Arches Infinity™ Museum Quality Digital Photo & Fine Art Paper review by Harald Johnson & Andrew Darlow July 27, 2003 (updated: August 22, 2003) © 2003 Harald Johnson & Andrew Darlow CONTENTS: › Introduction & Description › Tests & Impressions › Summary › Postscript › Data Sheet Introduction & Description The Arches paper mills in the Vosges region of eastern France have been producing high-quality artist papers for more than 500 years; since 1492, in fact. The secret of papermaking at Arches (if you're in the know, you pronounce it in the French way: "arsh;" otherwise, it's "ar' chiz") is the use of 100% natural fibers (cotton) and the traditional cylinder mould method. Another thing that distinguishes all Arches papers is the fact that no optical brightening agents (OBAs) are used in their making. The big news earlier this year was the announcement that Arches, now part of the ArjoWiggins paper group, was releasing (in North America only) a new brand of paper made especially for inkjet printing: Arches Infinity. It's made with the same Arches Cold Press and Hot Press paper except that instead of tub sizing in gelatin, a proprietary inkjet receptor coating is applied after the paper is made. (For what that difference means in terms of image reproduction, see below.) Arches Infinity paper is 100% cotton, pH-neutral, acid-free, lignin-free, and OBA-free. It comes in two weights (230gsm and 355gsm) and two finishes (smooth and textured) in a variety of cut and roll sizes starting at 8.5 x 11 inches. Arches Infinity works with most thermal and piezo inkjet printers from Epson, HP, Encad, IRIS, ColorSpan, and others, and it's compatible with both dye-based and pigment-based inks. Tests & Impressions Tests were conducted in separate U.S. locations by Harald Johnson and Andrew Darlow in June-July, 2003. Harald: I tested on an EPSON Stylus Photo 1280 using the OEM Photo Dye color inks (see Andrew's comments below if you want to print on Arches with an EPSON 2100/2200; he tested on an EPSON 7600, which uses the same inks as the 2100/2200). All prints were allowed to air dry overnight. I analyzed the test prints visually under both diffused daylight through a window and also under a 5000ºK viewing light. Besides the targeted paper, Arches Infinity ("AI"), other comparable stocks were also used as controls, and additionally, traditional Arches uncoated watercolor paper was tested. For my test target, I used my usual one (color ramps created in Photoshop, Paul Roark step wedge, and a combination of personal and stock images) with one exception: I added a 288-patch Eye-One color target (version 1.5, RGB) in the top right corner (courtesy of GretagMacbeth, see below). This gave me another way to quickly check how different colors were doing. ABOVE: Harald's target file for evaluating test prints. Andrew: As indicated by Harald, my testing was done on an EPSON 7600 with Epson's OEM UltraChrome inks (Matte Black installed). My test target (shown below) was a combination of the Paul Roark step wedge, the color test file that I created and often use (available for download here), and a warm, neutral, and cool rendition of the same monotone image to help judge the performance of the ink and paper combination for B&W work. ABOVE: Andrew's test target. Other prints of B&W and color images were also used to determine the overall quality of the papers. I viewed the prints under a D5000 viewing light, as well as under tungsten and warm florescent illumination. In addition, I ran tests to see the quality of black-ink-only on the different Arches papers. As a comparison, I also printed the same test file on Epson's Enhanced Matte and a few Arches uncoated papers. Just for fun, I also printed on the back of two of the Arches Infinity papers to see the difference between the two sides. Look & Feel Harald: In terms of its color, Arches Infinity is what I'd call a "soft white." It's not as white as, say, Hahnemuhle Photo Rag, Somerset Photo Enhanced, or Bockingford Inkjet, but it's almost exactly the same in terms of whiteness as EPSON Smooth Fine Art and Museo, two other fine art papers. Creamy white is more like it. (There is also a Natural White in 34 x 47-inch sheets, but I had not received any by review time.) As for texture or feel, AI is wonderful. The Smooth version is smoother than most of the papers mentioned above. It's wonderfully silky to the touch with a luscious hand ("hand" is a paper term used to describe the tactile and handling qualities of a sheet of paper). The Textured version has slightly more "tooth" than EPSON Textured Fine Art. Arches Infinity is a beautiful piece of paper. ABOVE: The two finish textures of Arches Infinity (center and right). Unlike the traditional Arches Watercolor papers with four deckle edges (two formed directly on the cylinder, the other two torn by hand in the sorting room) and embossed watermarks, Arches Infinity comes with straight edges and without watermarks. The paper packaging is attractive and organized. I received 13x19-inch sizes, and each box came with an information sheet, a stiffener board, and the paper shrink-wrapped. Determining the correct printing side is sometimes a problem with digital printing papers (even if, as in this case, the box clearly says "image side up"), so I used two tricks to help me figure it out: (1) wet two fingers and lightly grip a corner of the paper; the side that sticks to your finger has the coating for printing, or (2) and this is from Andrew: mark each side with a pencil; the lighter marking will show up on the coated printable side. After a while, I could easily tell the coated side just by feel (it's smoother). Andrew: My impressions of the paper are similar to Harald's. Luscious is a good word, especially with regard to the smooth versions. There are distinct differences in texture between the 355gsm and 230gsm textured papers, with the 355gsm paper having a stronger and more spread out texture, similar to Epson's 425gsm Textured Fine Art Paper. In fact, side by side, one would be hard-pressed to tell one another apart. To determine which side is printable, another test I use is the scratch test. In this case, the side that is more difficult to drag a fingernail across is the printable side. The 17x22-inch packaging is also marked to help in that regard, and I assume the smaller sizes are marked as well. The color of the paper in all cases is perfect for my tastes--just a shade off-white, and suitable for color and B&W output. The quality of the coating is excellent, and I observed no small spots in any of the samples I tested, which were in the form of 17x22-inch sheets, packaged 25 per box. I found the packaging to be excellent, but one needs to be very careful when pulling sheets out so as to not scratch or create too much pressure on the surface of the next sheet in the box, which can damage the coating. A slip sheet between each 17x22 would have added an extra layer of protection, but with careful handling, I had no problems. Another difference compared with other papers is the smell--all packages have a moderate ammonia-like smell that dissipates almost entirely soon after removing the sheets. ^ back to top Image Quality/Printability Harald: My dye-based prints on AI (using the freely-downloadable ICC profiles from the Arches website) looked great: there was a full range of tones, and the sharpness or resolution was as good or better than the other two papers tested (EPSON Fine Art and Museo). ABOVE: Although what you see above may show slight variations due to the scanning and your monitor, the actual prints showed very similar line pair resolution. The Textured version of AI (especially the 355gsm) picked up a little bit of mottling or possibly "bronzing" (areas of shininess or "differential gloss") in the midtones to dark areas, but so did the other papers. However, this effect was no where near as much as with the earlier-reviewed Bockingford Inkjet, which has a heavier texture. (See Andrew's comments below on this with an ink-density-reduction solution.) I did not notice any "cockling" (waviness) from the ink load immediately after printing, but with these heavier weights (230 and 355gsm), I wouldn't have expected it. When I started printing on the heavier 355gsm stock (which measures 24.5 mils in thickness on the Smooth and 28 mils on the Textured), I had to change the Thickness Lever on the EPSON so it would grab the paper and pull it through. I moved the lever (visible on the right when you raise the cover) all the way to the "+" side, and it worked fine, although I sometimes had to use hand pressure to give it a little push in order to catch. Arches Uncoated: One suggestion from a reader after our Bockingford Inkjet review was to also test the uncoated version of a paper when one is offered or well-known. Since Arches Watercolor paper is probably the most well-known fine art paper in the world, this seemed like a good idea, especially since the history of digital fine-art printmaking started on Arches uncoated (David Coons printed the first images for Graham Nash on it in Los Angeles back in 1989) and many artists still use it for inkjet printing. ABOVE: Arches uncoated Watercolor papers in different weights and finishes. True to what I had always heard, the prints on Arches Watercolor (Cold Press, 300gsm) started off dark and a bit muddy. This is due to an uncoated surface that, although sized with gelatin, still allows for a lot of ink bleeding or "dot gain" (wicking of the ink through the fibers). Using a couple of techniques provided by Royce Bair on the InkjetART website, mainly the EPSON driver's Color Controls and Photoshop's Transfer function, I was able to get a reasonable print, although the target file nowhere equaled the sharpness, punch, and smoothness of the version printed on the coated Arches Infinity (see below). ABOVE: Target printed on uncoated Arches Watercolor with Color Controls and a Transfer curve (left) and printed on Arches Infinity Textured with the AI ICC profile. However, when I printed an image that was better-suited for a muted presentation (see below), it looked fine, especially when using a DIY printer profile I made for this purpose. ABOVE: A soft, muted image can work well on Arches uncoated. Left: "Pink Bow Goes Shopping" is printed on Arches Watercolor Cold Press 300gsm using a combination of +15 Saturation in Color Controls plus a Photoshop Transfer curve. Right: The same image but printed through a scanner-based DIY printer profile made with ColorVision ProfilerPLUS. Notice how the shadows open up in the hair, pants, and background. Andrew: The paper was a joy to work with, and the UltraChromes rendered extremely well on all four of the surfaces tested. The density range was excellent and the sharpness was as good as any coated matte paper that I've used to date, except possibly Epson's Enhanced Matte paper, which is extremely sharp. Another interesting observation concerns the issue of bronzing or mottling, which I found to be a problem at first, but one which was solved fairly easily. When making my first test prints using the Atkinson Profiles (more info on profiles below), I saw some slight gloss differential between the darkest black and the next darkest patch. It was very subtle, and more evident with the textured versions (especially the 355gsm weight) when viewing at certain angles to light. With the smooth papers, I could also only see it at certain angles to a light source, and it was only a real problem if there were very large dark areas that were scratched or heavily burnished with a finger or another sheet of paper. The effect looks like tiny little water droplets, and as mentioned above, it was really only objectionable to me with the 355gsm textured weight held at a certain angle to the light, or with a very heavy ink load with the 230gsm paper. The simple fix to the issue on my 7600 for all papers was to print normally using the Atkinson Enhanced Matte Profile, adding to it a -5% density in the Paper Configuration Section of the EPSON Driver (see below). ABOVE: Mac OSX 7600 driver shown. Area circled shows where the adjustment was made to reduce bronzing. Even without this adjustment, this issue should not pose a big problem for users, except possibly with the 355gsm textured sheet. Interestingly enough, the free AI profiles didn't present much if any of the bronzing issue, because the shadow intensity was less dark. One could also use the AI free profiles with a +10 density adjustment in the paper configuration section of the EPSON driver, but the color intensity of the Atkinson Profiles won't be matched. Printing on the back of the Arches Infinity papers was an interesting experiment. The first print with the standard Atkinson profile was terrible on the textured 230gsm, with a green cast and weak color overall. After some adjustments by way of using no profiles and making slider adjustments in the Color Controls portion of the driver, the density improved, but the green cast persisted and I decided to try the back of the smooth 355gsm. With the same extreme driver adjustments, I was able to get a very unique-looking print, almost like something printed on a smooth stone. Feel free to try it. One thing I learned was that I would not recommend printing image information on the back as many do with Enhanced Matte and other papers, because the fragile surface of the face of the print will get damaged where the rollers travel across any dark printed areas. Pre-printing the back with nothing on the front will also cause some damage that will likely show after printing the image on the front side. You may be able to protect the surface with an archival thin sheet, but I didn't test that option. Printing on uncoated Arches papers was also interesting. I recently had some success printing on uncoated Somerset Velvet, so I was anxious to see how the Arches papers did in comparison with the UltraChromes. Harald's dye-based experiment on uncoated Arches was impressive based on the scans I observed of the uncoated prints next to the coated samples. Dye-based inks are known to handle uncoated stocks better than pigments, and such was the case here. The density and color was not terrible on Arches Cold Press 140lb (300gsm), but I wouldn't call it good. The coated stocks are far superior in every way, unless you are looking for a certain muted effect. Double strike printing can be successful, but that's a whole other subject! Dmax (ADDED 8/22/03: as measured by Andrew Darlow several weeks after the main review was written) Harald's dye-based samples: 230 Smooth - 1.68 230 Textured - 1.66 355 Smooth - 1.69 355 Textured - 1.71 Andrew's UltraChrome samples: 230 Smooth - 1.52 230 Textured - 1.51 355 Smooth - 1.53 355 Textured - 1.48 (with all 7 colors) and 1.58 (with black ink only) Epson Enhanced Matte - 1.6 (Andrew writes: First, I used a control from the Bockingford Inkjet review measurements. The sample I used to compare results is a print made with UltraChrome ink and an EPSON 7600 on Epson Enhanced Matte. Previously, with a different spectrophotometer, the measurement in the black patch measured 1.67. This time, as you can see above, the patch measured 1.6 on the same print. This shows that some variation can occur with different spectrophotometers, much like the small variations that occur in photographic light meters. On a separate note, I'm not sure why the black-ink-only prints have a darker Dmax, but that is the case in the two papers I tested using black ink only.) ^ back to top Colors & Profiles Harald: Downloading the free ICC profiles from the Arches website was very easy. I just clicked on the appropriate profiles, and they downloaded automatically (see below). With each download, you also get a PDF with complete instructions about what profiles are, how to install them, how to use them, and what printer settings to use with them. Well done! ABOVE: Arches' ICC profile download page offers printer-specific profiles plus PDF instructions. The two profiles I used (one for 230/355 Smooth, one for 230/355 Textured) for the EPSON 1280 installed perfectly and worked well. Due to either machine variances or these free profiles, there was variously a slight greenish or magenta midtone color cast with my particular inks, but that is usually simple enough to fix with either a custom or Do-It-Yourself profile. I tried both a Curves Adjustment Layer in Photoshop, and I also made my own DIY profile with the ColorVision ProfilerPLUS scanner-based system. Both techniques shifted the tints easily. Don't forget, as I like to say (and as Arches has included in their ICC Profile FAQ page): canned profiles are just a starting point to get you in the ball park of good printing. Any decent custom or DIY profiling system can help you make needed shifts or adjustments in color. I also tried out two different Print Space Intents: Perceptual and Relative Colorimetric. I saw very little difference between the two, but the Perceptual looked a hair better, so I used that for most of the test prints. Just for fun, I also printed on the AI Smooth using the wrong Textured profile. The difference was surprisingly small; I could have used either one. Andrew: The Bill Atkinson Enhanced Matte Colorsync Profile (9600 EnhMatte EM1 Std v2.icc), available at www.epson.com--navigate from the Professional Graphics link on the left side of the screen, then to the Premium ICC Profiles link on the right side of the screen) with Perceptual Rendering and Black Point Compensation On was a perfect match for all four AI variations on my 7600, with surprisingly little difference in color or density between each surface. Although I downloaded the free Textured and Smooth profiles from the Arches Infinity website, I found them to lack the color saturation and black density of the Atkinson Profiles. Printing a neutral RGB file through the Atkinson Enhanced Matte Profile yielded a slightly neutral to olive tone in daylight and slightly neutral to warm under 3500K tungsten light. These tones were easily altered to a warmer hue by the use of a Hue/Saturation adjustment layer with the Colorize button checked and with Saturation set to 5 and Hue set to 27 (see below). ABOVE: The Colorize button makes all the difference in this dialog, and applying the correction through an adjustment layer is recommended so that changes can easily be made if necessary. Small changes make a big visual difference in the prints. ABOVE: This photo shows a neutral RGB file print using the Atkinson Enhanced Matte profile before any other changes were made. The file was originally in color. Since many readers of this review own or use the EPSON 2200, I should mention that I did not test the free 2200 profiles from Arches on a 2200, but after testing a few other profiles from various free and for-sale internet sources on a friend's 2200 with Epson's Enhanced Matte paper and Somerset Enhanced Velvet, I can highly recommend the relatively inexpensive ($25) 2200 Matte Black Somerset Enhanced Velvet profile from Jon Cone's Inkjetmall.com. The shadow area was compressed slightly with the Cone profile, but the color gamut was excellent, and I feel that with a curve adjustment or -10% density in the paper configuration section of the EPSON driver, it will perform as well as the Atkinson profiles with the AI papers on a 2200. Now for one of the most enjoyable parts of my test--black ink only. For years, I've been printing with black-ink-only, always searching for just the right ink and paper combination to achieve a cool to warm print that has the look and feel of a platinum print. My results are usually good, but not great--until now. I am very impressed with the look of the UltraChrome black-ink-only on all the Arches papers, but especially on the 230gsm textured sheet, which gives me the perfect combination of image quality and slight texture found in many fiber-based and hand-coated darkroom prints. (A matte-black-only composite print of the same images as above is shown below.) ABOVE: Printing with matte black only. In this case, a gamma of 2.2 was chosen in the Color Controls area of the EPSON driver, but 1.8 would have yielded more detail in the shadow areas. For the print above, Postscript Color Management/Perceptual Rendering was selected in the File/Print with Preview dialog, and Color Controls was used with the Enhanced Matte paper setting. The Print Settings were set to Enhanced Matte paper and Superfine 1440 with Microweave checked. I left it unchecked for all full-color printing, but when printing black-ink-only, the extra quality helps to avoid banding and increase overall quality. I also did a head alignment (prior to making my final print) on the same paper I was printing through the EPSON Printer Utility, which further assured no banding, which is one of the primary reasons for printing problems when using black ink only. This is just a 1-step alignment, unlike the 5- or 6-step head alignment also available through the 7600's internal LCD menu and the 2200's standard color and B&W alignment. If you have a 2200, I would just perform the first head alignment if printing with black ink only. Print Permanence No permanence tests have been performed as yet by the authors, but here is what ArjoWiggins is claiming for Arches Infinity: "Internal application testing was performed on EPSON 9500 prints using a HPUV Actinic Light Exposure unit. These test results provide us with confidence that Arches Infinity, when imaged with pigmented inks, will last more than 100 years in museum conditions before considerable fading occurs. Arches Infinity is also undergoing independent testing for image permanence by Wilhelm Imaging Research, Inc. Once results are obtained, they will be published by Arches and by Wilhelm Imaging Research. Arches is confident that Infinity will perform extremely well in independent testing. Other Arches fine art papers, such as Arches Watercolor, have been determined by Wilhelm to provide image stability for over 200 years in museum conditions before noticeable fading and/or changes in color balance occur." Durability Harald: The durability of Arches Infinity is not one of its selling points, so I'm not going to emphasize it. (The marketing material states, "Handling: Observe normal curatorial care. Treat printed sheets as fine art and handle to avoid scuffing. When stacking prints, interleave with soft, smooth, acid-free paper or acid-free glassine slip sheets.") However, I did do a water immersion test and a scratch test, and the paper performed very well on both (see below). ABOVE: Arches Infinity (far right) fared very well with hardly any change in my 24-hour water immersion test. Earlier-reviewed Bockingford Inkjet is at far left, and Somerset Photo Enhanced is at center. Arches marketing material states, "A high degree of water resistance is present when pigment-based inks are used." Keep in mind that I was testing with dye-based inks, where you might expect more damage. AI also did just as well on my Scratch, Smear, and Rub test as Bockingford Inkjet. Andrew: I found the UltraChrome prints on AI to be quite different when compared with Harald's dye-based conclusions. The UltraChrome inks on all the AI surfaces are quite scratch-prone, so care must be taken during all stages of the printing cycle. This is especially true with the smooth surfaces, though scratching can occur on any of the papers. However, the lack of flaking (small pinhole-like spots) with the AI is a huge advantage over some of the otherwise beautiful Hahnemuhle and other fine-art papers. As mentioned above, the papers should not be put through backwards to imprint image info due to roller-mark damage. Much like other fragile high Dmax printing papers, the sooner one gets them into a mat and archival plastic (better yet, framed behind glass), the better. Matting and archival plastic alone offers significant print protection with little added cost. ^ back to top Summary Harald: Very simply, Arches Infinity is a beautiful third-party paper for high-quality digital printing. It feels good, it looks good, and it has an impeccable pedigree. Arches calls it "museum quality," and its hard to disagree. A full range of sizes in sheets and rolls plus downloadable ICC profiles add to the positives. The only downside for me is its price: at $7-$10 (list price) per sheet of 13x19", it ain't cheap! By comparison, Bockingford Inkjet is $4.43 per 13x19 sheet, Crane's Museo is $3.60 per sheet, and EPSON Velvet Fine Art is $3.50 per sheet of 13x19. It will be up to you to decide if you do get what you pay for. For me and that special print, I'd give it a try. Andrew: All in all, this collection of fine-art inkjet printing papers from Arches is the best I've seen to date with regard to overall image quality, low metamarism (even with the yellow UltraChrome ink present in grey-tones) and print-in-hand-quality tactile feel. The 17x22-inch paper size was a joy to use on my 7600. Loading was easy, and with proper handling, I can see one of the Smooth or Textured Arches Infinity papers fitting into any fine-art printer's collection. Whether the papers fit into everyone's budget is another question, but at a street price of $6-9 per 17x22" sheet (in 25 sheet packs), I believe that is in line with other papers of similar quality. I'm anxiously awaiting a sample of Arches Infinity Natural White, especially for B&W printing. Stay tuned for updates! [see Postscript that follows next] Natural White Postscript by Andrew Darlow Arches Infinity Natural White -- ADDED: 8/22/03 As mentioned above, I recently received and tested two additional papers from the Arches Infinity line of coated inkjet papers. They are the Arches Infinity 355gsm Natural White Smooth and the Arches Infinity 355gsm Natural White Textured. They are currently available only in packs of 34"x47" sheets. Tests & Impressions As in the tests done for the standard Arches Infinity papers, all prints were printed on an EPSON 7600 with Epson's OEM UltraChrome inks (Matte Black installed). My test target was the same as before, with a color test file and a warm, neutral, and cool rendition of a monotone image to help judge the performance of the ink and paper combination for B&W work. Since I predict this paper will be of great interest to those who print monochrome work, in addition to the standard Epson driver, I used the ImagePrint OSX Version 5.6 RIP (available at www.colorbytesoftware.com) for both color and B&W output. I also ran tests to see the quality of black-ink-only on these papers. Look & Feel The color of both the textured and smooth papers is only a shade creamier than the standard Arches Infinity line, and the difference is more apparent in daylight. If you are familiar with Arches uncoated varieties (hot and cold press), I would say that the coated Natural White papers are about one shade lighter than they are. What sets the two groups apart from each other apart, besides the surface color, are the subtle paper surface differences between the standard and Natural White 355gsm Textured versions. The 355gsm Natural White has slightly less tooth than the standard 355gsm Textured version reviewed above and in my opinion, a nicer looking final print can be achieved with the 355gsm Natural White sheet. The Natural White 355gsm Smooth version has a very slight amount of texture, compared with the ultra-smooth, almost leathery 355gsm standard version reviewed above. I found the differences in both papers distinct enough to mention here, but others might not notice them. After a short conversation with a representative of the paper line, I learned that the differences in surface texture between the standard and natural white sheets might be due to the line's manufacturing processes. In either case, I would recommend testing the two variations side by side to determine which surface suits your work. Image Quality/Printability I really liked the balance between image and visible paper texture with the 355gsm Natural White Textured sheet, and the shadow density was very strong. Also, the shadow areas did not present as much of a shine as compared with the standard 355gsm Textured version, though I would recommend pulling back the ink density slightly to avoid any potential problems with the shadow areas. Both versions of the paper looked beautiful with warm and cool monochrome images, color and black-only prints. The sharpness of the dot on the paper was quite impressive, much like the standard versions tested above, which was almost as sharp as Epson's Enhanced Matte paper. Dmax (Andrew Darlow's measurements for the Natural White samples) with UltraChrome inks: 355 Natural White Smooth - 1.53 (with all 7 colors) and 1.61 (with black ink only) 355 Natural White Textured - 1.57 Colors & Profiles When printing in color, both the Bill Atkinson profiles and the ImagePrint color profiles worked very well. I was surprised to see custom profiles for the Arches Smooth and Textured versions in the ImagePrint 5.6 profile pop-up window, and they performed beautifully. The B&W printing capabilities in ImagePrint are very impressive; I made cool-toned neutral and warm -toned neutral prints using a grayscale file, the built-in ImagePrint gray profiles, and their unique tint-picker. There was also virtually no metameric shift between light sources when using the ImagePrint software because of the way it handles the Epson UltraChrome inks. For black-ink-only printing through the Epson driver, PostScript Color Management/Perceptual Rendering was selected in the File/Print with Preview dialog, and Color Controls was used with the Enhanced Matte paper setting(same as in my testing above). The Print Settings were set to Enhanced Matte paper and Superfine 1440 with Microweave checked. Next to the Color Controls button, I found that 1.8 gamma gave me optimal shadow detail and density. The final black-ink-only prints were extremely nice on both papers, with dark chocolate-colored midtones and nice deep shadows. Durability As with the standard Arches Infinity papers, the Natural White versions did not flake at all (that means that there were no tiny white specs showing when rubbing the surface after printing). However, scratching and rubbing the paper with a lot of pressure prior to and after printing should be avoided, especially with pigment inks. This would be the one negative feature of virtually all fine-art coated inkjet papers, these being no exception. Interleaving with soft tissue soon after printing and placing prints individually in plastic bags after a day or so is probably the best way to protect them. Summary These two Natural White papers exceeded my expectations, and the slightly more creamy color is very romantic-looking. The 355gsm Smooth and Textured Natural White versions are really beautiful to look at with color or B&W images, and I have to say that I prefer them to the standard 355gsm versions (especially compared with the standard AI 355gsm Textured sheet). If it doesn't already exist, I hope that Arches or a third-party distributor creates a sample pack of all their papers since every imagemaker has a unique style and paper preference. Data Sheet Name: Arches Infinity Distributed by: Legion Paper and Canson (in North America) For: fine art photography and printmaking Manufacturing type: traditional mould-made Coating: proprietary inkjet receptor coating Substrate type: 100% natural fiber (cotton) Lignin free? Yes Acid free? Yes Buffered? Yes Optical brighteners: none pH: neutral Sides: coated one side Finish: (A) textured (cold press) or (B) smooth (hot press) Color: soft white and "natural white" [see Natural White Postscript above] Sizes: sheets: 8.5x11", 11x17", 13x19", 17x22", 22x30", 34x47"; rolls: 24"x40', 36"x40', 44"x40', 50"x40' Weight: (A) textured (230gsm and 355gsm), (B) smooth (230gsm and 355gsm), (C) rolls: 230gsm only Caliper: (A) textured 230gsm: 19 mils, textured 355gsm: 28 mils; (B) smooth 230gsm: 17 mils, smooth 355gsm: 24.5 mils Brightness/whiteness: 90 Opacity: n/a Permanence: "more than 100 years in museum conditions before considerable fading occurs" with pigmented inks claimed Best inks/printers: dye-based and pigment inkjet Profiles provided? Yes Cost (SMRP): Starting at $64.95 for a 25-sheet pack of 8.5x11" 230gsm Smooth or Textured. 13x19" 230gsm is $174.95. 355gsm is more. Go to the Arches Infinity website for a complete PDF price list. Available: in North America only at this writing. Distributed by www.canson-us.com and www.legionpaper.com. Or, contact ArjoWiggins in South Hadley, Massachusetts, and they will give you the name of the nearest dealer: US Toll Free: (800) 628-9283, Intl. tel: 001 (413) 538-9250. About the Authors: Harald Johnson is the author of the book Mastering Digital Printing, Second Edition (Thomson/Course Technology PTR, 2005), the founder of the digital-fineart discussion list, and the creator of the website DP&I.com (www.dpandi.com), the online digital printing and imaging resource. Andrew Darlow is a photographer and digital imaging consultant based in the New York City area. He is Editorial Director of Digital Imaging Techniques (www.imaginginfo.com), a business to business magazine that reaches 25,000 professional photographers, art directors and others in the graphic arts community. He conducts seminars across the country and has taught extensively at the International Center of Photography in New York on topics ranging from color correction to fine-art inkjet printing. Andrew also owns and runs candidcanine.com, a company focused on people and animal photography, and he publishes the Inkjet & Imaging Tips Newsletter, available free to subscribers on his website, www.andrewdarlow.com. ^ back to top Home | About Us | Advertise | Contact Us News & Reviews | How-To's | Resources © 2002-2005 Harald Johnson Communications. All rights reserved.