Digital BW, The Print

In my opinion the superiority of the Mayer Rod coating
over spraying is based on the consistency of the results.
I can't be as repeatedly precise with the spray (unless
investing in a machine to do it for me) as with the rod, and
I can do it on the glass dining table in my living room,
whereas spraying will make the air unbreathable and
everything in a close proximity of the spraying area
covered with spray.
Another thing is that you mentioned that coating with the
rod will produce an effect like RC coating...
So, why not spray the RC papers...
I just do not like the idea of double coat on both sides of
the ink-emulsion layer.  It's something artificial and unstable
in such an approach IMHO.  Another thing is that if I print
on Matte paper I like the print anyway - it's maybe a bit duller
than after coating, but it's beautiful.  However when you use
a RC paper you again have lot's of things happening like
bronzing, the ink being easily rub off and so on...
It's your choice.  But for me there is only one direction until
they (Epson or whoever - like Seagull) comes with the good,
accepting pigment inks glossy or semi glossy RC paper.

Good luck,
Jack

_________________________________________________
Jack M Kucy
JMK Gallery (www.jmk-gallery.com)
917-991-2096     jmk@...
Member of ASMP (www.asmp.org)
_________________________________________________
...a riveder le stelle




johngeyles wrote:

>
> > www.rdspecialties.com
>
> The site doesn't go into a lotta detail or give prices.
>
> Can you say what exactly you ordered in order to get a
> rod suitable for coating prints up to 13x19" on EAM/EEM
> or Hahnemule Photo Rag (although I think you've said
> for larger than 8x10 the EAM/EEM is probably too light).
>
> And what you paid for it ?
>
> I gather this PUR coating makes the matte finish of these
> papers more like a RC paper ?  Why is this superior to just
> printing on something like Ilford Smooth Pearl and spraying
> with Krylon (which is said to more or less eliminate the
> bronzing) ?
>
> Thanks, John
>
>