Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Printing: Printers, Papers and Inks => Topic started by: sbay on October 14, 2022, 07:28:45 pm
-
I have a spot in my house where I'd like to hang a photo but it's directly opposite a very large window (the whole wall essentially). I put a tru-life acrylic facemount there but the reflections are not great (even with the tru-life). Would a matt print framed with museum glass fare any better? Optium would be the same as tru-life? What are my options here?
-
Frame without any glass. I've been doing this for years at home without any issues. No matter what glass you use, there will always be a degradation of the print from different viewing angles.
-
Canvas, matte or semigloss. No reflection worries.
-
Frame without any glass. I've been doing this for years at home without any issues. No matter what glass you use, there will always be a degradation of the print from different viewing angles.
My thought exactly. It's a photo, you can make another if it gets damaged. If I had an original Strand or Weston it would be a different matter!
-
So museum glass is unlikely to be any better?
Canvas is possibility but I generally prefer paper. I can also skip the glass for my own pictures but that won't be an option for other work.
Any thoughts on prints with a laminate coating or some kind of sealant? like you see with plaque mounted or prints adhered to dibond (e.g. bayphoto's epic prints)?
-
I have sold display prints through a gallery for years that are sprayed with 4 coats of Premier Art's Print Shield, dry mounted, and then framed without glazing. I have never had any of these get damaged in my home, nor have I ever heard from a customer about any damage. I use Red River satin paper. The highlights are very diffuse. I have also used matte paper behind museum glass. I'm looking at examples of both approaches on my office walls now. While both look good, the sprayed, satin paper has slightly higher dynamic range (deeper blacks).
Paul
www.PaulRoark.com
-
Paul, why do you need to spray a photo that is not behind glass? Does it change the look of the chosen media?
-
Paul, why do you need to spray a photo that is not behind glass? Does it change the look of the chosen media?
Different thread, good answer:
I don't know how you can get around not coating any canvas ink jet print for maximum light fastness and durability! AFAIK, most inkjet media is coated with a nano porous receptor coating, that is quite susceptible to atmospheric polutants, especially Ozone. This will attack pigments and dyes. This is why prints need to be sealed under glass, or coated to seal the nanoporous surface.
-
Paul, why do you need to spray a photo that is not behind glass? Does it change the look of the chosen media?
Sealing the microporous surface is the main reason for the spray. After spraying, for example, water will run off the surface. So, I think it simply makes the print much more durable.
It may increase fade resistance, but with my primarily carbon inkset (black and white printing only), that's not something I worry about anyway.
It does slightly change the appearance of the surface, but it's still a "satin" finish. Bright reflections are diffuse enough to see through.
Paul
www.PaulRoark.com
-
Premiere Art uv spray is not robust enough to protect a print overtime from pollutants in the air. As Mark at Aardenburg has written.
Over 20 years I never had a client have an issue except once when he showed some prints of mine that had three coats of the Premiere Art spray and showed with no other protection. He pinned to a gallery wall and within one month they not only changed in regard to density but also turned a sick sepia color. They were Vivera bw neutral prints. They did this in three different locations. That freaked me out. All Canson Rag Photographique. Could Baryta surface fare better, don’t know.
Mark has noted that the inkjet receptor coatings attract environmental contaminants like a sponge. This includes ozone from air conditioners, chemicals from floor cleaners, heating system fumes,wood burning fire places,etc, etc. These prints were shown with magnets, not mounted. It was really bad. One mounted and shown in a home also changed color and actually started fading.
Thing is , rc prints most likely hold up a lot better. Naked like that, most likely.
It is very common for people to mount larger rc prints to dibond for exhibitions and have no issues. They might last for several years or decades, don’t know. Nobody does these tests scientifically that I know of.
Like the guy said, canvas coated with the very good uv acrylic/laytex varnish like bc timeless are very stable. I have convinced some clients to do this for large things where framing and plexi can be really expensive. Other great feature is NO reflections.
John
Sealing the microporous surface is the main reason for the spray. After spraying, for example, water will run off the surface. So, I think it simply makes the print much more durable.
It may increase fade resistance, but with my primarily carbon inkset (black and white printing only), that's not something I worry about anyway.
It does slightly change the appearance of the surface, but it's still a "satin" finish. Bright reflections are diffuse enough to see through.
Paul
www.PaulRoark.com
-
I've seen this with HPhotorag and Canson rag papers. In each case, the gallery walls had been painted withing the previous couple of weeks with low VOC paints. Putting the prinst out in bright sunshine for half an hour cured the sickness.
Premiere Art uv spray is not robust enough to protect a print overtime from pollutants in the air. As Mark at Aardenburg has written.
Over 20 years I never had a client have an issue except once when he showed some prints of mine that had three coats of the Premiere Art spray and showed with no other protection. He pinned to a gallery wall and within one month they not only changed in regard to density but also turned a sick sepia color. They were Vivera bw neutral prints. They did this in three different locations. That freaked me out. All Canson Rag Photographique. Could Baryta surface fare better, don’t know.
Mark has noted that the inkjet receptor coatings attract environmental contaminants like a sponge. This includes ozone from air conditioners, chemicals from floor cleaners, heating system fumes,wood burning fire places,etc, etc. These prints were shown with magnets, not mounted. It was really bad. One mounted and shown in a home also changed color and actually started fading.
John
-
Interesting. That could have been it, or someone using highly toxic floor cleaners during the show.
Strange thing was some of them not only turned that sepia color but also actually faded density. That was a first ( and hopefully last ) for me.
I know one thing, I have clients nearly every month who want big prints to mount on dibond and show with no frames or plexi. I always emphasize that I will coat them with Premiere Art but they should Never sell anything done that way that isn’t behind plexi unless the client has their own framing done. They seem to understand that.
Very few of my clients will accept canvas, and that’s really too bad, but I understand.
John
I've seen this with HPhotorag and Canson rag papers. In each case, the gallery walls had been painted withing the previous couple of weeks with low VOC paints. Putting the prinst out in bright sunshine for half an hour cured the sickness.
-
Like the guy said, canvas coated with the very good uv acrylic/laytex varnish like bc timeless are very stable. I have convinced some clients to do this for large things where framing and plexi can be really expensive. Other great feature is NO reflections.
There are some products sealed with a laminate (e.g. duraplaq and similar) which I think would do a better job than spray coatings but I don't have any personal experience with them nor any info on objective testing. Also unsure how they do reflection wise. Maybe time to get some test prints.
-
We have a local shop that does very good uv satin or gloss lamination. I just can’t convince many clients to use it. The big down side with that is the dmax is significantly reduced but for much color work it could work fine.
Man it really protects them. But man are they protected against everything.
I have a friend here in Atlanta who installed a big bw photo installation at the international airport 25 years ago.
She had giant bw rc prints made and laminated and put in cool custom metal frames. Only satin lamination and no plexi. They are all hung up very high under a giant skylight. Since they were silver prints done on that Ilford rc paper in a processor that had horrible fade resistance, according to Wilhelm, etc. I expected them to fade or stain in a few years. But they still look great. Now this is a huge amount of uv light hitting them every day for years and years . Lamination is really impressive if they can improve the tonal contrast issue. It would save us all a lot of expense and grief. No frames, no plexi, no matting necessary. Somebody could make a lot of money selling that. It’s time lamination is evolved for the new era.
John
There are some products sealed with a laminate (e.g. duraplaq and similar) which I think would do a better job than spray coatings but I don't have any personal experience with them nor any info on objective testing. Also unsure how they do reflection wise. Maybe time to get some test prints.
-
In my experience, lamination requires very smooth paper surfaces in order to avoid clouding effects.
With regard to the reduced dmax, wouldn't that lead to results similar to industrial uv or solvent inks? If yes, I'd stick to that.
Is there lamination material supporting the advantages of aqueous inkjet printing - surfaces, dmax, gamut?
-
The discontinued Hotpress satin matt laminate is the best I've found, and I've tried about a dozen alternatives. Not a dead matt, nearer to a Fuji matt c-type. Recently got all the remaining rolls from the manufacturer's warehouse (at half the price we'd been paying from the distributors). Turns matt vinyl into a photographic output. It's 40 or 50 micron, not texture, and good for around 3-6 years outdoor (depending on location).
Mostly use it on IJM538 vinyl, as well as Canson Lustre, and scrim banner!
I did a portfolio for someone years ago, where we laminated the front and back of HPR308. Kept most of the texture and clarity, and increased the dmax. But I would say the result was only about 10%"better" than using a lesser paper.
-
Thanks.
The papers I’ve had lamination done on are Canson Rag Photographique mostly, color and bw, and Canson Photo Satin Premium rc. These were 44x60 and smaller. Both worked perfectly except for the dmax graying out, satin surface. The loss of contrast is mostly obvious with bw.
They were also mounted to dibond or Sentra I believe .
If anyone else knows of a better available new laminate I’d love to test it. I’m not doing it myself but a local company that does very good mounting. People would save a huge amount of money by avoiding framing and plexi in the very large sizes.
John
The discontinued Hotpress satin matt laminate is the best I've found, and I've tried about a dozen alternatives. Not a dead matt, nearer to a Fuji matt c-type. Recently got all the remaining rolls from the manufacturer's warehouse (at half the price we'd been paying from the distributors). Turns matt vinyl into a photographic output. It's 40 or 50 micron, not texture, and good for around 3-6 years outdoor (depending on location).
Mostly use it on IJM538 vinyl, as well as Canson Lustre, and scrim banner!
I did a portfolio for someone years ago, where we laminated the front and back of HPR308. Kept most of the texture and clarity, and increased the dmax. But I would say the result was only about 10%"better" than using a lesser paper.
-
Most of my work is mounted and famed w/ the best art glass my framer can source. It works well, but is both heavy for large prints, and obscenely expensive.
Just for fun, and to have samples to show clients, I’ve had several large prints made on Ilford Gold Fibre Silk mounted and laminated. ColorPlak is located in my general area and I’ve had them do both matte finish and “leather finish” laminate. After a test, I found that if I use a curves layer on a “finished” and soft proofed file, and then give it a mid tone (pick a point exactly in the center of the flat curve line) “bump” of about 10% (leaving the end points alone) that I get a laminated print that looks like an unlaminated print. And, believer it or not, ColorPlak says to use Pledge furniture spray on the laminate. I tried it, it helps a lot. I’m actually surprised at how good the prints look. I was expecting “cheese ball” kind of appearance compared to a “fine art print” - but I don’t get that at all. They look really nice. And for clients who will be displaying the work in public places (think hospitals, offices, etc.) the surface of the print can be dusted regularly or even wiped down with a damp microfiber with no issues.
Rand
-
Rand, thanks for sharing your experiences. I will run some lamination tests - looking forward the use of furniture spray, of course :-)
-
Thanks Rand,
Interesting.
Could you find out what the brand of laminate is? The “ leather surface” sounds a lot like the satin laminate used here. I’m not wild about the texture at all but for large things it would be fine. To me the gloss they offer is too plastic looking, like cibachrome ish.
I don’t really have any issue with the tonal ramp or even the color saturation. The problem with the stuff I had laminated was the poor dmax ( or I should say gray max ). It’s really a factor with nice bw on nice papers.
I’m so sick of people paying three times the cost of my prints for framing that I’m about to encourage anything for large prints. Paying that much for plexi that has all the bad reflections is getting crazy.
John
Most of my work is mounted and famed w/ the best art glass my framer can source. It works well, but is both heavy for large prints, and obscenely expensive.
Just for fun, and to have samples to show clients, I’ve had several large prints made on Ilford Gold Fibre Silk mounted and laminated. ColorPlak is located in my general area and I’ve had them do both matte finish and “leather finish” laminate. After a test, I found that if I use a curves layer on a “finished” and soft proofed file, and then give it a mid tone (pick a point exactly in the center of the flat curve line) “bump” of about 10% (leaving the end points alone) that I get a laminated print that looks like an unlaminated print. And, believer it or not, ColorPlak says to use Pledge furniture spray on the laminate. I tried it, it helps a lot. I’m actually surprised at how good the prints look. I was expecting “cheese ball” kind of appearance compared to a “fine art print” - but I don’t get that at all. They look really nice. And for clients who will be displaying the work in public places (think hospitals, offices, etc.) the surface of the print can be dusted regularly or even wiped down with a damp microfiber with no issues.
Rand
-
Thanks Rand,
Interesting.
Could you find out what the brand of laminate is? The “ leather surface” sounds a lot like the satin laminate used here. I’m not wild about the texture at all but for large things it would be fine. To me the gloss they offer is too plastic looking, like cibachrome ish.
I don’t really have any issue with the tonal ramp or even the color saturation. The problem with the stuff I had laminated was the poor dmax ( or I should say gray max ). It’s really a factor with nice bw on nice papers.
I’m so sick of people paying three times the cost of my prints for framing that I’m about to encourage anything for large prints. Paying that much for plexi that has all the bad reflections is getting crazy.
John
John,
I’ll contact my person at ColorPlak today and find out for you. I’ll also attempt to get an oblique photo of the “leather” surface and try to show the texture. It is so subtle as to be unnoticeable from even only a few inches away. The print I have is something like 22x34” approx, and framed w/o glazing. I don’t notice “texture” per se. But it is a different look than the matte.
Rand
-
Premiere Art uv spray is not robust enough to protect a print overtime from pollutants in the air. As Mark at Aardenburg has written.
Over 20 years I never had a client have an issue except once when he showed some prints of mine that had three coats of the Premiere Art spray and showed with no other protection. He pinned to a gallery wall and within one month they not only changed in regard to density but also turned a sick sepia color. They were Vivera bw neutral prints. They did this in three different locations. That freaked me out. All Canson Rag Photographique. Could Baryta surface fare better, don’t know.
Mark has noted that the inkjet receptor coatings attract environmental contaminants like a sponge. This includes ozone from air conditioners, chemicals from floor cleaners, heating system fumes,wood burning fire places,etc, etc. These prints were shown with magnets, not mounted. It was really bad. One mounted and shown in a home also changed color and actually started fading.
Thing is , rc prints most likely hold up a lot better. Naked like that, most likely.
It is very common for people to mount larger rc prints to dibond for exhibitions and have no issues. They might last for several years or decades, don’t know. Nobody does these tests scientifically that I know of.
Like the guy said, canvas coated with the very good uv acrylic/laytex varnish like bc timeless are very stable. I have convinced some clients to do this for large things where framing and plexi can be really expensive. Other great feature is NO reflections.
John
John kindly sent me a sample of the faded-turned-sepia inkjet prints made with HP Vivera pigment. I never did come up with a logical explanation of this problem, nor have I ever heard of anyone else who experienced it, so it is indeed still a mystery. However, I personally experienced and have read numerous accounts of rapid yellowing of inkjet prints, as have the inkjet media manufacturers. Their advice boils down to "stick it in the sun for a few hours and it will go away". And yes, light bleaching does largely (but not always completely) eliminate the yellowing on the affected prints. However the manufacturers have never bothered to explain the problem, AFAIK, relying typically on vague opinions about freshly painted rooms or non conservation-grade adhesives as causing this rapid yellowing.
Because we now have many anecdotal stories of this rapid media yellowing problem I spent considerable time investigating it, and I finally did figure it out. It's called phenolic yellowing, and the ingredients necessary to cause it are: 1) an alkaline (pH > 8.5) substrate which is pretty much a given with fine art inkjet papers, 2) NOx, i.e. nitrogen oxides from fossil fuel burning, and 3) phenolic compounds, e.g. BHT often found as an anti-oxidant in plastic bags, other phenolic compounds used to increase adhesion in heat activated dry mount tissues and other products like non conservation grade adhesive tapes, etc.
Phenolic yellowing is a well known phenomenon in the textile industry, but little known in the photographic/printing industry or even the photo conservation community. There is a very logical explanation for why this is so. Traditional wet process photographs generally end up with faily pH neutral or slightly acidic image/coating layers and thus don't provide the alkaline environment needed to produce the yellow compound. Phenolic compounds can be present, and the photo can have been exposed to NOx, but the reaction product stays colorless because the image layer doesn't have enough alkalinity to turn this reaction product yellow. In contrast, The textile industry sees this customer problem a lot, because textiles are typically washed in alkaline detergents, then often stored in plastic garment bags which are the source of the phenolic compounds. Add a little NOx from air pollution and you can experience a distinctly and objectionably yellowed textile (e.g., think white wedding dress now with yellow stains!).
All that said, phenolic yellowing deserves further research with regard to photographic and inkjet media and ultimately a peer-reviewed paper specifically devoted to it, but for now all I've published on the subject lies buried on pages 33-35 in an article about my adhesive-free picture framing methods. You can find the article here if you are interested: https://www.aardenburg-imaging.com/adhesive-free-picture-framing/ (https://www.aardenburg-imaging.com/adhesive-free-picture-framing/)
cheers,
Mark McCormick
-
That’s so nice of you. Really appreciate it. If I can find a better laminate material it will help my clients ( and me ) immeasurably with exhibition costs, storage etc. No frames would be needed only mount to dibond.
So have you laminated subtle bw prints on any cotton media that don’t show this big drop in black density?
That’s really the primary thing that has prevented me from pursuing lamination. All the prints flattened out significantly when laminated with either the satin or gloss laminate that my mounting guy uses.
John
John,
I’ll contact my person at ColorPlak today and find out for you. I’ll also attempt to get an oblique photo of the “leather” surface and try to show the texture. It is so subtle as to be unnoticeable from even only a few inches away. The print I have is something like 22x34” approx, and framed w/o glazing. I don’t notice “texture” per se. But it is a different look than the matte.
Rand
-
That’s so nice of you. Really appreciate it. If I can find a better laminate material it will help my clients ( and me ) immeasurably with exhibition costs, storage etc. No frames would be needed only mount to dibond.
So have you laminated subtle bw prints on any cotton media that don’t show this big drop in black density?
That’s really the primary thing that has prevented me from pursuing lamination. All the prints flattened out significantly when laminated with either the satin or gloss laminate that my mounting guy uses.
John
I got my guy from ColorPlak today… he’s “on it” and I’ll report back when I hear from him w/ the specific media brand, etc.
As far as a loss of black density, I’ve not seen that. I had a print made on Canson Platine Fibre Rag laminated and (again based on my mid tone bump - and in this case opening up deep shadows a bit more than I normally might) the print looked good laminated. If it was held side by side w/ the original soft proofed print, you might notice a difference (in fact I’m sure you would) but it is a distinction without a real difference, if that makes sense.
More later . . .
Rand
-
Thanks a lot Rand. I’m very interested. The dmax on all the papers I’ve had laminated here , including Platine, kill the dmax, and it’s not subtle at all ! But it does seem like someone could resolve that if they worked on a formula for it.
I got my guy from ColorPlak today… he’s “on it” and I’ll report back when I hear from him w/ the specific media brand, etc.
As far as a loss of black density, I’ve not seen that. I had a print made on Canson Platine Fibre Rag laminated and (again based on my mid tone bump - and in this case opening up deep shadows a bit more than I normally might) the print looked good laminated. If it was held side by side w/ the original soft proofed print, you might notice a difference (in fact I’m sure you would) but it is a distinction without a real difference, if that makes sense.
More later . . .
Rand
-
John kindly sent me a sample of the faded-turned-sepia inkjet prints made with HP Vivera pigment. I never did come up with a logical explanation of this problem, nor have I ever heard of anyone else who experienced it, so it is indeed still a mystery. However, I personally experienced and have read numerous accounts of rapid yellowing of inkjet prints, as have the inkjet media manufacturers. Their advice boils down to "stick it in the sun for a few hours and it will go away". And yes, light bleaching does largely (but not always completely) eliminate the yellowing on the affected prints. However the manufacturers have never bothered to explain the problem, AFAIK, relying typically on vague opinions about freshly painted rooms or non conservation-grade adhesives as causing this rapid yellowing.
Because we now have many anecdotal stories of this rapid media yellowing problem I spent considerable time investigating it, and I finally did figure it out. It's called phenolic yellowing, and the ingredients necessary to cause it are: 1) an alkaline (pH > 8.5) substrate which is pretty much a given with fine art inkjet papers, 2) NOx, i.e. nitrogen oxides from fossil fuel burning, and 3) phenolic compounds, e.g. BHT often found as an anti-oxidant in plastic bags, other phenolic compounds used to increase adhesion in heat activated dry mount tissues and other products like non conservation grade adhesive tapes, etc.
Phenolic yellowing is a well known phenomenon in the textile industry, but little known in the photographic/printing industry or even the photo conservation community. There is a very logical explanation for why this is so. Traditional wet process photographs generally end up with faily pH neutral or slightly acidic image/coating layers and thus don't provide the alkaline environment needed to produce the yellow compound. Phenolic compounds can be present, and the photo can have been exposed to NOx, but the reaction product stays colorless because the image layer doesn't have enough alkalinity to turn this reaction product yellow. In contrast, The textile industry sees this customer problem a lot, because textiles are typically washed in alkaline detergents, then often stored in plastic garment bags which are the source of the phenolic compounds. Add a little NOx from air pollution and you can experience a distinctly and objectionably yellowed textile (e.g., think white wedding dress now with yellow stains!).
All that said, phenolic yellowing deserves further research with regard to photographic and inkjet media and ultimately a peer-reviewed paper specifically devoted to it, but for now all I've published on the subject lies buried on pages 33-35 in an article about my adhesive-free picture framing methods. You can find the article here if you are interested: https://www.aardenburg-imaging.com/adhesive-free-picture-framing/ (https://www.aardenburg-imaging.com/adhesive-free-picture-framing/)
cheers,
Mark McCormick
Mark, where is this on your web site?
"Premiere Art uv spray is not robust enough to protect a print overtime from pollutants in the air. As Mark at Aardenburg has written."
I'm using Premier Art UV spray on the assumption that it increases the life of my prints. Am I wasting my money?
Also I display my prints in Clear Bags: https://www.clearbags.com/bags/flat/flap-tape/protective-closure
Is this harming them?
-
The 2 large neutral prints I sent him that had turned sepia we’re both sprayed with Premiere Art.
I don’t know if it’s currently on his site but he has told us to beware of gasses that long before I sent him those examples.
There is debate as to exactly how much UV protection these sprays provide , say compared to expensive uv plexi.
Wilhelms tests years ago showed that spray to give twice the longevity rating compared to behind glass with no spray. Same rating he was giving expensive uv glass. I don’t remember what Epson inkset he was using. It’s been about 10 years. He doesn’t seem to be giving any uv spray ratings these days.
Personally I don’t think they have been tested on enough on various media to have any definitive answer, but surely they provide some uv protection and some atmospheric and moisture protection. We don’t know how much.
I did some tests myself putting identical bw prints behind glass in a window and exposed them to bright sunlight for 6 months. I saw a slight density change in the unsprayed print while no change at all in the sprayed print ( compared to a third print stored in the dark in a flat file.
But he’ll I just bought a case of Premiere Art. It’s an excellent protection for prints that are going to handled in a portfolio and I always use it for that.
The other thing it is useful for is protecting large HP Vivera prints on fiber gloss media. I have had several 40x60 z prints damaged through scratching in the last couple of years when people open the package that has been shipped. I pack them very carefully and covered with glassine . I have ruled out the framers damaging them because it was different framers in different states, and the framers were super careful after my first casualties. I do believe part of this could be the result of shippers throwing them around, even though they were rolled up carefully in crush proof tubes with prints wrapped around the original cardboard paper roll cores. They couldn’t be packed better.
When I’m spraying these now, that problem disappeared. I never had this damage occur with the Canon Lucia inks. Ever using them for 8 years. They were by far the most durable for me . It seems to me that recent Epson inks are pretty durable also.
Also prints with large areas of pure black are the most vulnerable on any media, and Premiere Art really protects them.
Premiere Art also removes gloss differential and any bronzing that might occur on the fiber gloss media.
Never had much luck spraying rc prints. But maybe I didn’t wait long enough for them to outgas before spraying.
Vivera 70 inks have been shown by the reviews of Onsight Imaging to be the least scratch resistant compared to Canon and Epson inks.
So, you are not wasting your time , it’s just that they haven’t been shown to completely protect prints from chemicals in the environment. But as Mark said, there is still a lot to be learned about these conditions. Once prints leave the printer we have no idea what people expose them to.
There are still a lot of unknown unknowns about the effects of atmospheric pollution on inkjet receptor coatings and none of the paper manufacturers are even investigating this at all as far as I’ve heard. And they have had decades to do that.
If you use that stuff wear a respirator and eye protection. But I still consider it a good useful product.
John
Mark, where is this on your web site?
"Premiere Art uv spray is not robust enough to protect a print overtime from pollutants in the air. As Mark at Aardenburg has written."
I'm using Premier Art UV spray on the assumption that it increases the life of my prints. Am I wasting my money?
Also I display my prints in Clear Bags: https://www.clearbags.com/bags/flat/flap-tape/protective-closure
Is this harming them?
-
Hi Rand,
Did you ever hear from the framer about the brand and name of the lamination film you like?
I assume it also has uv filtration.
I’d like to pay to have a couple of 13x19 ish test done from him and compare to the tests I’ve had done here in Atlanta.
If I were just doing smaller prints for mounting I’d just use your guy, but shipping 40x60 prints wouldn’t be practical or affordable for me.
John
I got my guy from ColorPlak today… he’s “on it” and I’ll report back when I hear from him w/ the specific media brand, etc.
As far as a loss of black density, I’ve not seen that. I had a print made on Canson Platine Fibre Rag laminated and (again based on my mid tone bump - and in this case opening up deep shadows a bit more than I normally might) the print looked good laminated. If it was held side by side w/ the original soft proofed print, you might notice a difference (in fact I’m sure you would) but it is a distinction without a real difference, if that makes sense.
More later . . .
Rand