look at the print - i.e. in isolation or in comparison. IGFS became available in 2008 and that's when I started printing with it. I just opened a book of those prints and looked through. All seemed fine. No evidence of uneven yellowing, in fact no yellowing I could discern in isolation (let us recall how our visual perception is adaptable). So thinking this may not be the whole story, I placed beside it a fresh sheet unprinted sheet of IGFS from the "Swiss" stock, bought about somewhat over a year ago on the verge of the Ilford-Marly bankruptcy. Looked at side by side, I could perceive a slight difference in the tone of the white margin between 2008 and this "fresh" unprinted sheet. Later on I shall haul out my spectro and fire up the other computer to measure the two samples and I'll report back here whether the measurements bear out my observation.
As for using Canson Platine - not ever again in my 4900. After running several sheets of that stuff it took about 45 minutes of steady work getting the nozzle check pattern back to normal. It sheds particulates. Others have reported the same issue. For that reason I shall not risk running rag papers through this printer. Perhaps one needs a less sensitive printer to use that or possibly other of these papers conveniently. I also put profile gamut high on my order of priorities. In this respect the HFA_Epson4900_PK_FABaryta (Hahn Fine Art Baryta) looks like a good choice at 976,713 in ColorThink Pro. It's white point is however a bit bluish at b*-4. It's black point of L* = 6 is a bit higher than I've seen for this class of paper in the 4900, but not by much. It would be interesting to test this paper in a P800, which does better than the 4900 on black point. Does its b* value indicate OBA and possible LILIS?
-
Hi Mark S.,
Keep in mind that the yellowing caused by the LILIS effect requires a light exposure component. Your samples stored in a book are actually "dark storage control" prints. In the paper I'm working on about light induced discoloration, I am now in the process of going back through all of the old sample collection and remeasuring the media whitepoints on my dark stored control samples as well as all the light exposed samples, so that any changes documented for the dark stored only-no light exposure samples serve as a benchmark for thermally induced (i.e. heat and humidity) discoloration. Any additional yellowing discoloration beyond that can then be concluded to have been caused by light exposure. Gas induced discoloration (e.g. loss of OBA fluorescence due to ozone attack) would be spread rather uniformly in my collection accross all the samples. However, neither my light exposed samples nor my dark stored samples are likely to have much air pollution damage since they have not been subjected to unframed or uncovered storage and/or display conditions.
An IGFS print will require 10Mlux hours light exposure or more to induce any LILIS effect upon further storage in the dark or at low intensity light levels where the staining growth proceeds faster than the light bleaching reduction in yellowing. Under typical home display conditions, it means we shouldn't expect to see any additional light induced discoloration for a decade or more. We simply aren't there yet in terms of real world statistics. Thus, many inkjet media in the market today aren't old enough yet to have reached any kind of deployment in the real world where we will begin to see the toll of light fading, light induced yellowing, or other effects that will eventually show up in older samples. It's why accelerated testing is necessary, and why studying older samples in storage and display is a long term project.
As for Platine, ah yes, I recall you had problems with it on your 4900, and I don't use much of it personally, either. I prefer the HN Photo Rag Pearl, but I have run a roll or two of Platine on my iPF8330 with no issues, and a box of cut sheet through my Epson 3880 without incident. I would thus expect that many other printmakers don't have the problems with it that you experienced. Not to beat a dead horse, but the Epson X900 series printers do seem to be particularly sensitive to clogging, and perhaps that does limit media selection to some extent as well, but not being able to use any cotton fiber base papers? Ouch, if that is truly the case, I'd be looking for another printer ;)
HN Fine Art Baryta does have serious OBA burnout issues regardless of whether there is additional LILIS. I'm not finished with all of my LILIS evaluations yet, but HnFAB doesn't exhibit the LILIS effect to the extent that IGFS and CIBP do, yet its OBA loss of fluorescence alone is on the b* order of shift that you consider unacceptable. I also took a sample of the HnFAB along for XRF analysis. Interestingly enough, HnFAB does not incorporate TiO2 whiteners like CIPB and IGFS which may be a clue to the LILIS effect, but again, more research needed.
You may want to have a look at the new Hn Fine Art Baryta Satin. It has no OBAs and yet it is alpha cellulose base, so a welcome addition to the Hahnemuhle glossy FA line of papers. It's very close, IMHO, in overall image appearance properties to Hn Photo Rag Pearl, but the sheet is a little stiffer, the texture and sheen a little less as fitting its satin rather than "pearl" or "luster" description, but still delivering outstanding blacks. It is also about 30% less expensive than HnPhRagPearl. My only slight disappointment with the new HN FineArt Satin is that it's about 1 point warmer in b* value (2.4 versus 1.6) yet it's L value is also a little higher, so which one is "whiter" depends on your personal taste. You just need to look at a sample to see if it suits your needs.
best,
Mark
-
Hi Mark MG,
I agree - my stuff is in the equivalent of dark storage. BUT that said, if I still see a difference of paper white between stock that is 7 years old and stock that is 1 year old, either it's my imagination (which I'll check with readings), or the surface colour stability may not be all that great - even in dark storage. However, the printed areas still look fine. So ink may cover "many a sin". I think the more important longevity issue for me is what happens to the colours, and less small changes in paper white provided they are even. For B&W photography however it may be a different matter.
The 4900 sensitivity issue - as I've said elsewhere - "it depends" - (a) how bad the problem is, and (b) how much it matters to you, and both factors could be correlated. In my particular case, I'd prefer not to have to bother with nozzle checks and cleaning, but none of it has been fatal, and the quality I get out of this printer is so good that for me the maintenance is not a deal-breaker. This is subjective - will vary from person to person, just speaking for my own experience and priorities. My main focus is the ink on paper - not how the paper feels, so even if these x900s are more sensitive than other models, I wouldn't be scrapping this printer on that account.
I shall check out the Hahn FA Baryta satin - thanks for the suggestion.
-
My only slight disappointment with the new HN FineArt Satin is that it's about 1 point warmer in b* value (2.4 versus 1.6) yet it's L value is also a little higher, so which one is "whiter" depends on your personal taste. You just need to look at a sample to see if it suits your needs.
best,
Mark
Hello Mark,
Yes, going along with my visual experience too, the higher the Lab L value the less it matters that a paper has a higher b value (is warmer).
An interesting question after your XRF tests is whether BaSO4 is a better companion for OBAs than TiO2 in relation with the LILIS effect. In non-RC silver halide prints, now decades old, there must a clue for this based on both combinations. It would surprise me if they all were based on the same whitening agents.
There is another reason why this may prove to be a better component for OBAs, both TiO2 and OBAs absorb UV light, TiO2 emits the energy as heat beyond infrared. If the UV absorption is in the same wavelengths then TiO2 will block UV for OBAs if they are further into the paper construction, the place normally more suited for OBAs for longeviy. As OBA UV absorption can happen at different UV wavelengths (and SpectrumViz's Eye1 Pro is not revealing all OBA types) it becomes more complex.
Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
December 2014 update, 700+ inkjet media white spectral plots
-
Some forms of TiO2 are known and used to generate "HO·" radicals from water and light. These radicals are more reactive than hydrogen peroxide. They are used to convert organic material into CO2 (e.g. for cleaning residual waters).
OBAs should be quite sensitive to radicals. A small modification of their chemical structure and the fluorescence is gone.
Most probably the TiO2 used for coating papers is a not the proper one for generating radicals. But trace amounts of active forms could be always present and help to a (very) slow degradation of OBAs and, even the paper it self.
I´m not an expert on the field, so take it with a big grain of salt. But at least is the word of a chemist :P
BTW: I´m waiting for a package of A4 and A3+ of the HM Bariya Satin. I used last week the last sample I got in the photokina and I was, again, impressed. It really reminds me the baryta papers of my darkroom days. If I do a comparison it won´t be probably so close... but probably better. I do like the surface similar to IGFS, a litle bit less glossy may be. But its body it´s more "organic / natural cartoon" than IGFS. Similar to the rag baryta, but with no so much texture. I even find the surface more even than the HM rag satin.
I may keep using IGFS (actually the HM silk clone) for routine work, but I will probably use the new HM Satin in many prints where I hesitate to use the expensive HM Rag baryta, especially for BW.
-
Hi Mark MG,
I agree - my stuff is in the equivalent of dark storage. BUT that said, if I still see a difference of paper white between stock that is 7 years old and stock that is 1 year old, either it's my imagination (which I'll check with readings), or the surface colour stability may not be all that great - even in dark storage. However, the printed areas still look fine. So ink may cover "many a sin". I think the more important longevity issue for me is what happens to the colours, and less small changes in paper white provided they are even. For B&W photography however it may be a different matter.
.....................
Well, the readings are done, and the bad news is that this paper white does seem to yellow ever so slightly over the years. The attached graphic is self-explanatory, but a few added words may help. Focus on the Lab readouts. b* is the critical one - the blue-yellow axis. The most recent stock of Swiss paper I have still boxed unused from just before the bankruptcy last year is measured in the top box of four readouts. This is two each on different places of the same sheet. The center box contains readings from various pages of two albums. These are bound volumes with no light shining on them (exactly like closed books, because that is what they are). The b* readings range from about 1 to 1.6. This is over a period of 7 years. The bottom box contains 4 readings of the paper back. The first two from the more recent stock, and the bottom two from the old stock. Perhaps b*4 is the worse the yellowing can get? And over what time period?
-
Some forms of TiO2 are known and used to generate "HO·" radicals from water and light. These radicals are more reactive than hydrogen peroxide. They are used to convert organic material into CO2 (e.g. for cleaning residual waters).
OBAs should be quite sensitive to radicals. A small modification of their chemical structure and the fluorescence is gone.
Most probably the TiO2 used for coating papers is a not the proper one for generating radicals. But trace amounts of active forms could be always present and help to a (very) slow degradation of OBAs and, even the paper it self.
I´m not an expert on the field, so take it with a big grain of salt. But at least is the word of a chemist :P
Well I am a chemist and "HO-" radical is the same as generated from hydrogen peroxide. Hydrogen peroxide because of it's strength would be far more reactive than small amounts of radicals produced from TiO2 (and I'll have to check the literature to see about this). Remember that TiO2 is heavily used in the paint and coatings industry. Exterior paints face sunlight and moisture every day and one doesn't see really dramatic fading in the short term.
It's interesting that photo paper manufacturers are using mixtures of titanium dioxide and barium sulfate these days and call them baryta papers. I guess there is no truth in advertising. It may be that the price point of TiO2 is much lower than barium sulfate and they have gone to a mixture as a cost control.
-
... Remember that TiO2 is heavily used in the paint and coatings industry. Exterior paints face sunlight and moisture every day and one doesn't see really dramatic fading in the short term.
Yes, agreed, but one has to keep in mind the total bulk volume of pigments and binders as applied in typical artists' paintings or when applied to interior and exterior walls on homes as compared to the ultra thin dispersions of both ink pigments and media coating layers in inkjet prints. Thus, one can have significant amounts of fading, chalking, and binder break down in a typical house paint, yet there is still plenty of bulk binder and pigment volume left on the siding of the house to retain a significant degree of initial product quality appearance over several years in intense outdoor weathering conditions. Not so with the very thin layers of pigment and binder in inkjet media. I see this issue played out over and over again when considering the surface chemistry reactions that affect image quality in prints and photographs in relationship to expectations of stability we would surmise when comparing the same chemistry in bulk volume reactions.
My first experience with surface corrosion chemistry versus bulk chemistry kinetics occurred when I was researching the degradation of some wet plate negatives made in the Matthew Brady Studios during the 19th century. It turned out that the degraded plates had poor stability glass substrates. It was not the expected cellulose nitrate coating degradation, but the corrosion of the glass substrates leaching sodium hydroxide into the image coatings and thus saponifying the natural resin varnishes, turning them into a sticky hygroscopic mess that could then attack the silver particles in the image. From a bulk chemistry perspective, these poor quality glass substrates were still 99.999% in perfect condition, but that several hundred angstroms of glass corrosion at the glass/coating interface was enough to deliver the lethal amount of sodium hydroxide into the varnish coating layer which was only about 1 micron thick.
best,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com