Digital BW, The Print

I just wanted to contribute my own thoughts on these issues.
 
First, I don't think we are ever going to see any inkjet technology that
produces a print identical or even close to an air dried silver fiber print.
The problem is that with a silver print your pigment, the silver particles,
are suspended in a transparent gelatin. The layer is very thin but it is
still three dimensional. When light falls on the print some is reflected
directly from the pigment and some light passes through the gelatin to
reflect off the paper base coating and back through the pigment structure to
your eye.
 
With the very nature of inkjet the pigment will always be sitting on top of
the paper to a greater extent with some soaking into the paper. 
 
There is no way these two very different structures will look the same.
 
To my mind and eye they both look great. My take is that trying to produce
silver print clones with inkjet printers is a fruitless quest. If you want
to make silver prints, make silver prints. This is not a question of digital
printing vs. traditional printing. The technology for making flawless
contract negatives from digital files is very well developed and the results
are absolutely gorgeous.
 
The only inkjet technology that seems to come close to silver is dye ink or
perhaps Ultrachrome inks on RC type papers. These can be a very good match
to RC silver prints and if that is satisfying to you then you are in luck.
The longevity, metamerism and the RC look are just are not acceptable to me
personally.
 
I like pigment inkjet prints on high quality matte paper. It is medium
worthy of use and needs no apologies in any regard at this point. Personal
and artistic tastes prevail and you really should be working in a medium
that you find satisfying.
 
As to the issue of the dedicated B&W printer, that is a non-issue for me
since I don't do any serious color printing. My color printing is limited to
an occasional family snap shot and my old 1270 with Epson dye inks on Epson
Colorlife paper does the job for me. (I have no eye for color and they look
as bad as you might imagine.<G>)
 
My collection of digital B&W prints made by other people is now close to 150
prints. Within the collection are representatives of just about every ink
set, paper type and workflow. This includes prints from 2200 and 7600 using
the RIPs with Ultrachrome inks as well as all of the grayscale sets, dyes as
well as pigments, and prints made with full color ink sets.
 
I have in the collection some really outstanding example of prints made with
the Ultrachrome inks and a RIP. These are really top notch quality prints of
wonderful images produced by people who have remarkable talents as
photographers and artists. These prints a of a caliber where I have to sit
and ask myself if I shouldn't follow the same path and stop knocking myself
using alternative inks.
 
After giving it a great deal of thought and looking over many prints I find
that I still have to give a slight edge to prints made with pigment
grayscale inks in dedicated B&W printer systems. The differences are slight
but to my eye there are subtle qualities in hue, tone and gradation that I
prefer. The differences are at a level that I think they may only be
apparent to master printers. Someone who is intent upon extracting that last
1% of quality out of his/her prints. This has as much or more to do with
artistic sensibility and critical print evaluation as it does with choice of
materials.
 
I don't intend to sound elitist or snobbish with this but the fact remains
that what we find pleasing or acceptable in a finished print is going to
vary greatly over the 3700 members. We represent a group that ranges from
very casual B&W printers to people who are dedicating a major portion of the
lives to the effort. We always need to keep that in mind when we read posts
here.
 
I think the choice should be pretty straight forward for most people. If all
you print is B&W then dedicate a printer to it. Why not? If you need some
office level color output, (an Yahoo map for instance) letter size printers
are dirt cheap. If your printing is largely color then one of the 7 ink
printers with a RIP to optimize B&W and color printing is definitely the way
to go. If you fall in a 50/50 split then I would still go for the dual
purpose printer. If you are printing mostly B&W and want to extract the most
you can then I would recommend a dedicated B&W machine with grayscale
pigment inks.
 
One last piece of excellent advice that comes from the late Fred Picker (who
in general I found to be extremely annoying and often wrong):
 
"Find a photographer whose prints you really like and then find out how they
did it."
 
I am fortunate enough to have several of Tyler Boley's 17x22 prints. To my
mind and eye he produces some of the finest inkjet photographs I have seen.
There are others that equal him but none that are better. Given that and his
long and extensive work in inkjet he is someone whose opinion I take very
seriously. Following Fred's advice I am leaning towards an Epson 4000 loaded
with Selenium and Warm Neutral PiezoTone inks and the StudioPrint RIP.
 
My two cents. Opinions will vary. Opinions will change as this technology
races ahead. 
 
Martin Wesley
www.carolyn.cc/Guests/MartinWesley/pages/MW_01.html
www.borderless-photos.de/guests.html
 


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

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Martin Wesley"
<mwesley250@e...> wrote:
> I just wanted to contribute my own thoughts on these issues.
>  
> First, I don't think we are ever going to see any inkjet technology
that
> produces a print identical or even close to an air dried silver
fiber print.
> The problem is that with a silver print your pigment, the silver
particles,
> are suspended in a transparent gelatin. The layer is very thin but
it is
> still three dimensional. When light falls on the print some is
reflected
> directly from the pigment and some light passes through the gelatin
to
> reflect off the paper base coating and back through the pigment
structure to
> your eye.

Much snippage of wonderful post.....
  
> I am fortunate enough to have several of Tyler Boley's 17x22 prints.
To my
> mind and eye he produces some of the finest inkjet photographs I
have seen.
> Martin Wesley

Martin,

This is one of the most gracefully thoughtful posts that I have ever
read on the internet.  Thank you for sharing your worthwhile thoughts.

Ol' Don in Broken Arrow

> ... I don't think we are ever going to see any inkjet technology
>that produces a print identical or even close to an air dried 
>silver fiber print.

I would expect that each medium will always have its unique look.  Some will
be closer than others.

As a B&W photographer, the more options I have for output, the better.  

I've obviously been a huge fan of the traditional air-dried silver print.  I
like the neutral tone and high dynamic range.  As a life-long visitor to the
areas where A. Adams made many of his great photos, I've always had a great
love for the subject matter as well as the craft and artistry of his work. 

The air-dried, glossy, fiber-based paper surface has been widely accepted as
a good compromise between the mirror-like glossy prints with their
distracting reflections and matte prints that, especially when viewed with
good cross lighting, can suffer a dmax/dynamic-range disadvantage.

I, personally, don't like the process of matting & framing, nor the look of
prints behind glass.  Glazing too often results in reflections that rob
dynamic range and are distracting, similar to a real glossy print surface.
The gelatin coating of the silver print, however, seems too delicate and not
sufficiently cleanable to leave un-protected.  Whether spraying a protective
coating is less of a hassle than framing is an open question.

The use of a "barrier-paper" to protect the pigments has appeal.  Between a
barrier at the back of the pigments and a tough barrier that is sprayed on
the front, I think I can get a good encapsulation of the image-forming
pigments.  It's possible that encapsulated carbon could be better than
carbon-on-cotton in terms of protecting the image from damage, including
from moisture, air pollution, and oxidizing gasses.  Moisture seems to be a
major factor in fading, for example.

What I have been and will continue to pursue, among other things, is a way
to get a high-dynamic-range, durable, long-lived B&W medium that allows me
to easily and safely display my photos without glass -- maybe not a Holy
Grail, but a worthwhile goal.  Encapsulated carbon pigments may be a good
way to get there.

> The problem is that with a silver print your pigment, 
>the silver particles, are suspended in a transparent gelatin.

I think that is where my inkjet display experiments are leading me also.

A few months ago I thought some of the nicest inkjet prints for display that
satisfied my "wet paper towel" test (being washable) was the
polyurethane-coated, matte inkjet print.  Several of us were very enthused
about that process of using a wire-wound rod to apply the coating.  Other
priorities came along, however, and I was never successful at scaling the
system up to large prints.

Now I think some of the Epson barrier-papers (I hope to try the semi-matte
today), when coated with an appropriate spray might be an interesting option
to explore.  I'm impressed so far, but I don't want to say it's in the bag.


(Perhaps I should avoid the "RC" label.  It carries a lot of negative
baggage from the past, un-happy experiences some of us had with RC silver
prints.  Polyethylene (the barrier/resin) is, according to my chemist
brother, a large generic category within which there are many different
materials.  The past mixes may have little in common with the many modern
variations.  My reading suggests that some of these can be very tough and
durable materials.  To dismiss all barrier-papers as "RC" may be wrongly
disparaging them as inferior.  Wilhelm rates several Epson barrier-papers at
display and dark storage lives that are very good -- >200 years of dark
storage for both barrier-papers and cotton.)

On the other hand, traditionally-matted prints under glass/acrylic are where
the fine-art sales will probably be for a while.  (I just received a call
for the SLO gallery that one of mine sold.)  I'm not dropping
carbon-on-cotton.  

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

<The technology for making flawless contact negatives from digital files is=
 very well 
developed and the results are absolutely gorgeous.>

If you must have silver prints, another approach is to have a second genera=
tion film 
negative made via a device called a Film Recorder. In 1996 - 1998 I had abo=
ut 50 
negatives made in this manner by Photo Impact in Los Angeles. They used a K=
odak LVT 
and output a 3 inch negative on 4x5 Kodak Copy Film.

It's necessary that the operator work with you to produce a negative you li=
ke. Beware, 
from my experience at that time I think most labs that offer LVT work are u=
sed to 
working with color transparencies. Unfortunately, my contact at Photo Impac=
t has moved 
on to his own shop and now does color ink jet prints.

The cost? I paid $75 per negative and it was worth it. (Last I looked, they=
 had lowered it 
to $65.) I had been unable to find an Iris shop that could produce a good "=
gray scale' 
image; I think my problems then were probably similar to those producing gr=
ayscale pix 
with color ink jet printers today. The LVT negative allowed me to bring the=
 power of 
Photoshop to my work at that time.

Forward to 2002. For you RC fans, I've had some small prints of nudes and p=
ortraits 
made by Photoworks in San Francisco from digital files. These are color pri=
nts on RC 
paper, but with the instructions 'neutral or slightly warm' they've been fi=
ne for holiday 
cards. They use an Agfa machine, but I know there are other options. Their =
prices are 
very low, 50¢ for a 5x7 in quantities of 100 or more. A single 5x7 is $2.50=
. But we're not 
talking art here.

FWIW, I've moved on from GSP to piezo and agree with Martin that it's not r=
ealistic to 
expect the two to look the same.

Michael Rosen, LTL (long time lurker)

>I just wanted to contribute my own thoughts on these issues.

Beautifully said, Martin.  Thank you.


Regards,
Clayton


Info on black and white digital printing at    
http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paul Roark [mailto:paul.roark@verizon.net] 
> Sent: Friday, December 12, 2003 2:14 PM
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: RE: [Digital BW] Re: Holy Grail, Double Standard, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> > ... I don't think we are ever going to see any inkjet 
> technology that 
> >produces a print identical or even close to an air dried 
> silver fiber 
> >print.
> 
> I would expect that each medium will always have its unique 
> look.  Some will be closer than others.
> 
> As a B&W photographer, the more options I have for output, 
> the better.  
> 
> I've obviously been a huge fan of the traditional air-dried 
> silver print.  I like the neutral tone and high dynamic 
> range.  As a life-long visitor to the areas where A. Adams 
> made many of his great photos, I've always had a great love 
> for the subject matter as well as the craft and artistry of his work. 
> 
> The air-dried, glossy, fiber-based paper surface has been 
> widely accepted as a good compromise between the mirror-like 
> glossy prints with their distracting reflections and matte 
> prints that, especially when viewed with good cross lighting, 
> can suffer a dmax/dynamic-range disadvantage.

Paul,

One of the things that puzzles me is that we know that the technology exists
to build laser printers that would exposure silver fiber paper yet none of
the major producers of silver fiber paper seem to have pursued this. Instead
they seem to have put all their efforts into producing inkjet papers.
Neither have the enlarger companies shown any signs of taking this on.
Probably too far outside the expertise and RD budgets of either but the
appeal is pretty obvious.

> 
> I, personally, don't like the process of matting & framing, 
> nor the look of prints behind glass.  Glazing too often 
> results in reflections that rob dynamic range and are 
> distracting, similar to a real glossy print surface. The 
> gelatin coating of the silver print, however, seems too 
> delicate and not sufficiently cleanable to leave 
> un-protected.  Whether spraying a protective coating is less 
> of a hassle than framing is an open question.

I can't imagine displaying any paper art without glazing. The surface is too
fragile and the materials vulnerable to insect damage among other things.
> 
> The use of a "barrier-paper" to protect the pigments has 
> appeal.  Between a barrier at the back of the pigments and a 
> tough barrier that is sprayed on the front, I think I can get 
> a good encapsulation of the image-forming pigments.  It's 
> possible that encapsulated carbon could be better than 
> carbon-on-cotton in terms of protecting the image from 
> damage, including from moisture, air pollution, and oxidizing 
> gasses.  Moisture seems to be a major factor in fading, for example.

Aren't the UltraChrome inks were resin encapsulated pigments? In regard to
the black inks this does not seem to offer any significant fade resistance
but perhaps the coating is too thin.
> 
> What I have been and will continue to pursue, among other 
> things, is a way to get a high-dynamic-range, durable, 
> long-lived B&W medium that allows me to easily and safely 
> display my photos without glass -- maybe not a Holy Grail, 
> but a worthwhile goal.  Encapsulated carbon pigments may be a 
> good way to get there.
> 
> > The problem is that with a silver print your pigment,
> >the silver particles, are suspended in a transparent gelatin.
> 
> I think that is where my inkjet display experiments are 
> leading me also.
> 
> A few months ago I thought some of the nicest inkjet prints 
> for display that satisfied my "wet paper towel" test (being 
> washable) was the polyurethane-coated, matte inkjet print.  
> Several of us were very enthused about that process of using 
> a wire-wound rod to apply the coating.  Other priorities came 
> along, however, and I was never successful at scaling the 
> system up to large prints.
> 
> Now I think some of the Epson barrier-papers (I hope to try 
> the semi-matte today), when coated with an appropriate spray 
> might be an interesting option to explore.  I'm impressed so 
> far, but I don't want to say it's in the bag.

In 2001 when I circulated the varnished prints that Mark Romine and I had
done independently I included a single print that was on Kodak Ultima Satin
with two coats of Krylon Clear spray. This was with the original Piezo inks
and the plug-in on a 1200. As comments came back this seemed to be the print
most people preferred over the varnished matte papers. At that point we were
mostly coating by brush and the impact of the less than perfect coating may
have been a big factor.

I still have the coated prints and I remain ambiguous myself. The Dmax is in
silver fiber range. I measure 2.05 on the coated inkjet prints and 2.1 to
2.2 on silver fiber. There is just something about the overall feel/texture
of the coated prints that doesn't appeal to me. That was pretty much the
consensus of everyone who viewed the collection. They seem to have held up
well in dark storage for two years and the coated prints warmed noticeably
less than the uncoated. The Varathane was a bust as it yellowed strongly.

I am sure what has been done with the Myer rods is far superior to what I
did though.

Speaking of coating, Robert has not posted anything in quite some time and I
gather he never was able to bring his coating process to market.
> 
> 
> (Perhaps I should avoid the "RC" label.  It carries a lot of 
> negative baggage from the past, un-happy experiences some of 
> us had with RC silver prints.  Polyethylene (the 
> barrier/resin) is, according to my chemist brother, a large 
> generic category within which there are many different 
> materials.  The past mixes may have little in common with the 
> many modern variations.  My reading suggests that some of 
> these can be very tough and durable materials.  To dismiss 
> all barrier-papers as "RC" may be wrongly disparaging them as 
> inferior.  Wilhelm rates several Epson barrier-papers at 
> display and dark storage lives that are very good -- >200 
> years of dark storage for both barrier-papers and cotton.)

Well silver fiber paper is a barrier paper with a clay coating under the
gelatin and the clay is inert. Polymers are likely to outgas monomers and
plasticizers with time. Especially under exposure to UV and heat. Whether
this will be an issue with the carbon inks I don't know. I would   be very
careful in framing and glazing these papers to provide adequate back
ventilation so that unwanted chemicals can escape. Sealing any art up in an
air tight container is unwise. I remain much more comfortable with the life
expectancy of prints on quality non-barrier papers than on barrier or RC
paper.

> 
> On the other hand, traditionally-matted prints under 
> glass/acrylic are where the fine-art sales will probably be 
> for a while.

I would be willing to bet that this will be the case indefinitely. Even if
you coat the print your mats would degrade pretty quickly without the
protection of glass.

>  (I just received a call for the SLO gallery 
> that one of mine sold.)  I'm not dropping carbon-on-cotton.  

Congratulations and it is great to see carbon pigment inkjet gaining
acceptance!

Martin Wesley
www.carolynfrayn.com/Guests/MartinWesley/pages/MW_01.html
www.borderless-photos.de/guests.html

Michael,

I made a brief attempt with film recorder output in the late 90's but the
lack of understanding by the lab people and the cost soon forced me to
abandon it. In the past several people have posted some info on LVT
negatives and negatives made with LightJet on transparent Fuji material.

I have seen B&W LightJet output on Fuji color silver paper and it was very
good. Unfortunately only RC paper is available except for one company in
Europe that will output silver fiber and tray develop it.

All things to explore if you need silver fiber prints but want to work
digitally.

Martin Wesley
www.carolynfrayn.com/Guests/MartinWesley/pages/MW_01.html
www.borderless-photos.de/guests.html



> -----Original Message-----
> From: michaelrosensf [mailto:yahoo@...] 
> Sent: Friday, December 12, 2003 2:21 PM
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [Digital BW] Re: Holy Grail, Double Standard, etc.
> 
> 
> <The technology for making flawless contact negatives from 
> digital files is=
> 
>  very well 
> developed and the results are absolutely gorgeous.>
> 
> If you must have silver prints, another approach is to have a 
> second genera=
> 
> tion film 
> negative made via a device called a Film Recorder. In 1996 - 
> 1998 I had abo=
> 
> ut 50 
> negatives made in this manner by Photo Impact in Los Angeles. 
> They used a K=
> 
> odak LVT 
> and output a 3 inch negative on 4x5 Kodak Copy Film.
> 
> It's necessary that the operator work with you to produce a 
> negative you li=
> 
> ke. Beware, 
> from my experience at that time I think most labs that offer 
> LVT work are u=
> 
> sed to 
> working with color transparencies. Unfortunately, my contact 
> at Photo Impac=
> 
> t has moved 
> on to his own shop and now does color ink jet prints.
> 
> The cost? I paid $75 per negative and it was worth it. (Last 
> I looked, they=
> 
>  had lowered it 
> to $65.) I had been unable to find an Iris shop that could 
> produce a good "=
> 
> gray scale' 
> image; I think my problems then were probably similar to 
> those producing gr=
> 
> ayscale pix 
> with color ink jet printers today. The LVT negative allowed 
> me to bring the=
> 
>  power of 
> Photoshop to my work at that time.
> 
> Forward to 2002. For you RC fans, I've had some small prints 
> of nudes and p=
> 
> ortraits 
> made by Photoworks in San Francisco from digital files. These 
> are color pri=
> 
> nts on RC 
> paper, but with the instructions 'neutral or slightly warm' 
> they've been fi=
> 
> ne for holiday 
> cards. They use an Agfa machine, but I know there are other 
> options. Their =
> 
> prices are 
> very low, 50¢ for a 5x7 in quantities of 100 or more. A 
> single 5x7 is $2.50=
> 
> . But we're not 
> talking art here.
> 
> FWIW, I've moved on from GSP to piezo and agree with Martin 
> that it's not r=
> 
> ealistic to 
> expect the two to look the same.
> 
> Michael Rosen, LTL (long time lurker)
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor 
> ---------------------~--> Buy Ink Cartridges or Refill Kits 
> for your HP, Epson, Canon or Lexmark Printer at MyInks.com. 
> Free s/h on orders $50 or more to the US & Canada. 
> http://www.c1tracking.com/l.asp?cid=5511
> http://us.click.yahoo.com/mOAaAA/3exGAA/qnsNAA/ucIolB/TM
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> -------~->
> 
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other 
> resources as they are often being updated.
> 
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:
- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
them short.
- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames.
Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the
membership without notice.
- Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W
printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be removed from
the membership.
- By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and
guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group Owner and
Moderators. See “Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines” in the Files section:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/

BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT
YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE “OWNER” AND
“MODERATORS” OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU
FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY
DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS,
GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE  “OWNER” AND
“MODERATORS” OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE
POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY
TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR
ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY
THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER
MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.
 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Martin,

>One of the things that puzzles me is that we know that the 
>technology exists to build laser printers that would exposure 
>silver fiber paper yet none of the major producers of silver 
>fiber paper seem to have pursued this. Instead
>they seem to have put all their efforts into producing inkjet papers.
>...

I tried to find an outfit that had one of the color-RC-paper-exposing laser
systems that would allow me to try a fiber print.  They had no interest.
Apparently the way the machines are set up they are not very flexible or
user-friendly when it comes to modifying the processes.  The economies of
scale just are not there for B&W fiber prints.


>I can't imagine displaying any paper art without glazing. 
>The surface is too fragile and the materials vulnerable to 
>insect damage among other things.

The question is whether there is a material, perhaps with a spray or
lamination, that can give sufficient protection and look good.  Many
paintings are displayed without glass.

>> It's possible that encapsulated carbon could be better than 
>> carbon-on-cotton in terms of protecting the image from 
>> damage, including from moisture, air pollution, and oxidizing 
>> gasses.  Moisture seems to be a major factor in fading, for example.

>Aren't the UltraChrome inks ... resin encapsulated pigments? In regard to
>the black inks this does not seem to offer any significant fade resistance
>but perhaps the coating is too thin.

I had thought the coating would protect them also, but it seems to be there
only to help them stick onto the paper.  

>In 2001 when I circulated the varnished prints that Mark Romine and I had
>done independently I included a single print that was on Kodak Ultima Satin
>with two coats of Krylon Clear spray. This ... seemed to be the print
>most people preferred over the varnished matte papers. ...

Yes, I remember that set of prints.  I liked the Ultima Satin print also.

>... I remain much more comfortable with the life
>expectancy of prints on quality non-barrier papers ...

I think that will remain true with many for a long time.  For the family
photo albums, I'll still push the carbon-on-cotton as the
reproduction/preservation system of choice.  However, it should be under
mylar or sprayed for protection.  The physical damage of the old prints I've
dealt with is worse than the fading.

It's the display prints that I'm focused on for the sprayed barrier-paper
option.  I think the impact of that higher dynamic range might be a real
eye-catcher.  If it also is reasonably long-lived, all the better.



> Even if you coat the print your mats would degrade pretty quickly ...

What mats?  :)  

I'm thinking of dry mounting (or other system) on foam core, cutting to
exact, pre-made (cheap) frame size, and slapping it together.  High visual
impact, as well as low cost and labor are major factors in this project.

To minimize the risk of physical damage, is there a mounting substrate that
is acid free and harder than foam core or mat board? 

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

Hi Paul,

There are at least three choices that I know of.  The most expensive and most 
archival and least susceptible to damage is Dibond, which is two thin sheets of very 
flat, hard aluminum with a thin polyethylene core.  Sintra is also very hard and has a 
thin foam core.  And Gatorfoam, the most available and least expensive, has a very 
hard/smooth/tough surface with a foam core.  Sintra and Dibond are commonly used 
products in the sign industry.  Cheers,

Tom Andrews
http://www.wildlandart.com

> I'm thinking of dry mounting (or other system) on foam core, cutting to
> exact, pre-made (cheap) frame size, and slapping it together.  High visual
> impact, as well as low cost and labor are major factors in this project.
> 
> To minimize the risk of physical damage, is there a mounting substrate that
> is acid free and harder than foam core or mat board? 
> 
> Paul
> www.PaulRoark.com

On Saturday, December 13, 2003, at 01:26  PM, Paul Roark wrote:
> I'm thinking of dry mounting (or other system) on foam core, cutting to
> exact, pre-made (cheap) frame size, and slapping it together.  High 
> visual
> impact, as well as low cost and labor are major factors in this 
> project.
>
> To minimize the risk of physical damage, is there a mounting substrate 
> that
> is acid free and harder than foam core or mat board?

Paul,

Here is a table with comparative characteristics of various mount board 
materials:
http://www.pres-on.com/display.cgi?file=comparison

Carl

Martin  

Can you please explain your comment below.  I am doing this - ie spraying my prints 
with 3 coats of Lyson Print Guard and then framing with archival mats and no glass.  I 
am puzzled as to why the mats would degrade quickly of they are of archival quality.  
On the last lot of prints I had framed I went so far as to spray the outward facing 
surface of the mats with Print Guard as well.

Regards

Steve


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Martin Wesley" 
<mwesley250@e...> wrote:

> > On the other hand, traditionally-matted prints under 
> > glass/acrylic are where the fine-art sales will probably be 
> > for a while.
> 
> I would be willing to bet that this will be the case indefinitely. Even if
> you coat the print your mats would degrade pretty quickly without the
> protection of glass.

Paul  -
 
>To minimize the risk of physical damage, is there a mounting >substrate that is acid free and harder than foam core or mat >board? 

Gator Board.  But, I understand that it is not acid free.  And, I believe the cost is quite a bit more.

 

Tom Baker


 


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

On Saturday, December 13, 2003, at 04:10  PM, Tom Baker wrote:

> Paul  -
>
>> To minimize the risk of physical damage, is there a mounting 
>> >substrate that is acid free and harder than foam core or mat >board?
>
> Gator Board.  But, I understand that it is not acid free.  And, I 
> believe the cost is quite a bit more.
>
>
>
> Tom Baker

Yes, gatorfoam has pH 5.5-6.5 according to the Pres-On chart (see 
below), but dibond and sintra are neutral.  Has anyone tried the "back 
mount" boards?  They mount to the face of the print with clear, acrylic 
adhesive - if it reduces bronzing, doesn't bubble, and is clear enough 
might be a one-step solution.

http://www.pres-on.com/display.cgi?file=comparison

Carl

For: Martin Wesley

> I can't imagine displaying any paper art without glazing. The surface 
> is too
> fragile and the materials vulnerable to insect damage among other 
> things.

But that is the major purpose of the coating.


> I would be willing to bet that this will be the case indefinitely. 
> Even if
> you coat the print your mats would degrade pretty quickly without the
> protection of glass.

The purpose of a mat is to keep the glass from touching the surface of 
the print. If there is a protective coating of the print and there is 
no glass no mat is necessary: the print can be displayed like an oil 
painting. One way would be to mount the print on an aluminum sheet, or 
on foam core.

--Mitch/Bangkok

Paul:

> While the sprayed semi-matte dmax is slightly better than my 
> silver-prints, the paper white of the semi-matte looks much white than 
> the un-bleached silver-print highlights.  So, the dynamic range of the 
> semi-matte is better...Epson Premium Semi-matte is clearly a contender 
> warranting more experiments.

I've been very happy with Semi-Matte which I  have used for an 
exhibition of 16x24 inch and 24x36 inch color prints printed on my 
Epson 7600. Also, as I indicated in a recent posting, I find that for 
B&W Photo Black/Semi-Matte produces the deeper blacks and longer tonal 
range that I cannot get with Matte Black and matte papers. The only 
problem I have is the slight bronzing of the UC inks on Semi-Matte. I'm 
eager to try the type of spray that you are trying but have no idea of 
whether I can get it here in Bangkok. Do you or anyone else have any 
idea how I can find out whether it's sold here?

--Mitch/Bangkok

I agree except that it is nice to use a matt to offset (?) the print in the
frame somewhat.  I personally find the front matt to be more aesthetically
appealing.  The question is whether a with matt/no glass combination is
worse than a without matt/no glass combination.

Steve

From: Mitch Alland <malland@...>
Reply-To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Date: Sun, 14 Dec 2003 14:55:24 +0700
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Digital BW] Re: Holy Grail, Double Standard, etc.

<snip>

The purpose of a mat is to keep the glass from touching the surface of
the print. If there is a protective coating of the print and there is
no glass no mat is necessary: the print can be displayed like an oil
painting. One way would be to mount the print on an aluminum sheet, or
on foam core.

--Mitch/Bangkok





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

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mitch Alland [mailto:malland@...m] 
> Sent: Saturday, December 13, 2003 11:55 PM
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [Digital BW] Re: Holy Grail, Double Standard, etc.
> 
> 
> For: Martin Wesley
> 
> > I can't imagine displaying any paper art without glazing. 
> The surface
> > is too
> > fragile and the materials vulnerable to insect damage among other 
> > things.
> 
> But that is the major purpose of the coating.
> 
> 
> > I would be willing to bet that this will be the case indefinitely.
> > Even if
> > you coat the print your mats would degrade pretty quickly 
> without the
> > protection of glass.
> 
> The purpose of a mat is to keep the glass from touching the 
> surface of 
> the print. If there is a protective coating of the print and there is 
> no glass no mat is necessary: the print can be displayed like an oil 
> painting. One way would be to mount the print on an aluminum 
> sheet, or 
> on foam core.
> 
Mitch,

Good points. Personally though I don't think I would want to display a B&W
print like an oil painting with no mat. It just doesn't sound attractive to
me.

Back in the early and mid-70's I dry mounted silver fiber prints on 8-ply
black mounting board and then glued a white frame to the back that was inset
from the edges about 3". This held the prints out from the wall  about 2".
Black mat board was not very stable at that time so I sprayed the entire
front of the assembly with Krylon. Over time though the prints and mats have
accumulated a number of dents and scratches. All things considered they have
held up well but not as well as if they had been framed under glass.

I guess I just don't mind prints under glass.

Martin Wesley
www.carolynfrayn.com/Guests/MartinWesley/pages/MW_01.html
www.borderless-photos.de/guests.html