Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: High-gloss prints from inkjet printers  (Read 3230 times)
shadowblade
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 589


« on: June 09, 2013, 07:17:41 AM »
ReplyReply

Having up till now printed all my photos using a C-type process or on Metal Prnts, primarily for their ultra-high-gloss capability, I have recently gained easy access to a HP z3100 and Canon ipf9000 printer, and it occurred to me that it may be possible to get the same high-gloss effect by printing on an inkjet paper, then laminating it with a high-gloss laminate before mounting on Dibond or a similar substrate, thus getting the glossy effect but with all the advantages of an inkjet print (wider gamut, etc.).

Has anyone done this? How does the gloss compare with, say, Cibachrome or Fujiflex?

Also, what papers would you recommend for lamination? I am after a paper capable of rich, deeply-saturated colours, with a smooth surface (for lamination) and of archival quality (so minimal optical brighteners). Would something like Hahnemuhle Photo Rag, Photo Rag Ultra Smooth or Photo Rag Pearl fit the bill? Or do they lose out too much on the colour saturation?
Logged
huluvu
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 5


« Reply #1 on: June 09, 2013, 07:29:37 AM »
ReplyReply

I can recommend the Ilford »Smooth High Gloss« (215g) paper from their »Galerie Prestige« line. It is the glossiest inkjet paper I have seen so far.

Another very glossy paper is the »Photo HighGloss Premium RC« (315g) by Canson.

You can definitely compare inkjet prints on these papers with chemical prints. The only thing that might disappoint you is the gloss differential on the inkjet prints – traditional chemical prints are more homogeneous in this respect.

If you use one of the papers mentioned above, you don't necessarily have to laminate the prints to achieve a high level of gloss.
Logged
shadowblade
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 589


« Reply #2 on: June 09, 2013, 08:02:11 AM »
ReplyReply

I can recommend the Ilford »Smooth High Gloss« (215g) paper from their »Galerie Prestige« line. It is the glossiest inkjet paper I have seen so far.

Another very glossy paper is the »Photo HighGloss Premium RC« (315g) by Canson.

You can definitely compare inkjet prints on these papers with chemical prints. The only thing that might disappoint you is the gloss differential on the inkjet prints – traditional chemical prints are more homogeneous in this respect.

Gloss differential, bronzing and lower permanence are the main reasons I'm looking at laminating a matte or satin print rather than printing on glossy. How do these papers perform in that regard? If you put a glossy laminate over a matte print, there's no gloss differential.

Quote
If you use one of the papers mentioned above, you don't necessarily have to laminate the prints to achieve a high level of gloss.

I'd be laminating them anyway for protection (from humidity, ozone, etc.), so it's no problem to put down a high-gloss laminate. How glossy can you make a print using laminate?
Logged
John Caldwell
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 415



« Reply #3 on: June 09, 2013, 08:30:43 AM »
ReplyReply

My favorite glossy look for this format is to laminate metallic paper prints with glossy laminate. It really pops with huge gamut and deep blacks. The right image looks quite 3-D.

All the usual caveats apply...

John Caldwell
Logged
shadowblade
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 589


« Reply #4 on: June 09, 2013, 08:42:16 AM »
ReplyReply

My favorite glossy look for this format is to laminate metallic paper prints with glossy laminate. It really pops with huge gamut and deep blacks. The right image looks quite 3-D.

All the usual caveats apply...

John Caldwell

Don't you get terrible gloss differential with pigment inks on metallic paper? And the fact that the pigments will likely outlast the paper...
Logged
John Caldwell
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 415



« Reply #5 on: June 09, 2013, 09:39:35 AM »
ReplyReply

No gloss differential once laminated. Look, my laminated prints that are mounted to Gator foam aren't going in the Guggenheim, so the longevity of this arrangement is probably great enough for my needs.

How long do you reckon the paper lasts?

John Caldwell
Logged
shadowblade
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 589


« Reply #6 on: June 09, 2013, 09:53:07 AM »
ReplyReply

No gloss differential once laminated. Look, my laminated prints that are mounted to Gator foam aren't going in the Guggenheim, so the longevity of this arrangement is probably great enough for my needs.

How long do you reckon the paper lasts?

John Caldwell

The thing is, some of my shots do end up in galleries, or as long-term displays in hotels, etc., so longevity is kind of important, hence my use of metal prints and Dibond mounting.
Logged
John Caldwell
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 415



« Reply #7 on: June 09, 2013, 10:09:46 AM »
ReplyReply

Fair enough. But mounting and laminating a print is, just in my mind, contrary to notions of serious art where archival stature is critical. Going back to your comments about longevity: How long do you feel metallic paper pigment prints might last - just a ballpark?

John Caldwell
« Last Edit: June 09, 2013, 10:16:23 AM by John Caldwell » Logged
shadowblade
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 589


« Reply #8 on: June 09, 2013, 11:12:13 AM »
ReplyReply

Fair enough. But mounting and laminating a print is, just in my mind, contrary to notions of serious art where archival stature is critical. Going back to your comments about longevity: How long do you feel metallic paper pigment prints might last - just a ballpark?

John Caldwell

I'm no expert, but maybe 15-25 years before fading beyond acceptable limits?
Logged
shadowblade
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 589


« Reply #9 on: June 10, 2013, 01:44:07 AM »
ReplyReply

Also, I'd say that a print made using durable inks on a quality paper, mounted to Dibond and laminated with a protective coating, is pretty damn archival - the Dibond isn't going to warp or disintegrate any time soon, and the combination is a whole lot more durable than the print on its own. It's also just about your only option for frameless display (since acrylic facemounts can outgas and bubble).

Are there any problems with using pressure-sensitive film laminates on non-RC papers? Does it work better on glossy papers, or matte?
« Last Edit: June 10, 2013, 02:41:10 AM by shadowblade » Logged
Ernst Dinkla
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2725


« Reply #10 on: June 10, 2013, 03:06:40 AM »
ReplyReply

Also, I'd say that a print made using durable inks on a quality paper, mounted to Dibond and laminated with a protective coating, is pretty damn archival - the Dibond isn't going to warp or disintegrate any time soon, and the combination is a whole lot more durable than the print on its own. It's also just about your only option for frameless display (since acrylic facemounts can outgas and bubble).

Are there any problems with using pressure-sensitive film laminates on non-RC papers? Does it work better on glossy papers, or matte?

Very hard to say. There are no independent tests that show laminated print's longevity numbers. Fading of the inks and paper white shifts (in combination with the glue in contact), color shifts in the lamination film or glue, delamination etc are all possible weaknesses. You mention acrylic facemounts and there are several varieties of that but they also are not tested that thoroughly either and share some aspects with lamination so similar issues you mention above could happen.

What has been tested well so far are glass framed prints with the prints sprayed with a protective coating and without a coating.
Wilhelm-Research, Aardenburg-Imaging.

Then there is the preservation condition that the protection of the print should not make restoration impossible. Whether that restoration is doable at all on inkjet prints is open for discussion but lamination would make things worse.


--
Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst

http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
December 2012, 500+ inkjet media white spectral plots.




Logged
shadowblade
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 589


« Reply #11 on: June 10, 2013, 03:28:24 AM »
ReplyReply

Very hard to say. There are no independent tests that show laminated print's longevity numbers. Fading of the inks and paper white shifts (in combination with the glue in contact), color shifts in the lamination film or glue, delamination etc are all possible weaknesses. You mention acrylic facemounts and there are several varieties of that but they also are not tested that thoroughly either and share some aspects with lamination so similar issues you mention above could happen.

One would assume that a laminated print would have greater longevity than a non-laminated print...

Quote
What has been tested well so far are glass framed prints with the prints sprayed with a protective coating and without a coating.
Wilhelm-Research, Aardenburg-Imaging.

I've been using the resources at Aardenburg.

The problem with glass is that, for my prints at least, the glass and frame seriously detract from the high-impact nature of the photos. As in, when you look at the high-gloss, frameless version (e.g. metalprints or acrylic facemount), you think, 'Wow!', whereas, if you look at the same print in a frame and behind glass, it's more like, 'Nice photo,' without the same degree of impact.

How good are the protective sprays at stopping moisture, ozone, pollutants, etc.? Can the sprayed surface be easily cleaned? Also, are protective sprays able to impart a high-gloss coating to a print, or are they purely protective?

What about mounting the print on Dibond without a laminate, but with protective spray instead?

« Last Edit: June 10, 2013, 11:41:26 AM by shadowblade » Logged
orchidblooms
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 160


« Reply #12 on: June 10, 2013, 05:01:22 PM »
ReplyReply

i have been printing on breathing color breathing color vibrance metallic... night time pix and fireworks pix  - wow - and a glossy laminate - would be a great idea....
Logged
John Caldwell
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 415



« Reply #13 on: June 10, 2013, 07:39:04 PM »
ReplyReply

i have been printing on breathing color breathing color vibrance metallic... night time pix and fireworks pix  - wow - and a glossy laminate - would be a great idea....

That's the metallic I've been buying and using for exactly that - glossy laminated posters. Would probably be just the think for your subject matter, orchidblooms.
Logged
shadowblade
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 589


« Reply #14 on: June 10, 2013, 07:49:22 PM »
ReplyReply

i have been printing on breathing color breathing color vibrance metallic... night time pix and fireworks pix  - wow - and a glossy laminate - would be a great idea....

Looks interesting - unfortunately, these aren't my printers, merely a lab I have easy/cheap access to, and they've never printed on this paper before, nor do their suppliers stock it.

How much does the glossiness of the underlying paper matter, if you're going to laminate it with a high-gloss laminate? I've heard that it can be difficult to apply film laminates to glossy papers.

I've had a look at some Museo Silver Rag - looks pretty good. Has anyone tried laminating it? It has a slightly textured surface, so I'm just querying how well it would hold a laminate.
Logged
enduser
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 258


« Reply #15 on: June 10, 2013, 09:09:02 PM »
ReplyReply

Lamination is likely to be a plastic of some kind.  Almost all plastics exhale things as they age, notoriously noticed inside autos in hot climates.   The there's the adhesive between the image and the laminate.

Without proper (Aardenburg) testing I would never tell a client that a laminated print was archival.  (By archival I mean just one component, image fade.)  What does "Frama" think?
Logged
shadowblade
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 589


« Reply #16 on: June 10, 2013, 10:37:35 PM »
ReplyReply

Lamination is likely to be a plastic of some kind.  Almost all plastics exhale things as they age, notoriously noticed inside autos in hot climates.   The there's the adhesive between the image and the laminate.

Even with liquid laminates? Or is this just a problem with film laminates? These laminates are currently used to seal Fujiflex and Cibachrome prints onto aluminium, so I'd imagine they'd be pretty stable. Won't an uncoated print just absorb moisture from the air and be destroyed that way?

Quote
Without proper (Aardenburg) testing I would never tell a client that a laminated print was archival.  (By archival I mean just one component, image fade.)  What does "Frama" think?

I would have thought that for something to be 'archival' took more than just chemical stability of the dyes into consideration. After all, it's no good if the dyes last 500 years, but the paper disintegrates. It's also no good if the paper warps and bends, or if it absorbs moisture from the air and is spoiled that way.
Logged
hugowolf
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 525


« Reply #17 on: June 10, 2013, 11:15:59 PM »
ReplyReply

Even with liquid laminates? Or is this just a problem with film laminates? These laminates are currently used to seal Fujiflex and Cibachrome prints onto aluminium, so I'd imagine they'd be pretty stable.
You can imagine as much as you like, but without data to support it, who can say?

Quote
Won't an uncoated print just absorb moisture from the air and be destroyed that way?
Nope

Quote
I would have thought that for something to be 'archival' took more than just chemical stability of the dyes into consideration. After all, it's no good if the dyes last 500 years, but the paper disintegrates. It's also no good if the paper warps and bends, or if it absorbs moisture from the air and is spoiled that way.
Just saw an exhibition of Albrecht Dürer prints, none of then under 500 years old, the paper and vellum seems to have stood up very well. But we are talking pigments, not dyes.

Brian A
« Last Edit: June 10, 2013, 11:19:02 PM by hugowolf » Logged
jschone
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 86


« Reply #18 on: June 11, 2013, 03:01:35 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

I have laminated all kinds of papers. The ones that work best are papers like Epson Premium Glossy. In the past I have mounted prints on dibond, wood, glass, ikea wardrobes, treehouse etc. I even created a copy of this famous Zanotta design table (http://www.architonic.com/pmsht/quaderna-zanotta/1002112). Always printed on Epson 9800/7880 and 7900. Lamination is great for these interior design kind of stuff (be it glossy or matt) but for photos on a gallery wall the look is too plastic.

For my own photography I have been using 3 and 4 mm plexiglass instead. Usually I would mount the (premium glossy) prints under plexi and then put them on dibond or even on wooden boxes as can be seen here in this exhibition in my gallery a few years ago (in this 360 image you can see my prints mounted on wood and plexi, the first try of the Zanotta table (turn 180 degrees) and underneath the table you can also see the silicon roll mounting machine I use) The link is here

http://www.360cities.net/nl/image/icipici-jochem-schoneveld-rome#92.10,16.50,80.0

Trick with roll mounting is to go slowly. You will not have any problems with air bubbles in that way. With plexi an antistatic horsehair brush is needed.

Jochem

Logged
shadowblade
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 589


« Reply #19 on: June 11, 2013, 11:13:27 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

I have laminated all kinds of papers. The ones that work best are papers like Epson Premium Glossy. In the past I have mounted prints on dibond, wood, glass, ikea wardrobes, treehouse etc. I even created a copy of this famous Zanotta design table (http://www.architonic.com/pmsht/quaderna-zanotta/1002112). Always printed on Epson 9800/7880 and 7900. Lamination is great for these interior design kind of stuff (be it glossy or matt) but for photos on a gallery wall the look is too plastic.

For my own photography I have been using 3 and 4 mm plexiglass instead. Usually I would mount the (premium glossy) prints under plexi and then put them on dibond or even on wooden boxes as can be seen here in this exhibition in my gallery a few years ago (in this 360 image you can see my prints mounted on wood and plexi, the first try of the Zanotta table (turn 180 degrees) and underneath the table you can also see the silicon roll mounting machine I use) The link is here

http://www.360cities.net/nl/image/icipici-jochem-schoneveld-rome#92.10,16.50,80.0

Pardon my ignorance, but doesn't an acrylic facemount *also* look like plastic? Or, to put it another way, similar to a perfectly-smooth, highly glossy Cibachrome print? After all, you're essentially mounting it behind a big piece of plastic...

Not that there's anything wrong with that look, of course. I use flush-mounted metal prints for my exhibitions, which have a similar effect to face-mounted acrylic, in that they have a smooth, extremely glossy surface and, in the right lighting, take on a 'glow' that makes them almost appear backlit. My main issue with acrylic facemounts is that they can bubble over time, rendering the entire print worthless.

Have you had any problems with delamination or the laminate changing colour (e.g. turning yellow)? Compared to your acrylic facemounts, how glossy are your laminated prints, especially those made on not-completely-smooth papers (e.g. Hahnemuhle Photo Rag, Photo Rag Pearl or Museo Silver Rag)?

Also, does laminating get rid of any problems with bronzing and gloss differential? If so, I might be more open to the gloss papers - after all, matte papers have the problem that, if you so much as press a finger into them, you'll leave a dent...

Quote
Trick with roll mounting is to go slowly. You will not have any problems with air bubbles in that way. With plexi an antistatic horsehair brush is needed.

Jochem



I don't plan on doing any mounting myself -I don't have the equipment, time or skill for that!
« Last Edit: June 11, 2013, 12:20:08 PM by shadowblade » Logged
Pages: [1] 2 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad