Poll

Are Microporous Papers fine art matte papers less archival

Yes
- 1 (33.3%)
No
- 2 (66.7%)

Total Members Voted: 3


Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: microporous papers more susceptible to atmospheric pollutants than cast/coated?  (Read 1279 times)

pixeldoppelganger

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 29

I've been trying to find this answer online, I'm not sure I've found a definite answer here... 
Logically, I feel like they are PROBABLY more absorbent of atmospheric gases/pollutants than cast and coated fine art matte papers.

Which is fine, as long as one spray protects the paper   (but sadly no spray keeps full Dmax in rich blacks)


thoughts??
Logged

Ernst Dinkla

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4005

https://caring4art.wordpress.com/2016/09/01/temporary-yellowing-of-inkjet-paper-coatings/

It sums up most causes of paper yellowing. Air pollutants formed by candles and open fires (Xmas time) are a well known source. A thin protective spray layer could help like it does help to reduce oxidation of OBA content, another possible cause of paperwhite color shifts. Framing behind glass protects more though. Aardenburg Imaging has some articles on the subject.

Ernst, op de lei getypt.
Logged

mearussi

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 787

I've been trying to find this answer online, I'm not sure I've found a definite answer here... 
Logically, I feel like they are PROBABLY more absorbent of atmospheric gases/pollutants than cast and coated fine art matte papers.

Which is fine, as long as one spray protects the paper   (but sadly no spray keeps full Dmax in rich blacks)


thoughts??
Which sprays have you tried?
Logged

Paul_Roark

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 119

Which sprays have you tried?

http://www.premierimagingproducts.com/print-shield/

All wall display photos I sell have 4 coats of Print Shield acrylic spray on them.   I use Red River UltraPro Satin paper, from a large roll.  (https://www.redrivercatalog.com/browse/roll-inkjet-photo-paper.html)

I tried a number of sprays and found Print Shield worked best for me.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com
Logged

MfAlab

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 162
  • Modern Fine Art printing laboratory
    • HSU fine print

Which sprays have you tried?

I've tested 30+ protection sprays. Yes, it's kind of trade off between protection and density on matte papers. But everybody has different standards, minor decrease of Dmax might not be a problem for someone.
Logged
Kang-Wei Hsu
digital printing & color management
fixative tests preview: https://reurl.cc/OVGDmr

Ernst Dinkla

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4005

Which sprays have you tried?

On matte art papers Talens 680 protective spray, which can not be used on RC papers as it interacts with the polyethylene layer. Smells though.


Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst

www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm


Logged

Paul_Roark

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 119

On matte art papers Talens 680 protective spray, ...

www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm

Does that matte paper spray reduce the dmax?  I tried some years ago and found the ones I tried did.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com
Logged

Ernst Dinkla

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4005

Does that matte paper spray reduce the dmax?  I tried some years ago and found the ones I tried did.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

Paul,
It does reduce Dmax, like almost any protective spray. The varnish particle size, the nozzle quality, the drying speed are the main factors whether the coat disperses into the  inkjet coating and by that keep the Dmax. I think the more Dmax remains the less protection is achieved. It has been discussed before, pigment/ dye oxidation will be reduced but UV light will not be blocked much  by such thin layers.

Ernst, op de lei getypt.
Logged

MfAlab

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 162
  • Modern Fine Art printing laboratory
    • HSU fine print

Sennelier Latour for Soft Pastel or Schmincke Universal fixative has better performance on matte paper Dmax.

My fixative review: https://reurl.cc/OVGDmr
« Last Edit: December 15, 2023, 02:29:42 am by MfAlab »
Logged
Kang-Wei Hsu
digital printing & color management
fixative tests preview: https://reurl.cc/OVGDmr

alain

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 465

On matte art papers Talens 680 protective spray, which can not be used on RC papers as it interacts with the polyethylene layer. Smells though.


Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst

www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
Ernst

Are there protective sprays that don't interact with RC papers?

BTW. I've used Talens 680 on RC papers, but never noticed it.  How can I see the interacting?
Logged

MHMG

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1285

https://caring4art.wordpress.com/2016/09/01/temporary-yellowing-of-inkjet-paper-coatings/

It sums up most causes of paper yellowing. Air pollutants formed by candles and open fires (Xmas time) are a well known source. A thin protective spray layer could help like it does help to reduce oxidation of OBA content, another possible cause of paperwhite color shifts. Framing behind glass protects more though. Aardenburg Imaging has some articles on the subject.

Ernst, op de lei getypt.

The correct term not used in the cited article for the rapid inkjet paper yellowing problem is phenolic yellowing. I'm pretty sure the major fine art inkjet manufacturers know exactly what it is, but just don't want to say. Phenolic yellowing is a well known issue in the textile industry (e.g. yellowing of white and light colored garments during short and longer term storage in various plastic garment bags). Phenolic yellowing was never an issue with traditional silver gelatin prints, so most photo conservators and indeed, the museum and Archives community in general, is just starting to understand the phenolic yellowing problem with respect to microporous inkjet media.

I mentioned the chemistry "ingredients" needed to cause phenolic yellowing of microporous inkjet papers in an article I wrote a couple of years ago. See the section "Avoid dry mount tissues" starting on page 33:

https://www.aardenburg-imaging.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/Aardenburg-Imaging-Adhesive-Free-Picture-Framing-Technique.pdf

Basically, one needs to have three ingredients present for rapid yellowing to occur. 1) an alkaline environment...microporous inkjet coatings supply this ingredient because they are quite alkaline by formulation, whereas traditional silver gelatin prints are essentially pH neutral or slightly acidic after proper processing. 2) phenolic compounds, eg., Butylated Hydroxytoluene (BHT) which is used in many plastic materials as an anti-oxidant, terpene phenols that appear to be used in widely recommended photo dry mount tissues (but the vendors won't disclose), and other adhesives to increase adhesive bond strength, etc.  3) NOx, which as you probably know is a gaseous byproduct of fossil fuel burning.

Because traditional photographs use a gelatin binder, the image binder layer is not porous thus it keeps the phenol compounds from penetrating into the gelatin binder, whereas microporous inkjet is exactly as described, i.e., presenting massive surface area at the microporous level to suck up the ink but also making the image binder susceptible to vapor phase deposition of the phenolic compounds. Then along comes some exposure to NOx from our modern industrial society, and phenolic yellowing can indeed appear in a matter of days.

If caught early enough the light bleaching recommendation can reverse it because the phenolic yellow stain is rather light fugitive, but some of my experiments show that in advanced stages the light bleaching trick is not entirely effective. Moreover, if you catch the problem in the early stages and light bleach it away, it can and will return if the causal agents are not eliminated.

Top coats like Hahnemuhle Protective Spray probably help reduce the problem, but I doubt they totally eliminate the phenolic yellowing problem because they don't totally seal the micropores.  Harmful gases can penetrate through the back side of a fiber based print, and even from the front since these top coats can't be applied very thick or the desired texture of the fine art media gets altered in a noticeable and usually objectionable way.  More testing is needed in this regard.

Lastly, I am working with Henry Duan at the National Archives in Washington DC along with other colleagues at the Image Permanence Institute in Rochester, NY to try to develop repeatable test methods that will help identify which media are more susceptible to phenolic yellowing as well as what enclosure materials are safe to use with inkjet media. It's a challenging research project to say the least, but I think it's the last big issue when we talk about archival inkjet prints. We've tackled light fast inks and long-lasting base papers. Many good fine art papers are now OBA-free (not a single RC paper, though), so one can relatively easily avoid the OBA problem unless you like resin coated(RC) papers. Now we just need to address better non yellowing inkjet receptor coatings, or at least provide better recommendations as to best environmental practices for long lasting prints.

Cheers,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com
« Last Edit: February 05, 2024, 11:43:52 pm by MHMG »
Logged

alain

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 465

...
Top coats like Hahnemuhle Protective Spray probably help reduce the problem, but I doubt they totally eliminate the phenolic yellowing problem because they don't totally seal the micropores.  Harmful gases can penetrate through the back side of a fiber based print, and even from the front since these top coats can't be applied very thick or the desired texture of the fine art media gets altered in a noticeable and usually objectionable way.  More testing is needed in this regard.
...

Cheers,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com

Do you see differences between Hahnemuhle Protective Spray  and Lascaux Fixative?
Would tin coats (light spraying) already have an effect?  I suppose it would "solve" bronzing issues and give a bit of abrasive resistance.

 
Logged

MHMG

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1285

Do you see differences between Hahnemuhle Protective Spray  and Lascaux Fixative?
Would tin coats (light spraying) already have an effect?  I suppose it would "solve" bronzing issues and give a bit of abrasive resistance.

 

Well, first off, some popular protective sprays for inkjet media are, IMO, more or less rebranded versions of the same basic formulation... e.g., Hahnemuhle Protective Spray, Premier Print Shield, Moab Desert Varnish. Who supplies who, I don't know, but when you see them in action and look at the ingredients on the can, it's pretty clear they are essentially the same product. One brand might have a better quality nozzle than another, but the chemistry is the same. Lascaux Fixative is indeed different from these others, but hard to say that it's overall better or worse. That said, I really like the fact that the acrylic resin used in Lascaux fixative is a known commodity, and the manufacturer should be commended for willingness to disclose what resin is in the product.  This resin, Paraloid B-72 has a long and venerable use by the museums and archives conservation community dating back to the 1950s. Non yellowing properties are well documented. 

The common factor with all of these protective sprays is that they are very low viscosity formulations, meaning low resin content and high solvent content.  Even with two or three coats, the final protective coating thickness is less than .001" (1 mil) thick. It affords some abrasion resistance, does indeed settle differential gloss and bronzing issues, but just isn't thick enough nor is the acrylic resin penetrating enough into the microporous inkjet receptor layer to entirely seal the surface from moisture migration or gaseous contaminants like ozone, phenolic compounds in vapor phase, etc. So, there are some benefits, but with limits. For me, the clear benefit is elimination of the bronzing and gloss differential on glossy/luster media. That's why I will use protective sprays, but no free lunch. They are probably more expensive than one's inkjet inks on a properly applied per square inch of print surface.

One factor I was looking for in my research when I purchased some Lascaux fixative and other protective sprays was what level of hue change they imparted to dye-based inkjet prints. My study was rather limited, but I did come away with the belief that Lascaux fixative was the best one I found with regard to limiting the detrimental hue/chroma changes in the print. Chroma and visual contrast changes to the upside may well be welcomed by the printmaker, but hue shifts along with loss of chroma in selective colors is a negative outcome. One can certainly profile away any changes to the upside in hue or chroma, but when chroma gets lost, as it did in all of my tests, a new ICC profile can't fix that. Lascaux fixative, caused the least downside to color and tonal change, and it has to do with the solvent formulation, not the resin acrylic dispersed in said solvent. So, the rebranded versions of the same formula all behaved the same, whereas the Lascaux fixative performed differently and had the least detrimental impact of any I tried.

cheers,
Mark
Logged

alain

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 465

Well, first off, some popular protective sprays for inkjet media are, IMO, more or less rebranded versions of the same basic formulation... e.g., Hahnemuhle Protective Spray, Premier Print Shield, Moab Desert Varnish. Who supplies who, I don't know, but when you see them in action and look at the ingredients on the can, it's pretty clear they are essentially the same product. One brand might have a better quality nozzle than another, but the chemistry is the same. Lascaux Fixative is indeed different from these others, but hard to say that it's overall better or worse. That said, I really like the fact that the acrylic resin used in Lascaux fixative is a known commodity, and the manufacturer should be commended for willingness to disclose what resin is in the product.  This resin, Paraloid B-72 has a long and venerable use by the museums and archives conservation community dating back to the 1950s. Non yellowing properties are well documented. 

The common factor with all of these protective sprays is that they are very low viscosity formulations, meaning low resin content and high solvent content.  Even with two or three coats, the final protective coating thickness is less than .001" (1 mil) thick. It affords some abrasion resistance, does indeed settle differential gloss and bronzing issues, but just isn't thick enough nor is the acrylic resin penetrating enough into the microporous inkjet receptor layer to entirely seal the surface from moisture migration or gaseous contaminants like ozone, phenolic compounds in vapor phase, etc. So, there are some benefits, but with limits. For me, the clear benefit is elimination of the bronzing and gloss differential on glossy/luster media. That's why I will use protective sprays, but no free lunch. They are probably more expensive than one's inkjet inks on a properly applied per square inch of print surface.

One factor I was looking for in my research when I purchased some Lascaux fixative and other protective sprays was what level of hue change they imparted to dye-based inkjet prints. My study was rather limited, but I did come away with the belief that Lascaux fixative was the best one I found with regard to limiting the detrimental hue/chroma changes in the print. Chroma and visual contrast changes to the upside may well be welcomed by the printmaker, but hue shifts along with loss of chroma in selective colors is a negative outcome. One can certainly profile away any changes to the upside in hue or chroma, but when chroma gets lost, as it did in all of my tests, a new ICC profile can't fix that. Lascaux fixative, caused the least downside to color and tonal change, and it has to do with the solvent formulation, not the resin acrylic dispersed in said solvent. So, the rebranded versions of the same formula all behaved the same, whereas the Lascaux fixative performed differently and had the least detrimental impact of any I tried.

cheers,
Mark

Mark

Thank you very much for the extensive answer.

BTW. Ink cost is only 1 part of the costs. 
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up