Re: [Digital BW] Arches watercolor roll paper
- I don't envy you in hunting for dust specks before printing on a piece
of paper that size. It's so easy to miss a tiny speck and end up with a
flake, which seldom happens in a really dark patch which would make
spotting the print easier! (I use a bright desk lamp and brush and
usually pick them up ... but not always.)
Thanks for sharing this,
On 12/12/2012 6:38 a.m., Paul wrote:
> I printed my first large panorama on Arches paper that is sold in
> rolls. In this case it was a 51 inch by 10 yard roll
> <http://www.utrechtart.com/Paper,Arches.utrecht>. I sliced off 24
> inches from the roll and printed it in the 7800 with the Eboni-HP
> inkset <http://www.paulroark.com/BW-Info/7800-EbHP-2013.pdf>.
> The bottom line is that it appears to have worked quite well.
> The hardest part was flattening the tightly rolled Arches. This
> uncoated watercolor paper (the real thing, not inkjet paper), is
> internally sized with gelatin. I did not have a d-roller that was
> suitable, and I'm not sure if the small diameter one I have would be a
> good idea anyway. The painters have all sorts of recommendations for
> flattening Arches that also did not appeal.
> What I did was buy 2 melamine-coated 12 inch by 5 foot shelves that I
> put on top of the paper, with lightly dampened old wet darkroom Kodak
> blotter papers between the shelves and Arches. Humidity softens
> gelatin and the cellulose. So after sitting in this sandwich for a few
> hours the paper was quite flat -- sufficient that there were no head
> strikes on the paper.
> At any rate, Arches in large sizes works. It's a lot more work than
> the usual 22 x 30 "full sheet" sizes I usually use, and there is no
> "bright white" version of Arches in this size. As usual with Arches,
> QTR or other rip is essential, and it's not a paper or workflow I'd
> recommend for most printers.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]