Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Printing: Printers, Papers and Inks => Topic started by: mstevensphoto on May 30, 2014, 01:46:35 pm
-
Hey folks,
I'm working on a corporate art project and need to do several large pieces fairly quickly. I'm curious about your inclinations. The project will feature several historic airplanes and cars, but it's all detail shots and abstract-ish. The work basically will be shiny painted metal and chrome things. I'm trying to come up with how I want to do this.
for longevitiy and durability I'm inclined to do framed canvas mounted to 1/2" gator (no glass no mat) - it's relatively easy for me to get good results like this and they seem to do well in a busy environment. I don't so much love shiny sharp lined metal things on canvas where we lose some of the definition and gloss and general slickness.
I kind of like a metallic or high gloss photo paper for this but I'm not sure about display w/o glass. thoughts? treatment?
At large format (40x60" or so) can I think about frame with glass and no mat using spacers between the image and glass?
what else, other than prints on metal, might you think would look good in a modern designer space with auto/air images?
thanks for helping me brainstorm!
-
Other then metal nothing I can think of.
Shiny aircraft or auto photographs just beg for dye sublimation on the clear hi gloss aluminum.
-
I like them behind acrylic too, considering that as an option. 3/4" thick acrylic with a back mounted photo.
so if you did them on metal, float mount it? wonder if I could frame a metal print in a neat way. my biggest problem with metal prints is that I can't find anywhere that shares my tastes. pixel2canvas is way reasonable but they always blow my highlights or shadows. do you have a favorite provider?
I'm unable to do them myself, which is a huge motivation for canvas.
-
Just one question, have you priced the mounting and acrylic cost? On a print that large, unless the location is really clean, you will get something under the acrylic and it's a one trick pony. Also, that is a lot of Acrylic to scratch, and it will somehow get scratched. I know it looks great but when it all comes down to it, most designers, won't pay the price unless the location is aware of it, costs involved etc.
Your idea of canvas is a good one, easy to work with, and you might try the Breathing Color or Moab Metallic canvas. I believe Moab has one now, I know BC does.
Most places I have worked with, with an image that large, are using a firm that can print onto a panel, then the panel is just placed on the wall. Not sure of the process as the work I have done was all printed and then placed in the location.
One other note, BC's glossy canvas is not IMO given the greatest QC, as one lot will have a bunch of flaw, or seeds etc. Crystalline, the BC glossy I am familiar will is OK, but due to globs and flaws etc. I only use it for prints where I don't have a large solid color. Not sure if their metallic has the same issues, but I figure it does.
Paul
-
thanks for the ideas and note on acrylic.
I adore Lyve and have been entirely unimpressed with the crystalline canvas. I don't think I've tried the metallic canvas but I was thinking that was perhaps because it's a fortune? Do you varnish your metallic canvas? Even something like crystalline which says it doesn't have to be sprayed should be for public spaces like this in my opinion. The appeal of canvas is high because I do yards and yards of it every month. I'm 100% comfortable printing, spraying and mounting it, but I don't want that comfort to keep me from a better process for the look.
-
BC Lyve is excellent as you point out, pretty much flawless. I had coating, but have gone back to Lyve due to constant issues with Crystalline.
With Crystalline, I still run a top coat since as you mention just one drop of water will smear the ink, and in public places, way to much chance of water, cleaning solvent etc. or problems when the print is hung with fingerprints.
I preferred Crystalline due to the great DMAX, and easier approximation for soft proofing. Blacks don't block up etc and I can use relative colorimetric intent.
Coated Lyve is pretty bomb proof indeed.
Paul
-
Other then metal nothing I can think of.
Shiny aircraft or auto photographs just beg for dye sublimation on the clear hi gloss aluminum.
I would suggest metal also. Look is similar to acrylic without the fragility of the surface. Probably less expensive also. Not sure without seeing the images, but if hi-tech looking subjects, I would question the use of canvas.
-
I would suggest metal. If the images have the detail, you will be hard pressed to get a better look. Check with Image Wizards for printing that large onto metal. Realize anything that large will need to be trucked to you in a crate.
Also, I have been testing the Hahnemuhle Metalic Canvas and have been pretty impressed. I am going to start adding that to my companies offerings in addition to metal printing.
Ben
-
How about a paper like Slickrock metallic pearl mounted on dibond panels?
-
In reality some questions must be answered before you determine the substrate:
1. Is this a permanent installation or temporary?
2. If it is temporary how long will it be hung and what will be done with the pieces after it has been removed?
3. Are these pieces for sale or just show?
4. Who is paying for the pieces- you or somebody else?
5. Is there a budget?
5. How will they be hung? Are the wall's able to sustain the weight of the pieces or if hung from the ceiling, can the ceiling sustain the weight?
6. How will the pieces be transported to the venue?
7. What kind of lighting is in the venue?
8. Who is responsible for hanging the pieces? Do they know how to hang the pieces that you will be providing?
9. Who is responsible if any of the pieces get damaged or the pieces fall and something/one gets damaged or hurt?
10. Can the pieces be produced in the time frame required to deliver.
11. What will happen if you/venue is not satisfied with the pieces after they are produced?
...and many more questions could be asked but this should give you an idea.
Ben
-
I'd probably use BC Pura Smooth or Epson Hot Press adhesive-mounted on Dibond.
Before mounting, spray with 3 coats of Polycrylic or Timeless or Glamour II gloss. You will never get a perfectly smooth gloss with that, but you will get something that looks just a bit glossier than the classic, unferrotyped "F" surface that looks quite handsome and which to my eyes is less tacky than mega-gloss. Mounted mega gloss has issues with less than 100% dead-flat mounting, the "F" variation is much more tolerant of minor bumps and ripples. With mega-gloss, you're pretty much dead from the tiniest chunk of crud trapped under the print. With semi-gloss, you have some leeway to press the dump down with say the rounded edges of a butter knife or spoon.
Mount on Dibond or one of the many cheaper knockoffs, some of which cost about the same as Gator. Use the type that's matte white on the mounting side, and bare aluminum on the back. Use aggressive adhesive. If you're new to adhesives, start out a roll that has a cover sheet on BOTH sides of the adhesive, that's much easier for newbies.
Have found cutting Dibond with a utility knife is easy, and in fact for the 3mm stock you can easily score-then-snap with extremely clean edges, provided you have at least 2 inches or so on one of the pieces to be parted.
To prevent flexing on a 40 x 60 inch print on 3mm Dibond, you will definitely need to attach to the back a rectangular pattern of epoxied aluminum "L" extrusions, 1/2 x 1/2 x 1/8". Pre-drill two holes in the top L piece for hangers. Buy some scrap at your supplier and try it out. I made several test pieces with a $160 roller bought the 'bay, works perfik, just make sure your rollers are 2" wider than the workpiece, on both sides. And if your Dibond has sharp edges, debur them very slightly so they don't cut your rollers.
Pura and EHP will not be as absolutely contrasty as the gloss metallics, but neither will they tend to blow out highlights. You should not have trouble conveying the feeling of hard metal surfaces in a most elegant way.
-
How about a paper like Slickrock metallic pearl mounted on dibond panels?
I have to be the only one who just flat doesn't like slick rock. (I like ink press even less) I adore Moab's people and papers on whole but I have yet to meet a metallic paper that I like even a little. I think it I did metallic paper (which would look great) I'd have to have it done on someone's light jet on a "traditional" photo metallic paper. one of my big issues is that the images I want to put on metallic always have a fair bit of white and I always see a gloss differential.
-
I'd probably use BC Pura Smooth or Epson Hot Press adhesive-mounted on Dibond.
…..
Pura and EHP will not be as absolutely contrasty as the gloss metallics, but neither will they tend to blow out highlights. You should not have trouble conveying the feeling of hard metal surfaces in a most elegant way.
you like the pura more than optica one? I actually thought about optica one, even with a roller to get some intentional rolled on texture with the timeless. I'm not set up to do my own mounting except where miracle muck is involved (no roller system for proper adhesive) and unfortunately no one wants to mount them for me despite me promising that it's ok if they need a new print because of mounting issues.
I'm wondering about gator mounted optica one with timeless finish in a frame. not sure if that can be accomplished and look good with miracle muck.
-
Well Optica 1 is the brightest of the bright, and would be a good choice for your pieces. I didn't mention it because I have not tested it for coating. Most matte papers suffer in the highlights from coating. I like Pura because it comes through coating looking better than any of the matte papers I have tested. When coated, it actually looks more brilliant than the Epson OBA equivalents.
Oh wait, don't coat Optica or the Epson "Bright" papers with Timeless! The UV blockers in Timless will mask the effect of the OBA's in the papers. Dullsville. Stick with the naturals if you're going to coat with Timeless. For the OBA papers, GII might be a better choice, even though it has a minor amount of hazing. I'd use super-transparent Polycrylic, but be warned that Poly can be finicky, and you need to be sure you are getting reasonably fresh cans.
It is a good idea to create profiles from coated targets when using coated fine art papers. Coating pulls down the densities of paper more than you see with canvas. This causes the profiled prints out of the printer to look too light, until you coat. For testing I keep a 6", Polycrylic wet roller in a large baggie. I put down a quick, thick coat on the test strips right there on my ever-so-utilitarian cutting matte table, wiping up the excess on the table with a wet paper towel. No need to make a production out of it. Anybody who doesn't have a cutting matte as the permanent surface of their 4x8 foot work table is making life needlessly complicated.
Have made many framed pieces with Polycrylic-coated Pura Velvet, Gator-mounted with Muck. Looks great on the wall! I actually prefer the Pura tonality and color to any of the canvases I have used, but consider that I do landscapes. I use slightly textured Pura Velvet, rather than Pura Smooth. It has a sort of canvas-like presentation, but IMO is better because the texture is non-polarized. Definitely a fine-art-like presentation. And glare issues are better with Pura than with canvas when the ambient light source is coming from behind the viewer. You need to use almost twice a much glue for mounting fine art papers as with canvas to overcome the natural sides-up curve in the paper. Pay special attention to getting those edges down onto the Gator, you need to work a longer rubbing down paper than canvas.
When coating I put down two coats of about 10ml per square foot on each coat. Have found that if I wait about 45 minutes between coats, the post-coating paper curl is almost zero. You can Muck mount those prints about 4 hours after the last coat. However, I have noticed that it takes more like 24 hours for the tiny amount of paper shrinkage to completely stop, so if you plan to adhesive mount with flush edges, give drying a day or two after the last coat so the print won't pull back from the edges.
-
thanks for the info. I got a pura sample roll so I might try a few. I love the optica 1 and don't care a lick that it has OBA's. little prints roll really nicely, bigger need spray to keep from having a gluey mucky mess.
I'm not doing anything that comes in an aerosol can. I don't seem to have the talent needed to make it look perfect when spraying and it takes a godawful amount of toxic crap to get anything covered to the level I want to cover it.
when you miracle muck paper to gator are you just rolling it down (j-roller?) and waiting or do you compress it for any period of time?
care to share which $160 roller you got off the ebay?
-
Forget the aerosols. Get a good HVLP and spray water based only.
I roll the prints out on the Gator from a 3" tube, pressing down more than tugging along. But don't press too hard...dents in the Gator. You need to use relatively more glue with paper prints than with canvas because the extra moisture helps relax the curl out of the paper.
Then I smooth down the print by running my flat hand over it, several times. Sometimes cotton gloved, sometimes not. Properly coated prints are rather smooth and skin loss is minimal. No roller involved. Pay special attention to the edges, especially if your paper has developed a curve. It may take a minute of gentle patting at the edge before you feel they are really down. Don't overdo the finger pressure, or you will get subtle dents in the Gator. For paper, I spend maybe 5 minutes to smooth down a 24 x 72 print, much longer than with limp canvas. Check the surface against a steeply angled bright light bulb, press down any bumps with a burnisher like the rounded plastic end of a Sharpie, the edge of a butterknife, the tip of a slot or x-tipped screwdriver, etc, as appropriate. Have a pin ready if you get an intractable air bubble.
I used this 29" laminator (http://www.ebay.com/itm/29-5-Laminating-Manual-Mount-Machine-Cold-Film-Vinyl-Laminator-New-29-L-/301060886511?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item4618a08fef) for my 24" x 72" test prints. Be aware the numerous 25" machines out there are simply too challenging for use with typical 25 to 25.5" laminate rolls, and 24" prints. You need at least a couple spare inches on either side. Laminators are geometrically more expensive at larger sizes. If the edges of my adhesive mounted test prints stay down for another month or so, I may buy a bigger machine. You definitely want an electric feed if you plan to do serious work of this type, along with at least a tensioned feed roller for the adhesive.
-
Have made many framed pieces with Polycrylic-coated Pura Velvet, Gator-mounted with Muck. Looks great on the wall! I actually prefer the Pura tonality and color to any of the canvases I have used, but consider that I do landscapes. I use slightly textured Pura Velvet, rather than Pura Smooth. It has a sort of canvas-like presentation, but IMO is better because the texture is non-polarized. Definitely a fine-art-like presentation. And glare issues are better with Pura than with canvas when the ambient light source is coming from behind the viewer. You need to use almost twice a much glue for mounting fine art papers as with canvas to overcome the natural sides-up curve in the paper. Pay special attention to getting those edges down onto the Gator, you need to work a longer rubbing down paper than canvas.
I'm having trouble visualising how a glossy or satin coating would look on a textured paper such as Pura Velvet. With my printer out of action until the new inkset arrives, I'm also in no position to find out... I would have imagined it would have a cheap, plasticky laminated look, quite different from the F-type surface of true semi-gloss fibre-based papers like Canson Platine or Hahnemuhle Photo Rag Baryta. The fact that diluted Timeless soaks deep into the paper through the image layer is a huge plus for longevity, though.
-
"Cheap" is a matter of opinion. To my eyes, the ultimate cheap look is facemounted metallic paper which raises plastique to Olympian levels. I feel glossy coated Pura Velvet is rather dignified looking, with or without comparison to other forms of presentation. In galleries it presents very favorably beside other forms of artwork, and sometimes looks better because of relatively lower surface diffusion when the pieces face bright windows or doorways.
Keep in mind that being mounted gives such prints a much different surface look than you would see with a loose print. An extreme example is the way a mounted glossy canvas is a completely different creature than a stretched glossy canvas, due to the way a stretched glossy canvas still has enough surface ripple to create lurid specular highlights from ambient light sources, whereas the same canvas mounted does not.
It is possible to obtain a very wide gamut of surface gloss variations by varying the method and amount of coating application. Using only gloss coating, anything from almost matte, through satin, up to shiny is possible. All of which takes practice and careful technique, so unfortunately it's hard to judge from a single test application. But if you plan to mount coated paper, be sure to defer judgement until you have your tests actually mounted.
-
"Cheap" is a matter of opinion. To my eyes, the ultimate cheap look is facemounted metallic paper which raises plastique to Olympian levels. I feel glossy coated Pura Velvet is rather dignified looking, with or without comparison to other forms of presentation. In galleries it presents very favorably beside other forms of artwork, and sometimes looks better because of relatively lower surface diffusion when the pieces face bright windows or doorways.
Do you have any photos of how the final surface looks?
I'm just imagining a glossy surface with low-frequency, orange-peel-like (or toilet-paper-like) bumps. A bit like a laminated movie poster, but bumpy. Or a bit like plastic-coated, unprimed canvas. Or is the final effect much finer, like the stippled texture of a lustre paper (e.g. Hahnemuhle Photo Rag Pearl)? Is it obvious that there's a layer of acrylic spray on the surface of the paper? Or does it look more like the paper itself is glossy, rather than a glossy overcoat?
-
Fujiflex with plexi front mount?
-
I'm just imagining a glossy surface with low-frequency, orange-peel-like (or toilet-paper-like) bumps. A bit like a laminated movie poster, but bumpy. Or a bit like plastic-coated, unprimed canvas. Or is the final effect much finer, like the stippled texture of a lustre paper (e.g. Hahnemuhle Photo Rag Pearl)? Is it obvious that there's a layer of acrylic spray on the surface of the paper? Or does it look more like the paper itself is glossy, rather than a glossy overcoat?
You're probably thinking of mounted mirror-gloss prints, which suffer greatly from texture transfered up from the mounting medium, whether it be dry mount tissue or adhesive or glue. Fine art papers like Pura etc are on very heavy 20+ mil, flexible, crushable paper substrates versus the 10 mil, rigid, unyielding substrates of RC papers. Those paper substrates are too thick to transfer texture up from the mounting medium. Eggshell just doesn't happen. If by chance you trap a piece of grit between the backing and the print, it's trivial to remove the resulting bump by pressing down on the print above which crushes the thick paper around the quickly disappearing grit, a process that is rarely successful with RC
There's just no way to accurately convey the surface in a photograph. The surface look is reminiscent of what you see on original watercolors and drawings, which is not surprising considering the substrates are so similar. What's different in that comparison is that the coated photo surface will have no glass or plex cover, which IMO emphasizes the tangible qualities of the surface. It's a class act, not at even a little bit tacky looking. The implication is that the viewer is looking at "real print" or almost an original, versus yet another knocked-off photo print.
For not much money you can buy a box of 8.5x11 Pura Velvet or Epson Cold Press Natural, and a quart of Timeless or Polycrylic (which can be bought at Lowes or HD). Try it out! If you haven't yet created profiles for the coated media, make your prints lighter that you want to wind up with, possibly by adding a Levels layer and putting the middle slider up to about 1.2. Dilute the coating with about 10% water, and apply with a 6" foam roller. Store the roller in a sealed baggie, it will last several days primed with coating. Don't be satisfied with the first attempt, I would think about 25 tries would be needed to start creating decent results, varying print density, dilution of coating, number of coats, etc. With coated papers, physical subtlety and craftsmanship count in ways not required by normal inkjet media. And of course mount the most promising results.
Oh, I'm speaking entirely for myself here in regards to my soapbox aesthetic pronouncements above. YMMV.
-
You're probably thinking of mounted mirror-gloss prints, which suffer greatly from texture transfered up from the mounting medium, whether it be dry mount tissue or adhesive or glue. Fine art papers like Pura etc are on very heavy 20+ mil, flexible, crushable paper substrates versus the 10 mil, rigid, unyielding substrates of RC papers. Those paper substrates are too thick to transfer texture up from the mounting medium. Eggshell just doesn't happen. If by chance you trap a piece of grit between the backing and the print, it's trivial to remove the resulting bump by pressing down on the print above which crushes the thick paper around the quickly disappearing grit, a process that is rarely successful with RC
No, I'm thinking of the texture of the paper itself, and how it would appear when glossy. Most glossy/satin papers either have a smooth surface, or a fine stippled texture (much finer than the texture of a velvet paper) - I'm just having trouble visualising how a velvet-textured paper (or even a cold-press paper) would look with a glossy coating.
There's just no way to accurately convey the surface in a photograph. The surface look is reminiscent of what you see on original watercolors and drawings, which is not surprising considering the substrates are so similar. What's different in that comparison is that the coated photo surface will have no glass or plex cover, which IMO emphasizes the tangible qualities of the surface. It's a class act, not at even a little bit tacky looking. The implication is that the viewer is looking at "real print" or almost an original, versus yet another knocked-off photo print.
Except that watercolours and drawings are matte. After applying three coatings of Timeless, the paper would be semi-gloss to glossy.
For not much money you can buy a box of 8.5x11 Pura Velvet or Epson Cold Press Natural, and a quart of Timeless or Polycrylic (which can be bought at Lowes or HD). Try it out! If you haven't yet created profiles for the coated media, make your prints lighter that you want to wind up with, possibly by adding a Levels layer and putting the middle slider up to about 1.2. Dilute the coating with about 10% water, and apply with a 6" foam roller. Store the roller in a sealed baggie, it will last several days primed with coating. Don't be satisfied with the first attempt, I would think about 25 tries would be needed to start creating decent results, varying print density, dilution of coating, number of coats, etc. With coated papers, physical subtlety and craftsmanship count in ways not required by normal inkjet media. And of course mount the most promising results.
I've got plenty of Timeless. Would have to ship the Pura Velvet halfway around the world, though...
I'd be very reluctant to roll 20x60" or larger prints - I far prefer HVLP sprayers.
-
The coating doesn't have to be glossy. Using glossy coating paint, you can get anything from "the matte side of satin" up through "sparkly glossy" by varying the wetness and number of the sprayed coats. The gamut of surface possibilities is very wide! For me, the important quality of "glossy" is that it is far more transparent than "matte." The tonal range of prints is greater and richer looking when the coatings are as transparent as possible
An important issue is that one has to avoid spraying coatings that are matte-like because the paint went tacky in the air, creating a dusty coating that has terrible light diffusion properties, causing the image to look hazy in many common lighting situations. In every case the paint must arrive on the surface in a wet state, with the surface quality coming from the amount deposited on each successive coat. Heavier coats lead to a glossy look, light coats (that nevertheless arrive on the surface in a wet condition) lead to a matte look.
If you don't like a textured surface, then coated art papers are probably not what you want, since there will inevitably be a certain amount of fine texture.
In my case, I really don't think about glossy versus matte. I think about how the piece looks in its frame hanging on the wall in a gallery, or at an art fair, or on the often poorly lighted walls of the buyers. And in particular I think about the lighting at one especially important gallery that is long and narrow with daylight windows at one end, which is a surface glare nightmare when people walk toward the windows, viewing my pieces at a steep, glare inducing angle. Of all the art in that gallery, my surfaces survive that situation the best. If the image presents well in those kinds of lighting situations, I call my surfaces a success. One has to be practical in these matters, and all decisions about the physical presentation of one's artwork need to be made in real world situations, if one wants to make a living selling art.
-
Hi Bill
Question for you. I had the most succes following your ideas about coating canvas, so I would love to pick your brain about coating paper.
When I use Timeless or Polycrilyc on canvas I dilute about 25% water and 75%coating, multiple light coats, normally 2 or 3. Most of the time I add a tiny fraction of a drop of dish soap to the mix, seems to help the coating to level. The result is a really smooth and even satin, very pretty.
Do you dilute on the same ratio when the print is on a paper like the Epson Hot Press ?
Do you tape the sheet all around to avoid curling after the coating dries?
How long between coats?
How many?
Any other difference on the way you treat fine art paper compared to canvas?
Thanks a lot in advance
Hugo
-
Hi Bill
Question for you. I had the most succes following your ideas about coating canvas, so I would love to pick your brain about coating paper.
When I use Timeless or Polycrilyc on canvas I dilute about 25% water and 75%coating, multiple light coats, normally 2 or 3. Most of the time I add a tiny fraction of a drop of dish soap to the mix, seems to help the coating to level. The result is a really smooth and even satin, very pretty.
Do you dilute on the same ratio when the print is on a paper like the Epson Hot Press ?
Do you tape the sheet all around to avoid curling after the coating dries?
How long between coats?
How many?
Any other difference on the way you treat fine art paper compared to canvas?
Thanks a lot in advance
Hugo
For the fine art papers I have been diluting 1 part water to 5 parts paint, measured by weight. So I might mix up 500 grams of Polycrylic to 100 grams of water. Grams and ml are the same thing for water, but the coating is denser and might weigh 1.1 grams per ml. I find it very useful to use a scale for such measurements, there are many advantages to that, including that you don't need measuring containers which have to be cleaned. That dilution easily sprays wet, and since the concentration of paint is higher one gets more coating effect for less work. I think maybe 1 part water to 9 parts paint would be the limit for what I call good spraying characteristics, using my gun and turbine.
I usually make ganged-up prints 44 x about 80 or 90". In that case I first put a 3" swipe of 1" tape in the center of each of the 44" sides, to flatten out the print across its center. Then I completely tape down both of the long sides, which is made a lot easier by the already in place 3" tapes. It's really just the long swipe of tape at the top that's important, since it keeps coating from getting on the back of the paper. The long bottom swipe of tape is to prevent differential shrinkage as the print dries, which could cause minor keystoning. To accelerate drying I often remove the bottom swipe about 1 hour after coating, while the print is still mostly vertical. To minimize the small amount of keystoning that might occur, I also remove about half the swipe of tape at the top, leaving some at the center to support the print. There's much less tendency for paper prints to keystone than canvas. I mount the prints as early as 4 hours after coating, there isn't much curl to deal with at that point. But if want to leave them completely taped up for a day or more your will get very flat prints.
In my dry desert air I usually wait about 30 minutes between coats. I test dryness by touching the tape, which dries much slower than the print surface. If you get little flakes of coating that crack off when you later cut the well-dried prints, or you if you get excessive curl on the dried prints, you probably should wait longer between coats.
I usually apply two coats, putting down about 10ml of by 1:5 solution per each coat. I weigh the gun after each coat as an ongoing QC thing, leads to very good consistency and avoid long term process drifts due to gradual changes in filters, residue build-up in the gun, etc. I have a few pieces that present better with a more matte like look that comes from 1 coat, and a few that look best with the very wet glossy look that comes from three coats. Of course, when laying down one coat you need very good technique to avoid banding.
The main difference in handling fine art papers versus canvas is that you need much more glue for mounting, especially if the print still has some curl. The moisture helps de-curl the print, buy you must have enough moisture available to wet the print enough to at least partly relax the curl, and to be certain there is still enough wet glue to attach the print at the edges when the curl is gone.
-
Hi Bill
Question for you. I had the most succes following your ideas about coating canvas, so I would love to pick your brain about coating paper.
When I use Timeless or Polycrilyc on canvas I dilute about 25% water and 75%coating, multiple light coats, normally 2 or 3. Most of the time I add a tiny fraction of a drop of dish soap to the mix, seems to help the coating to level. The result is a really smooth and even satin, very pretty.
Do you dilute on the same ratio when the print is on a paper like the Epson Hot Press ?
Do you tape the sheet all around to avoid curling after the coating dries?
How long between coats?
How many?
Any other difference on the way you treat fine art paper compared to canvas?
Thanks a lot in advance
Hugo
I'm very interested in the detergent you use.
Logically, as a surfactant, it would improve the flow and smoothness of the coating by reducing the surface tension in the liquid.
But would it have any negative impact on the longevity and durability of the final coating, and would it adversely affect the pigment or paper in any way?
I wonder what surfactant they use in inkjet ink.
-
About the dish detergent, seems to make no difference the brand.
I put a drop on the tip of my finger, then scrape just half of that with a little wooden stir stick and that goes on the mix with water and coating, good for a couple of coats on a 6 sq/ft print.
If you try, as I did, coating the same canvas, with and without the little touch of soap, you see the coating following the contour of the surface in a different way, almost skin like.
Hugo
-
tons of good info, thanks everyone. I've printed my samples and am surprised to find myself leaning toward Silverada canvas or coated Optica one (don't have the pura on hand). I proved to myself once again that slick rock is garish. didn't expect to like the silverada so much.
-
About the dish detergent, seems to make no difference the brand.
I put a drop on the tip of my finger, then scrape just half of that with a little wooden stir stick and that goes on the mix with water and coating, good for a couple of coats on a 6 sq/ft print.
If you try, as I did, coating the same canvas, with and without the little touch of soap, you see the coating following the contour of the surface in a different way, almost skin like.
Hugo
Makes perfect sense - and it would improve the varnish's penetration into the paper, too, since surfactants like detergent improve the wetting qualities of the solution.
Do you know which particular surfactants they use for inkjet inks? All inkjet inks have surfactant, up to 6%, to help them flow better and wet the paper better. I'd be much more comfortable using a surfactant that's already used in inkjet ink than just using any old dishwashing liquid, where the surfactant is mixed together with many other chemicals (fragrances, etc.). They'd both have the same effect in improving the wetting qualities of the varnish, but I have no idea what the dishwashing liquid is going to do to the paper in the long term.
-
http://www.dow.com/surfactants/applications/paints/flex.htm
I fooled around with "surfactants" in the form of household detergents a few months ago. Some tended to curdle the coating solution, would definitely shy away from those. Placing a tiny dot of others on a bare print would bleach the print under the dot to white in a few seconds, those probably contain ammonia which is a strong solvent for many water based paints. There are side effects to those things, which may or may not be significant at the high dilutions we've been talking about here.
I assume the coating manufacturers would include surfactants in their products, to whatever degree they thought desirable. But maybe not. Polycrylic seems to show a lot of surfactant behavior in the way it flows and levels. For a paint it seems to have rather low surface tension in a cup.
As far as flow and penetration go, you can cover a lot of ground by experimenting for optimal dilution and application of unmodified coatings. Most of my coating problems went away when I starting applying rather wet coats, which among other things requires taking into account the ambient temperature and humidity. The (to me) desirable quality that I get by cutting coatings with water is that they flow and level better, so I'm really using water as a surfactant.
-
http://www.dow.com/surfactants/applications/paints/flex.htm
I fooled around with "surfactants" in the form of household detergents a few months ago. Some tended to curdle the coating solution, would definitely shy away from those. Placing a tiny dot of others on a bare print would bleach the print under the dot to white in a few seconds, those probably contain ammonia which is a strong solvent for many water based paints. There are side effects to those things, which may or may not be significant at the high dilutions we've been talking about here.
I assume the coating manufacturers would include surfactants in their products, to whatever degree they thought desirable. But maybe not. Polycrylic seems to show a lot of surfactant behavior in the way it flows and levels. For a paint it seems to have rather low surface tension in a cup.
As far as flow and penetration go, you can cover a lot of ground by experimenting for optimal dilution and application of unmodified coatings. Most of my coating problems went away when I starting applying rather wet coats, which among other things requires taking into account the ambient temperature and humidity. The (to me) desirable quality that I get by cutting coatings with water is that they flow and level better, so I'm really using water as a surfactant.
Glamour II contains a 'levelling agent', which I assume is a surfactant. They don't say the same about Timeless.
There are certainly a lot of surfactants available, many of which are used in printing - I've heard one of the Tergitols mentioned somewhere, although I can't remember what kind of printing they were talking about. It would be nice to know which one they use in Epson/HP/Canon inks.
Adding water reduces viscosity, which certainly helps with wetting, levelling and paper penetration. It's not a surfactant per se, but it has a similar effect. Adding a surfactant to the water-varnish mixture, though, should improve these qualities even more.
-
Maybe a few drops of Kodak Photo-Flo or Edwal LFN? Unlike the dishwashing liquid, it won't contain any undesirable impurities. Not sure what long-term effects it would have on the paper, though - would be nice to know which one they use in inkjet inks.
-
Once coating is done most of the small prints I have tested with are badly curled.
Can I just press them on my face mounting press?
Maybe a quick minute at 180 degrees just to get this back to be flat?
Same temperature as I would use to mount the print on a board for framing?
Does Polycrilic suffers a degradation after being heated and or pressed?
Hugo
-
Just finished coating two prints made on Moab Entrada Bright, beautiful natural looking texture, like watercolor paper.
Two light coats of distilled water and Polycrylic gloss 20% to 80%, and half a drop of dish soap in the mix
One hour between coats
The finish is a very smooth semi-gloss.
The texture still there and the colors look very deep, really nice looking.
The images have very rich deep blues and yellows and some very light areas.
Has anyone tried the Polycrylic SATIN for this kind of treatment?
-
Out of interest - why Polycrylic (designed for wood) rather than something more proven for inkjet such as Timeless?
How much of a texture does the varnish itself impart? I'm fine with the texture of whatever paper's underneath, or a fine stipple texture from the laminate itself (like lustre paper) - just not a low-frequency, orange-peel-like texture such as that often imparted by heat laminating pouches (like those used in offices) or from liquid laminates which haven't levelled properly or are applied far too thickly.
-
I just print for myself and the archival properties are not that important, cost is.
Polycrylic is very cheap and the results are really good, very similar to Timeless.
The varnish itself, when applied in light coats, spaced at least an hour or two, has not a noticeable texture other that the texture of the substract.
When I did a try with heavy coats with little time in between coats and no addition of soap as surfactant, I got the heavy orange peel surface you mentioned, its really ugly and overcomes the texture of the paper making it look plasticky.
Hugo
-
I just print for myself and the archival properties are not that important, cost is.
Polycrylic is very cheap and the results are really good, very similar to Timeless.
Fair enough. I guess I'll stick to Timeless, since my whole reason for doing this is for archival protection (to stabilise the inkjet receptive layer), not aesthetics.
The varnish itself, when applied in light coats, spaced at least an hour or two, has not a noticeable texture other that the texture of the substract.
Do light coats, allowed to sink deeply into the paper, also result in a glossy or semi-gloss surface? Or do they leave the surface more-or-less matte? Would be nice to have a semi-gloss or glossy coating, with the micro-texture of the original paper.
When I did a try with heavy coats with little time in between coats and no addition of soap as surfactant, I got the heavy orange peel surface you mentioned, its really ugly and overcomes the texture of the paper making it look plasticky.
I suspected it might do this. Need to give the varnish time to sink in and penetrate the inkjet layer deep into the paper base, in order to both stabilise the inkjet layer (by irreversibly binding it to the paper base) and avoid leaving a thick, uneven layer of acrylic on the surface.
I'm guessing it would be different for different papers as well. I wonder if watered-down, surfactant-enhanced Timeless would penetrate baryta layers as well as the top coat of glossy papers.
-
Just finished coating two prints made on Moab Entrada Bright, beautiful natural looking texture, like watercolor paper.
I just noticed you were using Moab Entrada for your prints.
I'm thinking of using the Natural version, as something with a texture in between Breathing Color Pura Smooth and Pura Velvet. It's basically the same paper as the Bright White, but without OBAs. A bit like Canson Etching Edition, but your experience seems to show that aqueous varnish with a bit of surfactant will penetrate the paper, unlike with Canson.
Would you mind running a quick test with the varnish-coated Entrada, to see how deeply it penetrates? Something like putting a piece of duct tape (or other strong tape) onto the surface, ripping it off and seeing if the tear occurs deep in the paper, or merely takes away the inkjet coating on the surface. The fact that aqueous varnishes sink deep into the paper, binding the image layer to the paper base and preventing it from ever flaking off, is one of the big attractions of the Breathing Color papers, and it would be great if this paper behaved in the same way.
-
I will look for a scrap print and try that experiment
-
I tried the duct tape rip test in scrap prints coated with polycrylic, prints made with,Moab Entrada, Epson enhanced matte, Cold Press Bright and Breathing color Pura smooth
In all cases the tape rips deep, o it looks like the varnish penetrates deeper than the ink layer.
Is that the answer you where looking for?
Hugo
-
I tried the duct tape rip test in scrap prints coated with polycrylic, prints made with,Moab Entrada, Epson enhanced matte, Cold Press Bright and Breathing color Pura smooth
In all cases the tape rips deep, o it looks like the varnish penetrates deeper than the ink layer.
Is that the answer you where looking for?
Hugo
Thanks - that's what I was hoping to see. Looks like the varnish stabilises and binds the inkjet layer to the paper in a way that the solvent-based sprays don't - when you use the duct tape test on unsprayed paper, or paper sprayed with a solvent-based spray, the paper base stays intact and the inkjet layer comes off with minimal force.
-
I like your idea for this test.
I did it on prints coated with Polycrilyc.
Would be interesting to see if someone else can do the same with coatings of Timeless or Glamour
Hugo
-
I like your idea for this test.
I did it on prints coated with Polycrilyc.
Would be interesting to see if someone else can do the same with coatings of Timeless or Glamour
Hugo
Credit for the 'duct tape' test must go to Bill T, who described this method a few months back when myself and a few others were discussing the use of these aqueous varnishes to permanently fix the inkjet layer to the paper base by enmeshing them both in a layer of Timeless, rendering inkjet paper as permanent as uncoated watercolour paper while retaining its printing qualities.
He reported good results with Epson Watercolour and Breathing Colour Pura Smooth/Velvet papers, but poor results with Canson papers (although his mixture did not contain a surfactant). With a surfactant to enhance its wetting properties, I suspect Timeless (and other aqueous varnishes) would be able to sink into a wider range of matte papers, and perhaps even some glossy papers.