Photography

24 readers

1 users here now

A place to politely discuss the tools, technique and culture of photography.

This is not a good place to simply share cool photos/videos or promote your own work and projects, but rather a place to discuss photography as an art and post things that would be of interest to other photographers.

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

communick@viewfinder.pro

Marking the Back of Epson Ultra Premium Luster Paper - Does Archival Even Matter? (alien.top)

submitted 11 months ago by dizzymizzy@alien.top to c/photography@viewfinder.pro

3 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Hi, everyone!

I am making prints using Epson Ultra Premium Luster Paper. The backside of the paper is quite slick and doesn't take a lot of archival pens well. I've tried a variety of archival pens (Mircon, etc.) to no avail. Some non-archival marker options (Sharpie, Copic, Staedtler Lumocolor, etc.) work okay, but they're not archival/acid free. Sakura Pen-Touch works great, and it is archival, but it is a paint-based marker (with a marble in it) and it lays down paint thickkkkk.

Few questions:

Has anyone had success finding an archival pen/ink that works well with this stock?
Does archival even matter in the real world?
If we shouldn't bother signing our prints (as some have suggested on this subreddit elsewhere), what else might one do to add a special touch to a print you're trying to sell?

top 3 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] notforcommentinohgoo@alien.top 1 points 11 months ago

Use a sticker?

TBH it doesn't need to be archival, it's not gonna fade if it's on the back

[–] JohannesVerne@alien.top 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I'm pretty sure Copics are archival (basically anything considered lightfast in the traditional arts is the same as archival for photography, and Copic markers are definitely pro art supplies), and those or sharpies should be perfectly fine. Especially signing the back of a print.

As far as whether it matters or not is dependent on how long you want it to last without fading. On the back of a print it's really not an issue for the ink fading, I've got some old family prints filed away from 60+ years ago where the writing on the back is still perfectly fine. Obviously the paper is different, but there also wasn't any particular care for what pen/ink was used. I'd recommend against a regular ballpoint pen, but that's more because it's more likely to indent the paper than any longevity issues with the ink. If it's not going to be exposed to UV/sunlight regularly, being archival doesn't make much difference unless you expect the shot to be on display for more than a few hundred years. Although even in that case, the photo itself is more likely to have fading issues than a signature on the back.

[–] dizzymizzy@alien.top 1 points 11 months ago

Thanks. Some Copics are archival (multi liner) but the standard ones aren't as far as I know. In fact, I hear they're pretty poor in regard to fading with or without light. The Copic multi-liner pens don't take well on the paper — they don't dry.

Anyway, I'm experimenting with some other options now. The Pentel Hybrid Technica archival/pigment pen seems to work, but the larger nib doesn't put down ink as well as the finer nibs (for some strange reason). But the acid-free fine-point paint pens would work if they were so opaque and think. No bleeding or anything like that... it doesn't show through unless you hold the print to the light and look through it.