Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Printing: Printers, Papers and Inks => Topic started by: TylerB on December 24, 2014, 05:52:02 pm
-
I've been helping someone find more options for photo surface papers, luster/pearl/fiber gloss types, that are more affordable than the premium baryta offerings, and premium manufacturers.
Based on Ernst's great info here-
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
and of course Mark's at Aardenburg, it seems there are virtually none of these papers without significant OBAs and reported changes in paper white over time.
I did note in Ernst's info, with interest, Moab's Juniper Baryta Rag. Of course it is a baryta paper, but their offerings are generally more affordable. But I find no prices for it on line anywhere.
I have not yet downloaded and studied every pdf from Mark, but in the meantime, if anyone has any recommendations it would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks
I hope everyone's holidays are great.
-
I did a mini-review of Moab Juniper Baryta on this website not too long ago. http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/printers/another_two_barytas_in_the_neighbourhood.shtml (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/printers/another_two_barytas_in_the_neighbourhood.shtml) There isn't pricing on the Moab yet because it hasn't been released. They say it contains NO OBAs. I believe it is supposed to be issued in January, but not sure of that.
-
I've been helping someone find more options for photo surface papers, luster/pearl/fiber gloss types, that are more affordable than the premium baryta offerings, and premium manufacturers.
Based on Ernst's great info here-
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
and of course Mark's at Aardenburg, it seems there are virtually none of these papers without significant OBAs and reported changes in paper white over time.
I'm beginning to think that the OBA thing may be overblown as a consideration. For example, you can look at the Epson/Canson paper tests at below link and come to realize that the OBA papers at the bottom of the list - eg. Photogloss or PhotoSatin RC papers have longevity ratings quite similar and sometimes better than non-OBA papers (eg. Platine, etc..).
http://www.wilhelm-research.com/Canson/WIR_Canson_2012_02_20.pdf (http://www.wilhelm-research.com/Canson/WIR_Canson_2012_02_20.pdf)
-
I'm beginning to think that the OBA thing may be overblown as a consideration. For example, you can look at the Epson/Canson paper tests at below link and come to realize that the OBA papers at the bottom of the list - eg. Photogloss or PhotoSatin RC papers have longevity ratings quite similar and sometimes better than non-OBA papers (eg. Platine, etc..).
http://www.wilhelm-research.com/Canson/WIR_Canson_2012_02_20.pdf (http://www.wilhelm-research.com/Canson/WIR_Canson_2012_02_20.pdf)
Not clear what you are getting at here. Unless my eyesight eludes me, there is not one paper in the linked list from Wilhelm indicating the presence of UV brighteners.
-
Not clear what you are getting at here. Unless my eyesight eludes me, there is not one paper in the linked list from Wilhelm indicating the presence of UV brighteners.
Wilhelm Research did not check the OBA content correctly and did not properly check paper white shifts in time.
For both you better go to Aardenberg-Imaging.com
Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
December 2014 update, 700+ inkjet media white spectral plots
-
Wilhelm Research did not check the OBA content correctly and did not properly check paper white shifts in time.
For both you better go to Aardenberg-Imaging.com
Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
December 2014 update, 700+ inkjet media white spectral plots
Interesting statement Ernst, and may throw light on the question about UV brighteners in Gold Fibre Silk. Would you care to explain how you know this?
-
I'm beginning to think that the OBA thing may be overblown as a consideration. For example, you can look at the Epson/Canson paper tests at below link and come to realize that the OBA papers at the bottom of the list - eg. Photogloss or PhotoSatin RC papers have longevity ratings quite similar and sometimes better than non-OBA papers (eg. Platine, etc..).
http://www.wilhelm-research.com/Canson/WIR_Canson_2012_02_20.pdf (http://www.wilhelm-research.com/Canson/WIR_Canson_2012_02_20.pdf)
See my other reply why the Wilhelm information does not help much in this argument.
It is a shame BTW that the OBA content in the Canson RC papers was not noticed in Henry Wilhelm's test or overlooked in the summary. The Baryta Photographique does not have that much but the RC papers are high OBA content papers and show it: Lab b -7.4 where the range starts at zero and ends at -11.
There are papers with some OBA content that do quite well in fade tests. For example the Epson Hot and Cold Press Bright White fine art papers and there are more. The now obsolete Canon Heavyweight Satin Photographic RC paper too. The normal Hahnemühle PhotoRag has some OBA content but does quite well on paper white shifts. For a cooler than neutral paper and a high white reflection there is no other choice than going with OBA content.
Paper white shifts in time are one thing. There is the other issue that an OBA content paper is more prone to color inconstancy in changing light conditions and related to that requires a more balanced profiling choice. Mark McCormick also mentioned the strange dark storage issue of OBA papers.
Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
December 2014 update, 700+ inkjet media white spectral plots
-
Ernst is exactly right. Wilhelm has years of display ratings for paper we know for a fact from Aardenburg are not stable. Look at the rating for the Hp Pro Satin, a very nice looking paper that I used for a couple of years, but one that deteriorates rapidly in the paper base, turning gray and influencing all the high value hues in any print. This is just one of many examples.
I use the Canson Premium Satin now as a lower cost rc media, which though is not to the standards of a non oba fiber gloss media, is much better than the HP stuff I used to use.
-
I've been helping someone find more options for photo surface papers, luster/pearl/fiber gloss types, that are more affordable than the premium baryta offerings, and premium manufacturers.
Based on Ernst's great info here-
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
and of course Mark's at Aardenburg, it seems there are virtually none of these papers without significant OBAs and reported changes in paper white over time.
I did note in Ernst's info, with interest, Moab's Juniper Baryta Rag. Of course it is a baryta paper, but their offerings are generally more affordable. But I find no prices for it on line anywhere.
I have not yet downloaded and studied every pdf from Mark, but in the meantime, if anyone has any recommendations it would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks
I hope everyone's holidays are great.
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.
In the baryta/fibre qualities you see a dividing line, the ones with little or no OBA content are mainly Cotton based and by that more expensive. The cheaper ones with alpha cellulose base or ECF paper have on average a higher OBA content.
OBA content often goes along with a lower price, it is simply cheaper to create a whiter/brighter paper with OBAs. I see some changes in the market, more in the matte qualities though. A purer white paper base + good whitening agents like TiO2 and baryta or composites should not make inkjet paper that expensive. For example the Innova Decor Art and the Felix Schoeller True Fiber Matt have Lab numbers equal to Canson Rag Photographique while they are based on alpha cellulose and their weight is 200 gsm. The price less than a quarter of the Canson paper price. I do not know their light resistance etc but samples hanging bare here for more than a year show no sign of shifting paper white, A more thorough test is required.
Recently I measured some offset papers, among them uncoated ones that have similar light reflectance numbers and no OBA content. So it is not impossible to create affordable papers with qualities we like to see. I measured them because a photographer and the print company owner liked to select a paper for a photobook with less chance that the edges of the bookpages showed yellow discoloring in time. Their choice was for an offset coated type to improve the image quality.
Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
December 2014 update, 700+ inkjet media white spectral plots
-
In my experience the OBA content and stability over time is indeed an important consideration. First of all the paper base LAB changes over time shown in the Aardenburg data can't be dismissed. Secondly, for myself and some others, excessive OBA results in less than the best prints. Highlight subtlety, finesse, and a pleasing presence seems absent on these papers. The blue hue itself is a problem, no matt board matches, making highlights seem off, and I've had very subtle near white yellows go gray and just odd looking. I realize this is a subjective judgement and others may prefer the look, but the difference in "presentation" is very real. So that, as well as the longevity problems, make these papers less than desirable for some of us.
Thank you for the detailed post Ernst, very informative. I agree there should be some non-rag papers utilizing methods to get to a neutral white without OBAs and hope some come on the market for a wider range of price options. Also, the Epson papers you mention prove there may be better ways of incorporating them as well. I hope a non-rag photo surface paper shows up that is moderately prices, shows a more stable base hue, and is somewhat neutral, I'm still ooking.
I did notice with interest Canon Photo Paper Pro Luster LU-101. It may perform a bit better than others, but I find no sizes other than desktop sheets.
So I'm still looking and interested in recommendations. Obviously there are many papers that have not been tested.
T
-
Yea me too Tyler. If you find something please let me know. I have tried a lot the various offerings, like the Innova matte, Canon, etc. but I've never found one that I would consider anywhere close to the premium rag options.
I wish Canson would produce a less expensive nice quality smooth alpha matte paper using their pigments as whiteners.
-
Wilhelm Research did not check the OBA content correctly and did not properly check paper white shifts in time.
For both you better go to Aardenberg-Imaging.com
Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
December 2014 update, 700+ inkjet media white spectral plots
I took a look at Aardenburg but either I couldn't understand what i was looking at, or the results were directionally similar to that which WIR indicated. There weren't many same-brand OBA vs Non-OBA paper test results at Aardenburg; in fact it is somewhat difficult to find results for OBA papers or non-matte (eg RC) papers. That said, going back to Canson example I used, Aardenburg seems to have results for Baryta Photo (which I think everyone now agrees supposedly has OBAs?) and Platine (which I believe people believe does NOT have OBAs) on Epson printers. They seem to be only 2 non-matte Canson paper choices. Overall on the AAI site, results for coated papers seem to be much fewer and far between, making it difficult to review results from same printer/paper company combinations.
Anyway, skipping to 100 LUX report page for each paper (Epson 9900), I find it difficult to see any appreciable test result difference between the 2 papers (Baryta Photo vs Platine)
The main point I think I'm trying to make, is if one is shopping in a store and there are 2 papers sitting on the shelf from the same paper company, one with packaging saying "No OBAs" and the other without mention (and probably with OBAs), there's no guarantee the non-OBA paper will necessarily outperform any better over time than the OBA-containing paper.
-
I took a look at Aardenburg but either I couldn't understand what i was looking at, or the results were directionally similar to that which WIR indicated. There weren't many same-brand OBA vs Non-OBA paper test results at Aardenburg; in fact it is somewhat difficult to find results for OBA papers or non-matte (eg RC) papers. That said, going back to Canson example I used, Aardenburg seems to have results for Baryta Photo (which I think everyone now agrees supposedly has OBAs?) and Platine (which I believe people believe does NOT have OBAs) on Epson printers. They seem to be only 2 non-matte Canson paper choices. Overall on the AAI site, results for coated papers seem to be much fewer and far between, making it difficult to review results from same printer/paper company combinations.
Anyway, skipping to 100 LUX report page for each paper (Epson 9900), I find it difficult to see any appreciable test result difference between the 2 papers (Baryta Photo vs Platine)
The main point I think I'm trying to make, is if one is shopping in a store and there are 2 papers sitting on the shelf from the same paper company, one with packaging saying "No OBAs" and the other without mention (and probably with OBAs), there's no guarantee the non-OBA paper will necessarily outperform any better over time than the OBA-containing paper.
There are 26 tests of Canson papers, mainly fine art and within that group the only 2 Canson fibre/baryta papers that exist; about 6 tests for the Platine and Baryta each. OBA content is described accurately in the media list and in the test result PDFs. If you had selected one Baryta PDF and one Platine PDF, both at 140 Mlux test time and both without an additional varnish or gloss enhancer applied, you would have seen a paper/media white shift from 100 to 80 for the Baryta and a paper/media white shift from 100 to 98 for the Platine. As the paper white shifts have no relation to the inks used you can compare several tests of them, see similar results and decide whatever you find sensible. The Canson Baryta Photographique is not a bad performing OBA paper BTW. Your fictional store and the choice given between Epson Exhibition/Traditional Fiber and Canson Baryta Photographique could end in a worse example. Check that paper/media white shift too.
An addition; check also the Z3200 Vivera ink on the Canson Baryta Photographique, the worst behaving patch in that test is not an ink patch but the paper white patch that went to below 80 in 120 Mlux hours, pulling some light color patches with it. It is all relative but ignoring the optimal choice or knowingly compromise on a choice for other reasons is always better than throwing a dime in the store and then buy a pack in blissful ignorance.
The Canson RC papers are from the Felix Schoeller stable if I recall it correctly.
Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
December 2014 update, 700+ inkjet media white spectral plots
-
So is there any value to the WIR tests at all? I guess you could say I now have a few concerns. The reason I ask is that a while back, I based a paper purchase decision on some of their test results. Basically I was looking to put together a 5x7 print photo album, and one of the hopes was that I was picking a paper that would would yield print results of real longevity.
I already had a bunch of Canson Rag Photographique, but reading the WIR results (for Epson 3880) for bare-bulb unframed (just one data point) it gave the Rag Photo 37 years (125 years under UV glass). OTOH, the same scenario for Inkpress Cooltone Rag, WIR gave it a 107 year rating bare bulb and >300 years for under UV Glass.
So, I went and purchased the Inkpress... figuring that whatever storage quality you assign a photo album, the Inkpress would last about 3x longer. I don't know whether the Inkpress Cool Tone has OBAs or not.. it's not mentioned in their literature, though the Canson Rag Photo PR seems to indicate that it is free of OBAs. This to some degree started me thinking that there were much more important factors in play than OBA content.
-
So is there any value to the WIR tests at all? ...................... Basically I was looking to put together a 5x7 print photo album, and one of the hopes was that I was picking a paper that would would yield print results of real longevity.
I think Ernst has raised some real issues that for starters warrant a response from WIR. I don't know whether Henry Wilhelm or staff reads this forum or cares to participate, but that's their call. That said, for your stated purpose you should probably be looking at the paper ratings for dark storage, because the photos will be in a shut album most of the time - however, that only deals with light fading as far as I understand it. The most relevant question for you is the fade rate of the UV brightener when the prints are in dark storage. It isn't clear based on what I've been able to understand from the data what the fade rate of OBAs is for prints in dark storage. Perhaps Aardenburg Mark or Ernst have a view on this, as it would be your most critical consideration in respect of that issue.
-
That is a very good question. I used to have Epson Enhanced Matte, Red River matte, and some Innova matte paper turn gray in the paper base even in dark storage in a few years and they were all cheap paper underneath but loaded with oba to make them look white. A lot depends on the quality of the oba, and how much is used and whether is it added in the making of the paper or later in the coating, which is often the case with budget papers. I think the Hahnemuhle quality papers with moderate oba content do quite well in dark storage. I've never seen any of them change. I actually spray all mine with a uv coat to protect from pollutants in the environment and I think that helps a lot for all of them. These inkjet receptor coatings act as a magnet in absorbing any chemicals in the air or objects they might come in contact with.
-
Well, as a reality check - I actually have a stash of bound volumes of prints I made in 2000 and 2001 using an Epson 2000P and Epson Enhanced Matte paper. I just had a look through them right now, and there is no evidence whatsoever of any graying or yellowing - and that also includes some sheets of Epson Premium Luster Photo Paper. There isn't mottling, and the white of the coated surface retains its very distinct whiteness relative to the yellowish tint of the backing. As we know, both these papers were loaded with OBA, so I now have an accumulated record of 14~15 years of successful dark storage despite them. How many more years will it take for deterioration to become apparent - I have no idea. I also had Enhanced Matte prints on the fridge door in the kitchen, and they yellowed (rather evenly I must say) within two years, So my evidence suggests exposure to light also has a major influence on the breakdown of the OBAs, such that dark storage is much less risky than display in this respect. Not "scientific", but observed reality, surely worth something.
My more recent prints on Ilford Gold Fibre Silk exposed to indoor/daylight in the kitchen (fridge and walls) for the past 5 years or so show no evidence of yellowing. So whatever OBA is or is not in this paper, it is clearly much less susceptible to fading under light than that in Epson Enhanced Matte. This may be because there is very little, and whatever is there may be in the base rather than the coating, but this is speculation on my part - I don't know how they mix the brew.
-
Well, as a reality check - I actually have a stash of bound volumes of prints I made in 2000 and 2001 using an Epson 2000P and Epson Enhanced Matte paper. I just had a look through them right now, and there is no evidence whatsoever of any graying or yellowing - and that also includes some sheets of Epson Premium Luster Photo Paper. There isn't mottling, and the white of the coated surface retains its very distinct whiteness relative to the yellowish tint of the backing.
OBAs are dyes, and thus ozone gas fading is a huge dark storage variable for papers with OBAs, especially when they are incorporated in the microporous coatings. Tyler has it right. Sealing the microporous layer with an acrylic spray like Premier Print Shield helps a lot in preventing ozone from attacking the OBA dye molecules and also in preventing other airborne pollutants inducing other types of discoloration as well. Without any protection from an additional coating or a picture frame glazing or careful storage in a fully enclosed document box of some kind, inkjet media with OBAs in the coatings and to a lesser extent in the paper core are vulnerable to OBA burnout (i.e., loss of fluorescence). Some real world data on the light fading and gas fading of Obas can be found in this article:
http://aardenburg-imaging.com/cgi-bin/mrk/_4433ZGxkLzBeMTAwMDAwMDAwMTIzNDU2Nzg5LyoxMzM=
You can replicate the ozone gas fade problem for OBA containing papers quite easily in most industrialized parts of the world where indoor ozone levels are typically present enough to matter. Take a high OBA content paper like Epson Premium Presentation Paper matte (aka, Epson Heavyweight matte, Epson Enhanced matte which is same coating on a cotton substrate), place it on a table in a dimly lit or dark storage area but with good airflow going across it. Cover half of the print with something like acrylic, glass, or even a book. Let it stay there it a few weeks, then uncover and look at the whole print carefully in good daylight or even more critically with a blacklight. The uncovered part will likely already show signs of change. Ozone will already have started to degrade the air exposed portion. It can happen that fast :o
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. With books made of poorer quality paper, heat and humidity microclimate effects tend to act on the edges preferentially as well, but with modern media containing OBAs, the yellowing due to ozone attack and subsequent loss of OBA performance adds one more degradation pathway to the mix. If follows then that further placing a book into a slip jacket or another document box will also help retard the airflow and stabilize the microclimate around each page. 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 ;D).
cheers,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com
-
I think Ernst has raised some real issues that for starters warrant a response from WIR. I don't know whether Henry Wilhelm or staff reads this forum or cares to participate, but that's their call. That said, for your stated purpose you should probably be looking at the paper ratings for dark storage, because the photos will be in a shut album most of the time - however, that only deals with light fading as far as I understand it. The most relevant question for you is the fade rate of the UV brightener when the prints are in dark storage. It isn't clear based on what I've been able to understand from the data what the fade rate of OBAs is for prints in dark storage. Perhaps Aardenburg Mark or Ernst have a view on this, as it would be your most critical consideration in respect of that issue.
Though my last question was specific to albums/dark storage, I am of course interested in permanence out in the light as well. For dark storage, I imagine it is quite difficult ;) to do any quick testing for this. You can accelerate the effects of light on photos in order to get test results after a reasonable amount of time.. can't accelerate the dark.
I think that papers that do well in the light and/or are more exposed to air/ozone, won't do any worse in the dark. But the question is whether there is any validity at all to WIR's results. Is the Inkpress (rated for 107 years bare bulb with no glazing) going to last at least this long in an album, or did WIR completely ignore OBAs and effects light/gas have on them?
A completely separate question.. but maybe the answer is related.. how can 2 cotton rag, acid free inkjet papers have such markedly different longevity results? -- Canson Rag Photo seems to be a number of people's shortlists for recommended papers, but there are theoretically other brands with triple the longevity?
-
So is there any value to the WIR tests at all?
Well, there's the question, isn't it?
Given that WIR testing still considers print permanence to be "good" until very advanced deterioration (in terms of human perceptibility) has occurred, I think not.
The Aardenburg testing is far more relevant to what we think about when we worry how long that nice picture we took will last.
None of which means that papers with OBAs are necessarily the awful things they are sometimes presented as being. You can still love an OBA-addled paper like, say, Epson Exhibition Fiber. You just do it knowingly. Like the angelic little girl who grew into the promiscuous teenager. You still love her, even if that love is laced with tragic disappointment.
-
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 ;D).
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?
-
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
-
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.
-
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
-
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?
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
Alan, have you seen any data on the gamut volume (measured in ColorThink Pro) and DMax of Museo SIlver Rag/Epson x900 inkset?
-
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
-
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.
-
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
-
You may recall Mark Dubovoy's review of Canson Platine here: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/the_paper_that_almost_got_away.shtml (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/the_paper_that_almost_got_away.shtml)
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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
-
............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).
-
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?
-
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.
-
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?
A long time ago Red River on their own initiative sent me a box with samples of their papers, will try to get more recent media samples. It could help of course when buyers of their papers make them aware again.
Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
December 2014 update, 700+ inkjet media white spectral plots
-
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.
I did a similar test as Mark with the same papers - CIBP vs Platine. You can read my summary here:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=96705.msg790584#msg790584 (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=96705.msg790584#msg790584)
What is really interesting, although again anecdotal, is that I had more clogs last week on my 7900 while doing this test than I've ever had before! I was attributing it to the recent cold weather and presumably dry air in the house now. But now that I'm back to printing on CIBP, the clogs are gone for the most part (hey, it is still a 7900).
Weird.
Dave