Comparison To Standard Office Paper
Standard office paper has traditionally been designed for use with typewriters and copy machines, where the paper usually does not get wet. With these types of paper, moisture tends to wick through the fibers away from the point of contact to form a disk. For an inkjet paper, this spreading results in the ink spreading out in the fibers to form a large smudge which lacks pigment intensity.
High-quality inkjet printing with dark, crisp lines requires the paper to have exactly the right degree of absorbency to accept the ink but prevent its sideways spread. Many general-purpose office papers of weights around 21 to 27 lb (80–100 g/m²) have been reformulated so that they can be used equally well with both inkjet and laser printers. However, this category of paper is only suitable for printing text, because the ink load is light.
When paper is manufactured, it is formed from a fiber mat that collects on an open mesh screen, which is then dried and pressed flat and smooth. Large areas of inkjet color, such as found in graphics and photographs, soak the paper fibers with so much moisture that they swell and return to their original shape from before pressing, resulting in a wavy buckling of the paper surface.
Double-sided inkjet printing is usually not possible with inexpensive low-weight copy paper because of bleed-through from one side to the other. Heavier weight paper works better due to the thickness of the fibers limiting bleed-through.
These papers are also unsuitable for photographic work because standard office paper is usually not "white" enough. This results in a poor color gamut and leads to colors being described as "muddy".
For all types of paper, the settings in the printer driver must be adjusted to suit the paper, so that the right amount of ink is delivered.
Read more about this topic: Inkjet Paper
Famous quotes containing the words comparison to, comparison, standard, office and/or paper:
“In comparison to the French Revolution, the American Revolution has come to seem a parochial and rather dull event. This, despite the fact that the American Revolution was successful—realizing the purposes of the revolutionaries and establishing a durable political regime—while the French Revolution was a resounding failure, devouring its own children and leading to an imperial despotism, followed by an eventual restoration of the monarchy.”
—Irving Kristol (b. 1920)
“The comparison between Coleridge and Johnson is obvious in so far as each held sway chiefly by the power of his tongue. The difference between their methods is so marked that it is tempting, but also unnecessary, to judge one to be inferior to the other. Johnson was robust, combative, and concrete; Coleridge was the opposite. The contrast was perhaps in his mind when he said of Johnson: “his bow-wow manner must have had a good deal to do with the effect produced.””
—Virginia Woolf (1882–1941)
“We don’t want bores in the theatre. We don’t want standardised acting, standard actors with standard-shaped legs. Acting needs everybody, cripples, dwarfs and people with noses so long. Give us something that is different.”
—Dame Sybil Thorndike (1882–1976)
“We have two kinds of “conference.” One is that to which the office boy refers when he tells the applicant for a job that Mr. Blevitch is “in conference.” This means that Mr. Blevitch is in good health and reading the paper, but otherwise unoccupied. The other type of “conference” is bona fide in so far as it implies that three or four men are talking together in one room, and don’t want to be disturbed.”
—Robert Benchley (1889–1945)
“It is hard to believe that England is so near as from your letters it appears; and that this identical piece of paper has lately come all the way from there hither, begrimed with the English dust which made you hesitate to use it; from England, which is only historical fairyland to me, to America, which I have put my spade into, and about which there is no doubt.”
—Henry David Thoreau (1817–1862)