Framing without glass- gallery possibly refusing to hang?

[elliot_n]

Well, not quite every image - think an original Paul Strand. But for most others, exactly right.

As it happens, I was researching Paul Strand yesterday, and found many high res images (Hasselblad H4D) of his prints online. Likewise Edward Weston and Frederick Sommer. Everything is reproducible.

[MHMG]

As it happens, I was researching Paul Strand yesterday, and found many high res images (Hasselblad H4D) of his prints online. Likewise Edward Weston and Frederick Sommer. Everything is reproducible.

Well, if you have a vintage signed print by Strand or Weston, I would be happy to take it off your hands in exchange for an exactingly reproduced facsimile of the same image on a new silver gelatin or "baryta" inkjet paper of your choice

[John Nollendorfs]

Most modern inkjet media are microporous to properly absorb the ink and dry almost instantaneously. The downside to not protecting inkjet images with glass, laminate or sprays, is that this leaves the image  open to atmospheric contaminates. Some of you may remember that Epson had a  problem with what was called "orange fade", 15-20 years ago, that was traced to ozone in the air causing dye inks printed on microporous papers to fade to orange colors within a week or two. Although modern pigmented inks have acrylic coated pigment particles to help prevent such fading, the open nature of microrous papers still presents this problem.

I agree that glazing distracts from images, especially with dark content. I chose to display my exhibiition prints with no protection, labeling them as "display copies". Anyone  purchasing prints receives new prints, made to their specifications. For small prints I encourage framing and matting with glazing. For larger prints, I recommend stretched canvas prints, that are sprayed with acrylic protective sprays.

[mearussi]

Most modern inkjet media are microporous to properly absorb the ink and dry almost instantaneously. The downside to not protecting inkjet images with glass, laminate or sprays, is that this leaves the image  open to atmospheric contaminates. Some of you may remember that Epson had a  problem with what was called "orange fade", 15-20 years ago, that was traced to ozone in the air causing dye inks printed on microporous papers to fade to orange colors within a week or two. Although modern pigmented inks have acrylic coated pigment particles to help prevent such fading, the open nature of microrous papers still presents this problem.

I agree that glazing distracts from images, especially with dark content. I chose to display my exhibiition prints with no protection, labeling them as "display copies". Anyone  purchasing prints receives new prints, made to their specifications. For small prints I encourage framing and matting with glazing. For larger prints, I recommend stretched canvas prints, that are sprayed with acrylic protective sprays.

Microporous paper prints can easily be sprayed with Moab, Hahnemuhle or Premier Art spray and be fully protected from atmospheric pollutants.

[gchappel]

Still learning a lot.  I do not have a good area to spray large prints, so I would be looking for a non spray solution.  I may try laminations, as I do have access to a cold roller.   But, again, I am not sure what I am protecting from.  10yr old prints hanging without any protection still look great.
Gary

[deanwork]

Fully protected? Not at all.

I have seen prints done with the best Vivera gray inks on Canson Rag Photo turn brown when shown in a restaurant gallery for a couple of months with no plexi and also pinned on the wall of an art department office. They were all sprayed with three coats on the front with the Hahnemuhle uv spray. The same prints in a portfolio were not changed at all.

There are so many kinds of pollutants floating around that we can’t detect, such as from air conditioners, heaters, cleaning chemicals, autos, etc,etc, that we are just beginning to learn about.

I’m not against people mounting to dibond with a cold adhesive , spraying the front with the solvent uv sprays and showing briefly in a gallery. I’ve printed shows shown that way, but you are taking a risk,  so just beware, and never ever let the gallery sell them to hang permanently that way. These receptor coatings are magnets for all toxins. Rc papers are a little better protected, but I personally would never recommend hanging one of those without plexi for very long either. Just because you have not had issues doing this doesn’t mean it’s safe.

I wish it was as easy to spray these prints with a good canvas acrylic latex varnish like Timeless, or have them laminated with a satin laminating material, but that just destroys the dmax and surface of the print. If you are going to do that you might as well print on plastic paper because that’s what they look like. I’ve tried it many times.

Believe me we will be hearing a lot more about this in the future. Wilhelms “ bare bulb” years of display figure are a joke in my opinion. It all depends on the particular location the work is being hung in, and that varies widely!

I would much rather frame a print with the plexi touching the face of the print in a show than leaving them naked with just the spray.

John

Microporous paper prints can easily be sprayed with Moab, Hahnemuhle or Premier Art spray and be fully protected from atmospheric pollutants.

[enduser]

Wilhelm's tests are "comparative" tests, a well regarded way of comparing products under consistent testing conditions. That way, the better performing products can be compared with everything else - the only variable in tests being the paper/ink sample being tested.

[deanwork]

Bare bulb in an atmospherically isolated controlled setting is not the real world. Just so people realize that.

Wilhelm's tests are "comparative" tests, a well regarded way of comparing products under consistent testing conditions. That way, the better performing products can be compared with everything else - the only variable in tests being the paper/ink sample being tested.

[dgberg]

Fully protected? Not at all.

I have seen prints done with the best Vivera gray inks on Canson Rag Photo turn brown when shown in a restaurant gallery for a couple of months with no plexi and also pinned on the wall of an art department office. They were all sprayed with three coats on the front with the Hahnemuhle uv spray. The same prints in a portfolio were not changed at all.

There are so many kinds of pollutants floating around that we can’t detect, such as from air conditioners, heaters, cleaning chemicals, autos, etc,etc, that we are just beginning to learn about.

I’m not against people mounting to dibond with a cold adhesive , spraying the front with the solvent uv sprays and showing briefly in a gallery. I’ve printed shows shown that way, but you are taking a risk,  so just beware, and never ever let the gallery sell them to hang permanently that way. These receptor coatings are magnets for all toxins. Rc papers are a little better protected, but I personally would never recommend hanging one of those without plexi for very long either. Just because you have not had issues doing this doesn’t mean it’s safe.

I wish it was as easy to spray these prints with a good canvas acrylic latex varnish like Timeless, or have them laminated with a satin laminating material, but that just destroys the dmax and surface of the print. If you are going to do that you might as well print on plastic paper because that’s what they look like. I’ve tried it many times.

Believe me we will be hearing a lot more about this in the future. Wilhelms “ bare bulb” years of display figure are a joke in my opinion. It all depends on the particular location the work is being hung in, and that varies widely!

I would much rather frame a print with the plexi touching the face of the print in a show than leaving them naked with just the spray.

John

John brings up a very good point.
UV protection may not be the uv protection you think.
In my cabinetry days I sprayed hundreds of gallons if not thousands of catalized topcoat products, typically 5+ gallons a week.
The last 15 years we were using a water white (Not water based-called water white because it is crystal clear non yellowing.) conversion varnish with UV protection slathered all over the labels and document sheets.
My district salesman was in one week and I asked him about the UV protection as I wanted to know a little bit more about this to pass on to my customers.
His response was that the UV in the finish was to keep it from yellowing. To keep it's crystal clear finish and it had nothing to do with protecting the wood from
changing color from the sun. An eye opening statement to say the least.
Maybe the exact same thing is going on with the print sprays of today. Has nothing to do with protecting the print (From the sun) but everything to do with keeping the finish from yellowing..

[mearussi]

John brings up a very good point.
UV protection may not be the uv protection you think.
In my cabinetry days I sprayed hundreds of gallons if not thousands of catalized topcoat products, typically 5+ gallons a week.
The last 15 years we were using a water white (Not water based-called water white because it is crystal clear non yellowing.) conversion varnish with UV protection slathered all over the labels and document sheets.
My district salesman was in one week and I asked him about the UV protection as I wanted to know a little bit more about this to pass on to my customers.
His response was that the UV in the finish was to keep it from yellowing. To keep it's crystal clear finish and it had nothing to do with protecting the wood from
changing color from the sun. An eye opening statement to say the least.
Maybe the exact same thing is going on with the print sprays of today. Has nothing to do with protecting the print (From the sun) but everything to do with keeping the finish from yellowing..

The UV protection from those spray cans is certainly not as good as a water based coating, but it does help some. Jose did a test demonstrating this. But my primary purpose in using them is to add water resistance and some protection from atmospheric pollutants.  And spraying them is certainly better than leaving them unsprayed.

[petermfiore]

I would much rather frame a print with the plexi touching the face of the print in a show than leaving them naked with just the spray.

John

A print TOUCHING GLASS can trap moisture and cause blooming. It appears as a hazy film and will ruin any paper stock.

Peter

[deanwork]

I’ve come to realize that blue light, uv light, and light in general is not our biggest problem issue with these inkjet papers. Our biggest issue is toxins in the atmosphere which they are extremely sensitive to, even with the wrong adhesives in portfolio boxes or mounting materials.

Yes I do spray my prints but we really need to be spraying the back which is probably just as important.
We need to have more serious tests done, and the paper manufacturers who I’m sure are well aware of these things should be paying for it. It does little good to use a pigment rated at 200-400 Wilhelm  years
if the inkjet receptor coatings don’t hold up.

John

The UV protection from those spray cans is certainly not as good as a water based coating, but it does help some. Jose did a test demonstrating this. But my primary purpose in using them is to add water resistance and some protection from atmospheric pollutants.  And spraying them is certainly better than leaving them unsprayed.

[dgberg]

I agree 100% with regards to a protective coating from the everyday elements, fingerprints, dust, spray cleaners, etc.
Agree more with the Sherwin Williams expert that the UV coatings of today are not protecting what is underneath from fading.

[deanwork]

Analogue yes, but not inkjet prints sprayed with the uv sprays, in my experience of the last 10 years. Haven’t lost a one. But I have not framed rc prints that way, only fiber matte and gloss. And I always use plexi.

A print TOUCHING GLASS can trap moisture and cause blooming. It appears as a hazy film and will ruin any paper stock.

Peter

[petermfiore]

Analogue yes, but not inkjet prints sprayed with the uv sprays, in my experience of the last 10 years. Haven’t lost a one. But I have not framed rc prints that way, only fiber matte and gloss. And I always use plexi.

Great to know, Thanks...

Peter

[MHMG]

Wilhelm's tests are "comparative" tests, a well regarded way of comparing products under consistent testing conditions. That way, the better performing products can be compared with everything else - the only variable in tests being the paper/ink sample being tested.

Indeed, comparative only!  Here's my concern about expressing relative values on an absolute scale (i.e. years on display). How many people read about those 100+ year ratings and say, "Oh, ignore the years on display claims, just compare the results of one system to another on a relative basis only".

kind regards,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com