Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Printing: Printers, Papers and Inks => Topic started by: nilo on August 13, 2010, 09:28:14 am
-
Before turning into practices the following, I would appreciate your comments and insights on two questions:
First the brighteners. If using a paper with brighteners, I would simply coat it well with any varnish that blocks UV, and then build a profile. I just don't know whether the brighteners still affect the color, even when coated with UV blocking varnish. I am hoping that papers containing only a bit brighteners would also dissipate more evenly, at least apparently. If so it would maybe help to use paper with low levels of brighteners. BTW I would like to use some of the OBA papers because some of them do not have any replacement. I am thinking of most of the gloss, luster and semi-gloss surface papers.
The second part is the glass, which I do not like and which I could get rid of the same way. The varnish on the print should protected the print (on paper) as well as any classic oil painting? We are left with the problem of the mat, supposing you even want to use one. The problem with a white mat is that without glass it will get dusty etc. Any normal cleaning procedure will make the white dirty. The easy solution would be to varnished the mat too (maybe with some cheaper varnish). Print and mat should be as easily dusted and cleaned like that, shouldn't they?
cheers
nino
-
Before turning into practices the following, I would appreciate your comments and insights on two questions:
First the brighteners. If using a paper with brighteners, I would simply coat it well with any varnish that blocks UV, and then build a profile. I just don't know whether the brighteners still affect the color, even when coated with UV blocking varnish. I am hoping that papers containing only a bit brighteners would also dissipate more evenly, at least apparently. If so it would maybe help to use paper with low levels of brighteners. BTW I would like to use some of the OBA papers because some of them do not have any replacement. I am thinking of most of the gloss, luster and semi-gloss surface papers.
The second part is the glass, which I do not like and which I could get rid of the same way. The varnish on the print should protected the print (on paper) as well as any classic oil painting? We are left with the problem of the mat, supposing you even want to use one. The problem with a white mat is that without glass it will get dusty etc. Any normal cleaning procedure will make the white dirty. The easy solution would be to varnished the mat too (maybe with some cheaper varnish). Print and mat should be as easily dusted and cleaned like that, shouldn't they?
cheers
nino
Hey nino,
I try to keep things simple. For one, I simply don't use any paper with OBAs. My understanding is OBAs are not true to "Fine Art", or something along those lines as I recall reading at one time or another. Right or wrong, it does simplify my approach in selecting paper, eliminating OBAs narrows down the playing field. I further narrow the selection down by selecting only 100% cotton rag.
Second, I agree, glass takes away from the viewing quality of a beautiful print. Using non-glare glass, and not only do the details get softer, but cleaning non-glare glass is next to impossible! UV protecting glass, and you've got glare. Try to ship a frame with glass, and you have breakage unless you shell out the big bucks for UV Plexi.
I have never used varnish, and I am new to this business, but it seems to me glass or plexi is better protection whether we like it or not. Cleaning dust off a varnished print could easily be more damaging than cleaning dust from glass? Humidity, airborne contaminants, and whatnot would have less an impact on a print sealed under glass than under varnish, don't you think?
All the best,
Greg
Edit: One thing I should clarify, for prints larger than 20" x 30", I have them mounted on Sintra and sprayed with a matte varnish offsite. I'm not going to try matting and shipping larger than a 24x36 frame, yet alone carry such behemoths from show to show. Having larger prints on Sintra is my workaround, although it is not truly archival, it does allow for nice displays in one's booth.
-
I try to keep things simple. For one, I simply don't use any paper with OBAs.
Which semi-gloss paper is there without OBAs and that has a RC color gamut? Maybe the Canson Premium RCs, but is it really without OBAs?
My understanding is OBAs are not true to "Fine Art"
I know quite some "Fine Art"ists that use such papers. How many use Exhibitoin Fiber for example. Bill Atkinson uses Epson Premium Semi-Gloss...
I further narrow the selection down by selecting only 100% cotton rag.
There seams still to be debate about whether or not that would be more conversational. WIR test show most of the times the RC papers quite ahead. So Hahnemuhle's rRags are between 60 and 68 years, Epson RC papers like Premium Gloss 85 years...
but it seems to me glass or plexi is better protection whether we like it or not. Cleaning dust off a varnished print could easily be more damaging than cleaning dust from glass? Humidity, airborne contaminants, and whatnot would have less an impact on a print sealed under glass than under varnish, don't you think?
I agree but don't you think they would be much more protected if they were refrigerated in a dark metal case? I think that we have a lot of old paintings around and they don't need any glass. Maybe there is a difference, I just don't now what it might be.
cheers nino
-
This is a decision that is fundamentally artistic or aesthetic, rather than technical per se. A lot of it hinges on how particular you are about a very specific look for your work. How devoted are you to eeking out that last 1%, when the vast majority of folks won't notice?
When it comes to OBA's, I can definitely see merit on both sides of the issue. Folks like Bill Atkinson and Joseph Holmes print on Epson Premium luster or semigloss, which definitely have OBA's, presumably because they consider the greater perceived brightness and dynamic range of resulting prints worth the possible trade-off in longevity. On the other hand, Henry Wilhelm has pointed out that OBA's definitely fade over time, which will result in a print's 'paper white' drifting toward a warmer color range, altering the overall color balance and appearance of the print. Wilhelm commented that if you went to great lengths carefully tuning the color balance of your print to perfection, the fugitive nature of precise color balance on papers using OBA's would negate your efforts down the road. Additionally, most glass used for framing, even plain window glass, substantially attentuates UV transmission. As a result, you'll lose most of the brightening effect of OBA's for prints framed behind glass.
I mostly use Hahnemuhle photo rag baryta, a 100% cotton rag paper with little or no OBA's, at least for work I care about. I'm reasonably confident that my prints will look the same at least during my lifetime. And if I'm spending the effort to make a large print, some kind of protection is mandatory. I find that the relatively minor shift in color (generally a very subtle cyan shift) with framing behind regular glass is almost unnoticeable, especially if the print is properly lit with a spot from above to avoid reflections. The various coatings and varnishes are less predictable, and at least to my eye have a greater impact on the print's appearance. I have large panoramics mounted on boards and laminated. They look great, but it definitely shifts them warmer and more saturated, to a greater extent than glass alters them.
Once you find a system that works, it makes sense to stop the perpetual experimentation and just make prints.
-
Which semi-gloss paper is there without OBAs and that has a RC color gamut? Maybe the Canson Premium RCs, but is it really without OBAs?
Museo Silver Rag and Jon Cone Type 5 are two semi-gloss papers without OBA's. Both are fiber based papers (cotton rag) with very large gamuts and deep blacks. They both have a warmer paper base which I like, making it easier to match them to a matte board.
Type 5 is my go-to gloss paper. It has a subtle texture that is very elegant. The gloss is "soft" and not obtrusive. It has a baryta coating so images are very sharp. In all, it's a very beautiful paper, combining the elegance of matte with the gamut and deep blacks of gloss. I also use Epson Exhibition Fiber (lots of OBA's) but Type 5 doesn't seem any less punchy than the Epson.
Terry.
-
If you are going to coat the print with a varnish that blocks UV, you essentially eliminate the activity of the OBA. The OBA needs UV to fluoresce. This might effect the profile you end up with (I think you can get UV filtered spectrophotometers that address that particular issue) and certainly would effect the final print as well (if varnished as it would be the same as putting an OBA paper print behind UV filtered plexi). There is a lot of controversy whether OBAs are good, bad, or indifferent. Certainly from a chemical point of view, they degrade over time and can cause a change in the paper white point (and perhaps certain colors though more testing will need to be done). Several other posters have given you some thoughts on other papers and there are some good resources developed by forum members that have spectral data for a number of papers. I like Museo papers as they don't have any OBAs and are made of cotton rag. That stiffness is good for my Epson 3880 as the paper holds its flat shape very well (no head strikes).
Paper choice is individual and I doubt under proper storage and display conditions that you will see significant print deterioration even with OBA papers. The great thing about digital is you can always reprint easily enough.
Alan
-
Which semi-gloss paper is there without OBAs and that has a RC color gamut? Maybe the Canson Premium RCs, but is it really without OBAs?
Hahnemuhle Photo Rag Baryta has no OBA's, and I've confirmed this by measuring with regular and uv-cut spectro's. DMax is about the same as Epson Premium Luster, color gamut is actually larger.
Interestingly, Canson Infinity says that their Baryta Photographique has no OBA's; but my measurements showed that it has a substantial UV response. Whether it's added OBA's, or something else, I don't know (the baryta coating maybe?).
-
Hahnemuhle Photo Rag Baryta has no OBA's, and I've confirmed this by measuring with regular and uv-cut spectro's. DMax is about the same as Epson Premium Luster, color gamut is actually larger.
Interestingly, Canson Infinity says that their Baryta Photographique has no OBA's; but my measurements showed that it has a substantial UV response. Whether it's added OBA's, or something else, I don't know (the baryta coating maybe?).
Barya doesn't fluoresce and should not have an impact on your measurement.
Alan
-
Interestingly, Canson Infinity says that their Baryta Photographique has no OBA's; but my measurements showed that it has a substantial UV response. Whether it's added OBA's, or something else, I don't know (the baryta coating maybe?).
There is some OBA content in the coating but not in the paper base if I check the spectral plot I made. Canson nicely balanced the spectral reflectance so above 420Nm it has almost equal reflectance on all wavelengths. Less OBA than for example in Hahnemühle Photorag. Baryta doesn't fluorescence and doesn't absorb UV light.
met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst Dinkla
spectral plots of +100 inkjet papers:
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
-
Before turning into practices the following, I would appreciate your comments and insights on two questions:
First the brighteners. If using a paper with brighteners, I would simply coat it well with any varnish that blocks UV, and then build a profile.
I see little point in trying to "defeat" OBA's with a varnish which itself may be as problematic to longevity as the OBA's are, especially if it isn't applied correctly. Accept them for what they are (as mentioned many "OBA" papers last longer than non-OBA papers according to tests.) or find papers you like without them. One of the reason you like the look of papers with OBA's is the OBA's ... you can't duplicate the look without them so you have to accept the compromise. So the image looks better now (and for the next few decades), but maybe 40 or 50 years from now the non- OBA one might look better.
But it's not like an OBA paper is going to look like crap ... in fact non-oba papers can have problems yellowing if not cared for as well and can look just as bad or worse. 99.99999% of all images will die from a cause other than yellowing/fading. (ok I made that number up, but fact is the odds of physical damage ending the life of print in the next 100 years for anything other than museum collected pieces is the real longevity problem.).
-
I see little point in trying to "defeat" OBA's with a varnish which itself may be as problematic to longevity as the OBA's are, especially if it isn't applied correctly. Accept them for what they are (as mentioned many "OBA" papers last longer than non-OBA papers according to tests.) or find papers you like without them. One of the reason you like the look of papers with OBA's is the OBA's ... you can't duplicate the look without them so you have to accept the compromise. So the image looks better now (and for the next few decades), but maybe 40 or 50 years from now the non- OBA one might look better.
But it's not like an OBA paper is going to look like crap ... in fact non-oba papers can have problems yellowing if not cared for as well and can look just as bad or worse. 99.99999% of all images will die from a cause other than yellowing/fading. (ok I made that number up, but fact is the odds of physical damage ending the life of print in the next 100 years for anything other than museum collected pieces is the real longevity problem.).
Well said, Wayne
Your take will keep me more open to the possibilities. Earlier, Light Seeker has the opinion Jon Cone Type 5 is as nice as Epson Exhibition Fibre. I'd like to give them both a try, but I can't find where to buy the JC 5. Anyone?
Greg
-
There is some OBA content in the coating but not in the paper base if I check the spectral plot I made. Canson nicely balanced the spectral reflectance so above 420Nm it has almost equal reflectance on all wavelengths. Less OBA than for example in Hahnemühle Photorag. Baryta doesn't fluorescence and doesn't absorb UV light.
I didn't think Baryta would have anything to do with it, but I had thought Canson claimed no OBA's so I was a bit puzzled at the measurement. But double-checking the Canson website I see they make the OBA-free claim for most of their other papers but not the Baryta Photographique.
-
Varnishing FBA loaded papers to block UV light is a strange strategy if it actually will block UV. But in many cases the varnish layer thickness will be too low to block UV to a useful degree. Varnishing a print to give it better mechanical, moisture and gas protection is a sound approach and the last may extend the working life of FBA dyes. That leaves the question whether to use papers with or without FBA open.
Other strategies could be the use of alternative papers with a high paper white reflectance like Canson Rag Photographique that has no FBA. To replace for example Hahnemühle's Photorag that has some FBA content. Then there are FBA papers like Ilford Galerie Smooth Pearl, an RC paper with an overload of FBA in the paper base between the RC layers, that may last a long time without any loss of the FBA effect at the print side due to the encapsulation of the FBA and the high load. Time will tell.
Jon Cone Type 5, Jon Cone's Inkjetmall?
met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst Dinkla
Dinkla Gallery Canvas Wrap Actions for Photoshop
http://www.pigment-print.com/dinklacanvaswraps/index.html
-
Jon Cone Type 5, Jon Cone's Inkjetmall?
Thanks, Ernst
I got a sample pack of the Jon Cone Type 5.
Regarding your previous post, pardon my ignorance, but what does FBA stand for?
Greg
Edit: A bit off-subject, does it matter if a paper is 100% cotton as opposed to 100% alpha cellulose when it comes to longevity?
-
OBA stands for Optical Brightening Agent, FWA stands for Fluorescent Whitening Agent, FBA stands for Fluorescent Brightening Agent. As the last describes the effect the best I prefer to use that one. Paper brightness is the reflectance measured at 457 Nm with a band of 10Nm, that's where FBAs excell. So brightness is measured in the blue region of the spectrum and can not be considered the same as whiteness which covers the total reflectance over the visible spectrum.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_brightener
I personally think that the rag quality is overhyped (and for a long time in the graphic arts) if the alternative is alpha cellulose that has been carefully processed to paper with the intention to create an archival quality. The Library of Congress is often a good source for answers on that subject, including fold and tear tests . And Aardenburg for the paper white changes in time.
met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst Dinkla
Try: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/
-
One of the reason you like the look of papers with OBA's is the OBA's ... you can't duplicate the look without them so you have to accept the compromise. So the image looks better now (and for the next few decades), but maybe 40 or 50 years from now the non- OBA one might look better.
I think Henry Wilhelm's take on this is correct. Most of us aren't working at a level where it would make a difference; but for photographers who 'tune' the color balance of their images to an exquisite degree, OBA's may be an issue down the road. It's not so much that saturation or color intensity will fade. Rather, the relationship between colors, or between highlights and 3/4 tones, will gradually shift as the OBA's fade. All those carefully tuned relationships fall out of balance. And as far as I'm aware, their's no good data on the rate of decay of OBA's, since it's all proprietary stuff. How quickly do OBA's decay in room light? In dark storage? Is ozone an issue? Nobody knows. I'll just avoid papers with them as much as I can till it's all sorted out.
-
I didn't think Baryta would have anything to do with it, but I had thought Canson claimed no OBA's so I was a bit puzzled at the measurement. But double-checking the Canson website I see they make the OBA-free claim for most of their other papers but not the Baryta Photographique.
Canson Baryta Photographique does have a light dose of OBAs. However, Canson Platine does not, and I actually prefer prints made on it to those made on Baryta Photographique. Platine is definitely a paper that people should try.
Rob
-
Canson Baryta Photographique does have a light dose of OBAs. However, Canson Platine does not, and I actually prefer prints made on it to those made on Baryta Photographique. Platine is definitely a paper that people should try.
Canson Platine Fibre Rag is a great paper. It does not have OBAs, is acid free and have a*=0, b*=0! Moreover profiles created for this paper have wide color gamut and very large Dmax. Great paper indeed.
-
Canson Platine Fibre Rag is a great paper. It does not have OBAs, is acid free and have a*=0, b*=0! Moreover profiles created for this paper have wide color gamut and very large Dmax. Great paper indeed.
So what does the surface look like, can you compare it to other papers?
Thanks,
-
So what does the surface look like, can you compare it to other papers?
Canson Platine has smooth glossy and true pure white surface.
-
Canson Platine Fibre Rag is a great paper. It does not have OBAs, is acid free and have a*=0, b*=0! Moreover profiles created for this paper have wide color gamut and very large Dmax. Great paper indeed.
I got a sample pack from Shades of Paper and was very impressed with it.
-
I got a sample pack from Shades of Paper and was very impressed with it.
I did the same, it has not arrived yet, but from what all I am reading, I'm going to try it out as well as a Museo sample pack. Of the Museo line, I'm particularly interested in the Silver Rag. I'm going to compare the Platine to the Silver Rag and Ilford Gold Fibre Silk. The GFS is a tad warm for my taste, so I'm going to see if I can come up with something warmer than H. Photo Rag Baryta for whenever a warmer paper is indicated, but not too warm. The more I use H. PRB, the more I love it, a fantastic paper creamy surface and fantastic smooth feel. I like the PRB with water and winter-scapes, and I'm hunting for something warmer for red-rock and fall-color work.
-
I am so happy that this thread turned out to generate so many very interesting remarks and suggestion! Thank you!
First of all, I must try Canson's Platin Fibre Rag. From what you write it seams almost ideal: no FBAs, big gamut, excellent white point, high dMax, 100% cotton, acid-free and buffered... How does it compare surface and gamut wise to the other two contenders mentioned here, Canson's Rag Photographique and Museo Silver Rag? BTW I rely heavily on your observations, because in remote places, outside of Europe and America, Museo isn't well distributed. And planing to try out any new paper implies considerable investment of time and money to bring it here.
Regarding my original intention to varnish a print and to leave it without glass, I understand that the varnish and the way to apply it, is the weak point. But Golden's MSA varnish has very good reputation especially concerning yellowing. "Aging Characteristics: Accelerated and intensified aging tests of this varnish indicate it resists yellowing and will not become brittle under long term conditions of interior exposure." (quote from http://www.goldenpaints.com/technicaldata/msavar.php).
Also there will be a lot less reflection than when the print is under regular glass. In addition to any reflection from the print and the glass, the reflection of the print on the inside of the glass and back is what bothers me. (Real anti-glare glass is simply too expensive here. As it is not available, I would have to import it :D).
Very new to me is the idea, Ernst Dinkla, expressed, to consider the varnish (or parts of the coating, as in the Ilford Galerie Smooth Pearl) as something like an encapsulation method for the OBAs, sorry the FBAs ;-) I have to think about that. Thank you Ernst! Maybe an encapsulation in varnish, front and back of the print would be interesting?
nino
-
I think Henry Wilhelm's take on this is correct. Most of us aren't working at a level where it would make a difference; but for photographers who 'tune' the color balance of their images to an exquisite degree, OBA's may be an issue down the road. It's not so much that saturation or color intensity will fade. Rather, the relationship between colors, or between highlights and 3/4 tones, will gradually shift as the OBA's fade. All those carefully tuned relationships fall out of balance. And as far as I'm aware, their's no good data on the rate of decay of OBA's, since it's all proprietary stuff. How quickly do OBA's decay in room light? In dark storage? Is ozone an issue? Nobody knows. I'll just avoid papers with them as much as I can till it's all sorted out.
We all have our take on this, and really there is no right or wrong. We each just have to decide where our priorities are and how important we think it is to make sure our images look their best a century or two from now. As you mentioned, most of us aren't at that level. For a very few photographers, this may be an issue. I freely admit I'm no Ansel Adams, and don't take portraits or images of historically significant people. I'm just glad a few people appreciate the work I do now. If a museum ever calls and wants a piece for their collection I may feel a little differently ... but I'll wait till they call. I'm pretty confident my prints will look just fine for several decades at minimum.
To me the most significant issue is whether one color fades at a different rate than another (such as magenta in the early days of "glicee" printing). If that happens you can't "tune" a print to fix it. As long as the fading is fairly even, at what point does the print no longer look acceptable? Wilhelm's test of papers like Epson Exhibition fiber seems to indicate the OBA's aren't really an issue, as that paper under UV glass is rated at 150 years - I assume this means they feel at that point the colors have sufficiently faded to render the print unacceptable. (This is better than the 127 year rating of Somerset Velvet, a non OBA paper). If (When) the OBA's cease functioning at some point in time, that doesn't change the ink, so while it might not be ideal, assuming the relationships you speak of will be thrown so far out of kilter to render the print unacceptable doesn't fall in my definition of logical.
Personally it seems choosing a paper and "tuning" an image today so it might look better in 100 years ( and maybe compromising how it looks now and for quite some time to come) seems like trying to figure out where to eat dinner a year from next Tuesday when it's 6:00 pm today. But then I'm that type of personality ... I rarely put much thought into anything other than what's happening in the next 1 to 24 hours.
-
Canson Platine has smooth glossy and true pure white surface.
Actually, I disagree with this description. Platine definitely has more surface texture and less gloss than either Baryta Photographique or Ilford Gold Fibre Silk, but it is a fine tooth that is pleasing (to my eye) and which enhances the visual sense of depth. The surface is very slightly warm. Dmax as judged visually is very good, especially considering that the lack of OBAs. Platine's surface is much less susceptible to scratching than the aforementioned papers as well, which, to my mind, is a huge advantage. I also like the fact that it is cotton fiber based, meaning that it stays flatter in the printer and feels better in the hand. My advice to anyone who is interested is to get a sample pack to try for yourself.
Rob
-
Actually, I disagree with this description. Platine definitely has more surface texture and less gloss than either Baryta Photographique or Ilford Gold Fibre Silk, but it is a fine tooth that is pleasing (to my eye) and which enhances the visual sense of depth.
Yes, Platine has some surface texture. BTW on the cover of the Platine package it is written: "Ultra smooth glossy. Pure write. No Optical Brighteners."
But Canson recommend to use "Semigloss" setting for printers.
The surface is very slightly warm. Dmax as judged visually is very good, especially considering that the lack of OBAs.
Very slightly warm? Hm, I don't see that. BTW, with the i1Pro I got L*=96.9 (D[paper]=0.035!), a*=0, b*=0.1.
For my Epson Pro9500 printer Canson Platine has extremely large Dmax=2.48 (no one paper in my collection has such large Dmax) and gamut volume as large as Epson Premium Luster Photo Paper has.
-
As I understand it, on the subject of OBAs behind glass or other UV protection, their visual benefit is defeated regardless of longevity. Most of my prints are intended to go behind UV glass or plexi (with the exception of Sintra mounts). Unless leaving a print uncovered and unprotected, what is the point of using OBAs in the first place? I'm far more concerned about protecting a fine art print from UV and other environmental hazards.
By the way, even though I have commented on Ilford Gold Fiber Silk as being too warm for my taste, it is a VERY nice paper. It should be on everyone's list of papers worth giving a try at one time or another, especially if looking for a warm paper. If one needs RC paper, Ilford Gallery Smooth Pearl is terrific, too. The price on Ilford papers is another positive. I'm using the Ilford GSP for mounting on Sintra, where the resin coating is necessary to keep the adhesive from penetrating through the paper. The Sintra mounts will have spray-on UV protection. Anyone's take on RC-paper choices would be of interest.
Cheers,
Greg
-
As I understand it, on the subject of OBAs behind glass or other UV protection, their visual benefit is defeated regardless of longevity. Most of my prints are intended to go behind UV glass or plexi (with the exception of Sintra mounts). Unless leaving a print uncovered and unprotected, what is the point of using OBAs in the first place? I'm far more concerned about protecting a fine art print from UV and other environmental hazards.
Because of the three fold or so price differential between UV plexi and non-UV, I don't use the former for personal use. The only thing that it "protects" against is degradation from UV (it has no impact on other environmental hazards whatever those might be). As long as one is careful where the image is to be displayed (not in direct sunlight or other UV source) the chances of any degradation is minimal. As noted, if you are using OBA paper, UV plexi defeats the purpose of it.
-
Because of the three fold or so price differential between UV plexi and non-UV, I don't use the former for personal use. The only thing that it "protects" against is degradation from UV (it has no impact on other environmental hazards whatever those might be). As long as one is careful where the image is to be displayed (not in direct sunlight or other UV source) the chances of any degradation is minimal. As noted, if you are using OBA paper, UV plexi defeats the purpose of it.
UV plexi is indeed expensive, and I only use it when shipping framed prints, but I am a believer in UV protection. Having lived in the same house the past 23 years, I see what UV does to everything, indoors and out. On the indoor destruction, it is plenty visible without direct sunlight. I am amazed by what I appreciate to be the remarkable destructive nature of UV radiation. My dermatologist is doing quite well, btw.
As for the additional expense, when I look at all the time and money I have invested into a final print, I find it a contradiction to not protect with anti-UV quality material.
-
UV plexi is indeed expensive, and I only use it when shipping framed prints, but I am a believer in UV protection. Having lived in the same house the past 23 years, I see what UV does to everything, indoors and out. On the indoor destruction, it is plenty visible without direct sunlight. I am amazed by what I appreciate to be the remarkable destructive nature of UV radiation. My dermatologist is doing quite well, btw.
As for the additional expense, when I look at all the time and money I have invested into a final print, I find it a contradiction to not protect with anti-UV quality material.
Yes, my dermatologist is doing well also. My question to you is about the indoor source of UV radiation. I doubt that any existing light sources (as long as they are far enough away) are likely to cause any fading. It's more likely a result of other things. If you use Solux bulbs you can get a UV filter for them. We clearly don't have enough experience with new pigment inks (other than through the work of testing groups such as Aardenburg) to say what is or is not likely to contribute to fading. Certainly with dye-based photo papers of the past, fading was a fact of life.
-
Yes, my dermatologist is doing well also. My question to you is about the indoor source of UV radiation. I doubt that any existing light sources (as long as they are far enough away) are likely to cause any fading. It's more likely a result of other things. If you use Solux bulbs you can get a UV filter for them. We clearly don't have enough experience with new pigment inks (other than through the work of testing groups such as Aardenburg) to say what is or is not likely to contribute to fading. Certainly with dye-based photo papers of the past, fading was a fact of life.
True enough, I don't personally have any experience with today's archival inks and indoor fading issues. I'm certainly prone to overkill on the fear factor, too.
I like the idea of UV lighting filters, I'm not familiar with their use, but will look into it when I get around to reconfiguring better lighting for my prints.
Still, for our buyers, I want them to never appreciate any degradation in print quality. It is easier to provide the extra UV protection than to expect our buyers to do the same with regard to displaying the work in an appropriate environment. It might be overkill on my part, but that would be me.
-
There are two issues in regard to exposure to UV: One would be the deterioration of the print, and the other one, the activity o UV brighteners. So when in a regular indoor situation we may not have to worry about the deterioration, because of the low levels present, we might still have the action of the UV brighteners despite those low levels?
-
There are two issues in regard to exposure to UV: One would be the deterioration of the print, and the other one, the activity o UV brighteners. So when in a regular indoor situation we may not have to worry about the deterioration, because of the low levels present, we might still have the action of the UV brighteners despite those low levels?
In other words, is there a minimum level for UV to reach the print in order that the brighteners should be able to act?
-
Indoors the total level of illumination is the factor that causes colorant light fading. UV light doesn't play the major roll there. Other factors are gas fading, for dyes more than for pigments and reduced by framing and/or varnishing as it will block gas exchange. FBAs fall in the dye category. There will be a strong relation between the FBA effect caused by UV light and the degradation of FBAs by UV light so both go along at the same rate. Interaction between gas + light + humidity are known effects so reducing one factor will help. Like the varnishing mentioned already. Fluorescent inks (dayglo) have the same problem. The thicker the ink layer the longer the effect lasts, the reason silkscreen printing is still used for that kind of printing. A varnish is usually printed on top of the dayglo ink if it has to last even longer.
met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst Dinkla
spectral plots of +100 inkjet papers:
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
-
Indoors the total level of illumination is the factor that causes colorant light fading. UV light doesn't play the major roll there. Other factors are gas fading, for dyes more than for pigments and reduced by framing and/or varnishing as it will block gas exchange. FBAs fall in the dye category. There will be a strong relation between the FBA effect caused by UV light and the degradation of FBAs by UV light so both go along at the same rate. Interaction between gas + light + humidity are known effects so reducing one factor will help. Like the varnishing mentioned already. Fluorescent inks (dayglo) have the same problem. The thicker the ink layer the longer the effect lasts, the reason silkscreen printing is still used for that kind of printing. A varnish is usually printed on top of the dayglo ink if it has to last even longer.
met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst Dinkla
spectral plots of +100 inkjet papers:
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
Thanks, Ernst
From what all I can gather on this subject, one is better served avoiding paper with OBAs/FBAs regardless of using glass, varnish, or no protection, or at least that is my opinion if I'm going to buy, yet alone sell, a fine art print... interesting subject for a newbie like me.
-
From what all I can gather on this subject, one is better served avoiding paper with OBAs/FBAs regardless of using glass, varnish, or no protection, or at least that is my opinion if I'm going to buy, yet alone sell, a fine art print... interesting subject for a newbie like me.
My thinking is similar. If I found a paper that I really liked in every respect except for light/moderate use of OBA's, I probably wouldn't let that stop me from using it (especially if the test results from AA&I were good). But if I like another paper just as much and it doesn't have OBA's, why not choose the OBA-free paper?
Most of the OBA-heavy papers are are too cool-looking for me, anyway.
I really like the look and feel of Photo Rag Baryta, and print quality is excellent in every regard; so the fact that it's OBA-free is just an added bonus.
For matte papers, I just got a roll of Canon Rag Photographique 310. My initial impression is good. I think it must be the whitest OBA-free paper I've ever seen - a nice bright paper white that's almost dead neutral. I might wish it had a hair more texture, but otherwise it seems really nice. I'm just starting to test/profile with it, so I can't really comment on things like gamut and dmax yet.
-
Thanks, Ernst
From what all I can gather on this subject, one is better served avoiding paper with OBAs/FBAs regardless of using glass, varnish, or no protection, or at least that is my opinion if I'm going to buy, yet alone sell, a fine art print... interesting subject for a newbie like me.
One is indeed well served to avoid inkjet papers with high levels of fluorescence (correlates to high OBA content) because as a general rule, these papers wreak havoc with color managed workflows, show obvious whitepoint and highlight color "yellowing" over time, and the very bright-white appearance that endeared the printmaker to use said papers can be killed immediately at the framer's studio if the customer chooses a UV-absorbing glazing (OP3 plexi, museum glass,etc.). Where the "OBA versus no OBA" subject becomes decidedly more ambiguous is when the paper manufacturer uses OBAs to fine tune the whitepoint rather than dominate the whitepoint with fluorescence. In this situation, some "OBA tweaked" papers can exhibit better whitepoint stability performance over time than some OBA-free papers. In other words, the OBA burnout will not have a huge effect on the image appearance and the actual fading of the colorants will dominate. Then it gets down to ink/paper chemistry compatibility such that some OBA-free papers can underperform with certain inks while some OBA-tweaked papers can outperform. Product-specific testing with testing protocols that are designed to accurately identify the OBA fade characteristics in addition to the colorant fade properties, is then required for a more rigorous answer. Without such testing, it can easily become an erroneous decision to reject a paper, say for example Hahnemuhle Photo Rag that contains low levels of OBA in the paper core, on the basis that it might have poorer stability with one's chosen printer and inks than a similar yet OBA-free paper.
kind regards,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com
-
I got a sample pack of the Jon Cone Type 5.
That's good to see. I'm curious to hear your impressions.
For matte papers, I just got a roll of Canon Rag Photographique 310. My initial impression is good. I think it must be the whitest OBA-free paper I've ever seen - a nice bright paper white that's almost dead neutral. I might wish it had a hair more texture, but otherwise it seems really nice.
Rag Photographique is also an extremely sharp paper. For a touch more texture, and a slightly warmer paper base, try Canson BFK Rives.
It sounds like Canson Platine Fiber Rag is well worth looking at. It should nicely complement Silver Rag & Cone Type 5 with it's smoother surface and (relatively) whiter paper base. I'm going to pick up some to try. (Trying different papers can be quite addicting!)
Terry.
-
(Trying different papers can be quite addicting!)
Terry.
Indeed
-
One is indeed well served to avoid inkjet papers with high levels of fluorescence (correlates to high OBA content) because as a general rule, these papers wreak havoc with color managed workflows, show obvious whitepoint and highlight color "yellowing" over time, and the very bright-white appearance that endeared the printmaker to use said papers can be killed immediately at the framer's studio if the customer chooses a UV-absorbing glazing (OP3 plexi, museum glass,etc.). Where the "OBA versus no OBA" subject becomes decidedly more ambiguous is when the paper manufacturer uses OBAs to fine tune the whitepoint rather than dominate the whitepoint with fluorescence. In this situation, some "OBA tweaked" papers can exhibit better whitepoint stability performance over time than some OBA-free papers. In other words, the OBA burnout will not have a huge effect on the image appearance and the actual fading of the colorants will dominate. Then it gets down to ink/paper chemistry compatibility such that some OBA-free papers can underperform with certain inks while some OBA-tweaked papers can outperform. Product-specific testing with testing protocols that are designed to accurately identify the OBA fade characteristics in addition to the colorant fade properties, is then required for a more rigorous answer. Without such testing, it can easily become an erroneous decision to reject a paper, say for example Hahnemuhle Photo Rag that contains low levels of OBA in the paper core, on the basis that it might have poorer stability with one's chosen printer and inks than a similar yet OBA-free paper.
Mark. http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com
Thanks Mark,
useful information. Can you explain a little the difference between FBA's in the coating and in the paper - the former being 'bad' and the latter' maybe 'acceptable? And perhaps give a real world example of each. I like Innova Ultrasmooth Gloss IFA49, but this has lots of FBA's in it, in the coating I believe, as does Epson Exhibition Fiber (ahem), and yet I adore the results (for now...) Most OBA/FBA free papers are way too yellow/creamy for my taste, though am hoping to try the new Epson Hot Press soon, and see if thats an acceptable compromise.
-
spectral plots of +100 inkjet papers:
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
This is amazingly useful reference Ernst. Thanks so much for taking the time to make it and share.
Any chance of the new Epson Papers - Hot Press and Cold Press being added?
I also note your wise comments on not being obsessed about 'rag' papers, as some regular Alpha-Cellulose ones are well made too.
do you have any in mind especially for their balance of modestly used FBA's and overall white balance.
thanks again!