Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Printing: Printers, Papers and Inks => Topic started by: msoomro on September 23, 2014, 06:45:43 pm
-
I am looking to frame some prints without glass or plexiglass etc. Some prints are on matte paper which i can varnish and weather seal. For glossy papers what options are out there. I am leaning towards UV proof laminating of some type - however open consider all options .
thanks
-
Why not the glass?
-
Weight and cost. I get custom frames and logistically it will be cheaper and easier to go without glass without compromising quality of display.
-
Weight and cost. I get custom frames and logistically it will be cheaper and easier to go without glass without compromising quality of display.
I'm not quite sure if you're talking about a temporary display that needs to endure a couple weeks or something that's supposed to last a lifetime. If it's the latter you have a difficult task. We live in a world that's full of airborne dirt, grit, and curious fingers. Crud builds up on surfaces, they need to be cleaned periodically, and not everyone is extremely careful when they clean things. Glass is heavy, but very durable and relatively cheap unless you're talking about Tru Vue Museum Glass. Nothing stands up to cleaning with any sort of cloth and cleaner better than glass. Over time cleaning of softer surfaces produces countless micro-scratches that makes them hazy. To some extent you can avoid this with Plexiglas by blowing off grit if there is any, and using very soft cloths and special cleaners. If Plexiglas gets scratched you can always replace it, but lamination is permanent, and probably softer, so you have to throw away the whole print. That's fine for a temporary display, but not for anything that's supposed to last for a while.
Given the work involved with other processes I can't imagine any being cheaper, easier, or longer lasting than glass, but you may find a way to produce a better display. Beyond that I have no advise.
-
Laminates such as Premier Art ect. are the most common method if you are looking for framed prints. Face mounting is another method that can be used. Mounting to aluminum or wood can also give a nice presentation. However the longevity does get compromised without the protection of glass. I live in a hot humid location and I find that glass will trap moisture and result in mold growing on the print. In this area it is better to go without glass and get used to cleaning the prints with a feather duster on a regular basis. Not perfect but you make the best of what you have. Ken
-
The challenge with laminates is they often look “cheap”. I’ve tried a few different ways over the years, and for some things it works pretty good. I have a leathery texture laminate that looks great for things like portraits, but really don’t like it on landscapes. I’ve tried glossy laminates on landscapes but it just doesn’t come across as nice face mounting to a thin piece of plexi or glass.
But other than spraying or coating, I think it’s the only option.
-
Thanks all for the perspective and advice. My genre is nature / landscapes. So it seems a thin plexi glass will still be way better then good quality laminate. This brings up another question. What are some good sources of plexi sheets and cutter. I have a good framing source locally, but when I add customer glass or plexi it raise cost significantly at retail prices (my consumption is not very high but i can afford a home setup if its not hugely expensive)
cheers
msoomro
-
If you Google "plexiglas cutter" you'll find countless hand cutters ranging between a few dollars and $20. One of those, a good cutting guide (just a thick straight edge with a non-slip backing), and some care is all you'd need to cut a piece of Plexiglas for an occasional print. A 36" cutting guide costs around $25 or so. Longer ones are more. It would also be a good idea to watch some "how to" videos online before you start. FWIW, cutting glass isn't as hard as you might think using a hand cutter and straight edge, and it's considerably cheaper than Plexiglas.
The best sources for Plexiglas or glass are typically local because shipping costs boost the prices considerably. Shop around. I've seen prices at some local vendors that are three times that of others.
[EDIT] Also check pricing at http://www.framedestination.com/. It's more than doing all of this yourself, but they do everything and they aren't horribly expensive.
-
Mount on thick gatorfoam. Use this for print protection of gloss paper: Glossy (Paper) Overlam is a general-purpose laminate that provides a high gloss look.
Using both provides a very nice looking mount that is very resistant to handling, smoke, splatters, fingerprints etc. Been using for a decade and very happy with the results and durability.
Gary
-
Just a note here about using plexi..
When you are cleaning the plexi, do NOT use any cleaner with ammonia in it!!! It will craze and haze the plexi till it is useless. Either a specific plexi cleaner or Glass Plus.
Personally, the glass is the cheapest part of any framing job unless you go with Museum glass. It doesn't make any sense to spend that little bit more to protect the piece, rather than leaving it open to the elements and likely damage.
My charge to laminate a piece is more than the glass would be.
-
But isn't using glass, a material that is reflective and "glossy", in front of a print you thought would look best on matte paper, basically counterintuitive?
-
But isn't using glass, a material that is reflective and "glossy", in front of a print you thought would look best on matte paper, basically counterintuitive?
Glare from glass, Plexiglas, or a laminate can be a problem in some situations. For those there are products like Tru Vue Museum glass with optical coatings that make the glass virtually invisible. It's really astounding, and really expensive. There are cheaper non-glare products that use a fine texture on the surface to diffuse the glare, but these can also make the print look a little soft and don't do as well with the glare. So there is at least one glazing solution that presents the print with little to no influence from the glazing.
It's also possible to eliminate or greatly reduce glare as seen from typical viewing positions by controlling the lighting, if possible. Note also that matte papers behind glass do not look like other papers behind glass. Papers maintain their look if glare from the glazing is controlled. The problem if no glazing is used, as mentioned above, is that crud (greasy film, grit, finger marks, etc.) will build up on the print and a bare print can't be readily cleaned. It's simply impractical to hang an unprotected print for any length of time.
-
I think most customers expect photographs to be framed behind glass.
-
Glare from glass, Plexiglas, or a laminate can be a problem in some situations. For those there are products like Tru Vue Museum glass with optical coatings that make the glass virtually invisible. It's really astounding, and really expensive. There are cheaper non-glare products that use a fine texture on the surface to diffuse the glare, but these can also make the print look a little soft and don't do as well with the glare. So there is at least one glazing solution that presents the print with little to no influence from the glazing.
It's also possible to eliminate or greatly reduce glare as seen from typical viewing positions by controlling the lighting, if possible. Note also that matte papers behind glass do not look like other papers behind glass. Papers maintain their look if glare from the glazing is controlled. The problem if no glazing is used, as mentioned above, is that crud (greasy film, grit, finger marks, etc.) will build up on the print and a bare print can't be readily cleaned. It's simply impractical to hang an unprotected print for any length of time.
I suppose what you say is true.. but then we can throw out any discussions on the relative cost of inkjet papers since the glazing is exorbinent in relation. If we accept that every matte print requires a sheet of TruVue in front of it, or a special lighting setup, all just to maintain the appearance of the print still being on matte paper, it becomes fairly a fairly impractical choice for a lot of situations. OTOH if one prints for themselves.. who cares about grime. Just print another every few years for a few bucks. :)
-
I suppose what you say is true.. but then we can throw out any discussions on the relative cost of inkjet papers since the glazing is exorbinent in relation. If we accept that every matte print requires a sheet of TruVue in front of it, or a special lighting setup, all just to maintain the appearance of the print still being on matte paper, it becomes fairly a fairly impractical choice for a lot of situations. OTOH if one prints for themselves.. who cares about grime. Just print another every few years for a few bucks. :)
I wouldn't say *every* matte print requires Tru-Vue Museum Glass or a special lighting setup. It depends where it hangs, the lighting that already exists there, where it will be viewed from, and whether the appearance is acceptable in that particular situation. It's not a matter of prints on matte papers looking like they're on glossy paper when they're mounted behind glass or Plexiglas, it's a matter of surface glare from the glass or Plexiglas obscuring the print and lowering contrast. The same issue exists no matter what paper is used, though it may be slightly worse for matte prints because of their lower Dmax. But, if you don't mind replacing your prints periodically, and doing whatever mounting/remounting work is involved with that, then good luck!
-
Paintings and other Art are not placed behind glass. Canvas prints are not placed behind glass. However prints on photographic paper seem to need glass protection. Why do inkjet prints with modern coatings need such protection when paintings and canvas prints do not?
Ken
-
Just a note here about using plexi..
When you are cleaning the plexi, do NOT use any cleaner with ammonia in it!!! It will craze and haze the plexi till it is useless. Either a specific plexi cleaner or Glass Plus.
Personally, the glass is the cheapest part of any framing job unless you go with Museum glass. It doesn't make any sense to spend that little bit more to protect the piece, rather than leaving it open to the elements and likely damage.
My charge to laminate a piece is more than the glass would be.
I use isopropyl alcohol to clean the acrylic if I am bonding the print to the acrylic sheet. It's very good at removing solvents and dries very fast. Glass cleaner is also OK.
I always ship framed prints under a 2mm cast acrylic sheet. In my opinion it's much better than glass because it has no green tint. I explain to my customers that the acrylic is more expensive than glass and much better: with the only downside being that it can scratch, so I give instructions on how to clean it (Windolene with a soft cloth). I also explain that if there is slight scratching or abrasion that it can be removed with a fine polish like a car polish or Brasso and a soft cloth.
I've tried laminating with a semi-matte laminate but I agree that it doesn't look very good (it makes the print look cheap I think). I haven't tried a gloss laminate.
Robert
-
Paintings and other Art are not placed behind glass. Canvas prints are not placed behind glass. However prints on photographic paper seem to need glass protection. Why do inkjet prints with modern coatings need such protection when paintings and canvas prints do not?
Ken
Not really. Drawings, pastels, charcoals, watercolors... All should be framed behind glass. Only canvas art (paintings or prints) are usually presented without glass. But even those are sealed/varnished, otherwise they would have the same fate as the unprotected art on paper. Unfortunately papers are not as tough as canvas and not really compatible with varnishes.
-
Geraldo, right on. Any art in those forms needs glass protection for longevity as well as adding to the "value" of the purchase.
-
Form follows function - pov (point of view) puts some twists on things, plus people - at least some people - experiment and or do not follow convention, sometime with perfectly adequate and useful results, sometimes not.
Matte paper mounted and spray coated and displayed out of the way of abrasion (a wall for instance) - seems like I see this happening here and there, I do so with my own stuff - and things are rosy and swell. The papers are also "closer" to the viewing experience. Not all Matte papers can do this, but many can.
Gloss behind glass sucks to me. Gloss under clear gloss lam is strong and is - well practical for many applications (form follows function) and from that perspective looks really beautiful to me. And displays proudly and without much fear of damage or degradation.
Durable, abrasion resistant, smoke resistant, adds depth, ... cheap is sometimes a learned perspective that may simply be an assigned adjective for cultural not practical reasons, then continued by momentum and traditionalists. Oh, and the print looks great hanging on a wall, better to my eyes than canvass because more detail and what I call richness. Please tho, each to their own ...
Just my thoughts ...
Cheers
Gary
PS I know the customer is always right saying, but for some folks the creating is the goal, and like some "baseball parks" we "build them and they will come". Historically there are artists that went this way and did fine, and their still are.
-
Not really. Drawings, pastels, charcoals, watercolors... All should be framed behind glass. Only canvas art (paintings or prints) are usually presented without glass. But even those are sealed/varnished, otherwise they would have the same fate as the unprotected art on paper. Unfortunately papers are not as tough as canvas and not really compatible with varnishes.
Well I have to say that a lot of the time with my watercolors I don't put them behind glass because I don't like the reflections. What I do is to varnish the watercolors using either an acrylic matte or satin varnish like the Liquitex or Atelier varnishes, or, what's much better but a bit harder to apply is a beeswax varnish (available from Winsor Newton or Michael Harding for example). The vanishes are slightly milky when applied but dry clear. The beeswax gives a wonderful depth and protection, and it can be buffed to give a sheen or gloss if you want.
I haven't tried it yet, but I don't see any reason why this couldn't be done on digital matte paper. I think a fixative would need to be applied first - I've ordered a matte fixative from Ghiant, which I should get in a few days, so I'll be able to try it out. The beeswax then gives a very durable finish that can be wiped clean.
The only problem I have with it is that the paper needs to be glued to a board, otherwise it won't be flat, but otherwise it works very well for watercolor papers.
I don't know about gloss, but I'll try it. I suspect that it would be difficult to do it as it's a very delicate surface ... the varnish would probably need to be sprayed on rather than painted on, and you would need a very good spray gun, I expect (a bit like car bodywork spray guns, to give a very fine even spray). I guess that might work: spray the fixative first then spray a gloss varnish.
Robert
-
...or, what's much better but a bit harder to apply is a beeswax varnish (available from Winsor Newton or Michael Harding for example). The vanishes are slightly milky when applied but dry clear. The beeswax gives a wonderful depth and protection, and it can be buffed to give a sheen or gloss if you want.
I have black and white silver prints (darkroom days) that were coated with beeswax (learned in photography at college) that are just as you say about beeswax - adds depth and protects wonderfully.
Gary
-
On a related note, ie. per using wax, came across this thread which you might find of interest:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=65647.0 (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=65647.0)
-
On a related note, ie. per using wax, came across this thread which you might find of interest:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=65647.0 (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=65647.0)
Yes, thanks, very interesting. So it seems that wax can be used on inkjet papers, good to know. The wax is certainly a very good protection against the elements (for example, it's impossible to put watercolor paint down over the wax) and it's a technique that's been used for centuries. Normally the wax is made from beeswax mixed with an oil like olive oil, but probably the newer mixes using petroleum jelly would be more chemically neutral and colorless (but more smelly, while drying :)).
Using a fixative first would seem to me a good idea though: first of all because the fixative will prevent (should prevent) any ink lift-off or smudging, and secondly because fixatives with UV filtration is available, if that is a concern (personally I would not be too worried about UV because most (I mean all) of my paintings/prints are displayed indoors, so the UV level would be pretty low (hopefully :)).
Robert
-
Well I have to say that a lot of the time with my watercolors I don't put them behind glass because I don't like the reflections. What I do is to varnish the watercolors using either an acrylic matte or satin varnish like the Liquitex or Atelier varnishes, or, what's much better but a bit harder to apply is a beeswax varnish (available from Winsor Newton or Michael Harding for example). The vanishes are slightly milky when applied but dry clear. The beeswax gives a wonderful depth and protection, and it can be buffed to give a sheen or gloss if you want.
Well, if that fit your aesthetics preferences, desired volume of labor per image and preservation standards, by all means do it. Nothing wrong with that.
Unfortunately it is not an option for my needs and most people I know that tried this route has given up by one reason or another.
-
It is interesting.. though to original topic, I'm curious about the reference that this Renaissance Wax does not apply well to matte papers. A bit more reading found some references to turning images on matte paper to mush.
On the beeswax end of things, another informative site:
http://www.johnlovett.com/preservation.htm (http://www.johnlovett.com/preservation.htm)
-
Well, if that fit your aesthetics preferences, desired volume of labor per image and preservation standards, by all means do it. Nothing wrong with that.
Unfortunately it is not an option for my needs and most people I know that tried this route has given up by one reason or another.
Yes, for sure. I only wax/varnish watercolor paintings, and certainly not all of them. It's a lot easier to contact-mount behind glass or acrylic (or with a mat). For inkjet prints it's really experimental at this stage and I wouldn't dream of sending a waxed print out to a customer.
I have tried varnishing a print on a Canson Arches (just a half a print actually) without a fixative and it looks perfect. I've also tried the varnish on a gloss print ... and it looks TERRIBLE. The varnish gets absorbed into the matte paper but just sits on top of the gloss and ruins it: the ink doesn't run or anything like that, but the fine gloss finish is kaput.
Robert
-
It is interesting.. though to original topic, I'm curious about the reference that this Renaissance Wax does not apply well to matte papers. A bit more reading found some references to turning images on matte paper to mush.
Yes, I don't know ... I've used the Winsor Newton and Dorland's beeswax. Renaissance wax seems to be a synthetic wax ... can't imagine why it would be a problem on matte papers ... but there's only one way to find out for sure :)
Robert
-
Hi,
My small contribution to this subject: if you frame your own work for prospective clients show a sample of an image framed behind glass and the same behind a non-reflective glass such as Artglass. In almost every case they will choose the non-reflective options in spite of the additional cost.
Jean-Michel
-
One option that I've just tried out and seems to be quite good, if you don't want glass because of breakage problems shipping, is to use acrylic (which has the advantage of being completely clear, especially good quality cast acrylic); however we're then back to the problem of reflections. I laminated the acrylic sheet with a semi-matte laminate and that gets rid of the reflections. With the laminate I have there is a slight dulling as the laminate isn't entirely clear, but it may be possible to get a better quality laminate that would do the job.
Robert
-
What would be the best brand of wax to make a few tests?
Renaissance Waxis named in few posts I researched?
Anyone has a preference for a specific brand?
Do they come in different finish like Gloss, satin, etc?
Or is this a case where the finish depends on how much you buff the coat of wax?
I would like to try it in a couple of different papers
Thanks
-
What would be the best brand of wax to make a few tests?
Renaissance Waxis named in few posts I researched?
Anyone has a preference for a specific brand?
Do they come in different finish like Gloss, satin, etc?
Or is this a case where the finish depends on how much you buff the coat of wax?
I would like to try it in a couple of different papers
Thanks
I have yet to try it on inkjet paper, but on watercolor paper I've found the Winsor Newton and Dorland's Wax Medium very good. Here's a useful link: http://johnlovettwatercolorworkshop.com/painting-varnishes/
The amount of matte/gloss depends on how much you've buffed the coat of wax, but it seems that some wax varnishes are labelled as 'Matte'. I don't know if that's just a marketing ploy or not ... the traditional waxes are a mixture of beeswax and a solvent like lanolin, so they will buff up if that's what you want.
I'm waiting on some inkjet fixative before trying the wax on inkjet paper.
Robert
-
Ok I just ordered some beeswax varnish from Blicks.
I will make a test on fine art paper and on baryta paper and compare them with uncoated prints.
I will let you guys know about the result.
Any additional info about how to apply the wax would be super helpful.
Hugo
-
Apparently standard bee's wax contains acids that can effect the media over time. This was why Renaissance Wax was developed as a museum conservation product for furniture and paintings, etc. Unfortunately they don't recommend it for matt surface inkjet prints. Has anyone actually tried in on a cotton rag matte paper?
http://www.archivalmethods.com/product/renaissance-wax
-
Just sharing some experience in case it is helpful:
- Used regular pure beeswax on N surface polycontrast paper long long time ago on black and white print. Today there is absolutely no sign of any degradation.
- Use Renaissance wax currently on polypropylene gloss overlam - and it is easy. Apply lightly, near instant drying, and buff. On a less than smooth surface I believe application and buffing with Renaissance will be daunting. Melted beeswax or the hopefully somewhat liquid newer compounds discussed in previous posts should be easier, and if on a rough surface, the ability to apply as much as needed to build up a thick enough layer to rise above the roughness will allow buffing. Buffing needs a pretty flat surface or - well - good luck based on my experience anyway.
Cheers,
Gary
PS - note this on the Renaissance wax use instructions: ... should not be used on matt surface papers. ...
-
I wonder if any of you have any updates on waxing matte papers?
I've tried Michael Harding Beeswax Paste and Dorland's Wax Medium on Canson Arches and they both kill the blacks. If I buff the wax even a bit I get a glossy look which just doesn't cut it for me (the look of a watercolor paper is matte after all) ... and the buffing doesn't improve the blacks either.
The same waxes, applied on a very similar Arches watercolor paper (with watercolor paints) works really well ... no problem with the blacks and I don't buff the paper so the finish is matte.
So far, the best I've obtained with inkjet matte paper is a matte water-based varnish from Dulux! No idea if it's pH neutral.
Doesn't look good from my end!
Robert
-
I wonder if any of you have any updates on waxing matte papers?
I've tried Michael Harding Beeswax Paste and Dorland's Wax Medium on Canson Arches and they both kill the blacks. If I buff the wax even a bit I get a glossy look which just doesn't cut it for me (the look of a watercolor paper is matte after all) ... and the buffing doesn't improve the blacks either.
The same waxes, applied on a very similar Arches watercolor paper (with watercolor paints) works really well ... no problem with the blacks and I don't buff the paper so the finish is matte.
So far, the best I've obtained with inkjet matte paper is a matte water-based varnish from Dulux! No idea if it's pH neutral.
Doesn't look good from my end!
Robert
I just received a bottle of Dorland's wax medium - which from the site information sounds wonderful of course - and soon I will see how this works on Red River Polar Matte 60# C1S, and will let you know. I expect to buff, cannot imagine not buffing, as I project that the unbuffed layer of wax would do what you describe - interfere with light transmission / add opaqueness. Did you come upon a reference of some kind suggesting you could apply thick and leave? As far as becoming gloss -do you mean gloss like gloss paper, or just a bit more sheen that before? I would like to test this on something like radiant water color or another "rough" paper and see what the process is like...eventually.
I will share when I get to doing this first test.
Thanks for sharing
Cheers
Gary
-
I just received a bottle of Dorland's wax medium - which from the site information sounds wonderful of course - and soon I will see how this works on Red River Polar Matte 60# C1S, and will let you know. I expect to buff, cannot imagine not buffing, as I project that the unbuffed layer of wax would do what you describe - interfere with light transmission / add opaqueness. Did you come upon a reference of some kind suggesting you could apply thick and leave? As far as becoming gloss -do you mean gloss like gloss paper, or just a bit more sheen that before? I would like to test this on something like radiant water color or another "rough" paper and see what the process is like...eventually.
I will share when I get to doing this first test.
Thanks for sharing
Cheers
Gary
Hi Gary,
No ... I've seen no instructions on how to do this with inkjet paper. I tried various ways of applying the wax:
- with my finger
- with a cloth
- with a paintbrush (doesn't work well because I'm using Canson Arches Aquarelle Rag which is quite textured)
- with a paintbrush with the wax heated (goes right through the paper if you're not careful)
- remove excess and leave to dry without buffing
- remove excess and leave to dry then buff
- heat the wax with a hair drier to melt it and then leave to dry
In all cases the dark colors got flattened. Buffing does make the paper reflective, so if you buff a lot you end up with a gloss look on a textured paper, which is a bit weird.
I wonder if something like a fixative would need to be applied first.
With watercolor and paint the flattening doesn't happen ... there has to be a way around this !!
Robert
-
I wonder if any of you have any updates on waxing matte papers?
I've tried Michael Harding Beeswax Paste and Dorland's Wax Medium on Canson Arches and they both kill the blacks. If I buff the wax even a bit I get a glossy look which just doesn't cut it for me (the look of a watercolor paper is matte after all) ... and the buffing doesn't improve the blacks either.
The same waxes, applied on a very similar Arches watercolor paper (with watercolor paints) works really well ... no problem with the blacks and I don't buff the paper so the finish is matte.
So far, the best I've obtained with inkjet matte paper is a matte water-based varnish from Dulux! No idea if it's pH neutral.
Doesn't look good from my end!
Robert
I'm curious about which Dulux varnish you used and if it kept the original look of the paper without killing the blacks
-
I'm curious about which Dulux varnish you used and if it kept the original look of the paper without killing the blacks
Sorry, Paul, I made a mistake: it's Ronseal Quick-drying Varnish Clear Satin. I had some that I used on some woodwork, so I thought I'd give it a try. It's water-based.
It gave an excellent protection (what the long-lasting effect on the paint is I've no idea) and it improved the blacks - not the other way round as the waxes did. The only thing I didn't much like about it (but it's still a LOT better than glass) is the satin sheen ... I'm looking a for a matte finish. But I'll pick up some matte later and see what that looks like.
The satin would look good on gloss/luster papers ... the only thing is that it would need to be sprayed on, otherwise you would see the paint-brush lines. On the matte paper the lines don't show at all, even with a loupe ... looks like the varnish just gets fully absorbed into the paper, so the lines disappear.
Robert
Robert
-
Doesn't look like its available in the us or canada... :(
-
Doesn't look like its available in the us or canada... :(
I'm sure you can get the equivalent. It's a water-based varnish for wood. It looks milky before application, but dries clear.
So far it's the best I've found for matte paper. It improves the blacks and there's very little or no color change. The only issue I have with it (apart from possible long-term effect on the inks ... before using it I would check with the manufacturer for pH etc) is that even the matte does give a sheen to the paper, so if the light is at 45 degrees, say, and there's a wide patch of dark ink the varnish is reflected. On the other hand it improves the paper texture because of the slight sheen, more like a traditional painting (the inkjet inks tend to be very matte and they flatten the paper texture).
It's even good on gloss paper (but the satin varnish would be better): but it would need to be sprayed on to avoid the brush lines.
As far as wax is concerned: I wouldn't use it on inkjet matte paper. I think it deadens the blacks.
So for traditional watercolors I would use the beeswax but I would not buff it (what I do is to apply it quite liberally with a soft rag and then wipe the excess off): it dries to a lovely finish and enriches the painting. Using the matte varnish is a no-no as it smears the paint (both being water-based).
For ink-jet matte the water-based matte varnish does seem a real possibility.
Robert
-
Just finished a print on Renaissance.
Printed on Epson Hot Press Bright.
Left to dry for a day.
I apply two coats of the Hahnemuhle first to avoid rubbing or smearing the ink
Left again for a day to dry the spray
I rub a thin layer of the wax and still look and feel rough, not waxy enough to buff.
one more coat a bit heavier of wax and few hours of drying before buffing to get rid of marks on the wax coat
After finish the buffing the surface has a nice waxy feel to the touch, a bit of smell like wax, not unpleasant.
The look if not changed much.
Looks very resistant to a scratch from my fingernails.
Bad part is that the subtle texture of the paper got completely flattened, the surface looks like a very smooth matte paper now, not to my liking.
This print is 8.5 x 11
I can't imagine how much works will take to finish something big like a 17 x 22
I probably not use this as a normal part of my workflow, at least on matte papers, maybe they are too absorbent for this treatment.
I may try again with something like Canson Baryta or Ilford Gold Silk and report the findings.
Like every experiment, is fun even if the results are not as expected
Hugo
-
Just finished a print on Renaissance.
Printed on Epson Hot Press Bright.
Left to dry for a day.
I apply two coats of the Hahnemuhle first to avoid rubbing or smearing the ink
Left again for a day to dry the spray
I rub a thin layer of the wax and still look and feel rough, not waxy enough to buff.
one more coat a bit heavier of wax and few hours of drying before buffing to get rid of marks on the wax coat
After finish the buffing the surface has a nice waxy feel to the touch, a bit of smell like wax, not unpleasant.
The look if not changed much.
Looks very resistant to a scratch from my fingernails.
Bad part is that the subtle texture of the paper got completely flattened, the surface looks like a very smooth matte paper now, not to my liking.
This print is 8.5 x 11
I can't imagine how much works will take to finish something big like a 17 x 22
I probably not use this as a normal part of my workflow, at least on matte papers, maybe they are too absorbent for this treatment.
I may try again with something like Canson Baryta or Ilford Gold Silk and report the findings.
Like every experiment, is fun even if the results are not as expected
Hugo
Hi Hugo,
You certainly went to a lot of trouble to do it right! The only reason I can think that you've lost the texture of the paper is that you put too much wax on. One coat should be plenty enough and you should keep it thin, wiping off any excess.
Still ... for some reason it's not working for me either on inkjet paper whereas it works very well on watercolor paper. I've tried it on Canson Arches Aquarelle Rag and the traditional Arches Cold Press papers (same manufacturer, more or less) - fine on the traditional paper, not good on the inkjet-treated medium.
A varnish may be a better choice.
Cheers,
Robert
-
Hi Robert
Actually I had barely put wax in the first coat and the paper soaked so much that after the little rag I was using travel few inches the paper was just being scratched dry. And at that point,with barely a bit of wax on it, the paper had gone flat of texture already
It may be be that the Epson paper I chosen is just too absorbent and it soaks it up making it not a good choice for this finish.
I will try a sheet of the Epson Exhibition Watercolor, that one has much more texture. Maybe it looks nicer after finished.
-
Hi Robert
Actually I had barely put wax in the first coat and the paper soaked so much that after the little rag I was using travel few inches the paper was just being scratched dry. And at that point,with barely a bit of wax on it, the paper had gone flat of texture already
It may be be that the Epson paper I chosen is just too absorbent and it soaks it up making it not a good choice for this finish.
I will try a sheet of the Epson Exhibition Watercolor, that one has much more texture. Maybe it looks nicer after finished.
Hi Hugo,
I've had no success with wax on inkjet papers either ... but mainly the dulling of the blacks. The paper texture does get flattened too, but I found that a small amount of buffing brings it back fine. The problem with that is that it then gives a sheen to the paper.
Not such an easy problem!
Robert
-
I have found that many techniques that work on traditional media don't necessarily work for inkjet coated papers due to the coating.
For this reason, I also feel like I don't know the longevity of the print any longer the more I experiment with products that work for traditional art papers. One company that I have found that is extremely knowledgeable in coatings for both traditional and inkjet is Golden. They are very helpful if you have more questions regarding any of their products or if you want to try traditional methods on inkjet coated art papers or canvas they seem to know the answer.
-
what brand of glossy overlam are you referring to?
-
I have found that many techniques that work on traditional media don't necessarily work for inkjet coated papers due to the coating.
For this reason, I also feel like I don't know the longevity of the print any longer the more I experiment with products that work for traditional art papers. One company that I have found that is extremely knowledgeable in coatings for both traditional and inkjet is Golden. They are very helpful if you have more questions regarding any of their products or if you want to try traditional methods on inkjet coated art papers or canvas they seem to know the answer.
Which Golden are you referring to? Is it http://www.goldencoating.com.au/?
-
On the Golden US site there are a few different products. It's been awhile since I worked with 2 different artist's in trying to find something that would work on inkjet papers that they were using on traditional papers. We did speak to them (Golden) and they were very helpful. I would suggest if you have specific questions, contact them.
-
Some possible progress ....
I got a can of Winsor & Newton All Purpose Matt Varnish Aerosol and it seems to do an excellent job on matte papers - no effect on blacks that I can see.
The varnish is also available in Gloss.
Robert
-
I finally got to my first use of Dorland's Wax Medium. Here is a link to instructions on applying that guided me (that and I my ancient experience applying pure beeswax to N surface darkroom prints). http://jacquardproducts.com/assets/jacquard-site/product-pages/waxes/Dorlands_Wax_Instructions.pdf (http://jacquardproducts.com/assets/jacquard-site/product-pages/waxes/Dorlands_Wax_Instructions.pdf)
The print paper is Red River Polar Matte CS1 60#. The printer for this one was Canon Pro9000 MKII using Precision inks (dye ink). The print is cold mounted to foam core. Print was first coated with Print Guard. I used my heat gun to "melt or make soft" the wax. I used Scott Shop Towel (folded) to apply to print. I immediately wiped off excess, looked for thin areas and reapplied as I felt needed to leave no thin area. Areas too thick got heated up a bit to easier wipe off excess.
Well, I think it is beautiful. There is a bit more depth to my eye. As far as gloss, I do not see any - or enough that results in me thinking it is "glossy". It still is very much a matte surface. I have looked at it face on, from an angle in direct sunlight to look for reflectance etc. The blacks are as good as they ever were, which is good. Not effected in my experience.
My next step is apply to a print from the Epson 3880 with oem inks, and see if ink makes a difference. I project it will not, but hey, no guarantees. After that if it goes well, will be to apply to a rougher surfaced matte paper. In all cases I believe print should be precoated when matte. For gloss paper I have just used the Renaissance Wax without coating first, even on the Overlam when I use one (stops fingerprints really well).
Beware that the instructions specifically say thick coats = translucence instead of transparency.
Hope this is some use,
Cheers
Gary
-
what brand of glossy overlam are you referring to?
GLOSSY (Paper) Pressure Sensitive Overlaminate from Coda, Inc.
-
I finally got to my first use of Dorland's Wax Medium. Here is a link to instructions on applying that guided me (that and I my ancient experience applying pure beeswax to N surface darkroom prints). http://jacquardproducts.com/assets/jacquard-site/product-pages/waxes/Dorlands_Wax_Instructions.pdf (http://jacquardproducts.com/assets/jacquard-site/product-pages/waxes/Dorlands_Wax_Instructions.pdf)
The print paper is Red River Polar Matte CS1 60#. The printer for this one was Canon Pro9000 MKII using Precision inks (dye ink). The print is cold mounted to foam core. Print was first coated with Print Guard. I used my heat gun to "melt or make soft" the wax. I used Scott Shop Towel (folded) to apply to print. I immediately wiped off excess, looked for thin areas and reapplied as I felt needed to leave no thin area. Areas too thick got heated up a bit to easier wipe off excess.
Well, I think it is beautiful. There is a bit more depth to my eye. As far as gloss, I do not see any - or enough that results in me thinking it is "glossy". It still is very much a matte surface. I have looked at it face on, from an angle in direct sunlight to look for reflectance etc. The blacks are as good as they ever were, which is good. Not effected in my experience.
My next step is apply to a print from the Epson 3880 with oem inks, and see if ink makes a difference. I project it will not, but hey, no guarantees. After that if it goes well, will be to apply to a rougher surfaced matte paper. In all cases I believe print should be precoated when matte. For gloss paper I have just used the Renaissance Wax without coating first, even on the Overlam when I use one (stops fingerprints really well).
Beware that the instructions specifically say thick coats = translucence instead of transparency.
Hope this is some use,
Cheers
Gary
Thanks Gary. Is this the Print Guard you refer to: http://www.marrutt.com/inkjet-paper-recommendations/video-11-lyson-printguard-spray.html
I wonder what the point of waxing would be after applying a varnish like this one? Since it seals and protects the print.
I have some Winsor Newton spray varnish that seems similar (although the Lyson seems better because it doesn't change the glossiness or lack of) so I'll try to wax over to see what I get.
Robert
-
Thanks Gary. Is this the Print Guard you refer to: http://www.marrutt.com/inkjet-paper-recommendations/video-11-lyson-printguard-spray.html
I wonder what the point of waxing would be after applying a varnish like this one? Since it seals and protects the print.
I have some Winsor Newton spray varnish that seems similar (although the Lyson seems better because it doesn't change the glossiness or lack of) so I'll try to wax over to see what I get.
Robert
Yep same. The Lyson that started the whole "archival" inks for the Epson 3000 that changed our world!
The point would be that the wax adds depth and enhanced protection, fingerprints and other undesired are easier to remove than PG only. The PG is to stop any possible "smearing" of the inks and to prevent over penetrating so as to loosen the mounting adhesive. Any fixative would likely be fine for this. I happen to like the PG because I find it one of the easiest to apply "smoothly and uniformly" in terms of reflectance from the surface. Varnishes I have used are a lot harder to get even on the surface. No, I use cans not spray gun so that is my current paradigm for spray coatings.
Cheers
Gary
-
A few thoughts:
I have a series of botanical specimen shots (flora on a hot white background) that I sell framed without glazing. They are only coated with Hahnemühle spray and are on either Canson Rag Photographique or Hahnemühle German Etching.
They need more maintenance than glazed and frame prints; they really need going over lightly with an ostrich feather duster once a month. Otherwise they stand up fine under normal household conditions. I have removed red wine splashes from one of them with no problem.
I am wary about beeswax. I have a couple of pieces of furniture that I built, for which I used pure beeswax as a finish, and show no sign of degradation after a couple of decades. However, some of the beeswax used for that was stored in the cellar, and shows mould growth on the outside of each block of wax. From the same blocks that were used as a finish.
As for the oil on canvas not needing glass, if you go through any museum nowadays, you will unfortunately find many oil-on-canvas pieces under glass for protection. It is mostly an anti vandalism thing. Spray paint is difficult to remove and many insurers demand glazing. And there is a move there towards acrylic, it is easily scratched, but doesn’t shatter.
I don’t know if any of you have seen the Mona Lisa recently, but it really isn’t worth it. It is under so much protection and in such a dim room and there are better things to see in the Louvre.
I did see a glorious exhibit of Albrecht Dürer prints last year, and the cotton and linen papers had stood up to 500 years without any signs of age, except the few that had been dry mounted, which were in terrible shape.
It is always a trade off.
Brian A
-
I finally got to my first use of Dorland's Wax Medium. Here is a link to instructions on applying that guided me (that and I my ancient experience applying pure beeswax to N surface darkroom prints). http://jacquardproducts.com/assets/jacquard-site/product-pages/waxes/Dorlands_Wax_Instructions.pdf (http://jacquardproducts.com/assets/jacquard-site/product-pages/waxes/Dorlands_Wax_Instructions.pdf)
The print paper is Red River Polar Matte CS1 60#. The printer for this one was Canon Pro9000 MKII using Precision inks (dye ink). The print is cold mounted to foam core. Print was first coated with Print Guard. I used my heat gun to "melt or make soft" the wax. I used Scott Shop Towel (folded) to apply to print. I immediately wiped off excess, looked for thin areas and reapplied as I felt needed to leave no thin area. Areas too thick got heated up a bit to easier wipe off excess.
Well, I think it is beautiful. There is a bit more depth to my eye. As far as gloss, I do not see any - or enough that results in me thinking it is "glossy". It still is very much a matte surface. I have looked at it face on, from an angle in direct sunlight to look for reflectance etc. The blacks are as good as they ever were, which is good. Not effected in my experience.
My next step is apply to a print from the Epson 3880 with oem inks, and see if ink makes a difference. I project it will not, but hey, no guarantees. After that if it goes well, will be to apply to a rougher surfaced matte paper. In all cases I believe print should be precoated when matte. For gloss paper I have just used the Renaissance Wax without coating first, even on the Overlam when I use one (stops fingerprints really well).
Beware that the instructions specifically say thick coats = translucence instead of transparency.
Hope this is some use,
Cheers
Gary
Hi Gary,
I wonder if you could try something: print a strip of black (or very dark color) on your matte paper and apply the fixative/wax on one half and leave the other half unwaxed. I would be very interested to know if you find that the waxed blacks/darks are as good as the unwaxed.
I've tried this using a load of different methods and waxes (Borland's and Michael Harding), with/without varnish (I don't have any Print Guard ... and this may be the key) and in all cases the unwaxed blacks are better (significantly better). But you don't really see that without having the waxed and unwaxed side by side.
I've also tried it with prints made using an HPZ3100 and a Canon iPF6400 (same thing) but not an Epson ... so there could be differences there.
Robert
Robert
-
Hi Gary,
I wonder if you could try something: print a strip of black (or very dark color) on your matte paper and apply the fixative/wax on one half and leave the other half unwaxed. I would be very interested to know if you find that the waxed blacks/darks are as good as the unwaxed.
I've tried this using a load of different methods and waxes (Borland's and Michael Harding), with/without varnish (I don't have any Print Guard ... and this may be the key) and in all cases the unwaxed blacks are better (significantly better). But you don't really see that without having the waxed and unwaxed side by side.
I've also tried it with prints made using an HPZ3100 and a Canon iPF6400 (same thing) but not an Epson ... so there could be differences there.
Robert
Robert
OK. Could be a bit, but I will do this. Fyi - on the matte print I did do - it looks great and "feels" great to my fingers, smooth and like it is a repellent (sure I could be projecting - but it is doing repelling by it's nature).
Cheers,
Gary
-
OK. Could be a bit, but I will do this. Fyi - on the matte print I did do - it looks great and "feels" great to my fingers, smooth and like it is a repellent (sure I could be projecting - but it is doing repelling by it's nature).
Cheers,
Gary
That would be great Gary. I really like the wax myself and use it all the time on traditional watercolor paintings ... and as you say it looks great and protects the painting wonderfully. What I also like a lot is that it's a natural substance and one that has been used for generations for this sort of protection/preservation.
But I haven't had a great deal of success with inkjet prints - the lighter colors are totally fine and the was brings out the texture of the paper just fine ... but the blacks are very dark colors are not working for me. It could well be that they key is the Lyson Print Guard (which I don't have so I can't try it myself until I get some).
Robert
-
I've used the Renaissance Wax with mixed results. Sometimes it stains the blacks and cannot be evened out. Seems very dependent on ink and paper combo.
Over a gloss optimizer it works well if you let it dry for a day. I work small sections as it dries out pretty quick and can be very difficult to remove once dried on textured paper.
My preference is a GO coating first as it is very even. Then move on to a HLVP spray with Premier Art "Print Shield" as next resort.
SG
-
Has anyone tried using Breathingcolor Timeless on Matte papers?
Thanks.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
To answer the Op's OP directly - I use a vacuum press to apply a 2mil over-laminate wear layer with UV protection to my canvas prints. Preserves the texture of the canvas, doesn't have much glare, doesn't look like the menu at the local restaurant, can be cleaned with 409 or other harsh cleaners if necessary and goes from printer to frame in under 10 Minutes. Works for me. - Jim