Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Canson Platine vs Baryta vs Hahnemuhle Photo Rag Baryta  (Read 18433 times)
hugowolf
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 637


« Reply #20 on: August 30, 2012, 07:43:22 PM »
ReplyReply

On the sniff testing for BaSO4: there are problems with contamination. If papers are stored in close proximity and especially with sample packs, the whole lot can smell of BaSO4.

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

Posts: 1710


WWW
« Reply #21 on: August 31, 2012, 07:47:21 AM »
ReplyReply

On the sniff testing for BaSO4: there are problems with contamination. If papers are stored in close proximity and especially with sample packs, the whole lot can smell of BaSO4.

Brian A

As a chemist I would be most interested to know what BaSO4 smells like. 
Logged

Canson21
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6


WWW
« Reply #22 on: September 25, 2012, 08:46:42 AM »
ReplyReply

H2S
Logged

Regards,  and still learning...
Alan Goldhammer
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1710


WWW
« Reply #23 on: September 25, 2012, 01:13:56 PM »
ReplyReply

H2S
Highly doubtful for the same reason NaCl doesn't smell like hydrochloric acid.
Logged

Canson21
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6


WWW
« Reply #24 on: November 09, 2012, 06:57:43 AM »
ReplyReply

Canson Baryta (like all baryta papers) contains barium sulphate, which some call an OBA.
Logged

Regards,  and still learning...
Ernst Dinkla
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2886


« Reply #25 on: November 09, 2012, 07:54:31 AM »
ReplyReply

Canson Baryta (like all baryta papers) contains barium sulphate, which some call an OBA.

Better check the Wiki pages on barite and on Optical Brightening Agents. The last has more names like Fluorescent Whitening Agents or Fluorescent Brightening Agents. Usually dyes. Barite has no fluorescence properties but some of its mineral forms can show phosphorescence which is something else.


--
Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst

http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
470+ inkjet paper white spectral plots, November 2012:
rearranged categories, Permajet + MediaJet brands added.





Logged
hugowolf
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 637


« Reply #26 on: November 09, 2012, 10:01:21 PM »
ReplyReply

Better check the Wiki pages on barite and on Optical Brightening Agents.
Oh Ernst, while I have contributed many images and edited many articles, I would hardly call Wikipedia a creditably resource, academic or otherwise. It is a good starting point for research, but will never be anything more.

Brian A
Logged
Czornyj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1436



WWW
« Reply #27 on: November 10, 2012, 09:00:18 AM »
ReplyReply

Mark & Ernst,

What do you think was used as whitener in case of Photo Rag Pearl - TiO2 ora BaSO4?

Here are M1+M2 spectral plots of Photo Rag Baryta, Photo Rag Pearl and Platine Fibre Rag. There's no trace of OBA in all three cases.

Logged

Ernst Dinkla
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2886


« Reply #28 on: November 10, 2012, 01:03:37 PM »
ReplyReply


What do you think was used as whitener in case of Photo Rag Pearl - TiO2 ora BaSO4?


All what makes an inkjet paper white: to start with a high quality cotton base, then BaSO4 as the main whitening agent, the ink receiving layer a microporous clay or similar. Binder a PVA that should be transparent. Whitening agents often are mixes of a clay like kaolin, BaSO4 or TiO2 and more like that Zinc oxides and sulfides. Sometimes to achieve similar white reflectance at lower cost. I think TiO2 is not a main component in this paper as that stuff shows some UV light adsorption below 410NM that is not visible in the PRP spectral plot. You need a scientific spectrometer to get the right answers, this is an estimation.

My spectral plots here added: the green plot is a BaSO4 tile, the yellow TiO2, blue is pure cotton, the brownred Photo Rag Pearl, the pink Entrada Rag Natural which I suspect to have TiO2 as a whitening agent.

--
Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst

http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
470+ inkjet paper white spectral plots, November 2012:
rearranged categories, paper distributor list updated
« Last Edit: November 11, 2012, 09:13:57 AM by Ernst Dinkla » Logged
Czornyj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1436



WWW
« Reply #29 on: November 10, 2012, 03:38:11 PM »
ReplyReply

Thanks Ernst. I was intrigued by Mark's statement, that TiO2 is whitening agent of Platine Fibre Rag. I saw your spectral plot of TiO2 and also noticed the absorption of UV below 410nm that distinguishes it from BaSO4, but coudn't find it on spectral plot of Platine Fibre Rag nor any other FB paper. Maybe Platine Fibre Rag is not really TiO2 based, or it has some additional whitening agents? It's a shame there's no detailed information about whitening agents in papers specifications.
Logged

samueljohnchia
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 327


« Reply #30 on: November 11, 2012, 06:29:03 PM »
ReplyReply

Thanks Ernst. I was intrigued by Mark's statement, that TiO2 is whitening agent of Platine Fibre Rag. I saw your spectral plot of TiO2 and also noticed the absorption of UV below 410nm that distinguishes it from BaSO4, but coudn't find it on spectral plot of Platine Fibre Rag nor any other FB paper. Maybe Platine Fibre Rag is not really TiO2 based, or it has some additional whitening agents? It's a shame there's no detailed information about whitening agents in papers specifications.

According to Miles Hecker, Platine has a "white carbon black" whitening coating. That is, fine white sand.

I've tried asking Canson about this twice before, but they have ignored me. I'm curious whether their other OBA free papers use "white carbon black".

It is interesting to note that despite not having traditional fluorescing brighteners, Platine appears to fare rather poorly in WIR's longevity tests, especially with Epson and Canon inksets. AaI&A reflects similar results. It appears from WIR's report that there has been a newer version of Platine and Baryta Photographique. I wonder what has changed. Mark, perhaps you could comment a bit on why Platine does not do so well in light fade testing?
Logged
Ernst Dinkla
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2886


« Reply #31 on: November 12, 2012, 04:41:04 AM »
ReplyReply


According to Miles Hecker, Platine has a "white carbon black" whitening coating. That is, fine white sand.


That material is probably in the ink receptor coating on top. Microporous in character to catch the ink, like medicinal carbon and carbon for filtering are microporous so the total carbon surface area for the reactions is huge. Hence the "white carbon black" nickname for this inkjet receptor.  It will be white mainly due to its microporous state but not be as white as TiO2 or Baryta that will be in the layer beneath it.

A good article though.

--
Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst

http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
470+ inkjet paper white spectral plots, November 2012:
rearranged categories, updated paper suppliers list
« Last Edit: November 13, 2012, 08:15:53 AM by Ernst Dinkla » Logged
Czornyj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1436



WWW
« Reply #32 on: November 12, 2012, 06:00:00 AM »
ReplyReply

I second Ernst opinion regarding SiCl4.

In Mark's report Platine paper white remains virtually unchanged (I* 98.7) after 100 Mlux-hrs, so my deduction is the prime suspect for worse light fading results is ink receptor coating (the alredy mentioned white carbon black?) rather than whitening agent. I suppose we have similar situation in this case:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=72175.msg572842#msg572842
   
According to Miles Hecker, Platine has a "white carbon black" whitening coating. That is, fine white sand.

I've tried asking Canson about this twice before, but they have ignored me. I'm curious whether their other OBA free papers use "white carbon black".

It is interesting to note that despite not having traditional fluorescing brighteners, Platine appears to fare rather poorly in WIR's longevity tests, especially with Epson and Canon inksets. AaI&A reflects similar results. It appears from WIR's report that there has been a newer version of Platine and Baryta Photographique. I wonder what has changed. Mark, perhaps you could comment a bit on why Platine does not do so well in light fade testing?
Logged

johncustodio
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 43


« Reply #33 on: November 12, 2012, 07:36:47 AM »
ReplyReply

I don't know what to say about WIR's results, but note that in Aardenburg's tests Platine is still passing at 100 Megalux hours for the HP inks and Epson inks (in ABW mode), and is at 72-100+ for Espson color inks. This is not a poor performance. 120 Megalux hours results should be available by the end of November.
-John
Logged
MHMG
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 635


« Reply #34 on: November 12, 2012, 02:27:05 PM »
ReplyReply

I don't know what to say about WIR's results, but note that in Aardenburg's tests Platine is still passing at 100 Megalux hours for the HP inks and Epson inks (in ABW mode), and is at 72-100+ for Espson color inks. This is not a poor performance. 120 Megalux hours results should be available by the end of November.
-John

John is correct.  Platine is turning in a very respectable performance with Epson HDR ink set and OEM driver and also with HP Vivera Pigment (Z3100 series) as well.  I don't have any Canon Lucia ink samples in test with either Platine or Canson Baryta Photographique yet (an oversight I should rectify soon).  Canson Baryta Photographique turns in a slightly lower score with the HDR ink set than the Platine, but the result is also very competitive.

Both Canson Baryta and Platine also perform significantly better in AaI&A light fade testing than Exhibition Fiber Paper (aka, called "Traditional Fiber Paper" in Europe), and are comparable in Aardenburg testing to other papers that have been "certified" for use in Epson's apparently prestigious Digigraphie program. Ironically, EEF really deserves a "not recommended for fine art applications" rating due to ongoing media white point discoloration that can't be accounted for merely by loss of OBA fluorescence, yet it is now an approved paper for Digigraphie whereas the Canson Baryta and Platine are not approved.

The Digigraphie certification relies on a combination of test results provided by WIR in the U.S. and LNE in Europe. When the Digigraphie program first began Epson or Epson's "committee on reflection" decided upon a 60 year durability criterion that the media had to pass. Why did the committee choose a 60 year durability specification?  Beats me, but I note that Epson's lowest scoring paper in WIR testing is Velvet Fine Art, and VFA squeaks past the 60 year criterion with a WIR framed-under-glass rating of 61 years using Epson Utrachrome ink sets. Canson Platine and Canson Baryta do not currently meet the Digigraphie 60 year durability pass/fail criterion according to the WIR test results.

My guess, and it's only an educated guess, is that failing to pass the Digigraphie certification with a legend-named paper like Platine was a strong incentive for Canson to ask for another round of testing at WIR, especially when inferior papers like EEF manage to pass.  Hence, the update of the WIR document to include "improved" Platine and Canson Baryta samples.  What's definitely not clear in the updated document is what WIR means by "improved". Improved product, improved test, or perhaps both?

kind regards,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com
« Last Edit: November 12, 2012, 02:51:06 PM by MHMG » Logged
Czornyj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1436



WWW
« Reply #35 on: November 12, 2012, 03:40:36 PM »
ReplyReply

Mark, you should seriously consider creating "Inkjetgraphy" or "Pigmentgraphy" program by Aardenburg-Imaging for print studios and artists. Isn't it ironic that the only recognizable program exist only for the least permanent water-based pigment inkset?
Logged

samueljohnchia
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 327


« Reply #36 on: November 12, 2012, 06:37:05 PM »
ReplyReply

I don't know what to say about WIR's results, but note that in Aardenburg's tests Platine is still passing at 100 Megalux hours for the HP inks and Epson inks (in ABW mode), and is at 72-100+ for Espson color inks.

My understanding that 72-100 megalux-hours in test roughly equates to about 40+ WIR years on display, using the tabular conversion table in Aardenburg's reports.

Mark, I am definitely missing something, but WIR published that Exhibition Fibre passes at 45 hours in bare-bulb display, but a mere 32 hours for Platine. Exhibition goes on to a rather amazing 150 years when under UV protection. (I'm referring to the tests using Epson's UltraChrome K3 inks) How does WIR consider when a print has reached the unacceptable point for light fade? I see in your published reports something vague about "noticeable" fading. Your testing that Baryta Photographique does a bit worse than Platine agrees with WIR's own, but this discrepancy with Exhibition Fiber is quite large. I am surprised by these published values.
Logged
MHMG
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 635


« Reply #37 on: November 12, 2012, 09:48:05 PM »
ReplyReply

My understanding that 72-100 megalux-hours in test roughly equates to about 40+ WIR years on display, using the tabular conversion table in Aardenburg's reports.

Mark, I am definitely missing something, but WIR published that Exhibition Fibre passes at 45 hours in bare-bulb display, but a mere 32 hours for Platine. Exhibition goes on to a rather amazing 150 years when under UV protection. (I'm referring to the tests using Epson's UltraChrome K3 inks) How does WIR consider when a print has reached the unacceptable point for light fade? I see in your published reports something vague about "noticeable" fading. Your testing that Baryta Photographique does a bit worse than Platine agrees with WIR's own, but this discrepancy with Exhibition Fiber is quite large. I am surprised by these published values.

You did correctly interpret how to translate megalux hours of exposure into WIR "years on display" (i.e, divide megalux hours by 2 in order to extrapolate to "display years" based on the WIR illumination assumption of 450 lux for 12 hours per day). However, even when making the same illumination assumptions for prints on display, there's still another huge distinction between the two laboratories' predicted display times owing to the different "failure criteria" that are also required to calculate these ratings.  Aardenburg relies on the I* metric for color and tonal accuracy retention in order to calculate its Conservation Display rating (CDR), whereas WIR uses a legacy densitometric criteria set with 17 different endpoints to determine its WIR display rating. The WIR densitometric failure criteria were developed during the silver halide era of color photo finishing and are thus reasonably suited to that era of color photography. They are not that well adapted for modern multi-color inkjet systems which in part explains why media like Exhibition Fiber or ink sets like Canon Chromalife 100 can get seriously misranked in the WIR tests.  My friend and colleague, Henry Wilhelm, fully understands the ramifications of the legacy WIR densitometric test. We co-developed much of the I* metric technology together, but I can only assume he and his clients are waiting on a new international standard of some sort before switching to a different type of testing protocol. I had no such constraints when founding Aardenburg Imaging, so I chose the more robust I* metric as the evaluation method. It's an open source metric (Henry and I both believed it needed to be), so the various ISO and ASTM committee's currently working on digital light fastness standards are more than welcome to adopt the I* metric if they want.  That said, the committee politics is such that I doubt any superior light fade testing standard will ever be published.

Verbal descriptions of visual changes taking place are always challenging, but the AaI&A CDR is probably best described as relating to any measurable change in the image which produces only "little or no noticeable fading" (i.e. print remains in excellent condition) whereas the WIR criteria set is better described as predicting "easily noticeable and often objectionable fading"(i.e, the print will be in only satisfactory to poor condition). It is regrettable that the WIR reports use the unfortunate phrasing "before noticeable fading occurs". That's not what the WIR criteria set actually spells out. Rather, noticeable fading will definitely occur sooner in test while more easily noticeable fading will be reached at the product's rated endpoint, assuming the 450 lux/12 hour per day illumination level holds true. With some systems exhibiting non linear fading behavior, at least some noticeble change can occur early on in test. That change would trigger the AaI&A criterion but not necessarily any WIR densitometric criteria for failure. Thus, the two laboratories' choices for "allowable" change as rated by the testing also contributes to the ratings differences beween WIR and Aardenburg.  The fact that greater fade is allowed in the WIR test and less fade is allowed in the AaI&A test is neither good nor bad since no single judgement of visual appearance can totally describe the full fading behavior of a printer/ink/media combination. The two laboratories simply have different audiences in mind. WIR's testing has always been dedicated to typical photo consumer expectations, whereas AaI&A was founded with a more discerning museum curator, fine art printmaker, and/or serious print collector's expectations in mind.

Lastly, I'd recommend that folks ignore the WIR "bare bulb" data and compare only the "framed under glass" WIR predictions to the AaI&A conservation display ratings, albeit keeping in mind that AaI&A fading tolerances are more conservative as explained above. For technical reasons I don't want to go into here, I don't think the WIR bare bulb findings make entire sense. However, WIR's UV-excluded numbers are also OK to consider if you want to check system sensitivity to UVA radiation which typically changes fade rates by a 2-3x factor.  Just bear in mind that any media like EEF which have loads of OBAS aren't going to look good under UV blocking museum conservation glazing, and even if you do improve fade resistance by filtering the UV component, sunlight striking a print directly (i.e., the primary source of that extra UV radiation) is still going to kill a UV-protected print quickly. Many experts have confused UV-induced damage with the far greater damage caused by the total light intensity of sunlight which coexists along with that extra UV component. The total intensity of direct sunlight entering a window and striking a print on the wall is order of magnitudes higher than typical room illumination levels. Hence, it's not the 2-3x UV factor that is causing so darn much damage. It's the 100-1000x total  light level increase associated with that sunlight, even when UV gets blocked, that is so destructive to artwork and other furnishings in the home or office.


cheers,
Mark
Logged
Ernst Dinkla
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2886


« Reply #38 on: November 13, 2012, 03:05:51 AM »
ReplyReply

Thanks Ernst. I was intrigued by Mark's statement, that TiO2 is whitening agent of Platine Fibre Rag. I saw your spectral plot of TiO2 and also noticed the absorption of UV below 410nm that distinguishes it from BaSO4, but coudn't find it on spectral plot of Platine Fibre Rag nor any other FB paper. Maybe Platine Fibre Rag is not really TiO2 based, or it has some additional whitening agents? It's a shame there's no detailed information about whitening agents in papers specifications.

I doubt there are many papers that have a straight TiO2 coating etc, blends will be more usual. I put the spectral plot of Platine (green) next to the Moab Entrada Rag (redbrown) both 300gsm and they do overlap quite well but the Entrada has that bend more pronounced. The other image shows papers that have more UV absorption that may not be an OBA effect but TiO2. Could also be an UV blocker, TiO2 is used like that but other blockers exist too. If all three are used I can not tell them apart. I did see a paper manufacturer mentioning a UV blocker but that could be marketing speak to mention one TiO2 property, it will not protect an ink layer on top of the whitening layer. Innova mentions the use of TiO2 in preference to Baryta in Fibaprint but most of their papers have OBA content so I can not separate them in the measurements. Soon SpectrumViz will have >500 spectral plots, it serves a purpose but has its limitations too.

--
Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst

http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
470+ inkjet paper white spectral plots, November 2012.

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

Posts: 1710


WWW
« Reply #39 on: November 13, 2012, 07:56:36 AM »
ReplyReply

Presumably the UV blocking properties of TiO2 can help prevent paper yellowing but I'm not sure that there is any other benefit over the use of BaSO4.

Alan
Logged

Pages: « 1 [2] 3 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad