Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5   Go Down

Author Topic: OUTDOOR INK LONGEVITY/PRINTER Questions - advice please  (Read 28395 times)

shadowblade

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2562
Re: OUTDOOR INK LONGEVITY/PRINTER Questions - advice please
« Reply #40 on: March 31, 2016, 04:21:48 am »

I'm so glad I walked away from the other outdoor one.  Until someone can guarantee at least 20-25 years, possibly 30, I think I'll pass on the outdoor work.

Not that they've made a commercial inkjet ink out of it yet, but nanoparticle-based plasmonic 'pigments' look promising for image permanence, both on a conceptual as well as a product-development level.

Since their colour is dependent on particle size rather than composition, they can be produced from gold, platinum, carbon or other inert element or compound that won't oxidise or otherwise lose/shift colour. Different materials will require different sizes and shapes to produce the same colour - everything from infrared to ultraviolet can be produced - but you can achieve most colours using the one material in different shapes and sizes. Trap it within an inkjet receptive layer (then stabilise the layer by encasing the whole thing in a durable polymer layer, e.g. by soaking it with Timeless) or suspend it in a polymer layer using a UV printer and you'll have an image that will never fade.

They're the reason why many stained glass windows don't lose colour, despite centuries in direct sunlight - they didn't know it back then, but the colouring agents used in some of the windows were, essentially, plasmonic pigments.

You can even take them a few steps further than normal pigments - as well as L*a*b* values, you can also adjust transparency, reflection and refraction, and have different absorption and scatter spectra (i.e. you could have a pigment that looks green, but gives you red light when backlit). Also, since particles can be customised to specific wavelengths rather than perceived colours, it becomes possible to print images that look 'correct' not only to ordinary trichromats (the majority, but by no means all, people), but also to bichromats (common in humans), tetrachromats (less common), trichromats with different sensitivities from the usual RGB, robotic 'eyes' with bichromat, tetrachromat or any other visual system or which even show different things depending on whether you're viewing it in infrared, visible light or ulraviolet. Which would go along very well with stacked-sensor, Foveon-style or other multilayer cameras, which have the potential to separate incoming light spectrally, into more than just three broad categories, without losing resolution.

More information:

http://download.springer.com/static/pdf/847/art%253A10.1007%252FBF03215244.pdf?originUrl=http%3A%2F%2Flink.springer.com%2Farticle%2F10.1007%2FBF03215244&token2=exp=1459409182~acl=%2Fstatic%2Fpdf%2F847%2Fart%25253A10.1007%25252FBF03215244.pdf%3ForiginUrl%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Flink.springer.com%252Farticle%252F10.1007%252FBF03215244*~hmac=59752157f2d2285ad99b13486023c6f3756766498167f98700de3884ce549e4e

http://nanocomposix.com/pages/plasmonics

http://nanocomposix.com/pages/color-engineering

And a similar concept, manipulating colour by burning nano-scale holes in a layer rather than adding nano-scale particles: http://www.gizmag.com/inkless-printing-nanoscale-color-metamaterial/37932/

Logged

Mark Lindquist

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1441
  • itís not about the photos we take - itís the ones we leave
    • LINDQUIST STUDIOS
Re: OUTDOOR INK LONGEVITY/PRINTER Questions - advice please
« Reply #41 on: March 31, 2016, 06:37:58 am »

Looks a lot like a Gigapan-style rotational panoramic setup. Or does it do something different, given you had to build it yourself?

The iimages I made for the diptych and triptych couldn't be done with a gigapan type unit.  The robots I build have high speed programable motion capabilities.  I don't want to go into much more detail since a certain degree of mystery is a big part of the mystique of the images.  Although the images are made with the use of robotics, it's not the whole story. 

Although technique and technical aspects are undoubtedly a large factor in creating such work, I draw the line at a certain point particularly as an image comes to fruition, both in capturing and finishing the work.

Are they technical - yes, but not to the degree of pushing beyond prevailing mostly proven available technology.  In that sense, they are obsolete before they are made.  I'm not interested in inventing process that is in the realm of scientists who are working on the cutting edge.  I am really just interested in pairing the technology that best works with my vision without overloading on the infinite possibilities that can be done.

I use the aspects of technology that are anathama to engineers; jitter and stutter, attempting to control those things to a degree that allows me to create my art.  While your information about glass and chemical coatings, nano-particles, etc., is intruiging, shadowblade, it's not yet practically available which is what I'm interested in.

Building robots, or machines to do work is something I'm mostly interested in based on 45+ years of building machines for my studio. Since I have contacts to do machining that I can't do in my machine shop, I can get things done that are beyond my abilities.  But experimenting with glass coatings is over my pay grade and not something I have a passion for.

I'll hope that someday a company will come out with an affordable process/product that is turn-key, rather than putting man-years into development myself.

Again, here is where I draw the line when it comes to making work.  The actualization of the object, the finished work must be ultimately controllable in order to meet deadlines. 

We live in an era of immense technological development.  As an artist working in several areas, I try to pick and choose my battles and to keep my vision paramount.  The rabbit-holes lead to warrens, and they can be vast and deep.

Mark

Logged

shadowblade

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2562
Re: OUTDOOR INK LONGEVITY/PRINTER Questions - advice please
« Reply #42 on: March 31, 2016, 07:14:04 am »

The iimages I made for the diptych and triptych couldn't be done with a gigapan type unit.  The robots I build have high speed programable motion capabilities.  I don't want to go into much more detail since a certain degree of mystery is a big part of the mystique of the images.  Although the images are made with the use of robotics, it's not the whole story. 

Although technique and technical aspects are undoubtedly a large factor in creating such work, I draw the line at a certain point particularly as an image comes to fruition, both in capturing and finishing the work.

Are they technical - yes, but not to the degree of pushing beyond prevailing mostly proven available technology.  In that sense, they are obsolete before they are made.  I'm not interested in inventing process that is in the realm of scientists who are working on the cutting edge.  I am really just interested in pairing the technology that best works with my vision without overloading on the infinite possibilities that can be done.

I use the aspects of technology that are anathama to engineers; jitter and stutter, attempting to control those things to a degree that allows me to create my art.  While your information about glass and chemical coatings, nano-particles, etc., is intruiging, shadowblade, it's not yet practically available which is what I'm interested in.

Building robots, or machines to do work is something I'm mostly interested in based on 45+ years of building machines for my studio. Since I have contacts to do machining that I can't do in my machine shop, I can get things done that are beyond my abilities.  But experimenting with glass coatings is over my pay grade and not something I have a passion for.

I'll hope that someday a company will come out with an affordable process/product that is turn-key, rather than putting man-years into development myself.

Again, here is where I draw the line when it comes to making work.  The actualization of the object, the finished work must be ultimately controllable in order to meet deadlines. 

We live in an era of immense technological development.  As an artist working in several areas, I try to pick and choose my battles and to keep my vision paramount.  The rabbit-holes lead to warrens, and they can be vast and deep.

Mark

I guess I'm a bit of an omnidisciplinary scientist, with a hand in almost every technical aspect of photography, from optics to geography to astronomy to software to chemistry. Probably not surprising, since my regular work also calls for combining knowledge from many different fields of science.

In many ways, I find the technical aspects - everything from planning the shot, to post-processing, to producing the final image - to be far more interesting and satisfying than the aesthetic aspects. After all, the aesthetic side of things pretty much comes down to, 'nice shot' (or not) whereas the technical story behind the final product - position of the sun/moon/tides for lighting, composition and acquisition of a multi-frame image, postprocessing, as well as the production and technical details of the final product - are far more interesting than a simple one-liner. But, then again, my background is in the sciences rather than arts.
Logged

Mark Lindquist

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1441
  • itís not about the photos we take - itís the ones we leave
    • LINDQUIST STUDIOS
Re: OUTDOOR INK LONGEVITY/PRINTER Questions - advice please
« Reply #43 on: March 31, 2016, 07:35:59 am »

I guess I'm a bit of an omnidisciplinary scientist, with a hand in almost every technical aspect of photography, from optics to geography to astronomy to software to chemistry. Probably not surprising, since my regular work also calls for combining knowledge from many different fields of science.

In many ways, I find the technical aspects - everything from planning the shot, to post-processing, to producing the final image - to be far more interesting and satisfying than the aesthetic aspects. After all, the aesthetic side of things pretty much comes down to, 'nice shot' (or not) whereas the technical story behind the final product - position of the sun/moon/tides for lighting, composition and acquisition of a multi-frame image, postprocessing, as well as the production and technical details of the final product - are far more interesting than a simple one-liner. But, then again, my background is in the sciences rather than arts.

You're right about the journey of making an image shadowblade, having the ability to be intersting and satisfying.  After all, what goes into making the work, the journey, the creative and scientific aspects, the technical process is the stuff that artists have wrestled with since Michaelangelo and the Sistine Chapel and DaVinci and the Last Supper, going back to the development of Persian glass, et al.

The "one-liner" as you put it, has the capacity to be the record of the process and is, in short, the encapsulation of the uphill climb.  The finished work can not be separated from the effort made to create it, as it is the direct reflection of the thought/vision/process.  I'd hardly call such works one-liners, but I see what you're driving at.  Just as the things you mention play an important role in the development of the work, aesthetics ultimately trumps all, when it comes down to it.  Having the ability to understand space, then create work for it takes a different sort of eye than just "making something". 

Art and technology must co-exist in this day and age.  But DaVinci had his problems when he used walnut oil experimentally is his Last Supper.

I'd be interested in seeing some of your work Shadowblade.  Feel free to PM me if you're interested.

Mark

Article on DaVinci

Edit for spelling, puncuation - added DaVinci story link
« Last Edit: March 31, 2016, 07:53:50 am by Mark Lindquist »
Logged

shadowblade

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2562
Re: OUTDOOR INK LONGEVITY/PRINTER Questions - advice please
« Reply #44 on: March 31, 2016, 07:52:01 am »

You're right about the journey of making an image shadowblade, having the ability to be intersting and satisfying.  After all, what goes into making the work, the journey, the creative and scientific aspects, the technical process is the stuff that artists have wrestled with since Michaelangelo and the Sistine Chapel and DaVinci and the Last Supper, going back to the development of Persian glass, et al.

The "one-liner" as you put it, has the capacity to be the record of the process and is, in short, the encapsulation of the uphill climb.  The finished work can not be separated from the effort made to create it, as it is the direct reflection of the thought/vision/process.  I'd hardly call such works one-liners, but I see what you're driving at.  Just as the things you mention play an important role in the development of the work, aesthetics ultimately trumps all, when it comes down to it.  Having the ability to understand space, then create work for it takes a different sort of eye than just "making something". 

Art and technology must co-exist in this day and age.  But DaVinci had his problems when he used walnut oil experimentally is his Last Supper.

I'd be interested in seeing some of your work Shadowblade.  Feel free to PM me if you're interested.

Mark

Edit for spelling, puncuation

Some recent shots.

http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=107334.0

http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=108190.0

http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=107706.0

http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=107613.0

http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=107307.0

http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=107256.0

Although most of the stuff I post tends to be almost-but-not-quite-finished work needing final adjustments to saturation and tone (since all my images look different on my wide-gamut monitors once exported to web, despite Firefox supposedly being colour-managed).
Logged

Mark Lindquist

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1441
  • itís not about the photos we take - itís the ones we leave
    • LINDQUIST STUDIOS
Re: OUTDOOR INK LONGEVITY/PRINTER Questions - advice please
« Reply #45 on: March 31, 2016, 08:06:09 am »

Some recent shots.

http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=107334.0

http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=108190.0

http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=107706.0

http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=107613.0

http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=107307.0

http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=107256.0

Although most of the stuff I post tends to be almost-but-not-quite-finished work needing final adjustments to saturation and tone (since all my images look different on my wide-gamut monitors once exported to web, despite Firefox supposedly being colour-managed).

Thanks for sharing, Shadowblade.  Some very interesting and technical images there.  Do you travel specifically for photography or does your work take you there?  I particularly enjoyed the set with the light trails and mountains.  The sandstorm is cool.
Logged

shadowblade

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2562
Re: OUTDOOR INK LONGEVITY/PRINTER Questions - advice please
« Reply #46 on: March 31, 2016, 08:54:26 am »

Thanks for sharing, Shadowblade.  Some very interesting and technical images there.  Do you travel specifically for photography or does your work take you there?  I particularly enjoyed the set with the light trails and mountains.  The sandstorm is cool.

I often travel for photography alone, but also sometimes combine it with medical practice (e.g. as an expedition doctor for a mountaineering or other wilderness trip). Selling prints makes it pay for itself. I could concentrate more on it, but medical practice pays better.
Logged

shadowblade

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2562
Re: OUTDOOR INK LONGEVITY/PRINTER Questions - advice please
« Reply #47 on: March 31, 2016, 08:25:07 pm »

What are you currently printing on with your Z3200? Before my printer died, I was using a lot of Pura Smooth and Pura Velvet with it (best-in-class longevity combined with an ability to soak diluted Timeless into the surface for an exceptionally-durable final product), but I haven't seen anyone else using the combination. I also liked Lyve.
Logged

Mark Lindquist

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1441
  • itís not about the photos we take - itís the ones we leave
    • LINDQUIST STUDIOS
Re: OUTDOOR INK LONGEVITY/PRINTER Questions - advice please
« Reply #48 on: March 31, 2016, 08:47:54 pm »

What are you currently printing on with your Z3200? Before my printer died, I was using a lot of Pura Smooth and Pura Velvet with it (best-in-class longevity combined with an ability to soak diluted Timeless into the surface for an exceptionally-durable final product), but I haven't seen anyone else using the combination. I also liked Lyve.

I use the Z3200 44" a lot for making "Match Prints" to send off when I'm having Dye-Sub or other types of Prints I can't make done.  I've been very happy with KODAK PROFFESIONAL Inkjet Photo Paper, Glossy 44" x 100'

For portfolio prints I do 13 x 19 and 17 x 22 prints on both the Z3200 24" and the 44".  I use a lot of Canson papers what used to be Arches Canson.  I have a lot of that left over from stock.

I do use BC PURA Smooth and Velvet both in sheets and rolls.  I do like PURA Velvet as well as Elegance Velvet.

I like Lyve but it seems heavy.  I also like Chromata White, but I have to say I prefer Glamour Gloss to Timeless.

I'm looking for a paper that has the same look and feel as the old Portriga Rapid paper.

I like the earlier Canson papers but also like the BC papers.  There was a BC paper that they discontinued called Vibrance Matte.  Also a Paper called Elegance Velvet.  Both were awesome.

Since I have my own printers and I do a lot of experimenting with post processing techniques, etc., I make a ton of prints on 13 x 19 on (wait for it) believe it or not Canon Premium Pro Matte paper.  It takes a day for the ink to dry down on it, but it matches pretty much in every way what I will get with my more expensive papers.  It's good match print stock.  I buy that stuff by the case and save my best prints for the expensive papers.  $10.50 for 20 sheets is hard to beat....

I hate to say it but Breathing Color is very good, even though I dislike their attitude and the shipping charges from California to Florida.  I've had problems with their canvas with seeds, etc., but they seem like the best game in town.  I wish there was something better.  But the look and longevity is there.  What can you say.

You never did say what printer you have that's on the fritz.  Not talking about it?  LOL.

Mark
Logged

shadowblade

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2562
Re: OUTDOOR INK LONGEVITY/PRINTER Questions - advice please
« Reply #49 on: March 31, 2016, 08:59:25 pm »

I use the Z3200 44" a lot for making "Match Prints" to send off when I'm having Dye-Sub or other types of Prints I can't make done.  I've been very happy with KODAK PROFFESIONAL Inkjet Photo Paper, Glossy 44" x 100'

For portfolio prints I do 13 x 19 and 17 x 22 prints on both the Z3200 24" and the 44".  I use a lot of Canson papers what used to be Arches Canson.  I have a lot of that left over from stock.

I do use BC PURA Smooth and Velvet both in sheets and rolls.  I do like PURA Velvet as well as Elegance Velvet.

I like Lyve but it seems heavy.  I also like Chromata White, but I have to say I prefer Glamour Gloss to Timeless.

I'm looking for a paper that has the same look and feel as the old Portriga Rapid paper.

I like the earlier Canson papers but also like the BC papers.  There was a BC paper that they discontinued called Vibrance Matte.  Also a Paper called Elegance Velvet.  Both were awesome.

Since I have my own printers and I do a lot of experimenting with post processing techniques, etc., I make a ton of prints on 13 x 19 on (wait for it) believe it or not Canon Premium Pro Matte paper.  It takes a day for the ink to dry down on it, but it matches pretty much in every way what I will get with my more expensive papers.  It's good match print stock.  I buy that stuff by the case and save my best prints for the expensive papers.  $10.50 for 20 sheets is hard to beat....

I hate to say it but Breathing Color is very good, even though I dislike their attitude and the shipping charges from California to Florida.  I've had problems with their canvas with seeds, etc., but they seem like the best game in town.  I wish there was something better.  But the look and longevity is there.  What can you say.

You never did say what printer you have that's on the fritz.  Not talking about it?  LOL.

Mark

Elegance Velvet is still available. I never went with Elegance (or Optica One) though, due to their high OBA content. Seems like a lot of print shops offer Z3100/Z3200 with Elegance or Optica One, but no-one offers it with Pura Velvet/Smooth (which are exactly the same papers without OBAs). For short-term display I like Moab Slickrock Pearl. Wish they made a fibre-based, OBA-free version of it, though. Or an OBA-free, archival-rated polymer film version.

Epson 7900 (resuscitated from the dead after being obtained cheaply, running a custom inkset) - fried electronics. 44" Z3200 (shared with several others) is sitting in several pieces after the ceiling above it failed.
Logged

Mark Lindquist

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1441
  • itís not about the photos we take - itís the ones we leave
    • LINDQUIST STUDIOS
Re: OUTDOOR INK LONGEVITY/PRINTER Questions - advice please
« Reply #50 on: March 31, 2016, 09:43:27 pm »

How bad is the Z3200?  Why not fix it? 
Logged

shadowblade

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2562
Re: OUTDOOR INK LONGEVITY/PRINTER Questions - advice please
« Reply #51 on: March 31, 2016, 09:52:46 pm »

How bad is the Z3200?  Why not fix it?

The whole thing was literally split in two - even the rail the print head runs along has folded in the middle. Porcelain toilets are heavy. Covered by insurance, but calculations based on depreciated value hurt.
Logged

Mark Lindquist

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1441
  • itís not about the photos we take - itís the ones we leave
    • LINDQUIST STUDIOS
Re: OUTDOOR INK LONGEVITY/PRINTER Questions - advice please
« Reply #52 on: March 31, 2016, 10:40:02 pm »

The whole thing was literally split in two - even the rail the print head runs along has folded in the middle. Porcelain toilets are heavy. Covered by insurance, but calculations based on depreciated value hurt.

Ouch!
Logged

enduser

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 551
Re: OUTDOOR INK LONGEVITY/PRINTER Questions - advice please
« Reply #53 on: April 01, 2016, 06:17:07 am »

Purely as an aside, my son was living next to a busy  road and we thought an outside banner might draw attention to his business.

We printed a 6 foot by 2 foot banner in color using a Canon ipf6100 pigment printer.  The substrate was a a cheap synthetic banner material from China.  We then bought a can of the cheapest clear spray from a DIY store and emptied it over the image.  It was then stapled to a pine frame.

For three years it was outside, next to the road and the only change that was observable was a bit of weave unravelling at the ends. Colors appeared not to have changed.
Logged

shadowblade

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2562
Re: OUTDOOR INK LONGEVITY/PRINTER Questions - advice please
« Reply #54 on: April 01, 2016, 06:45:41 am »

Purely as an aside, my son was living next to a busy  road and we thought an outside banner might draw attention to his business.

We printed a 6 foot by 2 foot banner in color using a Canon ipf6100 pigment printer.  The substrate was a a cheap synthetic banner material from China.  We then bought a can of the cheapest clear spray from a DIY store and emptied it over the image.  It was then stapled to a pine frame.

For three years it was outside, next to the road and the only change that was observable was a bit of weave unravelling at the ends. Colors appeared not to have changed.

I remember you mentioning that a few years ago.

Did you happen to compare it side-by-side against a newly-printed banner? Sometimes, a change happens so slowly it doesn't seem obvious, unless you compare it against the original, or unless you haven't seen it for a long time.
Logged

enduser

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 551
Re: OUTDOOR INK LONGEVITY/PRINTER Questions - advice please
« Reply #55 on: April 01, 2016, 07:24:37 am »

We did re-print a bit of it and it looked just a tiny bit tired, but it served its purpose and brought in some business.  We called it "A quick and dirty" response to a need that cost almost nothing.

The main point was that it didn't need to really look like the original because it was just words and some swirls of color.
Logged

shadowblade

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2562
Re: OUTDOOR INK LONGEVITY/PRINTER Questions - advice please
« Reply #56 on: April 01, 2016, 07:27:02 am »

We did re-print a bit of it and it looked just a tiny bit tired, but it served its purpose and brought in some business.  We called it "A quick and dirty" response to a need that cost almost nothing.

The main point was that it didn't need to really look like the original because it was just words and some swirls of color.

Sure, I definitely get that with signage.

Photos are probably a bit different...
Logged

shadowblade

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2562
Re: OUTDOOR INK LONGEVITY/PRINTER Questions - advice please
« Reply #57 on: April 03, 2016, 12:13:04 pm »

I like Lyve but it seems heavy.  I also like Chromata White, but I have to say I prefer Glamour Gloss to Timeless.

Don't think I've had anything printed on Chromata White since Lyve came out. Can't beat the increased gamut and Dmax. Canvas isn't my favourite substrate texture-wise, but it's hard to argue with it for durability and longevity on open display.

What do you mean by 'heavy'? Isn't that generally a good thing, durability-wise? I'd print on 32oz denim if they made it inkjet-compatible...

Why Glamour II? Ease of use and self-levelling? Granted, I'd probably use it too, if it contained UV inhibitors...

Quote
I like the earlier Canson papers but also like the BC papers.  There was a BC paper that they discontinued called Vibrance Matte.  Also a Paper called Elegance Velvet.  Both were awesome.

I've found myself printing less and less paper over the last few years, and more and more of everything else. In most cases, this has to be outsourced.

I like paper. For almost any photo, there is at least one, often many, papers on which it stands out. In many cases, it brings out the photo better than any other medium. But, by the time you surround it with a mat, put it in a frame and cover it with glass, much of the aesthetic and appeal of paper is lost, and you're left with an object that doesn't really fit in many of todays urban, minimalist interiors. And, unfortunately, there's no surface coating or treatment on the market that can make printed paper as tough as canvas or dye-sub aluminium without changing its appearance, to make it suitable for frameless display. If there was some suitable treatment available - say, something that printed paper could be soaked in to plasticise it - I'd be printing a lot more of it. But, faced with the choice of a beautiful paper print hidden behind glass, in a setting where a frameless image would look better, or a canvas or aluminium print that, while not as appealing when you're close enough to see and appreciate the texture and substrate, is much more impactful when viewing the whole, frameless work on the wall, I'd take the latter almost every time.

I wonder what the solution is. Maybe textured, white-pigmented metal printed with UV inks or via some sort of pigment-transfer process, with imprinted surface textures identical to those of various fine-art papers? Hahnemuhle Torchon or Canson Etching Edition aluminium might just work...

Quote
I hate to say it but Breathing Color is very good, even though I dislike their attitude and the shipping charges from California to Florida.  I've had problems with their canvas with seeds, etc., but they seem like the best game in town.  I wish there was something better.  But the look and longevity is there.  What can you say?

They seem to have the most lightfast inkjet coating out there, as well as substrates that compete with the best from the long-established paper mills in terms of quality (if not variety). Hahnemuhle does pretty well too. Canson produces beautiful papers, but seem to be lacking a bit longevity-wise - I order a lot of black-and-white carbon on them (especially Etching and Platine) but prefer something with a higher longevity rating for colour.  The other big plus is that the matte papers work very well with both Timeless and Glamour II, unlike the offerings from Canson and Hahnemuhle. Shipping to Australia costs a bundle, though.
Logged

Mark Lindquist

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1441
  • itís not about the photos we take - itís the ones we leave
    • LINDQUIST STUDIOS
Re: OUTDOOR INK LONGEVITY/PRINTER Questions - advice please
« Reply #58 on: April 03, 2016, 12:51:15 pm »

Don't think I've had anything printed on Chromata White since Lyve came out. Can't beat the increased gamut and Dmax. Canvas isn't my favourite substrate texture-wise, but it's hard to argue with it for durability and longevity on open display.

What do you mean by 'heavy'? Isn't that generally a good thing, durability-wise? I'd print on 32oz denim if they made it inkjet-compatible...

Why Glamour II? Ease of use and self-levelling? Granted, I'd probably use it too, if it contained UV inhibitors...

I would prefer a medium weight canvas for ease of stretching.  I want something that can hold the inks well, be extra archival, but be relatively easy to stretch, and will hold throughout the seasons and years.

I prefer Glamour II for the reasons you mention.  I developed a special formula for rolling it on years ago which involved heating the distilled water.  It was the best coating I've ever seen in that configuration.  I now send my canvases out to a great guy who does super work.  We worked out a coating that is just right with Matte and Gloss mixture sprayed.  I like the finish but he doesn't like to stretch my work because of the mirrored edges and pickiness of his client... What can I say, the work has to be right.  Thank goodness he humors me and just charges extra to do my work.  This is MUCH appreciated.


I've found myself printing less and less paper over the last few years, and more and more of everything else. In most cases, this has to be outsourced.

I like paper. For almost any photo, there is at least one, often many, papers on which it stands out. In many cases, it brings out the photo better than any other medium. But, by the time you surround it with a mat, put it in a frame and cover it with glass, much of the aesthetic and appeal of paper is lost, and you're left with an object that doesn't really fit in many of todays urban, minimalist interiors. And, unfortunately, there's no surface coating or treatment on the market that can make printed paper as tough as canvas or dye-sub aluminium without changing its appearance, to make it suitable for frameless display. If there was some suitable treatment available - say, something that printed paper could be soaked in to plasticise it - I'd be printing a lot more of it. But, faced with the choice of a beautiful paper print hidden behind glass, in a setting where a frameless image would look better, or a canvas or aluminium print that, while not as appealing when you're close enough to see and appreciate the texture and substrate, is much more impactful when viewing the whole, frameless work on the wall, I'd take the latter almost every time. 

I find that paper is critical in understanding the nuances of an edited file.  I print several prints of one file making corrections and subtle changes.  Having paper in hand is critical for my portfolio.  It is what sells the print.  In Paris during the impressionist period of painting, Japanese pottery was sent over using Ukiyo-e prints as packing. These prints got around to many artist, VanGogh and Gaugin, lots of others, who became enamored of the handmade print.  The tactility of the image hand printed on handmade paper just blew these guys away.  This became an important influence - the designs, the images, the hand made qualities, the iron wire techniques, etc.

I do agree, that a Dye Sub print on Ultra Gloss or whatever is impactful.  It is in many cases the best for locking in the exact manner of representing work.  But a print is intimate.  It can be walked to different light sources, which makes the print impart a sense of ownership to the viewer holding it, via their participation.  They can control one aspect of viewing - the way they want to see it-- their way.

I wonder what the solution is. Maybe textured, white-pigmented metal printed with UV inks or via some sort of pigment-transfer process, with imprinted surface textures identical to those of various fine-art papers? Hahnemuhle Torchon or Canson Etching Edition aluminium might just work...

They seem to have the most lightfast inkjet coating out there, as well as substrates that compete with the best from the long-established paper mills in terms of quality (if not variety). Hahnemuhle does pretty well too. Canson produces beautiful papers, but seem to be lacking a bit longevity-wise - I order a lot of black-and-white carbon on them (especially Etching and Platine) but prefer something with a higher longevity rating for colour.  The other big plus is that the matte papers work very well with both Timeless and Glamour II, unlike the offerings from Canson and Hahnemuhle. Shipping to Australia costs a bundle, though.

Yeah, this is a tough one.  Always in search of the ultimate to be able to exhibit the image in the ultimate form.
Ernst Dinkla, who I respect very much, mentioned a technique he used, with sandwiches of glazing and a white layer behind.
His approach is earlier in this thread.

If you think about milky white plexi-glass, if there was just some way to infuse an image into it, just as an image is infused into the aluminum with dye-sub, that could be the answer, at least for me.  I dream of an image that becomes part of the material, in this case milky white acrylic sheets that can be back-lit, or hung in a window, or just lit from behind somehow.
It would be interesting to see the image with a sandblasted, frosted face, as a matte surface somehow.

I'm sure it can be done, it just isn't available commercially yet.  I wonder if it can be done with the heat press transfer process, then have another acrylic sheet laminated and heat pressed.  Now that would be interesting....
Logged

shadowblade

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2562
Re: OUTDOOR INK LONGEVITY/PRINTER Questions - advice please
« Reply #59 on: April 04, 2016, 12:45:35 pm »

I would prefer a medium weight canvas for ease of stretching.  I want something that can hold the inks well, be extra archival, but be relatively easy to stretch, and will hold throughout the seasons and years.

Wunderbars - they'll stretch themselves, and stay taut even as the canvas 'breathes'.

Quote
I prefer Glamour II for the reasons you mention.  I developed a special formula for rolling it on years ago which involved heating the distilled water.  It was the best coating I've ever seen in that configuration.  I now send my canvases out to a great guy who does super work.  We worked out a coating that is just right with Matte and Gloss mixture sprayed.  I like the finish but he doesn't like to stretch my work because of the mirrored edges and pickiness of his client... What can I say, the work has to be right.  Thank goodness he humors me and just charges extra to do my work.  This is MUCH appreciated.

I just can't get past the lack of UV protection with Glamour II.

Mirrored edges, coloured borders, anything other than gallery wraps are tricky, even after taking into account dimensional change when printing. Unfortunately, they're often unavoidable, since most shots aren't taken with extra space around the edges for gallery wraps. Almost makes you want to just glue it down to a piece of Dibond with silicone or PVA rather than stretch it...


Quote
I find that paper is critical in understanding the nuances of an edited file.  I print several prints of one file making corrections and subtle changes.  Having paper in hand is critical for my portfolio.  It is what sells the print.  In Paris during the impressionist period of painting, Japanese pottery was sent over using Ukiyo-e prints as packing. These prints got around to many artist, VanGogh and Gaugin, lots of others, who became enamored of the handmade print.  The tactility of the image hand printed on handmade paper just blew these guys away.  This became an important influence - the designs, the images, the hand made qualities, the iron wire techniques, etc.

I do agree, that a Dye Sub print on Ultra Gloss or whatever is impactful.  It is in many cases the best for locking in the exact manner of representing work.  But a print is intimate.  It can be walked to different light sources, which makes the print impart a sense of ownership to the viewer holding it, via their participation.  They can control one aspect of viewing - the way they want to see it-- their way.

Yeah, this is a tough one.  Always in search of the ultimate to be able to exhibit the image in the ultimate form.
Ernst Dinkla, who I respect very much, mentioned a technique he used, with sandwiches of glazing and a white layer behind.
His approach is earlier in this thread.

Agree about the paper - if you can approach and view it from multiple angles, without intervening glass, the texture really makes it special. The same applies to brushed aluminium, although the silver only works for certain images. No doubt it would also apply to textured, white-coated aluminium too, if it were commercially available. If only there were a viable way to protect paper so that it would be suitable for mounting and glassless display. After all, you can't really appreciate the aesthetic of paper if it's hidden behind glass in a frame, and frames aren't really viable beyond a certain size (a 32x96" panorama isn't really amenable to framing).

Quote
If you think about milky white plexi-glass, if there was just some way to infuse an image into it, just as an image is infused into the aluminum with dye-sub, that could be the answer, at least for me.  I dream of an image that becomes part of the material, in this case milky white acrylic sheets that can be back-lit, or hung in a window, or just lit from behind somehow.
It would be interesting to see the image with a sandblasted, frosted face, as a matte surface somehow.

I'm sure it can be done, it just isn't available commercially yet.  I wonder if it can be done with the heat press transfer process, then have another acrylic sheet laminated and heat pressed.  Now that would be interesting....

One option would be overprinting or spraying a print on inkjet-coated metal with some sort of low-temperature glaze, then heating it in a conveyor belt oven to set it. The pigment from HP and Canon printers should certainly be able to take it, since the temperatures in the thermal inkjet head exceed the temperature needed for some glazes.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5   Go Up