Backlit look from inkjet prints

[sanfairyanne]

Is it possible to get the Fujiflex high gloss look from inkjet prints. I've never actually seen a Fujiflex that wasn't face mounted to acrylic. So I assume the acrylic mounting is part of the process that gives the print the backlit look. It would seem to me that inkjet prints will offer print permanence far exceeding Chromagenic prints while also being far kinder to the environment - fewer chemicals. I'm UK based and Fujiflex is not widely available and is far from affordable. I'm also led to believe that a great inkjet print shot with a high resolution camera with a very sharp lens will surpass the sharpness of a contone Chromagenic print. So does anyone have thought / experience making inkjet prints that have the Peter Lik backlit look?
Many thanks in advance.

[deanwork]

Recently I did several large prints on the Epson Backlit transparency material for someone’s show. First I tried some of HPs best stuff because someone gave it to me, and it was a disaster in that it scratched and smeared super easily. What a mess. The Epson material was pretty easy to use and it was very durable. I was shocked to find out that the generic Epson icc profile worked great and matched my monitor on the HP z3200 both in terms of density and color. I used the HP matte film media setting. I think I did one test. These prints looked very nice and sharp in the led light box that was thin and not very heavy and with good light distribution.

The downside to both the Epson and HP backlit inkjet material is the maximum black sucks. It’s dark gray. So if you have significant areas of pure black it’s worthless. Someone on this site years ago tried to put two black inks in an Epson printer to overcome this and it didn’t work after months of trying things.

The other issue is permanence. I don’t think any of these have “fine art” level longevity. They are designed for short term commercial use. I emailed a guy who was head of a big company that sells many types of backlit film and he told me that the best of them were only good for a year or two. However, if you don’t have them on 12 -24 hours a day it could be a lot better. I’m not sure anyone knows………….?

But the one thing that I was most concerned about, the profiling was not an issue for me.

John

Is it possible to get the Fujiflex high gloss look from inkjet prints. I've never actually seen a Fujiflex that wasn't face mounted to acrylic. So I assume the acrylic mounting is part of the process that gives the print the backlit look. It would seem to me that inkjet prints will offer print permanence far exceeding Chromagenic prints while also being far kinder to the environment - fewer chemicals. I'm UK based and Fujiflex is not widely available and is far from affordable. I'm also led to believe that a great inkjet print shot with a high resolution camera with a very sharp lens will surpass the sharpness of a contone Chromagenic print. So does anyone have thought / experience making inkjet prints that have the Peter Lik backlit look?
Many thanks in advance.

[Wolfman]

You might want to look into Lumachrome prints from : https://www.nevadaartprinters.com  Checkout their site even though you are in the UK it might be informative.

[Lessbones]

It appears to me that OP's question isn't actually about backlit prints at all--  they're looking for something fujiflex equivalent (which is what Peter Lik used for a long time, although I think he's doing at least some work on inkjet now).

There are a couple of film materials that have that slightly metallic fujiflex look-- one is a lexjet self-adhesive, and another is called "Premium White Film" made by DotWorks--  Ilford (i think) used to make one as well, but i'm not sure that they still do.

The one big problem is that with pigment inks, that paper shine doesn't really come through.  In order for it to really look like fujiflex with that hyper-glossy feel, you'd have to use dye-based inks, since the particles are small enough to not cover over the surface texture.  But then you're into longevity issues with dyes....

[Jonathan Cross]

In the UK Whitewall do fujiflex prints. Just Google fujiflex whitewall

Jonathan

[sanfairyanne]

I'm going to visit White Wall in London next month.

[sanfairyanne]

You might want to look into Lumachrome





prints from : https://www.nevadaartprinters.com  Checkout their site even though you are in the UK it might be informative.

Thanks Wolfman.
I've researched Nevada Fine Art Printers unfortunately their shipping fee is too high for one print. I personally believe they have the best product with Lumachrome but as I live in the UK I'm charged huge shipping fees plus crazy import duties. It would be cheaper to fly return to the U.S

[sanfairyanne]

It appears to me that OP's question isn't actually about backlit prints at all--  they're looking for something fujiflex equivalent (which is what Peter Lik used for a long time, although I think he's doing at least some work on inkjet now).

There are a couple of film materials that have that slightly metallic fujiflex look-- one is a lexjet self-adhesive, and another is called "Premium White Film" made by DotWorks--  Ilford (i think) used to make one as well, but i'm not sure that they still do.

The one big problem is that with pigment inks, that paper shine doesn't really come through.  In order for it to really look like fujiflex with that hyper-glossy feel, you'd have to use dye-based inks, since the particles are small enough to not cover over the surface texture.  But then you're into longevity issues with dyes....

You are right I'm looking for something like a Lumachrome so I can have a wider color gamut, high print permanence and finer resolution.
I think I might be able to get somewhere close with an Epsom or Canon metallic paper

[NAwlins_Contrarian]

Is it possible to get the Fujiflex high gloss look from inkjet prints.

If you want an inkjet print on a material similar to FujiFlex SuperGloss wet prints (C prints / RA-4 process), i.e., prints on white film, then yes. The material I've used is Mitsubishi Pictorico Pro Hi-Gloss White Film, but I think Ilford and others have at least at times sold very similar materials. At least printed with dye inks, it has a relatively large gamut and generally looks very similar to the same image printed on FujiFlex SuperGloss. Some people have reported it loosing its look if printed with pigment inks, but I have no firsthand experience with pigment inks on inkjet-printable white film.

Note that FujiFlex SuperGloss is not really intended to be backlit. It's a relatively thin, but opaque, white materials. If you want printed transparencies for actual backlit display, that's a separate issue.

[arobinson7547]

Reminds me of the old Roland "Pet-G" material. (Roland HiFi Jet 500)

CMYKLcLmOG

[deanwork]

Yea the Mitsubishi Hi Gloss looks just like Cibachrome when you put a spot light on it. It has bright gamut , a lot of oba I think, but it looks impressive . 

It’s funny, back in the 80s we hoped for a color stable analogue color paper that wasn’t as plastic gloss looking as Cibachrome but good archival qualities  like it.  Now we want pigment prints that remake the Cibachrome look but end up being less permanent than good fiber satin inkjet media that we would have died for at that time.

Wish Epson would re-engineer their backlit material for light boxes . It’s sharp smooth and good. Only problem is the lack of a real max black to be as nice as DuraTrans.

Reminds me of the old Roland "Pet-G" material. (Roland HiFi Jet 500)

CMYKLcLmOG

[arobinson7547]

>Only problem is the lack of a real max black to be as nice as DuraTrans.<

I used an Epson 9600 (switched to Matte Black specifically for the purpose) and had amazing results with Inkjet Backlet media (I think OCE media, at the time).

The matte black made ALL the difference (Ctrl + L and enter .6 in the middle was my secret sauce at the time. Today it's a Barbieri LFP Series 3.)

[Randy Carone]

arobinson, I used to sell Roland printers and media. The PET-G was amazing material. Roland also marketed a Japanese back print backlit film that is spectacular. I tried hard to find the source with no luck. Front print backlit works OK in my light box but the Japanese material has super fine detail and the print doesn't look like much until it is mounted and lit. Wow. Since it is back printed there is no need for lamination since the back side is glossy and has no ink to damage. Regarding the PETG, I've printed and laminated with a thin polyester laminate, which yields prints that look just like Cibachrome, but with pigment ink. The poly lam doesn't work well on paper but the PETG is super stable so neither the print or lam change dimension with humidity changes. Pictorico white film works well for this application.

[arobinson7547]

I think that's the same as the Backlit I was using. the 'Print' side was matte the other side was shinny.  I started out REVERSE printing and putting the shinny side out/up. But after I really go the hang of it, I found no real difference once they got into the light box (Karibu bookstore, 8 backlits per store).

No difference between face up or down. The prints set on Plexi, there was a LOT of light and thin clear film clamped the Prints down.

No shortage of Diffusion light