Alternative to Print Shield for coating prints

[mearussi]

Aardenburg-Imaging had some tests with and without protection varnishes.


Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst

http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
March 2017 update, 750+ inkjet media white spectral plots

That's true for the solvent based Print Shield (compare #272 vs #315) but not for the water based Eco version. Only Wilhelm has tested that.

[Ernst Dinkla]

I’d think we could figure out if there should be an effect (but not the amount) by measuring whether it blocks UV trying to hit optical brighteners.

Protection coatings more likely protect against gas fading of colorants, including the brightening agents, than block UV light. The layer thickness of the protection coats are not enough to filter UV out and when they would you would notice a gamut drop.

Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst

http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
March 2017 update, 750+ inkjet media white spectral plots

[deanwork]

So is that also true of uv glass and uv plexi protection?

They don't appear to effect color gamut or contrast in any noticeable way and they certainly do the job.

Wilhelm's many tests of prints on various media with various inksets show uv glass doubling the fade figures of protection compare to regular glass. That includes media like Canson Rag Photo that have no oba content.

Protection coatings more likely protect against gas fading of colorants, including the brightening agents, than block UV light. The layer thickness of the protection coats are not enough to filter UV out and when they would you would notice a gamut drop.

Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst

http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
March 2017 update, 750+ inkjet media white spectral plots

[Ernst Dinkla]

So is that also true of uv glass and uv plexi protection?

They don't appear to effect color gamut or contrast in any noticeable way and they certainly do the job.

Wilhelm's many tests of prints on various media with various inksets show uv glass doubling the fade figures of protection compare to regular glass. That includes media like Canson Rag Photo that have no oba content.

UV glass is thicker and the UV light blocking quality depends on how heavy the filtering is. A lot of UV glass qualities certainly did have an effect on the translucency of that glass compared to other glass, the filtering being not that selective for UV only.  There are spectral plots on the web to show that, usually the blue near UV is most affected but an overall reduction in translucency may not show a color cast. The eye adapts though. As visible light also degrades colorants it is not total protection for light fading either. Whether the more encapsulating glass frame also reduces gas fading I do not know, it might have some influence but the risks that bad fumes evaporate from the used framing materials might be as high. Nor do I know Wilhelm's set up for the tests with UV glass. I have only seen pictures of tests without the glass. I must have an older PDF file of spectral measurements on UV blocking glasses somewhere but there are more test results on the web;

downloads.hindawi.com/journals/ijp/2014/407027.pdf

An older discussion on the subject;

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/2810868


Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst

http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
March 2017 update, 750+ inkjet media white spectral plots

[John Nollendorfs]

So is that also true of uv glass and uv plexi protection?

They don't appear to effect color gamut or contrast in any noticeable way and they certainly do the job.

Wilhelm's many tests of prints on various media with various inksets show uv glass doubling the fade figures of protection compare to regular glass. That includes media like Canson Rag Photo that have no oba content.

I think that regular window glass blocks about 80%-90% of the UV. The "UV" glass I think adds another 10% protection. Wilhelm also used to show fade rates with and without glass protection. I  think the glass tests were implemented after the "orange fade" problem  of Epson dye inks from ozone, about 15 years ago. (the glass supposedly helped protect against airborne ozone)
This article seems to do a pretty good explanation--
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Picture_framing_glass

[DougDolde]

Breathing Color's Timeless Matte works on matte papers. Just apply a thin even coat with a 6" foam roller.

[deanwork]

Maybe so but that certainly isn't what Wilhelm is publishing.

With the paper- color ink combination that I am using today z3200 Canson Rag photo-

His figures are 85 years no glass
246 years behind glass
>450 years behind uv glass.

In reports in the past he has shown the same doubling that the number uv glass shows when using premiere art uv spray. It's hard to imagine that much ozone contamination going on in these short accelerated tests....mabe

I think that regular window glass blocks about 80%-90% of the UV. The "UV" glass I think adds another 10% protection. Wilhelm also used to show fade rates with and without glass protection. I  think the glass tests were implemented after the "orange fade" problem  of Epson dye inks from ozone, about 15 years ago. (the glass supposedly helped protect against airborne ozone)
This article seems to do a pretty good explanation--
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Picture_framing_glass

[John Nollendorfs]

Maybe so but that certainly isn't what Wilhelm is publishing.

With the paper- color ink combination that I am using today z3200 Canson Rag photo-

His figures are 85 years no glass
246 years behind glass
>450 years behind uv glass.

In reports in the past he has shown the same doubling that the number uv glass shows when using premiere art uv spray. It's hard to imagine that much ozone contamination going on in these short accelerated tests....mabe

I haven't looked at Wilhelm's page lately, but it can make sense. Remember, our coated papers are "microporous" to absorb the ink, so if you don't seal the microporous surface with glass, or a spray, it's open to atmospheric contaminants. Ozone is one of the most comon and harmful to dyes and pigments alike. While he's not attributing the fade figures to atmospheric  polutants, my reasoning is that they are responsible for the shortened life of the unprotected prints in combination with the light fading. I once had a paper manufacturer tell me that using even lacquer hair spray would double the life of microporous papers.

[deanwork]

Yes we have known for many years that inkjet receptor coatings are like a magnet for airborne contaminants, but I was talking about the disparity between uv glass ( and uv coatings) and regular framing glass. All of his tests show twice the longevity for uv glass vs regular glass ( and his tests of Premere Art spray showed the same thing vs regular glass in the past.)  there haven't been enough tests of the uv sprays, where we are looking at the same ink-media combination with and without the sprays.

I haven't looked at Wilhelm's page lately, but it can make sense. Remember, our coated papers are "microporous" to absorb the ink, so if you don't seal the microporous surface with glass, or a spray, it's open to atmospheric contaminants. Ozone is one of the most comon and harmful to dyes and pigments alike. While he's not attributing the fade figures to atmospheric  polutants, my reasoning is that they are responsible for the shortened life of the unprotected prints in combination with the light fading. I once had a paper manufacturer tell me that using even lacquer hair spray would double the life of microporous papers.

[deanwork]

If you want your prints to look plastic. It also destroys your dmax. I've done many tests on many matte papers and they all looked horrible. I wanted to do some large mounted prints but that Timeles  destroyed the character of the papers. I also tried Satin and gloss.  You might as well be printing on rc papers, and those would look much better too.

Breathing Color's Timeless Matte works on matte papers. Just apply a thin even coat with a 6" foam roller.

[mearussi]

So is that also true of uv glass and uv plexi protection?

They don't appear to effect color gamut or contrast in any noticeable way and they certainly do the job.

Wilhelm's many tests of prints on various media with various inksets show uv glass doubling the fade figures of protection compare to regular glass. That includes media like Canson Rag Photo that have no oba content.

Some of the glass advertised as UV can add a slight yellowish cast to the image, though I suppose you could correct for that in the initial print by making it a little on the blue side.

[deanwork]

Interesting, I didn't know that, and regular glass usually has a slight green tint, some of it very green. Most people I know use plexi but the museum acrylic is beyond being affordable for most of us for large work. Large glass is much too heavy.

Some of the glass advertised as UV can add a slight yellowish cast to the image, though I suppose you could correct for that in the initial print by making it a little on the blue side.

[mearussi]

Interesting, I didn't know that, and regular glass usually has a slight green tint, some of it very green. Most people I know use plexi but the museum acrylic is beyond being affordable for most of us for large work. Large glass is much too heavy.

Yeah. Have you ever bought a UV filter for a lens and noticed it has a slight yellowish tint? And the stronger the UV filtration the yellower the filter is. Same thing with picture framing glass. BTW, the glass with a greenish tint is just regular window glass. Regular picture frame glass has no color cast. So if someone ever tries to sell you glass with a greenish tint and tells you it's picture framing glass, they're just lying to you and checking your level of ignorance.

But using acrylic has its own set of problems. Not only does it have the same reflection problem as regular glass but it also scratches easily (BTW, "scratch resistant" acrylic will still easily scratch, just not quite an easily as regular acrylic, but at 2x the price), and if not wiped on the inside before framing with an anti-static cloth, carries a strong static electric charge that attracts dust on the inside of the acrylic. Plus it's also not ridged like glass, so the larger the piece of Plexiglas required the thicker it needs to be. This also makes it more expensive and heavier. And if you try to get around this thicker requirement it will bow in the center and can touch your photo if the mat or spacer is not thick enough. TANSTAAFL

All these problems are why I (and others) have been switching over to either gallery wrapped canvas or just mounting the photo on a ridged board (in my case acrylic) and applying a protective overcoat. 

[deanwork]

It's been 17 years or so since I used regular glass for framing so I haven't thought about it for a long time.

For my own work I dry mount the prints to 8 ply rag board and frame in a thick shadow box wooden frame with rag board spacers and plexiglas. If they are larger than 20x30 I use dibond mounting.  Occasionally I will use water white glass for smaller things and this stuff is so clear and sharp that there is no way you can tell it had any thing over the print, totally glare and reflection free. It doesn't have a uv filter. But it is very expensive.  These days most of my clients mount to 1/8 inch dibond for exhibition and either frame without any plexi by putting a wooden rectangular stabilizing unit for hanging on the back which prevents any warping and either use a thin frame or none at all.We do a lot of 40x60 prints this way and the prints look so clean and sharp.  We have a great mounting company here that does precision work. That is critical for clean edges. Most mounting companies are a disaster. I spray th prints with Hahnemühle spray. If the work is sold they are put in a big shadow box frame with Plexi or use mats. It's all a lot more expensive and much heavier than canvas .

Yeah. Have you ever bought a UV filter for a lens and noticed it has a slight yellowish tint? And the stronger the UV filtration the yellower the filter is. Same thing with picture framing glass. BTW, the glass with a greenish tint is just regular window glass. Regular picture frame glass has no color cast. So if someone ever tries to sell you glass with a greenish tint and tells you it's picture framing glass, they're just lying to you and checking your level of ignorance.

But using acrylic has its own set of problems. Not only does it have the same reflection problem as regular glass but it also scratches easily (BTW, "scratch resistant" acrylic will still easily scratch, just not quite an easily as regular acrylic, but at 2x the price), and if not wiped on the inside before framing with an anti-static cloth, carries a strong static electric charge that attracts dust on the inside of the acrylic. Plus it's also not ridged like glass, so the larger the piece of Plexiglas required the thicker it needs to be. This also makes it more expensive and heavier. And if you try to get around this thicker requirement it will bow in the center and can touch your photo if the mat or spacer is not thick enough. TANSTAAFL

All these problems are why I (and others) have been switching over to either gallery wrapped canvas or just mounting the photo on a ridged board (in my case acrylic) and applying a protective overcoat.

[dgberg]

Protection coatings more likely protect against gas fading of colorants, including the brightening agents, than block UV light. The layer thickness of the protection coats are not enough to filter UV out and when they would you would notice a gamut drop.

Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst

http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
March 2017 update, 750+ inkjet media white spectral plots

As a 30 year finisher in our cabinetry business I agree 100% at least for our furniture finish product.
The solvent based catalized laquer  we use has a UV tag on all the labels, except it is meant to keep the product from yellowing over time. The solvent finish is called water white meaning it will not yellow over time.
Has nothing to do with protecting anything underneath. Spraying this product over cherry has no effect on the wood darkening with a beautiful patina over time.
Have always been a skeptic of uv coatings protecting anything underneath from fading.
The question begs is the same thing going on with canvas coatings that is happening with furniture finishes.

[deanwork]

When the Fuji Chrystal Archive type C papers came along in the late 90s they proved to be a significant improvement in regard to light fading compared to all type c papers before them. Their product utilized a uv filter built into the emulsion somehow, they advertised. Wilhelms tests gave them a figure I believe of 60 years compared to 18 years for Kodak if I remember correctly. The one big improvement that I have seen is in the white paper base where all of my old Kodak c prints have yellowed while the Fuji prints 20 years old now have not changed.

[John Nollendorfs]

These days most of my clients mount to 1/8 inch dibond for exhibition and either frame without any plexi by putting a wooden rectangular stabilizing unit for hanging on the back which prevents any warping and either use a thin frame or none at all.We do a lot of 40x60 prints this way and the prints look so clean and sharp.  We have a great mounting company here that does precision work. That is critical for clean edges. Most mounting companies are a disaster. I spray th prints with Hahnemühle spray. If the work is sold they are put in a big shadow box frame with Plexi or use mats. It's all a lot more expensive and much heavier than canvas .

Instead of the rattle can Hahnemule spray, you might experiment with spraying Rosco  Clear Acrylic Gloss diluted 1:1. It takes experience and experimentation to put down the spray in a "dusting" manner so the paper finish is not covered up in an "ugly" way. Forget worrying about UV unless the client insists displaying the piece in full sunlight, and even there the best you might expect is maybe 5-10 years without visible fade, if you are lucky.

The problem with glass & Plexi, of course is the reflections. So unless you have a museum environment where the lighting can be vary controlled, I hate glass & plexi. I have been tending more and more either Canvas with a light protective spray of the Rosco (2 coats), or luster RC with no protection, mounted like you note above.

[Frodo]

Thanks friends for a very informative discussion.
My question actually related to the longevity of the Crystal Clear spray itself.  For example, does it yellow over time?  I've never heard this criticism of the Hahnemuhle or Print Shield sprays.
I'm happy with the limited changes to the appearance of the Epson Cold Press Natural prints, especially Dmax.  I presume Crystal Clear increases the scuff resistance of the prints and will tolerate a careful wiping down - I will test that shortly.
And I like how my prints look mounted without glass between the viewer and the photo.
But I don't to save a few pennies, use non-OBA paper and good inks, take care with mounting, and then have a print go yellow after a few years. 

[deanwork]

The beauty of the Aardenburg tests is that you can see exactly how much yellowing or darkening the  paper base exhibits and exactly when it happens in regard to the light exposure for a specific media.

Personally I wouldn't use any spray that hasn't been vetted by a cross section of tests over a period of time. The Hahnemühle spray and the Premere Art sprays have always been marketed as "non-yellowing" and the tests I've seen have confirmed this. How long they add to the protection of uv burnout I believe is still an open question.

Thanks friends for a very informative discussion.
My question actually related to the longevity of the Crystal Clear spray itself.  For example, does it yellow over time?  I've never heard this criticism of the Hahnemuhle or Print Shield sprays.
I'm happy with the limited changes to the appearance of the Epson Cold Press Natural prints, especially Dmax.  I presume Crystal Clear increases the scuff resistance of the prints and will tolerate a careful wiping down - I will test that shortly.
And I like how my prints look mounted without glass between the viewer and the photo.
But I don't to save a few pennies, use non-OBA paper and good inks, take care with mounting, and then have a print go yellow after a few years.

[Ryan Mack]

I just noticed WIR posted data for UltraChrome HDX earlier this month. I wonder if there's Lucia Pro data coming soon. One can hope!