How to estimate print longevity on a glossy paper

[chichornio]

A client asked me to print several copies for his hotel. I´ll be using my HP z3200ps and this paper (http://www.harman-inkjet.com/products/product.asp?n=78&t=HARMAN+CRYSTALJET+ELITE).
All the prints will be dry mounted on a wood surface, and displayed uncoated. The place where the prints will be displayed has a relative high humidity (above 75% most of the year).
How I can estimated the longevity of the prints?
Any help will be very welcome.

[dseelig]

http://www.wilhelm-research.com/WIR%20Harman%202008_10_22/Harman%20Inkjet%20Papers.html

[Wayne Fox]

that link provides information as to the fading of the image, but based on the stated mounting technique and humidity, there is little chance they will survive long enough to actually fade.

Unprotected in a humid environment like that physical issues such as peeling, staining and other problems are very likely.  I’m not sure there is a reliable way to “estimate” how they will do. 

[chichornio]

Thanks for the feedback and the link at Wilhelm, but those Harman papers do not match the one i`ll be using. Anyway, I did my own math and cut the permanence by a 30%, so with the Vivera pigment inks I guess the prints will start loosing color and stability 35 years from now. The prints will be displayed inside a hotel room, with little direct sunlight but the place (near Iguazu falls, in Argentina) is known for been very humid most of the year. I need the permanence information so my client know which are the pros and cons of displaying the prints uncoated and unframed.

[John Nollendorfs]

One fading culprit often overlooked under the conditions you outline is atmospheric contamination. Ink jet papers are micro-porous, and stuff like ozone can quickly degrade the pigments. Any display of inkjet prints should either be under glass, or sealed with a coating or laminate. Or you can take your chances that not one puts a copier, or electric ozone air freshner in the vicinity of your prints.

[MHMG]

Thanks for the feedback and the link at Wilhelm, but those Harman papers do not match the one i`ll be using. Anyway, I did my own math and cut the permanence by a 30%, so with the Vivera pigment inks I guess the prints will start loosing color and stability 35 years from now. The prints will be displayed inside a hotel room, with little direct sunlight but the place (near Iguazu falls, in Argentina) is known for been very humid most of the year. I need the permanence information so my client know which are the pros and cons of displaying the prints uncoated and unframed.

All color prints start accumulating color and tone shifts due to light exposure the moment they are put on display.  It's just a question of ongoing light exposure accumulation over time as to when discriminating viewers will first notice a small but discernible change in the prints,later when just about everyone will agree that the prints aren't optimally color and tone balanced any more, and perhaps still later when the client/collector ultimately decides the prints have become unacceptably changed for continued display purposes. FYI, the Wilhelm research display life ratings are based on "easily noticeable" fade tolerances as much as 35% density loss depending on what colorants are the weak link in the chain. If the system fades linearly (not always guaranteed), the prints will be halfway to WIR's easily noticed fade limits in half that predicted time, etc., and again, for more discerning viewers, half the fade level allowed in WIR testing can still be very noticeable.  The WIR ratings also predict "display life expectancy" based on an average 450 lux for 12 hours per day exposure accumulation (i.e., 5400 lux hours average light exposure dose per day, or about 2 megalux hours per year). One can easily check the proposed display area with an inexpensive lux meter and a few averaged readings over a few days to see if it reasonably conforms to the WIR light level assumption or not. In all likelihood, it won't.  Hotel lobbies with generous picture window and/or skylight glass often run well above this assumed dosage level, but hallways and interior rooms with only artificial lighting available are typically well below this daily/yearly assumed dose level. In truth, light dosage levels under real world indoor display conditions vary by orders of magnitude which which in turn affects true fade rates by orders of magnitude. This is why I concluded that reporting product fade times based on a single "standardized" light level is misleading, and the industry should just quit using this approach.

As for predicting the practical service life of these prints, I agree with others. In the scenario you describe, it probably won't be light induced fade or thermal aging that takes them out. It could possibly be humidity induced deterioration/delamination that does them in, especially if you mount them on wood backer board. However, most likely it will be straight forward physical handling abuse from hotel guests and cleaning staff that ruins their pleasing appearance first. You can improve the physical properties durability issues by switching to a better choice of mounting substrate, avoiding hygroscopic adhesives, and by coating or laminating the top surface of the prints for much better abrasion and scratch resistance. Adding a top coat will also add a reasonable insurance against ozone attack and enable the cleaning staff to be able to wipe the grubby fingerprints and other junk off their surface without causing damage to the otherwise delicate ink receptor/image bearing layer.

kind regards,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com

[chichornio]

Adding a top coat will also add a reasonable insurance against ozone attack and enable the cleaning staff to be able to wipe the grubby fingerprints and other junk off their surface without causing damage to the otherwise delicate ink receptor/image bearing layer.
kind regards,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com

Thanks for your explanation. Very helpful.
Coating the prints was my initial recommendation to my client (he does not want the prints under glass). But coating the prints (65 pieces of 47x24 inches) will add a subtantial amount of money to the budget that my client is not willing to pay. So I`ll advice him of all the drawbacks of showing the prints uncoated and unframmed.
Anyway... besides the paper deterioration, any clue on how the Vivera inks will behave until the prints start changing tone and color? Months, years?

[MHMG]

Thanks for your explanation. Very helpful.

Anyway... besides the paper deterioration, any clue on how the Vivera inks will behave until the prints start changing tone and color? Months, years?

You've chosen the most lightfast aqueous pigmented set of inkjet inks on the market. Can't do any better than that. Your choice of media will probably contribute to the first signs of any color shift owing to OBA burnout from light or gas fading or both. Best advice I can give is perhaps consider one of the RC proofing papers that have little or no OBAs. Should be in budget since RC proofing papers are still RC. Maybe not quite as brilliant an initial whitepoint, but you can prep the image to suit, and there will be less apparent media "discoloration" over time either by light induced fading or gas fading. Check Ernst's spectrumvis database for some possible candidates:

http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm

I did just enter some Epson proofing paper semi matte into light fade testing here at AaI&A, but these samples probably won't yield any useful results in time to help you with this project. Nonetheless, The Epson Proofing paper Semimatte is a good example of an RC paper having no OBA in the top coat or PE subbing layers, though some in the paper core. Thus, if prior testing of low, medium, and high OBA containing products serves as a guide to good media whitepoint stability, this proofing paper should perform  very well.

Good luck,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com

[Ernst Dinkla]

Hello Mark,

Good to read that you will test the Epson Proofing White Semi Matte. I am still curious how it will test.

For use with the Z3200/Z3100 there is one thing to be aware off, it tends to bronze even in use with the gloss enhancer. Less visible in color prints but quite distracting in B&W prints. On the other hand it gives a very wide gamut with the Z3200 inks. Epson refers to prints on this paper when it describes the wide gamut of its x900 printer models in the ads.

--
Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst

http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
January 2014, 600+ inkjet media white spectral plots.

[BrianWJH]

But coating the prints (65 pieces of 47x24 inches) will add a subtantial amount of money to the budget that my client is not willing to pay.

Just make sure you have something in writing that states you do not recommend displaying the prints without a protective lamination or glass covering and that the expected lifetime without surface protection could be be a little as 1 day after occupation of the room.

Have you considered using mounted canvas with a spray top coat to protect, would be a lot more durable than gloss paper.

Edit: Using a nominal amount of $200.00 per piece means that the customer has a new collection of assets with an initial value of $13000.00 by not protecting these assets he could very well have an asset value depreciation of 100% within 5 years or less.

It's possible that the client is thinking of replacing the art within that time period, would be good to know what expectations and intentions are.

Brian.

[hugowolf]

... But coating the prints (65 pieces of 47x24 inches) will add a subtantial amount of money to the budget that my client is not willing to pay.

Cans of Hahnemuhle spray are abgout $14 in the US. You would probably need two of them. It is isn't a lot of money. Two or three coats, three of four minutes apart: all you need is space to spread them about.

Brian A

[chichornio]

Cans of Hahnemuhle spray are abgout $14 in the US. You would probably need two of them. It is isn't a lot of money. Two or three coats, three of four minutes apart: all you need is space to spread them about.
Brian A

This is a good solution I must consider. I live in Argentina, hard to find Hahne spray over here, but I´ll try. Remember that I´m using a glossy paper, so the spray will work well on that surface? I´d never tried that before.

Edit: Using a nominal amount of $200.00 per piece means that the customer has a new collection of assets with an initial value of $13000.00 by not protecting these assets he could very well have an asset value depreciation of 100% within 5 years or less.
Brian.

The budget is really really tight. I must leave a comision to someone who is doing the sales. I do not often work with large volume of prints. This job will be the first.

You've chosen the most lightfast aqueous pigmented set of inkjet inks on the market. Can't do any better than that. Your choice of media will probably contribute to the first signs of any color shift owing to OBA burnout from light or gas fading or both. Best advice I can give is perhaps consider one of the RC proofing papers that have little or no OBAs. Should be in budget since RC proofing papers are still RC. Maybe not quite as brilliant an initial whitepoint, but you can prep the image to suit, and there will be less apparent media "discoloration" over time either by light induced fading or gas fading. Check Ernst's spectrumvis database for some possible candidates:

I have no chance of buying new paper for this proyect. As I stated above, the budget is really tight and I already have the Harman paper I intent to use. Not using the Harman rolls will cut my earning a lot in this job.
As Brian A suggested above, should the Hahne spray work in this kind of paper?

Thanks

[Some Guy]

With glossies as big was what you are working on, I wouldn't try a spray can.  Better would be to use a broader fan HLVP gun that can cover in less overlaps that can show up on glossy papers.  Less so on canvas.  I find it takes me about 4 ounces per 17x25 inch print I make.  Sometimes 6 ounces for 3 passes on a deep weave canvas.  I use a Sata Mini-Jet 3 gun and Premier's Print Shield which is almost like clear water out of the bottle, and it lasts a long time even in a half empty one.

I used to use Marshall's SureGuard Glossy Spray but it was something like $21 per spray can and maybe enough to do four 17x25 inch prints, but I could see the overlaps and it seems the spray cans always allow crap to get stuck in the surface where the stronger HLVP guns can blow it away, and are faster overall (wider fan than a spray can) before the crap settles into the goo, and sometimes the crap is debris in the spray can's mix too.  I only resort to spray cans on glossy prints smaller than 8x11.5 inches now due to overlap and debris issues.  Sometime a 90 degree pass helps, but you use a lot more spray and it doesn't always get the overlap covered that well either when viewed at an angle.  I ran out of SureGuard and tried Krylon Pro-Tec Clear spray can as it was the only thing locally, but it had a cloudy appearance and spattered a rough surface too.  I've sanded prints with 3000 grit wet automotive paper to get crap off the surface prior to another re-coat and smooth it, but better to do it right to begin with.

You could try and push a tight weave glossy canvas surface too on the customer and roll it on too.  Wouldn't risk rolling a glossy surface though.

SG

[shadowblade]

Since they won't be displayed under glass, I'd probably spray them with a canvas protector, designed for canvasses which are rarely displayed under glass - something like Breathing Colour Timeless.

Of course, if the buyer is so cheap that he won't be framing under glass, will be displaying them in a humid environment and doesn't want to pay for any spray-on laminate, you may be better off getting them printed on vinyl using a solvent printer.

[dgberg]

One of the water based protectants would be considerably more cost effective for larger quantities. (You say several copies in your initial thread and then in a later reply 65?)
I have tested many of the solvent spray cans and the coverage rates.
To properly coat a print takes 1oz. per square foot. (On Canvas) (3 light coats per print) You can certainly use less.
1 - 24" x 47" print = 8 square feet times 65 prints = 520 square feet of print surface divided by 14 oz. can = 37 cans times $14.00 a can = $511.00
The biggie to not forget is a day of labor to spray them. Based on your hourly rate could be another $300 to $500

All that rubbish aside.
I think you are barking up the wrong tree asking about inks,papers if they are not protected they will not last regardless of what they are printed with.
I would try and educate him (her) first on the benefits of protecting the prints, you want a happy client.
You also want these prints to last as it can (and will) reflect poorly on you if (and when) they start to fail unprotected.
If that doesnt work and they still want them then I would give them their prints with no protection just like they ask for but with no warranty,NONE.
If they want you to stand behind them then its the upcharge for the protective coating,simple as that.
I know which one of these routes I would choose.

[chichornio]

I was thinking in a very cheap solution to solve in part the longevity issue. Since my client won´t pay any coating, or framing under glass, and the budget is very tight, I was thinking in doing a strecht film wrap on all the pieces, telling my client that the mounted print must be hanged all the time with the film on (anyway, I won´t offer any guarantee to him on how long the prints will last).
He runs a small logde of about 15 suites. Most of the visitors are fishermans who stay for no longer than 2 or 3 days. He told me that sometimes his visitors want to buy some of the prints hanging on the wall of the lodge (not the ones I´ll be printing because I haven´t started the job yet until his approval). He insist on having the prints mounted on 18mm wood to keep the place with the "rustic" look he wants.
Thanks for all the feedback!

[Wayne Fox]

Anyway... besides the paper deterioration, any clue on how the Vivera inks will behave until the prints start changing tone and color? Months, years?

You keep coming back to that, but there is no reason.  Under the stated condition, fading is the least of your worries. Uncoated and unprotected I'd be shocked if the prints make it 10 years.  Some might, but some may be gone in a few.

They won't live long enough to show fading issues.

[Iluvmycam]

http://fadetesting.tumblr.com/

[hugowolf]

This is a good solution I must consider. I live in Argentina, hard to find Hahne spray over here, but I´ll try. Remember that I´m using a glossy paper, so the spray will work well on that surface? I´d never tried that before.

You would have to test it on your paper, and while I usually use it on matte fine art paper, I have used it on Harman Gloss Baryta and several RC lustre papers.

My estimate for the number of cans you would need may well be low, but I think Dan’s estimate is way over the top. I used about one and a half cans recently for fifteen 20” x 30” and fifty-five 12” x 18” prints on Canson Rag Photographique with three coats each. (Two coats would be better than none, if you are really trying to keep costs down.)

You have to lay out the prints next to one another, so there is less spray wasted when over spraying the edge of each block of prints.

I have been told that it is the same as Premier Art Print Shield spray, looks to be the same as Moab Desert Varnish Lacquer, and may well be sold under various different names.

But again, you would really need to test it to see how it works on your paper.

Brian A

[shadowblade]

Why not just get it printed directly onto the wood with a flatbed printer using UV-curable inks, then overlay it with a glossy overlay?

That will be almost completely UV-resistant, as well as resistant to water, humidity and anything else you can throw at it.