Re: archival glossy?

[SKID Photography <skid@bway.net>]

"Michael A. Schwarz" wrote:

> >That said, I seem to recall that only one of the 2 blacks was archival (I
> >think
> >it was the matte black), and.....at least for us, we only print on the matte
> >surface anyway, as all the glossy papers are less stable than the matte ones.
> >And if one is not interested in the archival quality of the inks, why
> >would one
> >bother with the 2100/2200 over the 1290/1280?
> >
> >Harvey Ferdschneider
> >partner, SKID Photography, NYC
>
> Don't mean to take your post out of context, but I also operated under
> the assumption that glossy papers were inherently less archival.  Which
> is why I'm curious as to why Epson's preliminary figures for the
> UltraChrome inks estimate that PGPP color prints will last 90 years and
> the enhanced matte only 30.  What's up with that?
>
> Michael A. Schwarz

Michael,
One might also ask why Epson claimed 200 years on their Epson Archival Matte
paper & pigment ink combo where it clearly was not, especially since the EAM
contains optical brighteners.  No way the brighteners will last 200 years, or
even 100!

So, I am always suspect of Epson claims.

Harvey Ferdschneider
partner, SKID Photography, NYC

-
Turn off HTML mail features. Keep quoted material short. Use accurate
subject lines. http://www.leben.com/lists for list instructions.