Digital BW, The Print

I sprayed a Semigloss test strip with Lyson Print Guard using the same
procedure I had used for the PremierArt Print Shield.  The cans, labels, and
smells of the 2 are virtually identical.  Now that the spray procedures have
been equalized, I think the results look identical also.  I think they are
the same.

 

I also tried a second test strip with Grumbacher Tuffilm.  I used to think
it was a good, more reasonably priced spray.  The test strip I did this
evening, however, turned out terrible - an uneven mess.  The can had been
out in the garage instead of inside, so maybe the lower spray-can
temperature was the problem.  I'll try this product again.  But at this
time, I would not recommend it.

 

Paul

www.PaulRoark.com <http://www.paulroark.com/>  

 



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

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Roark" 
<paul.roark@v...> wrote:
> I sprayed a Semigloss test strip with Lyson Print Guard using the same
> procedure I had used for the PremierArt Print Shield.  The cans, labels, and
> smells of the 2 are virtually identical.  Now that the spray procedures have
> been equalized, I think the results look identical also.  I think they are
> the same.

Are these sprays compatible with matte papers as well say, photo rag? 

Andu

Andu,

These sprays can significantly help protect matte prints from damage also.
However, they do not seal them up well enough to clean them, like taking a
wet paper towel to the surface.  Also, the sprays do not increase the dmax
of matte prints.  It takes a heavier coating to do that.  We were getting
very good dmax increases using wire-wound (Mayer) rods and Hydrocote
polyurethane on matte papers.   Whether this PremierArt spray scales up
better than the wire rod remains to be seen.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com 
________________________________


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Roark" 
<paul.roark@v...> wrote:
> I sprayed a Semigloss test strip with Lyson Print Guard using the same
> procedure I had used for the PremierArt Print Shield.  The cans, labels,
and
> smells of the 2 are virtually identical.  Now that the spray procedures
have
> been equalized, I think the results look identical also.  I think they are
> the same.

Are these sprays compatible with matte papers as well say, photo rag? 

Andu

Alan Zinn wrote:

>BTW I tried Johnson's paste wax a long time ago and got promising results. 
>When I do my Ebony BO's I'll give it another try.
>
>  
>
Johnson's Paste Wax, neat!

Just a piece of advice..  If you pan on using the images as flooring, 
keep in mind that Johnson's Paste Wax is NOT OSHA approved.. It's 
waaaay  too slippery..  ;-)

 
Keith Krebs

"Just some guy," caretaker of the Multiverse's largest EPSON printer 
User Community (highly recommended by Vogon Poets and MegaDodo 
Publications), at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EPSON_Printers/
and  the Multiverse's largest Canon printer User  Community at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Canon-printers
"For the rest of you out there, the secret is to bang the rocks together 
guys"

Been using Lyson Print Guard on and off for some time.  It seems to 
work well on just about any surface, and with a few coats, it acts a 
bit like a gloss optimiser on ultrachrome prints.  adds to the cost 
per print, though.

One thing I have never been clear about is Printguard and 
outgassing.  If you spray a print made on glossy or semiglsoss paper 
immediately its printed, is that an end to the outgassing phenomenon, 
or would you be storing up problems for the future?
--
Quentin

PS, what's up with the apostrophes in some posts?

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Roark" 
<paul.roark@v...> wrote:
> Andu,
> 
> These sprays can significantly help protect matte prints from damage also.
> However, they do not seal them up well enough to clean them, like taking a
> wet paper towel to the surface.  Also, the sprays do not increase the dmax
> of matte prints.  It takes a heavier coating to do that.  We were getting
> very good dmax increases using wire-wound (Mayer) rods and Hydrocote
> polyurethane on matte papers.   Whether this PremierArt spray scales up
> better than the wire rod remains to be seen.

Thanks Paul, my concern is if spraying the print doesn't affect the texture, feel of it in 
any way. I would imagine a lacquer kind of spray would make the paper slightly shiny 
specially where there is ink on it, hope I'm wrong. I have some experience with both 
oil painting and wood finishing and I was never able to find a protective coating which 
didn't change the surface personality even if little, I'm really found of the texture 
appearance of the prints in their "natural" state to the extent that I would never 
consider putting them under glass, if this spray provides some protection while 
preserving the feel of it I'd be satisfied.

Andu

> 
> Paul
> www.PaulRoark.com 
> ________________________________
> 
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Roark" 
> <paul.roark@v...> wrote:
> > I sprayed a Semigloss test strip with Lyson Print Guard using the same
> > procedure I had used for the PremierArt Print Shield.  The cans, labels,
> and
> > smells of the 2 are virtually identical.  Now that the spray procedures
> have
> > been equalized, I think the results look identical also.  I think they are
> > the same.
> 
> Are these sprays compatible with matte papers as well say, photo rag? 
> 
> Andu

Andu -
 
I'I've been using Print Shield for about 3 months now.  I have put it on several different papers including RC.  Even in heavier coatings (greater than 3 coats) I can not see any difference once it is completely dry.  And, I don't sense a different 'feel' either.  The spray applicator on Print Shield is very effective, and applies a very even coating.  I perceive this as a good thing.  However, if one were wanting a change in the surface appearance, this wouldn't necessarily be a good thing.
 
I see that some have noted slight measured differences in densities with the Print Shield spray.  But, I am only talking about visual appearance in the above.
 
Tom Baker






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

At 06:15 PM 12/15/03 -0800, you wrote:
>I sprayed a Semigloss test strip with Lyson Print Guard using the same
>procedure I had used for the PremierArt Print Shield.  The cans, labels, and
>smells of the 2 are virtually identical.  Now that the spray procedures have
>been equalized, I think the results look identical also.  I think they are
>the same.
>
>
>
>I also tried a second test strip with Grumbacher Tuffilm.  I used to think
>it was a good, more reasonably priced spray.  The test strip I did this
>evening, however, turned out terrible - an uneven mess.  The can had been
>out in the garage instead of inside, so maybe the lower spray-can
>temperature was the problem.  I'll try this product again.  But at this
>time, I would not recommend it.
>
>
>
>Paul
>
>www.PaulRoark.com <http://www.paulroark.com/>
>
>

Paul,

Sorry if I missed this before - anyone know if Suregaurd #921  AKA McDonald 
Pro-tecta-cote is similar or same stuff as Premier/Lyson?

The various products I've tried seem dependant on the quality of the spray 
nozzle - hard to tell if the coating is good when it doesn't have a nice 
spray pattern.

BTW I tried Johnson's paste wax a long time ago and got promising results. 
When I do my Ebony BO's I'll give it another try.

Thanks,

AZ

Build a Lookaround!
The Lookaround Book, 2nd ed.
NOW SHIPPING
http://www.panoramacamera.us

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Tom Baker 
<tbaker1328@s...> wrote:
> Andu -
>  
> I'I've been using Print Shield for about 3 months now.  I have put it on several 
different papers including RC.  Even in heavier coatings (greater than 3 coats) I can 
not see any difference once it is completely dry.  And, I don't sense a different 'feel' 
either.  The spray applicator on Print Shield is very effective, and applies a very even 
coating.  I perceive this as a good thing.  However, if one were wanting a change in 
the surface appearance, this wouldn't necessarily be a good thing.
>  
> I see that some have noted slight measured differences in densities with the Print 
Shield spray.  But, I am only talking about visual appearance in the above.
>  
> Tom Baker
> 

Thanks Tom, I'll buy one.

Andu

At 09:36 AM 12/16/03 -0500, you wrote:
>Alan Zinn wrote:
>
> >BTW I tried Johnson's paste wax a long time ago and got promising results.
> >When I do my Ebony BO's I'll give it another try.
> >
> >
> >
>Johnson's Paste Wax, neat!
>
>Just a piece of advice..  If you pan on using the images as flooring,
>keep in mind that Johnson's Paste Wax is NOT OSHA approved.. It's
>waaaay  too slippery..  ;-)
>
>
>Keith Krebs
>
>"Just some guy," caretaker of the Multiverse's largest EPSON printer
>User Community (highly recommended by Vogon Poets and MegaDodo
>Publications), at:
>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EPSON_Printers/
>and  the Multiverse's largest Canon printer User  Community at:
>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Canon-printers
>"For the rest of you out there, the secret is to bang the rocks together
>guys"
>
>

Keith,

Light Impressions sells "Renaissance Wax" in a tiny jar for $$$ - same as 
carnuba/beeswax . It's great for silver prints. Use paste wax when spotting 
or other surface fixes need covering up.

AZ


Build a Lookaround!
The Lookaround Book, 2nd ed.
NOW SHIPPING
http://www.panoramacamera.us

I'm confused, as usual.

It looks like PremierArt Printshield is being proposed as a
spray for papers like Epson Semi-Gloss to eliminate bronzing.
Sounds good.  You get a glossy print with good dmax and no
bronzing and a protective surface.  But I undersatnd this doesn't
work so well on matte papers like EEM, in fact lowering the dmax
a little.

But with EEM and the like, the Mayer rod with polyurethane seems
to give the same results.  And even though it's a little more
involved than the spray can, EEM is WAY cheaper than glossy papers.

So why use the RC paper with Printsheild approach ?

John

John,

>It looks like PremierArt Printshield is being proposed as a
>spray for papers like Epson Semi-Gloss to eliminate bronzing.
>Sounds good.  You get a glossy print with good dmax and no
>bronzing and a protective surface.

Yes, add to this a Wilhelm dark storage life of over 200 years, and it makes
an interesting package.

>But with EEM and the like, the Mayer rod with polyurethane seems
>to give the same results.  And even though it's a little more
>involved than the spray can, EEM is WAY cheaper than glossy papers.

EEM is acidic, having a dark storage life of 110 years, according to Wilhelm
-- and that is under ideal conditions.  When acidic materials have been
encapsulated, they have in some tests deteriorated 10 times as fast.  If the
acidic H+ ions are cannot escape, they will have nothing to do but attack
the un-buffered EEM paper.  So, to get an equivalent life, you'd have to go
with a buffered cotton paper.  The price comparison is then not as good.

>So why use the RC paper with Printsheild approach?

There are a number of reasons.  

One is the existence of the Wilhelm tests of the PremierArt spray.  I don't
have one for the polyurethane coating I was doing.  

I was not able to scale up the Mayer rod.  Some claim to have been
successful with 16x20, but I never saw one.  I would have gone to a thicker
glass and continued to try if I had not been intrigued by the barrier
papers.  So, one reason is that I think I'll be able to scale this process
up to any size.

I think the carbon pigment may be best protected if it is entirely
encapsulated.  In my high humidity fade tests, the polyurethane coated test
strip did worse than one that was not coated.  I think the reason is that
humidity was getting into the print from the back and then was not dried out
the way the non-coated test strip was.

I am most impressed with the solvent based coatings in terms of their
ability to surround the particles and protect them.  The solvent based
materials are in liquid form when they hit the pigments.  The liquid
surrounds the particle and then hardens.  The water borne materials just lay
on top.  It appears to be the difference between water-based paint and
oil-based.  The later soak in and stick better.  The solvent based sprays
are going to do a better job of encapsulating the pigment particles,
protecting them from the environment, and sticking them to the paper.  A
tech person with one of the acrylic companies also said that the
solvent-based UV protective sprays are much more effective at UV protection
than the water-borne materials.

With the 4000, we'll be able to go with either paper easily.  I'm not
abandoning the matte papers, but it is time to optimize the B&W systems for
both now.

The barrier (RC) papers may be the easiest, least capital-intensive way to
get very durable, high dynamic range display prints.  At least it is worth
exploring.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

Paul, will you be making UT curves for the 1280 and some RC papers 
like Premium Semi-Gloss?

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Roark" 
<paul.roark@v...> wrote:
> John,
> 
> >It looks like PremierArt Printshield is being proposed as a
> >spray for papers like Epson Semi-Gloss to eliminate bronzing.
> >Sounds good.  You get a glossy print with good dmax and no
> >bronzing and a protective surface.
> 
> Yes, add to this a Wilhelm dark storage life of over 200 years, and 
it makes
> an interesting package.
> 
> >But with EEM and the like, the Mayer rod with polyurethane seems
> >to give the same results.  And even though it's a little more
> >involved than the spray can, EEM is WAY cheaper than glossy papers.
> 
> EEM is acidic, having a dark storage life of 110 years, according 
to Wilhelm
> -- and that is under ideal conditions.  When acidic materials have 
been
> encapsulated, they have in some tests deteriorated 10 times as 
fast.  If the
> acidic H+ ions are cannot escape, they will have nothing to do but 
attack
> the un-buffered EEM paper.  So, to get an equivalent life, you'd 
have to go
> with a buffered cotton paper.  The price comparison is then not as 
good.
> 
> >So why use the RC paper with Printsheild approach?
> 
> There are a number of reasons.  
> 
> One is the existence of the Wilhelm tests of the PremierArt spray.  
I don't
> have one for the polyurethane coating I was doing.  
> 
> I was not able to scale up the Mayer rod.  Some claim to have been
> successful with 16x20, but I never saw one.  I would have gone to a 
thicker
> glass and continued to try if I had not been intrigued by the 
barrier
> papers.  So, one reason is that I think I'll be able to scale this 
process
> up to any size.
> 
> I think the carbon pigment may be best protected if it is entirely
> encapsulated.  In my high humidity fade tests, the polyurethane 
coated test
> strip did worse than one that was not coated.  I think the reason 
is that
> humidity was getting into the print from the back and then was not 
dried out
> the way the non-coated test strip was.
> 
> I am most impressed with the solvent based coatings in terms of 
their
> ability to surround the particles and protect them.  The solvent 
based
> materials are in liquid form when they hit the pigments.  The liquid
> surrounds the particle and then hardens.  The water borne materials 
just lay
> on top.  It appears to be the difference between water-based paint 
and
> oil-based.  The later soak in and stick better.  The solvent based 
sprays
> are going to do a better job of encapsulating the pigment particles,
> protecting them from the environment, and sticking them to the 
paper.  A
> tech person with one of the acrylic companies also said that the
> solvent-based UV protective sprays are much more effective at UV 
protection
> than the water-borne materials.
> 
> With the 4000, we'll be able to go with either paper easily.  I'm 
not
> abandoning the matte papers, but it is time to optimize the B&W 
systems for
> both now.
> 
> The barrier (RC) papers may be the easiest, least capital-intensive 
way to
> get very durable, high dynamic range display prints.  At least it 
is worth

> exploring.
> 
> Paul
> www.PaulRoark.com

>Paul, will you be making UT curves for the 1280 and some RC papers 
>like Premium Semi-Gloss?

I'll be making UT-2 Semi-gloss curves.  (And/or maybe slider setting
recommendations.) One of the changes was to give better barrier paper
performance.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com 
________________________________


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Roark" 
<paul.roark@v...> wrote:
> John,
> 
> >It looks like PremierArt Printshield is being proposed as a
> >spray for papers like Epson Semi-Gloss to eliminate bronzing.
> >Sounds good.  You get a glossy print with good dmax and no
> >bronzing and a protective surface.
> 
> Yes, add to this a Wilhelm dark storage life of over 200 years, and 
it makes
> an interesting package.
> 
> >But with EEM and the like, the Mayer rod with polyurethane seems
> >to give the same results.  And even though it's a little more
> >involved than the spray can, EEM is WAY cheaper than glossy papers.
> 
> EEM is acidic, having a dark storage life of 110 years, according 
to Wilhelm
> -- and that is under ideal conditions.  When acidic materials have 
been
> encapsulated, they have in some tests deteriorated 10 times as 
fast.  If the
> acidic H+ ions are cannot escape, they will have nothing to do but 
attack
> the un-buffered EEM paper.  So, to get an equivalent life, you'd 
have to go
> with a buffered cotton paper.  The price comparison is then not as 
good.
> 
> >So why use the RC paper with Printsheild approach?
> 
> There are a number of reasons.  
> 
> One is the existence of the Wilhelm tests of the PremierArt spray.  
I don't
> have one for the polyurethane coating I was doing.  
> 
> I was not able to scale up the Mayer rod.  Some claim to have been
> successful with 16x20, but I never saw one.  I would have gone to a 
thicker
> glass and continued to try if I had not been intrigued by the 
barrier
> papers.  So, one reason is that I think I'll be able to scale this 
process
> up to any size.
> 
> I think the carbon pigment may be best protected if it is entirely
> encapsulated.  In my high humidity fade tests, the polyurethane 
coated test
> strip did worse than one that was not coated.  I think the reason 
is that
> humidity was getting into the print from the back and then was not 
dried out
> the way the non-coated test strip was.
> 
> I am most impressed with the solvent based coatings in terms of 
their
> ability to surround the particles and protect them.  The solvent 
based
> materials are in liquid form when they hit the pigments.  The liquid
> surrounds the particle and then hardens.  The water borne materials 
just lay
> on top.  It appears to be the difference between water-based paint 
and
> oil-based.  The later soak in and stick better.  The solvent based 
sprays
> are going to do a better job of encapsulating the pigment particles,
> protecting them from the environment, and sticking them to the 
paper.  A
> tech person with one of the acrylic companies also said that the
> solvent-based UV protective sprays are much more effective at UV 
protection
> than the water-borne materials.
> 
> With the 4000, we'll be able to go with either paper easily.  I'm 
not
> abandoning the matte papers, but it is time to optimize the B&W 
systems for
> both now.
> 
> The barrier (RC) papers may be the easiest, least capital-intensive 
way to
> get very durable, high dynamic range display prints.  At least it 
is worth
> exploring.
> 
> Paul
> www.PaulRoark.com


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.
 

Yahoo! Groups Links

To visit your group on the web, go to:
 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
 DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

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

That's kind of a shame for me.  I have made a sizable investment in 
time and materials with the current UT work flow for the 1280.  I 
wish I could consume what I have and then make the switch at a more 
economically feasible time.  Hey, we all appreciate the time an 
effort you dedicate to this!  Thanks, Jorge

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Roark" 
<paul.roark@v...> wrote:
> 
> >Paul, will you be making UT curves for the 1280 and some RC papers 
> >like Premium Semi-Gloss?
> 
> I'll be making UT-2 Semi-gloss curves.  (And/or maybe slider setting
> recommendations.) One of the changes was to give better barrier 
paper
> performance.
> 
> Paul
> www.PaulRoark.com 
> ________________________________
> 
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Roark" 
> <paul.roark@v...> wrote:
> > John,
> > 
> > >It looks like PremierArt Printshield is being proposed as a
> > >spray for papers like Epson Semi-Gloss to eliminate bronzing.
> > >Sounds good.  You get a glossy print with good dmax and no
> > >bronzing and a protective surface.
> > 
> > Yes, add to this a Wilhelm dark storage life of over 200 years, 
and 
> it makes
> > an interesting package.
> > 
> > >But with EEM and the like, the Mayer rod with polyurethane seems
> > >to give the same results.  And even though it's a little more
> > >involved than the spray can, EEM is WAY cheaper than glossy 
papers.
> > 
> > EEM is acidic, having a dark storage life of 110 years, according 
> to Wilhelm
> > -- and that is under ideal conditions.  When acidic materials 
have 
> been
> > encapsulated, they have in some tests deteriorated 10 times as 
> fast.  If the
> > acidic H+ ions are cannot escape, they will have nothing to do 
but 
> attack
> > the un-buffered EEM paper.  So, to get an equivalent life, you'd 
> have to go
> > with a buffered cotton paper.  The price comparison is then not 
as 
> good.
> > 
> > >So why use the RC paper with Printsheild approach?
> > 
> > There are a number of reasons.  
> > 
> > One is the existence of the Wilhelm tests of the PremierArt 
spray.  
> I don't
> > have one for the polyurethane coating I was doing.  
> > 
> > I was not able to scale up the Mayer rod.  Some claim to have been
> > successful with 16x20, but I never saw one.  I would have gone to 
a 
> thicker
> > glass and continued to try if I had not been intrigued by the 
> barrier
> > papers.  So, one reason is that I think I'll be able to scale 
this 
> process
> > up to any size.
> > 
> > I think the carbon pigment may be best protected if it is entirely
> > encapsulated.  In my high humidity fade tests, the polyurethane 
> coated test
> > strip did worse than one that was not coated.  I think the reason 
> is that
> > humidity was getting into the print from the back and then was 
not 
> dried out
> > the way the non-coated test strip was.
> > 
> > I am most impressed with the solvent based coatings in terms of 
> their
> > ability to surround the particles and protect them.  The solvent 
> based
> > materials are in liquid form when they hit the pigments.  The 
liquid
> > surrounds the particle and then hardens.  The water borne 
materials 
> just lay
> > on top.  It appears to be the difference between water-based 
paint 
> and
> > oil-based.  The later soak in and stick better.  The solvent 
based 
> sprays
> > are going to do a better job of encapsulating the pigment 
particles,
> > protecting them from the environment, and sticking them to the 
> paper.  A
> > tech person with one of the acrylic companies also said that the
> > solvent-based UV protective sprays are much more effective at UV 
> protection
> > than the water-borne materials.
> > 
> > With the 4000, we'll be able to go with either paper easily.  I'm 
> not
> > abandoning the matte papers, but it is time to optimize the B&W 
> systems for
> > both now.
> > 
> > The barrier (RC) papers may be the easiest, least capital-
intensive 
> way to
> > get very durable, high dynamic range display prints.  At least it 
> is worth
> > exploring.
> > 
> > Paul
> > www.PaulRoark.com
> 
> 
> 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.
>  
> 
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
> To visit your group on the web, go to:
>  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/
> 
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>  DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> 
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
>  http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Jorge,

The UT inkset is not going to be discontinued.  If it is working for you,
there is no reason to switch to the UT-2 inkset.

There are others who are using it and writing curves for various barrier/RC
papers.  Dirk Hobman, for one, has written curves for the Epson Pro Glossy
paper.  I assume he'll be happy to share curves with others.  They may
already be posted in the Files section of this forum.  My assumption was
always that there would be a number of people using these inks and sharing
curves.  

The UT-2 inkset was made for several specific reasons, including the
following:  Sepia toner; easy grayscale workflow (for medium tones only) for
novices and non-Photoshop software; denser inks to avoid flooding papers;
and a stronger cold toner to deal with some very warm RC shadows.  

However, UT-2 is not the best option for everyone.  The UT inkset will
continue to be the inkset of choice for all the older printers and for those
who want to continue with what they are doing with it.  Its lighter inks
might even be a bit smoother in the 1280.  UT-2 is just another option, and
all of the inksets involve compromises.  Stick with what works best for you.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com 
________________________________________

-----Original Message-----
From: islandbuck2 [mailto:islandbuck@...] 
Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2003 4:09 AM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Lyson Print Guard

That's kind of a shame for me.  I have made a sizable investment in 
time and materials with the current UT work flow for the 1280.  I 
wish I could consume what I have and then make the switch at a more 
economically feasible time.  Hey, we all appreciate the time an 
effort you dedicate to this!  Thanks, Jorge

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Roark" 
<paul.roark@v...> wrote:
> 
> >Paul, will you be making UT curves for the 1280 and some RC papers 
> >like Premium Semi-Gloss?
> 
> I'll be making UT-2 Semi-gloss curves.  (And/or maybe slider setting
> recommendations.) One of the changes was to give better barrier 
paper
> performance.
> 
> Paul
> www.PaulRoark.com 
> ________________________________
> 
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Roark" 
> <paul.roark@v...> wrote:
> > John,
> > 
> > >It looks like PremierArt Printshield is being proposed as a
> > >spray for papers like Epson Semi-Gloss to eliminate bronzing.
> > >Sounds good.  You get a glossy print with good dmax and no
> > >bronzing and a protective surface.
> > 
> > Yes, add to this a Wilhelm dark storage life of over 200 years, 
and 
> it makes
> > an interesting package.
> > 
> > >But with EEM and the like, the Mayer rod with polyurethane seems
> > >to give the same results.  And even though it's a little more
> > >involved than the spray can, EEM is WAY cheaper than glossy 
papers.
> > 
> > EEM is acidic, having a dark storage life of 110 years, according 
> to Wilhelm
> > -- and that is under ideal conditions.  When acidic materials 
have 
> been
> > encapsulated, they have in some tests deteriorated 10 times as 
> fast.  If the
> > acidic H+ ions are cannot escape, they will have nothing to do 
but 
> attack
> > the un-buffered EEM paper.  So, to get an equivalent life, you'd 
> have to go
> > with a buffered cotton paper.  The price comparison is then not 
as 
> good.
> > 
> > >So why use the RC paper with Printsheild approach?
> > 
> > There are a number of reasons.  
> > 
> > One is the existence of the Wilhelm tests of the PremierArt 
spray.  
> I don't
> > have one for the polyurethane coating I was doing.  
> > 
> > I was not able to scale up the Mayer rod.  Some claim to have been
> > successful with 16x20, but I never saw one.  I would have gone to 
a 
> thicker
> > glass and continued to try if I had not been intrigued by the 
> barrier
> > papers.  So, one reason is that I think I'll be able to scale 
this 
> process
> > up to any size.
> > 
> > I think the carbon pigment may be best protected if it is entirely
> > encapsulated.  In my high humidity fade tests, the polyurethane 
> coated test
> > strip did worse than one that was not coated.  I think the reason 
> is that
> > humidity was getting into the print from the back and then was 
not 
> dried out
> > the way the non-coated test strip was.
> > 
> > I am most impressed with the solvent based coatings in terms of 
> their
> > ability to surround the particles and protect them.  The solvent 
> based
> > materials are in liquid form when they hit the pigments.  The 
liquid
> > surrounds the particle and then hardens.  The water borne 
materials 
> just lay
> > on top.  It appears to be the difference between water-based 
paint 
> and
> > oil-based.  The later soak in and stick better.  The solvent 
based 
> sprays
> > are going to do a better job of encapsulating the pigment 
particles,
> > protecting them from the environment, and sticking them to the 
> paper.  A
> > tech person with one of the acrylic companies also said that the
> > solvent-based UV protective sprays are much more effective at UV 
> protection
> > than the water-borne materials.
> > 
> > With the 4000, we'll be able to go with either paper easily.  I'm 
> not
> > abandoning the matte papers, but it is time to optimize the B&W 
> systems for
> > both now.
> > 
> > The barrier (RC) papers may be the easiest, least capital-
intensive 
> way to
> > get very durable, high dynamic range display prints.  At least it 
> is worth
> > exploring.
> > 
> > Paul
> > www.PaulRoark.com
> 
> 
> 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.
>  
> 
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
> To visit your group on the web, go to:
>  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/
> 
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>  DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> 
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
>  http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


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.
 


Yahoo! Groups Links

To visit your group on the web, go to:
 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
 DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

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

Hello,
I wondered if anyone had used this product on matte paper and how well it worked for you.

I print only on matte and art papers and wondered how well people had found it worked on these surfaces.

I'm looking for scuff protection as well as UV protection.

There's a page about it at inkjetart.com, but it's quite out of date: http://www.inkjetart.com/lyson_spray.html

thanks,
Richard
--
http://smallfield.vze.com
http://photos.smallfield.vze.com (Photos web site)
http://warkworth.vze.com/ (Warkworth photo essay)
http://picasaweb.google.com/rsmallfield/ (Recent work) 

   "To be what we are, and to become what we're capable of 
   becoming is the only end of life."
   --Robert Louis Stevenson

It works excellent..I belive that it�s the same spray as Priemier Art Shield
and Hahnemuhle Fine Art Spray and Lumijet Image shield..

 

Jim Doyle

 

Shades Of Paper

600 Deer Rd Unit 4

Cherry Hill NJ 08034

856-795-7780

HYPERLINK "http://www.shadesofpaper.com/"www.shadesofpaper.com

 

 

 

   _____  

From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Richard
Smallfield
Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2007 7:57 PM
To: Digital BW Print
Subject: [Digital BW] Lyson Print Guard

 

Hello,
I wondered if anyone had used this product on matte paper and how well it
worked for you.

I print only on matte and art papers and wondered how well people had found
it worked on these surfaces.

I'm looking for scuff protection as well as UV protection.

There's a page about it at inkjetart.com, but it's quite out of date:
HYPERLINK
"http://www.inkjetart.com/lyson_spray.html"http://www.inkjetar-t.com/lyson_-
spray.html

thanks,
Richard
--
HYPERLINK "http://smallfield.vze.com"http://smallfield.-vze.com
HYPERLINK
"http://photos.smallfield.vze.com"http://photos.-smallfield.-vze.com (Photos
web site)
HYPERLINK "http://warkworth.vze.com/"http://warkworth.-vze.com/ (Warkworth
photo essay)
HYPERLINK
"http://picasaweb.google.com/rsmallfield/"http://picasaweb.-google.com/-rsma
llfield/ (Recent work) 

"To be what we are, and to become what we're capable of 
becoming is the only end of life."
--Robert Louis Stevenson

 


No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.8.11/837 - Release Date: 6/6/2007
2:03 PM



No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.8.11/837 - Release Date: 6/6/2007
2:03 PM
 


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

Gives dMax quite a knock

From: Richard Smallfield <r.smallfield@...>
Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2007 11:56:41 +1200
To: Digital BW Print <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: [Digital BW] Lyson Print Guard

 
 
 

Hello,
I wondered if anyone had used this product on matte paper and how well it
worked for you.

I print only on matte and art papers and wondered how well people had found
it worked on these surfaces.

I'm looking for scuff protection as well as UV protection.

There's a page about it at inkjetart.com, but it's quite out of date:
http://www.inkjetart.com/lyson_spray.html

thanks,
Richard
--
http://smallfield.vze.com
http://photos.smallfield.vze.com (Photos web site)
http://warkworth.vze.com/ (Warkworth photo essay)
http://picasaweb.google.com/rsmallfield/ (Recent work)

"To be what we are, and to become what we're capable of
 becoming is the only end of life."
 --Robert Louis Stevenson

 
  


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

I read that as saying diminishes Dmax quality; lightens, or makes "foggy".
Right?    

 

Not deepens , make darker? 

 

Eric Neilsen Photography

4101 Commerce Street

Suite 9

Dallas, TX 75226

http://e.neilsen.home.att.net

http://ericneilsenphotography.com

Skype ejprinter

  _____  

From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Steve
Kale
Sent: Sunday, June 10, 2007 9:51 AM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Lyson Print Guard

 

Gives dMax quite a knock

From: Richard Smallfield <r.smallfield@
<mailto:r.smallfield%40paradise.net.nz> paradise.net.nz>
Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhit
<mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint%40yahoogroups.com>
eThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2007 11:56:41 +1200
To: Digital BW Print <DigitalBlackandWhit
<mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint%40yahoogroups.com>
eThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: [Digital BW] Lyson Print Guard

Hello,
I wondered if anyone had used this product on matte paper and how well it
worked for you.

I print only on matte and art papers and wondered how well people had found
it worked on these surfaces.

I'm looking for scuff protection as well as UV protection.

There's a page about it at inkjetart.com, but it's quite out of date:
http://www.inkjetar <http://www.inkjetart.com/lyson_spray.html>
t.com/lyson_spray.html

thanks,
Richard
--
http://smallfield. <http://smallfield.vze.com> vze.com
http://photos. <http://photos.smallfield.vze.com> smallfield.vze.com (Photos
web site)
http://warkworth. <http://warkworth.vze.com/> vze.com/ (Warkworth photo
essay)
http://picasaweb. <http://picasaweb.google.com/rsmallfield/>
google.com/rsmallfield/ (Recent work)

"To be what we are, and to become what we're capable of
becoming is the only end of life."
--Robert Louis Stevenson

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

 



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

I found today that on Velvet FA print guard reduced dmax by 3 points from
around L* 14.5 without spray to 17.5 with spray.
I've seen other people report protective sprays increasing dmax, maybe this
is a difference between matte and non-matte papers?

It also made the print a touch more yellow adding +1 to Lab b. Just
noticable.

Mike




On 10/06/07, Eric Neilsen <e.neilsen2@...> wrote:
>
>   I read that as saying diminishes Dmax quality; lightens, or makes
> "foggy".
> Right?
>
> Not deepens , make darker?
>
> Eric Neilsen Photography
>
> 4101 Commerce Street
>
> Suite 9
>
> Dallas, TX 75226
>
> http://e.neilsen.home.att.net
>
> http://ericneilsenphotography.com
>
> Skype ejprinter
>
> _____
>
> From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com<DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint%40yahoogroups.com>
> [mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com<DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint%40yahoogroups.com>]
> On Behalf Of Steve
> Kale
> Sent: Sunday, June 10, 2007 9:51 AM
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com<DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint%40yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Lyson Print Guard
>
> Gives dMax quite a knock
>
> From: Richard Smallfield <r.smallfield@
> <mailto:r.smallfield%40paradise.net.nz> paradise.net.nz>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhit
> <mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint%40yahoogroups.com>
> eThePrint@yahoogroups.com <eThePrint%40yahoogroups.com>>
> Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2007 11:56:41 +1200
> To: Digital BW Print <DigitalBlackandWhit
> <mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint%40yahoogroups.com>
> eThePrint@yahoogroups.com <eThePrint%40yahoogroups.com>>
> Subject: [Digital BW] Lyson Print Guard
>
> Hello,
> I wondered if anyone had used this product on matte paper and how well it
> worked for you.
>
> I print only on matte and art papers and wondered how well people had
> found
> it worked on these surfaces.
>
> I'm looking for scuff protection as well as UV protection.
>
> There's a page about it at inkjetart.com, but it's quite out of date:
> http://www.inkjetar <http://www.inkjetart.com/lyson_spray.html>
> t.com/lyson_spray.html
>
> thanks,
> Richard
> --
> http://smallfield. <http://smallfield.vze.com> vze.com
> http://photos. <http://photos.smallfield.vze.com> smallfield.vze.com(Photos
> web site)
> http://warkworth. <http://warkworth.vze.com/> vze.com/ (Warkworth photo
> essay)
> http://picasaweb. <http://picasaweb.google.com/rsmallfield/>
> google.com/rsmallfield/ (Recent work)
>
> "To be what we are, and to become what we're capable of
> becoming is the only end of life."
> --Robert Louis Stevenson
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> 
>


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

Lascaux Fixativ decreases the matte dmax the least, but it has no UV
blocking.  On glossy paper they'll usually raise the dmax.  These solvent
based sprays are a bit toxic.  

 

The water based sprays are very hard to get on smoothly.  If done right a
water-based spray can increase matte paper dmax, because it turns it into a
glossy print.  At their best, they make very good prints, but it's just not
worth the hassle.

 

Paul

www.PaulRoark.com <http://www.paulroark.com/>  

 

 

  _____  

From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Michael
King
Sent: Sunday, June 10, 2007 2:13 PM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Lyson Print Guard

 

I found today that on Velvet FA print guard reduced dmax by 3 points from
around L* 14.5 without spray to 17.5 with spray.





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

I was just clarifying Steve use of the language. I would agree that a  lot
of that has to do with how one sprays; how thick, what type of sprayer, etc.


 

Eric Neilsen Photography

4101 Commerce Street, Suite 9

Dallas, TX 75226

214-827-8301

http://ericneilsenphotography.com

 

Skype : ejprinter

  _____  

From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Paul
Roark
Sent: Sunday, June 10, 2007 6:31 PM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [Digital BW] Lyson Print Guard

 

Lascaux Fixativ decreases the matte dmax the least, but it has no UV
blocking. On glossy paper they'll usually raise the dmax. These solvent
based sprays are a bit toxic. 

The water based sprays are very hard to get on smoothly. If done right a
water-based spray can increase matte paper dmax, because it turns it into a
glossy print. At their best, they make very good prints, but it's just not
worth the hassle.

Paul

www.PaulRoark.com <http://www.paulroar <http://www.paulroark.com/> k.com/> 

_____ 

From: DigitalBlackandWhit
<mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint%40yahoogroups.com>
eThePrint@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhit
<mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint%40yahoogroups.com>
eThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Michael
King
Sent: Sunday, June 10, 2007 2:13 PM
To: DigitalBlackandWhit
<mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint%40yahoogroups.com>
eThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Lyson Print Guard

I found today that on Velvet FA print guard reduced dmax by 3 points from
around L* 14.5 without spray to 17.5 with spray.

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

 



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

It's not worth it to me to protect a print that's been reduced in 
quality, even, or especially, if that reduction was from the protection 
process, itself.  The unprotected prints must just be treated 
carefully.  If there's a protective product that retains both the dmax 
and the texture of the print/photo rag paper, though, I want to know 
about it.
Yvonne Muller, Bellvale Photography

www.premierimagingproducts.com

there protective spray won't change the texture and it will actually 
increase the d-max



--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Yvonne Muller 
<bellvale@...> wrote:
>
> It's not worth it to me to protect a print that's been reduced in 
> quality, even, or especially, if that reduction was from the 
protection 
> process, itself.  The unprotected prints must just be treated 
> carefully.  If there's a protective product that retains both the 
dmax 

> and the texture of the print/photo rag paper, though, I want to know 
> about it.
> Yvonne Muller, Bellvale Photography
>

Que?

From: gypyjunior <gypyjunior@...>
Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 19:26:51 -0000
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: [Digital BW] Re: Lyson Print Guard

 
 
 

www.premierimagingproducts.com

there protective spray won't change the texture and it will actually
increase the d-max

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint%40yahoogroups.com> , Yvonne Muller
<bellvale@...> wrote:
>
> It's not worth it to me to protect a print that's been reduced in
> quality, even, or especially, if that reduction was from the
protection 
> process, itself.  The unprotected prints must just be treated
> carefully.  If there's a protective product that retains both the
dmax 
> and the texture of the print/photo rag paper, though, I want to know
> about it.
> Yvonne Muller, Bellvale Photography
>

 



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