Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Printing: Printers, Papers and Inks => Topic started by: dgberg on January 09, 2019, 02:29:02 pm
-
For some time Nevada Printers have been promoting their proprietary face mounting process Lumachrome.
I know they have several ipf9400 printers which are nothing special. That leaves the paper.
Anyone know if their is really any special process here or is it a name conjured up for marketing.
What they say about their process. Details appear to emerge in 3D from the depths of the image with the Lumachrome process thanks to the transparency layer that is infused with iridium particles and is encapsulated in a layer suspended between the white poly surface and Acrylic.
-
That Art Wolfe likes them, that's good.
That they use the term Giclee, not good (BS term).
That their staff photo's appears to be two well known actors ::) , still not good. BS factor appears, (again appears) to be at the upper level. Why not ask em.
-
For some time Nevada Printers have been promoting their proprietary face mounting process Lumachrome.
I know they have several ipf9400 printers which are nothing special. That leaves the paper.
Anyone know if their is really any special process here or is it a name conjured up for marketing.
What they say about their process. Details appear to emerge in 3D from the depths of the image with the Lumachrome process thanks to the transparency layer that is infused with iridium particles and is encapsulated in a layer suspended between the white poly surface and Acrylic.
Facemounting pearlescent paper/film to acrylic would be my guess.
Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
March 2017 update, 750+ inkjet media white spectral plots
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=66EePo_ZDf4
-
I know a fair amount about the face mounting process. I was just trying to get to the bottom of their printer and what type of film or paper they are using.
Curious if it is something special or the old fashion lip service. The video shows a transparency but all the large pieces coming out of their studio seem to have a dibond or sintra back which would destroy any advantage of a transparency print.
-
I know a fair amount about the face mounting process. I was just trying to get to the bottom of their printer and what type of film or paper they are using.
Curious if it is something special or the old fashion lip service. The video shows a transparency but all the large pieces coming out of their studio seem to have a dibond or sintra back which would destroy any advantage of a transparency print.
Not exactly true. The material has a very high reflective quality not unlike FujiFlex which is deep, or at least pseudo-deep.
-
Does anyone know what the "bonding glue" is that White Wall uses to adhere Fuji paper to the acrylic in this video? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LjyUB_yu4cA
I don't believe they use a film in between the print and the acrylic, do they?
-
Does anyone know what the "bonding glue" is that White Wall uses to adhere Fuji paper to the acrylic in this video? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LjyUB_yu4cA
I don't believe they use a film in between the print and the acrylic, do they?
They're using silicone.
-
They're using silicone.
Ah yes. Any chance you know more specifically what type of silicone?
Stephen, in a previous post from 2016 you were in, someone said that inkjet quality is now superior to chromogenic lightjet prints. Could you or anyone with experience elaborate on this?
-
Ah yes. Any chance you know more specifically what type of silicone?
Stephen, in a previous post from 2016 you were in, someone said that inkjet quality is now superior to chromogenic lightjet prints. Could you or anyone with experience elaborate on this?
I guess if you ask around in the silicon glue manufacturing world someone might know what is used or what should be the best type. I doubt anyone using the silicon face mount process succesfully is willing to tell. Whitewall does not use the Diasec media it seems. Diasec patent is no longer valid but Wilcovak in The Netherlands more or less gives the teaching/support/license for the Diasec method to other companies. Whitewall must have done some R&D to get its process working but I get the impression it uses chromogenic prints only and no inkjet prints are face mounted that way. The old way more or less. Wilcovak does it for inkjet media too. RC papers can be mounted directly, matte art papers first are laminated and then face mounted.
Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
March 2017 update, 750+ inkjet media white spectral plots
-
That Art Wolfe likes them, that's good.
According to their website Art used their standard facemounts using FujiFlex (same process as Peter Lik). "LUMACHROME Prints are a greatly improved print compared to the Fuji Flex creations we made for Art Wolfe in the Natural Wonders Gallery in NYC and Las Vegas.” To me that’s a really unusual case of “name dropping”, as Art apparently found the standard ones to his liking. Perhaps the new process was created after they did this work for Art so they were just trying to message that despite how great those prints looked the new process is even better.
I know a fair amount about the face mounting process. I was just trying to get to the bottom of their printer and what type of film or paper they are using.
Curious if it is something special or the old fashion lip service. The video shows a transparency but all the large pieces coming out of their studio seem to have a dibond or sintra back which would destroy any advantage of a transparency print.
If you watch the slide show it says the backer is “white RC paper base”. No clue what that is, maybe they have a source for uncoated paper that is to makephoto or inkjet papers (or maybe they just process some photo paper without printing anything on it). The process is puzzling to me, as it would involve laminating not once but twice. I assume printed ink side is laminated to this surface, which would make it possible to use silicone to seal it to the acrylic. when using silicone on inkjet I’ve heard you have to seal the ink with some type of laminate.
They're using silicone.
Just curious how you know that. as I mentioned that might explain why they print a transparency the way they do, but this process really hasn’t been used in the U.S. like it has in other places like Europe.
I have seen their prints, and other than it being a inkjet process so perhaps better gamut and detail in the printing process, the overall look isn’t any different to me than other well done face mounted prints. I think the bonding to the acrylic is the secret to the depth and clarity associated with face mounting. I’ve mounted the same image from an Epson printer on Epson Semi matte paper and on Fuji Flex, and side by side the only differences are those that would expect in gamut and detail. As far as richness and saturation, they look pretty much identical.
-
Just curious how you know that.
Hi Wayne,
About silicone...
You're confusing my reply to a post asking about WhiteWall with Nevada Art Printers.
Yeah, the thread sort of got sidetracked.
-
Ah yes. Any chance you know more specifically what type of silicone?
The “permanently elastic” type, they say at their website. ;)
Stephen, in a previous post from 2016 you were in, someone said that inkjet quality is now superior to chromogenic lightjet prints. Could you or anyone with experience elaborate on this?
In the context of this thread about Lumachrome, I believe these prints are often (if not always) superior to a chromogenic Lightjet print that is face mounted. Keep in mind we’re talking about a specific shop along with a specific presentation. The Lumachrome should have a greater color gamut and should have greater color stability in the long run. One might say the Lumachrome is sharper than a Lightjet. If both are aligned properly along with using a good file, it’s a non issue IMO. That being said…
Personally, I would not hesitate to use or purchase a face mounted chromogenic print for those reasons above. The older process has all the color gamut that I, personally, am looking for 99% of the time. In fact, sometimes I’ve seen a chromogenic on display SCREAM COLOR TOO LOUDLY at me. If I’m to live with a display it needs to be easy-on-the-eyes with a certain aesthetic. Also, a chromogenic print will also have plenty of color stability for me and to whomever it may get handed down to in my circles.
-
I found that originally, at least for the Diasec method, they used Gurisil No. 575.0 as the adhesive. Personally, all proprietary talk aside, I believe that any current optically clear, uv-resistant, vulcanizable silicone would work for face mounting.
-
I found that originally, at least for the Diasec method, they used Gurisil No. 575.0 as the adhesive. Personally, all proprietary talk aside, I believe that any current optically clear, uv-resistant, vulcanizable silicone would work for face mounting.
Because you seem familiar with them in the past, why do you suppose they're using a rather gooey silicone process instead of a rolled adhesive?
-
I found that originally, at least for the Diasec method, they used Gurisil No. 575.0 as the adhesive. Personally, all proprietary talk aside, I believe that any current optically clear, uv-resistant, vulcanizable silicone would work for face mounting.
Martin Jürgens report. Long time ago I plowed through that. Then to check what the longevity of the mounting process was. In short; it depends ....... Since then I have met people that were involved in that kind of face mounting of inkjet papers and the conclusion is still; it depends ....... No real independent research has been done on the fade resistance properties and how art papers behave at the edges of the sandwiched layers. From experience it can go wrong with the last.
https://www.yumpu.com/en/document/read/7785428/silicone-rubber-face-mounting-of-photographs-to-polymethyl-/53
Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
March 2017 update, 750+ inkjet media white spectral plots
-
Making a little progress, maybe? Here is a quote from a website that sells his face mounts. Now what the heck is Lumachrome metallic paper? Doesn't sound like a film although the picture posted by Digital Dog looks like a film. I am highly skeptical that it is anything proprietary. If it comes out as an off the shelf offering that pretty much kills the proprietary angle. To get someone to manufacture a special paper just for you I would guess is nearly impossible. Especially just several dozen rolls year.
I just want to get a sample of the paper to experiment with for our face mounting workshops. Thats all. I have no concrete data but my impression is that it is an off the shelf product given a fancy name to increase the value. I am just a skeptic by nature. That being said the product is top notch!
"This high quality printing product uses Lumachrome Metallic photo paper to produce very crisp, highly saturated colors (even more than metal prints). The Lumachrome paper is mounted directly behind a clear (1/8″ or 1/4″) acrylic sheet, and a three-dimensional effect is created. The light comes off the image and internally reflects through the acrylic material, creating the effect."
-
I just want to get a sample of the paper to experiment with for our face mounting workshops.
I'm wondering if I understand correctly that you're asking the internet to help you capitalize on another's manufacturing process, that is possibly proprietary, by providing workshops so others can learn how to produce the same product?
Twenty years ago I asked Pantone for their collaboration in a particular software project and they needed $20,000 as the first initial installment to begin NDA agreements. They also required I attend a developers workshop.
Nevada Art Printers offers workshops, just so you know.
-
I'm wondering if I understand correctly that you're asking the internet to help you capitalize on another's manufacturing process, that is possibly proprietary, by providing workshops so others can learn how to produce the same product?
Twenty years ago I asked Pantone for their collaboration in a particular software project and they needed $20,000 as the first initial installment to begin NDA agreements. They also required I attend a developers workshop.
Nevada Art Printers offers workshops, just so you know.
I absolutely am, why not. If it was truly proprietary don't you think it would be trademark/patented. Which leads me to believe it is not a unique process and an off the shelf paper given a faux name. Now if he spent thousands of dollars developing a special paper only to be manufactured for his process then that's a different story.
-
No real independent research has been done on the fade resistance properties and how art papers behave at the edges of the sandwiched layers.
Actually, the American Institute of conservation has put together a good video on this topic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bq80xpKzl-w&t=11s
Also, Ernst, matt prints from inkjets are easier to work with when using the Diasec method where as luster or glossy need to be laminated with a film first. Wayne had asked this question in another post a few years ago and never got a response from Miranda Smith, but she explains the process here: https://aiccm.org.au/sites/default/files/SMITHPaper.pdf
[Because you seem familiar with them in the past, why do you suppose they're using a rather gooey silicone process instead of a rolled adhesive?]
I found the patent for Diasec online and along with Ernst's link it explains a lot. I spent a few hours researching yesterday :)
-
To me it sounds like they are using Pictorico Pro Ultra Premium OHP Transparency Film (or something similar), then laminating that to a “white RC paper base” (basically something like unprinted but processed photo paper. I assume they could use some type of metallic paper for this backer if they want that look). This would make sense if they print the image in reverse then mount the inkjet coating to the paper so the bond to the acrylic is the backside if the film. One concern I have is the durability of an inkjet receptor coat and ink bonded directly to acrylic, and even though I’ve had great results, there really isn’t a good way to test how the bond will hold up. I have several that are more than 5 years old showing no issues, so it seems the bond is holding up well.
Sounds like a slightly convoluted process for something that is actually much more straight forward (unless for some reason they are bonding that sandwich to the acrylic with Diasec / silicone). I have face mounted hundreds of prints, both chemical as well as inkjet, and I have seen their prints that are being sold by some photographers in a couple of art festivals I have attended. to me the secret to the final result is simply the fact that’s it’s face mounted. I haven’t seen any images they have made that I thought offered anything other than what face mounting other products offer.
But I’ll admit I’ve never compared their process side by side. I can understand their claim that side by side they look better than the fujiFlex versions, but that to me is easily explained in the increased gamut, dmax, and detail resulting from using a high end inkjet printer vs chemical photo paper. But why would this be better than directly mounting a quality inkjet print.
-
Thank you Wayne
A great explanation from a very expirenced and valued member.
-
Actually, the American Institute of conservation has put together a good video on this topic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bq80xpKzl-w&t=11s
Also, Ernst, matt prints from inkjets are easier to work with when using the Diasec method where as luster or glossy need to be laminated with a film first. Wayne had asked this question in another post a few years ago and never got a response from Miranda Smith, but she explains the process here: https://aiccm.org.au/sites/default/files/SMITHPaper.pdf
[Because you seem familiar with them in the past, why do you suppose they're using a rather gooey silicone process instead of a rolled adhesive?]
I found the patent for Diasec online and along with Ernst's link it explains a lot. I spent a few hours researching yesterday :)
I was not aware of that research. My gut feelings are that Mark McCormick will shoot big holes in the results of the AIC research, especially the fast fading objective of the MFT approach and the limited use of patches (for example a grey area can be a mix of many or very few colorants) and by that not very representative for all the inks used in the print. Little is said about OBA content in papers but the paper area result with Endura will be related to that. Using light without UV does not eliminate the effects of light on OBA content in papers; short term, long term and the dark storage effect. What is shown are mainly dye colorant tests; chromogenic, bleached dye photo papers and dye on inkjet paper. It will be interesting to see what remaining acetic acid in face mounting does on the long term. Oxidising by gasses like oxygen and ozone may be reduced in face mounting and lamination, the chemistry of the glues and their interaction is not brought to daylight yet. Anyway restoration of any laminated or face mounted print remains an issue how well they stand time.
Getting old, you are right that the lamination is done on the inkjet RC papers before Diasec face mounting and not on the matte papers, used to write that correctly in the past. BTW interesting that the AIC research mentions that the lamination peels off easier from the chromogenic RC papers than from the RC inkjet papers, the remark that the inkjet has no coating is wrong though. I think it may have more to do with the age of the laminated prints.
Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
March 2017 update, 750+ inkjet media white spectral plots
-
To me it sounds like they are using Pictorico Pro Ultra Premium OHP Transparency Film (or something similar), then laminating that to a “white RC paper base” (basically something like unprinted but processed photo paper. I assume they could use some type of metallic paper for this backer if they want that look). This would make sense if they print the image in reverse then mount the inkjet coating to the paper so the bond to the acrylic is the backside if the film. One concern I have is the durability of an inkjet receptor coat and ink bonded directly to acrylic, and even though I’ve had great results, there really isn’t a good way to test how the bond will hold up. I have several that are more than 5 years old showing no issues, so it seems the bond is holding up well.
Sounds like a slightly convoluted process for something that is actually much more straight forward (unless for some reason they are bonding that sandwich to the acrylic with Diasec / silicone). I have face mounted hundreds of prints, both chemical as well as inkjet, and I have seen their prints that are being sold by some photographers in a couple of art festivals I have attended. to me the secret to the final result is simply the fact that’s it’s face mounted. I haven’t seen any images they have made that I thought offered anything other than what face mounting other products offer.
But I’ll admit I’ve never compared their process side by side. I can understand their claim that side by side they look better than the fujiFlex versions, but that to me is easily explained in the increased gamut, dmax, and detail resulting from using a high end inkjet printer vs chemical photo paper. But why would this be better than directly mounting a quality inkjet print.
I miss the Iridium particles part in your explanation. There will not be any Iridium in that sandwich (way too expensive) but I think they refer to mica nano particles covered with a metal or dye to yield a pearlescent effect. Often the names of that kind of pigments refer to iridium that can have that effect too.
An inkjet paper that is named like that;
https://www.rauch-papiere.de/en/products/photography-and-fineart/mediajetr-photographersline/mediajetr-sip-260-silver-iridium-pearl/
So one of the papers like that but face mounted as I mentioned in the first reply in this thread.
Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
March 2017 update, 750+ inkjet media white spectral plots
-
I miss the Iridium particles part in your explanation. There will not be any Iridium in that sandwich (way too expensive) but I think they refer to mica nano particles covered with a metal or dye to yield a pearlescent effect. O
Yeah, sort of marketing speak (like the whole process) my best guess is whatever “iridium” there is in the RC paper base that they are using.
-
According to their web site it seems like nothing more than transparency film laminated to acrylic in the front and a white base on the back, similar to printing on glass with a backing.
http://www.nevadaartprinters.com/fujiflex-acrylic-photo-prints
Given this, how then is their process different from just printing on white film with face mounted acrylic?
-
Greetings all! I'm new to this forum - subscribed so I could respond to this post and add some clarity.
First a bit of background, so you know I'm not just blowing smoke out my backside.
30+ years in the fine art printing world and full disclosure: I work for the only North American facility who currently holds a Diasec license - Reed Art & Imaging.
Some questions I cannot answer due to contractual agreements, but I can clear up some questions along with adding some clarity to some mis-understandings.
NFAP states on their website they use a silicone adhesive. This statement alone does not mean they use a silicone gel. Silicone is also used in several pressure sensitive adhesive films (hereout referred to by me as PSAs). There is much ambiguity on their site, likely in effort to protect the star of their show and their marketing leverage. I certainly won't wrong them for that.
Because you seem familiar with them in the past, why do you suppose they're using a rather gooey silicone process instead of a rolled adhesive?
The advantages of using a PROPER silicon gel are numerous, and you can check Reed's website for more detail, but here's a semi-brief outline:
Once cured the silicon remains very flexible, protecting the presentation from edge separations, tunneling, snowflaking, etc. These are well known issues that occur with PSAs.
UPS data states that their trucks can reach summer time temps up to 130°f. The expansion of a 48" acrylic going from 70° to 130° is approx 1.4". This expansion along with the softening of PSAs can cause separation - ruining a print before it arrives at the gallery or the buyer's home. And yes, acrylic is sensitive to humidity and will expand and contract with such changes.
I found that originally, at least for the Diasec method, they used Gurisil No. 575.0 as the adhesive. Personally, all proprietary talk aside, I believe that any current optically clear, uv-resistant, vulcanizable silicone would work for face mounting.
Not quite. UV-resistance is not enough. There are several knock-offs using UV-resistant gel that is yellowing after a few years. The formula must be specific, not just for the gel but other proprietary ingredients used in the process. There is more to doing it properly than just squirting on some gel and going to town.
It will be interesting to see what remaining acetic acid in face mounting does on the long term.
After curing the silicon is completely inert and pH neutral. The semi-permeable nature of acrylic allows the acetic acid to outgas. Diasec has been around for 50 years and thus far there have been zero indications of acid damage on any prints. How the chromagenic print is handled in process and post process are bigger concerns.
Yeah, sort of marketing speak (like the whole process) my best guess is whatever “iridium” there is in the RC paper base that they are using.
According to their web site it seems like nothing more than transparency film laminated to acrylic in the front and a white base on the back, similar to printing on glass with a backing.
Given this, how then is their process different from just printing on white film with face mounted acrylic?
NFAP's website states that the iridium is in the transparency layer. With a white poly backer. "thanks to the transparency layer that is infused with iridium particles and is encapsulated in a layer suspended between the white poly surface and Acrylic."
My personal estimation is that the poly is something akin to fuji flex or an inkjet flex. The result would be two pearlescent layers - the trans and the backer, contributing to the "depth" that people speak of. by having a few mils of PSA between the two could result in some shadowing that would also add to the 3D effect touted in their marketing.
-
Thank you John, and welcome.
-
I miss the Iridium particles part in your explanation. There will not be any Iridium in that sandwich (way too expensive) but I think they refer to mica nano particles covered with a metal or dye to yield a pearlescent effect. Often the names of that kind of pigments refer to iridium that can have that effect too.
Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst
Probably something like this:
https://www.merckgroup.com/en/brands/pm/iriodin.html
Not sure if a transparency is available pre-coated with such a material or whether NFAP are applying it themselves. If they are printing the transparencies themselves using inkjet then I can see that sharpness and reasonable color could be achieved with this method. The difficult part is determining the right silicon gel to use. John talks of "proper" silicon gel, whatever that actually means!
-
The difficult part is determining the right silicon gel to use. John talks of "proper" silicon gel, whatever that actually means!
I can't really get into details on this as it's protected info, other than to say that not all silicon-based gels are created equal. Many have tried various gels with what looked like great success, until the gels discolor years later.
Keep in mind that while NFAP mentions silicon adhesive in their marketing, this does not mean it's a gel. Many pressure sensitive adhesives are made with some amount of silicone, including some tapes, sticker adhesives, etc.