Digital BW, The Print

KentB <philip@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
> ... Epson Hot Press Natural.
>
...  the dmax is lowered...as in 1.64 lowered to 1.58 approximately after
> spraying with PremierArt PrintShield. Dissappointing, ...
>

Lascaux Fixativ lowers the dmax the least with matte paper.  See
http://www.dickblick.com/products/lascaux-fine-art-fixative/ and
http://www.jerrysartarama.com/discount-art-supplies/pastels/pastel-accessories/pastel-fixative-sprays/lascaux-fixative-and-protectant-sprays.htm
  (The painters also say it retains more of the color gamut than the others
for them.)

Still, the lowering -- any lowering -- is more than I like.

Print Shield is just for glossy paper in my opinion.


> as there certainly could be long term advantages to spraying prints.
>

With high quality pigments minor protection from physical abrasion may be
the most important.  A book or other situation where there might be rub-off
from adjacent pages comes to mind.  The matte prints are still too fragile
to be displayed without glass or acrylic.  The lightfastness improvement
with good pigments is probably minor.


For cards where there is going to be a lot of handling of the image area,
glossy paper with dyes make the most physically robust inkjet combination
I've found.  The image forming substance is inside instead of on the
surface. I suppose a heavily sprayed glossy pigment might be close, but I
don't like to spray unless absolutely necessary.  It's toxic.


> though I plan to use interleaving sheets to hopefully reduce abrasion
> issues.
>

I've wondered if there is a mylar interleaving system.  I suspect the
smooth mylar would be the least likely to scrape off pigments.  Of course,
I use the clear bags usually for the fine art that is not under acrylic.  I
rarely use un-glazed for wall display.  All un-glazed eventually get
damaged, in my experience, even with a spray.

I've also found Arches to be more robust than coated matte papers.  At some
point I am going to explore the thin Arches for use in books.  I now use
140 lb./300 gsm for prints; it's too thick for a book.

(By the way, I have a new profile for the 1400 that is smoother and has a
lower Lab B than a straight QTR profile.  It gets a dmax in the 1.6 range
after an overnight dry down.)



> Premier told me to expect an increase in Dmax...you guys said it would
> lower it. Your information appears more accurate.
>
We don't make a profit by encouraging its use.  They are right with glossy
paper.


> I love the HPN due to its lovely deep blacks...so it seems a pity to ruin
> them by spraying if it is ultimately not necessary.
>

Agree.  However, in indoor lighting and when there is not side-by-side
comparison, I've had B&W pro photographers and printers comment on  the
excellent dmax in one of my prints, that they did not realize was on
Arches.  Printing style and image composition trump the dmax differences
once you're in that range.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]