Digital BW, The Print

Well, I am pleasantly surprised about the advantages of spraying on Lustre papers.  I have done a couple casual tests...and the dmax really goes up...and any remaining bronzing and gloss differential goes away.  So I am currently rethinking my attitude about lustre papers.

I would have thought that matte papers would have also had a dmax gain.  In researching this, I did find another product....Golden Archival Varnish.

Anyone have any experience with this product?  It is available in matte, lustre and gloss.  Wondering if it would turn a nice matte print into a slightly lustre print?  Presumably one would need to do multiple coats to get any change in the surface.  I know in the olden days, platinum printers commonly varnished and waxed their prints.  

I still really like matte paper....and wonder if there are any suitable solutions to up the dmax by adding a finish.  I gather the water based Premier product is primarily useful on canvas....  Water based would be a great product for environment reasons...  Anyone have experience using the Premier water based spray?

I do note that Wilhelm gives far better ratings to prints that have been sprayed...so I am really wanting to understand better my options in spraying or finishing prints for presentation.

Thanks

Phil 

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Paul Roark <roark.paul@...> wrote:
>
> 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]
>