Digital BW, The Print

As John mentioned, the new Wilhelm data has some good news for B&W.

 

See http://www.wilhelm-research.com/epson/WIR_Ep9600_2005_02_14.pdf

 

In the "Black and White" section UltraSmooth under UV glass is at 300 years.

 

Somerset Velvet for Epson under UV glass is at 168, but when sprayed with
PremierArt it goes to >300 years.

 

It surprises me that even under UV glass the spray would add that much.

 

In the color section, PremierArt Canvas for Epson is rated bare bulb at 46
years, but goes to 60 years with PremierArt spray and goes to >100 years
with their Eco (water borne) coating.

 

So, the water-borne coating seems to be more effective.  It goes on thicker,
which is probably the variable.

 

With numbers like these, maybe Livick's 681 year rating for a 1280 MIS UT1
(old magenta) print isn't so off-the-wall as it might have otherwise seemed.
He appears to have coated it first with a solvent based spray with UV
blockers (Sennelier), and then with a water-borne UV coating (Clearstar).
See http://www.livick.com/method/inkjet/pg2d2.htm

 

I found when I was trying the water-borne coatings that an initial spray
with Lascaux (no UV blockers) helped the water-borne coating adhere.  I'm
going to try the Sennelier + water-borne combination one of these days.  The
water-borne coatings do seem to go on thick enough to give better physical
protection.  I just need a better way to apply them.

 

Paul

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

 



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

Paul wrote:   "...It surprises me that even under UV glass the spray would add that much."
 
At least the high end uv glasses claim 99+% uv blockage.  So, how could the expected life of the print be doubled by spraying?  Something doesn't seem to add up here.
 
Tom Baker




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

What is interesting about the B&W ratings is that this is with the standard full UC's used.  I 
wonder if one is using something like QTR and using just the two blacks(non of the colors 
which one would guess were used in the ratings), we would be seeing really astonishing 
longevity ratings.  Anyone care to guess?  At least double?

Tariq


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Roark" <paul.roark@v...> 
wrote:

> As John mentioned, the new Wilhelm data has some good news for B&W.
> 
>  
> 
> See http://www.wilhelm-research.com/epson/WIR_Ep9600_2005_02_14.pdf
> 
>  
> 
> In the "Black and White" section UltraSmooth under UV glass is at 300 years.
> 
>  
> 
> Somerset Velvet for Epson under UV glass is at 168, but when sprayed with
> PremierArt it goes to >300 years.
> 
>  
> 
> It surprises me that even under UV glass the spray would add that much.
> 
>  
> 
> In the color section, PremierArt Canvas for Epson is rated bare bulb at 46
> years, but goes to 60 years with PremierArt spray and goes to >100 years
> with their Eco (water borne) coating.
> 
>  
> 
> So, the water-borne coating seems to be more effective.  It goes on thicker,
> which is probably the variable.
> 
>  
> 
> With numbers like these, maybe Livick's 681 year rating for a 1280 MIS UT1
> (old magenta) print isn't so off-the-wall as it might have otherwise seemed.
> He appears to have coated it first with a solvent based spray with UV
> blockers (Sennelier), and then with a water-borne UV coating (Clearstar).
> See http://www.livick.com/method/inkjet/pg2d2.htm
> 
>  
> 
> I found when I was trying the water-borne coatings that an initial spray
> with Lascaux (no UV blockers) helped the water-borne coating adhere.  I'm
> going to try the Sennelier + water-borne combination one of these days.  The
> water-borne coatings do seem to go on thick enough to give better physical
> protection.  I just need a better way to apply them.
> 
>  
> 
> Paul
> 
> www.PaulRoark.com <http://www.paulroark.com/>  
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Yea, I wondered about that rip element too since I'm doing that. It seems these rating are 
for the two black channels primarily with a little of the cyan or magenta added to 
neutralize the mix. The reason I say that is that they are so different from the color 
longevity data.

Paul, I think the research into coatings has just started. It could be in a  couple of years we 
will be in a whole new ball game of photo art permanence. Hope our society lasts as long.

As to the data about combining UV glass with UV spray for such extreme improvements, it 
could very well have more to do with stopping more of the humidity and atmospheric 
contamination from reaching the coating. But why UV glass and not standard glass? Henry 
has a lot of explaining to do. I'm sure he will. It could be that the patronage from Epson is 
actually bearing fruit, I hope so.

John

> 
> What is interesting about the B&W ratings is that this is with the standard full UC's used.  
I 
> wonder if one is using something like QTR and using just the two blacks(non of the 
colors 

> which one would guess were used in the ratings), we would be seeing really astonishing 
> longevity ratings.  Anyone care to guess?  At least double?
> 
> Tariq
> 
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Roark" <paul.roark@v...> 
> wrote:
> > As John mentioned, the new Wilhelm data has some good news for B&W.
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > See http://www.wilhelm-research.com/epson/WIR_Ep9600_2005_02_14.pdf
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > In the "Black and White" section UltraSmooth under UV glass is at 300 years.
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > Somerset Velvet for Epson under UV glass is at 168, but when sprayed with
> > PremierArt it goes to >300 years.
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > It surprises me that even under UV glass the spray would add that much.
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > In the color section, PremierArt Canvas for Epson is rated bare bulb at 46
> > years, but goes to 60 years with PremierArt spray and goes to >100 years
> > with their Eco (water borne) coating.
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > So, the water-borne coating seems to be more effective.  It goes on thicker,
> > which is probably the variable.
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > With numbers like these, maybe Livick's 681 year rating for a 1280 MIS UT1
> > (old magenta) print isn't so off-the-wall as it might have otherwise seemed.
> > He appears to have coated it first with a solvent based spray with UV
> > blockers (Sennelier), and then with a water-borne UV coating (Clearstar).
> > See http://www.livick.com/method/inkjet/pg2d2.htm
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > I found when I was trying the water-borne coatings that an initial spray
> > with Lascaux (no UV blockers) helped the water-borne coating adhere.  I'm
> > going to try the Sennelier + water-borne combination one of these days.  The
> > water-borne coatings do seem to go on thick enough to give better physical
> > protection.  I just need a better way to apply them.
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > Paul
> > 
> > www.PaulRoark.com <http://www.paulroark.com/>  
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Tom Baker wrote:

> Paul wrote:   "...It surprises me that even under UV glass the spray 
> would add that much."
>
> At least the high end uv glasses claim 99+% uv blockage.  So, how 
> could the expected life of the print be doubled by spraying?  
> Something doesn't seem to add up here.
>
> Tom Baker

Because it's not just about UV. The coating seals the front of the print 
slowing down airborn pollutants from worming their way through the inks 
and into the substrate.

Think about it. One of the joys of darkroom photopaper is that layer of 
gelatin on the top that seals the print. The spray provides a similar 
(in a way) kind of seal.

Hogarth  - 

Well, probably.  But, is Wilhelm testing in a manner that would catch this?  

A print properly framed behind UV glass, while not air tight, won't have much air flow around it.  So, I'm wondering if the airborne pollutants are actually as much of a factor as you indicate.  And, airborne pollutants can enter from the back of the print, as well.

 

Tom Baker




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

Hi Paul,

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Roark" 
<paul.roark@v...> wrote:
> I found when I was trying the water-borne coatings that an initial 
> spray with Lascaux (no UV blockers) helped the water-borne coating 
> adhere.  I'm going to try the Sennelier + water-borne combination 
> one of these days.  The water-borne coatings do seem to go on thick 
> enough to give better physical protection.  I just need a better 
> way to apply them.

Yes, I found the water-borne with coating rods approach may require 
something like a Sennelier fixative to help it stick to the paper. As 
for me I have developed a reliable system that works well for me 
though method of testing is very low-tech (ie. bake the coated prints 
in direct sunlight for a few years).

Here's my approach:

1. Use an airbrush to apply a thin layer of water-borne Golden GAC 
500 (diluted with airbrush transparent extender). This layer protects 
the fragile matte print surface for subsequent applications. The 
airbrush is as easily cleaned as spraying it while holding the inlet 
under the water faucet.

2. After letting the print dry for an hour or so it can now take a 
brayer application of the same liquid. It takes seconds to apply this 
second coat on a large print using a brayer. This is alot less messy 
than coating rods. Prepare your brayer in the same manner you load 
paint on a roller for house painting. Then use a large, dry, soft 
bristle brush to gently sweep across the print surface. This 
magically removes all foam or bubbles from the brayer application. 
Any residual bubbles will also disappear as the polymer dries up.

Such papers as Photo Rag or Hawk Mountain Merlin will look and feel 
very much like a traditional wet processed print. You'll get a mild 
sheen but not glaring glossiness. But this is just a matter of 
personal taste. The more layers you apply the glossier it gets. 
Golden self leveling acrylic will give you incredible dmax with maybe 
a bit too much sheen - I only use this for some special application, 
and it must be thinned and brush applied. I just wanted some 
additional dmax and the ability to use a heat press so the GAC 500 
should suffice. I did try the Golden polymer varnish with UVLS but it 
yellows so much I quit using it.

Overall this is a very easy process for coating inkjet prints.

--nick

Nick,

What kind of brayer did you use?

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com 
_________________________

-----Original Message-----
From: Nick H. Nugent [mailto:nghin@...] 
Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 2005 4:38 PM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Digital BW] Re: Wilhelm updated 9600 data



Hi Paul,

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Roark" 
<paul.roark@v...> wrote:
> I found when I was trying the water-borne coatings that an initial 
> spray with Lascaux (no UV blockers) helped the water-borne coating 
> adhere.  I'm going to try the Sennelier + water-borne combination 
> one of these days.  The water-borne coatings do seem to go on thick 
> enough to give better physical protection.  I just need a better 
> way to apply them.

Yes, I found the water-borne with coating rods approach may require 
something like a Sennelier fixative to help it stick to the paper. As 
for me I have developed a reliable system that works well for me 
though method of testing is very low-tech (ie. bake the coated prints 
in direct sunlight for a few years).

Here's my approach:

1. Use an airbrush to apply a thin layer of water-borne Golden GAC 
500 (diluted with airbrush transparent extender). This layer protects 
the fragile matte print surface for subsequent applications. The 
airbrush is as easily cleaned as spraying it while holding the inlet 
under the water faucet.

2. After letting the print dry for an hour or so it can now take a 
brayer application of the same liquid. It takes seconds to apply this 
second coat on a large print using a brayer. This is alot less messy 
than coating rods. Prepare your brayer in the same manner you load 
paint on a roller for house painting. Then use a large, dry, soft 
bristle brush to gently sweep across the print surface. This 
magically removes all foam or bubbles from the brayer application. 
Any residual bubbles will also disappear as the polymer dries up.

Such papers as Photo Rag or Hawk Mountain Merlin will look and feel 
very much like a traditional wet processed print. You'll get a mild 
sheen but not glaring glossiness. But this is just a matter of 
personal taste. The more layers you apply the glossier it gets. 
Golden self leveling acrylic will give you incredible dmax with maybe 
a bit too much sheen - I only use this for some special application, 
and it must be thinned and brush applied. I just wanted some 
additional dmax and the ability to use a heat press so the GAC 500 
should suffice. I did try the Golden polymer varnish with UVLS but it 
yellows so much I quit using it.

Overall this is a very easy process for coating inkjet prints.

--nick







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

Paul,

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Roark"
<paul.roark@v...> wrote:
> Nick, What kind of brayer did you use?
> Paul (www.PaulRoark.com )

You can find  it here:

http://www.dickblick.com/zz401/12/products.asp?param=0&ig_id=3588

What you really want is the speedball foam brayer, but the funny thing
is they only sell the foam roller as a refill and buy the handle
separately if you can. The speedball foam roller is much better than
other brands that I know due to its texture. It will produce foam but
much less than the other brands.

You can probably get by with not using the airbrush at all. Once the
print has cured for a certain period of time, you can carefully load
the roller with the liquid diluted with distilled water as suggested
by the manufacturer, then quickly run it over the print. Don't worry
about uneveness because you can do this multiple times. The idea is
you apply so gently so no ink will get lifted off. Once you got an
initial layer to seal the print you're in good shape. After that you
can be a little rough on it.

The time between these thin coats can be as little as 15 minutes. So
you can take turn coating several prints at a time. But startup and
cleanup is so easy even coating of a single small print is not much
hassle, and not much waste (as compared to the coating rods).

Another nice thing about acrylic coating is you can touch up your
prints using acrylic paint on top of the coating. If you make a
mistake you can wipe it off when it's still wet. There's so much more
I can talk about my technique but I'm sure you'll discover your
process in a short time.

--nick

Tom Baker wrote:
> Paul wrote:   "...It surprises me that even under UV glass the spray would add that much."
>  
> At least the high end uv glasses claim 99+% uv blockage.  So, how could the expected life of the print be doubled by spraying?  Something doesn't seem to add up here.
>  
> Tom Baker

Visible light contributes much more to fading in this test 
than UV. So UV is just one of the fading dangers. There's also 
gas fading, humidity etc that can be blocked by a thicker 
layer of (UV) varnish. The ozone test result may give the 
explanation.  That a (thicker) varnish will influence the 
print's appearence before the test starts is without doubt. So 
will another paper color. Wilhelm only measures the 
differences between a good print and the print in test till 
the last gets an unacceptable shift to the original.

Ernst