Digital BW, The Print

Varnishes look great on canvas, and I've even had great success using 
varnish on textured 100% cotton matte paper.

But anything else, and the varnish looks terrible. You can always see 
brush strokes or whatever. Just nor smooth enough.

Solvent-based varnishes sprayed on probably would look great, but who 
wants to spend the money on the proper equipment, and I mean an 
actual "useful" spraybooth?

I'd rather put that money towards a PhaseOne P45 "back".

Scott

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "john dean" 
<deanwork2003@y...> wrote:
>
> Thats true, pure daylight and/or toxic fumes are a worst case
> scenario. But galleries and museums could and should never suggest
> displaying valuable images under these conditions, whether that be 
in
> your "sun room", "living room" or in the back yard or in a public
> space. I think it has been poined out many times that ANY art work,
> including oil paintings are going to fade in strong daylight also.
> 
> The one place that pure daylight is a major consideration for us is
> when they are designed for public display. Wilhelm did point out how
> Cibachromes faded quickly in permanent display under direct 
skylights.
> He had slides of that to show how a public space that had 
comissioned
> giant Ciba murals were extremely upset to see them deteriorate so 
fast
> under strong uv daylight from skylights. So it's not just inkjet, 
but
> everything. In that case strong lamination or even better, several
> coats of a good varnish could be the best solution. A lot more does
> need to be done in that area. As far as I know there are no really
> good "scientific" tests that have been published about these good 
new
> acrylic/laytex varnishes that we use for canvas work, and how they 
can
> protect prints under very harsh conditions. That Livick guy did do
> these kind of tests.
> 
> john
> 
>  
> > I think sunlight testing is the best methode. To me, it 
represents 
> > a "worst case scenario".
> > 
> > So, if an ink, paper, and varnish combo can give me 6 months in 
the 
> > sunlight without fading, what's that worth in typicle room 
lighting, 
> > say 255 LUX?
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Scott
> > 
> > --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, hogarth@s... 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > john dean wrote:
> > > 
> > > > I hate to be the one who is always defending Wilhelm. 
> > > 
> > > I also hate that you are always defending Wilhelm ;-)
> > > 
> > > > But there is a
> > > > lot of evidence that he is the first one to bump into this big
> > > > difference in the Epson world of inkjet stability vs the 
stability
> > > > domain of chemical darkroom media and has to make corrections 
in 
> > his
> > > > projections because of it. It was the first version of Epson 
> > Premium
> > > > Glossy with 1270 inks that showed premature fading and 
staining 
> > that
> > > > existed apart from the lux level figures and confused 
everyone. 
> > The
> > > > culprit ended up being ozone.
> > > 
> > > And we might add, Wilhelm missed this completely. Those inks 
went 
> > out to 
> > > the marketplace with his stamp of approval. Hundred year life, 
I 
> > think 
> > > he said.
> > > 
> > > The culprit here was assumptions. Epson assumed that every 
print 
> > that 
> > > came off their printers would be framed (I mean -- duh). 
Wilhelm 
> > agreed 
> > > to test that way (where was his integrity?). Epson was being 
> > arrogant. 
> > > Wilhelm, who knew better (the guy ain't dumb), took their money 
and 
> > said 
> > > "you're the boss."
> > > 
> > > Whether he knew or didn't, whether he should have or not, he 
put 
> > his 
> > > name and reputation on the 1270 inks. He said they would last. 
> > Under 
> > > glass. Knowing that this was contrary to the way people 
actually 
> > use the 
> > > products.
> > > 
> > > Ever since then, his integrity has been suspect to a great many 
> > people. 
> > > This is why you are always having to defend him ;-)
> > > 
> > > You have to remember - this is the guy who went after Kodak 
because 
> > all 
> > > those color photographs were fading in people's shoe boxes in 
the 
> > back 
> > > of their closets. He knew that this is what people did with 
prints. 
> > He knew.
> > > 
> > > >
> > > > This is when the all the talk about the importance of prints 
being
> > > > stored and shown behind glass, started. 
> > > 
> > > Yes - Epson and Wilhelm trying to CYA. That's how we tested - 
so 
> > that's 
> > > how you should use the product. Sorry if that's not real world 
> > > conditions. Sorry if you can't afford to frame every scrap of 
> > paper. 
> > > Sorry if you are putting family photos into scrap books.
> > > 
> > > > Later the talk about sprays
> > > > doubling or tripling the life of the print.
> > > 
> > > That was us, trying to recover from having bought equipment, 
paper, 
> > and 
> > > inks based on Wilhelm's OK. Just trying to salvage something 
from 
> > the 
> > > 1270 debacle.
> > > 
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Now.. how ones tests for these airborne contaminants and 
> > subsequently
> > > > publish stability data that takes them into consideration, 
well 
> > that
> > > > is a big one that I'm certainly ignorant about. This is 
someting 
> > we
> > > > all need to know a lot more about.
> > > 
> > > They are called "environmental chambers." Examples:
> > > 
> > > http://www.lre.com/test2/docs/menu.htm
> > > 
> > > >
> > > > My procedure, much to the horror of many of us out here, is 
to 
> > spray
> > > > everything that I need the greatest permanece for. At this 
point 
> > my
> > > > assumption is that airborne substances are even more toxic to 
> > inkjet
> > > > prints than uv light.
> > > 
> > > You are spraying both sides then? Else, you still need to seal 
the 
> > > print, front and back, in a frame.
> > > 
> > > >
> > > > But spraying itself is toxic too, to us humans, and everyone 
has 
> > to
> > > > make that decision for himself for the needs of his clients.
> > > > John
> > >
> >
>