do you spray your paper prints?

[mstevensphoto]

I hear mixed reviews on spraying prints, even before they go behind glass. most everything I do goes behind glass, but I don't do my own framing so a little protection isn't a bad thing. Do you spray your prints on fine art paper? if so, with what, if not, why?
thanks!
Mark

[Ken]

I don't use glass and use Hahnemühle protective spray on all papers. It's a big pain in the butt to do during the winter in New England because the ambient temperature needs to be above 50F and you have to exhaust the fumes... and it's easy to screw up with poor technique or airborne crud sticking to it... but I still prefer it to glass. On the rare occasion when a customer needs glass, I still spray to reduce the possibility of damage during handling, and it eliminates gloss differential. 

[davidh202]

I am a custom picture framer and recently started printing, but I have been framing photos forever. If you are not using matting and wish to display the print framed with no glass, then I'd say ok to the spray. If your using mats then I recommend glass (or acrylic) to protect the framing package, and in that case spraying is unnecessary as far as I'm concerned.
I am not sure how "archival" the sprays are.

I also drymount my prints to fomecor since it just gives a much better presentation not having to worry about a wavy  print appearance.
That becomes a very personal judgement call as to just how "archival" you wish to go with your art work.

[NikoJorj]

I am not sure how "archival" the sprays are.

The Hahnemuhle spray is currently in test at AardenburgI&A, and doing quite well so far, effectively extending light resistance of the image sprayed.

[VitOne]

I am using Hahnemuhle Protective Spray and I tested it on FineArt and PhotoRag Barytas and Pearl papers. I can confirm that it works well, and I have also noticed that gloss differential is dramatically reduced (almost removed). I am using Epson HDR (7900) and K3 VM (4880) ink-based printers. I personally prefer to use sprays because they both protect and improve print quality (in terms of gloss differential and bronzing).

[ippolitois]

I have been using Premier Art Print Shield forever. Is Hahnemuhle Protective Spray the same as Print Shield? Also, where can I get Hahnemuhle Protective Spray in the Toronto area?

Thanks in advance.

Paul

[Robcat]

Another reason to spray is protection while handling prior to mounting. The Harman/Hahnemuhle baryta gloss papers I favor are so delicate that they can get dinged before you're done matting. They also seem susceptible to getting dust/dirt particles from the air embedded. The sprays seem to help prevent this. After printing, I imediately put a cover paper over the prints and let them dry overnight. Then they get 2 coats of Premier Print Shield.

[MHMG]

I have been using Premier Art Print Shield forever. Is Hahnemuhle Protective Spray the same as Print Shield? Also, where can I get Hahnemuhle Protective Spray in the Toronto area?

Thanks in advance.

Paul

Rumor has it that HN Protective Spray and Premier Print Shield are private labels of the same product. I can't confirm the rumor to be true, but FWIW, the cans and nozzles, spray pattern, viscosity, and beneficial effects in AaI&A light fastness testing are all consistent between both products

I personally use both products (depending on availability) on my own prints made on the "baryta" type and RC photo papers because I truly dislike gloss differential. These low viscosity sprays do essentially eliminate the differential gloss of pigmented ink sets while conformally coating the surface (i.e, the finish coat doesn't overwhelm the original surface finish of the media). They increase resistance to dye and pigment oxidation for improved light fastness and gas fade resistance, plus they significantly improve scratch and abrasion resistance. All good. However, the downside is that they are as expensive if not more so per print than the OEM inks themselves, and ventilation, dust control, plus reasonable temp and RH control in the spray area are essential.

cheers,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com

[Ken]

Is Hahnemuhle Protective Spray the same as Print Shield?

I don't know if they are the same, but I have used both and have not seen a difference. I have applied both to the same print, with no ill effects.

I spray prints hanging vertically rather than horizontally as the instructions suggest. In my less than clean-room conditions, I feel the vertical position provides less opportunity for dust particles to settle on the print while drying. On the other hand, I think it might make it easier to puddle if your application technique is not spot-on.

I hold the can about 16 inches from the print and move rapidly, applying four or five very light coats... horizontally, vertically and diagonally... allowing each layer to dry. (I keep a small fan, on "low", pointed at the prints to maintain a gentle air movement.) Hesitating for a half second creates a puddle. Move the spray circle well beyond the image area before changing direction. The first layer dries more quickly than subsequent layers. I make one last pass at about two feet, very quickly and randomly. That seems to camouflage any patterns in previous layers.  Matte papers are much more forgiving of spraying errors. Fussiness increases with glossiness. 

[MHMG]

The Hahnemuhle spray is currently in test at AardenburgI&A, and doing quite well so far, effectively extending light resistance of the image sprayed.

As are examples of Premier Print Shield. For a dramatic example of the benefit of a coating with respect to light fastness, check out ID#s 183 and 184 in the AaI&A database: http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com/cgi-bin/mrk/_4899c2hvd19kb2NfbGlzdC80.
Membership in AaI&A is needed to gain access to the test reports for these two samples, but registering as a member is free.

The two samples are a monochrome dye-based print system...Epson Stylus Photo 1400 using Epson OEM (Claria black only) and printed on Canson Infinity Baryta Photographique 310gsm, one coated and one uncoated. While pigmented systems also benefit significantly from Print Shield or HN Protective Spray, this pair of coated versus uncoated dye-based samples represents a particularly dramatic improvement in system performance due to added coating with Print Shield Spray. The coated sample has still not reached its AaI&A Conservation Display Rating and testing continues, but its performance so far indicates it will easily have more than double the light fastness of the uncoated sample.

cheers,
Mark
http:/www.aardenburg-imaging.com

[RFPhotography]

To answer the original question:  If the print is going behind glass, no.  Why?  Because any print that's going behind glass is behind anti-UV glass.  For canvas prints not going behind glass, I do overcoat with Premier Eco Print Shield.  Metal prints (which don't go behind glass) get overcoated with a gloss laquer that is UV resistant.  Paper prints always go behind glass in my case.

[MHMG]

To answer the original question:  If the print is going behind glass, no.  Why?  Because any print that's going behind glass is behind anti-UV glass.  For canvas prints not going behind glass, I do overcoat with Premier Eco Print Shield.  Metal prints (which don't go behind glass) get overcoated with a gloss laquer that is UV resistant.  Paper prints always go behind glass in my case.

A common misconception is that print fading is all primarily due to UV radiation. Blue spectrum wavelengths do a great job fading prints as well.  Eliminating the UV energy component can boost the light fastness by a factor of 2-3.  However, average real-world illumination varies by three orders of magnitude, and since fading nominally follows the reciprocity law, one print framed under UV-blocking glazing could conceivably fade many times faster than another framed under ordinary glass...it depends on the choice of display location much more than the choice of glazing.

Coatings are also misunderstood to function essentially as UV energy blockers. Their UV blocking effect is usually small unless the coating is substantially thick. Their larger role is actually by inhibiting the oxidation rate of the colorants. With inkjet prints this can be a very significant effect because the coatings will reduce the surface-to-volume ratio of the microporous coatings by "sealing the pores", something that a non-contact glazing does not do.

[davidh202]

Without getting overly technical here regular glass cuts some UV but not alot and only some wavelenghts.
True View UV glass cuts 97%(again only some wavelenghts)
I have done many tests over the years and some art under UV glass fades almost as fast as non UV depending on the quality and manufactured composition of subject art itself,along with the display conditions!
I honestly don't trust all the so called experts.
The Gov't once told us DDT and Atomic Testing was safe..hmm!

I don't care what products you use to "protect" your art (photos), there are so many atmospheric, display, and material
variables that can affect 'longevity' that it it is quite impossible to try and determine  'lightfastness'  under the miriad of possible conditions.
I have read that it is adviseable to wait at least 48-72 hours to allow the carrier agent in the inks to mostly evaporate out of the papers. Any "protective spray" applied prior to that time can in fact do more harm that good IMHO,as it will trap and prohibit any residual outgassing.
Same goes for the "protective" sprays or roll on coatings.
What may feel dry to touch or appearance may not be, and applying multiple coatings too soon can in fact be counterproductive to the final desired result.
It is very important to read the fact sheets that come with all these products and follow the recommended guidelines for application.

[MHMG]

I don't care what products you use to "protect" your art (photos), there are so many atmospheric, display, and material
variables that can affect 'longevity' that it it is quite impossible to try and determine  'lightfastness'  under the miriad of possible conditions.
I have read that it is adviseable to wait at least 48-72 hours to allow the carrier agent in the inks to mostly evaporate out of the papers. Any "protective spray" applied prior to that time can in fact do more harm that good IMHO,as it will trap and prohibit any residual outgassing.
Same goes for the "protective" sprays or roll on coatings.
What may feel dry to touch or appearance may not be, and applying multiple coatings too soon can in fact be counterproductive to the final desired result.
It is very important to read the fact sheets that come with all these products and follow the recommended guidelines for application.

Applying a top coat to an inkjet paper does have caveats, and yes, it's helps to follow recommended guidelines. That said, while it's useful to keep a healthy skepticism about various product claims, accelerated aging testing can sort out many of the issues. Some coatings do cause problems, but others are highly beneficial.  RC papers have a polyethylene layer that will tend to trap the residual solvents between the top coat and the PE layer, and this situation may cause problems (but not always), while other inkjet media like the fine art matt papers and the "Baryta/traditional fiber" papers will allow the carrier agents to diffuse quickly into the paper core and eventually exit from the rear no matter how well sealed the top surface is.  So, judicious testing can sort these variables, and in so doing, some coatings prove to be very beneficial while others do not. We can't rule all coatings to be good, nor can we say no coating helps. One has to test the complete system (printer/ink/media/coating).  The evidence is clear that some coatings, when applied to the right media, are very beneficial indeed.


cheers,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com

[davidh202]

Mark,
I concur with what you said.
I did not mean generalize.  Coatings when applied properly to the appropriate materials can certainly be beneficial.

David

[Alistair]

Hahn spray on hahn photo rag pearl makes the nicest prints I have ever seen. Pricey though!

[Ernst Dinkla]

In case of bare exposure the spray can also reduce the coating's absorption of air born particles, gasses etc that produced an overall yellow/brown staining with some papers at some places.

met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst




Try: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/

[RFPhotography]

Mark, yes, I know 'normal' light can fade prints as well but I was under the impression that the majority of the damage came from UV.  Happy to be corrected.  I also know other environmental factors play into it.

Do any of the sprays actually seal the ink though?  On canvas none of them do.  At least none of the ones I've tried which would be Moab, Premier and Epson.  My understanding is that the Hahnemuhle is just a rebrand of the same stuff so wouldn't expect it to work any better.  That's why I switched to the roll on Premier Eco for canvases because it does seal the print.  But I wouldn't use that on paper prints.

[Alan Goldhammer]

Mark, yes, I know 'normal' light can fade prints as well but I was under the impression that the majority of the damage came from UV.  Happy to be corrected.  I also know other environmental factors play into it.

Do any of the sprays actually seal the ink though?  On canvas none of them do.  At least none of the ones I've tried which would be Moab, Premier and Epson.  My understanding is that the Hahnemuhle is just a rebrand of the same stuff so wouldn't expect it to work any better.  That's why I switched to the roll on Premier Eco for canvases because it does seal the print.  But I wouldn't use that on paper prints.

This is fairly complicated since the spraying/coating covers the surface of the print (or canvas) but not the back.  In terms of gaseous pollutants (ozone, sulfur dioxide, nitroxides) they could still diffuse through the back and cause problems (but it is likely to be minimal unless there are unusually high levels in which case there is a human health exposure issue).  Visible light has less energy than UV so its impact on the print is limited but not zero.  Finally, we have a lot of knowledge about coatings from the traditional art world where many paintings from the mid-1500s onward were coated.  In some cases only the varnish was affected by age/environment and it could be stripped off with not much damage to the pigment colors underneath and in others there was fading of the pigments themselves.

[RFPhotography]

Well, what you're saying about the limited impact of 'normal' light on print degradation seems at odds with what Mark is indicating, Alan. 

The coatings/varnishes used on paintings are very different from the sprays used today such as the Moab/Hahnemuhle/Premier/Epson.  Those varnishes are more like the roll on coatings used on canvases today.  They'd be similar to a spray on varnish that actually provides an overcoat protectant.  The inkjet print sprays noted above don't do that.  They absorb into the media and provide, as near as I can tell, basically zero protection to the surface and the ink.  When I spray one of those on a canvas it provides basically zero protection against scratching or other abrasion damage.  It does zero to protect the edges from cracking when stretched.  I've tried, just for kicks, spraying a couple paper prints just as an experiment and they do nothing on matte paper.  On glossy stock, it's a bit different.  The sprays seem to, for the most part, sit on top of the coating already on the paper which might provide some additional protection but the look isn't great and if a very high degree of care isn't taken, the spray will pool and puddle on the surface.