July 2005 Non-rag Substrates: Fact vs. Fiction 100% Cotton rag-based, acid-free paper has long been the standard raw material used for fine art substrates. Cotton is one of the strongest and most durable natural fibers known to man. Papers manufactured from cotton fiber are perceived to last longer and hold up better under repeated handling and various environmental conditions than paper made from other known fibers such as, wood pulp. The feel of a cotton fiber sheet of paper is typically more appealing than the stiffness or hardness of a wood fiber sheet. Using a cotton fiber paper beneath an image offers a sense of quality, durability, prestige, and permanence. While its reputation is well deserved, 100% cotton should be reexamined on a cost versus reward basis. Printmakers, Self-Publishing Artists and Photographers are in the business of selling art. In order for this group of entrepreneurs to achieve lasting success, all of their sales and marketing strategies should serve the fundamental purpose of selling more art, at the highest possible profit margin. Output/print quality, customer service, advertising, business signage, marketing materials, etc. are examples of legitimate expenditures within the digital printmakers' most advantageous art sales strategy. Recognizing and implementing a good strategy is extremely important for small businesses, as it is a fundamental tool for increasing sales and profitability. Likewise, the ability to recognize and confront a bad strategy or one that does not increase sales, is a critically important process in facilitating long-term growth and stability for any small business. The question then becomes whether the exclusive use of 100% cotton-rag base-material (hereinafter referred to as “R” for “Rag”) is good strategy now that far less-expensive, “quality-equivalent” alternatives exist. The debatable question is this: If quality-equivalent alternatives to Rag exist, do they have a viable place in the art and photographic markets? The answer seems to be most clearly yes but not as an across the board replacement for Rag. A good example of a “quality-equivalent alternative” is an archival alpha cellulose paper. Alpha cellulose is a high grade wood pulp that is acid and lignin free (hereinafter referred to as “AC”). It can typically be purchased at half the cost of Rag and in some cases even less than that. Because digital printmakers are recognizing the opportunity to cut their costs AC is rapidly gaining popularity. A specific AC paper may be considered a quality-equivalent to Rag, when its inkjet receptive coating can reproduce equal or better color-gamut, detail (dot precision/gain), and longevity by comparison. It is a measurable fact that industry-leading AC papers can reproduce color and detail as well as industry-leading Rag papers. The explanation for this is simple; color gamut and detail are properties largely determined by the inkjet receptive coating which can be applied to any base material/substrate. In fact, a number AC papers with equal or superior color-gamut and detail to R are already widely available. The issue of longevity is also measurable and has been documented by well-known testing facilities namely the Wilhelm Research Institute. ( http://www.wilhelm-research.com/pdf/WIR_Ep9600_2003_07_26.pdf ) This page on Wilhelm's website suggests that base paper materials alone, are not a clear indicator of a paper's potential lifespan. For example, Epson's alpha cellulose, which is acid free, lignin free, buffered wood-pulp fine art paper called “Epson Watercolor Paper – Radiant White (Non-R)” has permanence results of greater than 98 years under glass, where as “Epson Velvet Fine Art Paper (R)” has permanence results of only 61 years under glass, and “Epson Somerset Velvet Fine Art Paper (R)” has permanence results of 62 years under glass. The only seemingly relevant argument made in support of R, however subjective, is that R simply feels better in your hand. As a business owner you must ask yourself, does “feel” sell more art? It is not common practice for an art buyer to sample the “feel” before making an acquisition of a favored work of art, which is usually framed behind glass and was originally created to be visually stimulating and aesthetically pleasing to the eye, not the hand. Art buyers don't care about feeling art…they care about how it looks. They care about how the art will fit into their home or office. So if the art buyer does not buy based upon “feel”, why should we create art based upon this criteria? A self-publishing fine artist/photographer who may spend $20,000/year exclusively using R could cut this in half to $10,000/year using AC. This puts an additional $10,000/year in their pocket without effecting art sales. For this reason alone, printmakers as a whole should always strive to use Non-R unless R is specifically demanded by a customer and knowledge-based persuasion is not feasible. Remember: The artists using AC are getting the same gallery placement and dollar value for their art as the artists using the more costly R. The only difference is that one of them is making a much higher profit margin from each sale. The purpose of this article is to encourage critical thinking. It does not necessarily reflect the views of management. Please send all comments to razorsedge@breathingcolor.com.