Yahoo Groups archive

Digital BW, The Print

Index last updated: 2026-04-28 22:56 UTC

Thread

Display Prints Without Glass!: Revolutionary Ideas from Revolutionary Artists (InkHaus)... Re: Piezo exhibition in Barcelona!

Display Prints Without Glass!: Revolutionary Ideas from Revolutionary Artists (InkHaus)... Re: Piezo exhibition in Barcelona!

2001-10-15 by Steadman Uhlich

Why not frame the image without glass.  The ink is waterproof (PiezoBW is at least) on most papers.  You don't need the glass except to protect from poking fingers or art terrorists armed with cans of spray paint.  

If you are exhibiting in a gallery, they will likely keep people from poking any artwork "look but don't touch"....they can always tell people "you damage it, you buy it."    

Since the show is up for a limited time, little risk.  For permanent installation, put it behind non-glare glass.  Longterm, the UV rays and dust would be the enemy...unless you also have a 5 year old kid with crayons....wait a minute...that could add something "extra" to the image...

Another idea:  Why not have a print that people CAN touch?  Put one of your prints out there and invite people to get tactile..."touch it...go ahead...feel the texture...feel the velvety black cats fur...."  

Go even further....have a black ink stamp pad (like used for office ink stamps) available next to an "exposed print"  invite people to put their finger on the pad and then make their own "print" on the big print....Galleries and art critics love audience/viewer participation...it takes the art "to a new level" of interactivity....and the images may look really funky at the end....puts a new twist to "group art."  At the end, your gallery visitors are "challenged" and feel part of the art...they contributed...and you will get a million smiles and laughs as you see them with ink stained fingers!   Viva La Revolucion!!  InkHaus!

Just some off the wall (out of glass) ideas so you can show that true matte, velvety finish off  (I like it by the way).  

On a personal note, I have several large prints mounted in my studio.  They hang in nice wooden frames in a window matte.  No glass by choice.  Looks real nice.  You can walk up to the print and the blacks/shadows/grays just look soooooo deep. 

Steadman
  Nina Wrote (SNIP):

  but as regards the glass I did frame them under glass, 
  mostly for protection but I didn't like the effect. The prints lost that 
  deep velvety almost three-dimensional look typical of Piezo inks. Piezo 
  prints on fine art papers also have a wonderful tactile quality and it is 
  too bad to lose that behind glass. On the other hand there isn't really 
  an alternative. I don't trust the spray coatings floating around.

  Chers,

  Nina

  >Forgive me...you probably already said this...but what did you call your
  >prints?  Did you frame under glass?


        Yahoo! Groups Sponsor 
              ADVERTISEMENT
             
       
       

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

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

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




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



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

[Digital BW] Display Prints Without Glass!

2001-10-15 by Robert G. Morrison

On 10/15/01 6:34 AM, "Steadman Uhlich" <steadmanuhlich@...> wrote:

> Why not frame the image without glass.  The ink is waterproof (PiezoBW is at
> least) on most papers.  You don't need the glass except to protect from poking
> fingers or art terrorists armed with cans of spray paint.


The reason that I asked about glass was two fold:

1) Glass (or any transparent, thick surface) can serve to increase the
viewed dmax
2) If you notice Epson's statements about longevity...they all refer to
framing behind glass...probably because anything between the print and light
tends to improve lightfastness.

One of my objectives in the coating project was to achieve the positives of
glass without the negatives.  Antonis and I have talked about this one at
length. But the velvety surface of a coated print is definitely no
more...but honestly I have trouble looking at an uncoated print next to a
coated one because the coated print is so rich and deep.

Thanks for the input and experiences.

Robert

----------------------
Robert Morrison
rmorrison@...

Re: [Digital BW] Display Prints Without Glass!

2001-10-15 by Steadman Uhlich

Robert, 

I think a coated print next to an uncoated (unglazed too) print next to a glazed print would be a good demonstration of technique and variable display potential. 

When is the commercial Morrison Mix (sounds like a greatest hits album) going to be available?  I may want to purchase some after seeing one of your samples. 

Steadman
Show quoted textHide quoted text
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Robert G. Morrison 
  To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Monday, October 15, 2001 11:54 AM
  Subject: [Digital BW] Display Prints Without Glass!


  On 10/15/01 6:34 AM, "Steadman Uhlich" <steadmanuhlich@...> wrote:

  > Why not frame the image without glass.  The ink is waterproof (PiezoBW is at
  > least) on most papers.  You don't need the glass except to protect from poking
  > fingers or art terrorists armed with cans of spray paint.


  The reason that I asked about glass was two fold:

  1) Glass (or any transparent, thick surface) can serve to increase the
  viewed dmax
  2) If you notice Epson's statements about longevity...they all refer to
  framing behind glass...probably because anything between the print and light
  tends to improve lightfastness.

  One of my objectives in the coating project was to achieve the positives of
  glass without the negatives.  Antonis and I have talked about this one at
  length. But the velvety surface of a coated print is definitely no
  more...but honestly I have trouble looking at an uncoated print next to a
  coated one because the coated print is so rich and deep.

  Thanks for the input and experiences.

  Robert

  ----------------------
  Robert Morrison
  rmorrison@...


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

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

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




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



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

Re: [Digital BW] Display Prints Without Glass!

2001-10-15 by Todd Flashner

> One of my objectives in the coating project was to achieve the positives of
> glass without the negatives.  Antonis and I have talked about this one at
> length. But the velvety surface of a coated print is definitely no
> more...but honestly I have trouble looking at an uncoated print next to a
> coated one because the coated print is so rich and deep.

How do you feel about coating prints that *are* destined to be hung behind
glass? Is it still a worthwhile venture, or does the added dmax go unnoticed
because of the added dmax from the glass, and is the added dmax further
mitigated by yet another glare causing surface? IOW, I understand the
benefits of coating a print for display as opposed to using glass, but if
glass is a given, would you personally still coat the print?

Todd

Re: [Digital BW] Display Prints Without Glass!

2001-10-15 by Robert G. Morrison

Let me get back to you on that one.  I looked at this early on...and the
coated prints still looked better...but that was many
formulations/papers/application methods ago.  I want to do some double blind
evaluation.

Robert

On 10/15/01 10:29 AM, "Todd Flashner" <tflash@...> wrote:

> 
>> One of my objectives in the coating project was to achieve the positives of
>> glass without the negatives.  Antonis and I have talked about this one at
>> length. But the velvety surface of a coated print is definitely no
>> more...but honestly I have trouble looking at an uncoated print next to a
>> coated one because the coated print is so rich and deep.
> 
> How do you feel about coating prints that *are* destined to be hung behind
> glass? Is it still a worthwhile venture, or does the added dmax go unnoticed
> because of the added dmax from the glass, and is the added dmax further
> mitigated by yet another glare causing surface? IOW, I understand the
> benefits of coating a print for display as opposed to using glass, but if
> glass is a given, would you personally still coat the print?
> 
> Todd
> 
> 
> 
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and other
> resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
> 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> 
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
> them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or "flames."
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
> resources on the homepage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> 
> 

----------------------
Robert Morrison
rmorrison@...

310-397-2704

4131 Bledsoe Ave.
Los Angeles, CA 90066

Re: [Digital BW] Display Prints Without Glass!

2001-10-15 by Tyler Boley

Just a quick note. I've framed Piezo prints only behind plexi at this
point. It's a toss-up, some of the sumptuous surface 
quality is lost, but they definitely pick up apparent density range.
One comment from an experienced viewer was that until 
he looked very closely, and read the description, he assumed they
were silver.
I'd rather the impression was that he assumed they were platinum...
ah well...
Anyway, I've been wondering if the green/cyan cast of glass would be
more detrimental than plexi for Piezo prints. 
Anybody using glass have any impressions of it's effect on hue?
Tyler

Re: [Digital BW] Display Prints Without Glass!

2001-10-15 by Todd Flashner

Good answer!

All I can say is when I put several close but subtly different prints behind
glass together, many, many, subtleties are rendered indistinguishable, or
barely relevant. For better, or worse. For me sharpness, color, and
tonality, were much more important characteristics than dmax, behind glass.
Some might say in all cases, but that might be debatable...

But I too reserve the right to change my mind about it all at a later date.
Perception is so very dynamic.

Todd
Show quoted textHide quoted text
> Let me get back to you on that one.  I looked at this early on...and the
> coated prints still looked better...but that was many
> formulations/papers/application methods ago.  I want to do some double blind
> evaluation.
> 
> Robert
> 
> On 10/15/01 10:29 AM, "Todd Flashner" <tflash@...> wrote:
> 
>> 
>>> One of my objectives in the coating project was to achieve the positives of
>>> glass without the negatives.  Antonis and I have talked about this one at
>>> length. But the velvety surface of a coated print is definitely no
>>> more...but honestly I have trouble looking at an uncoated print next to a
>>> coated one because the coated print is so rich and deep.
>> 
>> How do you feel about coating prints that *are* destined to be hung behind
>> glass? Is it still a worthwhile venture, or does the added dmax go unnoticed
>> because of the added dmax from the glass, and is the added dmax further
>> mitigated by yet another glare causing surface? IOW, I understand the
>> benefits of coating a print for display as opposed to using glass, but if
>> glass is a given, would you personally still coat the print?
>> 
>> Todd

Re: [Digital BW] Display Prints Without Glass!

2001-10-15 by Todd Flashner

> Just a quick note. I've framed Piezo prints only behind plexi at this
> point. It's a toss-up, some of the sumptuous surface
> quality is lost, but they definitely pick up apparent density range.
> One comment from an experienced viewer was that until
> he looked very closely, and read the description, he assumed they
> were silver.
> I'd rather the impression was that he assumed they were platinum...
> ah well...
> Anyway, I've been wondering if the green/cyan cast of glass would be
> more detrimental than plexi for Piezo prints.
> Anybody using glass have any impressions of it's effect on hue?
> Tyler

Well, I don't like the green of glass under any circumstances (actually it's
nice when it's sandblasted). Even my sunglasses are brown tint rather than
the more typical green tint. I typically mean plexi when I speak of glass,
because I prefer it's color purity. I just wish plexi didn't flex as much as
it does. 

Todd

Re: [Digital BW] Display Prints Without Glass!

2001-10-15 by Steadman Uhlich

Sure...Don't buy cheap "green" glass.  Buy only quality glass (that does not have the green cast to it).  Some glass is formulated to have better color characteristics (it is more "clear").  

That is what I buy.  

Steadman
Show quoted textHide quoted text
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Tyler Boley 
  To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Monday, October 15, 2001 1:26 PM
  Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Display Prints Without Glass!


  Just a quick note. I've framed Piezo prints only behind plexi at this
  point. It's a toss-up, some of the sumptuous surface 
  quality is lost, but they definitely pick up apparent density range.
  One comment from an experienced viewer was that until 
  he looked very closely, and read the description, he assumed they
  were silver.
  I'd rather the impression was that he assumed they were platinum...
  ah well...
  Anyway, I've been wondering if the green/cyan cast of glass would be
  more detrimental than plexi for Piezo prints. 
  Anybody using glass have any impressions of it's effect on hue?
  Tyler



        Yahoo! Groups Sponsor 
              ADVERTISEMENT
             
       
       

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

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

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




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



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

Re: [Digital BW] Display Prints Without Glass!

2001-10-16 by Robert G. Morrison

Yep, Steadman, only buy "Total Quality Mega Transparent Glass" to display
the output from your

> Turbo Paint Jet 7000 installed with PiezoBW Carbon Total
> Pigment Inkset.  

$^)>

Robert



On 10/15/01 4:30 PM, "Steadman Uhlich" <steadmanuhlich@...> wrote:

> Sure...Don't buy cheap "green" glass.  Buy only quality glass (that does not
> have the green cast to it).  Some glass is formulated to have better color
> characteristics (it is more "clear").
> 
> That is what I buy.
> 
> Steadman
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Tyler Boley
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Monday, October 15, 2001 1:26 PM
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Display Prints Without Glass!
> 
> 
> Just a quick note. I've framed Piezo prints only behind plexi at this
> point. It's a toss-up, some of the sumptuous surface
> quality is lost, but they definitely pick up apparent density range.
> One comment from an experienced viewer was that until
> he looked very closely, and read the description, he assumed they
> were silver.
> I'd rather the impression was that he assumed they were platinum...
> ah well...
> Anyway, I've been wondering if the green/cyan cast of glass would be
> more detrimental than plexi for Piezo prints.
> Anybody using glass have any impressions of it's effect on hue?
> Tyler
> 
> 
> 
>       Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
>             ADVERTISEMENT
>            
>      
>      
> 
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and other
> resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
> 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> 
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
> them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or "flames."
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
> resources on the homepage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
> 
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> 
> 
> 
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and other
> resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
> 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> 
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
> them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or "flames."
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
> resources on the homepage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> 
> 

----------------------
Robert Morrison
rmorrison@...

310-397-2704

4131 Bledsoe Ave.
Los Angeles, CA 90066

Re: [Digital BW] Display Prints Without Glass!

2001-10-16 by ternahan

and Tyler the UV glass or plexi MIGHT make them look like platinum....
t
Show quoted textHide quoted text
> From: "Steadman Uhlich" <steadmanuhlich@...>
> Reply-To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2001 18:30:31 -0500
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Display Prints Without Glass!
> 
> Sure...Don't buy cheap "green" glass.  Buy only quality glass (that does not
> have the green cast to it).  Some glass is formulated to have better color
> characteristics (it is more "clear").
> 
> That is what I buy.
> 
> Steadman
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Tyler Boley
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Monday, October 15, 2001 1:26 PM
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Display Prints Without Glass!
> 
> 
> Just a quick note. I've framed Piezo prints only behind plexi at this
> point. It's a toss-up, some of the sumptuous surface
> quality is lost, but they definitely pick up apparent density range.
> One comment from an experienced viewer was that until
> he looked very closely, and read the description, he assumed they
> were silver.
> I'd rather the impression was that he assumed they were platinum...
> ah well...
> Anyway, I've been wondering if the green/cyan cast of glass would be
> more detrimental than plexi for Piezo prints.
> Anybody using glass have any impressions of it's effect on hue?
> Tyler
> 
> 
> 
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> ADVERTISEMENT
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and other
> resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
> 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> 
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
> them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or "flames."
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
> resources on the homepage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
> 
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> 
> 
> 
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and other
> resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
> 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> 
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
> them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or "flames."
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
> resources on the homepage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> 
>

Re: [Digital BW] Display Prints Without Glass!

2001-10-16 by Tyler Boley

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., ternahan <ternahan@s...> wrote:
> and Tyler the UV glass or plexi MIGHT make them look like platinum....
> t

Perhaps I wasn't clear, I am using plexiglass...
and I learned a long time ago not to use cheap glass, but wasn't aware there are all the options Steadman brought to our 
attention.
Actually, I don't think these prints look like silver or platinum.
Tyler

Re: [Digital BW] Glass vs. Coating

2001-10-16 by Robert Morrison

Just did a quick experiment with several coated prints.  Put the coated and
non-coated prints behind glass (I'm afraid it was cheap glass) separated
with a 8 ply Matte.  I can tell instantly which print was coated and which
was noncoated.  The difference is less striking that without the glass.
Wow...I hate glass...it really ruins the appearance of the prints...coated
and noncoated.  I'm so used to cradling the babies in my hands...that it
seems wrong to hide their true beauty behind the glass.  The problem is that
although I'd love to show my work without it...I'm not sure I can tell a
collector not to use it....hmmm...we probably need to do a fade on the
relative merits of glass vs. coatings.

If you were able to get equivalent fade from a non-coated print behind glass
and a coated print with no glass...would you coat and not use glass...or
would you want to improve the lightfastness by coating and using glass?

Any opinions?

Robert

On 10/15/01 11:03 AM, "Robert G. Morrison" <rmorrison@...> wrote:

> Let me get back to you on that one.  I looked at this early on...and the
> coated prints still looked better...but that was many
> formulations/papers/application methods ago.  I want to do some double blind
> evaluation.
> 
> Robert
> 
> On 10/15/01 10:29 AM, "Todd Flashner" <tflash@...> wrote:
> 
>> 
>>> One of my objectives in the coating project was to achieve the positives of
>>> glass without the negatives.  Antonis and I have talked about this one at
>>> length. But the velvety surface of a coated print is definitely no
>>> more...but honestly I have trouble looking at an uncoated print next to a
>>> coated one because the coated print is so rich and deep.
>> 
>> How do you feel about coating prints that *are* destined to be hung behind
>> glass? Is it still a worthwhile venture, or does the added dmax go unnoticed
>> because of the added dmax from the glass, and is the added dmax further
>> mitigated by yet another glare causing surface? IOW, I understand the
>> benefits of coating a print for display as opposed to using glass, but if
>> glass is a given, would you personally still coat the print?
>> 
>> Todd
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and
>> other
>> resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
>> 
>> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>> 
>> Please follow these basic guidelines:
>> - Include your full name with your message.
>> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
>> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
>> them short.
>> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
>> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or "flames."
>> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
>> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
>> resources on the homepage.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>> 
>> 
> 
> ----------------------
> Robert Morrison
> rmorrison@...
> 
> 310-397-2704
> 
> 4131 Bledsoe Ave.
> Los Angeles, CA 90066
> 
> 
> 
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and other
> resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
> 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> 
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
> them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or "flames."
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
> resources on the homepage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> 
> 

----------------------
Robert Morrison
rmorrison@...

310-397-2704

4131 Bledsoe Ave.
Los Angeles, CA 90066

Re: [Digital BW] Glass vs. Coating

2001-10-16 by Steadman Uhlich

Yeah...I have an opinion on this very subject....

I think the coating idea is a good one for certain effect and certain needs.  

However, I believe (and it is a gut feeling) that it would be better to put most Piezo prints behind UV blocking glass.  I checked tonight and the manufacturer of my glass states 97% UV rays blocked.  I bet that is better than a typical home sprayed on misting of a polymer that has "some" UV agents in it.  

In addition, the glass "encapsulates" the image and protects it from a variety of other detrimental factors....sharp objects, poking fingers, kids with crayons, spaghetti sauce (you never know where those prints go),  hairspray and perfume (again you never know)..etc...

I also think the matte surface of black carbon inks on matte cotton paper is sensual...meaning that you can "feel" surfaces with your eyes...so that skin looks like skin etc...

Finally, by not putting anything on the paper but the carbon ink, I have no fear of "coatings" turning yellow, cracking etc...

Nonetheless, I am still interested in the Morrison Mix (another plug) so that I can have alternative coatings available for alternative presentations.  

Steadman
Show quoted textHide quoted text
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Robert Morrison 
  To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Monday, October 15, 2001 11:06 PM
  Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Glass vs. Coating


  Just did a quick experiment with several coated prints.  Put the coated and
  non-coated prints behind glass (I'm afraid it was cheap glass) separated
  with a 8 ply Matte.  I can tell instantly which print was coated and which
  was noncoated.  The difference is less striking that without the glass.
  Wow...I hate glass...it really ruins the appearance of the prints...coated
  and noncoated.  I'm so used to cradling the babies in my hands...that it
  seems wrong to hide their true beauty behind the glass.  The problem is that
  although I'd love to show my work without it...I'm not sure I can tell a
  collector not to use it....hmmm...we probably need to do a fade on the
  relative merits of glass vs. coatings.

  If you were able to get equivalent fade from a non-coated print behind glass
  and a coated print with no glass...would you coat and not use glass...or
  would you want to improve the lightfastness by coating and using glass?

  Any opinions?

  Robert

  On 10/15/01 11:03 AM, "Robert G. Morrison" <rmorrison@...> wrote:

  > Let me get back to you on that one.  I looked at this early on...and the
  > coated prints still looked better...but that was many
  > formulations/papers/application methods ago.  I want to do some double blind
  > evaluation.
  > 
  > Robert
  > 
  > On 10/15/01 10:29 AM, "Todd Flashner" <tflash@...> wrote:
  > 
  >> 
  >>> One of my objectives in the coating project was to achieve the positives of
  >>> glass without the negatives.  Antonis and I have talked about this one at
  >>> length. But the velvety surface of a coated print is definitely no
  >>> more...but honestly I have trouble looking at an uncoated print next to a
  >>> coated one because the coated print is so rich and deep.
  >> 
  >> How do you feel about coating prints that *are* destined to be hung behind
  >> glass? Is it still a worthwhile venture, or does the added dmax go unnoticed
  >> because of the added dmax from the glass, and is the added dmax further
  >> mitigated by yet another glare causing surface? IOW, I understand the
  >> benefits of coating a print for display as opposed to using glass, but if
  >> glass is a given, would you personally still coat the print?
  >> 
  >> Todd
  >> 
  >> 
  >> 
  >> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and
  >> other
  >> resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
  >> 
  >> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
  >> 
  >> Please follow these basic guidelines:
  >> - Include your full name with your message.
  >> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
  >> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
  >> them short.
  >> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
  >> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or "flames."
  >> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
  >> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
  >> resources on the homepage.
  >> 
  >> 
  >> 
  >> 
  >> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
  >> 
  >> 
  > 
  > ----------------------
  > Robert Morrison
  > rmorrison@...
  > 
  > 310-397-2704
  > 
  > 4131 Bledsoe Ave.
  > Los Angeles, CA 90066
  > 
  > 
  > 
  > Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and other
  > resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
  > 
  > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
  > 
  > Please follow these basic guidelines:
  > - Include your full name with your message.
  > - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
  > - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
  > them short.
  > - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
  > - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or "flames."
  > - Complete your Yahoo profile.
  > - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
  > resources on the homepage.
  > 
  > 
  > 
  > 
  > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
  > 
  > 

  ----------------------
  Robert Morrison
  rmorrison@...

  310-397-2704

  4131 Bledsoe Ave.
  Los Angeles, CA 90066


        Yahoo! Groups Sponsor 
              ADVERTISEMENT
             
       
       

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

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

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




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



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

Re: [Digital BW] Glass vs. Coating

2001-10-16 by Todd Flashner

on 10/16/01 12:06 AM, Robert Morrison wrote:

> If you were able to get equivalent fade from a non-coated print behind glass
> and a coated print with no glass...would you coat and not use glass...or
> would you want to improve the lightfastness by coating and using glass?
> 
> Any opinions?
> 
> Robert


I think it really depends on the quality of the coatings/coator. I was
really gung-ho on the coating concept, but none of my tests, nor those I saw
from others, convinced me that the benefits to dmax, which were mighty,
outweighed the detriment from brushmarks, reflections, and the unfortunate
reminiscence of photographs on treated canvass, which to my taste... well,
I'll leave it at that.

It's really the kind of thing that you can't know if you'll like it until
you see it, and it really varies by paper, as you well know.

If hung without glass, would you coat the mat board as well? Dust could be a
nuisance; how would you dust the surface of the print and mat board?

Re: [Digital BW] Glass vs. Coating

2001-10-16 by Robert Morrison

> However, I believe (and it is a gut feeling) that it would be better to put
> most Piezo prints behind UV blocking glass.  I checked tonight and the
> manufacturer of my glass states 97% UV rays blocked.  I bet that is better
> than a typical home sprayed on misting of a polymer that has "some" UV agents
> in it.  

UV rays aren't the whole story...particularly with pigments.  With dyes UV
is the main enemy.

> In addition, the glass "encapsulates" the image

Glass does not protect the print from air...which is what coating does.  Air
in the end is an essential ingredient to fading.

> and protects it from a variety
> of other detrimental factors....sharp objects

(glass breaks and ripes print)

>, poking fingers, 

(glass cuts fingers then rips the print)

> kids with 
> crayons, spaghetti sauce (you never know where those prints go),

I know exactly what I would say to the buyer of one of prints that wanted
another copy because of either of these...but I can't repeat it here.

> hairspray 
> and perfume (again you never know)..etc...

A good point for those essential bathroom prints...glass...absolutely...but
it does trap hummidity against the print...lost an etching that way...
> 
> I also think the matte surface of black carbon inks on matte cotton paper is
> sensual...meaning that you can "feel" surfaces with your eyes...so that skin
> looks like skin etc...


Absolutely, but you can't see the matte surface behind glass.

> Finally, by not putting anything on the paper but the carbon ink, I have no
> fear of "coatings" turning yellow, cracking etc...

Yep...your only fear is the print simply disappearing.

Robert

Re: [Digital BW] Glass vs. Coating

2001-10-16 by Robert Morrison

> It's really the kind of thing that you can't know if you'll like it until
> you see it, and it really varies by paper, as you well know.

Absolutely.  I love that velvety surface too...its one of things that really
unique about Piezo...I just wish I could have it with the Dmax and
luminosity increases I get with coating...but it definitely is a matter of
personal taste.  The problem is that the velvety surface is history once you
put it behind glass or plastic.

> If hung without glass, would you coat the mat board as well? Dust could be a
> nuisance; how would you dust the surface of the print and mat board?
> 
Antonis and I have talked about this one a lot.  Seems like you would have
to coat the mat board too...particularly if its not the good stuff.  With
the roller this shouldn't take too long for a show...maybe a couple of hours
at most. Dust the prints with a soft rag...in fact you could even use a damp
rag...no problem once the print is coated.  All your flaking woes are over
because the print and the pigment are "glued" to the paper.

The main point to my question was:

If coating and glazing gave equivalent protection would you...

1) take the benefit of seeing the print bare and skip the glass

Or

2) want to "double" the lightfastness by coating and glazing


Robert

Re: [Digital BW] Glass vs. Coating

2001-10-16 by Todd Flashner

> If coating and glazing gave equivalent protection would you...
> 
> 1) take the benefit of seeing the print bare and skip the glass

Some coated prints looked worse than their uncoated counter part-- Those I'd
want to hide behind glass.

 
> Or
> 
> 2) want to "double" the lightfastness by coating and glazing

Those coated prints which looked better than their uncoated counter part I'd
prefer to not be behind glass, I suppose. I'm still hashing that out, and
remember I was asking you first. ;-)

I know, I'm not the only person you want to hear from. ;-)

Let me ask you this. In the case of air dried glossy fiber silver prints,
you had a product with good longevity, and no flaking problems, but we still
hung them behind glass. Why? You could wipe their surface with a soft cloth
too, more or less. Would you "coat" your silver prints too for extra
handling protection and not glaze them? Why/not?

Once we are loosing that velvety tactile feel of our inkjets anyway, isn't
their a certain other kind of tactile/perceptual kind of protection we then
want? Isn't there something about an object behind glass we respect as
valuable?

I don't know, I'm just exploring this concept spontaneously as I write, I'm
not trying to convince you, just throwing it out there for discussion. My
intuition, which is probably just born out of habit, tells me to hold prints
raw, but to hang prints behind glass.

And I do think papers still reveal their tactile characteristics even behind
glass, under the right light. A coated sheet of Orwell will look different
than an uncoated sheet, even behind glass, no?

But again, until I really try it a few times I don't think I can speak about
this with any kind of certainty.

But you have more coated prints than any of us, and as you say you don't get
brush marks, you have more properly coated prints than any of us. What say
you?

Todd

Argh - microbanding

2001-10-16 by Todd Flashner

I'm getting microbanding from my 1160 with the Epson driver. Is there a
cure?

Todd

Re: [Digital BW] Glass vs. Coating

2001-10-16 by Robert Morrison

>> If coating and glazing gave equivalent protection would you...
>> 
>> 1) take the benefit of seeing the print bare and skip the glass
> 
> Some coated prints looked worse than their uncoated counter part-- Those I'd
> want to hide behind glass.

Well you certainly haven't seen my coated prints apparently.  My coated
prints NEVER look worse than the uncoated ones.  With Hahnemuhle papers it
is necessary to do some tonal corrections...but this done they always looks
as good or better...they ain't velvety though!

>> 2) want to "double" the lightfastness by coating and glazing
> 
> Those coated prints which looked better than their uncoated counter part I'd
> prefer to not be behind glass, I suppose. I'm still hashing that out, and
> remember I was asking you first. ;-)

Just collecting data.
 
> I know, I'm not the only person you want to hear from. ;-)
> 
> Let me ask you this. In the case of air dried glossy fiber silver prints,
> you had a product with good longevity, and no flaking problems, but we still
> hung them behind glass. Why? You could wipe their surface with a soft cloth
> too, more or less. Would you "coat" your silver prints too for extra
> handling protection and not glaze them? Why/not?

Don't know...I'm a digital photographer...conventional darkroom prints don't
interest me...not friendly to my workflow.

> Once we are loosing that velvety tactile feel of our inkjets anyway, isn't
> their a certain other kind of tactile/perceptual kind of protection we then
> want? Isn't there something about an object behind glass we respect as
> valuable?

I hate glass...I'm a painter and a sculptor in addition to a
photographer...for me glass is evil...
> 
> I don't know, I'm just exploring this concept spontaneously as I write, I'm
> not trying to convince you, just throwing it out there for discussion. My
> intuition, which is probably just born out of habit, tells me to hold prints
> raw, but to hang prints behind glass.
> 
> And I do think papers still reveal their tactile characteristics even behind
> glass, under the right light. A coated sheet of Orwell will look different
> than an uncoated sheet, even behind glass, no?

Yes...but under the conditions I described earlier...there is nothing
tactile about the uncoated print behind glass...at least that I can
perceive.
> 
> But again, until I really try it a few times I don't think I can speak about
> this with any kind of certainty.
> 
> But you have more coated prints than any of us, and as you say you don't get
> brush marks, you have more properly coated prints than any of us. What say
> you?

I say lets get another print exchange going.  I'll print 2 5x7's of the same
image...one coated one uncoated and everyone can play with their plastic,
glass and mattes to their hearts content.

In the mean time I'll coat some matte board.

Robert

Re: [Digital BW] Argh - microbanding

2001-10-16 by Robert Morrison

I'm assuming that you have anally checked your alignment? And its perfect
under a loupe.  I think I also remember something about keeping the paper
transport clean...maybe with sticky cleaning sheets?

Robert

On 10/15/01 10:51 PM, "Todd Flashner" <tflash@...> wrote:

> I'm getting microbanding from my 1160 with the Epson driver. Is there a
> cure?
> 
> Todd
> 
> 
> 
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and other
> resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
> 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> 
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
> them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or "flames."
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
> resources on the homepage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> 
> 

----------------------
Robert Morrison
rmorrison@...

310-397-2704

4131 Bledsoe Ave.
Los Angeles, CA 90066

Re: [Digital BW] Glass vs. Coating

2001-10-16 by Todd Flashner

> Well you certainly haven't seen my coated prints apparently.

No, I look forward to.

> My coated
> prints NEVER look worse than the uncoated ones.

Have you tried coating Torchon? I thought it looked like it had a skin
disease coated. At least with the coating I saw. My feeling was that smooth
papers took to coatings better than textured papers. Yes they all gained
dmax, but the tactile qualities of some textured papers were altered, and it
was that aspect which turned me off. Others may like it.
 
> With Hahnemuhle papers it
> is necessary to do some tonal corrections...but this done they always looks
> as good or better...they ain't velvety though!

Right, so in that regard they can look worse, if that velvety quality was
what one was attracted to.

My feeling was that of the coated prints I saw, some coated prints looked
better than their uncoated counter part, but no coated print looked better
than the best of the uncoated prints.

But, let me just state I'm not trying to be definitive about this, others
opinions may vary, I'm just clarifying where I was coming from. And your
coating(s) may look considerably different than those I've seen.
 
> I say lets get another print exchange going.  I'll print 2 5x7's of the same
> image...one coated one uncoated and everyone can play with their plastic,
> glass and mattes to their hearts content.
> 
> In the mean time I'll coat some matte board.

That all sounds good.

Re: [Digital BW] Argh - microbanding

2001-10-16 by Todd Flashner

My alignment is good, but I've never cleaned the transport mechanism. Do you
know how to make the sheet sticky? Did I hear someone say they sprits a
sheet of paper with Windex and run it through? You think lubing the
head-travel bar would help??

Todd
Show quoted textHide quoted text
> I'm assuming that you have anally checked your alignment? And its perfect
> under a loupe.  I think I also remember something about keeping the paper
> transport clean...maybe with sticky cleaning sheets?
> 
> Robert
> 
> On 10/15/01 10:51 PM, "Todd Flashner" <tflash@...> wrote:
> 
>> I'm getting microbanding from my 1160 with the Epson driver. Is there a
>> cure?
>> 
>> Todd
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and
>> other
>> resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
>> 
>> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>> 
>> Please follow these basic guidelines:
>> - Include your full name with your message.
>> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
>> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
>> them short.
>> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
>> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or "flames."
>> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
>> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
>> resources on the homepage.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>> 
>> 
> 
> ----------------------
> Robert Morrison
> rmorrison@...
> 
> 310-397-2704
> 
> 4131 Bledsoe Ave.
> Los Angeles, CA 90066
> 
> 
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and other
> resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
> 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> 
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
> them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or "flames."
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
> resources on the homepage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> 
>

Re: [Digital BW] Glass vs. Coating

2001-10-16 by JackG

Good Morning Steadman,

While all of the color prints we sell are coated, it is not for U.V.
protection. When we started doing/having this done years ago, the
manufacturer claimed U V protection. Years later they retracted or at least
did not make those claims any more. I recommend people not use glass on most
of the color portraits we sell. Of course we tell people that we guarantee
our prints.........had to replace one because of a child poking a ball point
pen on it, so glass has it's place. Now B&W silver prints are a different
story if extensive retouching has been done. On inkjet prints,  I definitely
feel they need protection of some sort, I agree with you that glass is
probably the best. As you recall, I have had very, very bad things happen
with prints other than color that have been sprayed.

Regards,

John in Okc
Show quoted textHide quoted text
----- Original Message -----
From: "Steadman Uhlich" <steadmanuhlich@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, October 15, 2001 11:37 PM
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Glass vs. Coating


: Yeah...I have an opinion on this very subject....
:
: I think the coating idea is a good one for certain effect and certain
needs.
:
: However, I believe (and it is a gut feeling) that it would be better to
put most Piezo prints behind UV blocking glass.  I checked tonight and the
manufacturer of my glass states 97% UV rays blocked.  I bet that is better
than a typical home sprayed on misting of a polymer that has "some" UV
agents in it.
:
<big snip>

Re: [Digital BW] Glass vs. Coating

2001-10-16 by JackG

<snip>

Hi Robert,

I just woke up I guess, forgot about glass breaking. Because of breakage, do
you feel that museum grade plastic would be best? Have you used sprays with
good results? If so what brand do you use?

Thanks,

John in Okc
:
: UV rays aren't the whole story...particularly with pigments.  With dyes UV
: is the main enemy.
:
: > In addition, the glass "encapsulates" the image
:
: Glass does not protect the print from air...which is what coating does.
Air
: in the end is an essential ingredient to fading.
:
: > and protects it from a variety
: > of other detrimental factors....sharp objects
:
: (glass breaks and ripes print)
:
: >, poking fingers,
:
: (glass cuts fingers then rips the print)

<SNIP>

Re: [Digital BW] Argh - microbanding

2001-10-16 by Steadman Uhlich

The sticky sheets come with some of the packages of EAM and specifically say that they are intended for only a few of the Epson printer line...as I recall the 1160 is NOT one of the approved printers. 

I would try the windex on a sheet (better than pickle on a stick) if pressed to the same situation.  Also vacuum and compressed air duster may have some effect.  

By the way...as I recall...you are "not" using PiezoBW inks....so does your episode indicate that other inksets and the Epson driver can show microbanding?  

Good Luck, 
Steadman   
Show quoted textHide quoted text
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Todd Flashner 
  To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2001 2:28 AM
  Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Argh - microbanding


  My alignment is good, but I've never cleaned the transport mechanism. Do you
  know how to make the sheet sticky? Did I hear someone say they sprits a
  sheet of paper with Windex and run it through? You think lubing the
  head-travel bar would help??

  Todd

  > I'm assuming that you have anally checked your alignment? And its perfect
  > under a loupe.  I think I also remember something about keeping the paper
  > transport clean...maybe with sticky cleaning sheets?
  > 
  > Robert
  > 
  > On 10/15/01 10:51 PM, "Todd Flashner" <tflash@...> wrote:
  > 
  >> I'm getting microbanding from my 1160 with the Epson driver. Is there a
  >> cure?
  >> 
  >> Todd
  >> 
  >> 
  >> 
  >> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and
  >> other
  >> resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
  >> 
  >> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
  >> 
  >> Please follow these basic guidelines:
  >> - Include your full name with your message.
  >> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
  >> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
  >> them short.
  >> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
  >> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or "flames."
  >> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
  >> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
  >> resources on the homepage.
  >> 
  >> 
  >> 
  >> 
  >> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
  >> 
  >> 
  > 
  > ----------------------
  > Robert Morrison
  > rmorrison@...
  > 
  > 310-397-2704
  > 
  > 4131 Bledsoe Ave.
  > Los Angeles, CA 90066
  > 
  > 
  > Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and other
  > resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
  > 
  > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
  > 
  > Please follow these basic guidelines:
  > - Include your full name with your message.
  > - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
  > - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
  > them short.
  > - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
  > - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or "flames."
  > - Complete your Yahoo profile.
  > - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
  > resources on the homepage.
  > 
  > 
  > 
  > 
  > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
  > 
  > 


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

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

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




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



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

Re: [Digital BW] Glass vs. Coating

2001-10-16 by Steadman Uhlich

Good Morning JackG!

Thanks for posting the insights and your experience.  

Portrait photographs done by commercial portrait studios seem to fall into a category all by themselves.  The standards and practices are vastly different from the bulk of traditional B&W photographers or even the "Fine Art" photographers.  There is cross-over of course because some people do all three.  

Given your experience with "commercial" coating of large (I assume 16x20 or so) images done by a third party (pro lab?) why do you continue to avoid glass?  I follow your experience below..but it would seem to beg for glass if you have to replace photos that were damaged by externals or even coatings. 

Steadman
Show quoted textHide quoted text
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: JackG 
  To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2001 6:51 AM
  Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Glass vs. Coating


  Good Morning Steadman,

  While all of the color prints we sell are coated, it is not for U.V.
  protection. When we started doing/having this done years ago, the
  manufacturer claimed U V protection. Years later they retracted or at least
  did not make those claims any more. I recommend people not use glass on most
  of the color portraits we sell. Of course we tell people that we guarantee
  our prints.........had to replace one because of a child poking a ball point
  pen on it, so glass has it's place. Now B&W silver prints are a different
  story if extensive retouching has been done. On inkjet prints,  I definitely
  feel they need protection of some sort, I agree with you that glass is
  probably the best. As you recall, I have had very, very bad things happen
  with prints other than color that have been sprayed.

  Regards,

  John in Okc
  ----- Original Message -----
  From: "Steadman Uhlich" <steadmanuhlich@...>
  To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
  Sent: Monday, October 15, 2001 11:37 PM
  Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Glass vs. Coating


  : Yeah...I have an opinion on this very subject....
  :
  : I think the coating idea is a good one for certain effect and certain
  needs.
  :
  : However, I believe (and it is a gut feeling) that it would be better to
  put most Piezo prints behind UV blocking glass.  I checked tonight and the
  manufacturer of my glass states 97% UV rays blocked.  I bet that is better
  than a typical home sprayed on misting of a polymer that has "some" UV
  agents in it.
  :
  <big snip>


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

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

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




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



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

Re: [Digital BW] Glass vs. Coating

2001-10-16 by JackG

>SNIP<:
Hi Steadman,

: Portrait photographs done by commercial portrait studios seem to fall into
a category all by themselves.

This is true, I'm trying to relate some things that might apply to both.

The standards and practices are vastly different from the bulk of
traditional B&W photographers or even the "Fine Art" photographers.

 Again I agree, their work is much more difficult than mine. I tried a
process some years back that used a slide projector, rear projector screen
and a sheet of special mottled plastic.  I took some slides that I had made
in Paris, projected it onto the rear screen and re-photographed it with a
Hasselblad through the plastic. What I was trying to achieve at the time was
an  impressionistic "Monet look". I used them for Christmas cards, thank you
notes, etc. I found one of the cards last week and scanned it on a Microtek
flatbed scanner. I then cleaned up some things that I didn't like with a Mac
G-4 using PS 6, added a black border and made a copy on Epson heavy weight
matt useing an Epson 1270.  I then tore the edges, filled in the white spots
from the tear with a black magic marker and float mounted it on a piece of
black mount board.  A lot of work, certainly a lot more than photographing
someone's child and then sending it off to a Pro lab to do all the grunt
work at my direction.


: Given your experience with "commercial" coating of large (I assume 16x20
or so) images done by a third party (pro lab?) why do you continue to avoid
glass?  I follow your experience below..but it would seem to beg for glass
if you have to replace photos that were damaged by externals or even
coatings.

I mentioned the kid with the ball point pen as a kind of "tongue in cheek"
experience. It is the only time I have had to replace a print from that kind
of damage.
Being as this is a discussion on B&W digital, I'm trying to not get too far
into traditional color prints. But here goes, I agree with Robert, I hate
glass. I only use it for prints that are matted and have to have it or the
Iris/watercolor prints that need it for protection.  Every traditional color
print from a 5x5 machine original to a custom 30x40 is sprayed with a water
based protective spray. I do not give my clients an option on this, it needs
it in my opinion. To my knowledge, I have never had a problem with spray on
a traditional color print. It was the traditional B&W prints that were
ruined. They used to use a laquer spray but they damn near burned the whole
lab down from a fire in the spray room and then they switched to the water
based spray.

Back to black and white digital, after some valuable instructions on how to
get a good scanned B&W print last week.
I went back to an older file that I was unhappy with because of the dots and
reprinted it. Wow it looked great.
This week I scanned a trad. B&W 5x7 glossy to reprint on my 1270 and even
after using the same instructions given to me before, it looked like crap.
So yes I totally agree, B&W digital is a lot harder than traditional studio
work.

Regards,

John in Okc
: Steadman
:   ----- Original Message -----
:   From: JackG
:   To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
:   Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2001 6:51 AM
:   Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Glass vs. Coating
:
:
:   Good Morning Steadman,
:
:   While all of the color prints we sell are coated, it is not for U.V.
:   protection. When we started doing/having this done years ago, the
:   manufacturer claimed U V protection. Years later they retracted or at
least
:   did not make those claims any more. I recommend people not use glass on
most
:   of the color portraits we sell. Of course we tell people that we
guarantee
:   our prints.........had to replace one because of a child poking a ball
point
:   pen on it, so glass has it's place. Now B&W silver prints are a
different
:   story if extensive retouching has been done. On inkjet prints,  I
definitely
:   feel they need protection of some sort, I agree with you that glass is
:   probably the best. As you recall, I have had very, very bad things
happen
:   with prints other than color that have been sprayed.
:
:   Regards,
:
:   John in Okc
:   ----- Original Message -----
:   From: "Steadman Uhlich" <steadmanuhlich@...>
:   To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
:   Sent: Monday, October 15, 2001 11:37 PM
:   Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Glass vs. Coating
:
:
:   : Yeah...I have an opinion on this very subject....
:   :
:   : I think the coating idea is a good one for certain effect and certain
:   needs.
:   :
:   : However, I believe (and it is a gut feeling) that it would be better
to
:   put most Piezo prints behind UV blocking glass.  I checked tonight and
the
:   manufacturer of my glass states 97% UV rays blocked.  I bet that is
better
:   than a typical home sprayed on misting of a polymer that has "some" UV
:   agents in it.
:   :
:   <big snip>
:
:
:   Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and
other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
:
:   http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
:
:   Please follow these basic guidelines:
:   - Include your full name with your message.
:   - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
:   - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to
keep them short.
:   - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject
header.
:   - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or
"flames."
:   - Complete your Yahoo profile.
:   - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
resources on the homepage.
:
:
:
:
:   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
:
:
:
: [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
:
:
:
: Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and
other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
:
: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
:
: Please follow these basic guidelines:
: - Include your full name with your message.
: - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
: - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
them short.
: - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
: - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or "flames."
: - Complete your Yahoo profile.
: - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
resources on the homepage.
:
:
:
:
: Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
:
:

Re: [Digital BW] Glass vs. Coating

2001-10-16 by Steadman Uhlich

Jack, 
Thanks again for posting details.  

If every one of your color prints is sprayed (by the lab) and you hate glass, how are the larger prints displayed? 

I imagine you must sell the smaller prints in albums.  But what about those larger than 8x10?  

Are they mounted on board and then framed open?

Curious, 
Steadman

Jack wrote: (SNIP)
Every traditional color
print from a 5x5 machine original to a custom 30x40 is sprayed with a water
based protective spray. I do not give my clients an option on this, it needs
it in my opinion. 


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

Re: [Digital BW] Argh - microbanding

2001-10-16 by Shaun Granleese

My process is as follows:

- insanely careful examination of nozzle check pattern and head 
alignment pattern (using a loupe, bright light and the same paper you 
intend to print on). Find the best alignment pattern without looking 
at the numbers if you can.
- put a piece of typing/laser printer paper into the feed tray, press 
the paper load button to load the paper into the rollers and then 
spritz the top half of the paper with Windex (I shield the rest of 
the printer and paper tray with a paper towel), immediately press the 
paper feed button again to eject the damp paper throught the printer 
before it gets soft and falls apart, check the wet paper to see if 
there are ink trails and if so, repeat.
- if this hasn't cured the banding, I try a different image since 
(here's the fuzzy logic part) it appears that over processing can 
render defects in the image that appear as microbanding but which 
aren't visible on screen; I have found that going back to the 
original and carefully reprocessing has removed all of the print 
defects that weren't cured by the procesure above.

Best of luck,

Shaun Granleese



Todd Flashner <tflash@e...> wrote:
> My alignment is good, but I've never cleaned the transport 
mechanism. Do you
> know how to make the sheet sticky? Did I hear someone say they 
sprits a
Show quoted textHide quoted text
> sheet of paper with Windex and run it through? You think lubing the
> head-travel bar would help??
> 
> Todd

Re: [Digital BW] Glass vs. Coating

2001-10-16 by JackG

Hi Steadman,

Original color machine prints may be purchased for $20 each. This includes
the print being sent back to the lab and it is textured and sprayed. It is
then put into a nice folder for the client.

Any orders 5x7 and larger are enlarger printed, then sprayed,  textured and
mounted on a board. I can get portraits framed or the client can take the
portraits to their framer. I recommend they not use glass.

Regards,

John in Okc
Show quoted textHide quoted text
----- Original Message -----
From: "Steadman Uhlich" <steadmanuhlich@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2001 11:31 AM
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Glass vs. Coating


: Jack,
: Thanks again for posting details.
:
: If every one of your color prints is sprayed (by the lab) and you hate
glass, how are the larger prints displayed?
:
: I imagine you must sell the smaller prints in albums.  But what about
those larger than 8x10?
:
: Are they mounted on board and then framed open?
:
: Curious,
: Steadman
:
: Jack wrote: (SNIP)
: Every traditional color
: print from a 5x5 machine original to a custom 30x40 is sprayed with a
water
: based protective spray. I do not give my clients an option on this, it
needs
: it in my opinion.
:
:
: [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
:
:
:
: Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and
other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
:
: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
:
: Please follow these basic guidelines:
: - Include your full name with your message.
: - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
: - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
them short.
: - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
: - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or "flames."
: - Complete your Yahoo profile.
: - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
resources on the homepage.
:
:
:
:
: Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
:
:

Re: [Digital BW] Glass vs. Coating

2001-10-16 by Robert G. Morrison

Jack...you're hired...you can do the official Inkhaus tour posters!  The
pays not great...but hey...you get a free coating at every concert.

$^)>

Robert

On 10/16/01 8:05 AM, "JackG" <jackg@...> wrote:

>> SNIP<:
> Hi Steadman,
> 
> : Portrait photographs done by commercial portrait studios seem to fall into
> a category all by themselves.
> 
> This is true, I'm trying to relate some things that might apply to both.
> 
> The standards and practices are vastly different from the bulk of
> traditional B&W photographers or even the "Fine Art" photographers.
> 
> Again I agree, their work is much more difficult than mine. I tried a
> process some years back that used a slide projector, rear projector screen
> and a sheet of special mottled plastic.  I took some slides that I had made
> in Paris, projected it onto the rear screen and re-photographed it with a
> Hasselblad through the plastic. What I was trying to achieve at the time was
> an  impressionistic "Monet look". I used them for Christmas cards, thank you
> notes, etc. I found one of the cards last week and scanned it on a Microtek
> flatbed scanner. I then cleaned up some things that I didn't like with a Mac
> G-4 using PS 6, added a black border and made a copy on Epson heavy weight
> matt useing an Epson 1270.  I then tore the edges, filled in the white spots
> from the tear with a black magic marker and float mounted it on a piece of
> black mount board.  A lot of work, certainly a lot more than photographing
> someone's child and then sending it off to a Pro lab to do all the grunt
> work at my direction.
> 
> 
> : Given your experience with "commercial" coating of large (I assume 16x20
> or so) images done by a third party (pro lab?) why do you continue to avoid
> glass?  I follow your experience below..but it would seem to beg for glass
> if you have to replace photos that were damaged by externals or even
> coatings.
> 
> I mentioned the kid with the ball point pen as a kind of "tongue in cheek"
> experience. It is the only time I have had to replace a print from that kind
> of damage.
> Being as this is a discussion on B&W digital, I'm trying to not get too far
> into traditional color prints. But here goes, I agree with Robert, I hate
> glass. I only use it for prints that are matted and have to have it or the
> Iris/watercolor prints that need it for protection.  Every traditional color
> print from a 5x5 machine original to a custom 30x40 is sprayed with a water
> based protective spray. I do not give my clients an option on this, it needs
> it in my opinion. To my knowledge, I have never had a problem with spray on
> a traditional color print. It was the traditional B&W prints that were
> ruined. They used to use a laquer spray but they damn near burned the whole
> lab down from a fire in the spray room and then they switched to the water
> based spray.
> 
> Back to black and white digital, after some valuable instructions on how to
> get a good scanned B&W print last week.
> I went back to an older file that I was unhappy with because of the dots and
> reprinted it. Wow it looked great.
> This week I scanned a trad. B&W 5x7 glossy to reprint on my 1270 and even
> after using the same instructions given to me before, it looked like crap.
> So yes I totally agree, B&W digital is a lot harder than traditional studio
> work.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> John in Okc
> : Steadman
> :   ----- Original Message -----
> :   From: JackG
> :   To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> :   Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2001 6:51 AM
> :   Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Glass vs. Coating
> :
> :
> :   Good Morning Steadman,
> :
> :   While all of the color prints we sell are coated, it is not for U.V.
> :   protection. When we started doing/having this done years ago, the
> :   manufacturer claimed U V protection. Years later they retracted or at
> least
> :   did not make those claims any more. I recommend people not use glass on
> most
> :   of the color portraits we sell. Of course we tell people that we
> guarantee
> :   our prints.........had to replace one because of a child poking a ball
> point
> :   pen on it, so glass has it's place. Now B&W silver prints are a
> different
> :   story if extensive retouching has been done. On inkjet prints,  I
> definitely
> :   feel they need protection of some sort, I agree with you that glass is
> :   probably the best. As you recall, I have had very, very bad things
> happen
> :   with prints other than color that have been sprayed.
> :
> :   Regards,
> :
> :   John in Okc
> :   ----- Original Message -----
> :   From: "Steadman Uhlich" <steadmanuhlich@...>
> :   To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> :   Sent: Monday, October 15, 2001 11:37 PM
> :   Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Glass vs. Coating
> :
> :
> :   : Yeah...I have an opinion on this very subject....
> :   :
> :   : I think the coating idea is a good one for certain effect and certain
> :   needs.
> :   :
> :   : However, I believe (and it is a gut feeling) that it would be better
> to
> :   put most Piezo prints behind UV blocking glass.  I checked tonight and
> the
> :   manufacturer of my glass states 97% UV rays blocked.  I bet that is
> better
> :   than a typical home sprayed on misting of a polymer that has "some" UV
> :   agents in it.
> :   :
> :   <big snip>
> :
> :
> :   Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and
> other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
> :
> :   http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> :
> :   Please follow these basic guidelines:
> :   - Include your full name with your message.
> :   - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> :   - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to
> keep them short.
> :   - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject
> header.
> :   - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or
> "flames."
> :   - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> :   - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
> resources on the homepage.
> :
> :
> :
> :
> :   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
> :
> :
> :
> : [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> :
> :
> :
> : Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and
> other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
> :
> : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> :
> : Please follow these basic guidelines:
> : - Include your full name with your message.
> : - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> : - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
> them short.
> : - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
> : - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or "flames."
> : - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> : - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
> resources on the homepage.
> :
> :
> :
> :
> : Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> :
> :
> 
> 
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and other
> resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
> 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> 
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
> them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or "flames."
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
> resources on the homepage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> 
> 

----------------------
Robert Morrison
rmorrison@...

310-397-2704

4131 Bledsoe Ave.
Los Angeles, CA 90066

Move to quarantaine

This moves the raw source file on disk only. The archive index is not changed automatically, so you still need to run a manual refresh afterward.