Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Printing: Printers, Papers and Inks => Topic started by: Frodo on August 18, 2017, 01:15:51 am
-
I mount my black and white prints on MDF because glass hides the lovely texture of Epson cold press natural and similar papers.
It seems that Print Shield is one of the preferred coating sprays (http://www.ecoprintshield.com/coating-with-printshield/)
However, I have been unable to obtain that in New Zealand.
Does anyone have any experience with N.A.M. Matt Spray (http://www.nationalart.com.au/product/n-a-m-matt-spray/)?
The link describes this as "Permanent protection for photographs, prints, artwork and most transfer lettering. Helps protect from U.V. and reduces glare on glossy surfaces".
Thanks, Bob
-
Is this what you are after:https://www.iphoto.net.au/premier.aspx
-
Yes, that's the stuff I'd like to get, but found it difficult to get here. The local Photo Warehouse advertises it on their website, but no longer stocks it.
Aerosols can't be shipped by air, so I found the Matt Spray at a local art supplies dealer. $19 compared to $45, so is also a lot cheaper. But it has to work!
Thanks, Bob
-
They had an NZ online link but I guess that it must be shipped from Oz.
-
Hahnemúhle Sprays? Considered to be the same as the Premier product.
for NZ;
https://www.u-buy.co.nz/brand/Hahnemuhle
https://www.hahnemuehle.com/en/contact/distributors-world-wide.html
Do not use matte sprays if you search for alternatives. Gloss sprays with small particles penetrate the paper and ink better so the image stays matte without losing Dmax etc which is not the case with matte varnishes. Slower evaporating varnishes work better too. Despite the odor (white spirit dissolved acrylic) the Talens 680 protective varnish is quite good. With all be aware that higher temperatures can harden the varnish faster and give an uneven image surface quality.
Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
March 2017 update, 750+ inkjet media white spectral plots
-
Be sure to distinguish between the solvent base aerosol Print Shield and the water based Eco products. I use the solvent based Print Shield regularly for glossy prints (papers and canvas) to protect them when mounted un-glazed. With matte paper, however, the solvent based Print Shield offers some protection, but it is not equal to the protection the water based Eco Print Shield or similar coatings can give. I do not consider the matte paper/canvas prints to be adequately protected by the solvent sprays for un-glazed display.
With the water based products, which are really needed for matte papers to be well protected if un-glazed, unless you have a HVLP sprayer and dust free spray booth, you're going to be stuck applying the coating with a roller. I have not had much luck getting a totally even coating with that form of application.
For un-glazed display I recommend most people stick with glossy papers and canvases that can be sealed with the solvent based Print Shield. It's easy to get an even coating, and it dries quickly enough that dust is not much of a problem even if, like me, an open garage is what has to serve as a "spray booth."
Note that with canvas, because the solvent based spray dries rather brittle, it cannot be stretched after sprayed and thoroughly dried. Even if sprayed after stretching, the solvent based sprays could be a problem if the canvas ever needs to be re-stretched due to sagging. I mount canvas on acid free foam core, in part, for this reason. I can then spray the glossy canvas (high dmax and fine weave of Innova IFA Fiba Print Ultra Gloss) with solvent based Print Shield easily without concern for the problems of cracking coating or sagging with time.
Paul
www.PaulRoark.com
-
Paul has it all right.
Cost is the only thing not discussed. At $16.95 more or less for a 12 oz. can I get a little over 1 sq. foot of coverage per oz.
with two moderate coats. That is $1.40 per square foot (1 oz.)or most times as much as your paper cost.
I use the small cans but very sparingly. You can buy it by the gal for around $1.00 per ounce. (+or-)
Some here have tried the crystal clear Krylon with good results. A little less then half the cost of Print Shield at $7.28 for 11 oz.
Would want to do some testing before using it on anything too good.
-
At one point I tried some of the Krylon and other alternatives. This was some time ago, but what I found was that the nozzles of the cheaper alternatives did not allow me to get as even a coating. It may be that some are better than others and that spraying technique and learning could offset the nozzle differences.
Paul
www.PaulRoark.com
-
Thanks Paul, Ernst and Dan for your replies and helpful suggestions.
What I thought might be a simple question of which aerosol spray then evolved into solvents or water-based, then roll or spray.
I've come to the conclusion (as suggested by Paul) that I need an aqueous coating for my Epson cold press natural paper mounted without glass. I will try BC Glamour II matt as it dries slower and dilution makes it more cost-effective than Timeless. Will try how mounting prints with Glamour works (I currently use Scotch 568 repositionable adhesive).
I will see how rolling works as this is less hassle than spraying and I'm hoping irregularities will not be as obvious on a matt print.
My outstanding questions are how much of a glass/satin it imparts on the print and if/how much Dmax I lose. I guess I will find out!
Thanks, Bob
-
Bob,
I'm not sure what size prints you make, but in my experimenting with coating, I found that a "Mayer" or "wire wound" rod could do a very good job up to about 11x14 inch size with the water based coatings -- better, in my view, than a roller. Beyond 11x14 I was not able to scale up the process. Since my target prints were larger, I stopped pursuing that approach. If you're interested I can dig up my old notes on this.
Paul
www.PaulRoark.com
-
I would be interested in your notes on the Mayer approach. Not wanting to hijack the discussion but looking at using that for coating of plastic and thin metal sheets with an inkjet receptor coating and can't find much info on the approach for using and locating the rods.
-
For mayer bars:
www.rdspecialties.com
Video from RD Specialties demonstrating use of a mayer bar:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y-iDF1pKJJA
Mayer bar rod size chart from RD Specialties:
https://www.rdspecialties.com/pages/size-selection
-
The rods I have came from Diversified Enterprises, Claremont, NH. The one that is use regularly these days if for ink, however, not coating. The viscosity is way different, so the size would not be the right one. It looks like Diversified is still there, but the internet takes me to https://www.accudynetest.com/laboratory_metering_rods.html when I look for them. So far I have not found notes on the size I found worked best for the polyurethane coating I was using. Some of the coating suppliers may have ideas as to size.
I found that glass on a towel on a flat surface resulted in the flatest surface for the pull-down. Thicker glass is needed for larger prints.
I did not use their pre-made base. Rather, I found taping the paper to the glass, and then running a bead of the coating along the tape worked for smaller prints. Having enough coating to not have the draw-down go dry before the end of the print is something you'll have to experiment with.
An even pull with even pressure is key to an even coating. That is probably the reason for their pre-made bed. However, I think their size limitation is what stopped me from going with it.
With the water based coatings, be aware that they don't dry totally for a long time. Stacks of prints that you thought were dry will stick together.
There are obviously a number of issues with these coatings and using a rod for application.
If I find my notes, I'll add to this.
Good luck.
Paul
www.PaulRoark.com
-
...
Despite the odor (white spirit dissolved acrylic) the Talens 680 protective varnish is quite good. With all be aware that higher temperatures can harden the varnish faster and give an uneven image surface quality.
Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
March 2017 update, 750+ inkjet media white spectral plots
My experience with the Talens 680 is to avoid temperatures below 15°C. If unavoidable I bring the can to "room temperature" (20°C) before spraying.
I'm very happy with the Talens 680, but I follow Ernst about the odor ;-)
Alain
-
I use Hahnemuhle Protective Spray for all my framed photos (framed without glass). It's actually a lacquer based spray which is extremely quick drying. It provides UV protection and some abrasion and fingerprint resistance. It does have a rather strong odor when sprayed so I installed a spray booth in the workshop to allow me to spray any time of the year.
Patrick
-
I found it difficult to get the Print Shield spray here so I tried two readily available and cheaper sprays that are marketed as for photographs: National Art Materials Crystal Clear and National Art Materials Matt Spray. Both are made in Australia. I recognise the benefits of non-aerosol coatings, such as Breathing Colour Timeless, but for the moment an aerosol spray has benefits in convenience.
I printed off a 255 step black to white image on my P600 onto Epson Cold Press Natural, which is my main b/w paper. I then covered strips of the print and applied both sprays. The results are quite staggering. The Matt Spray kills Dmax to the extent that it has very limited use. The Crystal Clear, on the other hand, actually increased Dmax. While it is marketed as a gloss spray, there was no visible increase in gloss at all.
In the image below, the strips are: no spray; (m) Matt Spray, (g) gloss (Crystal Clear), no spray, (m) Matt Spray, (g) Crystal clear, no spray.
There was no visible colour cast (the bottom right appears slightly warmer, but I think this part of the paper was curled up shielding the cooler sky light).
I'll use the Crystal Clear spray in the future. Any info on its longevity would be appreciated.
Bob
-
I found it difficult to get the Print Shield spray here so I tried two readily available and cheaper sprays that are marketed as for photographs: National Art Materials Crystal Clear and National Art Materials Matt Spray. Both are made in Australia. I recognise the benefits of non-aerosol coatings, such as Breathing Colour Timeless, but for the moment an aerosol spray has benefits in convenience.
I printed off a 255 step black to white image on my P600 onto Epson Cold Press Natural, which is my main b/w paper. I then covered strips of the print and applied both sprays. The results are quite staggering. The Matt Spray kills Dmax to the extent that it has very limited use. The Crystal Clear, on the other hand, actually increased Dmax. While it is marketed as a gloss spray, there was no visible increase in gloss at all.
In the image below, the strips are: no spray; (m) Matt Spray, (g) gloss (Crystal Clear), no spray, (m) Matt Spray, (g) Crystal clear, no spray.
There was no visible colour cast (the bottom right appears slightly warmer, but I think this part of the paper was curled up shielding the cooler sky light).
I'll use the Crystal Clear spray in the future. Any info on its longevity would be appreciated.
Bob
The only longevity tests I've seen for any coating has been for Premier Art's Print Shield (approximately a 25% increase) and their Eco Print Shield (>2x increase). Both tests are from Henry Wilhelm.
-
I wonder if Canon's (and HP's) clear coat inks have positive longevity effects if applied in "overall" mode? They seem to have a similar effect on gloss differential to spray coats - I have no idea if they are chemically related. If so, they're an interesting question cost wise - they are much more expensive per ml, but also much more efficiently applied.
Dan
-
I’d think we could figure out if there should be an effect (but not the amount) by measuring whether it blocks UV trying to hit optical brighteners.
-
The only longevity tests I've seen for any coating has been for Premier Art's Print Shield (approximately a 25% increase) and their Eco Print Shield (>2x increase). Both tests are from Henry Wilhelm.
Aardenburg-Imaging had some tests with and without protection varnishes.
Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
March 2017 update, 750+ inkjet media white spectral plots
-
Aardenburg-Imaging had some tests with and without protection varnishes.
Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
March 2017 update, 750+ inkjet media white spectral plots
That's true for the solvent based Print Shield (compare #272 vs #315) but not for the water based Eco version. Only Wilhelm has tested that.
-
I’d think we could figure out if there should be an effect (but not the amount) by measuring whether it blocks UV trying to hit optical brighteners.
Protection coatings more likely protect against gas fading of colorants, including the brightening agents, than block UV light. The layer thickness of the protection coats are not enough to filter UV out and when they would you would notice a gamut drop.
Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
March 2017 update, 750+ inkjet media white spectral plots
-
So is that also true of uv glass and uv plexi protection?
They don't appear to effect color gamut or contrast in any noticeable way and they certainly do the job.
Wilhelm's many tests of prints on various media with various inksets show uv glass doubling the fade figures of protection compare to regular glass. That includes media like Canson Rag Photo that have no oba content.
Protection coatings more likely protect against gas fading of colorants, including the brightening agents, than block UV light. The layer thickness of the protection coats are not enough to filter UV out and when they would you would notice a gamut drop.
Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
March 2017 update, 750+ inkjet media white spectral plots
-
So is that also true of uv glass and uv plexi protection?
They don't appear to effect color gamut or contrast in any noticeable way and they certainly do the job.
Wilhelm's many tests of prints on various media with various inksets show uv glass doubling the fade figures of protection compare to regular glass. That includes media like Canson Rag Photo that have no oba content.
UV glass is thicker and the UV light blocking quality depends on how heavy the filtering is. A lot of UV glass qualities certainly did have an effect on the translucency of that glass compared to other glass, the filtering being not that selective for UV only. There are spectral plots on the web to show that, usually the blue near UV is most affected but an overall reduction in translucency may not show a color cast. The eye adapts though. As visible light also degrades colorants it is not total protection for light fading either. Whether the more encapsulating glass frame also reduces gas fading I do not know, it might have some influence but the risks that bad fumes evaporate from the used framing materials might be as high. Nor do I know Wilhelm's set up for the tests with UV glass. I have only seen pictures of tests without the glass. I must have an older PDF file of spectral measurements on UV blocking glasses somewhere but there are more test results on the web;
downloads.hindawi.com/journals/ijp/2014/407027.pdf
An older discussion on the subject;
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/2810868
Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
March 2017 update, 750+ inkjet media white spectral plots
-
So is that also true of uv glass and uv plexi protection?
They don't appear to effect color gamut or contrast in any noticeable way and they certainly do the job.
Wilhelm's many tests of prints on various media with various inksets show uv glass doubling the fade figures of protection compare to regular glass. That includes media like Canson Rag Photo that have no oba content.
I think that regular window glass blocks about 80%-90% of the UV. The "UV" glass I think adds another 10% protection. Wilhelm also used to show fade rates with and without glass protection. I think the glass tests were implemented after the "orange fade" problem of Epson dye inks from ozone, about 15 years ago. (the glass supposedly helped protect against airborne ozone)
This article seems to do a pretty good explanation--
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Picture_framing_glass
-
Breathing Color's Timeless Matte works on matte papers. Just apply a thin even coat with a 6" foam roller.
-
Maybe so but that certainly isn't what Wilhelm is publishing.
With the paper- color ink combination that I am using today z3200 Canson Rag photo-
His figures are 85 years no glass
246 years behind glass
>450 years behind uv glass.
In reports in the past he has shown the same doubling that the number uv glass shows when using premiere art uv spray. It's hard to imagine that much ozone contamination going on in these short accelerated tests....mabe
I think that regular window glass blocks about 80%-90% of the UV. The "UV" glass I think adds another 10% protection. Wilhelm also used to show fade rates with and without glass protection. I think the glass tests were implemented after the "orange fade" problem of Epson dye inks from ozone, about 15 years ago. (the glass supposedly helped protect against airborne ozone)
This article seems to do a pretty good explanation--
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Picture_framing_glass
-
Maybe so but that certainly isn't what Wilhelm is publishing.
With the paper- color ink combination that I am using today z3200 Canson Rag photo-
His figures are 85 years no glass
246 years behind glass
>450 years behind uv glass.
In reports in the past he has shown the same doubling that the number uv glass shows when using premiere art uv spray. It's hard to imagine that much ozone contamination going on in these short accelerated tests....mabe
I haven't looked at Wilhelm's page lately, but it can make sense. Remember, our coated papers are "microporous" to absorb the ink, so if you don't seal the microporous surface with glass, or a spray, it's open to atmospheric contaminants. Ozone is one of the most comon and harmful to dyes and pigments alike. While he's not attributing the fade figures to atmospheric polutants, my reasoning is that they are responsible for the shortened life of the unprotected prints in combination with the light fading. I once had a paper manufacturer tell me that using even lacquer hair spray would double the life of microporous papers.
-
Yes we have known for many years that inkjet receptor coatings are like a magnet for airborne contaminants, but I was talking about the disparity between uv glass ( and uv coatings) and regular framing glass. All of his tests show twice the longevity for uv glass vs regular glass ( and his tests of Premere Art spray showed the same thing vs regular glass in the past.) there haven't been enough tests of the uv sprays, where we are looking at the same ink-media combination with and without the sprays.
I haven't looked at Wilhelm's page lately, but it can make sense. Remember, our coated papers are "microporous" to absorb the ink, so if you don't seal the microporous surface with glass, or a spray, it's open to atmospheric contaminants. Ozone is one of the most comon and harmful to dyes and pigments alike. While he's not attributing the fade figures to atmospheric polutants, my reasoning is that they are responsible for the shortened life of the unprotected prints in combination with the light fading. I once had a paper manufacturer tell me that using even lacquer hair spray would double the life of microporous papers.
-
If you want your prints to look plastic. It also destroys your dmax. I've done many tests on many matte papers and they all looked horrible. I wanted to do some large mounted prints but that Timeles destroyed the character of the papers. I also tried Satin and gloss. You might as well be printing on rc papers, and those would look much better too.
Breathing Color's Timeless Matte works on matte papers. Just apply a thin even coat with a 6" foam roller.
-
So is that also true of uv glass and uv plexi protection?
They don't appear to effect color gamut or contrast in any noticeable way and they certainly do the job.
Wilhelm's many tests of prints on various media with various inksets show uv glass doubling the fade figures of protection compare to regular glass. That includes media like Canson Rag Photo that have no oba content.
Some of the glass advertised as UV can add a slight yellowish cast to the image, though I suppose you could correct for that in the initial print by making it a little on the blue side.
-
Interesting, I didn't know that, and regular glass usually has a slight green tint, some of it very green. Most people I know use plexi but the museum acrylic is beyond being affordable for most of us for large work. Large glass is much too heavy.
Some of the glass advertised as UV can add a slight yellowish cast to the image, though I suppose you could correct for that in the initial print by making it a little on the blue side.
-
Interesting, I didn't know that, and regular glass usually has a slight green tint, some of it very green. Most people I know use plexi but the museum acrylic is beyond being affordable for most of us for large work. Large glass is much too heavy.
Yeah. Have you ever bought a UV filter for a lens and noticed it has a slight yellowish tint? And the stronger the UV filtration the yellower the filter is. Same thing with picture framing glass. BTW, the glass with a greenish tint is just regular window glass. Regular picture frame glass has no color cast. So if someone ever tries to sell you glass with a greenish tint and tells you it's picture framing glass, they're just lying to you and checking your level of ignorance.
But using acrylic has its own set of problems. Not only does it have the same reflection problem as regular glass but it also scratches easily (BTW, "scratch resistant" acrylic will still easily scratch, just not quite an easily as regular acrylic, but at 2x the price), and if not wiped on the inside before framing with an anti-static cloth, carries a strong static electric charge that attracts dust on the inside of the acrylic. Plus it's also not ridged like glass, so the larger the piece of Plexiglas required the thicker it needs to be. This also makes it more expensive and heavier. And if you try to get around this thicker requirement it will bow in the center and can touch your photo if the mat or spacer is not thick enough. TANSTAAFL
All these problems are why I (and others) have been switching over to either gallery wrapped canvas or just mounting the photo on a ridged board (in my case acrylic) and applying a protective overcoat.
-
It's been 17 years or so since I used regular glass for framing so I haven't thought about it for a long time.
For my own work I dry mount the prints to 8 ply rag board and frame in a thick shadow box wooden frame with rag board spacers and plexiglas. If they are larger than 20x30 I use dibond mounting. Occasionally I will use water white glass for smaller things and this stuff is so clear and sharp that there is no way you can tell it had any thing over the print, totally glare and reflection free. It doesn't have a uv filter. But it is very expensive. These days most of my clients mount to 1/8 inch dibond for exhibition and either frame without any plexi by putting a wooden rectangular stabilizing unit for hanging on the back which prevents any warping and either use a thin frame or none at all.We do a lot of 40x60 prints this way and the prints look so clean and sharp. We have a great mounting company here that does precision work. That is critical for clean edges. Most mounting companies are a disaster. I spray th prints with Hahnemühle spray. If the work is sold they are put in a big shadow box frame with Plexi or use mats. It's all a lot more expensive and much heavier than canvas .
Yeah. Have you ever bought a UV filter for a lens and noticed it has a slight yellowish tint? And the stronger the UV filtration the yellower the filter is. Same thing with picture framing glass. BTW, the glass with a greenish tint is just regular window glass. Regular picture frame glass has no color cast. So if someone ever tries to sell you glass with a greenish tint and tells you it's picture framing glass, they're just lying to you and checking your level of ignorance.
But using acrylic has its own set of problems. Not only does it have the same reflection problem as regular glass but it also scratches easily (BTW, "scratch resistant" acrylic will still easily scratch, just not quite an easily as regular acrylic, but at 2x the price), and if not wiped on the inside before framing with an anti-static cloth, carries a strong static electric charge that attracts dust on the inside of the acrylic. Plus it's also not ridged like glass, so the larger the piece of Plexiglas required the thicker it needs to be. This also makes it more expensive and heavier. And if you try to get around this thicker requirement it will bow in the center and can touch your photo if the mat or spacer is not thick enough. TANSTAAFL
All these problems are why I (and others) have been switching over to either gallery wrapped canvas or just mounting the photo on a ridged board (in my case acrylic) and applying a protective overcoat.
-
Protection coatings more likely protect against gas fading of colorants, including the brightening agents, than block UV light. The layer thickness of the protection coats are not enough to filter UV out and when they would you would notice a gamut drop.
Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
March 2017 update, 750+ inkjet media white spectral plots
As a 30 year finisher in our cabinetry business I agree 100% at least for our furniture finish product.
The solvent based catalized laquer we use has a UV tag on all the labels, except it is meant to keep the product from yellowing over time. The solvent finish is called water white meaning it will not yellow over time.
Has nothing to do with protecting anything underneath. Spraying this product over cherry has no effect on the wood darkening with a beautiful patina over time.
Have always been a skeptic of uv coatings protecting anything underneath from fading.
The question begs is the same thing going on with canvas coatings that is happening with furniture finishes.
-
When the Fuji Chrystal Archive type C papers came along in the late 90s they proved to be a significant improvement in regard to light fading compared to all type c papers before them. Their product utilized a uv filter built into the emulsion somehow, they advertised. Wilhelms tests gave them a figure I believe of 60 years compared to 18 years for Kodak if I remember correctly. The one big improvement that I have seen is in the white paper base where all of my old Kodak c prints have yellowed while the Fuji prints 20 years old now have not changed.
-
These days most of my clients mount to 1/8 inch dibond for exhibition and either frame without any plexi by putting a wooden rectangular stabilizing unit for hanging on the back which prevents any warping and either use a thin frame or none at all.We do a lot of 40x60 prints this way and the prints look so clean and sharp. We have a great mounting company here that does precision work. That is critical for clean edges. Most mounting companies are a disaster. I spray th prints with Hahnemühle spray. If the work is sold they are put in a big shadow box frame with Plexi or use mats. It's all a lot more expensive and much heavier than canvas .
Instead of the rattle can Hahnemule spray, you might experiment with spraying Rosco Clear Acrylic Gloss diluted 1:1. It takes experience and experimentation to put down the spray in a "dusting" manner so the paper finish is not covered up in an "ugly" way. Forget worrying about UV unless the client insists displaying the piece in full sunlight, and even there the best you might expect is maybe 5-10 years without visible fade, if you are lucky.
The problem with glass & Plexi, of course is the reflections. So unless you have a museum environment where the lighting can be vary controlled, I hate glass & plexi. I have been tending more and more either Canvas with a light protective spray of the Rosco (2 coats), or luster RC with no protection, mounted like you note above.
-
Thanks friends for a very informative discussion.
My question actually related to the longevity of the Crystal Clear spray itself. For example, does it yellow over time? I've never heard this criticism of the Hahnemuhle or Print Shield sprays.
I'm happy with the limited changes to the appearance of the Epson Cold Press Natural prints, especially Dmax. I presume Crystal Clear increases the scuff resistance of the prints and will tolerate a careful wiping down - I will test that shortly.
And I like how my prints look mounted without glass between the viewer and the photo.
But I don't to save a few pennies, use non-OBA paper and good inks, take care with mounting, and then have a print go yellow after a few years.
-
The beauty of the Aardenburg tests is that you can see exactly how much yellowing or darkening the paper base exhibits and exactly when it happens in regard to the light exposure for a specific media.
Personally I wouldn't use any spray that hasn't been vetted by a cross section of tests over a period of time. The Hahnemühle spray and the Premere Art sprays have always been marketed as "non-yellowing" and the tests I've seen have confirmed this. How long they add to the protection of uv burnout I believe is still an open question.
Thanks friends for a very informative discussion.
My question actually related to the longevity of the Crystal Clear spray itself. For example, does it yellow over time? I've never heard this criticism of the Hahnemuhle or Print Shield sprays.
I'm happy with the limited changes to the appearance of the Epson Cold Press Natural prints, especially Dmax. I presume Crystal Clear increases the scuff resistance of the prints and will tolerate a careful wiping down - I will test that shortly.
And I like how my prints look mounted without glass between the viewer and the photo.
But I don't to save a few pennies, use non-OBA paper and good inks, take care with mounting, and then have a print go yellow after a few years.
-
I just noticed WIR posted data for UltraChrome HDX earlier this month. I wonder if there's Lucia Pro data coming soon. One can hope!
-
I'm not going to hold my breath. I think they have done their own tests, which were briefly referred to on their website, and don't want us to see the results, especially now that Epson has made reall yellow channel improvements without sacrificing gamut. If indeed Canon has gone backward it will be a real shame. I totally love my big Canon for 7 years now for all kinds of work and certainly didn't need a gamut increase at the expensive of permanence.
I just noticed WIR posted data for UltraChrome HDX earlier this month. I wonder if there's Lucia Pro data coming soon. One can hope!