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.
The annoying thing is that I've been waiting for some time and energy to
run out a few demo tricolors for the web page I've been working on, and
finally found some of both this weekend, but squandered them on trying
out this useless paper, and don't know when I'll get another chance. Oh
well! I'm always a sucker for any hint that maybe my favorite paper is
back in form.
Katharine
Received on Sun Nov 28 18:43:54 2004
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 12/08/04-10:51:34 AM Z CST