Rock Paper: For Tree-Less Photo Printing
by John Laumer, Philadelphia 
on 02.14.06
Remember the Rosetta Stone, made in 196 B.C? , It’s still legible if you can find a cipher. Twenty two hundred years later, we have "rock paper", a newly-introduced computer photo print paper made "tree-free" and with powdered limestone as the major feedstock. Won't last as long as the Rosetta, but it looks like an improvement, which we'll get into after some circumspection. Photographic imagery became relatively short-lived in the confusing transition from press or chemical printing to digital. How many of our readers, for example, know whether their photo prints will outlast, or die before, their digital media? While color negatives from chemical photography typically hold up well for a at least a few decades, it is highly unlikely that that your grandchildren will be able to make use of today's digital “negatives". Whatever prints get handed down is what they'll be stuck with. Out hope is that computer printer designers can find a way to have customers pass on their vision and experiences without obligating their heirs to buying new technology several times each generation. It's the "less stuff" mantra, with a trans-generational slant.
Back in the days of Cibachrome prints you could take a color shot and be assured that the result could look the same in a half century. The tradeoff was a development chemistry that was complex, expensive, and somewhat hazardous for process workers. The more common color development processes were relatively benign, but gave results that are far less long-lived.
These days, with a market shift to small portable, photo-printers, like the pictured model from HP, chemical hazards and resource consumption issues have moved from the professional lab to the home. Skipping the camera store, we can print fewer images, saving resources. But, with the notable exception of HP's Photosmart, most small photo printers require you to buy paper and ink cartridges in a bundle pack. It's a business model made to capture your dollars and consume extra packaging. If you deplete one item faster than the other, too bad. Found a paper with great archival characteristics; there's no way to buy the ink separately. Sale priced house brand paper? Tough luck. Unless, that is, you get a model such as the HP Photosmart, which sells ink cartridges and paper separately!
Editorial aside: we think that recyclable photographic printing paper is an irrelevant idea (different than photo paper made of recycled fibers). The point is to make prints as beautiful and long lasting as possible. Longevity and image quality outweigh recycled content in importance, in other words.
Wet Negs/Hard Drives/CD's
Let’s suppose you or one of your photo-heirs is affected by a, leaky roof, plumbing leak, flood, or hurricane. With chemical photo negatives it is possible to dry them out to good as new if they are rescued with a matter of hours or days (not always feasible though obviously). The odds are not so good for rescuing an older hard drive. Who knows how long a photo CD would hold up when wet? Grandpa's computer with the CD reader will certainly not hold up to a wetting.
Wet Prints
A wet black and white print can can be rescued if you get to it before the mold does. But a color print is unlikely to come back to life with original quality. After a splash or immersion the dyes begin to leach, mold follows; and, ordinarily, curling and wrinkling result.
Rock Paper…Water?
It is common knowledge that printing papers for magazines and photography are coated with finely divided calcium carbonate: billions of tiny rock bits are impregnated, a la’ Rosetta. The carbonate coated fiber matrix is then overcoated with resins to make them brighter and hold onto the printing ink.
What if someone made a photographic print paper that was mainly rock? And had no water absorbing cellulose at all? Well, they have! A photo print paper is just now coming to market which is a lot more Rosetta-like and has a lot less tree. In fact, it is 80% calcium carbonate and 20% HDPE (polymer) at the core, with various ink absorbing and water proofing resin coats on the outer layers. For the time being the product name is “Rock Paper”.
We were given some samples of this “tree free” photo printing paper to try and found it quite interesting. Before we could try it out we had first to take a trip to "Staples" to figure out which printer to buy The Epson "PictureMate" promoted it’s archival ink, but gave no option for non-Epson paper. So HP Photosmart it was.
We printed the same picture first on 4 X 6 inch format HP matte paper and then a second time on the sample 4X6 matte finish “Rock Paper”. The prints appeared almost identical. Though, in bright light, we think the HP paper had a bit more brilliance.
Next came the flood test. After two hours in a pan of water the image printed on HP paper got quite blurry; colors bled and changed; and the coating resin turned slippery. On drying, it's edges curled up severely. Much better for the Rock Paper sample. Only a little bit of red ink bled. No blurring or resin disolution at all. Upon drying it returned to being flat and looked almost identical to an unwet copy of the print. Here's the result, shown as a picture of two almost dried, overlapping computer prints. [Note that the overall graininess is partly an artifact of reducing the digital file size as a convenience for those readers with "dial up".]
Here are some of the test “Rock Paper” specs:
• Glossy has a 10.4 mil thickness.
• Matte finish is 8 Mil.
• Very durable, tear resistant.
• Smear resistance high.
• Good archival qualities.
• No trees or other wood by-products added.
• Resolution 3000 dpi+
The soon-to-be distributor of the Rock Paper, John Shu, states that “our mission and expectation of this product is to simply give the eco-conscious buyer…a viable option to conventional paper printing that is both comparable in price and quality whereby reducing the need to cut down another tree” Note: TreeHugger does not sell anything. If you have comments or questions, please direct them to John Shu at PAPERROCKS@GMAIL.COM
We think the Rock Paper product has promise; but the test printing experience surfaced for us the serious long range resource consumption and archival storage issues associated with consumer digital photography.
From a TreeHugger view, the ideal business model for photo printers would match archival quality color inks with archival quality papers. The paper and inks would be highly water, stain, and mold resistant, and the maker would sell the works in minimalist packaging, with an option to buy components separately.
If in another century, our digital "negs" are lost or separated from a treasured print, at least we consumers of today would have done the best we can to keep history alive for future generations. New mantra: today's business model is tomorrow's cipher.
Follow @TreeHugger on Twitter & get our headlines with @TH_rss!
Thirsty for more? Check out these related articles:
- Surf Green with Eco-Friendly Surf Gear
- Your Idle Computer Can Save Lives
- How Thailand Taught Me to Give Up Toilet Paper for Good
- Plant a Chestnut Tree, Get More Carbon Offset For Your Buck
- Make Your Own T-Shirt: Empire Waist With A Personal Touch
- 5 Staycations You Can Take At Home
Why won't digital negatives be readable? As long as there's one piece of code out there for parsing .JPGs, you're able to see the negatives.
That is, of course, if you don't keep them on memory cards.
=== author's reponse follows =====
The number of file types in use by camera makers and software designers is large and changes are always croping up. I expect the copyright battles to significantly reshape the frontier of digital imagery. In a century *.jpg may be as antiquarian as an Elvis decanter. Because we can not predict the future of digital standards with any precision, paper is the only reliable bet for me.
this seems like a misstep. certainly we can all agree that using less trees to make paper benefits society. but the alternative is limestone? a naturally occuring mineral that must be mined from the ground is neither renewable nor sustainable. and without delving into chemistry (nor knowing exactly how the paper is made), lime and limestone are often used as soil amendments to raise pH. what would a landfill full of this stuff do to ground pH and the biological processes needed for it to decompose?
==== author's response follows =====
I've some good news for you. Calcium carbonate: a.k.a. "limestone", or "calcite" is renewable as it is "made" from the ancient exoskeletons of precipitated marine diatoms. The amount of available limestone close to the earth's surface, and easily mined is vast. The post is focused upon Rock Paper for permanently archived photographs and not for newspapers, packaging, or magazines. Only a small portion of the very small volume of calcite needed for photos would ever make it to a landfill. Here in the landfil we have more good news. Calcium carbonate is an ideal buffer for the acid leachate which is produced in all landfills. The presence of dissolved hydrion ion (H+) with calcite yields a calcium salt like calcium chloride and Carbon Dioxide gas. Diatoms take C02 up and convert it back to calcium carbonate, completing the bio-geochemical cycle.
I disagree with your assessment of digital preservation. If a negative is scratched or damaged, the underlying image is lost. Copying negatives is not an easy thing to do. With digital files, you can make as many copies as you want easily, thus reducing the risk of lost files. It is also very easy to convert files from one file type to another in the event that a certain file type (say, jpg) is not used much in the future. The main concern would be the media you keep the file stored on. For example, files kept on 5 1/4" floppy drives would be difficult to read now regardless of the file types, just due to the fact that not many people have access to those drives anymore.
I work for a very large data archive, and most of our collection have been moved to digital format because of the archival ability of the format, and the ability to easily make multiple copies for disaster recovery. Just as you would use archival quality paper and inks, you must also use archival level file types for a digital archive (ascii for text, or tiff for images for example).
The best digital format that I know of is still likely magnetic tape. But this is impractical for common persons. The best thing to do is to back up the digital images (in different formats) with your ISP and let them worry about how to 'best' store it; also maintain backups of your own on whatever technology is convenient, in case the ISP goes -kerplop-. This requires work, but allows you to keep all those embarrasing baby pictures, no matter what.
[quote]Calcium carbonate: a.k.a. "limestone", or "calcite" is renewable as it is "made" from the ancient exoskeletons of precipitated marine diatoms.[/quote]
By that logic petroleum "made" from ancient ferns should also be considered renewable. You should correct yourself.
==== author's response follows====
I had the same thought myself after posting and was going to edit to align with your statement --- but then realized the difference. Plankton still bloom actively and carbonic acid constantly forms by C02 dissolution in the ocean, leading to constant re-formation/precipitation of carbonates. Petroleum is not being formed now as it once was however. Quite the opposite: primary production on land is lessening due to forest clearing, erosion, and drought.
It's been a long while since I studied water- and geo-chemistry so I may have some of the details mixed up and will stand corrected if any recent graduates can comment on these principles.
To further on Kelric's post on preservation, by having bit-for-bit copies floating around, it is less likely that photos will be forever "lost". In the past it was one negative then multiple prints from it. These days we have the opportunity to easily distribute the digital negatives.
As for "tree-less", my solution is to not make prints. I have printed 5 photographs in the last year. My sharing and viewing is almost exclusively via the internet. I have absolutely no fear that .jpg, RAW, or that all digital files will be going the wayside anytime soon. Digital info will always be able to be transferred to newer media, and in the case of photos, without loss of quality.
=== author's response follows ====
I don't think I got my point across very well. Imagine your heirs three generations from now. Can you imagine how it today's technology will seem them, as they come upon a pile of antique technology in a basement? It would be like us looking at an old 8086 IBM with a 5 & 1/2 in twin-floppy. Do you suppose they will take the time to go through the thousands of files you left behind, to delve into the fate of ISP contracts long lapsed and find machines to pour through cryptically labeled back up media?
Your confidence in file transference across generatons hinges upon continuity of maintenance and steady attention paid to labels and the paying of bills. Been to enough estate sales to know that it seldom ends up that way. Hope that is more clear.
One other negative (if you'll pardon the pun) of digital photography not mentioned here - looking at a printed photo does not require any electricity!!
Viewing your photos through a PC running at 250w, with a 100w monitor, from a server running 24/7 maybe 2000 miles away does not sound like a long-term sustainable solution.
===== author's response follows =====
Superb comment. It's those kind of insights that keep us writers awake (why didn't I think of that?) and the community of readers involved.
No worries John, I understand your point, I just disagree.
"Imagine your heirs three generations from now...as they come upon a pile of antique technology in a basement?"
I am currently working with 8mm and 16mm film that my grandfather and great grandfather filmed. The stuff is over 50 years old and, coincidentally, some is 3 generations away from me. I am converting old tech to DV by way of a modern telecine machine. The reason I am converting it is because my grandfather has no way to view it; the last projector he had went belly-up 10+ years ago. However, because this format was so commonplace for many years, there are services available to convert it to something easily manageable by today's standards.
My feeling is that this will be the same for digital images. Even if a popular tech goes the wayside, there will always be a way to transfer it to a modern platform. With digital, things are even simpler.
Attention to detail in labeling archives is important, I agree. But how many old photos have you come across that you have no idea who is in the picture, when it was taken, or where it was taken? With digital, some of this metadata is hardcoded in the file the minute the picture is taken, and the additional info is easy to add.
"looking at a printed photo does not require any electricity!!"
Most people look at photographs indoors, so most people do use electricity. As a requirment, printing the photo, scanning a photo, developing a photo, editing a photo, etc and etc, all require electricity.
Using electricity in of itself is not bad, so much as the source of said electricity. If my photos are hosted on a solar/wind powered server, and I access them via a computer using the same power generation, what is the problem? Additionally, computers are not the only way to view digital images. An ipod charged using a Solio is off the grid (as is a laptop using solar, for that matter). There are also picture frames, and digital paper is becoming more refined.
A thorough comparison between digital and print in terms of waste would be interesting. I think digital has a good chance of being overall less wasteful and power consuming thatn printed stuff.
==== author's response follows =====
Great comment. My concern is that there are three kinds of people technologically speaking: folks like you who enjoy wading into the thick; those who don't know what end of a hammer to pick up; and those who have not enough time to figure out which of these categories most fit them. The other major divide is poverty. Some folks are going to be lucky to have a closet to put what they inherit into. These things too change with the generations: e.g. you can't assume your grandkids will be like you (if you have some).
Sounds like someone has an HP bias, but doesn't have all the facts. While the HP printer does, in fact, allow you to buy its supplies separately, doing so provides you with a painfully higher cost-per-print. As well, as this photo printer's not on the higher range of photo quality, you also lose out on that. Its photo longevity is poor, and its prints have no water-resistance, whatsoever. As well, if you want to be talking about conservation, as its print heads are built into the cartridge this is another resource you're constantly forced to throw away and replace, adding to the waste. The Epson PictureMate, however, unlike your statement, DOES allow you to buy extra paper separately, allowing you to not waste a cartridge that isn't empty. While one could argue this is possible on other printers, I have yet to see a competing printer that, from typical use, even manages to print as many photos as sheets of paper included in the pack, muchless justify buying paper separately. The PictureMate, however, rarely ceases to print more than the guaranteed amount in the package.
Your article also doesn't take into account larger-format printers which have no such package limitations, and would allow you a much larger range of photo paper options without sacrificing photo quality by using an HP "photo" printer.
And rarely does printing on another brand of paper produce comparable results. Perhaps in a three-color, generic-quality photo printer such as the one you used the variance is minor, but when you start using quality photo printers, different brands of paper drastically reduce the print quality, and the consumer's left with something less than they expected.
==== author's response follows =====
No arguement with most of what you say. However, since we writers have no budget for purchasing printers and do the tests on our own, its less a matter of bias and more of budget. Moreover, after visiting four retail outlets that sold the PictureMate, I found not one that had the ink only in stock, but all had the ink./paper bundles. My guess is most people will be buying the bundles and tossing out whatever is left.
Can we assume the paper must be cut with rock paper scissors? I got a million of em, I tell ya.
As a quick followup comment, I'll correct my wording. The ink for the Epson PictureMate does not come separately. Only its paper does. The point is, though, that with the paper available on its own, and the ink cartridge guaranteed to last at least as long as the included paper, one will never find themselves in a position to waste ink because they have no paper left. One need only buy more photo paper and keep printing until the cartridge is empty, then buy a new combination ink/paper print pack, repeat the process, and when that paper runs out use what was left from the additional pack they bought to finish off the last cartridge. It's a never-ending, one-off type of system, but as long as the printer holds in there the system works quite efficiently and produces a very low cost-per-print.
Just to add some specifics to the Epson info. The ink pack does last longer than the paper that comes with it. For that reason, Epson sells 4x6 paper packs in premium glossy and premium semigloss that are compatible with the Picturemate. These are readily available and listed as compatible with the Picturemate on their web site.
I have owned and extensively used HP, Canon and Epson, and believe that Epson sets the bar for printers in this class. In my book, this printer gets high marks for conservation of resources, best longevity and color fastness of prints, at the lowest cost per print of any 4x6 printer.
If you want more info on stone paper/rock paper/viastone please go to www.NaturalSourcePrinting.com to read all about FiberStone™ stone paper.
Answers can be found there or by contacting Mary Loyer of Natural Source Printing (888) 551-4NSP/www.naturalsourceprinting.com FiberStone™ is a great alternative to paper and plastic. It's not a panacea but it is a 'greener' alternative to tree-killing, water wasting, energy consuming paper and plastics/films.
RAW, TIFF, JPG.. it doesn't matter. There will always be conversion utilities. You just have to remember to convert whenever a new radical technology comes out. JPG is a bad idea in general because it is compressed data and is not lossless so other formats are preferable first to keep as an archive.
And none of that will matter if you don't backup!
BEWARE!
As you may know, FiberStone also sometimes called Stone Paper, Rock Paper, or Paper Stone:
- is NOT BIODEGRADABLE or Compostable
- is PLASTIC-based. It is made with High-Density PolyEthylene(HDPE). This is a polyethylene thermoplastic made from petroleum.
- To be recycled it must be separated into recycling of SPI Resin Code #2 (same category of grocery bags which are no longer permitted in some environmentally conscious cities, e.g., San Francisco)
- There is extremely limited practical possibility that FiberStone is ever recycled.
- Most HDPE is produced in China
BEWARE!
As you may know, FiberStone also sometimes called Stone Paper, Rock Paper, or Paper Stone:
- is NOT BIODEGRADABLE or Compostable
- is PLASTIC-based. It is made with High-Density PolyEthylene(HDPE). This is a polyethylene thermoplastic made from petroleum.
- To be recycled it must be separated into recycling of SPI Resin Code #2 (same category of grocery bags which are no longer permitted in some environmentally conscious cities, e.g., San Francisco)
- There is extremely limited practical possibility that FiberStone is ever recycled.
- Most HDPE is produced in China