Question on inkjet versus Lambda for Acrylics

[Enda Cavanagh]

Hi everyone
I am planning for an upcoming exhibition where I want to have the pieces on acrylic in 1.5m and 3m wide panoramics. Up to now my printer prints them at 200ppi on a Lambda printer. He says the native resolution is 200 and 400ppi. He says that there will be no visible difference between the 2 resolutions. I find that hard to believe. I think he prefers to use 200ppi to save on printing costs. Do you think there will be a difference?

The second question is about ink jets versus Lambda. Currently the acrylics consist of a Lambda print bonded onto an opaque layer of acrylic. A second transparent layer is bonded on top. A hanging kit is counter battened on to the wall. I asked the question about using an inkjet print as opposed to a Lambda print and he said that there would be issues with the adhesion of an inkjet when used with acrylic. Is that a valid point. I just prefer the look of an inkjet.

Here is an example of the way I do the acrylics.

Any help would be very much appreciated

[mstevensphoto]

a friend of mine always says "if you can't see it, it's not there." Print a smaller scale test at 200 and 400ppi and see what you can see. By example, I very rarely notice a difference between working in 16bit and 8bit by the time anything gets printed. sure one is technically better, but in terms of workflow and final product there's no difference so why create the headache?
Mark

[Johnny_Boy]

Who is doing your face mounting process? Are they using silicone glue method or double sided adhesive tape method? Inkjet print does not work with the first method (except for some matte papers), but some super smooth surface inkjet prints do work with the double sided clear adhesive method.

[Enda Cavanagh]

Ya it's Silicon mounted on acrylic with diamond polished edges. I think I will ask them for a sample Lambda at 200 and 400ppi

[MandyS]

You can face mount equally wellwith Lambda or injet images. The type of paper used will determine the best type of face mounting.

Where possible the Diasec process is prefered over the use of optically clear laminate films for a number of reasons.

I will not go into them all here, but the laminate films (although they have some elasticity) will not expand and contract equally as the acrylic expands and contracts. After a while , particularly on large  images, a 'spider web'effect starts to appear in the image caused by the laminate clrinkling as the acrylic contracts.
 Basically you can use the Diasec method on all images. If you use this method on semi or gloss inkjetimages, it requires a special laminate on the image first. Not all laminates are suitable.  If you use a Photo rag or matt inkjet paper, no laminate is required prior to processing.
If you do not want to use the laminate step, you can use the optically clear laminate method for gloss inkjet images.

It is virtually impossible to do this method without some silvering,or dust particles showing in the image. Most operators state that the image is acceptable if you can stand 5 feet back from the image and notnotice the dust etc.

The gel method does not have this issue.

NB I am a licensed Diasec® provider and also have worked with optically clear laminate to face mount.

IMO - in the short term they both look good - in the longer term the Diasec is better. I deal with major galleries and they all use the Diasec method.

[Alto]

Hi Enda

There is only one Diasec mounter in the UK so a 20x30 can be between £200 and £300 as always if you use acrylic the question is how it's mounted to the wall(heavy) . So if it doesn't need to be Diasec I mount with clear film behind acrylic but for editions you might want something that gives added value.

[Johnny_Boy]

... If you use this method on semi or gloss inkjetimages, it requires a special laminate on the image first. Not all laminates are suitable.  If you use a Photo rag or matt inkjet paper, no laminate is required prior to processing.

MandyS, what do you mean by special laminate? Is this like a clear liquid coat (like Hahnemuhle Protective Spray) or laminating film? If latter, wouldn't that cause the spider-web issue you mentioned, since the film will not expand and contract at the same rate as acrylic?

[Wayne Fox]

MandyS, what do you mean by special laminate? Is this like a clear liquid coat (like Hahnemuhle Protective Spray) or laminating film? If latter, wouldn't that cause the spider-web issue you mentioned, since the film will not expand and contract at the same rate as acrylic?

I assume the special laminate is designed to seal the inks ... otherwise the inks will dissolve with the silicone.  The silicone is flexible enough it won't develop the spider web effect, which is an issue with the optically clear adhesive.

So does anyone in the US do Diasec?  Anyone know what Peter Lik uses?  All of his images are now face mounted to acrylic (or Lexan claimed by at least 2 salespeople, who knows if they have a clue).

I'd be curious if this problem applies to all face mount adhesives.  I've seen some face mounted work several years old and never seen this issue.  Most images don't experience much temperature shift ... seems it would take a lot more than a few degrees up and down to cause something like this.

[Johnny_Boy]

So does anyone in the US do Diasec? 

Per MandyS, no one in the US does DIASEC, because only a licensed firm can call the silicone liquid method DIASEC. However, we know people like Laumont in NY does silicone adhesive method. It is similar or could be just like DIASEC process, but they can't call that with that name.