Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Printing: Printers, Papers and Inks => Topic started by: shadowblade on February 26, 2014, 11:54:06 am
-
I've previously been less than impressed with canvas prints - most of them have a thick gesso coating (which almost-but-not-quite masks the underlyiing canvas texture), on top of which an inkjet receiver layer is sprayed, giving them the thick appearance of a canvas for oil painting, but without the corresponding texture of oil paints on top of them, which is a strange appearance to me. Moreover, the gesso layer, which supports the inkjet and pigment layer, is liable to crack while stretching or flexing and to brittle with age.
Recently, however, I saw some prints made on Kernow's Kernewek range of inkjet-compatible canvases (as tested on Aardenberg) and am considering trying one of them. These lack the gesso layer - the fabric looks and feels like fine fabric, rather than canvas painted with layers of primer, are soaked rather than layered in inkjet coating and seem to give bright, saturated colours. It's hard to describe, but there's a 'lightness' to the fabric that suits smooth, textureless photographic output, as opposed to other canvasses whose thick layers of primer make them seem more suitable for oil or acrylic paints rather than photos.
I'm a bit at a loss on how to handle canvas, though, or even which one to select.
Kernewek's St Ives canvas is a 100% cotton, 400gsm canvas in a full Panama weave. Kernewek's Tresco canvas is a 50% polyester, 50% cotton blend - at 160gsm, it is a much lighter and finer weave. Both are OBA-free and seem to print very nicely, and I didn't see any evidence of cotton seeds in the 100% cotton canvas. Is there any technical/print quality/longevity reason to pick one over the other? Some people seem to swear by pure cotton, while others prefer poly-cotton, for reasons such as canvas sagging over time.
Secondly, how should a canvas print be sealed? Obviously the face of the print will need to be sealed, but what about the reverse side of the canvas? This will be inside the frame of a wrapped canvas, but still exposed to the atmosphere, allowing pollutants to penetrate the porous canvas and attack the pigments from the other side. Should both sides be sprayed, or just one side? If I spray the reverse, would the additional sealing protect the print better, or simply seal up solvents and other chemicals within the canvas, accelerating its deterioration?
Finally, is it possible or advisable to mat and frame a canvas print in a similar manner to a paper print, if the print looks good on canvas? If a canvas print - particularly one without the easily-cracked gesso layer - is to be displayed in this manner, would you suggest still coating it with Timeless Glossy/Matte or Eco Print Shield, or could you use something like Hahnemuhle Protective Spray instead, so as not to alter the surface appearance of the canvas?
-
The media sounds interesting. My neighbor at a recent show did a technique called “batik” which is producing art works on cloth. And then he does lithographs or inkjet prints based on that. The works have a very unique and seductive texture, even when reproduced on paper. What you are describing sounds similar.
For finishing, personally I use Glamour 2 on the front and Miracle Muck to bond the back to an underlayment, but I don’t use wraps. There is a lot of previous discussion on both of these materials.
Cotton would logically be stable the longest. There are a number of articles on the behavior of polyester and cotton cloth mixes over time. Use Mr. Google. As they are different materials, accordingly the reflective qualities change and they break down differently over time.
I have produced some canvas works that are not glued but rather taped to the underlayment using archival linen tape along the top edge along with traditional cotton fiber matting materials placed over the canvas edges. This works great for the most part but I have noticed that the canvas is more likely to bulge and move around than are paper based media using the same technique. This may be due to the fact that the exhibit works go in and out of a trailer during show cycles, but the other detail is that even coated canvas is nowhere near as stiff as paper. No one who has bought works done this way has made any negative comments, and that implies that in a typical environment this combination works fine.
The reason to coat the backside of canvas would be mostly to either bond it to something or to help protect it from decay. AFAIK, most put no coating on the back of gallery wraps, other than sometimes spray some distilled water to help shrink the canvas a bit.
-
I'm not sure about cotton being the most stable. Unlike polyester, it absorbs water and, being composed of cellulose, it's also food for insects and fungi. Obviously a coating would slow this down, but polyester is entirely inedible.
-
The range is also sold by Freestyle Photographic Supplies in the US, with different names for the same product, just to be confusing.
St Ives 400gsm = Monument Valley 400gsm (100% cotton, OBA-free)
Tresco 160gsm = Rushmore 160gsm (50/50 poly/cotton, OBA-free)
Marazion 260gsm = Sedona 260gsm (100% cotton, fire-retardant, OBA-free)
Newlyn 260gsm = Yosemite 260gsm (100% cotton, OBA-free)
Tintagel 140gsm = Yellowstone 140gsm (65% cotton, 35% poly, contains OBAs)
It looks like they produce a better Dmax than Lyve and Chromata White, too, as measured by the 'Max Black' patch in the Aardenburg files, using the same inkset.
I'm wondering, though - all the canvas media tested appear to have very weak blacks and saturation, at least going on the L value of the maximum black. Generally, they produce L values of 25-35 for the deepest blacks, as compared with 21 for Arches Watercolour (uncoated) and 19.5 for Hahnemuhle Photo Rag 308, using the same inkset. But canvas prints look neither undersaturated or lacking in contrast - why is that? Is it purely because of the gloss or matte spray universally applied to them? Does that mean that, when profiling an inkset for canvas prints, the profile has to be made using prints after they are sprayed, in order to end up with the correct colours?
-
"But canvas prints look neither undersaturated or lacking in contrast - why is that? Is it purely because of the gloss or matte spray universally applied to them? Does that mean that, when profiling an inkset for canvas prints, the profile has to be made using prints after they are sprayed, in order to end up with the correct colours?"
I have also longed for an answer to this question. Before or after varnish/coating profiling for matt canvas.
-
Here are superimposed gamut hulls for Sunset Select canvas resulting from two profiles generated from the very same target, before and after coating with an extremely clear varnish. Color hull is before, wireframe is after.
In practice, most of those volume gains are in areas that aren't important for most images. The visual differences in print quality are far less than implied by the relative sizes of the gamut hulls. The most consistently noticeable gain is that shadow details look richer and more textured with the "coated" profile. But OTOH, I could probably post process the dark areas to get the same result with the uncoated profile. For the most part I would be hard pressed to tell the difference between the two profiles applied to prints for most of my images. I think the most admirable goal for a profile is just keeping the colors in line, and for that either of those profiles seems to be fine.
I have not done comparisons with profiles generated from matte or satin coatings. I suspect the increases in dmax would be less due to the slightly hazy "matte" additives, as would overall gamut volume increases. Has anybody done experiments?
-
Here are superimposed gamut hulls for Sunset Select canvas resulting from two profiles generated from the very same target, before and after coating with an extremely clear varnish. Color hull is before, wireframe is after.
In practice, most of those volume gains are in areas that aren't important for most images. The visual differences in print quality are far less than implied by the relative sizes of the gamut hulls. The most consistently noticeable gain is that shadow details look richer and more textured with the "coated" profile. But OTOH, I could probably post process the dark areas to get the same result with the uncoated profile. For the most part I would be hard pressed to tell the difference between the two profiles applied to prints for most of my images. I think the most admirable goal for a profile is just keeping the colors in line, and for that either of those profiles seems to be fine.
I have not done comparisons with profiles generated from matte or satin coatings. I suspect the increases in dmax would be less due to the slightly hazy "matte" additives, as would overall gamut volume increases. Has anybody done experiments?
Given my penchant for highly-saturated landscapes, it looks like it may be worth me developing a RIP profile for the material as a whole, as well as ICC profiles for matte and glossy coatings to maximise the gamut and colour accuracy with each print.
Do you happen to have gamut charts for uncoated watercolour papers, by any chance? The Dmax of some (Arches Hot Press in particular) seems similar to that of many coated matte papers when using the same inkset; by using an ultra-wide-gamut inkset and a print heater to control dot gain, I'm hoping to exceed the performance of matte papers and K3/Lucia/Vivera inks, while printing on uncoated paper. But, as it is, I can't seem to find any baseline charts for comparison to see how much I would need to expand the gamut by.
-
You can create your own graphs from existing profiles using:
http://www.iccview.de
You will probably need to install the known-safe Cortona viewer.
The catches are:
1. iccview.de only accepts type 2 profiles, not type 4. Breathing color uses type 2, but iirc Hahnemuehle uses type 4's.
2. While manufacturers' profiles are often pretty good, they are sometimes awful, as if for some different media. So comparisons of unfamiliar media may embody a large error.
You can also compare profile graphs with X-rite's i1Profiler software, as the last step in the process after creating a new profile. It also accepts type 4 profiles. But only monochrome hulls are displayed, you have to know what colors go where in the lab colorspace. There's a "demo" mode available for that software, but I don't know if it allows graph comparison.
FWIW, most glossy and coated papers have much better coverage in the -b to +a quadrant, where blues and violets and reds live. Varnish coating greatly improves matte paper response in those color ranges, but for certain cool colors it's hard to beat true glossy media.
Uncoated watercolor will look a lot like oba-free matte canvas. In fact, many matte media types are based on watercolor media ink handling.
And finally, comparing gamut hulls does provide a certain amount of information about what to expect from a particular media. But you really have to do tests. I have been testing glossy coated Pura Velvet for a few days. While its gamut hull is nothing to write home about, it nevertheless has some pretty nice qualities and has given me a path into more subtle landscape interpretations that are still quite impressive in the color and tonality departments and capable competing with images printed on much flashier media. Surprises are everywhere.
-
You can create your own graphs from existing profiles using:
http://www.iccview.de
You will probably need to install the known-safe Cortona viewer.
The catches are:
1. iccview.de only accepts type 2 profiles, not type 4. Breathing color uses type 2, but iirc Hahnemuehle uses type 4's.
2. While manufacturers' profiles are often pretty good, they are sometimes awful, as if for some different media. So comparisons of unfamiliar media may embody a large error.
You can also compare profile graphs with X-rite's i1Profiler software, as the last step in the process after creating a new profile. It also accepts type 4 profiles. But only monochrome hulls are displayed, you have to know what colors go where in the lab colorspace. There's a "demo" mode available for that software, but I don't know if it allows graph comparison.
FWIW, most glossy and coated papers have much better coverage in the -b to +a quadrant, where blues and violets and reds live. Varnish coating greatly improves matte paper response in those color ranges, but for certain cool colors it's hard to beat true glossy media.
Uncoated watercolor will look a lot like oba-free matte canvas. In fact, many matte media types are based on watercolor media ink handling.
And finally, comparing gamut hulls does provide a certain amount of information about what to expect from a particular media. But you really have to do tests. I have been testing glossy coated Pura Velvet for a few days. While its gamut hull is nothing to write home about, it nevertheless has some pretty nice qualities and has given me a path into more subtle landscape interpretations that are still quite impressive in the color and tonality departments and capable competing with images printed on much flashier media. Surprises are everywhere.
Thanks.
Unfortunately, my photographic style doesn't generally lend itself to subtle, low-saturation interpretations - they tend to be bold, dramatic and highly saturated (which is possibly why they seem to sell well in southern and eastern Europe, the Middle East, Asia and Latin America, but hardly at all in North America and the UK, where tastes seem to be more subdued...). Given that I'm trying to print on uncoated and receptor-infused (rather than receptor-coated) papers and canvases to maximise longevity, I need every bit of gamut I can get...
Any idea on the spraying of canvas prints? I'm not sure whether to spray just one side, or to spray both sides to completely seal the canvas (including trapping things in the canvas, if they're already there).
-
Secondly, how should a canvas print be sealed? Obviously the face of the print will need to be sealed, but what about the reverse side of the canvas?
I don’t have an answer to your question about coating the back of a work. Out of curiosity I did some research for about an hour but found no definitive or even direct answer to that. Perhaps Miracle Muck can be used for the back?
Recently, however, I saw some prints made on Kernow's Kernewek range of inkjet-compatible canvases (as tested on Aardenberg) and am considering trying one of them. These lack the gesso layer - the fabric looks and feels like fine fabric, rather than canvas painted with layers of primer, are soaked rather than layered in inkjet coating and seem to give bright, saturated colours. It's hard to describe, but there's a 'lightness' to the fabric that suits smooth, textureless photographic output, as opposed to other canvasses whose thick layers of primer make them seem more suitable for oil or acrylic paints rather than photos.
I contacted Kerno about their Kernewek line to ask if can be treated with Glamour 2 and Miracle Muck. They offer samples and if it can be treated, I’ll definitely get a sample at least. Their media sounds similar to the batik treated works I saw at my neighbors booth recently. Very sexy stuff! Thanks for the tip.
I'm not sure about cotton being the most stable. Unlike polyester, it absorbs water and, being composed of cellulose, it's also food for insects and fungi. Obviously a coating would slow this down, but polyester is entirely inedible.
Polyester stretches pretty easily and changes its reflective quality fairly quickly. I don’t know if point 2 matters given that an ink receptor layer is part of the package. There are examples of cotton based fabrics dating back about 7,000 years with increasing samples as time moves forward.
According to some reading, a lot, even a majority of canvases historically were made of hemp or linen. Linen is often made from flax but may be made from cotton or other material according to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linen. Interesting that the oldest examples of flax based linen are up to 1,000 years older than cotton.
I don’t know if it is a good sales point to note cotton has only lasted up to about 7,000 years while linen can last up to 8,000 years. In contrast, people don’t generally warm up to the word “polyester.”
-
I don’t have an answer to your question about coating the back of a work. Out of curiosity I did some research for about an hour but found no definitive or even direct answer to that. Perhaps Miracle Muck can be used for the back?
I couldn't find an answer either, but definitely wouldn't use Miracle Muck because it is acidic. Do Timeless or Glamour II outgas? If not, they could also be an option.
Epson does say, however, that their prints shouldn't be displayed in a humid environment unless they are 'coated with a solvent-based coating, front and back'. Not that you'd use a solvent-based coating to protect canvas, but I would have thought you could substitute 'impervious coating' for that.
I contacted Kerno about their Kernewek line to ask if can be treated with Glamour 2 and Miracle Muck. They offer samples and if it can be treated, I’ll definitely get a sample at least. Their media sounds similar to the batik treated works I saw at my neighbors booth recently. Very sexy stuff! Thanks for the tip.
I contacted them about a few things too, mostly about sealing, protection and the nature of the surface coating ('infused' into the surface is a bit vague, but definitely implies something more than a simple coating). It would be interesting to take a piece of material, scrunch it up, sit on it, rub it against itself and generally do the sort of thing that would destroy a normal inkjet coating, before steaming it flat and running it through a printer to see how it prints, in order to test the durability of the inkjet 'coating'.
Polyester stretches pretty easily and changes its reflective quality fairly quickly. I don’t know if point 2 matters given that an ink receptor layer is part of the package. There are examples of cotton based fabrics dating back about 7,000 years with increasing samples as time moves forward.
I'm not talking about ease of stretching - I'm talking about dimensional stability when exposed to changes in relative humidity. Polyester is more dimensionally stable in that regard - there are many reports of canvas prints sagging after being stretched.. Then again, if the canvas is coated front and back with Timeless Matte/Glossy for protection against moisture and to impart a surface quality, that may not be an issue.
According to some reading, a lot, even a majority of canvases historically were made of hemp or linen. Linen is often made from flax but may be made from cotton or other material according to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linen. Interesting that the oldest examples of flax based linen are up to 1,000 years older than cotton.
I don’t know if it is a good sales point to note cotton has only lasted up to about 7,000 years while linen can last up to 8,000 years. In contrast, people don’t generally warm up to the word “polyester.”
Maybe linen just happened to be used before cotton...
-
Some canvas products seem to have a finer weave than others. With the amount of ink receptive layers, it might even appear to be absent (Inkpress Canvas comes to mind which looks more like a cotton weave than a coarse canvas.).
I have tried some of the Crane canvas and not too crazy about it as it seems dull and flat. The BC Silverado (A metallic, but more like a opalescent cream to me) suffers from head strikes (It curls up badly on the side.) on my printer and ink runs a bit on the hard surface so there is some bleeding with it - and, okay, it smells bad too!
My favorite so far for a nice black and showing a decent canvas surface is Premier Art Canvas, but it has OBA too so the white is obvious and seems to glow in dark rooms. I spray with their Premier lacquer so it seems to enhance the black and protect the surface as well. My framer mounts them to some flat substrate somehow that may seal the back (Don't know?), along with 30 seconds in a heat press, prior to framing them with a suede-liner mat inside a frame. Cost is about $450 per frame doing it that way.
SG
-
Some canvas products seem to have a finer weave than others. With the amount of ink receptive layers, it might even appear to be absent (Inkpress Canvas comes to mind which looks more like a cotton weave than a coarse canvas.).
I have tried some of the Crane canvas and not too crazy about it as it seems dull and flat. The BC Silverado (A metallic, but more like a opalescent cream to me) suffers from head strikes (It curls up badly on the side.) on my printer and ink runs a bit on the hard surface so there is some bleeding with it - and, okay, it smells bad too!
My favorite so far for a nice black and showing a decent canvas surface is Premier Art Canvas, but it has OBA too so the white is obvious and seems to glow in dark rooms. I spray with their Premier lacquer so it seems to enhance the black and protect the surface as well. My framer mounts them to some flat substrate somehow that may seal the back (Don't know?), along with 30 seconds in a heat press, prior to framing them with a suede-liner mat inside a frame. Cost is about $450 per frame doing it that way.
SG
The thick, white substance that obscures the weave in most inkjet canvases isn't the receptive layer - it's a kind of gesso. The receptive layer itself is a thin layer on top of the gesso. The canvas I'm talking about here doesn't have the gesso layer, and the documentation seems to imply that the receptive layer is soaked into the canvas, surrounding the individual threads, rather than just applied as a layer on top of of the fabric, that can easily rub or flake off as the canvas flexes and as the inkjet layer embrittles over time.
-
I couldn't find an answer either, but definitely wouldn't use Miracle Muck because it is acidic.
According to the manufacturer of Muck:
The short answer to this question is that Miracle Muck is slightly acidic as it pours from the jug. The more complete answer, and what really counts to most users, is a little more complicated than this adhesive’s ph in it’s liquid form. Judging the usefulness of an adhesive based purely on its liquid ph misses the mark for a couple of reasons. First of all, almost any adhesive can have its ph chemically raised or lowered, and in most cases this would tend to reduce its effectiveness as an adhesive. What most people really want to know when they ask about the ph of Muck, is “what effect will this adhesive have on the other components of this framing package?” The answer to this question is that once Muck has dried, it will be essentially inert and have no negative impact on the other components. But there is more to it than that, because as it dries Miracle Muck becomes an effective barrier that will serve to inhibit the migration of acidity from other components it is applied to, such as wooden liner stock , for example. Since the most common way acidity moves within the framing package is when the components absorb moisture from the environment it is nice to know that once it has cured (48-72 hrs after application) Muck is nearly impervious to moisture.
http://www.raphaelstoday.com/Pages/MiracleMuck.aspx
It would be interesting to take a piece of material, scrunch it up, sit on it, rub it against itself and generally do the sort of thing that would destroy a normal inkjet coating, before steaming it flat and running it through a printer to see how it prints, in order to test the durability of the inkjet 'coating'.
I don’t know if that would be a useful test. The coating’s durability would be better testing by exposure to UV to measure it’s stability over time. This is outta my league but here is an article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UV_degradation There is some UV resistant polyester available.
I'm not talking about ease of stretching - I'm talking about dimensional stability when exposed to changes in relative humidity. Polyester is more dimensionally stable in that regard - there are many reports of canvas prints sagging after being stretched..
Apology for an ambiguity. I wasn’t making reference on ease of stretching but rather the tendency of the media to stretch over time. Polyester is elastic and that diminishes over time and the fibers relax, causing it to sag. Think of old polyester clothing as comparison. I agree that typical stretched canvas will also sag over time and due to humidity. I'm in the high humidity northwest USA (aka "northwet") The tendency of gallery wraps to sag is one of the many reasons I don’t use this mounting technique.
Maybe linen just happened to be used before cotton...
That is possible. I don’t know. The point I was implying is that both linen and cotton are long lived, natural fibers. In contrast, most consider polyester as a low cost alternative. As such it may not present very well when mentioned in sales talks.
-
According to the manufacturer of Muck:
http://www.raphaelstoday.com/Pages/MiracleMuck.aspx
I don’t know if that would be a useful test. The coating’s durability would be better testing by exposure to UV to measure it’s stability over time. This is outta my league but here is an article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UV_degradation There is some UV resistant polyester available.
Apology for an ambiguity. I wasn’t making reference on ease of stretching but rather the tendency of the media to stretch over time. Polyester is elastic and that diminishes over time and the fibers relax, causing it to sag. Think of old polyester clothing as comparison. I agree that typical stretched canvas will also sag over time and due to humidity. I'm in the high humidity northwest USA (aka "northwet") The tendency of gallery wraps to sag is one of the many reasons I don’t use this mounting technique.
Polyester is certainly more elastic than cotton, becoming less elastic over time, but how does that translate to sagging? Generally, loss of elasticity simply means that the material becomes more rigid and stiff, rather than loosening and sagging. Polyester is much more dimensionally-stable fabric than cotton, not changing much whether conditions are warm or cold, dry or humid - stretched cotton canvases tend to sag in cold, dry conditions and tighten up again in warm, more humid conditions, while poly-cotton and pure polyester fabrics don't.
Both polyester and cotton will embrittle over time, though, which may make mounting rather than stretching a better option. The use of adhesives comes with its own problems, though - I've yet to find someone who will wet-mount a print (whether paper or canvas) to aluminium or Dibond using conservation-grade adhesives (e.g. Lascaux 303/360/498)
That is possible. I don’t know. The point I was implying is that both linen and cotton are long lived, natural fibers. In contrast, most consider polyester as a low cost alternative. As such it may not present very well when mentioned in sales talks.
I don't know - polyester has better UV and water resistance than cotton (hence its use in sailcloth, although it has been replaced by other fibres where tensile strength is more important than durability) and isn't biologically active. It also has better UV resistance than polypropylene and nylon - two other synthetic fibres commonly used to make fabric. Sure, cotton has survived for a long time in cool, dry and dark places (inside millennium-old Ethiopian rock-hewn churches, for example), but I doubt it is nearly as durable in conditions of higher humidity or temperature (paper is somewhat different, since it is sized).
The thing is, the poly/cotton canvas here is 160gsm, vs 400gsm for the cotton. Is 160gsm too thin for long-term survival when stretched?
-
^
Polyester is certainly more elastic than cotton, becoming less elastic over time, but how does that translate to sagging?
I’m not a chemist so don’t have a direct answer. As a practical matter, as the material ages the elastic properties outgas or become inert, and the fibers stretch under their own weight. But I’ll grant that being 100% synthetic, it’s possible to stabilize the media for nearly any application. The detail is that I could not find anything to support or deny that is actually done. Have you?
Some have tested some polyester types and found them stable for up to 80 years in a museum environment http://www.vam.ac.uk/content/journals/conservation-journal/issue-44/how-fast-do-polyester-fabrics-age-in-the-museum-environment/
In contrast, many point out that linen, cotton and cotton rag has been proven stable for hundreds of years around the world in museum environments and elsewhere.
I could not find anything to support archival polyesters except in the form of print sleeves and due to this don’t have a direct answer.
Aesthetically, polyester has about as much appeal in the arena of archival media as “pink slime” does in food production. Polyester does not resonate favorably. One could side step that and simply refer to the media as being archival…..if there is some factual basis that it is…
Sure, cotton has survived for a long time in cool, dry and dark places (inside millennium-old Ethiopian rock-hewn churches, for example), but I doubt it is nearly as durable in conditions of higher humidity or temperature (paper is somewhat different, since it is sized).
Huh? Your doubts are not well founded. Hemp started use in canvas around 3,000 BC. Many examples of hemp based canvas exist. Linen based canvas media has been in use for canvas in art starting around the 15th century. Thousands of examples exist. Cotton came into use at about that time because it’s less expensive to produce.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_painting . As I noted previously, there are examples of both linen media going back about 7,000 years and cotton media going back 6,000 years. Everything else aside, that is a lot of institutional memory to overcome.
I did hear back from Kernow Coatings and they say their USA distributor is http://www.freestylephoto.biz. The person at Kernow I wrote to replied he was familiar with Glamour 2 and Muck but had not used them with Kernow products. Hmmm. I haven’t had time to contact freestylephoto as I’ve been swamped with orders from my last show. I do think I’ll test some of the Kernow St Ives Fine Art (100% cotton) as it may look great with some of my flower and possibly farm land subjects. Evidently it does not sell under the Kernow name at freestylephoto.
Off to my studio. I have about 70 feet of canvas works to coat.
-
^
I’m not a chemist so don’t have a direct answer. As a practical matter, as the material ages the elastic properties outgas or become inert, and the fibers stretch under their own weight. But I’ll grant that being 100% synthetic, it’s possible to stabilize the media for nearly any application. The detail is that I could not find anything to support or deny that is actually done. Have you?
Some have tested some polyester types and found them stable for up to 80 years in a museum environment http://www.vam.ac.uk/content/journals/conservation-journal/issue-44/how-fast-do-polyester-fabrics-age-in-the-museum-environment/
In contrast, many point out that linen, cotton and cotton rag has been proven stable for hundreds of years around the world in museum environments and elsewhere.
It also becomes incredibly brittle with age and loses tensile strength (tensile strength being particularly relevant in a stretched product). Cotton was rarely used in artistic canvases until the end of the 19th century, when stronger linen and hemp canvases became more expensive.
I could not find anything to support archival polyesters except in the form of print sleeves and due to this don’t have a direct answer.
Polyester has a much simpler chemistry and structure in comparison to cotton and other natural fibres, being composed entirely of a single material. It's much easier to test something like this for longevity than to test natural fibres.
Aesthetically, polyester has about as much appeal in the arena of archival media as “pink slime” does in food production. Polyester does not resonate favorably. One could side step that and simply refer to the media as being archival…..if there is some factual basis that it is…
I'd definitely agree on this - but only at this point in time.
But, 800 years ago, oil paintings were also regarded this way (tempera being regarded as better). 500 years ago, paintings on canvas and paper were regarded this way (rigid wooden panels, as well as walls of buildings, being preferred). 100 years ago, photographs were regarded this way (paintings being preferred).
Huh? Your doubts are not well founded. Hemp started use in canvas around 3,000 BC. Many examples of hemp based canvas exist. Linen based canvas media has been in use for canvas in art starting around the 15th century. Thousands of examples exist. Cotton came into use at about that time because it’s less expensive to produce.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_painting . As I noted previously, there are examples of both linen media going back about 7,000 years and cotton media going back 6,000 years. Everything else aside, that is a lot of institutional memory to overcome.
And, among the thousands of surviving pieces, there are millions that did not survive - eaten by silverfish, embrittled with age and reduced to dust, destroyed by mould or other fungi...
I did hear back from Kernow Coatings and they say their USA distributor is http://www.freestylephoto.biz. The person at Kernow I wrote to replied he was familiar with Glamour 2 and Muck but had not used them with Kernow products. Hmmm. I haven’t had time to contact freestylephoto as I’ve been swamped with orders from my last show. I do think I’ll test some of the Kernow St Ives Fine Art (100% cotton) as it may look great with some of my flower and possibly farm land subjects. Evidently it does not sell under the Kernow name at freestylephoto.
I haven't heard back yet. The other thing I was wondering is whether the canvas uses MK or PK inks - important if you're using custom inksets, or black-and-white inksets like Cone and MIS.
-
I did hear back from Kernow Coatings and they say their USA distributor is http://www.freestylephoto.biz. The person at Kernow I wrote to replied he was familiar with Glamour 2 and Muck but had not used them with Kernow products. Hmmm. I haven’t had time to contact freestylephoto as I’ve been swamped with orders from my last show. I do think I’ll test some of the Kernow St Ives Fine Art (100% cotton) as it may look great with some of my flower and possibly farm land subjects. Evidently it does not sell under the Kernow name at freestylephoto.
Have you managed to try it yet?
-
I received 2 sample rolls but have not cracked them out of the shipping box just yet.
-
Please post when you've managed to try them. I'd be very interested to see how/if they work with Timeless.
-
Sure, as noted elsewhere, I’m entering an experimenting phase.
But I don’t work with Timeless so can’t answer that.
-
Sure, as noted elsewhere, I’m entering an experimenting phase.
But I don’t work with Timeless so can’t answer that.
Fair enough. Glamour II behaves much the same, in relation to what surfaces it does and doesn't like.
Out of interest, why are you sticking to Glamour II when Timeless is available, faster-drying and UV-protective? Is it for its self-levelling properties?
-
G2 produces an excellent finish and mostly due to that I haven't seen a compelling reason to change to Timeless.
I would like something that dries quicker than G2 as i have to keep my studio heated for several days to insure that G2 completely and properly. Had some disasters early on when i didn't let it sit long enough.
-
G2 produces an excellent finish and mostly due to that I haven't seen a compelling reason to change to Timeless.
I would like something that dries quicker than G2 as i have to keep my studio heated for several days to insure that G2 completely and properly. Had some disasters early on when i didn't let it sit long enough.
Timeless dries in 20 minutes.
-
Does it produce flawless results when applied with a roller?
Edit: What about toxic (or other) fumes? Does it dry fully enough in 20 minutes for further handling - trimming and gluing to gator?
-
Does it produce flawless results when applied with a roller?
Edit: What about toxic (or other) fumes? Does it dry fully enough in 20 minutes for further handling - trimming and gluing to gator?
It can, but spraying does the job much more easily.
No fumes.
I wouldn't trim and glue it after 20 minutes, but it's a lot faster than Glamour.
-
By the way, did the rolls come with any information about whether you're supposed to use matte black or photo black with it?
-
I received 2 sample rolls but have not cracked them out of the shipping box just yet.
Tried them yet?
-
^I will over the next few days. I have a monster of a show coming up and just ordered 3 gallons of goo (aka Glamour ii) and will use the samples along with other production.
The samples did not come with any instructions. With the HP I’ve never made a selection for the type of black I use. From what I read, matte is preferred for non glossy stock.
The media itself looks like cloth. One sample is a classic canvas weave and the other is akin to linen.
-
^I will over the next few days. I have a monster of a show coming up and just ordered 3 gallons of goo (aka Glamour ii) and will use the samples along with other production.
The samples did not come with any instructions. With the HP I’ve never made a selection for the type of black I use. From what I read, matte is preferred for non glossy stock.
The media itself looks like cloth. One sample is a classic canvas weave and the other is akin to linen.
Sounds great - I've only ever seen it after it's been sprayed, so I didn't know whether the base material was matte or gloss. Might have to try printing with both, and see if the matte ink rubs off or if the photo black gives weak blacks.
-
I've contacted Kernow Coatings about their Kernewek Fabrics but did not receive any reply. I learned through one of their ex-dealers that these fabrics are no longer manufactured.
This is the email that they sent him which he forwarded, sent 8 May 2014:
HI
Unfortunately we have now discontinued the manufacture of the Kernewek range.
Sorry
Kind Regards
Alison Dell
Kernow Coatings
This is terrible news to me. I'm pretty much completely fed up with Breathing Color and their deplorable canvas weave and seed problems. I wish there was a better alternative to their crappy products.
-
Damn - need to find an alternative with equally-good longevity and no gesso primer!
-
Damn - need to find an alternative with equally-good longevity and no gesso primer!
I wonder why Freestyle Photographic Supplies still lists them 'in stock': http://www.freestylephoto.biz/search?q=Arista+Americana
Indeed, an alternative must be found.
-
I wonder why Freestyle Photographic Supplies still lists them 'in stock': http://www.freestylephoto.biz/search?q=Arista+Americana
Indeed, an alternative must be found.
Alternatives exist:
http://www.explosionofcolors.com/index.php?main_page=index&cPath=3_2 (http://www.explosionofcolors.com/index.php?main_page=index&cPath=3_2)
I'm not sure about their quality and longevity, though. The Kernewek fabric has been tested, and was found to be exceptionally long-lasting (even outlasting Lyve).
-
Alternatives exist:
http://www.explosionofcolors.com/index.php?main_page=index&cPath=3_2 (http://www.explosionofcolors.com/index.php?main_page=index&cPath=3_2)
I'm not sure about their quality and longevity, though. The Kernewek fabric has been tested, and was found to be exceptionally long-lasting (even outlasting Lyve).
I've seen samples. Similar "infusion" process as Kernewek, but unfortunately, tons of OBA included. Too bad about the Kernowek fabric line being discontinued. The one I will truly miss is the St. Ives. That was really special, and I've seen no other inkjet canvas I like nearly as much. I've been using it for a few years, and my clients (I don't advertise it, but I do custom printmaking for select clients) have stretched it with no cracking, coated it with Print Shield as an initial barrier, then rolled on aqueous acrylic coatings like ClearStar or Glamour II, and glued it to panels with simple PVA adhesives as well. Miracle Muck would also probably work great.
Kernow Coatings did not market the Kernewek line of inkjet printable fabrics very well. Not many printmakers who run canvas knew about it. If a major player like Epson, Canson, or Hanemuhle had picked it up and rebadged it , I'm sure it would have sold really well. Such is life.
cheers,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com
-
I've seen samples. Similar "infusion" process as Kernewek, but unfortunately, tons of OBA included. Too bad about the Kernowek fabric line being discontinued. The one I will truly miss is the St. Ives. That was really special, and I've seen no other inkjet canvas I like nearly as much. I've been using it for a few years, and my clients (I don't advertise it, but I do custom printmaking for select clients) have stretched it with no cracking, coated it with Print Shield as an initial barrier, then rolled on aqueous acrylic coatings like ClearStar or Glamour II, and glued it to panels with simple PVA adhesives as well. Miracle Muck would also probably work great.
Kernow Coatings did not market the Kernewek line of inkjet printable fabrics very well. Not many printmakers who run canvas knew about it. If a major player like Epson, Canson, or Hanemuhle had picked it up and rebadged it , I'm sure it would have sold really well. Such is life.
cheers,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com
The datasheets for the non-gesso canvases on the site specifically say "OBAs: No". Are they lying? Do they display the same fluorescence as OBA-loaded papers and canvases?
Even so, without knowing their longevity, I'd be hesitant to use them. Even a relative longevity test (i.e. not absolute values, but a rough test by putting it in a window for a few months next to samples printed on Lyve and other canvases and seeing which one fades more) would be useful.
-
The datasheets for the non-gesso canvases on the site specifically say "OBAs: No". Are they lying? Do they display the same fluorescence as OBA-loaded papers and canvases?
Even so, without knowing their longevity, I'd be hesitant to use them. Even a relative longevity test (i.e. not absolute values, but a rough test by putting it in a window for a few months next to samples printed on Lyve and other canvases and seeing which one fades more) would be useful.
The samples I received came from a colleague and not directly from the company. They were claimed to have no OBAs in the literature I looked at for the two specific sample types I received. It has been a while, so I can't recall the product names as they were rather cryptic SKU#s. It's pretty common for media marketing folks not to double-check with the technical staff before writing the advertising copy. I'd thus stop short of the term "lying" and more diplomatically suggest the term "misinformed" :).
As for longevity tests, I decided not to test them because they had not come from the AaI&A membership, rather an industry colleague who was interested in potential distribution rights. Thus, there was a commercial agenda that would be unfair to support with Aardenburg print research funds donated by the AaI&A membership. Nor did the manufacturer seem interested in underwriting the tests at the time. Today, AaI&A doesn't take on fee-for-service contract testing anymore. I started to go down that road, but I finally concluded it is too much of a conflict of interest with the open source end-user supported testing model AaI&A has offered over the last several years to the digital print making community. Regrettably, this open source community-based approach to longevity testing is also now on hold for lack of funds. I hope to start it up again if and when the printmaking community shows more interest. At this time, the interest is practically zero. Most folks think that pigmented inks solved all the longevity issues. That conclusion would be wrong, but it appears to be the prevailing sentiment.
cheers,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com
-
I've contacted Kernow Coatings about their Kernewek Fabrics but did not receive any reply. I learned through one of their ex-dealers that these fabrics are no longer manufactured.
This is the email that they sent him which he forwarded, sent 8 May 2014:
This is terrible news to me. I'm pretty much completely fed up with Breathing Color and their deplorable canvas weave and seed problems. I wish there was a better alternative to their crappy products.
I contacted one of their distributors at freestylephoto.biz about this and asked them to verify if the St. Ives (aka Monument Valley) and Newlyn (aka Yosemite) media types were discontinued. I receive a reply back yesterday:
You information is partially correct. We still have plenty of stock on hand of both types of media.
Kernow has temporarily suspended production until such time as there is more consumer interest in the product. The coating resources necessary to do a full run does not currently match up to demand.
It has not been discontinued as such. If there is need to produce an entire coating run, Kernow is more than happy to do so.
-
The samples I received came from a colleague and not directly from the company. They were claimed to have no OBAs in the literature I looked at for the two specific sample types I received. It has been a while, so I can't recall the product names as they were rather cryptic SKU#s. It's pretty common for media marketing folks not to double-check with the technical staff before writing the advertising copy. I'd thus stop short of the term "lying" and more diplomatically suggest the term "misinformed" :).
As for longevity tests, I decided not to test them because they had not come from the AaI&A membership, rather an industry colleague who was interested in potential distribution rights. Thus, there was a commercial agenda that would be unfair to support with Aardenburg print research funds donated by the AaI&A membership. Nor did the manufacturer seem interested in underwriting the tests at the time. Today, AaI&A doesn't take on fee-for-service contract testing anymore. I started to go down that road, but I finally concluded it is too much of a conflict of interest with the open source end-user supported testing model AaI&A has offered over the last several years to the digital print making community. Regrettably, this open source community-based approach to longevity testing is also now on hold for lack of funds. I hope to start it up again if and when the printmaking community shows more interest. At this time, the interest is practically zero. Most folks think that pigmented inks solved all the longevity issues. That conclusion would be wrong, but it appears to be the prevailing sentiment.
cheers,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com
Might be worth getting a trial roll, then, and shining a UV lamp on it to see if it lights up. If it doesn't, then maybe follow it up with a window test against a sample of Lyve or other canvas/paper with known lightfastness, printed on the same printer, and seeing which one lasts longer.
Unfortunately, shipping the trial roll to Australia costs more than the roll itself - anyone in the US interested in taking a look at it to see if it is, indeed, OBA-free?
On another note - any idea how Silverada canvas holds up in terms of lightfastness, when properly sprayed with an aqueous varnish? That's another canvas I like. It's commonly quoted as about two-thirds of that of Lyve, but that's with sprayed Lyve vs uncoated Silverada (since Silverada doesn't strictly need to be coated). Might it not last just as long as Lyve with a proper coating?
-
I contacted one of their distributors at freestylephoto.biz about this and asked them to verify if the St. Ives (aka Monument Valley) and Newlyn (aka Yosemite) media types were discontinued. I receive a reply back yesterday:
That's great news. So there's plenty of it in stock, and capacity to make more if needed?
Better see how well this stuff works with aqueous varnish, then, and get the word out there! I know a lot of people have problems with cotton seeds in other canvases (apparently even including Lyve, which is otherwise the top-of-the-line canvas out there)
I'm not sure why manufacturers insist on coating inkjet canvas with gesso, anyway, apart from the fact that gesso is required for oil and acrylic paintings. It's not like printed canvases look painted anyhow, and it's not like gesso obscures the texture of the canvas significantly. It's just another layer that can crumble and crack as the canvas flexes, tightens and relaxes. Unless aqueous varnishes somehow penetrate through the gesso into the fibres themselves, stabilising both.
-
That's great news. So there's plenty of it in stock, and capacity to make more if needed?
That is what was implied. I can get you the email address of the vendor if you’d like.
Better see how well this stuff works with aqueous varnish, then, and get the word out there! I know a lot of people have problems with cotton seeds in other canvases (apparently even including Lyve, which is otherwise the top-of-the-line canvas out there)
The seeds are a PITA and ruin a lot of work. I plan to make some tests of the media types i mentioned above, probably today, as part of a large print run I’m doing.
I'm not sure why manufacturers insist on coating inkjet canvas with gesso, anyway, apart from the fact that gesso is required for oil and acrylic paintings. It's not like printed canvases look painted anyhow, and it's not like gesso obscures the texture of the canvas significantly. It's just another layer that can crumble and crack as the canvas flexes, tightens and relaxes. Unless aqueous varnishes somehow penetrate through the gesso into the fibres themselves, stabilising both.
I suspect that convention plays a large role in how the canvas is manufactured, and I have to disagree with your comment about the look as thousands or more have asked me if my works are paintings. I glue the canvas to an underlayment and that vastly reduces the amount of flexing.
-
Really? I would have thought the lack of brush strokes and paint texture gave it away instantly.
-
A lot of paint and drawing artists produce near photo realism and concealing brush strokes and texture is part of that genre. Add to that the overwhelming number of “giclee” reproductions…
-
Have either of you noticed any seeds in the Kernewek fabric?
Any idea if www.freestylephoto.biz still have rolls of the St Ives/Monument Valley canvas left? They've listed rolls for every other canvas, but only sheets for Monument Valley.
-
Might be worth getting a trial roll, then, and shining a UV lamp on it to see if it lights up. If it doesn't, then maybe follow it up with a window test against a sample of Lyve or other canvas/paper with known lightfastness, printed on the same printer, and seeing which one lasts longer.
Maybe I wasn't clear enough in my earlier remarks. The "explosionfocolors" fabrics that were sent to me were claimed to have no OBA. UV-included versus UV excluded spectrophotometer readings confirmed high fluorescence in the base and in the "infused coating". UV backlight examination also confirmed high levels of fluorescence, so plenty of OBAs in the products. I followed up through my contacts to see if any OBA-free samples could be supplied. The manufacturer did not respond. End of story, and end of my interest in evaluating that product. Kernewek St. Ives, in contrast, has no fluorescence in the substrate nor in the infused coating. It's a great product. I haven't had a seed problem, but I don't print on canvas much, so I haven't run through dozens of rolls, only a few. One roll had some wrinkles on one edge from a poor wind at the factory, but it didn't cause a printing issue, and the wrinkles came out nicely upon stretching. Some fraying at the roll edges compared to other canvas media, but that issue has not turned into problem, either. Only thing I can really fault St. Ives and the other Kernewek fabrics for is relatively poor dmax (L*min ~ 22-25 depending on ink set), but that's seems to be a common attribute with many coated matte canvas offerings these days. Anyway, with a good ICC profile and the right image, I can make very lovely prints on St. Ives, and I've seen no canvas surface texture I like better, not BC Chromata white, not BC Lyve, not Hahnemuhle Daguerre (which BTW has OBAs), not Lexjet's sunset canvas or canvas matte by Frederix, etc., etc.
best,
Mark
-
Maybe I wasn't clear enough in my earlier remarks. The "explosionfocolors" fabrics that were sent to me were claimed to have no OBA. UV-included versus UV excluded spectrophotometer readings confirmed high fluorescence in the base and in the "infused coating". UV backlight examination also confirmed high levels of fluorescence, so plenty of OBAs in the products. I followed up through my contacts to see if any OBA-free samples could be supplied. The manufacturer did not respond. End of story, and end of my interest in evaluating that product. Kernewek St. Ives, in contrast, has no fluorescence in the substrate nor in the infused coating. It's a great product. I haven't had a seed problem, but I don't print on canvas much, so I haven't run through dozens of rolls, only a few. One roll had some wrinkles on one edge from a poor wind at the factory, but it didn't cause a printing issue, and the wrinkles came out nicely upon stretching. Some fraying at the roll edges compared to other canvas media, but that issue has not turned into problem, either. Only thing I can really fault St. Ives and the other Kernewek fabrics for is relatively poor dmax (L*min ~ 22-25 depending on ink set), but that's seems to be a common attribute with many coated matte canvas offerings these days. Anyway, with a good ICC profile and the right image, I can make very lovely prints on St. Ives, and I've seen no canvas surface texture I like better, not BC Chromata white, not BC Lyve, not Hahnemuhle Daguerre (which BTW has OBAs), not Lexjet's sunset canvas or canvas matte by Frederix, etc., etc.
best,
Mark
Thanks.
It seems the dMax is still better than that of Lyve or other canvases, and, since you're always going to varnish a canvas anyway (with glossy varnish often bringing the dMax below 10) the uncoated dMax isn't as relevant as in a paper. I suspect applying a varnish would also solve the edge fraying problem.
Did you have any luck coating St Ives with Glamour II, Timeless or another aqueous varnish? Which black ink (MK or PK) do you use with it?
-
I heard back from them - looks like they do have St Ives/Monument Valley available in roll form. They confirmed again that Kernewek fabrics haven't been withdrawn from production - just that it's on hold at the moment, due to low demand and sufficient stock, but can be started up again at any time should the demand be there.
-
It seems the dMax is still better than that of Lyve or other canvases
Not really. The Lyve sample for Z3200 at Aardenburg has a original dmax of L*18.7. The K3 chromata white samples is about L*22.1. I'm also hitting about L*18 for Lyve on an iPF8400. So that's the same inks as what the Kernewek test samples were printed on.
I wouldn't fault Lyve for its dmax or gamut. But its plague of other problems is unforgivable. The excuses I get is Lyve is an organic product because its made with cotton. Rubbish. Its only 35% cotton. It is mostly a synthetic product if anything. 100% cotton papers have far less seeds and texture problems in general!
-
Not really. The Lyve sample for Z3200 at Aardenburg has a original dmax of L*18.7. The K3 chromata white samples is about L*22.1. I'm also hitting about L*18 for Lyve on an iPF8400. So that's the same inks as what the Kernewek test samples were printed on.
I wouldn't fault Lyve for its dmax or gamut. But its plague of other problems is unforgivable. The excuses I get is Lyve is an organic product because its made with cotton. Rubbish. Its only 35% cotton. It is mostly a synthetic product if anything. 100% cotton papers have far less seeds and texture problems in general!
Lyve with Epson K3VM inkset gave L*30.3.
Chromata White with K3VM gave L*28.0.
St Ives with K3VM gave L*26.7.
Naturally, these figures improve dramatically when coated (as canvas is designed to be).
-
Lyve with Epson K3VM inkset gave L*30.3.
Chromata White with K3VM gave L*28.0.
St Ives with K3VM gave L*26.7.
Naturally, these figures improve dramatically when coated (as canvas is designed to be).
The Chromata white an Lyve dmax numbers are bogus for the K3VM samples. Look at the media setting used for printing! Useless for comparison.
Media Setting: Media type = Premium Glossy Photo Paper (250)
The K3 inkset with Chromata sample is more like it. L*22.1, using matte black this time.
-
The Chromata white an Lyve dmax numbers are bogus for the K3VM samples. Look at the media setting used for printing! Useless for comparison.
The K3 inkset with Chromata sample is more like it. L*22.1, using matte black this time.
Yes, I questioned the media setting choice, too, when the particular Chromata and Lyve canvas samples in question were submitted by an AaI&A member to the AaI&A digital print research program for testing. However, I went ahead with testing because this media setting was the manufacturer's recommended setting, and the profiles used by the member to print them were also supplied by BC. Go figure!
cheers,
mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com
-
Yes, I questioned the media setting choice, too, when the particular Chromata and Lyve canvas samples in question were submitted by an AaI&A member to the AaI&A digital print research program for testing. However, I went ahead with testing because this media setting was the manufacturer's recommended setting, and the profiles used by the member to print them were also supplied by BC. Go figure!
cheers,
mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com
Oh Mark, why are we not surprised? Breathing Color messed up again. Gotta get used to it.
-
Breathing Color make arguably the best inkjet coating on the market - its gamut is up there with the best, while it has better lightfastness than anything else out there, when compared against the same class of papers with the same inkset. And both their canvases and their papers are compatible with Timeless, for much better physical longevity.
It's a pity they can't source a consistent, high-quality base canvas to apply the coating to. Any idea if Hahnemuhle and other major canvas brands have the same problems with seeds?
-
^I will over the next few days. I have a monster of a show coming up and just ordered 3 gallons of goo (aka Glamour ii) and will use the samples along with other production.
The samples did not come with any instructions. With the HP I’ve never made a selection for the type of black I use. From what I read, matte is preferred for non glossy stock.
The media itself looks like cloth. One sample is a classic canvas weave and the other is akin to linen.
How did it go?
-
I am printing with Hahnemuehle Monet Canvas and it's 100% cotton. I do observe the cotton seed in some print but it's not that serious to be an issue for me.
Personally I prefer the 100% cotton than poly cotton. It make my client feel better when holding a 100% cotton canvas than a poly cotton canvas.
I have used Hahnemuehle Varnish so far and just order a gallon of Timeless to try out. Anybody has experience on this?
-
I am printing with Hahnemuehle Monet Canvas and it's 100% cotton. I do observe the cotton seed in some print but it's not that serious to be an issue for me.
Personally I prefer the 100% cotton than poly cotton. It make my client feel better when holding a 100% cotton canvas than a poly cotton canvas.
I have used Hahnemuehle Varnish so far and just order a gallon of Timeless to try out. Anybody has experience on this?
Cotton has the tendency to sag in changing humidity, but those spring-loaded frames are great! No more sagging.
I find it interesting that I've never seen a cotton shirt or T-shit with cotton seeds, but find it in rolls of inkjet canvas.
-
I've just received a sample A4 pack containing one of each type of Kenewek Fabric. It's was lying around the Freestyle offices for a while so the surfaces are marred slightly. Otherwise, the weave of the fabrics look amazing. Far better than any canvas I've seen, and much more consistent. One doesn't need to look at a lot of it to know that the weave will be consistent. I always see weave variations over just a few inches in BC's canvases. No cotton seeds in the sheet. Too little media to test for the right media setting.
-
I've just received a sample A4 pack containing one of each type of Kenewek Fabric. It's was lying around the Freestyle offices for a while so the surfaces are marred slightly. Otherwise, the weave of the fabrics look amazing. Far better than any canvas I've seen, and much more consistent. One doesn't need to look at a lot of it to know that the weave will be consistent. I always see weave variations over just a few inches in BC's canvases. No cotton seeds in the sheet. Too little media to test for the right media setting.
No gesso makes it much easier to achieve consistency.
I'm just waiting to find out if it works with Glamour II (or Timeless) so that I don't end up shipping a roll all the way to Australia, only to find that I can't use it.
-
Why not request for a sample pack so you can see it for yourself? Or order a small box of cut sheets? The weave looks different enough in reality than the pictures in Aardenburg's reports.
When I find time I'll report back on spraying with glamour 2.
-
Why not request for a sample pack so you can see it for yourself? Or order a small box of cut sheets? The weave looks different enough in reality than the pictures in Aardenburg's reports.
When I find time I'll report back on spraying with glamour 2.
I've seen printed samples of it - that's how I caught onto this canvas in the first place.
Just that the shipping cost to get samples to Australia for testing exceeds the cost of the sample pack in the first place, so I'm relying on the experiences of those who are closer to the source...
-
I was not charged for a sample pack... ;D
-
Showblade --
What "spring-loaded frames" are you referring to?
Thanks,
Dave.
"...those spring-loaded frames are great! No more sagging."
-
Showblade --
What "spring-loaded frames" are you referring to?
Thanks,
Dave.
"...those spring-loaded frames are great! No more sagging."
http://www.wunderbars.com/ (http://www.wunderbars.com/)
-
How did it go?
I’ve been busy getting ready for and then participating in a show (nw folklife), and have been busy due to that.
I prepped and coated one sample about a week ago, but haven’t seen it since putting G2 on it. I’ll print on the other sample and coat it in the next week or so. At that time I’ll see the first one in a finished state.
-
I did a test with the Newlyn – Yosemite. I was sent a short sample roll and it was enough to profile and make couple of smallish prints. The untreated finish is akin to linen.
My Z3200 had no problem building a profile for it. I made a night time work and a finely nuanced pastel-like daylight work on this. The pastel work came out nice but the dark one was a bit blocked up. It may be fixable but anywho my main use for this media would be for pastels and warmer colors.
There are small bumps on the surface. I didn’t count but maybe 15 or so on a 2’ long segment. I don’t think these are defects but just the way the media is produced.
The first problem I encountered was when trying to remove dust and crud just before applying Glamour II (G2). It is difficult to remove dust or particulate matter from the surface. I use air in a can and the surface grabs stuff and doesn’t let it go. I didn’t find a good solution for this but may try a vaccuum.
I applied a purposefully heavy coat of G2. Given limited a sample I figured a little too much was better than two little. The finish cured okay. The finished surface feels a little like the texture of, well, about 100 grit sand paper. That’s what my partner said of it. The pastel work looks nice but it will be a dust magnet. I’m used to the finish of Lexjet Sunset Matt and this is a country away from that. I don’t think anyone could get away with using a damp cloth to clean this.
I used gator board as a backing and miracle muck to bond the work to the backing. The back of the media reminds me a little of cellophane. It is definitely not porous in the way typical canvas is porous. I noticed that it trapped air very easily while I was applying the work to the muck coated garboard. It did not want to lay flat without some effort and required a fair amount of massaging to get it to lay down completely.
In summary it’s about a 2.5 star PITA to work with.
My partner loves the texture and the weave. She wants me to buy a roll and produce some larger pastel works. She’s a woman and so her opinion is probably more important than mine.
I have a bunch of shows coming up and will work in a test of the monument valley media in the near future.
-
Thanks - a very useful test!
I did a test with the Newlyn – Yosemite. I was sent a short sample roll and it was enough to profile and make couple of smallish prints. The untreated finish is akin to linen.
My Z3200 had no problem building a profile for it. I made a night time work and a finely nuanced pastel-like daylight work on this. The pastel work came out nice but the dark one was a bit blocked up. It may be fixable but anywho my main use for this media would be for pastels and warmer colors.
I suspect this would be correctable with further profiling, and may be just a matter of how the Z3200 calculates its profiles by default. Canon printers tend to produce better details in dark areas than HP or Epson printers by default, and it's entirely due to the profile.
There are small bumps on the surface. I didn’t count but maybe 15 or so on a 2’ long segment. I don’t think these are defects but just the way the media is produced.
So, just like linen or raw cotton canvas.
The first problem I encountered was when trying to remove dust and crud just before applying Glamour II (G2). It is difficult to remove dust or particulate matter from the surface. I use air in a can and the surface grabs stuff and doesn’t let it go. I didn’t find a good solution for this but may try a vaccuum.
How long did you have to leave it to dry before coating it?
Leaving it to dry hanging vertically under a dust cover might be the way to go...
I applied a purposefully heavy coat of G2. Given limited a sample I figured a little too much was better than two little. The finish cured okay. The finished surface feels a little like the texture of, well, about 100 grit sand paper. That’s what my partner said of it. The pastel work looks nice but it will be a dust magnet. I’m used to the finish of Lexjet Sunset Matt and this is a country away from that. I don’t think anyone could get away with using a damp cloth to clean this.
Were you using glossy, lustre or matte varnish? If glossy, how was the final gloss.
Did you use one coat, or several?
Any problems with air bubbles, uneven coating, etc.?
I used gator board as a backing and miracle muck to bond the work to the backing. The back of the media reminds me a little of cellophane. It is definitely not porous in the way typical canvas is porous. I noticed that it trapped air very easily while I was applying the work to the muck coated garboard. It did not want to lay flat without some effort and required a fair amount of massaging to get it to lay down completely.
In summary it’s about a 2.5 star PITA to work with.
Presumably, you wouldn't have this problem when stretching it rather than mounting it. So it's a bit like mounting a polyester film or RC paper?
I have a bunch of shows coming up and will work in a test of the monument valley media in the near future.
Thanks again - looking forward to it!
-
By the way, how much shrinkage (in both length and width) did you record after printing and spraying?
-
Someone mentioned earlier about the fabric from http://explosionofcolors.com.
I have been using it for 10 years...and tried plenty of others.
It is better in so many ways as compared to Canson and other major sellers.
This canvas has. Next to no metamerism, ie, very little color change in blue window light.
Much deeper blacks in 'real life conditions' as the infused coating does not reflect anywhere as much as the surface ones.. Even with three light coats of matte UV coating sprayed on.
I have literally put a sample through the wash, including spin dry. Looks great, although I wouldn't recommend it.
Simply the most beautiful looking material I have used.