Canson Infinity release new ARCHES papers

[MfAlab]

I have posted about the new ARCHES inkjet papers before: https://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=136901.0

Today, Canson Infinity officially releases them. The ARCHES line has 4 papers:

ARCHES BFK Rives pure white: https://www.canson-infinity.com/en/products/arches-bfk-rives-pure-white
ARCHES BFK Rives (warm) white: https://www.canson-infinity.com/en/products/arches-bfk-rives
ARCHES Aquarelle: https://www.canson-infinity.com/en/products/arches-aquarelle

and a brand new paper here
ARCHES 88: https://www.canson-infinity.com/en/products/arches-88
It's a smooth cotton paper, traditional ARCHES 88 is designed for screen printing.

All these papers have much higher paper white, new BFK (pure white) CIE whiteness is 97.26, old BFK is only 82.35, even the warmer new BFK is 85.32. Old aquarelle's whiteness is 83.05, the new version is 96.76. Even ARCHES 88 has a high whiteness 95.85, Rag Photographique is only 89.8. As a comparison, Hahnemuhle Photo Rag 308 gsm which contains very low OBA has a whiteness 92.5. Canson says all ARCHES papers are OBA free. Hope they can keep the nature beauty of ARCHES papers without a thick ultra white coating that will hide paper structure. The coating is different from old papers, it's marked "unique and innovative inkjet receiving layer" and "exclusive to the new ARCHES papers" in a internal document.

Although the production and transportation is largely limited since last year by COVID. Hope we can get these papers soon!

[deanwork]

Do these new Arches papers show the presence of dye brighteners under a black light? I assume they do, where Canson doesn’t since Canson uses some kind of silica based pigment.


quote author=MfAlab link=topic=137484.msg1205821#msg1205821 date=1611730940]
I have posted about the new ARCHES inkjet papers before: https://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=136901.0

Today, Canson Infinity officially releases them. The ARCHES line has 4 papers:

ARCHES BFK Rives pure white: https://www.canson-infinity.com/en/products/arches-bfk-rives-pure-white
ARCHES BFK Rives (warm) white: https://www.canson-infinity.com/en/products/arches-bfk-rives
ARCHES Aquarelle: https://www.canson-infinity.com/en/products/arches-aquarelle

and a brand new paper here
ARCHES 88: https://www.canson-infinity.com/en/products/arches-88
It's a smooth cotton paper, traditional ARCHES 88 is designed for screen printing.

All these papers have much higher paper white, new BFK (pure white) CIE whiteness is 97.26, old BFK is only 82.35, even the warmer new BFK is 85.32. Old aquarelle's whiteness is 83.05, the new version is 96.76. Even ARCHES 88 has a high whiteness 95.85, Rag Photographique is only 89.8. As a comparison, Hahnemuhle Photo Rag 308 gsm which contains very low OBA has a whiteness 92.5. Canson says all ARCHES papers are OBA free. Hope they can keep the nature beauty of ARCHES papers without a thick ultra white coating that will hide paper structure. The coating is different from old papers, it's marked "unique and innovative inkjet receiving layer" and "exclusive to the new ARCHES papers" in a internal document.

Although the production and transportation is largely limited since last year by COVID. Hope we can get these papers soon!
[/quote]

[MfAlab]

Do these new Arches papers show the presence of dye brighteners under a black light? I assume they do, where Canson doesn’t since Canson uses some kind of silica based pigment.

Canson says "completely free of any optical brighteners" of all new ARCHES papers. When I can get these papers, I will try to proof it (or disprove).

Ultra high whiteness paper without OBA could be made by very white raw fibers and additives, or coated with a high white base coating on the paper. White coating way could be found on many papers by comparing spectral reflection on front side and back side of the paper. Usually, manufacturer won't coated each side of the paper. Not sure which way Canson used.

[Ernst Dinkla]

Reading the first message I wonder more about the cited CIELab values of the old Canson / Hahnemühle papers than about the values of the new Canson papers.

Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst Dinkla

https://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm

"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong." H. L. Mencken

[MfAlab]

Reading the first message I wonder more about the cited CIELab values of the old Canson / Hahnemühle papers than about the values of the new Canson papers.

I'm lazy to turn on the barbieri qb, all the data below is calculated from ICC profiles download at Canson's website.

Papers	L*	a*	b*
Print MaKing Rag	97.04	-0.02	2.05
ARCHES BFK Rives (W)	97.67	0.05	1.57
ARCHES BFK Rives (PW)	96.42	0.52	-1.41
Aquarelle Rag	97.43	-0.03	1.72
ARCHES Aquarelle Rag (PW)	96.21	0.55	-1.39
Rag Photographique	96.83	0.24	0.82
ARCHES 88 (PW)	96.42	0.51	-1.28

The new ARCHES "pure white" papers show negative b* values, means the paper white is slightly blueish. That's not a good sign for papers claim nature beauty and hand-made feeling. Canson says the papers are free of any optical brighteners. It must be some kind of blueish white pigment in the coating or paper pulp. The L* value drops a little bit could be a circumstantial evidence.

Anyway, it's all about conjecture. When I can get some real papers in hands, spectrum measurement can tell more about the truth.

[Ernst Dinkla]

To give an impression why I am curious about the lower Lab L numbers for the older Canson and Hahnemühle papers in the first message I add my older measurements here and an explanation.

For the spectral measurements a then new X-Rite Eye One Basic was used, the version that doesn’t have a UV cut filter as I was interested in the fluorescence behavior of the papers. Now it is an older model but so are the measurements I did. The software used is X-Rite (Gretag Macbeth) Eye One Share. Three spectral measurements per media were done, one on the print side of the paper with a natural (no FBAs) white museum mounting board underneath the paper to represent a print as mounted (solid line curve), the second a measurement on the same side but the paper resting on a black plastic board (dashed line curve), the third measurement on the backside of the paper and the paper resting on a black plastic board (stipple line curve). The Lab value is derived from the first measurement. Illumination D50, Observer 2°

This is the typical 5000K measurement as used in the graphic industry while paper manufacturers use the CIElab with 6500K base. I think the 5000K is more representative for print display purposes we usually discuss here.

Canson BFK Rives 310gr/m²                   Lab 97.4 0.2 1.6 (available till 2015, measured 2012)
Canson Printmaking Rag 310gr/m²          Lab 97.8 0.0 2.7 (2015 replacement for BFK, measured 2016)
Canson Arches Aquarelle Rag 310gr/m² Lab 97.5 0.0 2.5 (measured 2012)
Canson Rag Photographique 310gr/m²   Lab 97.8 0.3 0.9 (2015 sample, measured 2016)
Canson Rag Photographique 310gr/m²   Lab 97.6 0.1 1.8 (2011 sample, measured 2011)
Hahnemühle Photo Rag 308gr/m²           Lab 96.6 0.7 0.5 (2010 sample, measured 2011)

No time to measure here some 60 sheets 60x80cm left of the deckled edge original Arches 88 as used in silkscreen printing, sheets about 35 years old.

What I recall is that the paper white measurements at Aardenburg Imaging were quite close to what I published in SpectrumViz.

I should measure the new qualities first before commenting and the difference might be in the 5000/6500K and possibly in white versus blackboard underneath in measuring. Though with 300gr/m² paper the last will have little influence.

Nevertheless some comments:

I do not see the breaktrough in paper white reflectance with the new papers but more an alternative fact issue about the older qualities.

I doubt a blue tinter in the paper coating can have that effect of both keeping/enhancing the white reflectance and make the paper cooler. You just need the extra energy of UV to create that effect.

I also recall an opinion difference on FBA/OBA content in the Canson Baryta Photographique between Canson representatives and measurements done by me and AI. https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/55216944

There is a possibility that OBAs are used in the new papers that are excited beyond the UV light wavelength my spectrometer goes into (still a tungsten based light source) and even newer commonly used spectrometers can not reach. Some different wavelength UV torches may reveal that.

Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst Dinkla

https://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm

"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong." H. L. Mencken

[MHMG]

There is a possibility that OBAs are used in the new papers that are excited beyond the UV light wavelength my spectrometer goes into (still a tungsten based light source) and even newer commonly used spectrometers can not reach. Some different wavelength UV torches may reveal that.

Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst Dinkla

https://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm

"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong." H. L. Mencken

There is also a possibility that lightfast blue tinting dye could be added into the coating at a very dilute level. For example, the blue wool #7 and 8 patches are rated at 300 and 900 Megalux hours respectively under UV-excluded lighting conditions. Those ratings would probably drop if the dye is located in a microporous coating and exposed to natural daylight, but if it managed to resist fading for perhaps 100 megalux hours and was dilute enough not to reduce the initial L* whitepoint by more than 1dE or so, this approach could be an interesting alternative to the use of OBAs in "pure white" digital fine art print media.

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

[Ernst Dinkla]

There is also a possibility that lightfast blue tinting dye could be added into the coating at a very dilute level. For example, the blue wool #7 and 8 patches are rated at 300 and 900 Megalux hours respectively under UV-excluded lighting conditions. Those ratings would probably drop if the dye is located in a microporous coating and exposed to natural daylight, but if it managed to resist fading for perhaps 100 megalux hours and was dilute enough not to reduce the initial L* whitepoint by more than 1dE or so, this approach could be an interesting alternative to the use of OBAs in "pure white" digital fine art print media.

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

True, the paper white numbers taken from the Canson profiles by Kang-Wei Hsu suggest that possibility.
 
ARCHES BFK Rives (W)        97.67    0.05    1.57
ARCHES BFK Rives (PW)        96.42    0.52    -1.41
Aquarelle Rag                        97.43    -0.03    1.72
ARCHES Aquarelle Rag (PW)  96.21    0.55    -1.39

Roughly Lab  -1.24   0.50   -3.05  dE shifts to a slightly less reflecting but cooler white.


Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst Dinkla

https://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm

"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong." H. L. Mencken

[MHMG]

True, the paper white numbers taken from the Canson profiles by Kang-Wei Hsu suggest that possibility.
 
ARCHES BFK Rives (W)        97.67    0.05    1.57
ARCHES BFK Rives (PW)        96.42    0.52    -1.41
Aquarelle Rag                        97.43    -0.03    1.72
ARCHES Aquarelle Rag (PW)  96.21    0.55    -1.39

Roughly Lab  -1.24   0.50   -3.05  dE shifts to a slightly less reflecting but cooler white.


Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst Dinkla

https://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm

"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong." H. L. Mencken

Yes, I noticed those lab number value changes, too, which made me think tinting dye could be a possibility here

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

[MfAlab]

There is also a possibility that lightfast blue tinting dye could be added into the coating at a very dilute level. For example, the blue wool #7 and 8 patches are rated at 300 and 900 Megalux hours respectively under UV-excluded lighting conditions. Those ratings would probably drop if the dye is located in a microporous coating and exposed to natural daylight, but if it managed to resist fading for perhaps 100 megalux hours and was dilute enough not to reduce the initial L* whitepoint by more than 1dE or so, this approach could be an interesting alternative to the use of OBAs in "pure white" digital fine art print media.

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

Yes, but I bet on bluish white pigment. It could be the answer we will never know. It's the secret ingredient of these new papers. Canson says "this innovative coating is exclusive to the new ARCHES papers", and it is developed at Arches.

[MHMG]

Yes, but I bet on bluish white pigment. It could be the answer we will never know. It's the secret ingredient of these new papers. Canson says "this innovative coating is exclusive to the new ARCHES papers", and it is developed at Arches.

It could indeed be a blue tinting pigment, but uniformly and consistently dispersing a dye, and cleaning up the equipment before beginning different production run is generally easier to deal with in a coating production environment. And there are some very stable blue dyes in existence. Either way, if the result has been achieved with dilute blue tinting method, and I measure a negative b* value with decent max L* value, and the product is truly OBA-free, and the media is non yellowing, then I will be impressed!

Hence, an unresolved issue once we can actually buy the product will be to demonstrate convincingly that the new media also exhibits excellent non yellowing lightfastness  properties

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

[MHMG]

I received a technical spec sheet from FILA/Canson senior management today again asserting OBA-free performance, and it also has published values for the CIELAB whitepoint values of the new BFK Rives and Arches Aquarelle papers. The numbers correspond closely to the CIELAB values derived by MfAlab from the ICC profiles already posted on the Canson website. BFK Rives "Pure white" is indeed a slightly cool white paper (LAB = 96.2, 0.45, -1.45) - whereas "white" is what we've customarily observed with other OBA-free fine art matte papers (LAB = 97.5, 0.2, 2.0) according to the published numbers in the PDF data sheet on the new products.

I'm guessing the lightfade resistance to yellowing is going to be pretty darn good with this new Canson "pure white" formulation if it is truly OBA-free. I take Canson at its word that it is for now, and if so, then it should certainly perform better in light fastness testing than an equally cool-white formulation produced by the incorporation of OBAS. I will follow up with a purchase of this new "pure white" BFK Rives media and its "white" BFK Rives companion media when it becomes commercially available and get it into independent testing at Aardenburg Imaging & Archives as soon as I can.

That said, I'm already going to take a victory lap today    Without the last decade of light fade testing using the Aardenburg Imaging & Archives light fade testing protocol, the printmaking community would not have understood the overall significance of OBA burnout and it's detrimental impact on archival print properties.  And thus there would have been little or no incentive for any media manufacturer to pursue OBA-free papers with more neutral or cool white color.

Take away the Aardenburg testing program, only cite other published test results, and then OBA-containing papers as a general rule get higher print permanence ratings than they actually deserve, i.e., higher than their OBA-free counterparts. It's a flaw in the conventional testing criteria and test methodology, not a technically accurate result. Canson is to be commended for listening to its more informed customer base and delivering on their request for cooler white OBA-free papers.

cheers,
Mark

http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com

[MfAlab]

Look forward to see new papers tests, Mark and Ernst. SpectrumViz and Aaardenburg Imaging and Archives are amazing.

Here is something more. One of new ARCHES papers develop starting point is the whitest digital fine art papers in the market. Sorry I can't public the source now, but you will see maybe later this month. And the white is CIE whiteness, just like I mentioned in first message. Must not be confused with L* or Lightness. CIE whiteness calculated from XYZ too, but the meaning is how white does human feel. The formula considers tints, weighted for x and y. A paper gets higher Whiteness and lower L* is perfectly normal when adding some blue tints (lower long wavelength reflection).

Another thing about the coating. By analyzing ICC profiles, new pure white ARCHES papers have roughly 1% wider gamut than current papers base on profiles for Epson 9890. Max densities are increase 0.08 roughly. On newer printer Epson P10000, color gamut is 10% wider in average and 0.09 D-max increment. It's a big improvement if the ICC profiles are accurate.  New papers could be more suitable for newer faster printers than old papers. The new coating could have higher ink absorbability, or faster absorbing behavior. I skip P9500's ICC analyzing here, because the ICCs show strange gamut and black point.

Pure White papers' ICCs were created in Sep. ~ Oct. 2020, ARCHES BFK Rives White ICCs were created in Dec. 2020. Seems Canson decided to develop a "normal white" ARCHES paper after pure white papers. I will be happy if they announced ARCHES Aquarelle Rag White and ARCHES 88 White too in the future.

edit: I mistype the word "solid" to "sold" in the image. replaced it

[MfAlab]

I got some samples of new ARCHES, and more info from Canson.

I measured front and back paper white, made a comparison with Canson's old BFK Rives also made by Arches, and PrintMaKing Rag which is made by St Cuthberts in UK. These 3 papers are all OBA free, spectrum reflection @M1 and @M2 proofs that. Reflections show no OBA peak in front and back side. So it's true about no OBA but whiter statement from Canson.

Front side reflection of ARCHES BFK Rives shows significantly lower than back side at 500nm ~ 650nm, and slightly lower over 650nm. That's how the new coating makes paper whiter. And I'm right on the conjecture, Canson uses a new pigment to do that. It might be a mixture of bluish white pigment and ultra white pigment like ZnO and BaSO4, or just a little blue-purple pigment in white pigment. It's the secret ingredient of new ARCHES pure white coating, the pigment will stay in secret until Canson public it.

In back side comparison, new ARCHES BFK Rives shows more flat and high reflection than others. Old BFK Rives is warmer, PrintMaKing Rag has lowest reflection. It roughly express the raw paper white. New Arches has a better or cleaner raw cotton fiber and additives in pulp.

As the paper textured, two BFK is very similar. And it's very natural craft beauty, and soft hand feeling. New ARCHES Aquarelle Rag is not that similar with the old one. But still better than current Aquarelle Rag IMO. I will post more data and picture next week.

[timowen]

Hi!

Looking forward to hearing more forum members' comments about the ARCHES paper.

Does anyone have any further experience printing on these papers?

... I ordered a Discovery Pack from B&H on March 14th. But the "expected delivery" of 7-14 days has not changed for 30 days. Still on backorder.

Thanks!

-Tim

https://www.timwilliamowen.com/

[MfAlab]

I have some printed samples. The best part of this new ARCHES papers is the paper texture, real fine art paper hand feeling.

ARCHES BFK Rives is even better than old BFK Rives, differently much better than PrintMaKing Rag. You can see some datas here: https://www.facebook.com/HSUfineprint/posts/1834883736673154

ARCHES Aquarelle Rag is not that rough as old one, but much more natural grain than current Aquarelle Rag (St. Cuthberts version). ARCHES 88 is Ultra-Extra-smooth, smoother than Rag Photographique and Hahnemuhle Photo Rag Ultra Smooth. And it is a OBA-free ultra white paper with very high resolution. I think ARCHES 88 is a great paper for high resolution and sharpness photos. But the ultra white BFK or Aquarelle is not my favorite. Papers are great, but ultra white coating on textured papers is not my taste. ARCHES BFK Rives has a natural white version, hope Canson release natural white version ARCHES Aquarelle Rag too.

[jlamont]

I am very interested in these papers, especially the Arches 88. I am looking for a possible replacement in some situations (client fine art, 16x24 or larger) for Epson Hot Press Bright. What has your experience been using Arches 88?

[jlamont]

I am surprised by the lack of any response. Has no one used this paper? (I do not mean "tested"; I mean "used", as in, "I used Hot Press Bright for all my client work before switching to the new Canson Arches. Here's what I like and what I dislike about this new paper...")

Thanks.

[fgorga]

I think the reason you have not received a response is that I do not think that (at least in the US) these papers have actually made it to retailers shelves yet and thus are not yet widely available.

[timowen]

Hi,

I received my Canson Infinity ARCHES Discovery Pack and printed a couple images. So I thought I'd share my first impressions.

First, a word of caution - as the ol' adage goes - "careful what you read on the internet". My limited knowledge can be very dangerous. Unlike many others that visit this forum, I am not a print master.

But ... over the past few years I've become wonderfully aware of how "the print is everything" - how the right paper can transform an 'average' image into something very special. Recently, I've sampled 20+ papers from Canson, Hahnemuhle, Moab, Epson and others.

I should also add that my testing was limited to two images (See "Solitude" and "Spring Mist" at www.timwilliamowen.com). So me recommending these papers is sort of like an audiophile recommending speakers after only listening to a few classical tracks. The speakers may be right for Mozart's Symphony #40, but not for AC/DC or Norah Jones.🙂

So what is the net? I am very impressed by the new ARCHES papers. I am particularly delighted with BFK Rives Pure White. Although, as I mentioned, I only tested on 2 images ... but I think it has the potential to be my "goldilocks" go-to paper - just right for a wide range of my landscape photos. I would definitely recommend trying a Discovery Pack.

Here are some further thoughts:

Surface Texture

Here how I would summarize surface texture compared to other papers (rated 'smoothest' to 'roughest'):

1. CI ARCHES 88
2. CI Velin Museum
3. Epson Legacy Etching, Canson Edition Etching Rag
4. CI ARCHES BFK Rives, Hahnemuhle Museum Etching
5. Epson Legacy Textured, CI Aquarelle Rag, Hahnemuele Albrecht Durer
6. CI ARCHES Aquarelle, Hahnemuhle German Etching
7. Hahnemuhle William Turner

I found the ARCHES Aquarelle to be a bit rougher than I hoped for (for my images). Definitely more so than Canson Infinity Aquarelle Rag. But still a terrific paper. Just depends on the 'look' you are looking for. 

Canson says ARCHES 88 offers an "ultra-smooth surface finish". Yes, I would say yes - very smooth -- for a mould based paper.

Color Rendering

I'm a bit out of my league here, but overall the color rendering and tonal range seemed excellent.

In previous posts to this thread, Kang-Wei and Ernst noted and commented on the CIE Lab b* negative number of the ARCHES BFK Rives Pure White paper. In my test prints, yes (and not surprisingly) the Pure White results in cooler colors. But very slight in my opinion. Some of the 'purples' where very moderately shifted to a bit more blue. But in my view, prints on BFK White and Pure White both looked great. I think it comes down to personal taste.

Detail

The Canson Infinity website states "BFK Rives Pure White is a 100% cotton paper which has a perfectly balanced soft grain that brings out the detail in every image. "

I can confirm this. I was very impressed with the exquisite detail of BFK Rives. Incrementally superior to the other papers I have tested (one caveat - I am not 100% certain Lightroom print sharpening was normalized across all my test prints). 

Why could BFK Rives be my Goldilocks paper?

Quick context - I recently moved from an Epson to Canon Pro2000 printer. Two of my favorite papers for the Epson where Legacy Etching and Legacy Textured.

I was assuming I would need two papers to replace the 2 Epson papers.

But I am leaning to using BFK Rives Pure White as my preferred paper. It seems to have a wonderful balanced texture that will work for a wide range of prints.

I should also say my choice was validated by my most discerning critic - my wife. She is neither a photographer nor a print master. But she has a good eye - she looks at my prints from the view of a buyer, not a pixel peeping ex engineer (that would be me). I placed a dozen plus test prints of Solitude and Spring Mist and asked her to pick her favorite of each print. The clear winner for both? BFK Rives Pure White. She almost immediately noticed the fine details in the BFK prints. After her decision, I asked her about the color rendering, noting the Pure White was slightly cooler. She squinted her eyes, squinted again, and then said "ok, I guess there is a slight difference".🙂

I hope this helps. Please don't hesitate to critique my comments or point out any errors.

-Tim

https://www.timwilliamowen.com/
Facebook Page