Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Finishing Canvas - Spraying or Rolling?  (Read 21692 times)
Charles Gast
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 250


« Reply #20 on: September 28, 2007, 08:55:14 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Cold pressed laminate is the way I've been going.   At about $2 a square foot and no labour of my own I can't see ever going back.  With the matte canvas the gloss laminate looks fantastic and adds both contrast and depth.   YMMV and I have had several prints wrecked by hot laminates due to unacceptable colour shifts.

Doug
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=142094\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

What is the cold laminate product you are using? It sounds like a lower cost that what I have seen available.

Charlie
Logged
DougMorgan
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 144


WWW
« Reply #21 on: September 28, 2007, 02:50:42 PM »
ReplyReply

My guy didn't know of the top of his head but was going to ask when he was in with the next batch (printing now).  I'll post the details when I have them.    I thought I would try a couple pictures of the finished product tonight or this weekend.

Doug

Quote
What is the cold laminate product you are using? It sounds like a lower cost that what I have seen available.

Charlie
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=142426\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Logged
Mark Lindquist
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 311


« Reply #22 on: September 28, 2007, 02:53:37 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
My guy didn't know of the top of his head but was going to ask when he was in with the next batch (printing now).  I'll post the details when I have them.    I thought I would try a couple pictures of the finished product tonight or this weekend.

Doug
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=142480\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

That would be great Doug - I'm very interested and I think many here would be as well.
If you can, get all the details like what thickness, brand and type of Laminator, OK?


Much appreciated -

Mark
Logged
SeanPuckett
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 245


WWW
« Reply #23 on: September 28, 2007, 08:27:20 PM »
ReplyReply

I've been hitting my matte surface canvases with three very light HVLP coats of Future.  It dries almost instantly, so with 3-4 prints on the go I can just flit around the room in sequence and be done.  The amount is barely enough to build, but is enough to cover up the pigments and provide a load deflecting surface -- changes a scratchable print into one you don't have to worry so much about.  This technique adds a very mild specular reflection and doesn't change the flexibility of the print, so cracking is not an issue.  It's not bulletproof like a laminated paper print, so I'm still on the prowl for something better.  In any case, handling doesn't affect the product, and customers like the result.

I've got some Glamour II in for testing but am dubious about time required to do it well, although the Breathing Color rep (who I've spent considerable time on the fone with) swears up and down that properly applied it makes the canvas worry-free.

In introducing new processes, I'm more apt to try low heat lamination (180F with some of drytac's 1.7mil production gloss product) than get really serious with self-leveling liquids like rolled on finishes.  My HVLP gun can put on a very precise coating and when well tuned the time really isn't a big deal.  Especially if the prints are hit with a heat gun for just a few seconds.

The research never stops, though.
Logged

Ernst Dinkla
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2725


« Reply #24 on: September 29, 2007, 06:46:46 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Even when spraying a water based varnish you need a respirator. Don't trust the el-cheapo little face cover disposable masks. When the water based coating is sprayed  the mist created has the acrylic in it and breathing that mist will allow some of the acrylic to make it to your lungs.

Charlie
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Spray booth with exhaust is available here. And a good face mask with dust + charcoal filters. There still is a solvent part in dispersions too so you have to be careful. Rolling may be a healthier method but spraying gives more control. At least for me.


Ernst Dinkla

try: [a href=\"http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/]http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/[/url]
Logged
Mark Lindquist
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 311


« Reply #25 on: September 29, 2007, 09:46:48 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I've been hitting my matte surface canvases with three very light HVLP coats of Future.  It dries almost instantly, so with 3-4 prints on the go I can just flit around the room in sequence and be done.  The amount is barely enough to build, but is enough to cover up the pigments and provide a load deflecting surface -- changes a scratchable print into one you don't have to worry so much about.  This technique adds a very mild specular reflection and doesn't change the flexibility of the print, so cracking is not an issue.  It's not bulletproof like a laminated paper print, so I'm still on the prowl for something better.  In any case, handling doesn't affect the product, and customers like the result.

I've got some Glamour II in for testing but am dubious about time required to do it well, although the Breathing Color rep (who I've spent considerable time on the fone with) swears up and down that properly applied it makes the canvas worry-free.

In introducing new processes, I'm more apt to try low heat lamination (180F with some of drytac's 1.7mil production gloss product) than get really serious with self-leveling liquids like rolled on finishes.  My HVLP gun can put on a very precise coating and when well tuned the time really isn't a big deal.  Especially if the prints are hit with a heat gun for just a few seconds.

The research never stops, though.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=142531\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Sean-
My Breathing Color rep also swears up and down the product is definitely the best.  He's a little evangelistic about it which worries me.  The time is definitely an issue, but I do feel that handle-ability and protection are good with GG2.  You mention you would try drytac's 1.7 mil production gloss product via low heat lamination - I like that idea, but would be concerned about color shift with the heat.  Interestingly, my BC rep says they have new data that trumps the outdated video and instruction tips for GG2.  He says heating the water is like critical.  Also, they now say going back over at 90 degrees to original pattern is fine, whereas before, not.

All these people say there's no smell issues, but for this chemically over-exposed parakeet in a mine, man that stuff like all of it is brutal.  The lamination technique is becoming more and more interesting.  I wonder what is out there that is the very thinnest lam that has UV?

The spray techniques seem to be the least invasive, but getting that stuff airborne even while wearing protective gear makes me jittery.  Laminating would be defintely cool.

BTW the BC rep says that Glamour Gloss 2 can not be used in liquid laminator machines.
And that is a whole 'nother issue - liquid lamination...

Thanks for you input - I agree, the research never ends...

The quest for excellence can never be enough.

Mark 
Logged
DougMorgan
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 144


WWW
« Reply #26 on: September 29, 2007, 11:56:11 AM »
ReplyReply

I think the main smell is ammonia.  Golden's product has the full conservation data, including removal, which is by ammonia.  I don't know how well removal would work with inkjet printed materials though as I think the ammonia will also get at the ink.

Golden's instructions: http://www.goldenpaints.com/technicaldata/polvar.php  Which may be of interest regardless of product actually used.  I'll note again that as I said above the MSA varnish gives a better finish and is easier (though certainly not safer) to apply than the water-born acrylic finishes.

I have used the ammonia to fix a run with mixed results and ended up tossing the piece.

AFAIK all of these products are basically acrylic plastic ground up in a water solution.   There may be some differences with the flattening agents but golden seems to be the only one that clearly recommends using gloss for all lower layers and only using matte (or matte/gloss mixes)  for the final surface.     I've used four, in order or preference: Clearshield, Breathing Colour, Golden, and another one I don't recall the name of.   From what I've seen there isn't a lot of difference in the results between the first three though but the directions differ and should probably be followed for each product.     I found that they all needed at least 2 coats, were way better sprayed than rolled, and should be applied with the work absolutely flat,   and horizontal in a dust-free environment.  For large canvases I found it best to sort of pre-stretch them by stapling down to the work surface.   I had no luck applying them after stretching as the coating would pool in the center but smaller pieces may work better this way.  

Doug
« Last Edit: September 29, 2007, 12:07:57 PM by DougMorgan » Logged
BillHorne
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 18



WWW
« Reply #27 on: September 29, 2007, 01:32:02 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Even when spraying a water based varnish you need a respirator. Don't trust the el-cheapo little face cover disposable masks. When the water based coating is sprayed  the mist created has the acrylic in it and breathing that mist will allow some of the acrylic to make it to your lungs.

Charlie
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=142424\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Solvent-based silkscreen inks turned my hair gray many years ago :-o so I agree with the comments about protection, especially about becoming sensitized. It's always handy getting a WHMIS chart for a product, because even "water-based" products can contain hazards.

For example, my favourite screen printing ink, "TW" brand, is an "acrylic" ink, but it contains approx. 2% solvents, and I understand that these 2% are quite harsh. So although these are much safer to work with than the old satin poster inks, I still ensure proper ventilation, and encourage anyone using varnishes of any kind to take protective measures.
Bill
Logged
Charles Gast
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 250


« Reply #28 on: September 29, 2007, 02:11:16 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I've been hitting my matte surface canvases with three very light HVLP coats of Future.  The research never stops, though.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=142531\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Sean,

I cant find the product you are referring to.  Googling "future" and "future liquid laminate" isn't helping! Can you tell us who makes it?

Charlie
Logged
Mark Lindquist
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 311


« Reply #29 on: September 29, 2007, 03:18:27 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Solvent-based silkscreen inks turned my hair gray many years ago :-o so I agree with the comments about protection, especially about becoming sensitized. It's always handy getting a WHMIS chart for a product, because even "water-based" products can contain hazards.

For example, my favourite screen printing ink, "TW" brand, is an "acrylic" ink, but it contains approx. 2% solvents, and I understand that these 2% are quite harsh. So although these are much safer to work with than the old satin poster inks, I still ensure proper ventilation, and encourage anyone using varnishes of any kind to take protective measures.
Bill
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=142720\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Bill -
Yeah, for sure, the toxicity is the major issue, right behind quality.  What good is quality if you have neurological damage, get the dropsies, migraines, etc.  I can't stress enough how once becoming sensitized it's the end of the line.  Smells become triggers, and the trigger causes the brain to "load the smell", then launch defense against it.  Problem is, once the smell is loaded it won't go away even though it's not really there.  This stuff is seriously dangerous if you become over-exposed.  There's a tipping point, and once reached, no going back.  So people who send their prints out to shops that do the work are just letting others take the exposure.  Admittedly the "smart" way of doing things...

Thankfully there are a lot of good protective measures, but a PITA.

I'm leaning more and more toward lamination if I could find thin and good UV.  Today's experiments have been more of the same.  Push toward thin and orange peel results, go toward the coating they (BC) recommend via rolling and the thicker build-up results.  No doubt it's possible to achieve good results rolling, but it's not quick and easy for sure.  Spraying is not going to be possible in this environment.

Mark
Logged
Mark Lindquist
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 311


« Reply #30 on: September 29, 2007, 03:22:09 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Golden's instructions: http://www.goldenpaints.com/technicaldata/polvar.php  Which may be of interest regardless of product actually used. 
Doug
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=142691\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

That is a wealth of information Doug - a lot to digest.  Thanks-

So how are those photos of the laminated canvas going?

Thanks-

Mark
Logged
Alaska
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 100


« Reply #31 on: September 29, 2007, 03:28:14 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Sean,

I cant find the product you are referring to.  Googling "future" and "future liquid laminate" isn't helping! Can you tell us who makes it?

Charlie
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Future® Floor Polish is an acrylic floor finish for no-wax & regular floors. Future® Floor Polish provides long lasting acrylic protection. Nothing outshines Future®.

[a href=\"http://www.swannysmodels.com/TheCompleteFuture.html]http://www.swannysmodels.com/TheCompleteFuture.html[/url]
http://makezine.com/pub/tool/Future_Floor_Wax

Jim
Logged
SeanPuckett
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 245


WWW
« Reply #32 on: September 29, 2007, 03:32:37 PM »
ReplyReply

As Jim says.  I like it because it's durable, cheap, doesn't require thinning in my HVLP gun, and dries very very quickly.  I don't roll or brush it on -- that's way too thick.  Since I'm coating canvas, I'm not trying to achieve a flat finish, just protect the pigments and promote the canvas from a matte to satin sheen.  

I typically do three fine coats of undiluted Future in the gun, with the first coat the lightest -- to "break" the canvas and give the other coats something to cling to.  It's possible to build to a high gloss finish without hazing or fogging, but that much coverage can be brittle and will break if you fold and pinch the canvas (although it heals again once folded back).  It's not so brittle as to break if you roll the canvas over a finger, though.  I just want to protect the canvas from damage during stretching and then from minor handling mishaps such as dusting or water droplets, etc.  A gentle fingernail won't lift the surface, but you can scratch it off if you're dedicated.

Future is also pretty gentle on the lungs, which is a great advantage.

If I can get the lightweight laminate to stick well, I'll probably prefer it because it will be even more resistant to damage.

FWIW, the Breathing Colour guy says to apply gloss as the first coat and if you want to break it down to satin or matte, you do that by spraying a final coat of matte/gloss mixed together in some reasonable proportion.  More than one coat of matte is certainly going to fog the print.
« Last Edit: September 29, 2007, 03:51:56 PM by SeanPuckett » Logged

Mark Lindquist
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 311


« Reply #33 on: September 29, 2007, 03:55:56 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
As Jim says.  I like it because it's durable, cheap, doesn't require thinning in my HVLP gun, and dries very very quickly.  I don't roll or brush it on -- that's way too thick.  Since I'm coating canvas, I'm not trying to achieve a flat finish, just protect the pigments and promote the canvas from a matte to satin sheen. 

I typically do three fine coats of undiluted Future in the gun, with the first coat the lightest -- to "break" the canvas and give the other coats something to cling to.  It's possible to build to a high gloss finish without hazing or fogging, but that much coverage can be brittle and will break if you fold and pinch the canvas (although it heals again once folded back).  My goal is to protect the canvas from damage during stretching and then from minor handling such as dusting or water droplets, etc.  A gentle fingernail won't lift the surface, but you can scratch it off if you're dedicated.

Future is also pretty gentle on the lungs, which is a great advantage.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=142751\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


That's interesting, but I gotta say, what about the potential for yellowing and interaction with the inks?  I can see if this is used on "Decor" canvas (as the Breathing Color rep called it in the most interrogatory manner of speaking, implying that BC is the creme de la creme), but I'd be concerned if any museums or high level galleries would endorse this as being archival.  Granted archival is a relative much debated term and issue, but hey I'm trying to keep an open mind to...
floor finish... hmmm I wonder how PLEDGE would work???    
Logged
SeanPuckett
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 245


WWW
« Reply #34 on: September 29, 2007, 04:11:48 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
That's interesting, but I gotta say, what about the potential for yellowing and interaction with the inks?  I can see if this is used on "Decor" canvas (as the Breathing Color rep called it in the most interrogatory manner of speaking, implying that BC is the creme de la creme), but I'd be concerned if any museums or high level galleries would endorse this as being archival.  Granted archival is a relative much debated term and issue, but hey I'm trying to keep an open mind to...
floor finish... hmmm I wonder how PLEDGE would work???    
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=142757\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I've done a lot of research and concluded that yellowing isn't an issue and that the finish itself is very neutral.  I've done some testing to destruction with heat guns and repetitive bending, and I'm pretty satisfied that it is a usable product, albeit eyebrow raising.  YMMV, etc.
Logged

Alaska
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 100


« Reply #35 on: September 29, 2007, 04:19:00 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I've done a lot of research and concluded that yellowing isn't an issue and that the finish itself is very neutral.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=142762\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

What is interesting is that a lot of model builders use Future for their products and they too have concluded that it does not yellow over time.  Seems that if you walk on it, Future ought to be good for a print that is not used as a floor mat.  The cost is about six bucks for 27 oz which is a lot better than paying a buck an ounce for other products.

Just google future floor wax or future floor finish for more information.

Jim
Logged
Mark Lindquist
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 311


« Reply #36 on: September 29, 2007, 04:34:05 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I've done a lot of research and concluded that yellowing isn't an issue and that the finish itself is very neutral.  I've done some testing to destruction with heat guns and repetitive bending, and I'm pretty satisfied that it is a usable product, albeit eyebrow raising.  YMMV, etc.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=142762\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


I talked to a guy yesterday who does spray a finish and he wouldn't tell me what it is because he's under an "NDA" - very hush-hush, "Top Secret".  His discussion about it sounded a lot like Future.  The authentication or "bonifide" aspects of acceptability within the realm of archival-ness (Whihelm testing, etc.) requires hard evidence, not anecdotal info.  While no doubt model makers find this acceptable, consider that they are putting it on cheap plastic to begin with.  No disrespect to model makers, they are not photographers.

We pay through the nose for inks that are archival, and for substrates that equally provide meaningful tabla rasa for our art.  How frustrating to work through the entire gamut of firey hoops (lenses, uber expensive cameras) to come to a common floor finish as the final destination for the light to be ultimately filtered back through.

I see the potentiality of Future, and I don't judge it for your use, but I'm looking for the Silver Bullet, and I hope my future, however good it does seem for those using it, is not, "Future"...

(Again, really, no disrespect intended.  For that matter, the information is much appreciated).

Mark
Logged
SeanPuckett
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 245


WWW
« Reply #37 on: September 29, 2007, 04:40:32 PM »
ReplyReply

Mark,

I'm with you on this, actually.  It's just the best product I've found so far for my needs.  I think the low temp lamination will be the ultimate solution -- at least, I hope so.  I'm undergoing some studio upheaval (moving, need more space) so it may be awhile before I can delve into lamination testing myself, but I'll be all eyes on the reports of others.  

We also have to remember that no matter what anyone promises, things can go awry.  The BC rep himself is the survivor of, he says, $300K of refunds that his ex employer had to provide when their all-in-one canvas process started developing cracks after installation.  So while he's enthusiastic about BC's product, I still realize that intentions, like checks, can bounce.  It'll be weeks of screwing around with the BC products, coating, recoating, overcoating, flexing, burning, UV testing, heat guns, scratching, stretching, spraying with liquids and on and on and on until I feel comfortable putting something on his product with my name on it in someone else's hands.

I don't recommend anyone puts anything out that they haven't tested thoroughly themselves to see just how much abuse it will take before it can fail.  Part of my repro "dog and pony show" is showing artists all the possibilities, and why I chose what I did.  And I invite them to ruin some canvas so they understand what they'll be getting and what kind of abuse it can take.  It's a good show; they gain an understand that what they're paying for isn't just a printer and a guy with a spraygun.

-s
« Last Edit: September 29, 2007, 04:55:22 PM by SeanPuckett » Logged

Mark Lindquist
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 311


« Reply #38 on: September 29, 2007, 04:48:40 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Mark,

I'm with you on this, actually.  It's just the best product I've found so far for my needs.  I think the low temp lamination will be the ultimate solution -- at least, I hope so.  I'm undergoing some studio upheaval (moving, need more space) so it may be awhile before I can delve into lamination testing myself, but I'll be all eyes on the reports of others. 

-s
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=142769\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Sean - yeah, I hear you - I'm glad you didn't take offense to my feelings about "Future".  I deal with a lot of museums and galleries and they want to know the finest details when it comes to longevity.  I'd have to do a lot of hard pedaling then swallowing to tell them I use a floor finish, no matter how good...  

I am so happy to have learned that a lamination product might be available.  I'm going to start researching the thin and good UV coatings.  A local sign printing company is interested in helping out with this, so I hope to do some experimenting in the near future.  I'll share my info if I come up with something that I feel meets my criteria.  Having a high standard doesn't mean it's unattainable, just harder.  What was that saying?  Perfection isn't impossible, it's just the degree of difficulty.  I'm sure that may be true with finishes applied by spraying and rolling, but man, a guy has to know his limitations.  I am coming up against mine with this aspect of the process.  Lamination here I come!!!

Mark
« Last Edit: September 29, 2007, 04:49:08 PM by Mark Lindquist » Logged
DougMorgan
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 144


WWW
« Reply #39 on: September 29, 2007, 07:25:54 PM »
ReplyReply

Floor polish.  Interesting.  

I think most of us are printing with pigment inks, aren't we?  For art prints that are expected to stay indoors I would think that the actual UV protection probably isn't as important as the physical protection.

I've uploaded some pictures of a laminated print to pbase.  I don't know how much they will show but it kept me from home-improvement work so it was a great success already.

The titles should be fairly self-explanatory.   The file marked "LAMTexture" is an extreme side-lit example that shows the texture of the laminate itself in all the others I was doing a few minor things to minimize reflections like tilting the subject down a few degrees (as it would be on a wall).    I also included a pose of my lovely wife's legs holding up the whole picture to give an idea to the scale.  All the files marked "LAMxxx" are from this picture.  Note that many are from extreme angles (~ 120 degrees) to show the amount of canvas texture that shows through and as such may look kind of murky.   I can only see the laminate itself in specular lighting and it's pretty much invisible otherwise, as are thinner coats of the acrylic when viewed more or less straight on.

Strictly to give some perspective (and not to be used for the purpose of wagering)  I took a couple pictures of two other pictures I had kicking around.  These are NOT on the same canvas.  The laminated print is on Breathing Color and the coated ones are both Epson PP.  The epson is less white and more textured.    

The two pictures beginning with "GOLD" are from the Golden UVLS varnish applied ineptly by brush (an early experiment and should  be tossed).  It is a smaller version of the large canvas and shows about how good I could get with brush or roller application.  I was not happy with the result and wouldn't consider it salable.  

The last two are marked "Spray" and are unfortunately of a different picture. I believe the product was Clear shield but I am not 100% sure and it could be BC or Golden.  It's very hard to tell them apart after they have dried.   At any rate it was applied with a very cheap HVLP gun and has two coats.    As an example it shows about the best I was able to achieve with a water based product.    I don't think the results are quite as good as the laminate (and it was a much smaller print at 12x48 vs 30x78) but it would certainly be salable.

Sorry for the long winded explanation......

http://www.pbase.com/douglasjmorgan/lamsamples

I'm not trying to keep anyone in suspense and will pass along the details on the lamination product as soon as I can get them.

Thanks
Doug
Logged
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad