Digital BW, The Print

bjpm77 <fnbjm1@...> wrote:

>I thought that Hydrocote was now the final stage in your workflow,
>but from what you say about spraying a fixative to set the high-load
>pigs, this doesn't seem to be the case. Are you not regularly using
>Hydrocote?

I've been side-tracked from the wire-rod coating.  I do not coat everything.
I have a show that I'm preparing for and inksets that I'm trying to perfect.
For the show, most of the pieces are going to be traditional matte under
glass (acrylic).  With respect to the new inksets, I want to perfect the
matte printing before going the next step to coating.

A light fixative (three very light coats) is not a big deal to me.  It has
no effect on the image, but the pigs don't rub off easily.  I can easily do
this in my garage with no breathing or equipment.  There are aerosols that
are very archival and work fine.

I'm also interested in RC papers for a number of reasons -- easy dynamic
range, relatively tough surface, maybe even better pigment encapsulation if
coated.  If an Epson Archival pigment-based vm-s gives me 100+ years on an
RC with a 2.0 dmax with no coating or other work, a look that I like
(questionable), and a surface that doesn't get ruined with the slightest
touch, that may be hard for me to resist.

>I spent quite a bit of time trying to get even coatings (using a
>Mayer #30)and finally achieved a good result. Alas, I found I didn't
>care for the appearance of the coated print as much as the smooth
>matte surface, even with the better dmax, so I abandoned the
>practice. But I thought you were fully into it. Not so?

I'm fully into making the best looking B&W prints with the easiest process.
I'm trying several promising alternative approaches to get there.  I think
the gallery market will want truly archival matte paper under glass.  Lots
of people like the glossy or RC look.  I personally like matte, but I don't
like the sensitivity of the surface to damage, and I don't like glass --
which defeats a lot of the matte advantage.  An archival, matte RC with a
dmax of 2 and an abrasion-resistant surface might be a very interesting
product.  I doubt that it currently exists, but I think it could.

Paul
http://www.PaulRoark.com
___________________________________




"Paul Roark" <paul.roark@v...> wrote:
> I have previously mentioned that I occasionally notice increased
unevenness
> in the "high-load" black pigs I've been printing.  I think I've
made some
> progress with these now.
>
> The short answer is that turning off "High Speed" printing on my
1160 seems
> to get rid of the vertical lines/marks that have appeared in some
of my dark
> black skies.
>
> As background, what I call "high-load" pigments are those that use
one of
> the new bases that allows pigmented inks to carry a higher content
of
> pigment.  Whereas the older pigments contained up to about 3%
pigment, the
> new ones are up in the 6% to higher range.  The UltraChromes and
the
> PiezoTone Museum black are currently-available samples that come
to mind,
> but these pigments will be increasingly available.
>
> The good news with respect to the high-load pigments includes the
increased
> gamut of the color pigs and the deeper black that can be achieved
without
> any dye.
>
> The bad news may be increase sensitivity to damage that this big
pile of
> pigment on the paper causes.  I think this puts the image at
greater risk of
> physical abrasion, among other things.  (I may spray a light
archival
> fixative on even my matte images to protect them.)
>
> The vertical lines I've been seeing in my black skies may be
mechanical
> marks put on a more-exposed pile of pigments on the surface of the
paper.
> With the "High Speed" off these pigs, perhaps, have more time to
dry and

> thus resist damage done by the 1160's rollers.
>
> Paul
> http://www.PaulRoark.com

<paul.roark@v...> wrote:

>A light fixative (three very light coats) is not a big deal to me.  
It has no effect on the image, but the pigs don't rub off easily.  I 
can easily do this in my garage with no breathing or equipment.  
There are aerosols that are very archival and work fine.<

What fixatives are you using? I'd like to give an archival aerosol a 
try. As you point out, the surface of matte paper is touchy. If you 
make images with dark grounds, as I often do, scuffing is especially 
apparent.

For now, I intend to stay with matte paper and keep trying to 
increase dmax through ink choice rather than coating. An RC matte 
paper with the characteristics you describe would be very 
interesting. Let's hope one becomes available. 

Speaking of dmax, has anyone else gotten the impression that once 
you get a coated print and an uncoated print (of the same image) 
framed under glass or plexy, the APPARENT difference in dmax drops 
noticeably? This is one of the reasons I abandoned coating....
BJ
http://www.mcwayne.com

> Speaking of dmax, has anyone else gotten the impression that once
> you get a coated print and an uncoated print (of the same image)
> framed under glass or plexy, the APPARENT difference in dmax drops
> noticeably? This is one of the reasons I abandoned coating....
> BJ
> http://www.mcwayne.com

Absolutely.  Although I would not want to mix silver prints and inkjet
prints in an exhibit (two different things), I am struck by the way
differences fade when a print is under glass (or plexi in my case).  Once a
(non-photographer) viewer is involved with the image, I doubt there is much
interest in the process anyway.

Regards,

  --Ken Carney
    www.kencarney.com

<paul.roark@v...> wrote:

>A light fixative (three very light coats) is not a big deal to me.
It has no effect on the image, but the pigs don't rub off easily.  I
can easily do this in my garage with no breathing or equipment.
There are aerosols that are very archival and work fine.<

bjpm77 <fnbjm1@...> wrote:

>What fixatives are you using? I'd like to give an archival aerosol a
>try. As you point out, the surface of matte paper is touchy. If you
>make images with dark grounds, as I often do, scuffing is especially
>apparent.

Ross Merrill, Chief of Conservation at the National Gallery of Art,
Washington D.C. (USA), in a 1997 speech regarding pastel conservation said
as follows regarding fixatives:

"Today there are a number of alternatives. Krylon Acrylic Varnish B72 is
used by conservators. This product will remain unchanged for 400 years, but
does have a tendency to saturate the surface. Grumbacher B77 varnish or
"tough film" is the same as B72, but will not saturate. Krylon workable
fixative and Sennelier fixative are both good products. One should stay away
from Grumbacher's "blue label" fixative." See
<http://www.bmi.net/knapp/iapsmerrill.html>

I think the most well know and acknowledged "archival" fixative is Rohm &
Haas's Paraloid B72.  This patented formula is now available as the Lascaux
(a Swiss company) "Fixativ."  Outlets that supply the preservation and
conservation types will have it.

I cannot find the Krylon equivalents that Merrill referred to.  My
assumption is that when Krylon was acquired by a larger company that company
decided to no longer pay Rohm & Haas royalties for the patented formula.
I'd guess that Krylon Kamar is so close as to be a complete substitute.
However, since that company will not disclose any proprietary information or
tests, there is some uncertainty.

I have not tried the Grumbacher B77, but that is certainly one on my list.

Frankly, I suspect even Lyson Print Guard and lots of others are essentially
the same product.

Paul
http://www.PaulRoark.com

Every ten years or so the Museum of Fine Arts here in Boston struts 
out its cache of impressionist paintings-guaranteed boffo box office. 
We took in the show today, and for once, the highlight was not the 
Monets.

To broaden the scope, this time they included works on 
paper...including watercolors they admit can't be shown often because 
of fade issues. There was also a selection of photographs from the 
era-mostly salt prints and albumens, which have held up nicely, being 
silver based. But the killer image was a super-mammoth glass plate 
print of a mountain waterfall by Adolphe Braun (about 20" x 30"), 
circa 1870 or so. It had a tonal richness and depth that was vastly 
superior to anything else on the wall, and beyond most modern prints 
by any process. The wall label stated it was done with a carbon 
pigment process Braun had developed (but my history of photography 
texts indicate he acquired the French rights to the process, and by 
1868 his firm was producing 1500 prints a day!). Close inspection 
showed absolutely no suggestion of fading, highlights and shadows 
were fully detailed, no discoloration or discontinuity of tone or 
color. At 125 years and counting, it is stunning. Anyone doing quad 
tone pigment printing should try to see vintage carbon prints for 
inspiration-if the past is any indication of what a carbon pigment 
process can produce, the future looks great, but the present sure has 
a way to go yet.

And if Jon Cone is interested in looking past Arnold Gassan for ideas 
on ink sets, he just might want to come down to Boston and take a 
look...
-- 
Bruce C. Kinch
Associate Professor of Photography
The Art Institute of Boston at Lesley University

On 1/25/03 4:20 PM, "Ken Carney" <kcarney1@...> wrote:

>> Speaking of dmax, has anyone else gotten the impression that once
>> you get a coated print and an uncoated print (of the same image)
>> framed under glass or plexy, the APPARENT difference in dmax drops
>> noticeably? This is one of the reasons I abandoned coating....
>> BJ
>> http://www.mcwayne.com

Speaking as an avid coater, my intent was never to glaze coated prints.  I
hate glass/plexiglass you name it.  What coating does is free you from
glazing.  The print is luminous and rich without the glazing...and what's
better is when someone sneezes on it...you wipe it off...when the gallery
owner eats subway that day and then picks up your portfolio...wipe it off.
Personally I just love handling print.  I want them in my hand...not just on
the wall.  That's why you coat.

Robert

Hi Paul,

In looking through a Jerry's catalog I found a pot full of Krylon products. They have Kamar but they also had a couple of others that looked interesting and I wonder if you have any information about their use in digital printing:

    Krylon low odor clear coatings matte spray 7120
   Krylon workable fixatif spray 1306

Thanks,

Roger

  -----Original Message-----
  From: Paul Roark [mailto:paul.roark@...]
  Sent: Saturday, January 25, 2003 8:21 PM
  To: DigitalB&WPrint
  Subject: [Digital BW] Re: Printing High-load black pigments


  <paul.roark@v...> wrote:

  >A light fixative (three very light coats) is not a big deal to me.
  It has no effect on the image, but the pigs don't rub off easily.  I
  can easily do this in my garage with no breathing or equipment.
  There are aerosols that are very archival and work fine.<

  bjpm77 <fnbjm1@...> wrote:

  >What fixatives are you using? I'd like to give an archival aerosol a
  >try. As you point out, the surface of matte paper is touchy. If you
  >make images with dark grounds, as I often do, scuffing is especially
  >apparent.

  Ross Merrill, Chief of Conservation at the National Gallery of Art,
  Washington D.C. (USA), in a 1997 speech regarding pastel conservation said
  as follows regarding fixatives:

  "Today there are a number of alternatives. Krylon Acrylic Varnish B72 is
  used by conservators. This product will remain unchanged for 400 years, but
  does have a tendency to saturate the surface. Grumbacher B77 varnish or
  "tough film" is the same as B72, but will not saturate. Krylon workable
  fixative and Sennelier fixative are both good products. One should stay away
  from Grumbacher's "blue label" fixative." See
  <http://www.bmi.net/knapp/iapsmerrill.html>

  I think the most well know and acknowledged "archival" fixative is Rohm &
  Haas's Paraloid B72.  This patented formula is now available as the Lascaux
  (a Swiss company) "Fixativ."  Outlets that supply the preservation and
  conservation types will have it.

  I cannot find the Krylon equivalents that Merrill referred to.  My
  assumption is that when Krylon was acquired by a larger company that company
  decided to no longer pay Rohm & Haas royalties for the patented formula.
  I'd guess that Krylon Kamar is so close as to be a complete substitute.
  However, since that company will not disclose any proprietary information or
  tests, there is some uncertainty.

  I have not tried the Grumbacher B77, but that is certainly one on my list.

  Frankly, I suspect even Lyson Print Guard and lots of others are essentially
  the same product.

  Paul
  http://www.PaulRoark.com



        Yahoo! Groups Sponsor 
              ADVERTISEMENT
             
       
       

  Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:

  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint

  If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same page.

  Please follow these basic guidelines:
  - Include your full name with your message.
  - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
  - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep them short.
  - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
  - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or &amp;amp;quot;flames.&amp;amp;quot;
  - Complete your Yahoo profile.
  - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various resources on the homepage. 




  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. 


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

Roger,

I have used a couple of Krylon sprays, and, frankly, I can't tell much
difference in any of the sprays.  The problem I have with the Krylon is that
the company will not release any information about them.  What is on the can
is about all that is going to be made public.  So, I think Kamar says it is
archival, the others may not.  That could be as far as Krylon will go.

The matte spray may be very interesting on an RC to cut the "sheen."  I have
not tried that one yet.

Obviously, Krylon has advantages -- availability and price.  So, I use it.
But if I'm going to be selling something, I'd like to be able to say a
little more about the spray that is used.  Here is where the B72 mix may be
important.  For my own uses, I assume Kamar is the same stuff.  In short, I
think its just a marketing issue.

Paul
http://www.PaulRoark.com
______________________________________

  -----Original Message-----
  From: Roger L Sopher [mailto:rlsopher@...]
  Sent: Sunday, January 26, 2003 7:54 AM
  To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
  Subject: RE: [Digital BW] Re: Printing High-load black pigments


  Hi Paul,

  In looking through a Jerry's catalog I found a pot full of Krylon
products. They have Kamar but they also had a couple of others that looked
interesting and I wonder if you have any information about their use in
digital printing:

      Krylon low odor clear coatings matte spray 7120
     Krylon workable fixatif spray 1306

  Thanks,

  Roger
    -----Original Message-----
    From: Paul Roark [mailto:paul.roark@...]
    Sent: Saturday, January 25, 2003 8:21 PM
    To: DigitalB&WPrint
    Subject: [Digital BW] Re: Printing High-load black pigments


    <paul.roark@v...> wrote:

    >A light fixative (three very light coats) is not a big deal to me.
    It has no effect on the image, but the pigs don't rub off easily.  I
    can easily do this in my garage with no breathing or equipment.
    There are aerosols that are very archival and work fine.<

    bjpm77 <fnbjm1@...> wrote:

    >What fixatives are you using? I'd like to give an archival aerosol a
    >try. As you point out, the surface of matte paper is touchy. If you
    >make images with dark grounds, as I often do, scuffing is especially
    >apparent.

    Ross Merrill, Chief of Conservation at the National Gallery of Art,
    Washington D.C. (USA), in a 1997 speech regarding pastel conservation
said
    as follows regarding fixatives:

    "Today there are a number of alternatives. Krylon Acrylic Varnish B72 is
    used by conservators. This product will remain unchanged for 400 years,
but
    does have a tendency to saturate the surface. Grumbacher B77 varnish or
    "tough film" is the same as B72, but will not saturate. Krylon workable
    fixative and Sennelier fixative are both good products. One should stay
away
    from Grumbacher's "blue label" fixative." See
    <http://www.bmi.net/knapp/iapsmerrill.html>

    I think the most well know and acknowledged "archival" fixative is Rohm
&
    Haas's Paraloid B72.  This patented formula is now available as the
Lascaux
    (a Swiss company) "Fixativ."  Outlets that supply the preservation and
    conservation types will have it.

    I cannot find the Krylon equivalents that Merrill referred to.  My
    assumption is that when Krylon was acquired by a larger company that
company
    decided to no longer pay Rohm & Haas royalties for the patented formula.
    I'd guess that Krylon Kamar is so close as to be a complete substitute.
    However, since that company will not disclose any proprietary
information or
    tests, there is some uncertainty.

    I have not tried the Grumbacher B77, but that is certainly one on my
list.

    Frankly, I suspect even Lyson Print Guard and lots of others are
essentially
    the same product.

    Paul
    http://www.PaulRoark.com



          Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
                ADVERTISEMENT




    Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and
other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:

    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint

    If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to
unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same
page.

    Please follow these basic guidelines:
    - Include your full name with your message.
    - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
    - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to
keep them short.
    - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject
header.
    - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or
&amp;amp;quot;flames.&amp;amp;quot;
    - Complete your Yahoo profile.
    - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
resources on the homepage.




    Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


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


        Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
              ADVERTISEMENT




  Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and
other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:

  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint

  If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to
unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same
page.

  Please follow these basic guidelines:
  - Include your full name with your message.
  - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
  - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
them short.
  - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
  - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or
&amp;amp;quot;flames.&amp;amp;quot;
  - Complete your Yahoo profile.
  - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
resources on the homepage.




  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


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