Epson Matte or Archival matte for R2400?

[tim_hodges]

Have just acquired a Epson R2400 Printer and really pleased with it. I am using

my stock of Epson A3 matte paper and getting good results with it. I notice

that Archival Matte is 50% more expensive.

I do not mind paying that sort of premium but is the longevity issue and/or the

print quality that much better, for either colour or black & white?

 

Secondly if a silver hallide colour photo was put in a shop window alongside a

photo printed on Archival matte paper - which would fade first?

 

Regards

Tim

[patricklavoie]

Starnge, i tough that Archival mat paper was the old paper replace by the Enhanced Mat? As for the longevity, i have print that as been in a window for the past 2years and they look good.

[mike butler]

Paper makes a difference. Try some Velvet Fine Art and you'll see why.

 

Persons who have done window tests over in the yahoo forums say enhanced matte is prone

to yellowing and fading, but it's price and tonal response make it an excellent proofing paper

for many other popular brands of premium rag papers.

 

Hope that helps a little.

[stb]

Moab Kayenta is a higher quality alternative, not too expensive. Can be used both sides for

proofing too.

[jtk]

Enhanced matte has yellowed within a year for me and for many others who keep track (see Yahoo B&W group for example)...mine has yellowed in box, not even in light. I don't think there's any justification for it, at all.

 

For proofing, and for final prints in letter size and smaller, many prefer the FAR cheaper Costco Kirkland, unfortunately only available in glossy (best glossy I've seen & stays white longer than Enhanced Matte).

 

I prefer Moab Kayenta for matte proofing ...it'd be my favorite matte paper overall, except the grain of the texture is sometimes too obvious for smaller prints (eg letter size). Ultra-white, like fresh Enhanced Matte...I don't know how long it stays that white, but I've not seen any yellowing in the year I've used it.

[david_banks2]

Patrick is right - Enhanced Matte has replaced "archival" matte. In fact, archival matte contained a high level of brightener to increase the D-max, which does yellow over time in normal lighting (as has been noted). The fact that the image itself does not fade allows manufacturers to claim its archival status - but perhaps that's why they renamed it. In my opinion, if you are looking for true archival performance, you should consider a paper with a lower level of brightener, such as Hannemuhle.

[jimsimmons]

In some markets, here in New Zealand for instance, Enhanced Matte is still called Archival Matte. Even some of the retailers are unaware that Epson changed the name in other markets.

 

Interesing to hear about the Kayenta being more textured than some would like. I've got some on order as was expecting it to be much smoother than the Entrada that I have (with is too much texture for me).

 

Anybody got a recommendation of a very smooth matte archival paper with a decent brightness level?

[jtk]

Kayenta's texture is about the same level as Entrada, IMO, but it's annoyingly directional. Odd. Different from Entrada. It's whitened, but I suspect/hope the whitener isn't as vulnurable to age as is the whitener on other paper bases. Kayenta's great in llX17, which has become my standard size for prints of negs (scanned) that I think are good enough to merit some printing effort. In that size the texture seems irrelevant.

[manuel_toledo]

Hi,

 

Enhanced Matte is not considered archival because the paper is not acid-free. Apparently, this means that the acids will eventually destroy the image. The yellowing that is observed in the short term is due to fading of the optical brighteners (OB) that are added to the paper to make it look more white, and will happen to any paper that contains them, including acid-free archival papers. I have seen some expensive paper that yellowed in the dark after less than a year. Apparently, what happens is that the OBs "burn" and then the paper base assumes its true (warmer) color.

 

I think that you have to wait longer to see the effects of the acids. In fact, Wilhelm Imaging Research estimates that color prints on EEM will last over 76 years, and BW over 110 years. Of course, these are estimates based on accelerated tests, done under laboratory conditions, so nobody really knows how long will these images last in the real world. After the initial OB-related yellowing, the paper stabilizes and may stay the same color for a long time.

 

I have several framed prints in my house done in EEM. Here in Puerto Rico they receive quite a bit of sunshine and are exposed to very high humidity, factors that are expected to shorten longetivity. However, after about 3 years they look fine; the paper yellowed early and then stabilized to a warm tone that do not look bad to me.

 

An alternative to EEM is Red River's relatively inexpensive Aurora Art Natural ($60 for 50 sheet box of 13x19). It does not contains optical brighteners and is acid-free. The company's own test did not detected any fading after exposure equivalent to 50 years. Aurora natural's tone is, however, a bit warmer than EEM.

 

One thing to keep in mind is that if you want archival prints, you must use pigment inks and adequately protect the print. This means that you should use acid-free, archival material to mount or store

it.

 

Hope this helps!

 

Best wishes,

 

Manuel