Digital BW, The Print

Do any of you use spray (cans) and if so, what?  Thanks!  Harry

Yes, the gelatin approach may/may not be the ultimate answer, but for many of us a step too far !  Here in the UK I have had good results with Lyson Printguard,from Marrutt.com I use an 1800/3MK set-up. Using Innova smooth Cotton media the surface appearance is barely changed,blacks are slightly enhanced and 'rub-off' prevented. On Ilford Gold Fibre Silk two coats gave a beautiful low gloss very like a darkroom un-glazed glossy.
Only problem:it stinks a bit. I use a face mask and extractor fan near a window. It dries quickly, but  the label warns of several safety aspects. A non toxic version would be good.
Chris.

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "HarryB" <hrblaine@...> wrote:

>
> Do any of you use spray (cans) and if so, what?  Thanks!  Harry
>

Ahem! If it "stinks a bit", it almost certainly contains chemicals
destructive to your photograph.

Now maybe I have missed something over the past few years, but the last time
I checked, there was no such thing as a spray-on-anything-at-all that was
"good" for the longevity of photographs. Neither was there anything that was
only non-destructive. Spray glosses, spray mattes, spray adhesives, have all
been around for decades and have always been trash, unless of course you
guys know something I don't. I am always willing to learn. (But I also
remember that the makers of magic page photo albums suddenly announced one
day that their products were no longer loaded with acid and severely
destructive of photographs... They were lying, of course! Have the makers of
spray on photo destruction recently made a similar announcement?)

Manufacturers' ridiculous claims notwithstanding, has there been any
independent research by any trusted body that says any of these products are
at all safe? If so, please provide me with a reference.

If not, c'mon guys, you've gotta be nuts to put this worthless unpredictable
garbage on photographs you care about.



On 12/29/10 8:48 AM, "bobtail75" <cperfect594@...> wrote:


> Only problem:it stinks a bit.


David Kachel

___________________

Artist-Photographer
Fine B&W Photographs

www.davidkachel.com
david@...

Gallery:
www.reddoorfinephotographs.com
director@...

PO Box  1893
Alpine, TX 79831
(432) 386-5787

> Ahem! If it "stinks a bit", it almost certainly contains chemicals
> destructive to your photograph.

You've obviously never been to a paper factory.  Nor worked with any sort of product with contains organic volatiles as a solvent or propellant.  Naturally, of course, there are numerous things that smell horrible that are just fine for prints and there are numerous things that don't smell at all that will destroy them quickly.  Smell has nothing to do with it.  Anything that goes on wet and ends up dry, including the ink itself, is going to emit a vapor that may or may not smell.

> Now maybe I have missed something over the past few years, but the last time
> I checked, there was no such thing as a spray-on-anything-at-all that was
> "good" for the longevity of photographs. 

You have.  But, you are also correct that many of these products are definitely garbage.  But not all.  Skepticism is a good thing, blind skepticism isn't though :).

> Manufacturers' ridiculous claims notwithstanding, has there been any
> independent research by any trusted body that says any of these products are
> at all safe? If so, please provide me with a reference.

Yes, Wilhelm has tested the PremierArt Print Shield and clearly shown in improves print longevity in a number of circumstances and never hurts the print either.  You can get the data from the Wilhelm site or the PremierArt site.

> If not, c'mon guys, you've gotta be nuts to put this worthless unpredictable
> garbage on photographs you care about.

Apologies, but you've got to be nuts to think we are going to listen to unfounded blather with a mean edge and no knowledge backing it :)

Gelatin is an amazing polymer with fascinating properties that enable traditional photographic processing.  It's a hard dry polymer with protective barrier properties when it's below its glass transition temperature (Tg), but it moves to a highly permeable gel state when above Tg. The Tg of most polymers is fairly independent of humidity, but not so with gelatin. This relatively unique property of moisture content influence on the Tg is a "two-edged sword". It makes conventional film and photo paper processing possible, but it creates a long term environmental weakness for the image.

We take it for granted that gelatin goes into a gel state and becomes highly permeable when it gets immersed in water.  Gelatin is above Tg when wet. However, gelatin actually reaches Tg and switches to the gel state when the humidity at typical room temperature (approx. 21C/70F) reaches about 75%RH (a common real-word event in many areas of the world). Ever seen a traditional silver-gelatin print with silver tarnish or stuck to glass in a frame? That's a common outcome of a traditional photographic print traversing the glass transition at typical room temperatures due to prolonged high humidity events.  We need gelatin's Tg properties to carry out the chemical photographic process, but I'd probably choose something else if I'm looking for long term protection of inkjet colorants underneath a post coating treatment. 

Gelatin also has some fascinating anisotropic physical properties that chemical hardeners (e.g. formaldehyde) can significantly influence, but I'll save that discussion for another day. 

Acrylic polymers like Premier Print Shield have a pretty good track record and are widely used to protect paintings these days (especially paintings done with acrylic paints).  Research at both Wilhelm Imaging Research and Aardenburg does suggest for the most part that acrylic coatings cut down on photo-oxidation of pigments so improve lightfastness, gas fastness, etc.  However, the costs, the need for good ventilation during application, and application challenges of spray or roller coating without defects means there is no free lunch in the quest for durable, abrasion resistant coatings.

cheers,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com

Mark,
I am highly suspicious of products like this and am of the school that if
any doubt at all exists, not adding something is safer than adding it.
At kwalsh74¹s suggestion I went to Wilhelm¹s site and all I could find was
paper/ink tests where PremierArt spray was used on prints being tested for
ink longevity. If there were any tests of the spray in and of itself, I
couldn¹t find them.
It appears this particular spray does add projected years to the life of the
prints on which it is tested. However, isn¹t what is really being tested
under these circumstances just the longevity of the inks? Is anything known
about the long term effect of this spray on papers?


On 12/29/10 5:58 PM, "Mark" <mark@...> wrote:
> 
> Acrylic polymers like Premier Print Shield have a pretty good track record and
> are widely used to protect paintings these days (especially paintings done
> with acrylic paints).  Research at both Wilhelm Imaging Research and
> Aardenburg does suggest for the most part that acrylic coatings cut down on
> photo-oxidation of pigments so improve lightfastness, gas fastness, etc.
> However, the costs, the need for good ventilation during application, and
> application challenges of spray or roller coating without defects means there
> is no free lunch in the quest for durable, abrasion resistant coatings.
> 
> cheers,
> Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com


David Kachel

___________________

Artist-Photographer
Fine B&W Photographs

www.davidkachel.com
david@...

Gallery:
www.reddoorfinephotographs.com
director@...

PO Box  1893
Alpine, TX 79831
(432) 386-5787




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

Vinyl Acrylics (Roplex) have been around since Rhoman Haas developed them as a base for latex paint. Artists have widely used them from the beginning because of their lack of yellowing with age, and flexibility.

Ink jet Canvas suppliers have been selling products such as Glamour 2 for a premium. Rosco, sells a similar product called vinyl acrylic Glaze
http://www.rosco.com/us/scenic/glazes.cfm

I have been using this product as a water resistant canvas sealer for nearly a year now with excellent results. A 4 month south window test during the Nebraska summer showed no detectable changes in test swatches compared to controls. (HP Z3100 prints) Canvas stayed pliable and no signs of cracking or degradation.

John Nollendorfs

David,
I'm not an expert at this but I think that something is getting missed here.. As far as print longetivity it all relative to many factors of exposure to various things so this is not an exact science by any means. People like Mark are doing their best to get their arms around it an dhelp us out.. I think we all realize now that fo rquite some time we have had a misunderstanding and have been mislead  to some degree. 
If the sole purpose is archivinbg for teh longest possible time then store a print inb archival packageing in dark controlled storage.. But many of us want to look at these prints as time passes.. Some of the coatings out there offer incredible UV protection that in itself is prioceless in some situations. 
So who is to take responsibility to test the individual coatings? Mark or someone like him? Come on!!  It may make sense to test coated versus uncoated prints but I could only imagine a lay person trying to lay a matrix of coating values over a layer of print values and trying to make sense of it.. 
Anyway we al lseem to be after that big long number that will have prints last forever ... The truth is theri ar emany short or mid term issues going on also.. I think many of us hav eseen print sshift in but a few years when displayed in certain environments.. In my very limited experience it seems the coatings help..


jimbo  ----- Original Message ----- 

  From: David Kachel 
  To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Wednesday, December 29, 2010 5:12 PM
  Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Gelatin's two-edged sword


    
  Mark,
  I am highly suspicious of products like this and am of the school that if
  any doubt at all exists, not adding something is safer than adding it.
  At kwalsh74¹s suggestion I went to Wilhelm¹s site and all I could find was
  paper/ink tests where PremierArt spray was used on prints being tested for
  ink longevity. If there were any tests of the spray in and of itself, I
  couldn¹t find them.
  It appears this particular spray does add projected years to the life of the
  prints on which it is tested. However, isn¹t what is really being tested
  under these circumstances just the longevity of the inks? Is anything known
  about the long term effect of this spray on papers?

  On 12/29/10 5:58 PM, "Mark" <mark@aardenburg-imaging.com> wrote:
  > 
  > Acrylic polymers like Premier Print Shield have a pretty good track record and
  > are widely used to protect paintings these days (especially paintings done
  > with acrylic paints). Research at both Wilhelm Imaging Research and
  > Aardenburg does suggest for the most part that acrylic coatings cut down on
  > photo-oxidation of pigments so improve lightfastness, gas fastness, etc.
  > However, the costs, the need for good ventilation during application, and
  > application challenges of spray or roller coating without defects means there
  > is no free lunch in the quest for durable, abrasion resistant coatings.
  > 
  > cheers,
  > Mark
  http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com

  David Kachel

  ___________________

  Artist-Photographer
  Fine B&W Photographs

  www.davidkachel.com
  david@...

  Gallery:
  www.reddoorfinephotographs.com
  director@...

  PO Box  1893
  Alpine, TX 79831
  (432) 386-5787

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



  

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

Jimbo,

I am not being critical of Mark, or even implying that something is
³expected² of him. I just wanted to know what he might happen to know on the
topic of the spray¹s effects on papers. With regard to Wilhelm¹s testing,
the apparent lack of testing of just the spray leaves us, in my opinion,
with insufficient information for trusting such a product. There seems to be
no basis for us to know that while the spray is prolonging the life of the
inks, it is also not shortening the life of the paper.

We can be fairly certain we know what to expect from the better papers
available. But once we spray something onto that paper, it is no longer a
known quantity.

One thing we know for certain is that there is a long history of
manufacturer¹s of photographic materials and ancillary materials telling us
things that are simply not true or at best, things they don¹t actually know.
We have plenty of reason to be distrustful of product claims.




David Kachel

___________________

Artist-Photographer
Fine B&W Photographs

www.davidkachel.com
david@...

Gallery:
www.reddoorfinephotographs.com
director@...

PO Box  1893
Alpine, TX 79831
(432) 386-5787




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

On 10-12-29 7:18 PM, "John" <jrnolly@...> wrote:

> Vinyl Acrylics (Roplex) have been around since Rhoman Haas developed them as a
> base for latex paint. Artists have widely used them from the beginning because
> of their lack of yellowing with age, and flexibility.
> 
> Ink jet Canvas suppliers have been selling products such as Glamour 2 for a
> premium. Rosco, sells a similar product called vinyl acrylic Glaze
> http://www.rosco.com/us/scenic/glazes.cfm
> 
> I have been using this product as a water resistant canvas sealer for nearly a
> year now with excellent results. A 4 month south window test during the
> Nebraska summer showed no detectable changes in test swatches compared to
> controls. (HP Z3100 prints) Canvas stayed pliable and no signs of cracking or
> degradation.

I have just started using Timeless, a new coating from Breathing Color meant
to replace Glamour 2. Coating canvas originally drew me to Timeless, but
I've also started to experiment with coating cotton rag prints. The hope is
to display prints without glass.

I would appreciate hearing from anyone who has used Glamour 2 or Timeless
(or similar) to coat cotton rag prints. I would also appreciate hearing
thoughts and opinions from those who have not.

Here is some background information on Timeless, from Breathing Color's
website. . . 

=====
Released in March 2010, Timeless is a proprietary water-based, non-yellowing
print varnish that has been developed to protect, preserve and enhance fine
art and photographic prints produced on digital inkjet printers.  Timeless
was developed to be a significant upgrade to the available print varnishes
on the market today for the following reasons:

- Ease of Use:  there is no mixing required; the product is ready to use
exactly as you receive it.  It is very easy to hand-roll and spray using
HVLP.
- Extremely Fast Drying:  this product dries extremely fast, making it one
of the most admired features of early users.
- Strong UV Protection
- Clear Finish: once dry, the coating is crystal clear.
- Anti-fungals:  an important feature for high humidity environments.
- Incredible High Gloss:  Our gloss is extremely high and has already
convinced glossy canvas users, who typically require an extremely high
gloss, to switch to our Lyve Canvas and Timeless as their new and superior
solution.
- Finally, a True Matte: Imagine, an invisible finish for your canvas
prints.  The industry has been waiting too long for this.  It was very
expensive to make, but we did it.  Try this on a Fine Art Paper and display
your prints without glass!

Timeless will enhance the color of pigmented and ultrachrome inks and
increase resistance to scuffing and image fading. It will protect your
expensive images against moisture and abrasion.

Timeless can be applied using a hand roller (see our RollerFoam Kit) or via
HVLP spray.  
=====

Terry.

Hey Dave,
I think we all know that we've been led down the primrose path so to speak.. Be that as it may we are where we are.. I think it would be fair to say that we are all hungry for a better under standing and improved print life.. On the plus side their was a time when our trust translated into a customer commitment by us out of blind faith.. Many really got stung from that ... hearing what they wanted to hear.. Today we are smart enough to not over commit so at least our own risk factor is removed from the equation.. So today it's about the science of improvement.. I like that place much better. Granted it's a frustrating place.. Mark is doing what he can and a great job at that.. Considering the need for more he and the others like him are a small army.. The fact is the variables seem limitless.. so maybe this will never really be an exact science.. 
As far as some of the coatings.. They didn't show up last week and many have been around a while.. If ones sole total focus is longetivity then a print probably should not be displayed or coated and live in a fancy box.. On the other hand if it is then all we can do is the best we know how and be honest about the potential shortcomings.. Some processes, such as gelatin, may not be feasible for many or most of us.. The fact is your a print maker and you have to rely on others for most if not all of what you use and what they say it is.. You are not  involved in the manufacturing process of any of it right? That's how it is.. I'm not trying to rationalize anything with my remarks or settle for second best.....  rather I just don't have the time to be bitter about something I have no damn control over.. I just want to be a good printmaker.. I just have to understand how to honest and knowledgeable about what is possible for me to deliver as best I can.. 

jimbo

----- Original Message ----- 
  From: David Kachel 
  To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Wednesday, December 29, 2010 6:55 PM
  Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Gelatin's two-edged sword


    
  Jimbo,

  I am not being critical of Mark, or even implying that something is
  ³expected² of him. I just wanted to know what he might happen to know on the
  topic of the spray¹s effects on papers. With regard to Wilhelm¹s testing,
  the apparent lack of testing of just the spray leaves us, in my opinion,
  with insufficient information for trusting such a product. There seems to be
  no basis for us to know that while the spray is prolonging the life of the
  inks, it is also not shortening the life of the paper.

  We can be fairly certain we know what to expect from the better papers
  available. But once we spray something onto that paper, it is no longer a
  known quantity.

  One thing we know for certain is that there is a long history of
  manufacturer¹s of photographic materials and ancillary materials telling us
  things that are simply not true or at best, things they don¹t actually know.
  We have plenty of reason to be distrustful of product claims.

  David Kachel

  ___________________

  Artist-Photographer
  Fine B&W Photographs

  www.davidkachel.com
  david@...

  Gallery:
  www.reddoorfinephotographs.com
  director@...

  PO Box  1893
  Alpine, TX 79831
  (432) 386-5787

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



  

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

Hello Mark,

  thanks for your precious information. I will save them in my notes.

I fully agree with you. The testing machinery you and few others have put up is of paramount importance for all of us. Nonetheless, we should also not forget centuries of experience with  traditional materials. I have chosen gelatine because it has been successfully used since very long time in sizing or coating papers. Ditto for carbon pigments (think at china inks, for example). Silver gelatin paper has been long enough to guarantee good archivability when, as you have pointed out, prints are properly stored. Unfortunately, most of the secrets of gelatine coating belong to photographic paper manufacturers.

Many have correctly observed that gelatine coating is not for the occasional printer not for the hobbyistG604T_WIRELESS. They are, indeed, right. Coating larger paper sizes is very cumbersome and it requires proper equipment. I apologize to those who are getting bothered by the related threads or are not interested in them.

Ciao,

   Mantinieri

http://www.mantinieri.com

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Mark" <mark@...> wrote:

>
> 
> 
> 
> Gelatin is an amazing polymer with fascinating properties that enable traditional photographic processing.  It's a hard dry polymer with protective barrier properties when it's below its glass transition temperature (Tg), but it moves to a highly permeable gel state when above Tg. The Tg of most polymers is fairly independent of humidity, but not so with gelatin. This relatively unique property of moisture content influence on the Tg is a "two-edged sword". It makes conventional film and photo paper processing possible, but it creates a long term environmental weakness for the image.
> 
> We take it for granted that gelatin goes into a gel state and becomes highly permeable when it gets immersed in water.  Gelatin is above Tg when wet. However, gelatin actually reaches Tg and switches to the gel state when the humidity at typical room temperature (approx. 21C/70F) reaches about 75%RH (a common real-word event in many areas of the world). Ever seen a traditional silver-gelatin print with silver tarnish or stuck to glass in a frame? That's a common outcome of a traditional photographic print traversing the glass transition at typical room temperatures due to prolonged high humidity events.  We need gelatin's Tg properties to carry out the chemical photographic process, but I'd probably choose something else if I'm looking for long term protection of inkjet colorants underneath a post coating treatment. 
> 
> Gelatin also has some fascinating anisotropic physical properties that chemical hardeners (e.g. formaldehyde) can significantly influence, but I'll save that discussion for another day. 
> 
> Acrylic polymers like Premier Print Shield have a pretty good track record and are widely used to protect paintings these days (especially paintings done with acrylic paints).  Research at both Wilhelm Imaging Research and Aardenburg does suggest for the most part that acrylic coatings cut down on photo-oxidation of pigments so improve lightfastness, gas fastness, etc.  However, the costs, the need for good ventilation during application, and application challenges of spray or roller coating without defects means there is no free lunch in the quest for durable, abrasion resistant coatings.
> 
> cheers,
> Mark
> http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com
>

Sometimes this is an amazing group of people -- interested in research for improving print longevity, quality, and advancing a new and wondrous technology. Then again, there are times when logic and broader concerns get thrown out the window - this is one of those times. Out of fourteen related threads about gelatin on todays B&W list, (I subscribe to it as a daily digest), it's amazing that absolutely nobody talks about the danger of using these various spray compounds in any terms beyond them  "stinking a bit". Aside from the environmental problems with all of them, which are considerable, the major problem is that many of us will never get to see the longevity or long term surface protection beyond the short term.  I'm not a medical person, but do have some knowledge of chemistry, and it takes very little research to discover the carcinogenic qualities in many of  the listed ingredients contained in these products. Those of you who talk about using a face mask are living (for the time being) in a dream world, unless you use one with specific filtration for the exact chemical family contained in the spray. And it doesn't have to smell bad, or at all, to give you cancer.

 Gelatin is one of those harmless compounds that have worked in our analog iterations for over one hundred years, and personally, I think it has very good possibilities for our digital world.  Bravo to those taking the time and effort to experiment with it! 

 Regards for a happy and safe New Year. 

Clayton Price

<<< "bobtail75" cperfect594@...   bobtail75
Wed Dec 29, 2010 6:48 am (PST) wrote:

Yes, the gelatin approach may/may not be the ultimate answer, but for many of us a step too far ! Here in the UK I have had good results with Lyson Printguard,from Marrutt.com I use an 1800/3MK set-up. Using Innova smooth Cotton media the surface appearance is barely changed,blacks are slightly enhanced and 'rub-off' prevented. On Ilford Gold Fibre Silk two coats gave a beautiful low gloss very like a darkroom un-glazed glossy.
Only problem:it stinks a bit. I use a face mask and extractor fan near a window. It dries quickly, but the label warns of several safety aspects. A non toxic version would be good.
Chris.

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "HarryB" <hrblaine@...> wrote:
>
> Do any of you use spray (cans) and if so, what? Thanks! Harry>>>
>

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

Clayton makes some very good points and the discussion about gelatin coating is of great interest and will be a practical solution for some, but it does not seem to be a feasible proposition for many of us.I have used furniture laquers with full breathing equipment and am well aware of the problems of toxic chemicals. However in the 'real world' we are surrounded by a cocktail of harmful vapours and have to take a realistic attitude to dosage and possible effects.It is that or stop driving our cars and limit ourselves to water based products-hardly practical.
The question Harry raised seemed a reasonable one-"what is the best print coating apart from gelatin?(taking into consideration toxicity, ease of application, and effect on the print)
My work is usually submitted for exhibition & display in various locations and subject to a lot of handling. They are mounted and matted but the print surface is vulnerable to scuffs & scratches, so a coating to harden & protect the 3MK carbon ink layer is what I am looking for,so positive suggestions are welcome.
Chris.

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Clayton Price <clay@...> wrote:

>
> Sometimes this is an amazing group of people -- interested in research for improving print longevity, quality, and advancing a new and wondrous technology. Then again, there are times when logic and broader concerns get thrown out the window - this is one of those times. Out of fourteen related threads about gelatin on todays B&W list, (I subscribe to it as a daily digest), it's amazing that absolutely nobody talks about the danger of using these various spray compounds in any terms beyond them  "stinking a bit". Aside from the environmental problems with all of them, which are considerable, the major problem is that many of us will never get to see the longevity or long term surface protection beyond the short term.  I'm not a medical person, but do have some knowledge of chemistry, and it takes very little research to discover the carcinogenic qualities in many of  the listed ingredients contained in these products. Those of you who talk about using a face mask are living (for the time being) in a dream world, unless you use one with specific filtration for the exact chemical family contained in the spray. And it doesn't have to smell bad, or at all, to give you cancer.
> 
>  Gelatin is one of those harmless compounds that have worked in our analog iterations for over one hundred years, and personally, I think it has very good possibilities for our digital world.  Bravo to those taking the time and effort to experiment with it! 
> 
>  Regards for a happy and safe New Year. 
> 
> Clayton Price
> 
> <<< "bobtail75" cperfect594@...   bobtail75
> Wed Dec 29, 2010 6:48 am (PST) wrote:
> 
> Yes, the gelatin approach may/may not be the ultimate answer, but for many of us a step too far ! Here in the UK I have had good results with Lyson Printguard,from Marrutt.com I use an 1800/3MK set-up. Using Innova smooth Cotton media the surface appearance is barely changed,blacks are slightly enhanced and 'rub-off' prevented. On Ilford Gold Fibre Silk two coats gave a beautiful low gloss very like a darkroom un-glazed glossy.
> Only problem:it stinks a bit. I use a face mask and extractor fan near a window. It dries quickly, but the label warns of several safety aspects. A non toxic version would be good.
> Chris.
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "HarryB" <hrblaine@> wrote:
> >
> > Do any of you use spray (cans) and if so, what? Thanks! Harry>>>
> >
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "bobtail75" <cperfect594@...> wrote:
>
> The question Harry raised seemed a reasonable one-"what is the best print coating apart from gelatin?(taking into consideration toxicity, 
>ease of application, and effect on the print) 

Thanks Chris!  You phrasd it better than I ever could!  As is said, "It's always sumthin!!"  Applies here too, I fear.  I'm not looking for 100 years of protection, hell, at 79, 10-12 years is a lifetime to me.  In fact, maybe more than a lifetime. <g>  

I've used Premier Art Print Shield and wondered if there was anything better.  Maybe a water based shield?  And if so, which one and what has been your experience? 

I'm just an old amateur, never sold a digital print, never will.  The refridgerator is my favorite place to exibit what I print.  Or maybe a bookshelf.  Once in a long while, I may give a print away.  But since "you get what you pay for," longevity is hardly a concern there either.  And for those of you who apparently think that I'm stupid or crazy (or both), well, many would agree with you. <g>  And I'll freely admit to being old and eccentric.  

In any case, thanks for any help.  

Harry

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "HarryB" <hrblaine@...> wrote:
>
> Do any of you use spray (cans) and if so, what?  Thanks!  Harry
>

Harry, I use Hahnemuhle's spray mostly or Fotospeed's 'Frogjuice' if I want a more glossy finish. I use this with 3mk in an R1800 mostly on Hahnemuhle Fine Art Pearl (a photo black paper). This combination to my eyes makes lovely prints as long as I leave plently of border around the print which eliminates most of the R1800's bad behaviour traits. Hahnemuhle PR is a relatively warm tone paper and as far as I know contains no OBA'a and is pure cotton. Hahnemuhle states that its spray does not negatively impact its papers in any way so I am quite comfortable about this workflow from a longevity standpoint.

The big cotcha in the spray route is of course toxicity. I do not know how big the issue really is but if these sprays contain anything like the substances in automotive paints then I know that any automotive spray shop using modern paints with any regard for the health and safety of their workforce will not do so without external air supply breathing systems. Such systems as far as I know are not available at a hobbyist's price point. For now I spray outdoors on calm days.

So the gelatin route is of interest to me to see if I can eliminate sprays. I like matt papers for stuff that gets framed but much of it doesn't and for this I prefer 'satin' or gloss finishes. 

So I am experimenting with gelatin but find there are big issues in its use:
-Buckling and hardening of the paper
-Coating methods which eliminate bubbles etc.
-Mold protection
-Hardening of the gelatin coat

There are probably more but these are the ones I have come up with thus far. Some of the additives required to address the latter two seem to be quite toxic substances so we are bsck to square one with regards to the original problem of coating toxicity that gelatin is supposed to address!

Regards

Alistair

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "hp9180profile" <owens@...> wrote:
>
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "HarryB" <hrblaine@> wrote:
> >
> > Do any of you use spray (cans) and if so, what?  Thanks!  Harry
> >
> 
> Harry, I use Hahnemuhle's spray mostly or Fotospeed's 'Frogjuice' if I want a more glossy finish. I use this with 3mk in an R1800 >mostly on Hahnemuhle Fine Art Pearl (a photo black paper). This combination to my eyes makes lovely prints as long as I leave plently >of border around the print which eliminates most of the R1800's bad behaviour traits. Hahnemuhle PR is a relatively warm tone paper and >as far as I know contains no OBA'a and is pure cotton. Hahnemuhle states that its spray does not negatively impact its papers in any >way so I am quite comfortable about this workflow from a longevity standpoint.
> 

Thanks Alistair, that was the kind of answer that I was hoping for.  Quite helpful.  And thanks for the 'outdoor' tip.  I usually spray (with Premier Art Print Shield so far) in a downstairs bathroom with the fan on.  It's close to my printer setup and I figure that the br exhaust fan is better than nothing. Oh, and with an open window, of course, which this time of year makes it feel somewhat like outdoors. <g> 

I've accumulated quite a lot of different papers and I'm going to see which I like best for B/W gloss on a 3800.  I believe that I have some PR, I'll try it as soon as I get some H spray.  I have a 1400 too and I expect that I'll try a few on it as well.  As I believe I've stated in other posts, I have a lot of trix negs of dancers from the '70s which I hope to scan and print.  Finally!  Hey, I've been busy!  <g>  

BTW, I hope y'all don't get the idea that I spend all my time spraying prints and inhaling toxic fumes.  In addition to photography as a hobby, I field trial bird dogs (English Pointers, the ones with long tails) and English Cocker Spaniels.  And raise a few pups from time to time.  Plus I waste a lot of time on the internet and also spend some more profitably reading novels.  My wife is a librarian with an additioal MA in English lit so she keeps our bookshelves well stocked.  She currently has me reading Per Petterson's "Out Stealing Horses."  As the back cover says, "This mesmerizing Norwegian novel about youth, memory and yes, horse stealing...." I'm only 40 pages into it so I have no review for you yet but I will say yhat my wife liked it a lot.  I'm also in the middle of Drake's Leary/RCN series.  That's sci-fi, which along with mystery novels are my 'recreational' reading.  And I'm a retired college professor (Ohio State), thus I have time for all the above.  I've been around photography for quite a while (see above) but I'm just recently interested in digital photo printing. Thus the cries for help!  

Well, now that you know more about me than you ever cared to, I'll shut up.  Oh yes, I'm also an insomniac thus the 4 AM posting. This is the autobiographical NG ain't it?  :-)   

Harry  

PS  If you aren't interested in any of this stuff, just skip it.  Or, as the signs for Columbus Ohio's "Doo-Dah" parade (held on July 4) state: "Rain date, July 3".  BTW, I'm living in VA currently (Shenandoah Valley), thus the "y'all" above. <g>

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "kwalsh74" <kwalsh74@...> wrote:
>
> Apologies, but you've got to be nuts to think we are going to listen >to unfounded blather with a mean edge and no knowledge backing it :) 

Damn, wish I'd said that!  Of course, I'd have probably added my favorite descriptor, *ssh&l# to it somehow, which probably would have distracted some. :-)  

Harry

Great thread, thank you Harry for starting it. I log on every day but somehow I missed this one.

I use a printer/ink combination which seems pretty popular among posters here, the R1800/3MK approach. I use Premier Art FineArt paper sprayed with PremierArt Print Shield and have submitted a sample print to Aardenburg. Now at the 40 Megalux-hours mark and doing well.

I sorta wish I'd submitted a sample without the spray also, this would have given more information on the effects of the spray. But I have noticed some scuffing on prints not sprayed so I appreciate the physical protection afforded with the spray.

Thanks to those who express concerns over the possible toxicity of this approach. I spray outside, weather permitting, but Montana in January is not real conducive to that... will have to figure out some other way to get good ventilation.

Paul

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "HarryB" <hrblaine@...> wrote:

>
> Do any of you use spray (cans) and if so, what?  Thanks!  Harry
>

"Paul" <paulmwhiting@...> wrote:

> I use ... the R1800/3MK approach. I use Premier Art FineArt paper sprayed with PremierArt Print Shield and have submitted a sample print to Aardenburg. Now at the 40 Megalux-hours mark and doing well.

It's doing very well indeed.

By the way, there is another combination of spraying that should be tested.  The Print Shield has a very volatile base that evaporates so quickly that in some hot dry places it hits the paper as hard little balls.  This very volatile base appears to cause it to, relatively, sit on the surface as opposed to soaking in and surrounding the carbon particles and paper base (or coating).

Before a large company's threats drove Livick's fade testing off the web, he appeared to find that a combination of the lighter, less volatile Lascaux Fixativ applied first, and then the UV containing Print Shield second improved lightfastness.

Whether this was due to the different characteristics of the sprays or just because it resulted in a thicker coat is uncertain.  

It appears there are somewhat better fade results with the water based UV Eco coating from Premier Art than with the solvent based Print Shield, probably due to the thickness of the coat.  A Golden paints tech once told me that, all else being equal (thickness, amount of UV component, etc.) the solvent based products are more effective.  The water borne ones are like "gooey golf balls," with gaps between them that do not fill in all that well.  

I never did have much luck with the water based sprays.  

For those who have not used these products, note that the solvent based sprays keep matte paper looking like a matte print, with a slightly decreased dmax.  The water borne materials turn the matte print into more of a glossy print, with an increased dmax.  But, getting an even coating is a trick.  I had good luck with a Mayer rod for 8x10 prints, but I had trouble scaling up the process to larger prints.  A good spray booth seems to be the answer for service bureaus. 

One other failed experiment I might note: I tried to use my vacuum easel to pull the coating down into the paper and eliminate bubbles.  However, not enough air could get through the paper with my system to make it work.

Still, seeing a dmax of 2.5 on Arches Hot Press uncoated paper, not to mention a water proof, tough surface, did get my attention and keeps me reading these coating threads.  I think the aliphatic (non-yellowing backbone, as opposed to the aromatic) polyurethanes do deserve some attention.  I also found an aliphatic epoxy that was low in viscosity, but the manufacturer warned me that it still yellowed.  



> ... I spray outside, 

I use an open, cross-ventilated garage, and I still wear goggles and hold my breath. 

> weather permitting, ... Montana ...

A seasonal sport ...

I try to avoid these toxic sprays altogether.  Carbon on cotton is so solid more is not needed for fine art.  The Noritsu-Epson dyes are good enough for my glossy work and have no artifacts that need to be hidden by a toxic spray or gooey glop.


Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

Op 2-1-2011 17:54, Paul schreef:

> By the way, there is another combination of spraying that should be
> tested.  The Print Shield has a very volatile base that evaporates so
> quickly that in some hot dry places it hits the paper as hard little
> balls.  This very volatile base appears to cause it to, relatively,
> sit on the surface as opposed to soaking in and surrounding the
> carbon particles and paper base (or coating).
>
> Before a large company's threats drove Livick's fade testing off the
> web, he appeared to find that a combination of the lighter, less
> volatile Lascaux Fixativ applied first, and then the UV containing
> Print Shield second improved lightfastness.
>
> Whether this was due to the different characteristics of the sprays
> or just because it resulted in a thicker coat is uncertain.
>
> It appears there are somewhat better fade results with the water
> based UV Eco coating from Premier Art than with the solvent based
> Print Shield, probably due to the thickness of the coat.  A Golden
> paints tech once told me that, all else being equal (thickness,
> amount of UV component, etc.) the solvent based products are more
> effective.  The water borne ones are like "gooey golf balls," with
> gaps between them that do not fill in all that well.

> Paul www.PaulRoark.com


There are doubts whether UV blocking is possible with the thin layers as 
produced by for example Print Shield. Much more likely gas fading of any 
kind is blocked by the varnish.

Water based varnishes are usually dispersed acrylics and it is in their 
nature that they have more difficulty to form continuous layers. even 
harder when the layers are thin. But on canvas with thicker layers the 
encapsulation should be perfect.

I have used a Talens varnish 680 that is slow in drying, kind of white 
spirit based and the prints keep that smell for a long time. On for 
example HP Matte Litho Realistic the matt surface isn't changed much. 
Toxic as well though.


-- 
Met vriendelijke groeten,   Ernst

Try: http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/

|      Dinkla Grafische Techniek      |
|         www.pigment-print.com        |
|                 ( unvollendet )                 |

Some time ago I tested several of these.One I tried, Krylon UV clear, did indeed block UV to an extent as checked via before and after with a spectrophotometer. Unfortunately, it also slightly blocked visible blues so caused a bit of yellowing to Hilights and paper base. I don't have the numbers handy at the moment so can't quote figures.

Regards, Duane



--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Ernst Dinkla <edinkla@...> wrote:

> 
> There are doubts whether UV blocking is possible with the thin layers as 
> produced by for example Print Shield. Much more likely gas fading of any 
> kind is blocked by the varnish.
> 

> -- 
> Met vriendelijke groeten,   Ernst
> 
> Try: http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/
> 
> |      Dinkla Grafische Techniek      |
> |         www.pigment-print.com        |
> |                 ( unvollendet )                 |
>

Yes - in UV protection thickness IS the only solution that I have heard of - any so-called thin spray protection boasting of UV in any theory would need to distort color wavelengths - thus changing the color/appearance of the print itself. 

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Ernst Dinkla <edinkla@...> wrote:

>
> Op 2-1-2011 17:54, Paul schreef:
> 
> > By the way, there is another combination of spraying that should be
> > tested.  The Print Shield has a very volatile base that evaporates so
> > quickly that in some hot dry places it hits the paper as hard little
> > balls.  This very volatile base appears to cause it to, relatively,
> > sit on the surface as opposed to soaking in and surrounding the
> > carbon particles and paper base (or coating).
> >
> > Before a large company's threats drove Livick's fade testing off the
> > web, he appeared to find that a combination of the lighter, less
> > volatile Lascaux Fixativ applied first, and then the UV containing
> > Print Shield second improved lightfastness.
> >
> > Whether this was due to the different characteristics of the sprays
> > or just because it resulted in a thicker coat is uncertain.
> >
> > It appears there are somewhat better fade results with the water
> > based UV Eco coating from Premier Art than with the solvent based
> > Print Shield, probably due to the thickness of the coat.  A Golden
> > paints tech once told me that, all else being equal (thickness,
> > amount of UV component, etc.) the solvent based products are more
> > effective.  The water borne ones are like "gooey golf balls," with
> > gaps between them that do not fill in all that well.
> 
> > Paul www.PaulRoark.com
> 
> 
> There are doubts whether UV blocking is possible with the thin layers as 
> produced by for example Print Shield. Much more likely gas fading of any 
> kind is blocked by the varnish.
> 
> Water based varnishes are usually dispersed acrylics and it is in their 
> nature that they have more difficulty to form continuous layers. even 
> harder when the layers are thin. But on canvas with thicker layers the 
> encapsulation should be perfect.
> 
> I have used a Talens varnish 680 that is slow in drying, kind of white 
> spirit based and the prints keep that smell for a long time. On for 
> example HP Matte Litho Realistic the matt surface isn't changed much. 
> Toxic as well though.
> 
> 
> -- 
> Met vriendelijke groeten,   Ernst
> 
> Try: http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/
> 
> |      Dinkla Grafische Techniek      |
> |         www.pigment-print.com        |
> |                 ( unvollendet )                 |
>

With results published by Wilhelm, (with and without glass), the UV protection does not seem to really be that much of a factor with modern pigments. Also, most indoor display situations have minimal UV exposure.

Of a much greater concern is oxidation due to pollutants in the air. Ink jet prints need to be sealed, whether that is to put prints under glass, laminate, or liquid seal some way. Remember, the pigmented receptor inkjet coating is microporous. This makes the print very susceptible to pollutants! One of the beauties of gelatin in photographic prints was sealing the print from airborne contaminants.

It would be interesting to see studies done on the face mounting of prints on acrylic. Does the silicone or other adhesives react with the inkjet pigments over time.

John Nollendorfs

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "dlruckus" <dlruckus@...> wrote:

>
> Some time ago I tested several of these.One I tried, Krylon UV clear, did indeed block UV to an extent as checked via before and after with a spectrophotometer. Unfortunately, it also slightly blocked visible blues so caused a bit of yellowing to Hilights and paper base. I don't have the numbers handy at the moment so can't quote figures.
> 
> Regards, Duane
> 
> 
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Ernst Dinkla <edinkla@> wrote:
> 
> > 
> > There are doubts whether UV blocking is possible with the thin layers as 
> > produced by for example Print Shield. Much more likely gas fading of any 
> > kind is blocked by the varnish.
> > 
> 
> > -- 
> > Met vriendelijke groeten,   Ernst
> > 
> > Try: http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/
> > 
> > |      Dinkla Grafische Techniek      |
> > |         www.pigment-print.com        |
> > |                 ( unvollendet )                 |
> >
>

"John" <jrnolly@...> wrote:
>
> ... most indoor display situations have minimal UV exposure.
> 
> Of a much greater concern is oxidation due to pollutants in the air. Ink jet prints need to be sealed, ...


I've always suspected that was why the Lascaux, which apparently soaks into the coating better, added to the fade test results relative to the UV spray by itself.

I've looked for true oxygen barriers, and there appear to be none that are suitable for our us.  Oxygen gets through all of the transparent barriers we have, including acrylic.  But slowing it down does seem to help.  It's odd that even slowing the air movement around the pigments or dyes seems to help slow the oxidation.  I've wondered if air movement is analogous to blowing on a the embers of a fire.


A fade test result of mine relating to coatings that I found interesting was that in a high humidity test a matte paper that was coated with the polyurethane faded faster than one that was not coated.  I speculate that the water vapor got in through the back and stopped the pigments from being dried out by the lamp.  Whether this would happen in normal display is debatable.  Accelerated testing is often said to exaggerate the longevity of the images because the brighter than normal light dries the pigments, and water/humidity acts as a catalyst for the fading/oxidation.  But, unless the print is encapsulated from both the front and back (perhaps by barrier paper), coatings that are just on one side of the imaging substance might actually have a negative effect.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

Op 3-1-2011 5:02, Paul schreef:
> "John"<jrnolly@...>  wrote:
>>
>> ... most indoor display situations have minimal UV exposure.
>>
>> Of a much greater concern is oxidation due to pollutants in the
>> air. Ink jet prints need to be sealed, ...
>
>
> I've always suspected that was why the Lascaux, which apparently
> soaks into the coating better, added to the fade test results
> relative to the UV spray by itself.
>
> I've looked for true oxygen barriers, and there appear to be none
> that are suitable for our us.  Oxygen gets through all of the
> transparent barriers we have, including acrylic.  But slowing it down
> does seem to help.  It's odd that even slowing the air movement
> around the pigments or dyes seems to help slow the oxidation.  I've
> wondered if air movement is analogous to blowing on a the embers of a
> fire.
>
>
> A fade test result of mine relating to coatings that I found
> interesting was that in a high humidity test a matte paper that was
> coated with the polyurethane faded faster than one that was not
> coated.  I speculate that the water vapor got in through the back and
> stopped the pigments from being dried out by the lamp.  Whether this
> would happen in normal display is debatable.  Accelerated testing is
> often said to exaggerate the longevity of the images because the
> brighter than normal light dries the pigments, and water/humidity
> acts as a catalyst for the fading/oxidation.  But, unless the print
> is encapsulated from both the front and back (perhaps by barrier
> paper), coatings that are just on one side of the imaging substance
> might actually have a negative effect.
>
> Paul www.PaulRoark.com

Paul, interesting find on the polyurethane.

Xenon lamp testing with increased intensity to get faster fading results
will have that effect of drying out the samples, the darker the patch
the hotter it gets. I guess that increasing humidity in the test chamber
doesn't work in the actual top layers of patches like that and will
shift the relation of fade results between different patch densities.

I thought PVA and gelatine can be oxygen barriers. What I recall of
fruit drink cartons is a PVA layer somewhere in the wall's sandwich of
aluminium, polyethylene, paper to do right that. The other layers there
to keep water in and for strength.

I still believe that modern RC papers should be independently tested on
the total of their aging effects, the RC papers reputation is based on a
bad history and they should get a second chance in my opinion. I wrote
that when the Fiber/Baryta papers were introduced and I still think so.
The RC papers show better gas fading resistance (based on some older
German tests of inkjet papers). FBA's if contained in the paper base
between the Polyethylene barriers live longer for the same reason and
there are now some new qualities like the Ilford Galerie Smooth Pearl II
RC that have that high load/buffer of FBA in the paper base and most
likely little in the coating. The main question is the aging of the
barriers and their bond with the paper base and paper coating. Right now
estimations are 75 years life for barrier life. Then there is the
outgassing effect when RC papers are framed behind glass. For unframed
display and with the print coated afterwards RC papers could have a lot
of advantages, especially for dye inks + compatible RC paper versions.
The good results with Claria and Vivera dye/paper systems show that already.


-- 
Met vriendelijke groeten,   Ernst

Try: http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/

|      Dinkla Grafische Techniek      |
|         www.pigment-print.com        |
|                 ( unvollendet )                 |

Paul:
Yes, interesting results regarding the polyurethane--was that the solvent based, or water based product? Of course we all know that urethane does allow moisture migration. :-)

Regarding "Fade-O-Meter" (Atlas machine) and accelerated testing. Yes, these machines do provide all sorts of new variables to consider. I once ran some samples through a machine they have at the University of Nebraska. Decided that using that device requires lots of data history to be useful. I'll leave that to the likes of Henry and Mark.

And, regarding humidity, That seemed to be a major factor when considering dyes with their complex inter-reactions--much more so than pigments.  

An ideal inkjet receptor would be one of the swellable polymer base, that swells on initial contact with water, and then remains water impervious after that, providing protection against airborne contaminants.

John Nollendorfs 

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Paul" <roark.paul@...> wrote:
SNIP
> A fade test result of mine relating to coatings that I found interesting was that in a high humidity test a matte paper that was coated with the polyurethane faded faster than one that was not coated.  I speculate that the water vapor got in through the back and stopped the pigments from being dried out by the lamp.  Whether this would happen in normal display is debatable.  Accelerated testing is often said to exaggerate the longevity of the images because the brighter than normal light dries the pigments, and water/humidity acts as a catalyst for the fading/oxidation.  But, unless the print is encapsulated from both the front and back (perhaps by barrier paper), coatings that are just on one side of the imaging substance might actually have a negative effect.

"John" <jrnolly@...> wrote:
>
> Paul:
> Yes, interesting results regarding the polyurethane--was that the solvent based, or water based product?

It was the water based, aliphatic I was experimenting with.

> Of course we all know that urethane does allow moisture migration.

As I noted earlier, I looked for epoxy, but found none that did not yellow.  The one-solution water based poly urethane looked like the toughest that would work for us.  However, the clear coatings industry is huge, and a lot of R&D goes into it.


> And, regarding humidity, That seemed to be a major factor when considering dyes with their complex inter-reactions--much more so than pigments.  

Yes, they are water soluble, after all.  Actually, it might be interesting to see if once dried I can re-dissolve the Noritsu-Epson product. (Dare I say "bulk Claria"?  I suspect Epson would object to that.  See the black Lab A & B comparison at
http://www.paulroark.com/BW-Info/Noritsu-Claria-BO-Lab.jpg)

For most of the cards and other output I have in mind for the Noritsu inks, I'm not that concerned with longevity.  I expect it to be good enough. However, for someone who wants to have only a single printer set up for B&W with the dyes, some of these sprays or coatings for those images that are intended for long term display are archiving might be important.  So, I'm going to explore them more.

 
> An ideal inkjet receptor would be one of the swellable polymer base, that swells on initial contact with water, and then remains water impervious after that, providing protection against airborne contaminants.

If they work, are available, and otherwise good looking papers, there might be a market for such.  I didn't like the few I looked at when they were first introduced, but then I was not into dyes at the time.  I must say I'm having lots of fun with the Red River Metallic at the moment.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Paul" <roark.paul@...> wrote:
SNIP 
> 
> Yes, they are water soluble, after all.  Actually, it might be interesting to see if once dried I can re-dissolve the Noritsu-Epson product. (Dare I say "bulk Claria"?  I suspect Epson would object to that.  See the black Lab A & B comparison at
> http://www.paulroark.com/BW-Info/Noritsu-Claria-BO-Lab.jpg)

Many Microporous coatings impart a water resistant quality for the printed image,so the dye ink should not run very much if at all when put under water. 

The life of "black only" dyes (not mixed with another color) should be quite good. The informal southwindow testing Allen Maertz did with Ilford Black dyes 9 years ago, he called practically "bullet proof". When dyes are mixed (like on an ink jet print with mixed colors) is when the catalytic interaction occurs, and print life is severely reduced. This is why swellable polymer inkjet receptor papers give the longest print life using 4 color dyes. (by isolating the dyes from one another) This is also why high humidity conditions reduce print life on these papers. (due to dye migration)
  
> For most of the cards and other output I have in mind for the Noritsu inks, I'm not that concerned with longevity.  I expect it to be good enough. However, for someone who wants to have only a single printer set up for B&W with the dyes, some of these sprays or coatings for those images that are intended for long term display are archiving might be important.  So, I'm going to explore them more.

I have some 4-color dye prints, microporous done from 10 years ago under glass, indoor conditions look quite good, with no noticeable fade. But same prints, same ink without glass protection showed visible fading within a few months. 

My best guess is that micro-porous papers allows the oxidizing atmospheric agents easy access to fade the dyes or pigments. (remember the orange fade problem of Epson 1280 prints due to ozone?)

 
> > An ideal inkjet receptor would be one of the swellable polymer base, that swells on initial contact with water, and then remains water impervious after that, providing protection against airborne contaminants.
> 
> If they work, are available, and otherwise good looking papers, there might be a market for such.  I didn't like the few I looked at when they were first introduced, but then I was not into dyes at the time.  I must say I'm having lots of fun with the Red River Metallic at the moment.

Paul, there are no such papers as I describe above available. Only swellable polymer (Ilford Classic papers). Again, for BO printing, I don't think this kind of inkjet receptor coating is necessary, if you in some way seal the paper against airborne oxidizing agents. 

John Nollendorfs

"John" <jrnolly@...> wrote:
>
> 
>...
> The life of "black only" dyes (not mixed with another color) should be quite good. ...
> When dyes are mixed (like on an ink jet print with mixed colors) is when the catalytic interaction occurs, and print life is severely reduced...

I'll be testing for this.  I suspect the black is already a mix of colors, and it's biased to blue.  The black only tests are moving to higher Lab A values.  So, my addition of magenta, if I'm really lucky, will *just* offset that.  We'll see.  (While my tests are not the equal of Aardenburg Imaging, I was able to detect most of what we're now seeing in the more sophisticated tests.)

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

Paul:
Black dyes are generally mixed with yellow, to obtain a "blacker, more neutral black". 

Ilford Black tended to have a "magenta" cast. 

John Nollendorfs

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

>
> "John" <jrnolly@> wrote:
> >
> > 
> >...
> > The life of "black only" dyes (not mixed with another color) should be quite good. ...
> > When dyes are mixed (like on an ink jet print with mixed colors) is when the catalytic interaction occurs, and print life is severely reduced...
> 
> I'll be testing for this.  I suspect the black is already a mix of colors, and it's biased to blue.  The black only tests are moving to higher Lab A values.  So, my addition of magenta, if I'm really lucky, will *just* offset that.  We'll see.  (While my tests are not the equal of Aardenburg Imaging, I was able to detect most of what we're now seeing in the more sophisticated tests.)
> 
> Paul
> www.PaulRoark.com
>