By "coated" do you mean papers that perform best with Photo Black, often
called "glossy" papers, or do you mean papers with an ink receptor coating,
which includes papers like Photo Rag and Epson's Hot Press Natural, papers
which aren't glossy at all?
Arches water color paper doesn't have an ink receptor coating, unlike their
papers intended for inkjet printing. One can make a pretty good print on
the water color paper using an Eboni ink set, but everyone that I've shown
comparison prints, one on Arches Hot Press water color paper, and one on
Epson Hot Press Natural, has preferred the prints on the Epson paper. In
my case, I greatly prefer the prints on the Epson paper, and since it's a
cotton paper with no optical brighteners, and the inkset is made with pure
carbon pigment, the prints should last a pretty long time without
noticeable degradation, a tentative conclusion based on Aardenburg's
testing.
Theorizing that there might be a problem with various ink receptor coatings
is not by itself evidence that there is indeed a problem. For all we know
the coating could lead to a better bond between the ink and the paper than
that provided by non ink receptor coated paper.
This is in no way meant to suggest that people shouldn't experiment or
print on Arches Water Color paper. It's a fine paper. But it is not
obviously superior in archival properties than other good papers.
On Sat, Jul 13, 2013 at 12:43 PM, David Kachel <david@...>wrote:
> **
>
>
> From: faeofavalon
>
>
> "I'm curious... What is the advantage to printing on traditonal uncoated
> Arches over Canson's infinity Arches aquarelle rag? I print on the latter
> and it looks beautiful and I believe there are no OBAs correct?"
>
> I'm not sure 'advantage' is the right word. 'Preference' might be, well,
> preferable. For me, anyway.
>
> I have the experience and perspective to know that people who claim to make
> wonderful products for photographers don't bother to take the necessary
> precautions and don't care about an undesirable result, as long as it isn't
> immediately noticeable.
>
> For decades, Kodak sold what they knew to be highly defective color papers
> to the public. They had to be sued before they would stop doing it. Ilford
> sold B&W 120 roll film they knew to have photo-reactive inks on the backing
> paper (I told them myself, so I have no doubt they knew; others told them
> too) for even longer, and as far as I know, they still do! Epson,
> Hahnem�lle, Moab and others are selling papers they know will yellow in a
> very short time. Red River sells Aurora, which they know (again, because I
> told them) streaks irreparably when used in HP printers because the inks
> dry
> too slowly. So for me, from a practical standpoint, if it is coated, it is
> suspect and I won't use suspect materials.
> Another consideration: these coated inkjet papers have not been around long
> enough to know their long term characteristics and accelerated aging tests
> can't account for every consideration. The fewer components in my
> materials,
> the better I think my odds are.
>
> From a strictly personal perspective, comparing the same image on
> watercolor
> paper to coated paper, the watercolor paper image is simply more alive.
> With
> a coated paper, you don't really see your image on top of the paper, you
> see
> it on top of a coating. The paper is hidden underneath. I think of it like
> a
> cheap plastic veneer obscuring a high quality piece of wood.
>
>
> David Kachel
>
> ___________________
>
> Artist-Photographer
> Fine B&W Photographs
>
> www.davidkachel.com
> david@...
>
> Gallery:
> www.reddoorfinephotographs.com
> director@...
>
> PO Box 1893
> Alpine, TX 79831
> (432) 386-5787
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]