Digital BW, The Print

I just bought a box of Epson Velvet Fine Art and wonder if the curves 
and profiles I have for EEM will work reasonably well with this paper. 
It apparently has the same coating as EEM.

Thanks,

Steve

Hello Stephen,

>I just bought a box of Epson Velvet Fine Art and wonder if the 
>curves and profiles I have for EEM will work reasonably well with 
>this paper.  It apparently has the same coating as EEM.

I've often wondered about the "same coating" claim that some papers
use. Kayenta and Entrada are supposed to be the same, and EEM/VFA, but
in both cases my experience is that they all have quite a different
response.  I'm not doubting the claim, just that it doesn't mean the
papers will react the same.

More specific to EEM and VFA, with my 2400 they are quite different. 
Given a certain image and ABW setting, the two papers with their
respective profiles do not produce prints that look alike.  I've found
that the VFA setting works well with most matte papers as well as VFA,
while the EEM setting, when I used it in the beginning, produced oddly
colorized and unsatisfying looking prints on everything I tried,
including EEM.  I get better results using the VFA setting on EEM.  

You didn't say what printer and ink you're using, but I suggest to
simply try some tests and you'll immediately know the answer for your
setup and your own tastes.


Regards,
Clayton


Info on black and white digital printing at    
http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm

Thanks Clayton.  

I am using a 1280 with UT2, Paul Roark's curves, some of the profiles 
he has done and QTR.  I will try some eperiments. 

It is clearly time to learn to profile.

Steve

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Clayton Jones" 
<cj@...> wrote:
>
> Hello Stephen,
> 
> >I just bought a box of Epson Velvet Fine Art and wonder if the 
> >curves and profiles I have for EEM will work reasonably well with 
> >this paper.  It apparently has the same coating as EEM.
> 
> I've often wondered about the "same coating" claim that some papers
> use. Kayenta and Entrada are supposed to be the same, and EEM/VFA, 
but
> in both cases my experience is that they all have quite a different
> response.  I'm not doubting the claim, just that it doesn't mean the
> papers will react the same.
> 
> More specific to EEM and VFA, with my 2400 they are quite 
different. 
> Given a certain image and ABW setting, the two papers with their
> respective profiles do not produce prints that look alike.  I've 
found
> that the VFA setting works well with most matte papers as well as 
VFA,
> while the EEM setting, when I used it in the beginning, produced 
oddly
> colorized and unsatisfying looking prints on everything I tried,
> including EEM.  I get better results using the VFA setting on EEM.  
> 
> You didn't say what printer and ink you're using, but I suggest to
> simply try some tests and you'll immediately know the answer for 
your

> setup and your own tastes.
> 
> 
> Regards,
> Clayton
> 
> 
> Info on black and white digital printing at    
> http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm
>

Clayton,

> I've often wondered about the "same coating" claim that some papers
> use. ...

I think even if the coating is the same, whether the substrate is cotton or
alpha cellulose (or worse with EEM) seems to make a significant difference.
I think the cotton is more absorbent and soaks up the ink's water base
better.  Note the comment about the higher density of the alpha cellulose
relative to the gsm to paper thickness relationship.  The cotton is simply
"fluffier" and probably has more space between the fibers for the water to
fill.  

The alpha cellulose papers appear to be more susceptible to blotchiness than
cotton papers with what is claimed to be the same coatings.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

At 03:50 AM Friday 3/17/2006, you wrote:
>I am using a 1280 with UT2, Paul Roark's curves, some of the profiles 
>he has done and QTR.  I will try some eperiments.

I have just done some exhibition prints using Ultra Chromes and Epson Velvet on a 2100. As I didn't have QTR curves  for the Velvet Fine Art paper, I used the EEM curves and was pleasantly surprised. It might be worth trying as a first step.

>It is clearly time to learn to profile.

I'm currently working my way through the QTR curve creation process - if ever there was a case where reading the manual was necessary, that is surely it!

Rich

--
http://smallfield.vze.com
http://photos.smallfield.vze.com


   "Blessed are they who can laugh at themselves, for they shall 
   never cease to be amused."
   --anon

Hi Paul,

>>I've often wondered about the "same coating" claim that some 
>>papers use. ...
> 
>I think even if the coating is the same, whether the substrate is
>cotton or alpha cellulose (or worse with EEM) seems to make a 
>significant difference. I think the cotton is more absorbent and 
>soaks up the ink's water base better.  Note the comment about the 
>higher density of the alpha cellulose relative to the gsm to paper 
>thickness relationship.  The cotton is simply "fluffier" and 
>probably has more space between the fibers for the water to fill.  

I figured it was something like that.  The paper is definitely part of
the equation.  Kayenta and Entrada may have the same coating but they
produce very different results.

Regards,
Clayton

In a message dated 3/16/06 6:36:58 PM, cj@... writes:


> I figured it was something like that.  The paper is definitely part of
> the equation.  Kayenta and Entrada may have the same coating but they
> produce very different results.
> 
> 

The goal is not to use the same profile for both, its to use custom profiles 
for each, and to be able to reasonably proof the more expensive sheet on the 
cheaper one... if you are a perfectionist, you won't be happy proofing on 
anything but the final stock.

C. David Tobie
Product Technology Manager
ColorVision Business Unit
Datacolor Inc.
CDTobie@...
www.colorvision.com


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hello David,

>The goal is not to use the same profile for both, its to use custom 
>profiles for each, and to be able to reasonably proof the more 
>expensive sheet on the cheaper one

Understood.  Sounds similar to what I'm doing (see below).   All I'm
saying is that in actual experience I've found that these two pairs of
papers (EEM/VFA and Kayenta/Entrada) that have the same coatings are
so different that the fact the coatings are the same becomes
irrelevent.  They are each completely different and unique.  


>... if you are a perfectionist, you won't be happy proofing on 
>anything but the final stock.

I agree, and have a similar goal, but approach it with a slightly
different conceptual framework.  I see it as two stages of proofing. 
The first is for the purpose of getting the image to a final state. 
For that my proofs are done on EEM using Eboni BO.  Once the image is
done, final prints can be made on any paper (and I regularly use 7
different papers).

When I begin to work up a final print on another paper using K3, I
proof with that paper and ink to do any needed tweaks to an adjustment
curve layer which is meant for that paper only.  This layer is never
merged into the image (it's saved with the image, but always kept
separate - this preserves the image in it's "pure" state so it can be
used with other papers, if desired).  Once that paper curve is
perfected it is reused for all prints on that paper and no further
proofing is needed (assuming the paper or ink doesn't change, which
they do on occasion - when that happens I re-tweak the curve).

Using BO on EEM for the initial image proofing saves significantly on
paper/ink costs.  EEM is a high quality paper in terms of dmax,
contrast and density, and is close to the best fine art papers in
those areas.  When an image is proofed on that, it's at a state where
it can be printed on any other good paper with only minor tweaks to an
adjustment curve.  I see no reason to use the more expensive papers
during this early stage.  

This approach has proven over time to be very efficient, in both time
and cost.

Regards,
Clayton


Info on black and white digital printing at    
http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm

According to the blurb about Epson Velvet Fine Art Paper at my online retailer:

"With a base that is 100% cotton rag, buffered and acid-free, this paper is coated with our popular Enhanced Matte coating, giving exceptional color gamut and high D-Max."

This sounds rather good, since I have always liked the look of the original [not-] Archival Matte.

I assume that the new base itself would be as stable as a paper can be, so it should not fall apart like an old newspaper or cause deterioration of the coating. My recollection is that Enhanced Matte is/was Archival Matte with a less misleading name, and used brighteners.

The use of brighteners does not in itself concern me, since they have be used in "real" photo papers (i.e. silver-gelatin) for a very long time, and prior to the digital-printing fetishization of printing papers no one in the fine print and fine art communities even *thought* about such things. (It was all residual hypo levels and selenium or gold toning in those days of safe lights, running water and the quietly comforting scent of photo chemicals.)

Do any of you know whether the "Enhanced Matte" coating is itself acid free, or what other kinds of archival qualities it might or might not possess? Does anyone have this paper *and* a pH test pen?

Myron

P.S. Any of you remember Sprint Chemicals' "printer brightener" solution? I don't know the formula, but it was a brightener that you could use on silver-gelatin prints. I can't recall whether you used it just before or just after washing the print (after, I think). But good grief! could it ever make a print ugly by over brightening if you soaked the print too long!! Just the thing, though, if you wanted a "black-light" (UV) illuminated print to leap off the wall in your dorm room or man-cave.

Myron-


There is an article, Defining Archival Standards in Photography, posted as a free download at theagnosticprint.net.


I have five year old Epson's Enhanced Matt that have been hanging without glazing under fluorescent lighting. The base is now a buff tint.



Bill Kennedy
Professor of Photocommunications
Area Coordinator
St. Edward's University
Austin, Texas USA

-----Original Message-----
From: goch@... [DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint] <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Fri, Feb 24, 2017 5:39 pm
Subject: [Digital BW] Epson Velvet Fine Art Paper



  
    
                  

According to the blurb about Epson Velvet Fine Art Paper at my online retailer: 


"With a base that is 100% cotton rag, buffered and acid-free, this paper is coated with our popular Enhanced Matte coating, giving exceptional color gamut and high D-Max."


This sounds rather good, since I have always liked the look of the original [not-] Archival Matte. 


I assume that the new base itself would be as stable as a paper can be, so it should not fall apart like an old newspaper or cause deterioration of the coating. My recollection is that Enhanced Matte is/was Archival Matte with a less misleading name, and used brighteners. 


The use of brighteners does not in itself concern me, since they have be used in "real" photo papers (i.e. silver-gelatin) for a very long time, and prior to the digital-printing fetishization of printing papers no one in the fine print and fine art communities even *thought* about such things. (It was all residual hypo levels and selenium or gold toning in those days of safe lights, running water and the quietly comforting scent of photo chemicals.)


Do any of you know whether the "Enhanced Matte" coating is itself acid free, or what other kinds of archival qualities it might or might not possess?  Does anyone have this paper *and* a pH test pen?


Myron


P.S.  Any of you remember Sprint Chemicals' "printer brightener" solution?  I don't know the formula, but it was a brightener that you could use on silver-gelatin prints. I can't recall whether you used it just before or just after washing the print (after, I think).  But good grief! could it ever make a print ugly by over brightening if you soaked the print too long!!  Just the thing, though, if you wanted a "black-light" (UV) illuminated print to leap off the wall in your dorm room or man-cave.

Myron,

Not sure where you got this notion, but speaking as someone who worked at a major photography museum for 10 years back in the 1990s, I can say that this statement, or at least the second half of it, is unequivocally false. As for people outside of museum / conservation communities, which overlap somewhat with fine print and fine art communities, it may be true. 

Here is a quote from an article in the Journal of the American Institute for Conservation that you might find interesting: 

The apparent drop in the use of optical brightening agents for fiber-based papers noted in the period 1965 to 1979 was an unexpected and interesting finding. A possible explanation for this decline is the fact that this period coincides with a major industrywide shift toward the production of resin-coated (RC) papers. Made with a bright white base of titanium dioxide–pigmented polyethylene, these papers had quicker processing times and improved dimensional stability as compared to fiber-based papers. These attributes formed the basis of a marketing strategy aimed at high-volume professional applications in which increased productivity held great appeal. The introduction of resin-coated paper also occurred during a time when fine art photographers, such as Ansel Adams and Minor White, were paying increased attention to print quality and materials. Adams wrote that he did “not personally favor the image quality of RC papers” (Adams 1983, 43). Given this context, it seems possible that paper manufacturers responded to photographers who sought to contrast commercial applications with fine art printmaking by offering a greater range of fiber-based papers without optical brightening agents.

Here is the link to the article: http://cool.conservation-us.org/jaic/articles/jaic44-01-001.html

Cheers,
Keith

Keith Schreiber
jkschreiber.com

> On Feb 24, 2017, at 4:39 PM, goch@... [DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint] <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
> 
> The use of brighteners does not in itself concern me, since they have be used in "real" photo papers (i.e. silver-gelatin) for a very long time, and prior to the digital-printing fetishization of printing papers no one in the fine print and fine art communities even *thought* about such things.

Bill Kennedy wrote:

I have five year old Epson's Enhanced Matt that have been hanging without glazing under fluorescent lighting. The base is now a buff tint.

Do you know why it is now buff?  Is it brightener "burnout" or something else?

Out of curiosity - - - have you shined a UV light on it to see whether the brighteners are still there, still work, or have "gone off" in a splotchy way?

Thanks for the agnostic print url.

Myron

Here is the link to the article: http://cool.conservation-us.org/jaic/articles/jaic44-01-001.html

Keith Schreiber

Thanks!  Interesting article indeed.

I started darkroom printing in 1970 (after making a few prints in 1962-63), and followed the non-professional literature during that decade and most of the 80's. From that perspective there appeared to be a great deal of consternation about RC papers both as to their artistic merits and archival qualities. East Street Gallery was producing their print washers along with literature on best-practices processing. I really don't recall any concerns being expressed in those days about the archival qualities of brighteners, except a warning about overly long washing times.

I tried a number of different papers (none of which helped my unsophisticated techniques!) and noticed that some were "whiter" than others, sometimes on the front, sometimes on the back, and sometimes on both. As far as I knew this had been the case since the 1950's. (Pre-WWII seemed like a different world, although many of the trade names continued into my era.) I must have read/learned that some papers contained brighteners, since I knew how to test them with a UV light by the late 70's.  My best recollection, though, is that the choice of brightened vs. non-brightened was almost entirely an artistic decision (with bright RC papers creating a bias against bright, shiny prints as cheap, industrial-commercial and probably in poor taste).

I wonder why I never systematically tested the papers I used in the old days.  Hmmm.  I should test the graded Oriental Seagull from the early 1990's that worked so well for me.  It was/is very white (commented on by a framer I used).

Surely there must be a PhD student somewhere (RIT? MIT?) who is doing research on the chemistry of paper brightening!  It can't be *that* difficult to do qualitative (and even quantitative) analyses of a range of photo-printing papers. What chemicals are used? What causes them to cease absorbing UV and fluorescing blue-ish light? When that happens, they must change chemically, so the next question is whether the result is archivally inert or will accelerate degradation of the print.  Epson et al. seem to treat these things as trade secrets, so we need an academic or other independent scientist to do the work and/or make it public for the rest of us.

Myron