Glazing and reflections

[sbay]

I have a spot in my house where I'd like to hang a photo but it's directly opposite a very large window (the whole wall essentially). I put a tru-life acrylic facemount there but the reflections are not great (even with the tru-life). Would a matt print framed with museum glass fare any better? Optium would be the same as tru-life? What are my options here?

[chez]

Frame without any glass. I've been doing this for years at home without any issues. No matter what glass you use, there will always be a degradation of the print from different viewing angles.

[dgberg]

Canvas, matte or semigloss. No reflection worries.

[PeterAit]

Frame without any glass. I've been doing this for years at home without any issues. No matter what glass you use, there will always be a degradation of the print from different viewing angles.

My thought exactly. It's a photo, you can make another if it gets damaged. If I had an original Strand or Weston it would be a different matter!

[sbay]

So museum glass is unlikely to be any better?

Canvas is possibility but I generally prefer paper. I can also skip the glass for my own pictures but that won't be an option for other work.

Any thoughts on prints with a laminate coating or some kind of sealant? like you see with plaque mounted or prints adhered to dibond (e.g. bayphoto's epic prints)?

[Paul_Roark]

I have sold display prints through a gallery for years that are sprayed with 4 coats of Premier Art's Print Shield, dry mounted, and then framed without glazing.  I have never had any of these get damaged in my home, nor have I ever heard from a customer about any damage.  I use Red River satin paper.  The highlights are very diffuse.  I have also used matte paper behind museum glass.  I'm looking at examples of both approaches on my office walls now.  While both look good, the sprayed, satin paper has slightly higher dynamic range (deeper blacks). 

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

[Randy Carone]

Paul, why do you need to spray a photo that is not behind glass? Does it change the look of the chosen media?

[MichaelKoerner]

Paul, why do you need to spray a photo that is not behind glass? Does it change the look of the chosen media?

Different thread, good answer:

I don't know how you can get around not coating any canvas ink jet print for maximum light fastness and durability! AFAIK, most inkjet media is  coated with a nano porous receptor coating, that is quite susceptible to atmospheric polutants, especially Ozone. This will attack pigments and dyes. This is why prints need to be sealed under glass, or coated to seal the nanoporous surface.

[Paul_Roark]

Paul, why do you need to spray a photo that is not behind glass? Does it change the look of the chosen media?

Sealing the microporous surface is the main reason for the spray.  After spraying, for example, water will run off the surface.  So, I think it simply makes the print much more durable.

It may increase fade resistance, but with my primarily carbon inkset (black and white printing only), that's not something I worry about anyway.

It does slightly change the appearance of the surface, but it's still a "satin" finish.  Bright reflections are diffuse enough to see through.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

[deanwork]

Premiere Art uv spray is not robust enough to protect a print overtime  from pollutants in the air. As Mark at Aardenburg has written.

Over 20 years I never had a client have an issue except once when he showed some prints of mine that had three coats of the Premiere Art spray and showed with no other protection.  He pinned to a gallery wall and within one month they not only changed in regard to density but also turned a sick sepia color. They were Vivera bw neutral prints. They did this in three different locations. That freaked me out.  All Canson Rag Photographique. Could Baryta surface fare better, don’t know.

Mark has noted that the inkjet receptor coatings attract environmental contaminants like a sponge. This includes ozone from air conditioners, chemicals from floor cleaners, heating system fumes,wood burning  fire places,etc, etc. These prints were shown with magnets, not mounted. It was really bad. One mounted and shown in a home also changed color and actually started fading.

Thing is , rc prints most likely hold up a lot better. Naked like that, most likely.

It is very common for people to mount larger  rc prints to dibond for exhibitions and have no issues. They might last for several years or decades, don’t know. Nobody does these tests scientifically that I know of.

Like the guy said, canvas coated with the very good uv acrylic/laytex varnish like bc timeless are very stable.  I have convinced some clients to do this for large things where framing and plexi can be really expensive. Other great feature is NO reflections.

John

Sealing the microporous surface is the main reason for the spray.  After spraying, for example, water will run off the surface.  So, I think it simply makes the print much more durable.

It may increase fade resistance, but with my primarily carbon inkset (black and white printing only), that's not something I worry about anyway.

It does slightly change the appearance of the surface, but it's still a "satin" finish.  Bright reflections are diffuse enough to see through.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

[Richard.Wills]

I've seen this with HPhotorag and Canson rag papers. In each case, the gallery walls had been painted withing the previous couple of weeks with low VOC paints. Putting the prinst out in bright sunshine for half an hour cured the sickness.
 

Premiere Art uv spray is not robust enough to protect a print overtime  from pollutants in the air. As Mark at Aardenburg has written.

Over 20 years I never had a client have an issue except once when he showed some prints of mine that had three coats of the Premiere Art spray and showed with no other protection.  He pinned to a gallery wall and within one month they not only changed in regard to density but also turned a sick sepia color. They were Vivera bw neutral prints. They did this in three different locations. That freaked me out.  All Canson Rag Photographique. Could Baryta surface fare better, don’t know.

Mark has noted that the inkjet receptor coatings attract environmental contaminants like a sponge. This includes ozone from air conditioners, chemicals from floor cleaners, heating system fumes,wood burning  fire places,etc, etc. These prints were shown with magnets, not mounted. It was really bad. One mounted and shown in a home also changed color and actually started fading.

John

[deanwork]

Interesting. That could have been it, or someone using highly toxic floor cleaners during the show.

Strange thing was some of them not only turned that sepia color but also actually faded density. That was a first ( and hopefully last ) for me.

I know one thing, I have clients nearly every month who want big prints to mount on dibond and show with no frames or plexi. I always emphasize that I will coat them with Premiere Art but they should Never sell anything done that way that isn’t behind plexi unless the client has their own framing done.  They seem to understand that.

Very few of my clients will accept canvas, and that’s really too bad, but I understand.

John

I've seen this with HPhotorag and Canson rag papers. In each case, the gallery walls had been painted withing the previous couple of weeks with low VOC paints. Putting the prinst out in bright sunshine for half an hour cured the sickness.

[sbay]

Like the guy said, canvas coated with the very good uv acrylic/laytex varnish like bc timeless are very stable.  I have convinced some clients to do this for large things where framing and plexi can be really expensive. Other great feature is NO reflections.

There are some products sealed with a laminate (e.g. duraplaq and similar) which I think would do a better job than spray coatings but I don't have any personal experience with them nor any info on objective testing. Also unsure how they do reflection wise. Maybe time to get some test prints.

[deanwork]

We have a local shop that does very good uv satin or gloss lamination. I just can’t convince many clients to use it. The big down side with that is the dmax is significantly reduced but for much color work it could work fine.
Man it really protects them. But man are they protected against everything.

I have a friend here in Atlanta who installed a big bw photo installation at the international airport 25 years ago.
She had giant bw rc prints made and laminated and put in cool custom metal frames. Only satin lamination and no plexi. They are all hung up very high under a giant skylight. Since they were silver prints done on that Ilford rc paper in a processor that had horrible fade resistance, according to Wilhelm, etc.  I expected them to fade or stain in a few years. But they still look great. Now this is a huge amount of uv light hitting them every day for years and years . Lamination is really impressive if they can improve the tonal contrast issue. It would save us all a lot of expense and grief. No frames, no plexi, no matting necessary. Somebody could make a lot of money selling that. It’s time lamination is evolved for the new era.

John

There are some products sealed with a laminate (e.g. duraplaq and similar) which I think would do a better job than spray coatings but I don't have any personal experience with them nor any info on objective testing. Also unsure how they do reflection wise. Maybe time to get some test prints.

[MichaelKoerner]

In my experience, lamination requires very smooth paper surfaces in order to avoid clouding effects.

With regard to the reduced dmax, wouldn't that lead to results similar to industrial uv or solvent inks? If yes, I'd stick to that.

Is there lamination material supporting the advantages of aqueous inkjet printing - surfaces, dmax, gamut?

[Richard.Wills]

The discontinued Hotpress satin matt laminate is the best I've found, and I've tried about a dozen alternatives. Not a dead matt, nearer to a Fuji matt c-type. Recently got all the remaining rolls from the manufacturer's warehouse (at half the price we'd been paying from the distributors). Turns matt vinyl into a photographic output. It's 40 or 50 micron, not texture, and good for around 3-6 years outdoor (depending on location).
Mostly use it on IJM538 vinyl, as well as Canson Lustre, and scrim banner!
I did a portfolio for someone years ago, where we laminated the front and back of HPR308. Kept most of the texture and clarity, and increased the dmax. But I would say the result was only about 10%"better" than using a lesser paper.

[deanwork]

Thanks.

The papers I’ve had lamination done on are Canson Rag Photographique mostly, color and bw, and Canson Photo Satin Premium rc. These were 44x60 and smaller. Both worked perfectly except for the dmax graying out, satin surface.  The loss of contrast is mostly obvious with bw.

They were also mounted to dibond or Sentra I believe . 

If anyone else knows of a better available new laminate I’d love to test it. I’m not doing it myself but a local company that does very good mounting. People would save a huge amount of money by avoiding framing and plexi in the very large sizes.

John

The discontinued Hotpress satin matt laminate is the best I've found, and I've tried about a dozen alternatives. Not a dead matt, nearer to a Fuji matt c-type. Recently got all the remaining rolls from the manufacturer's warehouse (at half the price we'd been paying from the distributors). Turns matt vinyl into a photographic output. It's 40 or 50 micron, not texture, and good for around 3-6 years outdoor (depending on location).
Mostly use it on IJM538 vinyl, as well as Canson Lustre, and scrim banner!
I did a portfolio for someone years ago, where we laminated the front and back of HPR308. Kept most of the texture and clarity, and increased the dmax. But I would say the result was only about 10%"better" than using a lesser paper.

[Rand47]

Most of my work is mounted and famed w/ the best art glass my framer can source.  It works well, but is both heavy for large prints, and obscenely expensive.

Just for fun, and to have samples to show clients, I’ve had several large prints made on Ilford Gold Fibre Silk mounted and laminated.  ColorPlak is located in my general area and I’ve had them do both matte finish and “leather finish” laminate.  After a test, I found that if I use a curves layer on a “finished” and soft proofed file, and then give it a mid tone (pick a point exactly in the center of the flat curve line) “bump” of about 10% (leaving the end points alone) that I get a laminated print that looks like an unlaminated print.  And, believer it or not, ColorPlak says to use Pledge furniture spray on the laminate.  I tried it, it helps a lot.  I’m actually surprised at how good the prints look.  I was expecting “cheese ball” kind of appearance compared to a “fine art print” - but I don’t get that at all.  They look really nice.  And for clients who will be displaying the work in public places (think hospitals, offices, etc.) the surface of the print can be dusted regularly or even wiped down with a damp microfiber with no issues.

Rand

[MichaelKoerner]

Rand, thanks for sharing your experiences. I will run some lamination tests - looking forward the use of furniture spray, of course :-)

[deanwork]

Thanks Rand,

Interesting.

Could you find out what the brand of laminate is? The “ leather surface” sounds a lot like the satin laminate used here. I’m not wild about the texture at all but for large things it would be fine. To me the gloss they offer is too plastic looking, like cibachrome ish.

I don’t really have any issue with the tonal ramp or even the color saturation.  The problem with the stuff I had laminated was the poor dmax ( or I should say gray max ). It’s really a factor with nice bw on nice papers.

I’m so sick of people paying three times the cost of my prints for framing that I’m about to encourage anything for large prints. Paying that much for plexi that has all the bad reflections is getting crazy.

John

Most of my work is mounted and famed w/ the best art glass my framer can source.  It works well, but is both heavy for large prints, and obscenely expensive.

Just for fun, and to have samples to show clients, I’ve had several large prints made on Ilford Gold Fibre Silk mounted and laminated.  ColorPlak is located in my general area and I’ve had them do both matte finish and “leather finish” laminate.  After a test, I found that if I use a curves layer on a “finished” and soft proofed file, and then give it a mid tone (pick a point exactly in the center of the flat curve line) “bump” of about 10% (leaving the end points alone) that I get a laminated print that looks like an unlaminated print.  And, believer it or not, ColorPlak says to use Pledge furniture spray on the laminate.  I tried it, it helps a lot.  I’m actually surprised at how good the prints look.  I was expecting “cheese ball” kind of appearance compared to a “fine art print” - but I don’t get that at all.  They look really nice.  And for clients who will be displaying the work in public places (think hospitals, offices, etc.) the surface of the print can be dusted regularly or even wiped down with a damp microfiber with no issues.

Rand