Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Epson Exhibition Fiber clone  (Read 8461 times)
Alan Goldhammer
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1616


WWW
« Reply #20 on: December 24, 2010, 06:55:13 AM »
ReplyReply

It isn't in the list of Digigraphie certified papers. Looks like the use of different standards by Epson.

It would be interesting to compare that list with Aardenburg's test results.


met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst Dinkla
I do see it listed under the Euro tradename: 'Traditional Photo Paper' at:  http://www.digigraphie.com/uk/digigraphie-explained/technologies-and-materials.htm  I had not seen this website before and think it's rather silly.  Why can't any of us who use these materials be certified? 
Logged

JohnBrew
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 731


WWW
« Reply #21 on: December 24, 2010, 07:46:02 AM »
ReplyReply

I know Michael was using EEF for some shows at one point. It might be helpful if he would weigh in on this subject as to how those prints are holding up today. This information about the longevity of EEF is quite worrisome for me as I recently printed several large prints with this paper for a gallery.
Logged

deanwork
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 691


« Reply #22 on: December 24, 2010, 09:06:46 AM »
ReplyReply

The Cone type 5 is a natural rag paper, like Silver Rag and Photorag Baryta. It is very easy to see that it has no coolish obas.

One quick way to see if a paper has the fugitive optical brightening agents (besides witnessing it's bluish color) is to look at your print in tungsten light and then quickly shift it to daylight by taking it out the front door or whatever. You will see a fairly radical shift in the brightness of the print as the brighteners flouresce with exposure to the uv light in daylight. They also contribute to metamerism, where the paper base changes the actual lighter value print hues in different light sources.

The other sure way to test that is look at it under a uv "black light" like a grow light from Home Depot. The EEF will absolutely glow like its radioactive, as will Enhanced Matte, the Innova bright white media, etc, etc. If you look at a natural base paper or the new line of Canson fine art media that is not made with traditional oba's then you won't see this flourescing in daylight.

Canson is using a white pigment formula to brighten their results. I compared a Canson Edition Etching print I did last night to one done with a non brightened Innova Smooth Texture print and the Canson blew it away in brilliance and dynamic range. I assume this is where all the manufactures will go eventually ( after millions of prints have turned gray of course). The  whole Canson line is in test at Aardenburg now but need to progress for six months or so before we'll know anything solid. Thank God for Aardenburg. He's showing things we suspected for a decade but couldn't prove scientifically.

The big confusion of the oba paper burnout is in my opinion Wilhelm. He gives these totally unrealistic years of stability numbers to some really bad papers, then puts in very tiny print at the bottom of the chart that one should avoid obas. Duh. He never really got into testing/publishing paper base changes directly which is a real problem with his methods and the printer manufactures ads. It isn't just Epson though by a long shot. Look at Wilhems >240 year numbers for the HP Pro Satin or the Canon bright rc media. Not realistic. Mark is showing the white oba going fast there too in daylight. So, if you care about permanence (most don't really) paper is critical. But the 90 year behind glass figure for EEF is just silly.

It's not just rc bright media either. My submission of Premiere Alise Bright White burned out ulta rapidly. They make a lot of the Epson matt papers. Their bright white one is a real problem. I don't even want to think about Red River. I have so many Red River Premium Matte prints around here, even in flat files that have turned gray in just a few years. Those obas are really pathetic.

This is exactly why we have Aardenburg and why every one needs to join to make sure he stays afloat. There are like 35 new papers that just went into test this week. So, it keeps expanding the knowledge base.

john

« Last Edit: December 24, 2010, 09:09:43 AM by deanwork » Logged
Ernst Dinkla
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2826


« Reply #23 on: December 24, 2010, 10:02:29 AM »
ReplyReply

I do see it listed under the Euro tradename: 'Traditional Photo Paper' at:  http://www.digigraphie.com/uk/digigraphie-explained/technologies-and-materials.htm  I had not seen this website before and think it's rather silly.  Why can't any of us who use these materials be certified? 

My mistake.

Well, would you like to use Traditional Photo Paper with a certification and a bad test by Aardenburg or select a paper that tests well with the last? I have not seen an extra Epson warranty on the media within the Digigraphie system.


met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst Dinkla

New: Spectral plots of +180 inkjet papers:
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm


Logged
Alan Goldhammer
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1616


WWW
« Reply #24 on: December 24, 2010, 10:45:10 AM »
ReplyReply

My mistake.

Well, would you like to use Traditional Photo Paper with a certification and a bad test by Aardenburg or select a paper that tests well with the last? I have not seen an extra Epson warranty on the media within the Digigraphie system.


met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst Dinkla

New: Spectral plots of +180 inkjet papers:
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm



I find it extremely weird that most all the papers listed are matte (certainly with the exception of the TPP, all the Epson papers are and I think the Hahnemuhle papers as well).  Does this mean that whoever makes these decisions thinks that gloss papers don't meet the criteria?  Curious.
Logged

MHMG
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 600


« Reply #25 on: December 24, 2010, 11:13:38 AM »
ReplyReply

I know Michael was using EEF for some shows at one point. It might be helpful if he would weigh in on this subject as to how those prints are holding up today. This information about the longevity of EEF is quite worrisome for me as I recently printed several large prints with this paper for a gallery.

Based on the AaI&A conservation display rating for EEF, I would not expect anyone to have seen OBA burnout with this paper under typical gallery display conditions since it has only been on the market for a few years.  However, one might notice a subtle change of paper color in just a few years in an EEF print framed under glass that is placed in a bright interior display space (e.g. a lobby or atrium in a commercial building with lots of skylights). You can also induce the OBA burnout with ozone very easily for unprotected prints in just a matter of weeks or months, plus if you try the proverbial artist's "window fade test" in a south facing window, you should be able to see the OBA burnout effect in a matter of weeks.

That said, it is instructive to put all the longevity information we have on EEF and other papers into perspective. EEF does indeed underperform in Aardenburg testing compared to other "traditional fiber" type inkjet papers the printmaker might choose, and the reason is it's reliance on very high levels of OBA to get the nice "cool bright white" appearance that many people love about EEF. Yet when using Epson Ultrachrome ink sets it still achieves similar or better scores compared to other widely used and highly esteemed processes in photography (e.g., Lambda and Lightjet prints made with Fuji Crystal Archive paper). So, as long as the collector is informed about the limitations of one's chosen print process, appropriate care can be taken to ensure many decades of display where the print will remain in excellent condition.

Light Fastness Ratings are designed to be quantifiably objective, but the criteria that give rise to these ratings are definitely subjective:

WIR rates EEF at 90 years of "display life" using any of the Epson Ultrachrome ink sets (k3, K3VM, HDR) when the print is framed under glass. AaI&A rated one publicly accessible sample made on an Epson 4800/OEM K3/EEF system at 29-79 megalux hours of light exposure for a print framed under acrylic glazing. Acrylic has more UV absorption than glass but not so complete as to totally shut down OBA fluorescence.  Other EEF samples in test at AaI&A with various Epson Ultrachrome ink sets have generated similar scores.  This megalux hour exposure range translates to the WIR "display life" time scale of about 15-40 years. Other than the minor glass versus acrylic differences in the rating methods and some differences in light sources used by the two laboratories, why is there such a large apparent discrepancy between the two laboratories' rating results?  A major reason is that AaI&A Conservation Display (CD) ratings are based on visual criteria to show "little or no noticeable fade" whereas WIR ratings are based on visual criteria that show "easily noticeable fade". Both of these subjective visual endpoints for allowable fade are justifiable, and we actually need to look at more than one point on the fading curve to fully characterize a system, but IMHO, Aai&A CD ratings are more suitable for fine art applications while WIR ratings are entirely appropriate for consumer photofinishing applications.
 
Another important distinction between WIR and AaI&A ratings is that WIR, indeed all other testing labs other than AaI&A, rates the product performance according to a single limiting factor being exceeded in the test, whereas AaI&A expresses a lower limit and an upper limit in its conservation display (CD) ratings. The range expressed in AaI&A's CD rating reflects a real world reality that our ability to notice fade in a specific print on display is in fact image-content dependent. For example, if OBA burn out  is a weak link in the system and the media color starts to turn yellow, the viewer will observe the change sooner in an image with large areas of highlight colors (e.g., a white wedding dress) compared to, say, a borderless framed print of a landscape scene that may have some specular highlights but no dominant areas where media discoloration can easily show through.

Suffice to say, OBA burnout rarely triggers the WIR "paper discoloration" limit factor because the WIR criteria were originally developed for traditional color process where yellow stain formation in the highlights, not OBA burnout, was a major issue that consumers were first likely to notice. On the other hand, OBA burnout, paper bleaching, and other subtle modes of discoloration are definitely picked up and factored into AaI&A test scores because the AaI&A criteria for allowable changes use tighter visual limits based on CIELAB colorimetry. My contention is that if artists and collectors can see and appreciate the initial differences in paper white color between slightly cool white papers and slightly warm white papers, then fade test criteria suitable for fine art applications should be able to identify and distinguish papers that change from cool white to warm white or vice versa during testing.

Lastly, I would add that the OBA burnout performance for EEF is not unique by any means. For example, if you check the CD ratings in the AaI&A database for Hahnemuhle Fine Art Baryta (a relatively bright white paper), you will see comparable performance to EEF when printing with Epson OEM ink sets.  Most inkjet paper vendors are trying to provide a wide range of media colors and surface textures based on market research concerning customer preferences and tastes, so there are plenty of bright white and warm white papers out there, plus many in between. Only way to know for sure about media white point stability is to test it.
« Last Edit: December 24, 2010, 11:39:42 AM by MHMG » Logged
narikin
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 854


« Reply #26 on: December 24, 2010, 11:26:58 AM »
ReplyReply

Yes that 'Digigraphie' seems more and more like marketing BS. Aardenberg shows EEF falling from acceptability at ~28 years on a K3 inkset, (if you accept 1Mlux= 1year) -whereas Digigraphie says: "The guarantee: Durability tests done by the independant institutes Wilhelm and LNE, from 60 to 100 years and beyond."  hmmm. [edit: while I was writing this mark replied at more length, above]

I too got suckered by Epson EEF and Innova for valuable exhibition works. They won't get a single dollar of my money ever again.
 
« Last Edit: December 24, 2010, 11:48:12 AM by narikin » Logged
deanwork
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 691


« Reply #27 on: December 24, 2010, 11:38:59 AM »
ReplyReply

Yea it is important to realize that, as Mark pointed out with the Hahnemuhle Fine Art Baryta, most of these companies are offering good and bad media and not really distinguishing them clearly in regard to longevity or suitability for "fine art", whatever that means.

Regardless of how Wilhelm wants to describe his end point, there is no way that EEF is getting anywhere close to 90 years without the white base going gray unless they are in the dark behind glass. But the Hahnemuhle FAB, the one with a lot of whiteners is even more bizarre. It starts out an ugly pink color that is so bad that even the free 24" roll they gave me has remained in the closet unused. Just got to keep your eyes open and do your own homework. The companies are not going to do it for you. We've learned that the hard way.

john
Logged
deanwork
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 691


« Reply #28 on: December 24, 2010, 11:44:55 AM »
ReplyReply

Mark, if you are still around..... what are your thoughts about the replacement of the previously mentioned obas with newer formulas of whitening colorants as Canson most notably is using now with good effect.

john
Logged
Alan Goldhammer
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1616


WWW
« Reply #29 on: December 24, 2010, 12:16:14 PM »
ReplyReply

Mark, if you are still around..... what are your thoughts about the replacement of the previously mentioned obas with newer formulas of whitening colorants as Canson most notably is using now with good effect.

john
If you are referring to baryta, there should not be a problem as Barium Sulphate (baryta) is chemically stable and does not undergo the type of light induced degradation that a flourescent dye does.  The other compound that has extreme whiteness is Titanium Dioxide and this is commonly used in paints.  I think it's more expensive than Barium Sulphate which may be the reason paper manufacturers don't use it.
Logged

MHMG
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 600


« Reply #30 on: December 24, 2010, 12:41:49 PM »
ReplyReply

Yea it is important to realize that, as Mark pointed out with the Hahnemuhle Fine Art Baryta, most of these companies are offering good and bad media and not really distinguishing them clearly in regard to longevity or suitability for "fine art", whatever that means.

john

I do believe the printmaking community including this one on LL has learned a lot about OBAs in the past few years. Paper vendors tend to acknowledge the issues obliquely, but never come right out and just tell it like it is.  I'm very gratified that AaI&A has been able to contribute to the end-user's knowledge base, and I think Ernst's growing spectral plot database of inkjet papers is also a tremendous new resource for those of us who are serious printmakers.   Many vendors just aren't willing to pay for the necessary testing, and to compound the challenges of testing even more, the testing itself has been in need of an overhaul for some time.  Most of the commonly cited test methods were developed prior to the advent of multi-colorant inkjet prints.

Bright white papers are really popular (ya think?), and there are many end-users out there who truly don't care about long term durability. You have all heard the various rationales many times, ie. "I can always reprint", "If I don't like how it looks on day one, who cares whether it lasts or not", or my personal favorite about OBA burnout, "Well, the paper will just revert to the "natural color" it would have been if it didn't have OBAs" (NOT), etc. etc.  But I humbly suggest that a discerning printmaker, given reasonable longevity information upon which to make an informed choice, can often find a paper that is both pleasing at the start and durable over time as well. Moreover, while the strengths and limitations of OBA-free versus OBA-containing papers are becoming more widely known, serious printmakers should also not lose sight of the fact that there are significant paper/ink chemistry interactions as well which even with pigmented ink sets can lead to significant differences in overall longevity performance of the selected ink/paper combinations.


cheers,
Mark
http:/www.aardenburg-imaging.com
Logged
MHMG
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 600


« Reply #31 on: December 24, 2010, 12:52:44 PM »
ReplyReply

Mark, if you are still around..... what are your thoughts about the replacement of the previously mentioned obas with newer formulas of whitening colorants as Canson most notably is using now with good effect.

john

Most of the Canson papers I have in test only entered light fade testing recently, so I think we need to let the tests run further. But not to wimp out here, I will say that I have already seen a little paper bleaching in Canson Platine Fiber Rag (it's going to go a little whiter and cooler, but no where near the extent that some high OBA papers go in the opposite direction).  Whether this bleaching effect will trigger or contribute to a lower CD rating remains to be seen (e.g., sometimes paper color changes can actually counter balance ink fade effects). it hasn't yet, and it's also important to note that bleaching effects tend occur quickly in test and then come to a pretty abrupt stop. All in all, I'm optimistic that many of the Canson papers combined with Major OEM ink sets will do very well in AaI&A testing, but I wouldn't be surprised to see a few surprises!

kind regards,
Mark
Logged
Light Seeker
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 255


« Reply #32 on: December 24, 2010, 02:49:25 PM »
ReplyReply

where does it say Cone Type5 its OBA free? I can't see that on the sales page linked.
if it is, they should make more of that fact.

The newsletter linked below has a reference to OBA's, fyi. . .

http://shopping.netsuite.com/s.nl/c.362672/it.I/id.226/.f

Terry.
Logged
Light Seeker
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 255


« Reply #33 on: December 24, 2010, 03:03:20 PM »
ReplyReply

Reminds me of being in the darkroom making lith prints, where different combos of developer/dilution and paper produce different results Smiley

Neil

There are some good examples of this shown in the link below.

The first two b/w images are made using the same monochrome ink set, but one print is made on EEF and the other on Cone Type 5. You can clearly see how each paper tones the image differently, with EEF pulling it cooler. The same test is repeated with a second ink set (same two papers), and then again with a split tone ink set (again on EEF and Type 5).

http://shopping.netsuite.com/s.nl/c.362672/it.I/id.238/.f

Black and white images can exhibit such beauty.

Terry.
Logged
natas
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 256


« Reply #34 on: December 24, 2010, 10:16:30 PM »
ReplyReply

I haven't tried it yet (still have 2 rolls of EEF) but Breathing color has a new paper. Check it out: http://www.breathingcolor.com/action/bc_shop/205/
Logged
narikin
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 854


« Reply #35 on: December 25, 2010, 05:23:00 AM »
ReplyReply

The newsletter linked below has a reference to OBA's, fyi. . .

http://shopping.netsuite.com/s.nl/c.362672/it.I/id.226/.f

Terry.

thanks Terry, but that wording is a little odd:
"This is the paper that has similar non-OBA color"
which seems like clever weasel words for: it has got OBAs, but is the same color as non OBA paper.

I think if it had no OBA's they would say it clear and proud, and they don't.
When it makes Ernst SpectraViz, then we will know for sure.

I would love to be wrong,but as EEF shows us, scepticism is the best approach

« Last Edit: December 25, 2010, 05:53:39 AM by narikin » Logged
Ernst Dinkla
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2826


« Reply #36 on: December 25, 2010, 06:45:04 AM »
ReplyReply

I haven't tried it yet (still have 2 rolls of EEF) but Breathing color has a new paper. Check it out: http://www.breathingcolor.com/action/bc_shop/205/

IF spectral plots tell anything then Breathing Color Vibrance Rag could be in the class of Pictorico GKR, Hahnemühle Photo Rag Satin. Similar low amount of FBA distributed equallly in coating and cotton paper base and a sufficient amount of normal whitening agents to fill the gap between 450 and 650 Nm. It is a big IF as the spectral plots show the FBA and whitening agents effect but do not tell what qualities are used.

Be aware that some other Breathing Color paper qualities rely more on FBA content in the coating for their white reflectance though additional whitening agents are there too and in the paper base. More chances of fading I suspect.

John's comment on Hahnemuehle FAB, I guess he means Baryta FB 350, the one Michael wept aside in a review with a similar comment.
It is totally relying on FBA content (both in coating and base) for reflection in the blue spectrum, has  a deep dip from 450 to 650 Nm (absence of other whitening agents), and then relies on the paper base for the red end reflection. That is resulting in an odd pink color which shifts terribly with changing lighting. It has to have very good FBA quality ingredients if that one has to keep that "color". Michael wrote that Hahnemühle commented that it suited European taste. Wonder if they refer to the taste in the Biedermeier period :-)



met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst Dinkla

New: Spectral plots of +180 inkjet papers:
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm





Logged
deanwork
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 691


« Reply #37 on: December 25, 2010, 09:31:40 AM »
ReplyReply

Look at it under daylight and then tungsten, its an easy test even without a black light.

In a related note not all oba content is fatal. Look at the many tests at Aardenburg with Hahnemuhle Photorag. It has a small about of traditional oba colorants but is still holding up well. With Hahnemuhle matt papers apparently the oba is added in the paper manufacture, not in the receptor coating stage. This is another thing that makes a difference, along with the amount used.  When you see a media look really bright and bluish, well that's a signal to look out and pull out your can of toxic uv spray.

j
Logged
Farmer
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1630


WWW
« Reply #38 on: December 25, 2010, 02:05:10 PM »
ReplyReply

Many vendors just aren't willing to pay for the necessary testing,

That's true, but what drives vendors decisions on costs is whether they can recover those costs in the price to the market.  The market is always demanding a higher quality at a lower price (fair enough).

Unless testers can quantify to vendors the extra value that the market is prepared to pay (and remember that the market is far, far bigger than just fine art print makers) and then relate that to the cost of testing, it's always going to be a struggle to get them to pay for the testing.

We have also reached the point where the bar has been raised well above that of many alternative or traditional photographic printing methods such that expectations now would be utterly unreasonable just a few years ago.  That's a good thing, in my opinion, but from time to time I think it's worth acknowledging the new field on which we play.  An artist, with a digital capacity, can offer something significantly less than 100+ years if a client understands the limitation but prefers the presentation (indeed, for exhibition work, stability beyond a few years probably shouldn't matter compared to presentation of the image in the best/preferred manner for the artist).

It's a little like pixel peeping at times - we can become too focussed on numbers and fail to step back and look at the overall results.
Logged

chez
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 350


« Reply #39 on: December 25, 2010, 05:18:46 PM »
ReplyReply

Phil, you bring up a good point about obsessing about numbers. Can someone tell me what the expected lifetime of a traditionally printed photo is. I know my wedding photos have faded and we've been married 28 years in April.
Logged
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad