Digital BW, The Print

I completely stopped using coated papers a couple of years ago, due to brightener fading, coating chipping and other "features" I did not care for. Just found a new one today that I thought people should know about:

When I was using coated papers, I brushed them briskly and carefully before printing, so any chips of coating would come off before, not after.

Nonetheless, a few prints still chipped after printing. So I would methodically check every print before signing, numbering and either matting or storing.

A few weeks ago I sold a somewhat older print and today went to get one from inventory and matte it. While thumbing through a box of prints looking for it, I noticed that some of my few remaining prints on coated paper had significant (1-2mm) round pieces of image/coating missing. (None of the prints on watercolor paper had pieces missing.) I checked enough older prints that there remains no doubt this is a pattern.

These holes can be spotted out, but the problem is, "How many prints will sprout holes after they are sold and out of our control?"

And the the problem is bigger. When I switched to watercolor papers, I also switched from HP to Epson, so my profiles for HP became useless and the HP inks would also be wasted. So, I used up all the Red River Aurora Natural, Entrada, Innova and other high end papers I had left over, making prints for inventory. It seems the delayed chipping is not confined by brand.

I suggest you check your own inventory for signs your stored prints may be throwing off pieces of themselves.

dk

Richard makes some interesting points:

 

If one's print is appropriately matted and framed under acrylic or UV resistant art glass then the surface is protected. In addition to protection from the elements, apparently constant handling is one factor  that might predispose the surface of ink jet papers to fray and degrade.  Although I bow to the considerable expertise of others, it now seems as though a reasonable work flow might entail taking the completed print and allowing the print to air dry.  Perhaps one of the protective sprays would be useful.  After the print is thoroughly dry, matt and frame on archival board using UV resistant glass or acrylic.  We will know in about 100 years if the prints were archival.  At that time we can post the information……:}

 

An interesting subject might be to review the papers that Rembrandt and his contemporaries used to complete their etchings  Such images are still well preserved.  

 

Elliot

From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com [mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] 
Sent: Monday, January 26, 2015 11:00 PM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Yet another coated paper drawback...

 

  

I know this has been debated to death before, but I just don't get the fear of coated inkjet papers, especially given the variation in quality from one batch of water uncoated water color paper to the next. The full sheets of Arches Hot Press I got for testing the Eboni inks had paper fibers sticking up off the surface, causing the sprayed ink to clump or places where it blocked ink from hitting the surface altogether.

 

The uncoated surface is not able to hold ink the way these printers are depositing it onto the paper. People always mention how traditional ink-on-paper prints have been made of these uncoated cotton rag papers for centuries. What they fail to mention is that print making papers are first dampened, so that when they are run through a press the inked plate is pushing pigment into swollen paper fibers so that it can bond properly. Spraying ink that dries almost instantly onto dry paper requires a receptive surface designed for this purpose. Aside from certain aesthetic qualities uncoated papers might have for specific applications, as Paul said, it does not make as smooth or as finely detailed a print as using coated paper—the midtones are prone to having a speckled or granular look, and the overall print has what I find to be an unacceptable blurring of fine details. In my view, I find it completely unsuitable for making the prints that I am interested in making—I look at it like this: If the whole reason for printing with carbon on uncoated paper is permanence, isn't it important to make something—the physical print—worth preserving. 

 

I mentioned to Paul a short while ago when I when I was testing the MIS inks on uncoated Arches Hot Press that the ink started flaking off the surface almost immediately. Blow-drying a print (to speed up the profiling process) made it worse, and just stacking one print on top of the other was enough to scrape off even more ink and paper fibers. I just took a look at the same prints after they sat in a stack without moving for the past a few weeks. The have been scuffed and the ink has abraded off slightly more than before (this is with only two other sheets of paper on top). Seeing how quickly they were defaced the first two days have been more careful in handling them compared to other test prints. and don't stack anything except a light cover board on top of them. 

 

The only time I have these kinds of problems with my prints on good smooth inkjet papers is when they are handled a lot—like re-stacking and shuffling test prints when comparing different papers and inks, or showing prints to people all day during portfolio reviews or studio tours. I will say that there are some papers I simply won't use because the surface is far too fragile and it seems like scuffs will appear in the shadows if you just look or breath on them the wrong way. Heavily textured papers like German Etching and William Turner are the ones that come to mind first, as well as Canson Arches Aquarelle, but really I don't often find the kinds of problems David mentions, and it isn't for a lack of trying.  

 

As for the problems that the papers exhibited in LuLu post that Paul linked to: That seems like it has more to due to the storage conditions than just light exposure. When a photograph is matted and framed it is protected from the most severe changes in humidity as well as atmospheric pollutants. As far as UV protection goes, even non-conservation framing acrylic blocks 2/3 of UV (PREMIUM CLEAR FF3 Framing Grade ACRYLIC by Acrylite® 66% UV blocking). The only thing those "scientific" tests indicate is that you shouldn't treat your photographs like trash. 

 

Without seeing scans of the defects David described, it is hard to know what they could be—Can you make scans of your prints and post on your blog to illustrate this, i'm not doubting they are there, but trying to understand what to look for. 

 

It looks like I will have a snow day tomorrow, so I will try to get around to posting the scans I made of the problems i have with uncoated Arches Hot Press. 

 

Richard Boutwell

I don't claim to be an expert of any kind in print making,  I just make a 
few B/W on my Epsons and here and there a color on a  Canon.  And for my own 
use!   I think that I've given  only one or two prints away since I started 
digital printing  some 10 years ago.  However it didn't take me very long to 
learn  that you don't blow dry prints nor do you stack them.  You take each 
one  out of the printer, thus they don't stack up.  I let all my prints dry 
 naturally on a flat surface.  Then I spray them.  I seldom mount then,  
never under glass but I have several stuck in a bookshelf where they are for 
the  most part out of direct light.  Yes they curl slightly as they have no  
support but they have lasted for over 5 years with no major problems.   And 
I print all my B/Ws with ABW and Epson ink on my 3800.  These are  certainly 
not museum quality but I'm not aiming for that.  My goal is  a nice print 
that satisfies me.  And lest you think that I have no  standards, back in the 
day, I sold hundreds of 35mm B/W prints of dancers, my  favorite subject 
way back then. With never a complaint from  purchasers, many of them dancers 
with New York professional companies such  as Graham or Humphrey-Limon.  In 
point of fact, one of them  even graced the cover of Dance Magazine.  
 
All the fuss about profiles, QTR etc. probably frightens more people  away 
than it converts.  Buy a good Epson printer and have at it.  Just  use a 
little common sense and you'll be fine. At least that has worked  for me!   
Harry

Finally someone has made a "real world" statement...


> All the fuss about profiles, QTR etc. probably frightens more people  away 
> than it converts.  Buy a good Epson printer and have at it.  Just  use a 
> little common sense and you'll be fine. At least that has worked  for me!   
> Harry  




I print a lot of B&W. But I do this for 
Theatrical Productions, Head Shots etc etc.....

I get very good prints with out spending my life 
searching for the ideal profile etc etc....

I'm sure all the extra fuss is great for Fine Art People.

My customers work and perform in the Fine Arts
but they are not Fine Art Customers!