Digital BW, The Print

I am missing something and I'd like you please to comment. I am new to this group but 
have aleady benefited enormously from you expertise and generosity. Thanks!

So here is my question, really a comment inviting response. I have been making inkjet 
prints (Epson 9500, 9600, 3000, 1280, PhotoEX, 2200, 4000, and Canon i9900) of 
photography and art repro for about 5 years essentially for a living. I have never coated 
papers, but have always coated canvas with a number of products with reasonable results. 
In all this work I have always been bothered by a certain "surface" artifact that is a dead 
giveaway-it's an inkjet print and the ink is just sitting there, smug on the paper surface! I 
suspect you know what I mean. It is relatively easy to get a great looking print from inkjet 
technology, but it is not easy to make a print that has what many people call "depth", what 
you techys might identify as dmax or wide gammut.

Recently I have been experimenting with coating papers. I like the results a lot, and for me 
it potentially resolves some reservations I have with inkjet prints. I've been making 
profiles, and looking at the effects in a 3D viewer (Colorthink by Chromix).  Again I like the 
results.

My question is quite simply why isn't coating after printing considered more of a frontier? I 
know there are many problems, but to my way of thinking surface qualities that manifest 
themselves as flatness, variable glossyness, and frequently lack of deep tonal range are 
the major disadvantage of injet prints. I am aware of the information people have posted 
about experiments in coating, and clearly a lot of people do it. But it isn't the big issue I 
would think it could be. Thanks very much for you comments. I am posting this here 
because I like the way you people think and it obviously applies to B&W as well as color 
printing.

From my perspective, coating a glossy print is part of the process.  I agree
that it removes almost all of the remaining objections to digital printing
on that type of paper.  I use the solvent-based Print Shield, and I suspect
the solvent base and work it takes are the main reasons this is not part of
the process for most.

Many companies have or are working on water-borne coatings that work on both
glossy and matte papers.  While this gets rid of the noxious fumes, it makes
application even more work for those who do not have an HVLP sprayer and do
not do large volumes of work.  So, the work it takes is holding back these
products.

Glop is another approach that has been tried by some of us to get rid of the
digital artifacts in glossy prints.  In my view it works very well for
Kirkland Pro Glossy paper, but less well for most other popular papers.
Also, it does nothing to protect the print and may be associated with more
clogging, at least if the printer is not used regularly.  So, I'm not
convinced glop is the answer.  I want a protective coating on my prints.

So, bottom line, I think fumes and more work are what keeps most from
coating prints.  A simple way to apply water-borne coatings would advance
the field significantly.  It's a project that is on my list, including a
newer type of sprayer and rollers, neither or which I've had time to try.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
> davelongviews
> Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2005 7:07 AM
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [Digital BW] Why don't more people coat after printing?
> 
> I am missing something and I'd like you please to comment. I am new to
> this group but
> have aleady benefited enormously from you expertise and generosity.
> Thanks!
> 
> So here is my question, really a comment inviting response. I have been
> making inkjet
> prints (Epson 9500, 9600, 3000, 1280, PhotoEX, 2200, 4000, and Canon
> i9900) of
> photography and art repro for about 5 years essentially for a living. I
> have never coated
> papers, but have always coated canvas with a number of products with
> reasonable results.
> In all this work I have always been bothered by a certain "surface"
> artifact that is a dead
> giveaway-it's an inkjet print and the ink is just sitting there, smug on
> the paper surface! I
> suspect you know what I mean. It is relatively easy to get a great looking
> print from inkjet
> technology, but it is not easy to make a print that has what many people
> call "depth", what
> you techys might identify as dmax or wide gammut.
> 
> Recently I have been experimenting with coating papers. I like the results
> a lot, and for me
> it potentially resolves some reservations I have with inkjet prints. I've
> been making
> profiles, and looking at the effects in a 3D viewer (Colorthink by
> Chromix).  Again I like the
> results.
> 
> My question is quite simply why isn't coating after printing considered
> more of a frontier? I
> know there are many problems, but to my way of thinking surface qualities
> that manifest
> themselves as flatness, variable glossyness, and frequently lack of deep
> tonal range are
> the major disadvantage of injet prints. I am aware of the information
> people have posted
> about experiments in coating, and clearly a lot of people do it. But it
> isn't the big issue I
> would think it could be. Thanks very much for you comments. I am posting
> this here
> because I like the way you people think and it obviously applies to B&W as
> well as color
> printing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> 
>

Like Paul, I coat all my glossy prints. I've switched from Macdonald 
Sureguard - which gives a deeper gloss than Printshield, Imageshield 
etc - to four coats of water-based Golden UVLS over a Golden GAC-500 
isolation coat (thanks to Nick Nugent for suggesting the isolation 
coat). I apply these coats with a roller, and my main problem is dust.

Apart from the extra work involved, it may be that a significant
number of people think that only matte prints signify 'Fine Art' and
therefore they look upon glossy prints with disdain. I don't wish to 
comment on that attitude in polite company. However, I think that it's 
fair to say that not all images suit a gloss finish, and that gloss 
emphasises slight technical imperfections just as it does with 
traditional silver printing.

Best,
Helen

I'm puzzled.  Did people coat "air dried fibre prints"  (is that the right
term that people attach to fine darkroom prints?)?  I understand coating to
make up for the current (and reducing) deficiencies in inkjet printing but I
am wondering if this is the short term goal or whether we are already
reaching beyond this.

> From: helen_bach2003 <helenbach@...>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Thu, 19 May 2005 16:21:36 -0000
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: [Digital BW] Re: Why don't more people coat after printing?
> 
> Like Paul, I coat all my glossy prints. I've switched from Macdonald
> Sureguard - which gives a deeper gloss than Printshield, Imageshield
> etc - to four coats of water-based Golden UVLS over a Golden GAC-500
> isolation coat (thanks to Nick Nugent for suggesting the isolation
> coat). I apply these coats with a roller, and my main problem is dust.
> 
> Apart from the extra work involved, it may be that a significant
> number of people think that only matte prints signify 'Fine Art' and
> therefore they look upon glossy prints with disdain. I don't wish to
> comment on that attitude in polite company. However, I think that it's
> fair to say that not all images suit a gloss finish, and that gloss
> emphasises slight technical imperfections just as it does with
> traditional silver printing.
> 
> Best,
> Helen

Thanks Helen and Paul for your information/opinions. Helen in terms of visuals what effect 
does the isolation coat give? Also, if you generalize, does printing on some matt papers 
then coating glossy give a more dynamic result that printing on glossy and coating with 
glossy? It appears that way to me, based on profiles I have made that show some of the 
best gammuts I have seen even with dye-based inks (I am  doing most of this fiddling on a 
9600 with UC)

Dave

> I'm puzzled.  Did people coat "air dried fibre prints"  (is that the right
> term that people attach to fine darkroom prints?)?  I understand coating to
> make up for the current (and reducing) deficiencies in inkjet printing but I
> am wondering if this is the short term goal or whether we are already
> reaching beyond this.

Steve I will say I am without a doubt doing what you are suggesting-first making up 
deficiencies then intend to reach beyond. But in my case I feel the deficiencies are still very 
significant. This is in part due to my bride's expression (she's a commecial/architectural 
photographer) when I hand her an inkjet print of her work. That dog just won't hunt. Sure 
they work some of the time, but I want very high visual integrity and we are willing to look 
hard for it. I understand everyones idea about what they want is different. I have made 
many prints I am very proud of and everyone (clients esp) liked, but let's face it, there is 
work to do. But the most exciting thing to me is it's largely related to surface properties. 
Thankfully surfaces are...er...well...surfaces which are accessible. I think if Epson or other 
companies spent umpteen million dollars on ink development over the next ten years the 
positive result would pale in comparison to what surface scientists could come up with 
using current inks going after wider color and dmax. Thus my interest in coating.

> 
> 
> > From: helen_bach2003 <helenbach@h...>
> > Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> > Date: Thu, 19 May 2005 16:21:36 -0000
> > To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> > Subject: [Digital BW] Re: Why don't more people coat after printing?
> > 
> > Like Paul, I coat all my glossy prints. I've switched from Macdonald
> > Sureguard - which gives a deeper gloss than Printshield, Imageshield
> > etc - to four coats of water-based Golden UVLS over a Golden GAC-500
> > isolation coat (thanks to Nick Nugent for suggesting the isolation
> > coat). I apply these coats with a roller, and my main problem is dust.
> > 
> > Apart from the extra work involved, it may be that a significant
> > number of people think that only matte prints signify 'Fine Art' and
> > therefore they look upon glossy prints with disdain. I don't wish to
> > comment on that attitude in polite company. However, I think that it's
> > fair to say that not all images suit a gloss finish, and that gloss
> > emphasises slight technical imperfections just as it does with
> > traditional silver printing.
> > 
> > Best,
> > Helen

When I was looking for peoples experiences of coating prints I saw 
silk-screening mentioned briefly as a possibility. Since then I've 
wondered what its shortcomings are. Because it seems to have some 
definite advantages.

henrik

On 19 maj 2005, at 17.32, Paul Roark wrote:
> A simple way to apply water-borne coatings would advance
> the field significantly.

One of the best dmaxs I produced was with water-borne coating (Hydrocote
polyurethane) on Arches Hot Press (un-coated) paper.  It was not a perfect
print in many respects, but the point is that a matte paper with a coating
can give a very high dmax, which I assume is a lot like color gamut.

I found that a spray of solvent-based fixative before applying the
water-based coating helped the coating stick.  It also avoided the
occasional smear that I found with the water-based solutions.  (I was using
a "Mayer rod" to do the coating, but it did not scale up well.)  Like with
paints, the water-based tend to lay on top as opposed to going down into the
paper.  They are actually suspensions of, as one expert said, "gooey little
golf balls" of coating.  

I think one of the attractive aspects of the water-based coatings is that
they end up thicker than the solvent-based versions.  The depth of the clear
coating may be part of the look that can be so impressive.  That thickness
also appears to give more protection to the print.  I think the Wilhelm
tests of the Premier Art Eco Print Shield may indicate the UV protection is
also superior.

Helen, what type of rollers do you use?  Can you wash and re-use them?


Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

Few darkroom printers coat prints, typically matte spraying for
personal aesthetic reasons (ugly!) or after retouching to protect and
hide retouching medium (such as airbrush, pencil, or crude dust
spotting).... 

A few have used paste waxes such as Johnson's on air-dried
prints...museums sometimes do/did ...I did it to protect prints from
kitchen fumes :-)...they look fine thirty years later, still look fine
today...but so do the unsprayed prints.

I've seen no reason to spray several Epson or Moab papers (such as
Entrada)...maybe I will soon, to explore deeper blacks. 

The "flaking" that's sometimes mentioned with Entrada are probably
from dust on the paper when printed (blow it off first with canned
air) rather than sensitive surface.

Djon



--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Steve Kale
<stevekale@b...> wrote:
> I'm puzzled.  Did people coat "air dried fibre prints"  (is that the
right
> term that people attach to fine darkroom prints?)?

"I apply these coats with a roller, and my main problem is dust.
"

So, what do you do about the dust problem?

Scott

Steve Kale wrote:

>I'm puzzled.  Did people coat "air dried fibre prints"  (is that the right
>term that people attach to fine darkroom prints?)?  
>
Some people waxed or varnished their prints,  for example Paul Strand 
did so, but the practice fell out of favor years ago. Most coatings used 
over the years have had problems.

-Peter De Smidt

> Some people waxed or varnished their prints,  for example Paul Strand 
> did so, but the practice fell out of favor years ago. Most coatings used 
> over the years have had problems.
 
But did those prints suffer to the same extent from surface artifacts that the newer 
technology prints do? In other words was the motivation to solve the problems associated 
with coating as great as it is now? How about painters? Why can't we treat things a little 
more like they do in terms of prep and coatings?

Dave L.

> But did those prints suffer to the same extent from surface
artifacts that the newer 
> technology prints do? 

No. I think paper choice in "new technology" results in prints with
surfaces as abrasion resistant as traditional papers. However unlike
photo papers, most inkjet papers are more absorbant at the surface...
some kind of protection might make sense for that reason. 

Photo papers have never (I think) been sprayed to create blacker blacks. 

Few ever coated traditional photo paper, many sprayed color
paper...mostly to cover retouching...most big, traditional studio
color portraits have been retouched. 

Paintings in museums are/were commonly waxed by curators. I doubt they
ever wax photos. 

HP Designjet prints would seem to absolutely require some sort of
coating to prevent water damage. Epson pigment prints don't run readily. 

In other words was the motivation to solve the problems associated 
> with coating as great as it is now? How about painters? Why can't we
treat things a little 

> more like they do in terms of prep and coatings?
> 
> Dave L.

The following is from the Breathing Color website www.breathingcolor.com If
you look beyond the typical sales pitch, this coating really does work. I
applied it with an 3" foam roller, which was easy to clean because this is a
water based product. The only problem I had was dust that was on the table
got on to the roller as I rolled off the edge of the print.
Once I was aware of the problem I made sure the surface I was using was dust
free, and have not had the problem since.

I happen to like their paper, but that's for another post.

Gary
www.pbase.com/garyallenbrown
www.gabsculpture.com


GlamourT II has been developed to protect, preserve and enhance fine art and
photographic prints produced on digital inkjet printers. This new non
yellowing, water based varnish is a perfect solution for easy inkjet print
finishing. Glamour II will enhance the color of pigmented and ultrachrome
inks on matte media and increase resistance to image fading. Additionally,
it will protect your expensive images against moisture and abrasion.

GlamourT II has been specifically developed as a water based product to
avoid the unpleasant and hazardous fumes given off by solvent based
products, and is an absolutely perfect compliment to our very own
BrillianceT Fine Art Canvas and BrillianceT II Photographic Canvas.

Uniquely, GlamourT II also works perfectly with our EleganceT 310g Fine Art
Paper and SterlingT Photo Matte to create stunning gloss/semi-gloss archival
fine art prints on 100% cotton rag paper. Ultrachrome Matte Black Ink users
can now produce gloss/semi-gloss prints without bronzing issues.

In smaller production, GlamourT II should be roll brush applied. Only one
coat is necessary. GlamourT II can also be brush applied, sprayed, and used
in roll coaters. The product has self-leveling qualities that make it
virtually ideal for one-step hassle free coating and no streaks.

GlamourT II is available in Gloss and Matte finishes. Furthermore, Gloss and
Matte can be mixed together, enabling you to creatively produce your own
perfect look and feel. Whether it be gloss, semi-gloss, semi-matte - the
choice is completely yours.

This product is available in 1 gallon (3.8L) containers.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Roark" <paul.roark@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2005 11:00 AM
Subject: RE: [Digital BW] Re: Why don't more people coat after printing?



One of the best dmaxs I produced was with water-borne coating (Hydrocote
polyurethane) on Arches Hot Press (un-coated) paper.  It was not a perfect
print in many respects, but the point is that a matte paper with a coating
can give a very high dmax, which I assume is a lot like color gamut.

I found that a spray of solvent-based fixative before applying the
water-based coating helped the coating stick.  It also avoided the
occasional smear that I found with the water-based solutions.  (I was using
a "Mayer rod" to do the coating, but it did not scale up well.)  Like with
paints, the water-based tend to lay on top as opposed to going down into the
paper.  They are actually suspensions of, as one expert said, "gooey little
golf balls" of coating.

I think one of the attractive aspects of the water-based coatings is that
they end up thicker than the solvent-based versions.  The depth of the clear
coating may be part of the look that can be so impressive.  That thickness
also appears to give more protection to the print.  I think the Wilhelm
tests of the Premier Art Eco Print Shield may indicate the UV protection is
also superior.

Helen, what type of rollers do you use?  Can you wash and re-use them?


Paul
www.PaulRoark.com







Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other resources as
they are often being updated.

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

If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to
unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same
page.

Please follow these basic guidelines:
- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
them short.
- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames.
Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the
membership without notice.
- Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W
printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be removed from
the membership.
- By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and
guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group Owner and
Moderators. See "Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines" in the Files section:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/

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

Yahoo! Groups Links

I believe the prints that Paul Strand coated were probably platinum 
prints; which was a medium he used frequently throughout his 
career.  The surface of platinum and palladium (pt/pd) prints is 
matt, much like the surface of inkjet prints when printed on matt 
papers.  The metallic pt/pd lies directly in or on the paper as the 
inkjet pigments do, not suspended in a gelatin emulsion like silver 
prints.  Pt/pd printers in the past often coated the prints with wax 
or varnish to protect the prints from abrasion, and sometimes 
possibly to deepen the blacks which is another way of saying to 
increase the Dmax.  For some reason increasing the "shine" on the 
surface of matt images, typically but not always increases the Dmax 
of a print.  Probably due to the way the surface scatters light.  

Glossy silver paper was originally designed to be heat dried in 
contact with a heated metal drum which was polished to mirror like 
surface.  This polished hot surface would give glossy silver paper a 
very glossy or extremely glossy surface.  Fine art B&W photographers 
in the past have generally prefered the look of gelatin silver 
prints printed on glossy paper then air dried which gives a semi-
glossy surface, rather than heat dried to a glossy surface.  Air 
dried gelatin silver prints have certain "luminance" and extended 
Dmax range which is difficult to duplicate with current inkjet 
technology.  Many B&W photographers, like myself, which have crossed 
over from the wet darkroom to the digital darkroom, would like to 
achive the same "luminance" and extended Dmax of air dried silver 
prints.

Therefore, some of us are attempting to use the old technique of 
coating our inkjet prints, printed on matt papers, with various 
coatings to try and achieve a similar "luminance" of the air dried 
silver print.  Some do it simply to protect the surface of the 
print.  The glossy inkjet papers I have seen on the market do not 
have the same look, looking like the very glossy heat dried and RC 
coated silver prints of the past.  Also, it my understanding that 
the glossy inkjet papers do not have the permanance that many of the 
matt "fine art" papers do.

Sorry for being so long winded, but it seemed there was a confusion 
as to why some are using coatings.

Randy Rancier


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Peter De Smidt 
<pdesmidt@T...> wrote:
> Steve Kale wrote:
> 
> >I'm puzzled.  Did people coat "air dried fibre prints"  (is that 
the right
> >term that people attach to fine darkroom prints?)?  
> >
> Some people waxed or varnished their prints,  for example Paul 
Strand 
> did so, but the practice fell out of favor years ago. Most 
coatings used 

> over the years have had problems.
> 
> -Peter De Smidt