Digital BW, The Print

> I taped all of mine down on cardboard and the ones that initially
> curled like EAM pretty much flattened back out as they dried. You
> probably used the 250 gsm Museo like I did. The 365 gsm would be a
> better choice for coating. I do agree that the heavier papers are the
> way to go if you plan to varnish.


Didn't know about the Museo 365...that would definitely be a contender...but
probably $$$?

> The tape was a problem. I tried several kinds but they all pulled the
> top layer off the paper where they were attached at the corners.
> 

I'm definitely against taping from my experience.

> Was the yellowing a noticeable tint or just the papers returning to a
> more natural white as the brighteners were exhausted?

Usually the paper is not white to begin with...that's why they use optical
brighteners.  From my take the faded color was nice...but not if you are
trying to get bluish prints.  Personally I like a BW print on the brown side
and so the more yellowed paper is not a problem.

> I think that this makes sense if the fading is a result of oxidation
> of the pigment particle surface. UV may not be as significant a
> player in this reaction (other than as a source of activation energy)
> in comparison to a good oxygen supply.
> 
> Some people have reported dark storage color shifts with Piezo that
> were decreased by using one of the aerosol sprays. Did you notice any
> difference between your coated and uncoated control samples in this
> regard?

No

> It is also significant that the coated prints are starting from a
> higher Dmax and can afford to give some up while the uncoated prints
> need to hang on to all they can. In addition, the higher the Dmax,
> the less sensitive the eye is to the change. A shift up from 2.2 to
> 2.1 is not nearly as noticeable or objectionable as a shift from 1.6
> to 1.5
> 
> Can you share any of the Dmax data with us? Having varnished some
> prints, I have seen that the effect is huge but I have no
> quantitative values.

Starting coated Dmaxs range from the low 1.9's (Eclipse) to nearly 2.2
(Concord Rag).  Honestly, I can't say that this difference compels me to
prefer one paper over the other.  In contrast, a .14 difference, say between
Eclipse uncoated (1.5) and Concord (1.64) makes a world of difference in the
uncoated realm.

> You must have a good hand with a brush. Everyone who has tried this
> and reported on it, has complained about brush strokes and dust. I
> used a very pricey DaVinci varnish brush, and while that is the right
> choice, it didn't entirely solve the problem. The more I varnish, the
> better I get, but with the smooth papers like EAM and LPM there are
> generally some sign of brush strokes or unevenness. There seems to be
> a point where the paper has just enough texture to minimize the brush
> strokes but not so much it looks strange when coated.

I'm also using a DaVinci varnish brush.  I was a painter, so I now how to
use one, but more likely the difference is in the reahology of our coatings.
Try thinning your best coating out with a little distilled water...this
should take care of the brush strokes.  I've worked very hard to find a good
sealant.  You may notice from my original post that I'm using a two part
system.  This is because I really want to wet out the pigment and paper and
seal first...then the top coat is easier to apply.

> I have used the MIS VM ink set in an Epson 1280 to print on the
> Eclipse Satine and the results are some of the most pleasing I have
> seen so far. It is really an excellent match of paper and ink. I am a
> bit concerned about the long-term life of the brighteners in the
> paper though. I have an uncoated print cooking on the rear deck of my
> car to see how it holds up. Your results are reassuring.

The paper will yellow.

> I had terrible results on a 1270 with Epson color inks on the Satine
> and Velvet. The prints were very weak. If Brightcube fixes the paper
> for Piezo inks, I hope they don't alter its current excellent level
> of performance with the MIS inks. In working with the two inks, there
> are some papers where they print very differently from each other and
> other papers where they are quite similar.

I have several 1270's and I find the inks a nightmare.  I have a 1270 print
on concord rag that was made in April that is nearly invisible now from
daylight.  These inks seem to be VERY paper sensitive.

> Jerry Olson reported excellent results with the Satine and the MIS
> color inks by the way.

Great

> Well that is true for the aromatic polyurethanes but the new water
> based aliphatic are considered to be non-yellowing. Golden mentions
> polyurethanes as providing some of the toughest and impermeable
> membranes but because they are not removable, they do not recommend
> them for conservation considerations but do recommend them for art
> that will receive rough handling (and floors of course).

All polyurethanes are light sensitive...that's why the waterbased products
frequently contain UV inhibitors...its not to protect the wood...its to
protect the coating.  I would still trust an acrylic any day for what we
want the coating to do...that is unless you intend to walk on your
photos...then I'd definitely go with a polyurethane.  In our tests, the
polyurethane that we used gave the poorest Dmax and the worse fade inspite
of the presence of UV inhibitors...it is not, however, Varathene...which is
what you are using...I believe.

> In any case, I think most of the modern polymer varnishes should out
> perform the old dammar and mastic types.

I'd hope so.

>> Acrylics are much better from this
>> perspective.  Remember there are 100's of acrylics out there
> ranging from
>> low molecular weight solution polymers to very high molecular weight
>> emulsion polymers  with vastly different properties.
> 
> I think you could say the same for most of the polymers.

Yes, but acrylics (and polyvinyl acetate) are probably 80% of the coatings
market.  Polyurethane come in many fewer flavors and are usually targeted at
high wear markets (industrial coatings, floor coatings, furniture coatings).
 
> I agree, the ideal path is to go to a paint or varnish company,
> explain the application and have a coating custom designed with all
> the assistance of their R&D personnel and labs.

Well, I used to work for coatings company and that Isn't necessarily the
ideal thing to do...but a little bit of understanding of what the different
polymers do, does help.

> When do you expect to have your coating on the market? I look forward
> to giving it a try.

We will hopefully be beta testing in the next month or two.

Robert