Katharine Thayer wrote:
>
> Christina Z. Anderson wrote:
> >
> But that doesn't mean it
> > hasn't changed since summertime. If you say it has, I'd be game to try it
> > again.
>
> Chris,
> I wouldn't waste my time if I were you; this new and "improved" (NOT!)
> Arches is a very weird paper. True, it has lost its stink, and it keeps
> a smoother surface than the old Arches after soaking, but it doesn't
> print gum for beans, and there aren't very many papers I would say that
> about. I've printed tricolors on it both sized and unsized and the
> results were unacceptable either way, IMO.
>
I could have been more specific here: I got speckles in the print (not
always but most of the time) whether the paper was unsized or sized; in
other words the problem with the inconsistency in the internal sizing
persists.
kt
Received on Sun Nov 28 20:45:02 2004
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 12/08/04-10:51:34 AM Z CST