Bockingford is a household name among artists in Europe. In fact, this traditional, fine art paper brand's popularity rivals Arches, BFK Rives, and Somerset, which are all distributed (in part) by Legion Paper. However, this review isn't about standard, fine art paper; it's about fine art paper for inkjet printing. Which means, paper that's specially treated to accept inkjet inks; otherwise, the inks tend to sink into the paper, yielding a muted, duller image.
What makes the new Bockingford Inkjet (produced in the same St. Cuthberts paper mill in Somerset, England, as Somerset) unique among virtually all other inkjet papers is the coating, although "coating" is actually the wrong word to use. Other inkjet coatings are added on top of the substrate after the paper is made, but Bockingford's Hydra-12 formulation is, according to its inventor John Edmunds, impregnated into the paper itself. "It's a patented infusion formulation that's added as part of the papermaking process," he explains. Edmund's says that this is just the first of many more papers that will feature this unique coating process.
What does an infusion coating mean to a photographer, artist, or digital printmaker? To start with, and again according to Edmunds, "this is the only type of inkjet coating that actually increases the longevity and durability of the paper and the inks that are applied to it." Edmunds provided private lightfastness test results contracted by his company, Futures Wales Ltd. The tests were done on an Atlas Ci3000+ Xenon Arc Weather-Ometer, which generates "full Miami sunlight" (420 nm continuous full-spectrum light exposure for 400 hours). "Even the standard EPSON dye-based inks that were tested to the Blue Wool scale on Bockingford Inkjet reached a 6+ on the scale," says Edmunds, "which is the minimum requirement for the 'Limited Edition Certificate' of the British Fine Arts Guild, and which they say equates to 36 years. [EDITOR'S NOTE: By way of comparison, the highest current rating by Henry Wilhelm for EPSON Photo Dye inks on EPSON matte papers is 18 years on Matte Paper Heavyweight.] In most cases, the inks will exhibit an increase of light-fade resistance up to a factor of 2." We have no way to corroborate this, since we haven't done any lightfastness testing with this paper, although if we do, we will update this review as needed. As for durability, see tests below.
Only introduced into the U.S. at the beginning of 2003, Bockingford Inkjet is a double-sided paper made on a cylinder mould. It's white with a distinctive, cold-press, textured watercolor finish, one side slightly smoother than the other, but both definitely in the "rough" category. It's even more textured than Somerset Photo Enhance/Textured and definitely more than Somerset Photo Enhance/Velvet or Concorde Rag.
Contrary to what many might think for a premium paper, this is not a cotton-rag paper. Instead, it's all wood pulp (100% alpha cellulose), processed in the Sulfite method, but it's completely acid-free and with no optical brighteners added. According to distributor Legion Paper's Ted Ginsburg, "The paper is 190gsm (90lb) and totally archival. The coating is resistant to damage, making it more durable than other fine art inkjet papers. While it's primarily for fine art reproduction, photographs can look fantastic too!"
Because it's double-sided, Bockingford Inkjet is designed to be used for printing limited edition books, portfolios, and greeting cards. It can also, of course, be printed on one side only.
Tests on Bockingford Inkjet were conducted in separate locations by Harald Johnson and Andrew Darlow in February, 2003. Harald tested on an EPSON Stylus Photo 1280 using the OEM Photo Dye color inks; Andrew tested on an EPSON Stylus Pro 7600 using the OEM UltraChrome pigmented color inks with the Matte black ink.
HARALD'S TESTS
METHODOLOGY: For my tests, I made up a test file with these elements: (1) CMYK + RGB color ramps created with Photoshop's Gradient/Posterize function; (2) a combination of personal and stock images that cover a range of image types; and (3) Paul Roark's latest B&W step wedge complete with line pairs for judging resolution. Here's what the file looks like:
I used both the downloadable "canned" ICC profiles from Legion Paper and also no profiles for the Bockingford and Somerset ink and paper combinations. Because this paper is so textured, I tested on the slightly smoother side (the "felt" side) so it could be better compared to the other papers that were all much smoother. The two comparison papers used were Legion's Somerset Photo Enhanced/Textured and also EPSON Archival Matte (EAM, which is currently being replaced by Enhanced Matte). I used the older EAM paper because there's still a lot of it floating around, and even though EAM is supposedly not formulated for dye-based inks, I use it this way and like the way it looks. For all three papers, I used a Media Type of Photo Quality Inkjet Paper at 1440 dpi with High Speed unchecked.
All tests were made on an EPSON Stylus Photo 1280 and were printed during the same session one evening and 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. Dmax measurements were made by Andy Darlow with an Eye-One spectrophotometer with a PC program called KeyWizard,
available from GretagMacbeth.
IMPRESSIONS & TEST RESULTS: Visually, Bockingford Inkjet is almost exactly as white as the Somerset, not as creamy yellow as Legion's Concorde Rag, but not as white as the EPSON Archival Matte. I'd call it a soft white:
Bockingford Inkjet has a gritty, even chalky, feel, and because it's a little thin (190 gsm, 13 pts. or mils), the paper was initially cockled (wavy) from the ink load immediately after test printing, although that reversed itself as the inks dried. There was, however, a remaining slight bend (at opposite corners) in the paper the next day. This shouldn't be a big problem once a print is matted or framed. The Somerset (225 gsm) showed little bending, nor, surprisingly, did the Archival Matte (192 gsm).
Bockingford definitely has a strong texture finish (although there's a smoother side, and both sides are equally printable), and this is the first thing I noticed about the paper:
The printed image has a sort of "mottled" look, which appears to be entirely caused by the finish texture. It's also there on the Somerset (although less since it's a little smoother), and it's non-existent on the Archival Matte since that paper has a smooth matte finish. A lot of this mottling has to do with the angle of the light and the viewer; an overhead light, for example, raking over the print will accentuate it (see and compare Durability photos below), but a head-on light will reduce it. However, it's always there to some degree.
The other thing that a strong texture, as on Bockingford, does is slightly reduce the apparent resolution of the print. This can be seen in this test by comparing a detail of the Roark line pairs below (see especially the 2.4 lp/mm):
I also printed one of my photo-collage images, and this same result can be seen in the detail of a small sign:
In terms of gamut (the range of colors or tones), the Bockingford blocked up a little on the shadow end (the same whether using or not using an ICC profile), going completely solid at about 95% density. The Somerset appeared to gain me an extra percentage point or two, and the Archival Matte showed a virtually full shadow range. This is a variable that could probably be controlled by having a better profile, but the head-to-head tests did show differences. The result of this slightly compressed tone range is just a hair more contrast, although this wasn't very visible in the real images printed.
DMAX: For paper geeks, here are the Dmax results, as measured by Andrew:
100% K patch - Epson 1280 dye-based inks
Bockingford Inkjet (smoother side): 1.74
Somerset Photo Enhanced/Textured (smoother side): 1.86
Epson Archival Matte: 1.91
COLORS & PROFILES: The Legion-provided canned profiles definitely helped, providing a more punchy/saturated image compared to using no profiles. You could, of course, make your own profiles, or play around with the on-board printer settings, but it's nice to know that there's a canned profile you can download and use if all else fails.
DURABILITY: I did an unscientific smear-scratch-n-rub test pressing down hard with, in turn, a wet Q-tip, an eraser, and an X-acto blade. Sure enough, John Edmunds and Legion are right. If you look closely at the comparison photos below, the Bockingford Inkjet remained virtually undamaged, whereas the Somerset image was pretty much ruined. Whether it's the infusion coating process or not, Bockingford Inkjet appears to be very durable. (See Andrew's tests below for more about durability in terms of scuffing, pressing, etc.)
The above image shows the results of three gruesome tests done to the dye-based Somerset Photo Enhanced print. I tried to smear the image by rubbing hard with a wetted Q-tip. Then, I scratched it with an X-acto blade. Finally, I tried to rub off the image with a standard gum eraser. It's not a pretty sight. However, when I did the same tests on the dye-based Bockingford Inkjet print (below), it was able to withstand the same rough treatment much better.
WATERFASTNESS: I cut out portions of the print tests and immersed them into separate Tupperware bowls of tap water (see below).
Is this test meaningful? Hard to say except that dripping water, spills, water leaks, and floods, while maybe rare, do happen. Short-term water exposure is probably adequately covered in the Q-tip Smear test described above, and for that, Bockingford passed with flying colors (see a different view of this by Andrew below). But, what happens when you take waterfastness to an extreme? Let's see.
After only 24 hours of water immersion, the differences were striking--and a bit unexpected. Whereas, I thought the Bockingford would fare the best, the opposite happened (see below).
In the two combo photos above, the EPSON Archival Matte is at left, Somerset Enhanced (with a swellable-polymer-type coating) is in the middle, and Bockingford Inkjet at right. The fact that the EPSON Archival Matte was basically unaffected by this water immersion test isn't too surprising. EAM has a type of matte coating that's known for good waterfastness. But, the poor showing of the Bockingford surprised me, especially since John Edmunds had told me that Bockingford Inkjet prints "can be put in water with very little effect on ink run." However, as you can see by these images, I found this not to be the case. When asked about this, Edmunds--who seemed as surprised as I was, and who said that he had made his test prints on an EPSON 980 in Europe and subjected them to a forceful stream of boiling water right out of an electric water heater, explained that his test was more for durability, not waterfastness.
^ back to top
ANDREW'S TESTS
METHODOLOGY: My tests are similar to Harald's (Roark B&W stepwedge and color bars were used), but I've chosen to use a combination of standard test images from Kodak and Fuji targets, along with a few of my personal photographs (see below). The color target is downloadable in either the Colormatch RGB or Adobe RGB (1998) RGB working colorspace at www.andrewdarlow.com/calib.html.
(Note: all photographs in this section, except color target at right center, are Copyright © Andrew Darlow, www.andrewdarlow.com)
I used the Bill Atkinson Enhanced Matte paper profile (9600
EnhMatte EM1 Std v2.icc, available at www.epson.com--navigate from Professional Graphics to the Premium ICC Profiles page), as well as a custom profile created with the Eye-One Spectrophotometer and Eye-One Match software. I also did a test using no profiles, with a Colormatch RGB working space and some slider adjustments in the EPSON driver.
All prints were made on an EPSON Stylus Pro 7600 and were examined visually under 5000K balanced fluorescent bulbs, warm-white office fluorescent bulbs, daylight from the sun, and 2600-3200K tungsten lights, which are common in homes and galleries.
IMPRESSIONS & TEST RESULTS: As Harald indicated, there are slight differences between the two sides of the Bockingford Inkjet paper. Under even lighting, most people won't be able to tell the difference between the two, but under directional light, the two sides appear different, with the more textured side showing a coarser appearance (see Harald's detail photo above). The textured side appears a bit sharper to my eye, but in my opinion the smoother side looks a bit more natural (in other words, it is not as gritty).
The texture and look of the ink on the surface is unlike any inkjet paper that I've tested (which says a lot since I've tried at least 100 different papers over the last 10 years). The advantages are that it feels like a bright white sheet of textured uncoated watercolor paper, yielding an image that sits "inside" the paper without losing much detail or color saturation. The lack of shine or visible burnishing when rubbing dark areas is another big plus, because many coated watercolor papers will show this problem after almost any surface pressure when using the UltraChrome inks with the matte black ink.
The medium-weight feel of the paper makes it the perfect greeting card, foldable promo piece, or medium-weight double-sided business card. The relative durability (see tests later in this article), make it appropriate for use in bound or unbound books, though some type of spray coating may be required due to the tendency for the UltraChrome matte black to bleed when wet (if rubbed) or when scuffed with medium pressure by another sheet of paper, especially if that paper is heavily textured.
I tested the effect of a conventional cutting machine (which applies a
lot of downward force to keep paper from moving prior to cutting),
and I observed a very slight transfer of ink from a heavily printed
area of one sheet to the back of another sheet. The most damage will
be done if a printed sheet is turned on top of another while applying
pressure (like when rubbing one's hands together to keep warm). In a
book, this usually is not a problem.
I observed very little metamerism (shift in color when viewing between different light sources), which may be due to the paper and/or coating technology. Even under standard office-type fluorescent lighting, there was no pink cast in the neutrals, which I've seen with other coated inkjet papers. As I look more at the black and white, sepia, and blue-tone prints I made, I have to say that this paper really is unique; anyone who likes the look of platinum, Van Dyke Brown or Cyanotype printing should definitely test the paper.
One huge difference is the look of Harald's dye-based EPSON 1280 inks
on Bockingford Inkjet compared with the look of the UltraChrome inks.
The dye-based inks look a lot like the UltraChromes on other coated
inkjet papers (especially Somerset Velvet Enhanced Textured),
appearing to sit more on the surface of the paper. The UltraChromes
on the Bockingford, however, seem to be deep inside the textured
sheets. As Harald observed, the dye-based prints are still more
scratch resistant than with other papers, which makes Bockingford
Inkjet a good choice with dye-based inks destined for books or
promotional pieces. The overall look with dyes is much better than
with UltraChromes for those who want to print skin tones, although, in
that case, most will probably choose a smoother paper with either
inkset.
Disadvantages of the Bockingford Inkjet paper compared with two other papers I tested (Somerset Velvet Enhanced Textured and EPSON Enhanced Matte) are that the Bockingford has some mottling (see below, looks somewhat like very fine white dust) in some solid colors (mostly purples and blues).
Interestingly, when printing photographic or most art reproductions, the mottling seems to be less of a problem; you'll have to decide for yourself whether this is an issue or not. As a real challenge, I printed a photo of a purple iris from a series of flowers that I've been printing on my 7600 (see below), and although there is some visible mottling, in my opinion it isn't objectionable. Using Harald's prints as a comparison, the dye-based inkjet prints have much less mottling when compared to the UltraChrome-printed samples, and all of the dye colors appeared to perform equally with regard to mottling.
Another disadvantage for some will be the weight, which is rather thin compared with most coated art papers. It is similar (possibly a hair heavier) compared with Epson's Enhanced Matte, a paper with which most people are familiar.
DMAX:
EPSON 7600, UltraChromes, Bill Atkinson Enhanced Matte Profile
UltraChromes on Bock: 1.52
UltraChromes on SomVelvTextured: 1.53 (visually, it looks darker than
the numbers indicate compared with UltraChromes on Bockingford; this is probably attributed to the way the ink sits on the surface with the Somerset Velvet Textured as opposed to "in" the surface with the Bockingford)
UltraChromes on Epson's Enhanced Matte: 1.67
COLORS & PROFILES: My tests revealed results that surprised me, especially with regard to how specific rendering intents yielded very different color ramps when using the Atkinson profiles. For example, when using the Atkinson profile and Perceptual as a rendering intent, the color bars were brighter and the blue ramp printed with a very purple look. The Relative Colorimetric rendering resulted in more muted bright colors, especially the magentas, and the blue ramp printed more like a sky blue, except for the lighter areas, which had a purple cast. With the Eye-One profile, I saw no such shift when using different rendering intents.
Compared with Harald's dye-based inks from the 1280, the output is slightly less saturated, and the Dmax is also lower. However, the UltraChrome color is very vibrant and all images were very sharp, including 6 pt text.
Printing with black ink only is always an interesting experience, and in this case, the Bockingford Inkjet performed well, but not as well as the Enhanced Matte, especially in the midtones. This was with no profiles from an RGB file, using the Enhanced Matte paper setting. With some tweaking, better prints were achieved, but because of very little metamerism with the use of all seven inks, there is no good reason in my opinion to use black ink only.
DURABILITY & WATERFASTNESS: My tests were similar to Harald's, but I added the "saliva test," which I did with a bit of water for sanitary reasons. I flicked some luke-warm water drops at the test print and rubbed lightly, as if I had just deposited a bit of, well, spit on the print. If left untouched, the print dried safely, but if the area hit had some black in it, the area bled slightly when rubbed, which could be a big problem in a wedding or commercially bound book, where people might try to quickly clean up any such accidents.
Any areas with heavy black smudged into the margin when heavily rubbed near a white border (see photo below), but normal handling did not cause any problems. A light spray coating of Krylon Crystal Clear Acrylic Coating offered some protection, but not much. Heavier spray coats would definitely add to the protection of the surface, but a proper ventilation system is needed. For those who want to print wedding/event books, many companies do spraying, mounting on board, and binding for as little as $150 for a 24 page coffee-table quality album. I will add to this that if you do have a professional company do this type of work, almost any inkjet or photo print will be well-protected after spraying, and the texturization process makes smooth papers like Epson's Enhanced Matte appear look very nice.
I also did water immersion tests with the Bockingford Inkjet and Epson's Enhanced Matte papers. After a few seconds, the Bockingford bled slightly from the very dark areas (dark end of the stepwedge), but the Enhanced Matte did not. Both papers bled or easily scratched when taken out of the water after a few seconds if rubbed with any light finger (or fingernail) pressure. After 24 hours, there was virtually no change when compared with immersion after just a few seconds.
I did some experiments on sections of one of the prints to see how the paper withstood an acrylic coating and to determine whether I liked the overall change in the surface appearance. I think that
there is great potential in using coatings, whether brush or spray-applied, to increase Dmax and improve surface strength. Interestingly enough, the Dmax of the Bockingford did not increase as much as papers like Epson's Enhanced Matte or Somerset Velvet Enhanced.
I did three different coating applications: all gloss, all matte, and a 50/50 mix, which is usually my favorite. The products I used were Liquitex Gloss Medium &Varnish (for Acrylics) and Liquitex Acrylic Matte Permanent Varnish. I applied the coatings with an inexpensive black foam brush purchased at a local home improvement store.
The all-gloss coating caused some bleeding of the dark colors, which can be avoided by applying a few coats of an acrylic spray, like Krylon Crystal Clear, prior to application. The all-matte coating caused no streaking, but a coat of Acrylic spray is suggested to assure that no bleeding occurs. My favorite look, a 50/50 mix did not bleed either, and it looked best, in my opinion. I would recommend mounting the Bockingford to a more rigid surface before coating, which will eliminate the waviness that occurs. If mounted to a very rigid surface, like masonite, the board can serve as a frame, without the need for glass.
