Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Printing: Printers, Papers and Inks => Topic started by: Rusty on August 16, 2010, 11:35:56 pm
-
I'm doing some printing for the first time on Exhibition Fiber. Very pleased. I would like to know if it is advisable to protective spray baryta papers. The prints are to be matted and framed under glass. I've been using Hahnemuhle Protective Spray on matte papers with good results.
For those that sell prints and ship to customers do you protective spray baryta papers?
Thanks in advance for any suggestions
-
No. I do usually protect them by putting them in a plastic sleeve.
-
No. I do usually protect them by putting them in a plastic sleeve.
Ditto
-
I spray with Premier Art Print Shield, after letting the print "dry" (ie, out-gas) for at least two days.
Then I sleeve for delivery.
-
I'm doing some printing for the first time on Exhibition Fiber. Very pleased. I would like to know if it is advisable to protective spray baryta papers. The prints are to be matted and framed under glass. I've been using Hahnemuhle Protective Spray on matte papers with good results.
For those that sell prints and ship to customers do you protective spray baryta papers?
Thanks in advance for any suggestions
As far as I know, Exhibition Fiber is not a baryta paper.
Luc
-
To those using the plastic bags, I assume your talking about products like the "Crystal Clear" bags sold at places like clearbags.com and Frame Destination? Are you using these just for flat shipping/transport? I can the utility in that, but what about for shipping rolled prints in mailing tubes? I would have thought there might be risk of the plastic sleeve causing creases or kinks in the print, is that not an issue?
-
First the disadvantages: It goes without saying that spraying a print with a product like Premier Print Shield or HN Protective Spray (rumored to actually be the same product, but I can't confirm) is a nuisance, requires practice to get good at it and not have many rejects, and probably costs as much or more to apply in adequate thickness to the print surface as the ink used to make the print.
Now for the good news: With practice one can spray Premier Print Shield onto a gloss or luster type photo inkjet print and achieve an excellent conformal coating that doesn't radically alter the print surface texture but does enhance the gloss (well, maybe some folks won't like that, but then again some will), slightly boosts the color vibrance and dmax, essentially eliminates differential gloss and bronzing, and increases scratch and abrasion resistance. In my light fade testing, the Print shield also appears to significantly improve light fade resistance, not so much by absorbing UV energy (it's too thin a coating to do that ) but by retarding the photo oxidation rate. In other words, it is sealing the colorants into the microporous layer in a way that impedes air and moisture penetration (not completely but at least enough to improve fade resistance which for most pigment inks the fading tends to be a photo-oxidation type of chemical reaction).
One tip if you decide to try it on a "baryta type" inkjet paper. Learn to spray it heavy enough in each coating pass so that it achieves an obvious initial "wet look" but not so high that it runs and sags. This is a delicate balance that takes a little practice with a product like Print Shield because it is a very low viscosity "varnish" with low resin content and lots of solvent. However, it is this low viscosity property that allows one to achieve a thin conformal coating without the heavy "vinyl placemat" kind of laminated appearance that thicker resins would cause. I make each pass a dual pass. i.e. spray quickly left to right, then return over the same path right-to-left before moving downward a couple of inches and repeating. I generally make two full coats with about 10 minutes drying in between.
regards,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com
-
[...]One tip if you decide to try it on a "baryta type" inkjet paper. Learn to spray it heavy enough in each coating pass so that it achieves an obvious initial "wet look" but not so high that it runs and sags. This is a delicate balance that takes a little practice with a product like Print Shield because it is a very low viscosity "varnish" with low resin content and lots of solvent. However, it is this low viscosity property that allows one to achieve a thin conformal coating without the heavy "vinyl placemat" kind of laminated appearance that thicker resins would cause. I make each pass a dual pass. i.e. spray quickly left to right, then return over the same path right-to-left before moving downward a couple of inches and repeating. I generally make two full coats with about 10 minutes drying in between.
[...]
and this would still not have enough thickness to it for a significant UV blocking effect?
Sometimes I use Winsor & Newtons classic spray and other cheaper products without any UV blockers and get all the aforementioned positive changes in contrast, vibrance, blacks as well as scratch resistance. Is there a reason to use those specialized products with premium price? Till now I can't see any difference what so ever.
More often I use a UV blocking varnish/coating, MSA by Golden. Not as a spray, but in liquid form applied with a roller. With minimal practice it is possible to do thick and perfectly even coatings. In my opinion, they have the advantage of "encapsulating" the ink and maybe, of providing a thick enough layer of UV blocking by the same token.
cheers
nino
-
To those using the plastic bags, I assume your talking about products like the "Crystal Clear" bags sold at places like clearbags.com and Frame Destination? Are you using these just for flat shipping/transport? I can the utility in that, but what about for shipping rolled prints in mailing tubes? I would have thought there might be risk of the plastic sleeve causing creases or kinks in the print, is that not an issue?
Yes, Jeff, I am referring to Crystal Clear bags. I use them to display unprotected prints (no glass) and for shipping. I ship prints (matted and without matting) flat in Crystal Clear bags. Unrolling a fine art print is fraught with hazards in the hands of those without experience (as will be the case with many if not most buyers). I don't want to risk creases or kinks, and shipping flat between stiff cardboard may be more time consuming and expensive, but certainly more archival, IMO.
-
To those using the plastic bags, I assume your talking about products like the "Crystal Clear" bags sold at places like clearbags.com and Frame Destination? Are you using these just for flat shipping/transport?
I use them to hand the prints over to the clients, with or without over mat, but mostly with at least a backing, as even the most robust fine art papers are to soft, and could easily be damaged.
I can the utility in that, but what about for shipping rolled prints in mailing tubes?
Mailing tubes and thick, maybe even heavily varnished, fine art paper does not work together for me. How would you do that without ruining the paper while rolling it up?
I would have thought there might be risk of the plastic sleeve causing creases or kinks in the print, is that not an issue?
I never had an issue like that.
cheers
nino
-
and this would still not have enough thickness to it for a significant UV blocking effect?
Correct. UVc and UVb energy maybe, but ordinary window Glass filters most of that out, too, so not a big contributor to indoor fading. UVA (340-390 nanometer wavelength) will slip through for the most part. If it didn't, a paper like Epson Exhibition Fiber would totally turn from cool-white to warm-white appearance with the addition of the spray. It changes a little but not much.
Sometimes I use Winsor & Newtons classic spray and other cheaper products without any UV blockers and get all the aforementioned positive changes in contrast, vibrance, blacks as well as scratch resistance. Is there a reason to use those specialized products with premium price? Till now I can't see any difference what so ever.
I have no experience with the products you mention, but my sense is that any more expensive "varnish" that claims to have UV blockers but goes on as thin as Print shield isn't really going to be very effective as a UV shield. Besides that, fading occurs with visible, especially blue, wavelength radiation. Although not quite as potent photon for photon as UVA radiation, there's more of it in typical light sources (including daylight) and thus enough to fade the print even if all UV energy is excluded.
More often I use a UV blocking varnish/coating, MSA by Golden. Not as a spray, but in liquid form applied with a roller. With minimal practice it is possible to do thick and perfectly even coatings. In my opinion, they have the advantage of "encapsulating" the ink and maybe, of providing a thick enough layer of UV blocking by the same token.
Yes, a thicker coating increases protection (sometimes at the expense of print aethetics and sometimes not) but it's easy enough to verify the effectiveness of said coating as a UVa energy blocker. Just coat a portion of a high-OBA content paper like EEF and look at the uncoated versus coated portions with a Blacklight. If the coating is effectively blocking the UVA energy, both portions will look similar (ie.,no "glow" of fluorescence) under Blacklight.
-
Mailing tubes and thick, maybe even heavily varnished, fine art paper does not work together for me. How would you do that without ruining the paper while rolling it up?
The trick with mailing tubes and fine art prints is to pick a tube that has a sufficient diameter (more than the lousy 2 and 3 inch cores used to supply the paper which is the source of all the curling issues with paper supplied in roll format), and to roll the print with appropriate interleaf onto the outer surface of the tube, then put that assembly (plus a little extra bubble wrap) into a regular rectangular shipping box with dimensions just slightly larger than the tube. I use 1/16th inch polyethylene foam as the interleaf (very cheap, good chemical inertness, and excellent anti-abrasion resistance with delicate print surfaces) and I typically purchase 6 inch diameter tubes. This packaging method may not be the cheapest, but it is very effective with large prints, and while I have no first-hand knowledge of packaging heavily varnished prints, my guess is that the gentle pressure on the print from a 6-inch or greater tube diameter will easily accommodate a thick varnish.
-
I use glassine interleaving between prints-matte or photo black papers- when I roll roll them for shipping. Never had a problem. Light tissue paper is another alternative.
I use them to hand the prints over to the clients, with or without over mat, but mostly with at least a backing, as even the most robust fine art papers are to soft, and could easily be damaged.
Mailing tubes and thick, maybe even heavily varnished, fine art paper does not work together for me. How would you do that without ruining the paper while rolling it up?
I never had an issue like that.
cheers
nino
-
I use glassine interleaving between prints-matte or photo black papers- when I roll roll them for shipping. Never had a problem. Light tissue paper is another alternative.
Rob,
did you actually have a look on the prints once they where unpacked? I worry about the curling. After a week or so rolled up in the tube, for international shipping up to four weeks, does the paper not curl terribly? I assume most of my customers would not want to, and would not know how to go about that. I wouldn't feel good about letting them uncurl the prints, last but not least because of my rather high prices for a quality product.
-
Tell the customer to decurl the print(s) on the same 4-6"roll for 24 hours. Make it easier for yourself and the customer by adding a long tail sheet to the core roll like used on all decurlers (that have a thinner core though). Cross cut view = Q but with a much longer tail.
met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst Dinkla
Try: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/
-
Tell the customer to decurl the print(s) on the same 4-6"roll for 24 hours. Make it easier for yourself and the customer by adding a long tail sheet to the core roll like used on all decurlers (that have a thinner core though). Cross cut view = Q but with a much longer tail.
met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst Dinkla
Try: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/
That's a good practice, though I would not see it fit if you ask for premium prices, to ask the client to do that? What do you think?
-
That's a good practice, though I would not see it fit if you ask for premium prices, to ask the client to do that? What do you think?
It is all too easy to crease a print when roll, unrolling, or d-rolling, at least it is in my hands. I'm good now, but there was a learning curve. I'm not going to put my customers to the task, I'm shipping prints flat.
-
It is all too easy to crease a print when roll, unrolling, or d-rolling, at least it is in my hands. I'm good now, but there was a learning curve. I'm not going to put my customers to the task, I'm shipping prints flat.
Well that's exactly what I meant.
Ernst, aren't you afraid of that? What is your view on this?
regards
nino
-
Rob,
did you actually have a look on the prints once they where unpacked? I worry about the curling. After a week or so rolled up in the tube, for international shipping up to four weeks, does the paper not curl terribly? I assume most of my customers would not want to, and would not know how to go about that. I wouldn't feel good about letting them uncurl the prints, last but not least because of my rather high prices for a quality product.
I have shipped over 100 13x19 prints over the past year (don't get excited; these were free prints to friends and work colleagues). I use 4 inch diameter mailing tubes and an archival cover sheet on the surface prior to rolling them up. I also provide brief instructions on how the prints should be framed and how to decurl them (basically the same thing that Ernst has noted in his reply). I've also rolled some sample prints and checked for surface scratches etc. and found that if one is careful there are no problems with this method of shipping (this has been confirmed by reports back from friends who have indicated no problems and the framers that they have used are grateful for the instructions as well).
-
I have shipped over 100 13x19 prints over the past year (don't get excited; these were free prints to friends and work colleagues). I use 4 inch diameter mailing tubes and an archival cover sheet on the surface prior to rolling them up. I also provide brief instructions on how the prints should be framed and how to decurl them (basically the same thing that Ernst has noted in his reply). I've also rolled some sample prints and checked for surface scratches etc. and found that if one is careful there are no problems with this method of shipping (this has been confirmed by reports back from friends who have indicated no problems and the framers that they have used are grateful for the instructions as well).
Yes, but they where your friends and colleagues. I understand it's feasible, especially if you give them good instruction as you and Ernst do. But what about paying customers, I mean high price customers(, maybe even very high ;)).
-
Yes, but they where your friends and colleagues. I understand it's feasible, especially if you give them good instruction as you and Ernst do. But what about paying customers, I mean high price customers(, maybe even very high ;)).
If I had high price customers (even a few moderate paying customers would be welcome), I would ship matted and framed prints! ;D I have an Epson 3880 printer so I really don't go beyond 13x19 prints and that size of paper is pretty resilient. It's easy enough for you to test decurling at home with a test print or two. I think you will find that it works out quite well. In addition, any capable framer will insure that the print is flattened correctly prior to framing.
-
If I had high price customers (even a few moderate paying customers would be welcome), I would ship matted and framed prints! ;D
Well, most of th time they have their interior designers, and or their wifes wanting/having to take car of that.
I have an Epson 3880 printer so I really don't go beyond 13x19 prints and that size of paper is pretty resilient.
Me too, but I go up to 16x20 usually on it. The rest goes to a 44" Epson.
[...] In addition, any capable framer will insure that the print is flattened correctly prior to framing.
Oh thank you! That's the key phrase I was waiting for! With your permission, I'll quote you from now on in my material ;) " Any capable framer will insure that the print is flattend prior to framing". I will even add: DO NOT try to do it yourself!
regards
nino
-
Well that's exactly what I meant.
Ernst, aren't you afraid of that? What is your view on this?
regards
nino
I tend to forget that you are working within the sizes a 3800 can handle. With a 44" printer it gets much more expensive to ship them flat and with enough protection. Given enough large prints I drive to my customer, prints stacked on a pallet. Otherwise they are rolled as described, already reversed to the curl direction they had on the virgin inkjet paper roll so the chance they are curled at arrival is already more reduced. Rolling with a paper sheet tail on a 4 to 6"core isn't that difficult and that core diameter is already giving less curl memory. The customer gets the instruction. The framer has his own responsibilities and will know the decurl trick anyway. At least the one that receives the prints on roll from me never complained on the shipping method.
met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst Dinkla
Dinkla Gallery Canvas Wrap Actions for Photoshop
http://www.pigment-print.com/dinklacanvaswraps/index.html
-
[...] Otherwise they are rolled as described, already reversed to the curl direction they had on the virgin inkjet paper roll so the chance they are curled at arrival is already more reduced. [...]
That is indeed a very useful and important addition to your instructions that you just gave me! For the very large prints, I'll roll them up against the original curl. Thank you again!
regards
nino
-
I tend to forget that you are working within the sizes a 3800 can handle. With a 44" printer it gets much more expensive to ship them flat and with enough protection. Given enough large prints I drive to my customer, prints stacked on a pallet. Otherwise they are rolled as described, already reversed to the curl direction they had on the virgin inkjet paper roll so the chance they are curled at arrival is already more reduced. Rolling with a paper sheet tail on a 4 to 6"core isn't that difficult and that core diameter is already giving less curl memory. The customer gets the instruction. The framer has his own responsibilities and will know the decurl trick anyway. At least the one that receives the prints on roll from me never complained on the shipping method.
True enough with the larger prints, shipping something flat larger than 30x20 is impractical to a certain extent, even 20x30 is a hassle. I have plenty of stiff flat cardboard at no cost to me, and as long as my supply remains free of charge, I'll stick with shipping flat. For something larger than 30x20, I have yet to cross that bridge, but will certainly keep the roll-up option open. Thank you for the details.
-
More often I use a UV blocking varnish/coating, MSA by Golden. Not as a spray, but in liquid form applied with a roller. With minimal practice it is possible to do thick and perfectly even coatings. In my opinion, they have the advantage of "encapsulating" the ink and maybe, of providing a thick enough layer of UV blocking by the same token.
Nino, would you mind describing your coating process / methodology?
Terry.
-
I use the Hahnemuehle Protective Spray and it doesnt seem to work at all with real baryta based inkjet papers. For example while everything works how it should with Epson Traditional Photo (Ex. Fiber), Canson Infinity Baryta doesnt seem to respond to the protective spray at all. After spraying and drying it just stays on the surface of the print and leaves many ugly spots everywhere, eg you can clearly follow where you sprayed, while spraying on EEF comes out perfectly, you would never guess some kind of coating got applied to it.
I still love the effect of the spray on the epson paper. I print "poster" kind of images which are never framed and these papers are seriously fragile, i wouldnt even dare to sell them without somekind of protection. If you are framing anyway and i dont really see the need for a protective coating. If anyone knows of a coating that works on the Canson please let me know ;D
-
I use the Hahnemuehle Protective Spray and it doesnt seem to work at all with real baryta based inkjet papers. For example while everything works how it should with Epson Traditional Photo (Ex. Fiber), Canson Infinity Baryta doesnt seem to respond to the protective spray at all. After spraying and drying it just stays on the surface of the print and leaves many ugly spots everywhere, eg you can clearly follow where you sprayed, while spraying on EEF comes out perfectly, you would never guess some kind of coating got applied to it.
Mike, try holding the can about 10-12 inches from the surface (positioned almost vertically), using relatively heavy overlapping strokes, and running slow enough to get a "wet look" but not so slow as to get runs in the coating. I've finished the Canson Platine (a baryta paper) quite successfully with HN protective spray. I also tried a small test sample of the Canson Baryta Photographique with Premier Print shield (very similar if not in fact the same product as HN protective spray) with good results. But even applying with a solid coat, one still needs a minimum of two coats total because some of these papers really suck up the spray in the media white and image highlight areas. I believe I've seen the effect you are describing if trying to apply a light or medium spray coat. IGFS is probably the champion at sucking up gloss optimizers and protective sprays, but the Canson "traditional photo" papers aren't far behind!
kind regards,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com
-
It seems that we are quite a few trying to finally free our prints from the glass :).
Mike,
Just search for videos on "Print shield" and all the other brands, and very helpful instructional videos will show up. Golden paint Web site has very good ones on their MSA varnish, both in spray and liquid (I have no relation what so ever to this brand, it just happens to be the only liquid print coating with an additional UV blocking effect available in Tel Aviv. I would very much like to be proven wrong on that one!). I learned it from those videos and from my experience with coating regular oil paintings on canvas. You will need to experiment with each paper and ink combination. In my experience there is no two papers alike. Some I find very easy, like the wonderful Hahnemuhle Photo Rag Baryta. I simply can't do anything wrong with it (Just why must it be so incredibly expensive!?). Some are terribly difficult for me, like my favorite, the Canson Platine. The problem with the Canson Platine seams to be that it soaks up unevenly the coating liquid, like Golden MSA for example, when it is applied thickly as a first coating, creating little whole-like darker spots all over. When pre-coated lightly with any kind of varnish spray, I found that you do not need to use any particular brand, just do it lightly. After that sealing one might have to finish this sealing with a second light coat, that's what I have to do with the Platine. Then in the end, I apply with a roller, one or two very thick coats of MSA varnish, which exists in Gloss, Satin, and Mat and can be mixed to create any degree of gloss in between. While printing, I compensate for the general darkening of tones created by the gloss. In the future, as mentioned, I want to create a profile for that final result. Matt, on the other hand, makes everything lighter.
kind regards
nino
-
Mike, try holding the can about 10-12 inches from the surface (positioned almost vertically), using relatively heavy overlapping strokes, and running slow enough to get a "wet look" but not so slow as to get runs in the coating. I've finished the Canson Platine (a baryta paper) quite successfully with HN protective spray. I also tried a small test sample of the Canson Baryta Photographique with Premier Print shield (very similar if not in fact the same product as HN protective spray) with good results. But even applying with a solid coat, one still needs a minimum of two coats total because some of these papers really suck up the spray in the media white and image highlight areas. I believe I've seen the effect you are describing if trying to apply a light or medium spray coat. IGFS is probably the champion at sucking up gloss optimizers and protective sprays, but the Canson "traditional photo" papers aren't far behind!
kind regards,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com
Mark,
I find this spraying technique very difficult for my images from the 44" and 60" printer. What do you do in regard to that?!
cheers
nino
-
Do you work on loose or already, in some way, mounted prints? IMO for small prints, up to 17"wide, it does not matter. For large 44" and very large up to 60" prints, I simply find it easier to handle them (turn and move them around), when they are already stiffer because of the mounting. So I can't talk about warping and bucklig in this regard. That said, my experience covers only my two papers that I use for big archival prints, Canson Platine and the outrageously expensive and inconsistent HM PR Baryta. (For things not in contact with light I use Harman Gloss FB AL Warmtone, because for me, it has the nicest of all surfaces. One day there will hopefully be such a surface for an archival cotton rag). Otherwise, for best punch and gamut, I use Epson Semi-gloss and even Semimatte without coating and glass (Yes, and one day, when we finally will get rid of all these marketing trends and fashions, like the horrible, make my photo look like cr@# canvases and matte papers ;D, there will hopefully be an RC-like paper that is perceived as archival enough). Just put up a "Do not touch!"-sign in the gallery ;)
-
Mark,
I find this spraying technique very difficult for my images from the 44" and 60" printer. What do you do in regard to that?!
cheers
nino
I must confess I haven't attempted to coat prints larger than 17x22 with spray products like HN Protective Spray or Premier Print Shield. It seems to me that to routinely overcoat any significant quantity of large prints one would really need to set up a more professional spray booth and work with HVLP spray guns or the like. I also haven't tried the roller techniques. Some people appear to have good luck with that method while others find it very difficult to achieve complete coverage without any obvious roller marks. The one thing going for the non-aqueous solvent sprays like Print Shield is that they can produce thin conformal coats. The examples I see from roller coating or by the water-based acrylics that one dilutes from a can in order to spray is that they tend to work best on canvas where the thicker look of the varnish often adds and doesn't detract from the visual aesthetic of the print surface. All in all, post coating treatments add a lot of yield problems to an already challenging printmaking art! Yet, the microporous nature of inkjet media is unlike any other historic print process I can think of. It begs to be sealed with an overcoat of some kind in order to achieve reasonable surface durability and reduce fading and.or discoloration over time caused by light, air-pollutants, and humidity.
Some of the mottling being discussed in this thread when trying to overcoat various papers may also be related to fundamental differences in ink chemistry as well. I mainly print on a Canon iPF8100. Thermal print head technology calls for different solvent formulations than is used in ink made for Epson piezo print head technology, so there may be some overcoat related issues of compatibility arising from these ink solvent differences as the final spray goes down over retained ink solvents in the print. No end of craft related experimentation in sight for serious inkjet printmakers :)
-
Mottling is the word I was looking for, Mark!
Dan Berg, reminded me just now in an other thread (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=45841.msg384134#msg384134) of "ClearJet" coating. So I checked it out and it seams as if I could get hold of it here. I want to give it a try. It is cheaper and appears to be easier on the paper chemically. Does anyone have experience wit ClearJet and cotton rag papers/baryta papers? The promises made on their Webpage look great: http://www.clearstarcorp.com/clearjet.asp
kind regards
nino
-
nino,
give me a call and I can help you with ClearStar products (ClearJet - solvent based and ClearShield - water based)
-
nino,
give me a call and I can help you with ClearStar products (ClearJet - solvent based and ClearShield - water based)
Thank you Randy that offer (But I am based in outer space, on a tiny very remote planet called Tel Aviv)!
I am printing on 3880, 9900 and 11880, where the ink is water based, right? So that needs a solvent based coating, like ClearJet, if I understood correctly?!
Hopefully the local distributor will deliver a liquid coating suitable for HM PR Baryta and CIFA Platine. Would that be the Fin Art series made for canvas, or the regular one?
kind regards
nino