Digital BW, The Print

Paul, have you heard anything about Epson's rebranding the Archival
Matte to Endurance Matte? I still like the paper, a real bargain price
wise, but it still has that damn watermark on it in letter size. I was
going to get some 11x17 that doesn't have the watermark, but it isn't
really 11x17, it is 11.3 x 16.5, so you can't get 2 letter size prints
from it.
This wouldn't normally matter, but it would for my greeting cards.


Jerry




Paul Roark wrote:
> 
> Peter,
> 
> Let me add my 2 cents worth to the paper issue.
> 
> jerry wrote:
> 
> > You should love the Eclipse Satine paper,...
> > Also try Legion's Photo Matte Paper, ...the brightest white ...
> 
> I agree those are fine papers.  Both have done well on my fade testing.  The
> Eclipse is the only paper I've tested that beat (barely) Epson Archival
> Matte in that test.  However, EAM has deeper blacks.
> 
> Photo Matte has a base that is bluish -- very cold.  While my tests seem to
> indicate that the blacks are not quite as good as EAM's, it does give the
> visual impression of greater range.  I think that might be because it has a
> lot of brighteners added.  These turn yellow with extended bright light
> exposure, and LPM yellowed more in my fade tests than other papers.
> However, it was so blue to start with that it ended up neutral.
> 
> The Hahnemuhle papers are also highly thought of by many.  They seem to
> print very well with the MIS Vm inkset, and apparently have a coating that,
> like EAM, is designed for pigmented inks like the various MIS quads.
> 
> Of course, my standard is still Epson Archival Matte (EAM).  It's cheap
> (check  www.atlex.com) and, overall, the paper that I would use regardless
> of price for my display prints.  For long-term, dark storage (hundreds of
> years) a rag paper might be a better bet, but for the best combination of
> good blacks and light-fastness, it remains unbeaten in my tests.
> 
> Paul
> http://www.PaulRoark.com
> \ufffd