Timeless or Glamour II on matte paper

[shadowblade]

Continuing the discussion from another thread about Epson paper, that was then hijacked by discussion of how to apply Timeless to Breathing Colour matte paper:

Apparently, Timeless and Glamour II will actually soak through the inkjet layer of Breathing Colour (and some other) matte papers, forming a bond with the paper base and encapsulating the image and part of the paper base together in a thick layer of varnish.

Just gave it a try with undiluted Timeless Gloss via HVLP on Pura Smooth - it seemed to just sit on the surface rather than significantly penetrating.

What's the trick to get it to soak in? Do you dilute it with water and use a heavy first layer, waiting for it to soak in, or do you start with a thin layer? It would seem that a thin layer would soak in more quickly, but I'm afraid it may not penetrate very deeply (due to the smaller volume used) and would prevent the next layer from soaking through into the paper. Is the added water the key to allowing it to soak in?

I'm trying to get it to soak deep into the paper base, saturating it and holding the paper and image together in one solid mass of Timeless that can't come apart over time. No doubt the final surface would be influenced by how many layers you add - 2 layers for a satin finish, 5 layers for a high-gloss finish.

Any idea if the same technique would work with a glossy paper such as Hahnemuhle Photo Rag Pearl (which has no baryta or RC layer to stop the varnish from soaking through into the paper base)? Or is the best way to get a high-gloss final product to print on matte paper, then apply a glossy varnish?

I haven't tried Eco Print Shield - how does it compare with Timeless?

[Some Guy]

I use the Premier "Print Shield" on canvas prints.  No telling as to how far it soaks in though.  I doubt if it's much and probably locked by the receptive ink layer of most papers too.  It is a super water-thin lacquer that I spray from a mini-jet gun.

Their "Eco Print Shield" I believe is used on mostly canvas, and needs a precoat of "Print Shield" for Canon Lucia inks prior to their "Eco Shield" too.  The guy demo'd the Eco it to me when I went there with a roller on canvas, but the Print Shield seems to work on most anything (and a pre-coat to other stuff too) so I bought it instead.  Seems to last fairly well in in the half-full bottle now, which I thought would harden by now being half full for a couple of months.  Takes me about 4-6 ounces per 17x25 inch print via my HVLP spray gun (3 coats).  Seems to boost contrast a bit too.  I knife-gel over the top of the stuff too (They sell that separately too.).

SG

[shadowblade]

Print Shield and Hahnemuhle Protective Spray are the same thing. I believe it only coats the surface and seals the pores from atmospheric pollutants, rather than soaking in - it'll enhance the longevity of the image, but won't hold together micro-cracks in the inkjet layer or stop it flaking off in time. It works very well on uncoated paper, since it doesn't change its appearance. But it's far from ideal for physically stabilising the coating on inkjet paper, being a very thin surface coating that is itself brittle.

I believe Eco Print Shield can also be used on matte paper, just like Timeless and Glamour II. Not sure how well it works, though.

Any idea if Eco Print Shield, Glamour II or Timeless will retain their flexibility over time? Or will they become brittle and crack in a hundred years (or its equivalent in accelerated ageing)?

[hugowolf]

The Hahnemühle spray will sink in somewhat. I generally try to avoid that so I haven't really experiment much. The idea is to apply a light first coat that will prevent later coats from penetrating/permeating the paper. A heavier first coat may penetrate significantly, I just don't know.

It is UV protective, counteracts gloss differential somewhat, offers protection from airborne pollutants, and contrary what I have heard, does offer some protection to scuffing.

I am using Epson K3 VM inks. I can run an unsprayed print, which has fully dried and cured, under a hot or cold water tap for a few minutes without any ink moving at all. But I have a series of botanical prints which have hot white backgrounds, some of which sell mounted and framed without glazing on German Etching paper. Without the spray, anything splashing on the white unprinted areas will stick and stain. I have easily removed dried red wine splashes from coated prints (Q-tip and cold water).

The main problem with the Hahnemühle spray, which is probably common to most solvent based lacquers, is its brittleness. It is noticeable when trimming sprayed paper with a blade. You probably wouldn't want to roll up a lacquered print for shipping, but if it is mounted and will stay flat, I don't see that as a problem.

I have a show that is in its third location, is has been packed and unpacked twice. There are fifty-five 8" x 12" and ten 20" x 30" prints, T-hinge mounted to acid free foam board and with narrow profile wooden frames, but no glazing. Canson Rag Photographique 310 (20 x 30s) and 210 with four coats of the Hahnemühle spray. Some of the pieces are very Chiaroscuroesque, and I haven't seen any handling marks so far.

Brian A

[shadowblade]

The Hahnemühle spray will sink in somewhat. I generally try to avoid that so I haven't really experiment much. The idea is to apply a light first coat that will prevent later coats from penetrating/permeating the paper. A heavier first coat may penetrate significantly, I just don't know.

It is UV protective, counteracts gloss differential somewhat, offers protection from airborne pollutants, and contrary what I have heard, does offer some protection to scuffing.

I am using Epson K3 VM inks. I can run an unsprayed print, which has fully dried and cured, under a hot or cold water tap for a few minutes without any ink moving at all. But I have a series of botanical prints which have hot white backgrounds, some of which sell mounted and framed without glazing on German Etching paper. Without the spray, anything splashing on the white unprinted areas will stick and stain. I have easily removed dried red wine splashes from coated prints (Q-tip and cold water).

The main problem with the Hahnemühle spray, which is probably common to most solvent based lacquers, is its brittleness. It is noticeable when trimming sprayed paper with a blade. You probably wouldn't want to roll up a lacquered print for shipping, but if it is mounted and will stay flat, I don't see that as a problem.

I have a show that is in its third location, is has been packed and unpacked twice. There are fifty-five 8" x 12" and ten 20" x 30" prints, T-hinge mounted to acid free foam board and with narrow profile wooden frames, but no glazing. Canson Rag Photographique 310 (20 x 30s) and 210 with four coats of the Hahnemühle spray. Some of the pieces are very Chiaroscuroesque, and I haven't seen any handling marks so far.

Brian A

It certainly protects the image layer from everything except physical abuse - it's great for uncoated paper, and even watercolour paintings. But what it doesn't do, and what I'm hoping Timeless can do, is to soak through the image layer, deep into the paper base, and bind the image layer and the paper fibres together in a single mass, such that the image layer can never come off.

[Paul Roark]

I doubt any of the water-bases coatings will soak in.  They are, I believe, suspensions, not unlike the pigments themselves in that respect.  What I have found is that Lascaux Fixativ (non-UV) is the only one that soaks into the glossy "metallic" paper I favor with B&W dyes.  It's the only one I've tested, for example, that does not cause the image to have a "veiled" look on the metallic paper.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

[shadowblade]

I doubt any of the water-bases coatings will soak in.  They are, I believe, suspensions, not unlike the pigments themselves in that respect.  What I have found is that Lascaux Fixativ (non-UV) is the only one that soaks into the glossy "metallic" paper I favor with B&W dyes.  It's the only one I've tested, for example, that does not cause the image to have a "veiled" look on the metallic paper.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

That's what I would have thought. I thought it merely bonded with the inkjet coating and stabilised it that way (i.e. keeping the image together, but not keeping the image layer bound to the paper).

But, apparently, it does soak in, as discussed here: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=87829.0 (topic started off about something else, then went way off-topic into discussion of aqueous coatings)

If so, that makes the treated matte coated paper as physically durable as a sheet of Timeless, which is basically a long-chain acrylic polymer.

[Ken Doo]

Spray coatings like Premier Art Shield are the easiest to apply on matte papers, it does not share the same quality of protection nor finish that you can get with Timeless.  Using Premier Art Shield is my preferred method, if for nothing but ease of application. But when I want to do something special/more, Timeless is the best for matte fine art papers.  Glamour II works well on canvas but doesn't work well on matte papers. 

Unfortunately, HVLP spraying of Timeless doesn't work well when coating fine art matte papers.  The trick I have found is going back to rolling undiluted Timeless onto the matte paper. And you use quite a bit and really work it in with a tight closed cell roller.  I did a video quite a while back for BC, and I'll try to find it in my archives.

It is a bit of work, but the paper and image really comes together nicely.

 :)ken

[shadowblade]

I wouldn't like to try roll a 24x72" panorama - too many opportunities for dust or flecks to ruin the print. It'd work for small prints, though.

Maybe the trick is to water it down a bit, making it slightly slower-drying and more able to penetrate the paper.

I'm surprised you found that Glamour II doesn't work well on paper - high-gloss prints coated with Glamour II (not sure whether they were glossy before or after they were sprayed) are a staple in fashion or advertising photography. I wouldn't use it myself, though, due to its lack of UV-blocking properties.

[huguito]

Hi Ken
Can you share some of the details? I have not been able to get a nice fiinish in matte papers unless I use the spray can coatings, but is not a strong enough of a protection to display without glass

What finish of Timeless do you use for matte papers, matte, satin or gloss?

How many coats ?

How do they end up?  Still completely matte?  Or more like Satin/gloss ?

[Ernst Dinkla]

What I have found is that Lascaux Fixativ (non-UV) is the only one that soaks into the glossy "metallic" paper I favor with B&W dyes.  It's the only one I've tested, for example, that does not cause the image to have a "veiled" look on the metallic paper.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

It also has a typical surface spread on a polyethylene foil (protection film on a polycarbonate sheet) that is not seen with other protection sprays I tried on the same material. Flows much more and longer than for example the Talens 680 that I also use which dries slowly but is a somewhat thicker fluid. The Lascaux 2070 is dissolved more and/or has a lower molecule weight. Which one is more brittle I have to test (again) when the samples are really dry.

--
Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst

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

[shadowblade]

It also has a typical surface spread on a polyethylene foil (protection film on a polycarbonate sheet) that is not seen with other protection sprays I tried on the same material. Flows much more and longer than for example the Talens 680 that I also use which dries slowly but is a somewhat thicker fluid. The Lascaux 2070 is dissolved more and/or has a lower molecule weight. Which one is more brittle I have to test (again) when the samples are really dry.

--
Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst

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

Is that specifically the non-UV version? Or does the UV version work as well? Not that it particularly matters with UV-insensitive carbon inks for black-and-white prints, but it would matter for colours. What sort of paper is that with? I can understand liquids soaking into matte papers and glossy papers without a baryta or RC layer (e.g. Photo Rag Pearl), but can't imagine how it would soak through a baryta layer (or any other layer between the inkjet coating and the paper base) into the paper.

[Ernst Dinkla]

Is that specifically the non-UV version? Or does the UV version work as well? Not that it particularly matters with UV-insensitive carbon inks for black-and-white prints, but it would matter for colours. What sort of paper is that with? I can understand liquids soaking into matte papers and glossy papers without a baryta or RC layer (e.g. Photo Rag Pearl), but can't imagine how it would soak through a baryta layer (or any other layer between the inkjet coating and the paper base) into the paper.

I doubt there is a difference on that behavior between the UV or non-UV type. I have used the non-UV Lascaux 2070. Like Mark McCormick I had the suspicion that the effect of these thin varnishes is in blocking gas fading, more than in UV blocking. So I do not see a reason to use UV cut varnish for thin layers.

The sprays I use on matte inkjet papers mainly, from Decor Art to Photorag. On RC papers that are exposed bare I have to use either HM protection spray or the Lascaux 2070.

Where true barriers for water etc exist between coating and paper base like the polyethylene or other resins in RC papers there is no chance the varnish fluid will reach the paper base. It has to be seen how absorbent/porous/tight the different layers of whitening agents like baryta etc and other components of the inkjet coating are before one can say anything about the penetration of the varnishes. If water based and a true water soluble varnish medium is used the chances rise. With dispersions the molecule weight of the polymer is an issue. With solvents tighter layers of PVA in the coating structure block as well. The more open a coating is like on canvas and in matte art papers the penetration of varnishes increases.


--
Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst

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

[shadowblade]

You might be able to test the penetration of varnishes by applying a large piece of duct tape (or other strongly-adhesive tape) to the surface of the paper, pulling it up with force and seeing where it separates.

With unvarnished, coated papers, the coating would be pulled off by the tape, without taking any of the paper base along with it. A deeply-penetrating varnish would penetrate the paper base to a significant depth, so the layer pulled off with the tape would extend deep into the paper base. If it penetrated all the way through the paper, or if the paper was strong enough, the paper itself could tear rather than separating, or the duct tape could be pulled off without damage to the paper or image at all.

[Paul Roark]

The UV version of Lascaux acts like Print Shield.  It puts of veil over the metallic paper surface.

Note that I can't say how these micro-porous coatings compare to the matte paper coatings with respect to how much the others will be absorbed.

When Livick was publishing his fade tests, I had the impression the best combination was an initial spray of Lascaux, which soaked in, and then the use of one of the thicker coatings.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

[shadowblade]

The UV version of Lascaux acts like Print Shield.  It puts of veil over the metallic paper surface.

Note that I can't say how these micro-porous coatings compare to the matte paper coatings with respect to how much the others will be absorbed.

When Livick was publishing his fade tests, I had the impression the best combination was an initial spray of Lascaux, which soaked in, and then the use of one of the thicker coatings.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

Lascaux fixative (as opposed to varnish) is like Print Shield or Hahnemuhle Protective Spray - it's solvent-based rather than water-based. Even if it were to soak into the paper (rather than just forming a film over the surface), I'd be worried about its brittleness over time.

That's not a problem when spraying on uncoated paper, when you're using it for its barrier properties alone (for lightfastness and gas-fastness), but, when spraying a matte, coated paper, I wouldn't be confident in soaking it into the paper to bind the image layer and the paper fibres into a single, inseparable layer - a more flexible, water-based acrylic would seem more suitable for that, given that paper tends to flex when handled. Provided of course, you can get it to soak through the image layer into the paper base (thinning it out with water to decrease its viscosity and slow down its drying time would be the logical way to do it). To get the best of both worlds, maybe you could spray the paper with the water-based acrylic first, allowing it to soak in and bind the coating and paper together, then a layer of Lascaux over it, then finish it off with one or two more layers of water-based acrylic.

It would interesting to compare Lascaux fixative with Print Shield/Hahnemuhle protective spray to see which one works better, since they both serve the same role.

[Ken Doo]

Hi Ken
Can you share some of the details? I have not been able to get a nice fiinish in matte papers unless I use the spray can coatings, but is not a strong enough of a protection to display without glass

What finish of Timeless do you use for matte papers, matte, satin or gloss?

How many coats ?

How do they end up?  Still completely matte?  Or more like Satin/gloss ?

When I used Glamour II on matte papers, it had a tendency to make the paper warp or ripple.  HVLP spray on matte papers didn't work for me as it tends to apply a thin coat (both Timeless or GII) and never really gets worked deep into the paper substrate.  I'm not a fan of rolling, but rolling with Timeless (for matte fine art papers) is what I've found works for me---this is outside of the much easier to use Premier Art Shied spray, but this is not the same effect or coating or protection that we're talking about with Timeless, and really getting the coating worked in.

I was not able to locate the video I did for BC, but did find the series of photos I took of the process.  In short, I used a tight celled roller and used a lot of Timeless, and really worked the varnish in.  Quite different than how I would roll canvas substrates.  One even coat.  Matte finish.  Stays matte.  Timeless matte is a true matte finish.  It works well into the matte fine art paper, and feels exceptionally soft, almost like a soft wax.  I've poured liquids, coffee, ice cream and chocolate syrup---and rinsed it off in the kitchen sink.  Really.  No joke.    There's a video of that one too somewhere....

ken

[huguito]

Thanks Ken
Just a couple just a couple more questions.
After you worked a good heavy coat of Timeless on the print.
Do you end up with a bit of deeper blacks and a crisp look, like using the Hahnemuhle Spray-can coatings?   
Or you end up with a bit of a foggy finish as I got using Glamour II?

[Justin B]

I was not able to located the video I did for BC...

Here's a video of Ken roll coating BC's Optica One with Timeless varnish (and then stretching the print). And he talks a little bit about rolling vs spraying in this instance.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wB-d_mUpO4&list=UUhZT13ksklnQUaNtZLMoZLA

[Ken Doo]

The application of the varnish gives the appearance of more depth or deeper colors; it dries clear.  I didn't have much luck applying Glamour II to matte fine art papers such as those from BC or Hahn's Bamboo--it would warp and ripple.  With Timeless the print dried nice and flat. The coating imparts a unique softness in feel/touch to the paper.

Thanks, Justin---I hadn't seen the videos since being posted by Breathing Color!

ken