Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Printing: Printers, Papers and Inks => Topic started by: shadowblade on March 30, 2016, 05:39:56 am
-
Lots of places are now printing directly onto Dibond, or onto the back of glass and acrylic panels which can then be backed with Dibond. They're suitable for outdoor display - the inks are very lightfast and the Dibond panels themselves are physically durable. But how about the white coating on the surface of Dibond that forms the print surface? Anyone know if this is OBA-free and colour-stable? Unfortunately, I don't have a UV source and a piece of unprinted Dibond around at the moment...
-
would of said pigmented inks would be lot more stable than flatbed uv stuff long term no. uv stuff is designed for relatively short term use. 5-10 years etc
-
would of said pigmented inks would be lot more stable than flatbed uv stuff long term no. uv stuff is designed for relatively short term use. 5-10 years etc
That's 10 years outdoors, under direct sunlight, even in Australian conditions (i.e. very strong UV light all year).
-
is the Dibond have a receptor coating? standard disband is aluminum ... no oba's. If it had a white receptor coating, then that could contain oba's.
-
is the Dibond have a receptor coating? standard disband is aluminum ... no oba's. If it had a white receptor coating, then that could contain oba's.
No, it doesn't have a receptor coating. UV inks don't need one. It's available in all sorts of colours, including a plain aluminium surface. When printing photos, you're likely printing on the white one.
-
No, it doesn't have a receptor coating. UV inks don't need one. It's available in all sorts of colours, including a plain aluminium surface. When printing photos, you're likely printing on the white one.
Thus, you have very likely answered your own question. No OBA's in titanium white base formulations for house paints, either. The whitening agents in house paints essentially consist of TiO2 pigments (lead white pigments used in historic white paint formulations now deemed environmentally hazardous)... no OBA's included nor are they needed. Very easy to confirm. I don't have any white Dibond on hand to do this simple test, but shine a UV blacklight on the white coated Dibond surface, and it will glow if OBAS impregnated and not if TiO2 pigment only :)
-
Thus, you have very likely answered your own question. No OBA's in titanium white base formulations for house paints, either. The whitening agents in house paints essentially consist of TiO2 pigments (lead white pigments used in historic white paint formulations now deemed environmentally hazardous)... no OBA's included nor are they needed. Very easy to confirm. I don't have any white Dibond on hand to do this simple test, but shine a UV blacklight on the white coated Dibond surface, and it will glow if OBAS impregnated and not if TiO2 pigment only :)
I wasn't aware white/coloured Dibond was just painted - I had assumed it was some sort of pigmented polyester or other polymer coating. Any risk of it cracking, flaking or peeling, like white-painted weatherboard houses or ship hulls?
I don't have a UV light or a piece of white Dibond around either - was wondering if anyone else did!
-
I wasn't aware white/coloured Dibond was just painted - I had assumed it was some sort of pigmented polyester or other polymer coating. Any risk of it cracking, flaking or peeling, like white-painted weatherboard houses or ship hulls?
I don't have a UV light or a piece of white Dibond around either - was wondering if anyone else did!
The way the coating is applied does not indicate how the bond will be. What I recall of the original Alucobond is a polyester coating with no details how it was applied. Today it can be PVDF or another exotic polymer. Could be sprayed, curtain, rolled-on or even a powder coating. I bet curtain coating and UV curing. The coating will be applied roll to roll on the aluminium before both layers of them are fused to the polyethylene core. The aluminium will be prepared to give a better bond on both sides, to the paint and to the core. For white, TiO2 is the pigment most likely used. Alucobond could be had one side with color and the other side bare aluminium, aluminium varnished or both sides color coated. For the DiBond we discus it is usually coated white on both sides and there is a quality with a more receptive coating for solvent inkjet inks. I tested a Chinese version with a UV lamp and a stack of Teflon tape as a reference, the last is OBA free, the composite sheet did not reflect a bluer color than the Teflon. There is an inexpensive UV torch called Perel EFL41UV with 9 LEDS that emit UV at 395-400 NM. I use that one but there are other ones with shifted spectral output; http://www.amazon.com/Urparcel-Professional-Inspection-Flashlight-380-385nm/dp/B0013E3XVU Different UV sources may make another tool to check for similarity/difference between inkjet papers that I can not detect with the spectrometer.
Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
January 2016 update, 700+ inkjet media white spectral plots
-
The way the coating is applied does not indicate how the bond will be. What I recall of the original Alucobond is a polyester coating with no details how it was applied. Today it can be PVDF or another exotic polymer. Could be sprayed, curtain, rolled-on or even a powder coating. I bet curtain coating and UV curing. The coating will be applied roll to roll on the aluminium before both layers of them are fused to the polyethylene core. The aluminium will be prepared to give a better bond on both sides, to the paint and to the core. For white, TiO2 is the pigment most likely used. Alucobond could be had one side with color and the other side bare aluminium, aluminium varnished or both sides color coated. For the DiBond we discus it is usually coated white on both sides and there is a quality with a more receptive coating for solvent inkjet inks. I tested a Chinese version with a UV lamp and a stack of Teflon tape as a reference, the last is OBA free, the composite sheet did not reflect a bluer color than the Teflon. There is an inexpensive UV torch called Perel EFL41UV with 9 LEDS that emit UV at 395-400 NM. I use that one but there are other ones with shifted spectral output; http://www.amazon.com/Urparcel-Professional-Inspection-Flashlight-380-385nm/dp/B0013E3XVU Different UV sources may make another tool to check for similarity/difference between inkjet papers that I can not detect with the spectrometer.
Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
January 2016 update, 700+ inkjet media white spectral plots
Not just the substrate-to-coating bond, but the coating-to-coating bond - I would suspect a continuous sheet of polyester is less likely to crack, flake or disintegrate than a paint or coating with nothing in particular holding one part to the next, although it is just susceptible to peeling off as the paint.
I'm guessing the aluminium panels are anodised or otherwise roughened on a microscopic scale, in order to greatly increase the surface area available for bonding.
-
The white coating is a very thin layer and will bond way better applied as a paint and then cured than as a foil and glued or fused. The curing will improve the hardness of the coating. Roll to roll coating with a 5 micron primer and a 20 micron topcoat is what I see mentioned for aluminium.
Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
January 2016 update, 700+ inkjet media white spectral plots
-
The white coating is a very thin layer and will bond way better applied as a paint and then cured than as a foil and glued or fused. The curing will improve the hardness of the coating. Roll to roll coating with a 5 micron primer and a 20 micron topcoat is what I see mentioned for aluminium.
Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
January 2016 update, 700+ inkjet media white spectral plots
Fair enough - makes sense. So it's applied as a primer and then a paint, and then baked on (like enamel)?
Anodised titanium looks interesting, too - unlike aluminium, it can be anodised to a neutral white. Not too expensive all things considered, but it's difficult to cut, so not often used.
-
I have a large number of clients, including myself, who like to have their pigment inkjet prints mounted on dibond. This dibond is usually painted with a white or black acrylic paint.
Does anyone have any info on the long term stability issues with mounting on diabond with an acid free adhesive. I know the photographer Sugimoti has had his bw gelatin silver prints mounted on dibond for a long time. He also made the statement in an interview that he had been told that aluminum will release sulfuric compounds into the back of the print in the long term that could discolor prints. So he has his prints mounted to 4 ply rag board before mounting to the dibond.
I can't find any info online about the long term implications of mounting to dibond, or even any significant data on the adhesives used. Does anyone have any idea?
I know the ultimate method would be to dry mount the prints to 4 ply rag board and then mount that rag board to the dibond with PVA book binding glue, but I can't see myself going to all that hassle and expense unless it is going into a museum.
john
-
I have a large number of clients, including myself, who like to have their pigment inkjet prints mounted on dibond. This dibond is usually painted with a white or black acrylic paint.
Does anyone have any info on the long term stability issues with mounting on diabond with an acid free adhesive. I know the photographer Sugimoti has had his bw gelatin silver prints mounted on dibond for a long time. He also made the statement in an interview that he had been told that aluminum will release sulfuric compounds into the back of the print in the long term that could discolor prints. So he has his prints mounted to 4 ply rag board before mounting to the dibond.
I can't find any info online about the long term implications of mounting to dibond, or even any significant data on the adhesives used. Does anyone have any idea?
I know the ultimate method would be to dry mount the prints to 4 ply rag board and then mount that rag board to the dibond with PVA book binding glue, but I can't see myself going to all that hassle and expense unless it is going into a museum.
john
I don't know why it would.
Aluminium reacts with oxygen in air more-or-less instantly to form an impervious oxide layer, which stops further oxidation or aluminium-induced catalysis. Anodising it only increases the protection by thickening the oxide layer.
-
You would think that all these high-end mounting places that do work for museums in NY and LA, etc, would have information on these properties of dibond but no one is posting any. I would be nice if there were studies out there but it's hard to find any, even on the adhesives, much less the dibond.
john
I don't know why it would.
Aluminium reacts with oxygen in air more-or-less instantly to form an impervious oxide layer, which stops further oxidation or aluminium-induced catalysis. Anodising it only increases the protection by thickening the oxide layer.
-
I do understand that everyone wants this stuff to last a lifetime,but is it practical to expect?
I want my work to last forever too but still only warranty it for a year. The craftsmanship I can control.
Someone elses materials I can not. Most if not all vendors will not warranty materials after they are mounted and delivered to the client.
So basically you are on your own. Which makes for vetting your materials and suppliers very important
Your warranty from vendors pretty much extends to shipment damage or some other material flaw noticed before mounting.
My work is probably far different then what some of you are trying to perfect.
Homeowners travel and family photographs. Photo enthusiests landscape and nature work. Photo club contests printing and mounting plus some artists digital reproduction on canvas.
Average hanging life for this type of photography is around 7 years.
In my cabinetry days we did one after another $25,000 to $35,000 large home office projects.
My warranty for craftsmanship and materials was 5 years. More then several million dollars worth of stuff built in 5 states.
Call backs in 27 years,1. Just have to keep the worrying in perspective
-
Your right we are selling to a completely different clientele.
-
You would think that all these high-end mounting places that do work for museums in NY and LA, etc, would have information on these properties of dibond but no one is posting any. I would be nice if there were studies out there but it's hard to find any, even on the adhesives, much less the dibond.
john
I guess the aluminium oxide coating could catalyse the formation of elemental sulfur via the Claus process... if it were placed in a high-temperature environment rich in hydrogen sulfide gas.
It would be nice to know exactly what adhesives were being used, though. I suspect polyvinyl acetate, derivatives of polyvinyl alcohol and methacrylates would be high on the list.
That said, for direct printing, there probably aren't many substrates more stable and durable than aluminium sheet. If a white background is desired, painted or enamelled Dibond would be better than coated aluminium sheet, since it is more dimensionally-stable and thus less prone to developing surface cracks. Otherwise, anodised titanium can also be made white by applying the correct voltage during the anodising process. Ceramics, perhaps, but, then, there's the problem of cutting them to size and shape.
For aqueous inkjet prints displayed without glass/framing, it might be hard to go past stretched canvas. Once it's printed and saturated in Timeless, it's essentially a single unit - a polymer layer reinforced by cotton/polyester fibres and incorporating the image layer within it - stretched around a frame, to which it is attached by easily-replaceable staples or nails. No substrate or glue to react with, nothing to delaminate, no bond to fail.
-
I do understand that everyone wants this stuff to last a lifetime,but is it practical to expect?
I want my work to last forever too but still only warranty it for a year. The craftsmanship I can control.
Someone elses materials I can not. Most if not all vendors will not warranty materials after they are mounted and delivered to the client.
So basically you are on your own. Which makes for vetting your materials and suppliers very important
Your warranty from vendors pretty much extends to shipment damage or some other material flaw noticed before mounting.
My work is probably far different then what some of you are trying to perfect.
Homeowners travel and family photographs. Photo enthusiests landscape and nature work. Photo club contests printing and mounting plus some artists digital reproduction on canvas.
Average hanging life for this type of photography is around 7 years.
In my cabinetry days we did one after another $25,000 to $35,000 large home office projects.
My warranty for craftsmanship and materials was 5 years. More then several million dollars worth of stuff built in 5 states.
Call backs in 27 years,1. Just have to keep the worrying in perspective
Don't forget, these mounting/display longevity issues are relevant not just to photography, but also to original paintings and drawings, which can't just be reprinted.
Many, many institutions have portraits and paintings hundreds of years old, of members or founders long dead and events long-forgotten. Some appear to be in perfect condition, others haven't held up so well. If they're displaying a photo I took next to some of these relics, I'd like it to look as good in 400 years too.
-
Thats a whole different story, I agree.
-
Thing is we have had first class research done on photo materials, digitql and analogue, primarily because they are so disparite in quality that they have to be tested, but we don't have the same kind of research invested into mounting materials.
We do know from RIT that dry mounting with good thermo plastics has turned out to be a very viable method of mounting, when mounting to rag boards. And even protects the gelatin silver prints! And we know that mounting with PVA book binders glue is excellent for very long term stability and chemical free content. We know that plexi yellows.
But in this era most of us are not dry mounting to rag board anymore or using wet glue, we're mounting to dibond or sentra, or worse and there are just no verifiable figures on this stuff (and it ain't cheap to do boys). I put the blame on galleries and museum personnel. They just don't seem to know or care about anything in this regard anymore. They should know, it's their job. But we live in a throw away culture. What else is new.
Really the safest way to mount a pigment print is to matt it behind a rag matt on a rag mount and frame behind glass or plexi. Only problem with that is it is considered old fashioned, and maybe it is. I don't even like to show prints like that anymore and I'm a fascist when it comes to longevity.
Was hoping Mark at Aardenburg would chime in. He knows more than all the rest of us put together.
John
Thats a whole different story, I agree.
[/
-
Thing is we have had first class research done on photo materials, digitql and analogue, primarily because they are so disparite in quality that they have to be tested, but we don't have the same kind of research invested into mounting materials.
We do know from RIT that dry mounting with good thermo plastics has turned out to be a very viable method of mounting, when mounting to rag boards. And even protects the gelatin silver prints! And we know that mounting with PVA book binders glue is excellent for very long term stability and chemical free content. We know that plexi yellows.
Plexi/acrylic yellows a lot less than most other plastics, and many glasses.
Regardless, adhesives can fail and substrates crumble, scratch or break; what is needed isn't so much an unbreakable substrate or failproof glue, but an easily-reversible method of flat-mounting a print to Dibond or face-mounting it to acrylic or glass.
A lot of this depends on the strength and durability of the print itself, rather than the strength of the adhesive. PVA works very well, but the print also needs to survive reversal. So does Glamour II. Flat-mounted canvas works well, due to its strength, but doesn't exactly lend itself to a smooth or paper-like texture.
I've had luck spraying Breathing Color Pura Smooth and Pura Velvet with Timeless Gloss. Dilute it 4 parts Timeless to 1 part distilled water, with a drop of Photo-Flo, then spray on one or more thin layers via HVLP (the more layers, the more gloss). Or you can kill the gloss on the front with a light spray of Timeless Matte or Satin after you finish with the diluted Gloss. It soaks through the image layer and inkjet layer, deep into the paper base, forming a thick conglomerate of image, receptive layer and paper fibres, all held together and encapsulated in Timeless polymer that behaves as a single piece and won't come apart. Repeat on the back of the print and the whole thing becomes as tough as canvas. I'd expect it to hold up very well to repeated mounting and reversal.
But in this era most of us are not dry mounting to rag board anymore or using wet glue, we're mounting to dibond or sentra, or worse and there are just no verifiable figures on this stuff (and it ain't cheap to do boys). I put the blame on galleries and museum personnel. They just don't seem to know or care about anything in this regard anymore. They should know, it's their job. But we live in a throw away culture. What else is new.
PVA essentially forms an impervious barrier between the substrate and the print, preventing them from interacting. That's why you can mount a print to acid-containing wood boards using PVA without any effect on the print. It's also reversible. Dry-mount tissues do much the same (and both also protect the back of the print from gases) and some are acid-free. The only issue is reversability - impossible with some, difficult with others.
Really the safest way to mount a pigment print is to matt it behind a rag matt on a rag mount and frame behind glass or plexi. Only problem with that is it is considered old fashioned, and maybe it is. I don't even like to show prints like that anymore and I'm a fascist when it comes to longevity.
From a photographer's (rather than archivist's) perspective, we really need more data and better methods for prolonging the life of prints on open display, rather than better cold/dark storage methods. After all, photos are meant to be displayed - a print kept in a dark freezer somewhere might be safe, but also isn't very useful.
Or you can bypass most of these issues and find a way to print directly onto aluminium sheet, titanium sheet or Dibond. With a sufficiently-lightfast white ink, you don't even need a white-coated substrate...
-
(...) But in this era most of us are not dry mounting to rag board anymore or using wet glue, we're mounting to dibond or sentra, or worse and there are just no verifiable figures on this stuff (and it ain't cheap to do boys). I put the blame on galleries and museum personnel. They just don't seem to know or care about anything in this regard anymore. They should know, it's their job. But we live in a throw away culture. What else is new.
Really the safest way to mount a pigment print is to matt it behind a rag matt on a rag mount and frame behind glass or plexi. Only problem with that is it is considered old fashioned, and maybe it is. I don't even like to show prints like that anymore and I'm a fascist when it comes to longevity.
That is exactly my feeling. I have seen high end galleries selling prints mounted on sintra with cheap adhesive using the sales-pitch of "pigmented prints on rag paper that will last centuries". Most artists don't want to hear about longevity issues, same with art merchants. It is almost as if they want to be able to deny knowing about it.
-
That is exactly my feeling. I have seen high end galleries selling prints mounted on sintra with cheap adhesive using the sales-pitch of "pigmented prints on rag paper that will last centuries". Most artists don't want to hear about longevity issues, same with art merchants. It is almost as if they want to be able to deny knowing about it.
Many artists (and some photographers) don't want to know about the technical side of things at all - some, it seems, choose to deliberately not know, and almost take pride in not knowing!
That in itself isn't so bad, since sign printers and other commercial printers certainly do know about the technical side of things, and care a lot about longevity (a year outdoors being equivalent to 100 years or more indoors in terms of UV and gas exposure, and probably a lot more in terms of water and other physical damage).
Trouble is, commercial printers care a lot about speed and not so much about quality, and print in huge sizes that most photographers will never need (even 60" is bigger than most will ever need - 44" already allows for a 40x60" print or 40x120" panorama). So we end up with inks and substrates that can last a decade outdoors (and maybe a millennium indoors), delivered through $500k, 5m-wide printers with four inks, no light inks and large droplets aimed at speed rather than image quality. Great if you need a billboard printed, but not so practical if you're trying to print 20x30" fine art onto a durable metal, glass or ceramic substrate. Meanwhile, the art- and photo-oriented printers optimised for image quality can't print on thick, durable substrates, so we're stuck with mounting.
-
epsons can print on 1.5mm substrates
i often print on mountboard for corporate jobs
also have a coated aluminium and copper sheet that will go through the printer. it then has to be coated (varnished or something to protect it though
-
epsons can print on 1.5mm substrates
i often print on mountboard for corporate jobs
That's useful for printing on specialty, ultra-thick papers, but still too thin for a standalone piece that doesn't require mounting and all its associated issues. For directing printing of standalone pieces, you're really looking at a minimum 3mm thickness capability, ideally 6mm.
It'd be nice if there was some sort of 'pigment transfer' process, similar to the dye-sub method used for dye-sub aluminium prints.
also have a coated aluminium and copper sheet that will go through the printer. it then has to be coated (varnished or something to protect it though
It also needs to be mounted. It's not thick enough to be a standalone piece.
-
nah i have done them with just subframe, 1.5mm thick aluminium is pretty stiff. havent done big sizes though
-
nah i have done them with just subframe, 1.5mm thick aluminium is pretty stiff. havent done big sizes though
Yeah, wouldn't work so well for 20x30" and larger - particularly for long, wide panoramas. Although mounting an aluminium sheet is likely far easier and far more reversible than a fragile piece of paper.
That said, you'd also need Breathing Color or Hahnemuhle to release inkjet-coated aluminium plate with good image permanence. The current metal foils and sheets don't really cut it from that standpoint.
-
actually have done up to that size (30*20)
i use a 1" cube aluminum sub frame on the back, makes it very stiff
the trick is what you coat them with. it can give a serious amount of robustness to them
-
actually have done up to that size (30*20)
i use a 1" cube aluminum sub frame on the back, makes it very stiff
the trick is what you coat them with. it can give a serious amount of robustness to them
I'm really talking about *over* that size - 20x30 is just about as small as I go (and most prints I make are panoramas of some sort, meaning 16x48" or larger - not great for stiffness). The last thing you want is for someone to bump into something during installation or transport and a corner to bend...
Anyway, I think we'll have to wait for 24-44" photo/art-oriented UV printers for decent direct output onto metal outside of a signage factory with a $500k printer. The current 'inkjet-ready' metal sheets seem more designed for novelty than for serious, long-lived works (don't think there is even an option for metal with a white background - it's all about the metallic appearance, rather than using metal as a durable substrate), and it doesn't seem like Hahnemuhle, Breathing Color or anyone else with a long-lived, high-quality inkjet coating has any interest in making inkjet-compatible metal.
-
Really the safest way to mount a pigment print is to matt it behind a rag matt on a rag mount and frame behind glass or plexi. Only problem with that is it is considered old fashioned, and maybe it is. I don't even like to show prints like that anymore and I'm a fascist when it comes to longevity.
That's probably why, these days, I seem to be producing far fewer large paper prints than I used to, and far more dye-sub metal and canvas.
Most images look great on one paper or another. For black-and-white images, I'd say that paper is very hard to beat on almost any other medium - Canson Etching, Hahnemuhle Photo Rag Baryta and Platine Rag especially. Trouble is, it doesn't hold up well when displayed without glass or frame - doubly so in a busy environment.
A new, super-tough paper, or some way to 'fix' existing papers so that they become as tough as painted or sprayed canvas without changing its appearance, would be very welcome. Timeless on Pura Velvet works well, but the appearance of the paper is still visibly altered and the print will still be destroyed if someone scrapes their fingernail across it.
-
I don't have any references, but I recall seeing some Chinese and Swiss printers where they had transferred the paper movement controls to the ink carriage in some way that the substrate remains static and all movement takes place at the carts - both forward and side to side. The heads and inks slowly move forward over the substrate. Then the platen that the substrate sits on had a simple manual vertical adjustment range of about 1 inch.
In at least one example I saw it was an Epson large format that had been modified. It seemed like the sort of thing a competent person with a good workshop and a bit of electromechanical knowledge could do?