Archival Inkjet Paper - Epson 4800-Black and White

Greetings,

I've been researching the archival qualities of inkjet printer paper for black and white printing. I've been told that there is NO glossy or semi-glossy paper that is archival to the standards of a professional photo gallery.

When I had my darkroom, 15 years ago, I preferred the Oriental Seagull Glossy, and that is the look I would like to find in a paper for the Epson 4800 that I own Now, I've tried the Red River Ultra Pro Glossy and really like it, but when I questioned them about achival qualities I did not feel the response was very convincing.

In talking with the good folks at InkJet Mall, I learned two items of interest:
1. Pieziography for the 4800 will not happen till a third party begins manufacture of the cartridges - no time line on that.
2. They state that NO glossy paper is archival. I've got to learn to like the Matt/Rag paper look.

My question to those of you who have been fortunate to be able to break into the galleries; is the statement about NO glossy being archival a valid comment?

If so, have you found anything that comes close to the look of glossy, or even semi-gloss that is well accepted by the galleries?

If not, suggestions for papers I should try to learn to Love?

I'm currently using the Epson K3 inksets - basically the black shades - suggestions for "better" inks?

As always, thanks for your feedback.
Jack

Jack,

My personal favorite for color & B&W work is hahnemuhle photorag 308 or 460. You'll get saturated colors with deep blacks. Now if you like the glossy look, you could always go for a spray or paint on satin or gloss laquer, or a glossy hot or cold press laminate.

I haven't started with the new Epsons or the K3 inks so I can't offer any advice there.

"I've been told that there is NO glossy or semi-glossy paper that is archival to the standards of a professional photo gallery. "

What are the archival standards of "a professional photo gallery?" My last gallery had no standards of any kind, archival or otherwise. When they closed they ran off with my prints.

Paul Roark, who formulates the inks for MIS, has done rough testing for archival qualities of various inks and papers, he might be able to provide you with some information. Wilhelm's home page may have some information also though I'm not sure what, if anything, he's done with black and white as opposed to color.

I prefer matte paper for my black and white prints so I haven't given much thought to glossy and semi-gloss but I thought the main problem with those types of papers has been bronzing and metamerism. Until those problems are solved (and I think Epson has taken at least some steps in that direction with the 2400 et al line of printers) I wouldn't think their archival qualities would matter much to a dealer.

Dave, what density can you get on the Hahnemuhle papers? I find the Epson matte papers to be a bit light for my taste. On Enhanced Matte my 2200 seems to top out at 1.69 with MatteBlack ink.

Wilhelm has been testing and reporting all sorts of combinations for the new K3 printers - print surfaces from matte through glossy for both color and B&W printing.

Here's a link to his most recent results for the 4800:

www.wilhelm-research.com/epson/WIR_Ep4800_2005_09_03.pdf

I really like Epson's Ultrasmooth Fine Art paper for black and white. It has a velvety sheen. A bit expensive though.

Larry,

I've had photorag 308 tested at 1.88

I find the figures a bit misleading as unlike silver printing, I don't need to worry about compression on the upper and lower and of the tonal scale. In the end, I sometimes end up with a slightly lower dmax than silver, but a larger usable tonal range. This is what many are finding pleasing. I coat with Lyson print guard or Hahnemuhle protective spray.

Chris Jordan mentions using a satin finish......I'm not sure if that is a laminate, spray, or brush on coating. Are you out there Chris.......what do you use?

For black and white printing on mat papers ( the only way to print ink in my opinion-if you want it to look like silver-print silver) the papers with the most d-max by my testing are as follows. I have tested almost all of the papers that people swear by (including testing Cone's recommendations with Cone museum black inks the other isn't archival so I didn't bother), but most people don't actually test. I don't use a refection densitometer and don't have access to one. I judge by inspection and verify my opinions with others.

1) Epson Velvet Fine Art-nothing I have tested so far comes close to this with UC inks and the Imageprint Rip, including Cone Museum Black inks on any paper.

The next three papres are very close in D-Max but fall in this order of maximum achievable black:

2) Crane Museo II has slight edge over others but a dull white because they use no brighteners. This makes it more archival.

3) Epson Enhanced Mat-unfortunately yellows quickly because of the brighteners but makes a great proofing paper for VFA or short term exhibition, because it has the exact same coating as VFA.

4) Hahnnemule Photo Rag there are many better papers for b&w but it is unsurpassed for color gamut.

I am currently doing some pre-production testing of the new Crane Museo Max which holds great promise.

" I coat with Lyson print guard or Hahnemuhle protective spray."

Nothing killls a good d-max like a protective spray. To me it ruins the blacks-at least on mat papers.

Which is the best Hahnnemule for color gamut? What does "gsm" mean?

Kirk,

I've got side by side comparison prints for people to use as an example....both uncoated and coated. With the Hahnnemule spray, I've yet to find someone notice the difference in dmax. I had to mark my sample print on the back because they were virtually indistinguishable. Lyson spray does reduce dmax somewhat....but the protection is more important to me for my output needs. But I should elaborate a bit. When I sell a print that is destined for professional framing, I don't normally coat it. All other prints I coat as I don't know what type of rough handling they will receive before they end up in the album or in the frame.

"On Enhanced Matte my 2200 seems to top out at 1.69 with MatteBlack ink."

You can increase dMax a little by substituting MIS Eboni black for the Epson matte black (you'll also get a slightly cooler look, which many find pleasing). But personally I think dMax numbers are often given more importance than they deserve. I like Dick Arentz's statement to the effect that you don't need to make a print with the blackest black possible (and in fact often don't want to do that even if you could), all you need is a "convincing black."

"I find the figures a bit misleading as unlike silver printing, I don't need to worry about compression on the upper and lower and of the tonal scale."

I think this is an important point that I seldom see mentioned. On the three ink jet printers I've owned, using several different brands of ink and paper (and lately using QTR ), I've been able to print a 21 step wedge that showed all 21 distinctive steps. The only way I was able to do that in a darkroom was with Van Dyke brown prints, nothing even close to that with normal silver paper.

"I've been told that there is NO glossy or semi-glossy paper that is archival to the standards of a professional photo gallery."

I've been told many things in my life that I ignore...especially absolute statements, which are highly unlikely to be true. I've seen glossy and semi-glossy inkjet paper being exhibited in galleries. As far as I could tell, the money they were taking in was real and they sure looked to be professional. Fancy that.

"I find the figures a bit misleading as unlike silver printing, I don't need to worry about compression on the upper and lower and of the tonal scale."

"I think this is an important point that I seldom see mentioned. On the three ink jet printers I've owned, using several different brands of ink and paper (and lately using QTR ), I've been able to print a 21 step wedge that showed all 21 distinctive steps. The only way I was able to do that in a darkroom was with Van Dyke brown prints, nothing even close to that with normal silver paper."

Careful Brian,

You'll get some of the digiphobes screaming blasphemy if you say that to loudly ;-)

I agree with the convincing black argument, but I frequently find the Epson Enhanced Matte to be lacking a convincing black. This is most obvious in images with dark water that I want to fade to black, or really dark blue black. On the Matte paper my eyes just aren't convinced I am looking at a pool of inky black water. On lightjet, or glossy inkjet printing, they are. So for dMax is important for some images. If it wasn't visually a problem I never would have even pulled out the densitometer. As far as the scale not getting compressed that is helpful, but really doesn't absolve the Epson of have poor dMax on matte paper.

I will try some of the other paper suggestions. If I could get it to the 1.9 range I suspect it would work. Maybe a paper change will get me there.

I've not done any scientific testing myself but I did do the 'yellow' test which is to say that I bought a bunch of glossy and semi-glossy papers and just one year later, without actually having printed on any of them, all of them have slightly yellowed edges. Too bad since I love the look of inkjet prints and glossy/semi-gloss surfaces for certain applications. I have heard from a couple of company reps that they are working on solutions to this though so there's a bit of hope.

"I've been able to print a 21 step wedge that showed all 21 distinctive steps. The only way I was able to do that in a darkroom was with Van Dyke brown prints, nothing even close to that with normal silver paper"



Doesn't it depend on the step wedge ? In a darkroom, one could make a test strip and expose each of 20 successive piece for, say, 1 second. Given an appropriate level of light from the enlarger or light source, wouldn't that result in distinct 21 steps ?

For black and white, I like Epson Ultrasmooth. Kirk, is it among the papers you've tested?

For black and white I like Fotospeed Legacy paper...oh wait that is for silver gelatin

leec

Paul,
Yes I did a year ago and rejected it. VFA takes more ink and more ink means a deeper black. It also has to do with profiles. The Imageprint profiles are simply better than the Epson ones. Imageprint mixes all the colors in such a way as to maximise nuetrality and dmax . It just works better than Epsons and Cones. I spent the summer testing my setup against the Art Institutes extensive Cone (both blacks) setup because I wanted to do some big prints and I could never get a better print on anything that matched my setup with VFA. So for my exhibit I settled on smaller prints.

If you do your paper testing with VFA profiles on every mat paper regardless of what that paper is you can see the black potential because VFA accepts the most ink and therefore the profile lays down the most ink. The coating they use is proprietary and only used on EM and VFA. The base for VFA is bought from-shoot I can'i remember the name-and Epson dips it in their own coating. The claim that Epson makes about VFA having the best dmax is true. Nothing else gets there. Unfortunately it is a heavily textured paper and only goes up to 13x19. If it were larger I would do everything on it. I don't mind the textyure as I am not trying to mimic silver prints. I want an ink on art paper look, like a lithograph. But to me dmax and paper base is everything!!!!! When it comes to print richness.

These Crane papers are getting there though. These may be a breakthrough

I've just got some of the new Crane Paper to test as well - looks promising.

A couple of issues - most of the papers with OBA's (optical brighteners) will warm somewhat in the first part of their life until they stabilise - usually closer in colour to similar non OBA papers. Secondly, there are some different ways manufacturers concoct and use OBA's, but in my (very unscientific) tests I have come to the conclusion that especially with B&W prints, the OBA's are often what can give an unpleasant tinge (metamerism) in certain lights - especially if you get a bit of tungsten and a bit of daylight (such as in a gallery near the windows...) - this often gives a rather unpleasant very slight magenta cast. This is even the case using all grey quad inks, without any colour in them such as the Imageprint RIP uses.

So for my use I've started using non-OBA papers - which start of slightly warmer in the first place (I used to like Photo Rag, but I find it susceptible to this metamerism problem because of the OBA's - and Hahnemuhle has never come through with their once promised non-OBA photo rag).

I ran a whole bunch of tests (and also used the following site as a guide, because he lists so many papers) and came up with a few papers that fit the bill for me :
(Clayton Jones Paperchase
http://www.cjcom.net/articles/digiprn5.htm )

I've come to really like Arches Infinity - crisp and with nice blacks. It does tend to suck up the inks when it uses lots of back in say the shadows, so you need to be able to control the ink laydown - it also has a slightly unique look because of the way Arches makes the paper/coating

A close second is Dourian Art by Red River - very close to Photo Rag, but has "limited" OBA's and a better black. A very nice paper 2-Sided - seems to have a small
amount of OBA's but it is very close to the Arches - great DMax, slightly cooler (and double sided which means you can re-use duff prints for
testing) - a very nice paper and a bit cheaper than Photo Rag

After that, some of the papers by Innova - they tend to have a bit more texture than some:

Innova Soft Textured Art - not bad, a bit more texture than some

Innova Cold Pressed Art - nice if it wasn't soooo textured

(The Innova Photo Smooth Cotton is also pretty nice, despite the OBA's -
however it isn't as objectionable as most to me)

lastly Entrada Natural (not too bad - used to have big flaking issues, okay DMax,
but not the worlds greatest and has a "flop" I just don't like...).

(I've also tested Ultrasmooth and its sibling PremierArt Hot Pressed - liked them at first, but compared to some of the other papers, they just don't give as good shadows and blacks)

BTW I've given up on the Imageprint RIP - I've tried several different versions on different machines over a number of years and just hate it.

For B&W I'm getting far better results using the Quadtone RIP. Using Ultrachrome inks, I'm also substituting MIS Ebony black for the Epson black.

Don't listen to Wilhelm. His tests are terrible. He uses 30% as acceptable fading but humans can actually percieve 5%. If he tests a product that fades 29% and one that fades 1%, to him that's the same thing. (You can tell that I've been talking to Jon Cone.)

Other than this forum, another good sorce for all kinds of printer related info is inkjetart.com , and they are a serious paper merchant as well.

"He uses 30% as acceptable fading but humans can actually percieve 5%. If he tests a product that fades 29% and one that fades 1%, to him that's the same thing. "

actually, that's incorrect

"You can tell that I've been talking to Jon Cone."

Ha - Cone's so full of it - might want to take it with a handful of salt

The other part of the tests that I have done. I have talked in other threads about printing silver and inkjet side by side for my current retrospective and chose the inkjets. I also printed duplicates of many images with Cone inks on Hahnemule Photo Rag. By themselves the Cone prints looked great but beside the VFA/UC prints they were lacking so none of the Piezography/HPR prints made it in either.

By themselves many paper/ink/Rip systems look great. I have had the unique opportunity to run many systems side by side in one of the great fascilities in the country and hang prints from various systems on the wall together. I got samples from dozens of paper maunfacturers and printed the same image on each. If it didn't have a great black I didn't bother with it after the initial test. I have not tested UC3 inksets and I tried the QTR two years ago and was not impressed especially then. I could do allot more with IP. Maybe QTR is worth trying again. So there is more testing to be done. Always.

Off topic but what the heck, since you guys have tested all these papers maybe you can help. I have the suspicion that some of these papers for ink jet printing might be good for pt/pd as well. Are any of these papers thick (at least comparable to double weight fiber paper) and glossy (once again I mean "glossy" like an air dried fiber print)?

I got conned into buying an ink jet print on e bay that I thought was fiber paper, I wont comment on the print, but the paper looks nice if it wasnt because it feels so thin. It even feels thinner than a single weight sheet of azo. So, any opinions would be appreciated.

BTW - "what's gsm"

grams per meter:

http://www.inkjetart.com/weight.html

Grams per square meter.

Jorge,

Kokopelli Photo Gloss 260 weight is a decent paper....not as thick as Photo rag 308. What weight would you need? The Kokopelli Gloss is a microporous quick drying paper. I'm not sure how well that would take your pt/pd coatings. I don't use glossy papers much, but this one has been OK for inkjet.

Jorge

Order some sample packs. None of the papers I have fondled feel like the print I bought from you. Thick they are but they have a funky tooth to them. Especially the Hahnnemule. they feel plain old weird. The photo rag 308 feels a lot like sand paper compared to cranes or arches. the Moab papers might have some promise. the sample packs are not cheap though that is the down side.

Kokopelli Photo Gloss 260 weight is a decent paper....not as thick as Photo rag 308. What weight would you need? The Kokopelli Gloss is a microporous quick drying paper. I'm not sure how well that would take your pt/pd coatings. I don't use glossy papers much, but this one has been OK for inkjet.

Hey, we are buring the hatchet, how about that?!?..... Thanks for you response, I dont think a quick drying paper would work, it would most likely result in streaks from the coating brush. I would say the paper I use at the moment is about 160 gsm, so a 260 paper would do fine. Any ideas other than quick drying papers?

Thick they are but they have a funky tooth to them

Ah...yeah, no funky tooth for me Mark, I was hoping something had been developed that had a similar look as the traditional fiber papers. Who should I order the sample packs from? Is there any one internet vendor that has them all?

Any of the major internet photo places should have them. I know Calumet carries a big supply of digital papers.

The only other gloss I've worked with is from Ilford. I can't say I'm enthused by that one, but it may work as well. I believe the weight is about 245. Of course, there's always the Epson glossys....someone else might help you with those as I haven't used them.

As to burying the hatchet.....why not. Like you've said......water under the bridge. If you do try the papers, let us know how it works. I'm interested in seeing how your coatings are with coatings in the paper. You might want to research this more as I'm not sure about the interaction between the optical brighteners, your coatings, the RC coatings of the papers, and your exposure to UV to make the print in terms of how this would effect their color & longevity.

Should be an interesting experiment thought.

Jorge,

I haven't seen an inkjet paper that looks like air dried glossy fiber paper. It seems you either get a matte finish or an RC glossy or semigloss. I can live with the RC look for color prints if I don't like the matte's dmax, but I just haven't warmed up to the matte papers for black and white for all my prints. So I still do most of my black and white printing in the darkroom, and some of the color.

I did try an Oriental FB inkjet paper that I thought had promise from the description and I was not impressed. It looked just like an RC paper, and the printer didn't work on it.

Have you tried fixing out old FB paper? I don't think it will work for inkjet, but it may give good results for platinum.

Hey Larry, yes, I have tried coating FB paper, both fixed out and before fixing it. This works well but the success rate is very iffy. Sometimes you get a great print, sometimes you get coating streaks, enough so that coating like this could represent a lot of solution waste.

Ah well, back to the drawing board, but thanks to all anyhow.

"I am currently doing some pre-production testing of the new Crane Museo
Max which holds great promise."

Kirk, I found time to test my Museo Max samples - this paper looks very very nice

It's in my top two or three

Sharp,

Are your samples double sided? They don't list it as double sided in the reference sheets, but I just realized I think mine is - which would negate the texture comment slightly as one side is slightly less textured than the other.

It gives very nice blacks - in the top two or three of all the papers I've tested.

Best of all for me, it has a very neutral base - which even when using Quad inks doesn't give any of what I term "magentarism" i.e. that slight but unpleasant colour shift in mixed light conditions. It is a very very neutral B&W look

http://www.tetenal.com/f_ink_papier_blatt_fineart_uk.htm

Tim,
I believe the Max is one sided whereas the MuseoII is two sided. I am stoked about this paper. I ran out of my samples and am ordering some more for further testing.

Thanks Kirk - I spoke to the people at Crane - actually it's sort of two sided... The proper coating is on the side with more texture - the back is also coated but only "to help prevent curl" so it's not up to the full standard (I tried the back while I was waiting to hear back from them - only greyscale - I'd say it printed up to about 90% quality - not too bad - but what makes it nice is you can print text on the back - good for small simple artists books or such)

They sent me two sample packs (by mistake I assume...) so I had a few sheets to play with - really like it now.

I also ran a sheet with colour using the Museo Max profile from their site - it was pretty much spot on - really nice colour for a matte art paper

Hope they come along with smaller sheet sizes soon - apparently they are supposed to be eventually

Now I'm waiting for samples of their new "Silver Rag"... - a few manufacturers have tried a sort of "air dried fibre based semi-gloss look" and failed - be interesting to see if Cranes try comes close

Tim this is what I am getting on my tests

D-max

1.69 - Epson Vel Fine Art

1.67 - Crane Museo Max

1.66 - Crane Museo II

1.64 - Epson Enhanced Matte

1.61 - Hahnemuhle Photo Rag

"Now I'm waiting for samples of their new "Silver Rag"... - a few manufacturers have tried a sort of "air dried fibre based semi-gloss look" and failed - be interesting to see if Cranes try comes close"

As a tester for Crane I should see some of this soon. i will let you know what I think.

I've been using Lumijet Radiant White. Anyone run tests on this paper. I've been quite happy with it...but maybe it's just because I used Luminos silver back in my darkroom days.

I've been happily using papers by Breathing Color. They have a bright white paper called Sterling 300 which I like. It looks great and it doesn't flake. They have trial rolls for cheap. You can probably guess the website (www.breathingcolor.com). I like it as much as Hahnemuhle and it's much less expensive. However, I haven't done a scientific DMAX comparison, so I'd be curious to hear if anyone has.

I've heard the upcoming Museo Silver Rag is killer, but we'll when it hits the market...

I've been happily using papers by Breathing Color. They have a bright white paper called Sterling 300 which I like. It looks great and it doesn't flake. They have trial rolls for cheap. You can probably guess the website (www.breathingcolor.com). I like it as much as Hahnemuhle and it's much less expensive. However, I haven't done a scientific DMAX comparison, so I'd be curious to hear if anyone has.

I've heard the upcoming Museo Silver Rag is killer, but we'll see when it hits the market...

Kirk,

I'd love to hear about the Silver Rag as well. Let us know with a new post when you run some tests and view some prints.

Thanks,

Jack, so you're waiting for Pieziography for the 4800? The point of that printer is that you don't need that process any more. I tried the MIS system with the curves and special carts and ended in incredible frustration. How many hundreds of hours have you guys put into dialing in that process? The 4800 finally does it straight. Game over, man. And, I'm getting good results with the Moab Kokopelli glossy, too.