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)
“But the best read naturalist who lends an entire and devout attention to truth, will see that there remains much to learn of his relation to the world, and that it is not to be learned by any addition or subtraction or other comparison of known quantities, but is arrived at by untaught sallies of the spirit, by a continual self-recovery, and by entire humility.”
—Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803–1882)
“If the Revolution has the right to destroy bridges and art monuments whenever necessary, it will stop still less from laying its hand on any tendency in art which, no matter how great its achievement in form, threatens to disintegrate the revolutionary environment or to arouse the internal forces of the Revolution, that is, the proletariat, the peasantry and the intelligentsia, to a hostile opposition to one another. Our standard is, clearly, political, imperative and intolerant.”
—Leon Trotsky (1879–1940)
“At first, it must be remembered, that [women] can never accomplish anything until they put womanhood ahead of wifehood, and make motherhood the highest office on the social scale.”
—“Jennie June” Croly 1829–1901, U.S. founder of the woman’s club movement, journalist, author, editor. Demorest’s Illustrated Monthly and Mirror of Fashions, pp. 24-5 (January 1870)
“Do you call it doubting to write down on a piece of paper that you doubt? If so, doubt has nothing to do with any serious business. But do not make believe; if pedantry has not eaten all the reality out of you, recognize, as you must, that there is much that you do not doubt, in the least. Now that which you do not at all doubt, you must and do regard as infallible, absolute truth.”
—Charles Sanders Peirce (1839–1914)