Digital BW, The Print

USI 1.3 mil glossy laminate, the thinnest available. According to Dr. Work, 
the best method of protecting pigment inkjet prints (if you don't mind the look 
of it) is to laminate. Total encapsulation from moisture, pollution, UV 
filtration, etc. Kinda defeats the feel of Rag paper, but you could display it 
without glass this way. It does show the underlying texture of all rag papers 
(none are really that smooth) and increases Dmax to different degrees, especially 
on Epson Smooth Fine Art. Here's the data in order or apprearance:

Dmax
Dmax laminated
Dmax Density increase
% Density increase

All except the Semi Gloss are MIS Ebony/UT inkset in 7500, Roark N-1 curves.
Measured by Macbeth Reflection Densitometer

Epson Smooth Fine Art
1.50
1.97
0.47
31.33%
Hahnemuhle Photo Rag
1.66
1.84
0.18
10.84%
Ilford Studio Ssmooth Fine Art (looks, feel, and measures like HPR)
1.67
1.85
0.18
10.78%
Epson Archival Matte
1.64
1.85
0.21
12.80%
Hahn Matte (the thin cheap stuff)
1.52
1.86
0.34
22.37%
Epson Double Weight Matte
1.59
1.79
0.20
12.58%
Epson SemiGloss Atkinson profile 7600 Epson Ultrachromes
1.96
2.16
0.20
10.20%
Epson SemiGloss Photo Black Only
2.12
2.31
0.19
8.96%


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

Hi Claude,

Can you tell me some more about this laminate: what machine or other method 
applies it, who does this lamination commercially, etc.  It seems most of the outfits 
in Colorado, where I live, don't use anything thinner than 3mm.  Thanks,

Tom Andrews
http://www.wildlandart.com

> USI 1.3 mil glossy laminate, the thinnest available. According to Dr. Work, 
> the best method of protecting pigment inkjet prints (if you don't mind the look 
> of it) is to laminate.   

snip

> USI 1.3 mil glossy laminate, the thinnest available. 
>According to Dr. Work, the best method of protecting pigment 
>inkjet prints (if you don't mind the look of it) is to laminate.   
>...

I suspect laminates can do a very good job, in part due to their thickness.
The machines that are needed to apply the laminates may be out of reach for
most amateur B&W printers, however.  Also, I'm not sure about the aesthetics
of these products.

Because most of the fading seems to be oxidation, promoted by light,
humidity, pollutants and various other oxidizers, I have searched for and
asked a number of chemical company technical reps about what, if any,
coating would be the best barrier to simply keep these gases away from the
pigments.  Sadly, the best barriers are not suitable as coatings due to
limited longevity, yellowing, and other problems.  For example, there
appears to be no epoxy that doesn't yellow and isn't brittle.  

Glass appears to still be the ultimate.

Short of that, however, I think we can have significant protection from the
available coatings.  Among those, the solvent based acrylics, with Rolm &
Haas's B72 being the best known, have been tested to 400 years and are very
non-yellowing.  I suspect PremierArt is one of these.  

A major advantage of solvent based sprays is that they surround the
particles much better than the water-borne coatings, which have been
characterized to me as more like blankets that just lay on top of the
particles.  Especially on matte papers, this allows the gasses free access
to the particles through the back of the paper, unless that is also sealed
some way.  I would recommend a solvent-based acrylic spray prior to applying
water-borne coatings.

Among the water-borne coatings, the cross-linking of the polyurethanes
should make them a better barrier than the acrylic.  The cross-linking
should also help avoid the tackiness that the water-borne coatings are prone
to exhibit.  The aliphatic Hydrocote PUR should be very non-yellowing and
was recommended to me by a technical representative of a competitor that had
tested a number of such products.

I don't know what these laminates are composed of.  I would suspect that
they can be much better gas barriers than the water-borne coatings.  

To deal with the aesthetic issues, I have experimented with thin plastics
that are applied over matte papers on a vacuum easel.  I never found the
materials and/or technique that resulted in an acceptable print, but the
concept of the vacuum to pull the thin plastic down so tightly that the
paper texture showed and the surface looked less plastic showed promise.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

various of the longevity claims for Ilfochrome always included a section on
encapsulated/laminated prints I think.

Also, can you face mount inkjet prints to plexi? Not sure if you could use
the Diasec process, but you might be able to use some of the others (Seal)?

While there is debate and still too little study of the long term effects,
one thing that is usually said is that face mounting may increase longevity
due to the protection of the front surface of the print.

tim

In a message dated 1/10/2004 4:21:41 PM Pacific Standard Time, 
DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com writes:

Subject: Re: Laminating Rag

Hi Claude,

Can you tell me some more about this laminate: what machine or other method 
applies it, who does this lamination commercially, etc.  It seems most of the 
outfits 
in Colorado, where I live, don't use anything thinner than 3mm.  Thanks,

Tom Andrews

Sure. I got a used GBC Eagle 65 on Ebay, 25". It also does mounting on board, 
cold or hot (variable thickness). USI make the thinnest laminate available 
(also the cheapest at $33 for a 1,000 square foot roll, but you gotta get 
twins). Yeah, it seems that the 3, 5 and 10 mil are the most popular and get pricier 
with thickness, for machines, material, and services. A brand new 25" or 27" 
USI laminator for materials less than 3 mils can be had for about $895, which 
is half what I paid for mine used.

Some people won't like the extreme gloss, but it does deepen Dmax, per 
previous post. It also reveals an amazing amount of texture, eveon on EAM and HPR, 
because it's so thin. Even at that, it's about 10X thicker than liquid lam or 
spray.But talk about protecting prints with instant finish and no stinkies! You 
can display this stuff without glass any day as it's scratch resistant, 
waterproof, and certainly encapsulates "carbon on cotton" or RC completely.

I also have a roller coating machine. I'll be getting some Hydrocote from 
Paul Roark to see if I can get more Dmax AND maintain a finish closer to air 
dried silver fiber prints. I also want to try Clear Shield. I don't want anything 
but water based product. I may even get a spray gun and compressor. My 
ultimate reverence for print richness is air dried Ilford Multigrade FB lightly 
toned, Ilfobrom, and old Portriga Rapid 111.

My gut feel is that I will end up going the same direction as Paul Roark with 
MIS gloss black on Gloss paper with a SemiGloss roller or spray coat. I can 
live with a Dmax of 2.0, but not 1.66, even though the gray scale is much 
smoother than any silver print I ever made in my Zone System Darkroom of 20 years 
(RIP, 2000 AD).

As a portrait photographer, I am currently selling amazingly neutral B&W 
(with slight metamerism) from the Atkinson profiles with Epson UC inks in a 7600 
since I print color and B&W side by side. My customers don't know about 
metamersism and couldn't care less. However, I'm hoping to do the same with a 7500 
and Quads with twin toners on Glossy (and nada metamerism). It's a matter of 
principle to have a B&W AND a COLOR lightroom on different machines. I always 
reserved the B&W for personal work, the other for clients, except for my art 
scholl grad clients, they know B&W and want the museum quality behind glass. Nice 
to offer the full Monte on that. ;>)

Claude


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