Tom,
>...comparison between EEM, Epson UltraSmooth Fine Art,
>and Epson Smooth Fine Art papers in smoothness, dMax,
>and print quality.
On 2/17 I posted a review of the UltraSmooth, comparing it to EEM/EAM and
Eclipse Satine. Here are the relevant parts of it, with comments relating
to Epson Smooth Fine art in brackets:
______________
I printed the images with the 7500, using my new UC VM 4.3 inkset.
(MIS UC clone-based variable-tone/mix "quad")
The MIS mew high-load 7600 matte black seems to be about the
same as the PiezoTone Museum black -- which means excellent.
Epson Ultra Smooth Fine Art ("USFA" ?) is a cotton paper
that prints much like EAM/EEM. It might be the true Archival
Matte. ...
From a distance, the Eclipse prints cooler than the others,
although with the "nc" curve they all look like nice silver
prints (with a matte finish).
The Ultra Smooth and Eclipse Satine print a little
lighter than the EAM/EEM (a new box of EAM that is
apparently the new EEM coating).
The X-Rite measures the following dmax's for the papers:
EEM - 1.68
Epson Ultra Smooth - 1.60
Eclipse Satine - 1.60.
[Epson Smooth Fine Art - 1.50]
[This was on the 1160 which has a slightly
lower dmax than the 7500]
The paper whites are (c, m, y, visual order):
EEM - 0.04, 0.04, 0.02, 0.04
Ultra Smooth - 0.03, 0.03, 0.05, 0.03
Eclipse - 0.02, 0.02, -0.01, 0.02
[Smooth Fine Art - 0.02, 0.03, 0.04, 0.02]
...
On close inspection, the EEM has the smoothest tones in both
the mid-tones and shadows. Ultra Smooth is second in the mid-tone
smoothness contest. Eclipse is second in the shadow smoothness contest.
[I find Smooth Fine Art to be blotchy from about 50% to 95%. It's simply
unacceptable for my tastes.]
The sample of Ultra Smooth I have is thin. It probably will feed very
easily through 3000, but I have not tried it. Epson undoubtedly has a
thicker version that most will prefer.
[Smooth Fine Art is nice and thick, but has feeding problems in the 1160,
and it's not just the thickness. There is something about the surface that
my printer doesn't like.]
With the particular images I'm looking at, based just on
image quality, I'd pick EEM as best, Ultra Smooth as second
best, and Eclipse as third best. However, the rough shadow
tones of the Ultra Smooth will put it at the
bottom of this list for a number of my images.
[Smooth Fine Art is not a paper I'd use due to the problems noted above.]
If the paper proves to be non-flaking (none noticed so far)
and is priced reasonably, it'll almost certainly find a good market.
____________
Hope this helps.
Paul
http://www.PaulRoark.com
_____________________________________________
> >By EEM do you mean Epson Enhanced Matte (i.e. the old EAM?)
>
> Yes, Epson Enhanced Matte (also sold as Epson Archival Matte outside the
> U.S.) has, in my view, a better image quality than UltraSmooth.
>
> >Isn't that acidic as well as possible use of brighteners?
>
> Yes. It, like most papers, including traditional "archival" silver print
> paper, has brighteners that will cause it to yellow from extended light
> exposure about 0.03 units. Then is stabilizes. That may not cause any
> other negative effects on long-term storage.
>
> EEM is also acidic. This will cause problems for long-term storage. It
is
> probably also one reason the paper performs so well. Buffering is cheap.
> Epson engineers appear to have avoided it for both economic and
performance
> reasons. I'm experimenting with post-printing deacidification, and the
Wei
> T'o #12 spray appears to work. It's in fade testing now.
>
> I'm not suggesting museums will accept EEM/EAM equally, but I suspect a
> deacidified, buffered EEM will have a better image than UltraSmooth and
will
> have a very long life, if not being "archival" -- whatever that means.
>
> I don't see EEM's market shrinking much. I think Eclipse and other cotton
> papers that flake and have other performance problems will be the papers
> that UltraSmooth replaces, especially if the UltraSmooth is priced below
> them.
>
> Paul
> http://www.PaulRoark.com
>
> _________________________________________
>
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Roark" <
> paul.roark@v...> wrote:
> > My testing of Epson UltraSmooth paper showed a dmax with Epson
drivers and
> > Museum/MIS 7600 matte black that was less than EEM. Also, EEM beat it
on
> > smoothness. The sample I was sent was thicker than EEM but felt
> thinner --
> > the cotton softness that I'm not fond of. While I'll probably use the
> paper
> > for my museum old-photo restorations, I'll probably continue to use EEM
> for
> > my personal work.
> >
> > I have not heard any price for the paper. I think its popularity will
beShow quoted textHide quoted text
> > largely affected by the price.
> >
> > Paul
> > http://www.PaulRoark.com