Digital BW, The Print

I am in the midst of planning a couple portfolios to be printed on 
Epson Hot Press Natural.  I did a preliminary test and indeed the dmax is lowered...as in 1.64 lowered to 1.58 approximately after spraying with PremierArt PrintShield.  Dissappointing, as there certainly could be long term advantages to spraying prints. 

It seemed to me that spraying would be a good idea for prints that will be handled...though I plan to use interleaving sheets to hopefully reduce abrasion issues.

Premier told me to expect an increase in Dmax...you guys said it would lower it.  Your information appears more accurate.

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. 

Sooooo.....what are others opinions...ie would I be ok to not spray...and assume viewers will be careful?  Every once in a while, I notice that the deepest blacks using Eboni can rub off a bit with rough handling.  I assume the spray would help this occasional issue.

I can see the spray does a good job of eliminating bronzing on lustre papers...but I really like the Matte for presentation prints.  So I am very dissappointed that the dmax is reduced.

I found a couple old posts suggesting a couple coats of Lascaux then a coat of PrintShield.  Any folks doing this and successfully retaining the dmax.

Thanks for any additional information or suggestions....

Phil

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]

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]
>

KentB <philip@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
> 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...
>

I spray all glossy prints that I'll be displaying on the way without
glazing.  Print Shield does a far better job of getting rid of the bronzing
and gloss differential than does glop.  The solvent based Print Shield
dries hard.  The water-based coatings, including glop if it's on heavy,
stay tacky way too long.

With the dyes and the metallic paper, I use Lascaux Fixativ.  There even
the solvent based Print Shield interferes with the unique and extreme
sharpness than  the dye-metallic combo can produce around the spectral
highlights.


> 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.
>

If you put on enough coating, you will ultimately end up with a glossy
print with a high dmax.  I was experimenting with using a "wire-wound"
"Mayer" rod applicator and water-based coatings for a while.  As an example
of what it could do, I achieved a dmax of 2.5 on Arches watercolor paper.
 However, the rod coating did not scale well, and other issues as well
caused me to drop that approach.  For large prints to be done well this way
a HVLP sprayer and dust free spray booth are needed.  And don't stack them
or they might stick together.

...
> I still really like matte paper....and wonder if there are any suitable
> solutions to up the dmax by adding a finish.
>

I gave up with that approach.  Anyway, on the wall, matte usually has a
visually higher dmax due to lack of reflections.  Under glass, people
usually can't tell the difference.  Recall also that once you have a glossy
surface, you'd better plan on dry mounting the print to keep it flat.  A
wavy piece of paper is a terrible display.


> 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.
>

Here is a snapshot comparison of http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com/ tests
of Ilford paper with and without Hahnemuhle protective spray --
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com/ .  It makes a difference, but it's not
that great.

I think the water based do a bit better, but getting them right without a
good sprayer and dust-free spray booth is hopeless in my view.


Paul
www.PaulRoark.com


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