Epson Enhanced Matte Paper

[Mike Guilbault]

I started using this matte paper when I first started printing because it was readily available and relatively cheap. I realize it has OBA's, but other than that, is there anything wrong with this paper?  It doesn't have the 'feel' of something like Hot Press, but I don't see much posted about it, comparisons or otherwise, and just curious what other photographers here think about it. 

[MHMG]

Otherwise previously called "Archival Matte", and in thickness variations also "Matte Heavyweight"  and now "Premium Presentation Paper", this paper has been in Epson's media lineup for a long time.

Try this simple experiment, and let us know what you find out - Take a sheet of it, put it coating side up on a table, cover half of it with a book or other object. Set a small fan nearby to run some mild airflow over it for a couple of weeks, then remove the book and take a look at both halves. Any visual differences between covered and uncovered halves in a mere two weeks?

If yes, you are already observing ozone induced OBA burnout. This paper is loaded with OBAs in the top coat.

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

[NikoJorj]

For me, its dullness is a quality!
Being not as flattering as good papers, if a picture looks good on it it will also look good otherwise : it makes a good proofing paper.

[Ernst Dinkla]

For me, its dullness is a quality!
Being not as flattering as good papers, if a picture looks good on it it will also look good otherwise : it makes a good proofing paper.

The issues of OBA papers are not limited to longevity aspects only. If the paper used for the final print has the same OBA content and both viewing light and display light have the same UV output and the image in display is not framed behind glass. Or UV light clipped in both cases and the OBA by that in all cases not active so not of any use either. That would more or less create the conditions you need.
Not to mention the profiles of both papers based on UV included spectro measurements or UV-cut measurements for the different conditions. Most profiles used are of the last variety.

Consider a paper like the Innova IFA24 as a proof paper. High white reflectance, slightly warm so not far from the normal Photorag that has some OBA content. Slight texture in between German Etching and Photorag. Spot on considering white reflection with Canson Rag Photographique that has no OBA.

Ernst

And to illustrate Mark's comment on front and backside of the EEM, the stipple line is the back:

[Sal Baker]

Mike, I used to use the Matte Heavywieght variety years ago on my old dye-based Epsons.  I can tell you that the prints hold up well for at least 5 years mounted behind glass on a wall in a very bright space (my living room).  No scientific testing evolved, just prints that "appear" as nice to the eye as they did years ago.  I do avoid pointing a fan at them 24/7.  

Sal

[NikoJorj]

The issues of OBA papers are not limited to longevity aspects only.

Oh, sorry, I meant proofing paper as "fist print in small format after editing, to evluate an image I like" - how do you say that (tirage de lecture in french)?

No, I wouldn't know how to proof (as in soft-proofing) another paper on it, unless it's Heavyweight Matte or Double-sided matte.

[Mike Guilbault]

Thanks for the feedback. 

[Ernst Dinkla]

Oh, sorry, I meant proofing paper as "fist print in small format after editing, to evluate an image I like" - how do you say that (tirage de lecture in french)?

Bon à Tirer, is what I learned and used. The first print that both artist and printer consider the right one and which is signed by the artist as such. On the paper used for the edition that follows and the print kept near the press to check further printing to. The other ones are Epreuves d'Artist which can be any print that he likes in the total process including the proofs (in my experience). We used English, Dutch and French terms on the prints but Bon à Tirer was singled out for that first print. I kept the Bon à Tirer and one or two Printer's Proofs which were identical to the edition quality but in a few cases some odd proof prints. Paper was always the same in proofing and printing. Old proofs front and backside used to get the press controlled.

--
Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst

http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
December 2012, 500+ inkjet media white spectral plots.

[DeanChriss]

Mike, I used to use the Matte Heavywieght variety years ago on my old dye-based Epsons.  I can tell you that the prints hold up well for at least 5 years mounted behind glass on a wall in a very bright space (my living room).  No scientific testing evolved, just prints that "appear" as nice to the eye as they did years ago.  I do avoid pointing a fan at them 24/7.  

Sal

I've got some prints I made on [Epson's "Archival Matte"] from around 2001 with Epson's first pigment inks. They're framed under glass and exposed to normal home lighting. A side by side comparison with the same prints that were kept in a dark vacuum might show changes, but without that being available there's nothing visibly wrong with them.

[Mike Guilbault]

Good to hear.  I was panicking there for a bit.  It seems to be a decent matte alternative to Epson Premium Lustre.

[bill t.]

I have number of EHM (then Archival Matte) pieces from 2005 framed with the print in contact with the glass, and backed by foamcore.  If there have been any qualitative changes, they have not been to the worse.  No sticking to the glass, and when removed the prints are flat as a board.  I haven't done any measurements, to my eye the unprinted areas still look satisfyingly white.  But this is in a very dry climate, albeit with relatively cool, high humidity interiors when the evaporative cooler is running during the summer.  I wonder if the direct glass contact somehow mitigates chemical degradation of the surface.  But don't try that with glossy prints, this I know.

With optimal post processing you get a very handsome looking image on the better matte papers, which in some ways make their glossy brothers look rather crass.  If you really wanna see some nice lookin' matte prints, try Epson Cold/Hot Press, BC Elegance Velvet, and a few others.

BTW, for those of us pondering the glass/no-glass question, Elegance Velvet takes Glamour II very nicely, but the Epson papers don't, and sadly that includes EHM and all the other micro-porous papers.  I just wish Elegance came on a substrate with 1/2 the thickness and 1/4 the curl.  You'd think inkjet paper designers never had to deal with those stupid, high-GSM, hi-curl rolls from the user's perspective.  Kudos to Canson for 210 GSM Rag Photo rolls, but it doesn't take coating, sigh.  Am I Off Topic yet?

[Mike Guilbault]

I've used the Epson  Cold Press Natural quite a bit and it's actually my favourite matte paper, so far.

[Tim Lookingbill]

Dang! Good I grabbed some Epson Premium Presentation Matte at Target when it was on sale for $9/50 sheet pack.


Thought color matching was going to be hell as a proof paper compared to the much more expensive Ultra Premium Photo Paper Glossy, but I was proven wrong. I can't believe the colors I'm getting on this paper even off my $50 Epson NX330 using "Printer Manages Color"/AdobeRGB/2.2 gamma in the Epson Driver. No soft proofing required. No profile to use anyway.
 

The pics below are spot on to how they look under my combo GE Sunshine/Philips Natural Sunshine 5000K balanced T8 flotube desk lamp. Can't see any of the effects of OBA nor do I know what to look for if there is any. There is "see through" on thinner versions of this matte (check out the first image). I had no idea of the results I could get on this type of paper.


You guys using higher end printers and color matching technology must be in heaven if I'm getting these results.


GOOD LORD! Does this paper drink ink though!