Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Epson Watercolor  (Read 4187 times)
bill t.
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2693


WWW
« Reply #20 on: March 13, 2014, 09:53:49 PM »
ReplyReply

Pura Velvet reaches a satin-going-on-glossy finish after 2 generous sprayed coats of usually pure Gloss Timeless slighty diluted with water.  At the end of those 2 coats I have applied roughly 15 to 18 ml of undiluted Timeless per square foot of coated print, which is just beginning to look more gloss than satin.  Epson Cold Press needs a third coat to be as glossy, it's either more absorbent or has some microporous action going on.  That's in the ball park for obtaining the same amount of gloss on matte canvas.

4 or 5 coats reaches as close to a mirror like finish as you can get, but with a suggestion of low frequency orange-peel texture that keeps it from being called perfectly glossy.  But quite stunning nevertheless, has much the same impact as a face mounted glossy and is a killer way to show inherently bright images.  I bet Dan could get a lot smoother coat than I can.

You can reach a satin gloss with just a single pass of well-rolled Timeless, same slight dilution.  I've gotten quite good at that for my 8x44 inch test strips, but would still need to practice for anything bigger.  In my limited rolling experience I have noticed that subsequent rolled on layers tend to develop very obvious orange-peel texture, maybe my technique needs work.  For now I would stick with spraying for building up more than one layer.

Have not experimented with matte coatings at all.  While I like the look of uncoated matte prints, applied matte coatings have always seemed to me to degrade the image, which leaves glossy as my only option for a rich looking print.

The bottom line with the glossy coatings is that you can get a lot of variation based on how you apply the coatings.  Wet coatings favor high gloss, sparse coatings favor a more matte-like effect, and there are countless possibilities in-between.

You can learn absolutely nothing about how coatings look from images on the internet.  Make a list of all the nearby photo galleries and exhibitions, and see how many you can visit this weekend.

Make a lot of the same print, at several different densities, and start coating.  Truly useful knowledge relating to print making is not available on the cheap.  I figure it might be possible to become fairly proficient at in a couple days by coating maybe 50+ pieces.  If I was giving a class, I would assign at least 100 prints at 13 x 19 just for coating practice.   Random attempts are relatively futile, one needs systematic doggedness to actually learn anything.

And if Epson ever has a booth at a trade show near you, be sure to go if only to see their absolutely amazing exhibition of every one of their papers, superbly printed with an image appropriate to the media and nicely framed without glass.  You'll learn a lot from that, as I did.
Logged
huguito
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 231


« Reply #21 on: March 14, 2014, 02:29:04 AM »
ReplyReply

Thanks Bill
That's exactly the kind of description of process about arriving to achieving a look that I was looking for.

Have you tried face mounting after the various coatings?
Do you notice the heat of the press degrade or change the look of the finished print?

Hugo
Logged
Ernst Dinkla
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2854


« Reply #22 on: March 16, 2014, 06:46:21 AM »
ReplyReply

Bill,

Is there no shift at all to a yellow/warmer white in the paper when you apply the varnish? With most papers I find that the main problem.


Shadowwblade,

About creating a better bond of the inkjet coating to the paper base by applying a varnish. I think that only a very diluted first coat of varnish that is totally absorbed by the paper achieves that goal. The coatings Bill applies more likely stay on the surface and have a bond to the paper coating only. For canvas I spray a 1:1 diluted gloss varnish first to create a better bond. Followed by one or two gloss coats and a thin satin coat. But I use other coatings and media so can not be sure what the differences are.

--
Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst

http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
January 2014, 600+ inkjet media white spectral plots.
Logged
shadowblade
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 689


« Reply #23 on: March 16, 2014, 07:40:40 AM »
ReplyReply

Bill,

Is there no shift at all to a yellow/warmer white in the paper when you apply the varnish? With most papers I find that the main problem.


Shadowwblade,

About creating a better bond of the inkjet coating to the paper base by applying a varnish. I think that only a very diluted first coat of varnish that is totally absorbed by the paper achieves that goal. The coatings Bill applies more likely stay on the surface and have a bond to the paper coating only. For canvas I spray a 1:1 diluted gloss varnish first to create a better bond. Followed by one or two gloss coats and a thin satin coat. But I use other coatings and media so can not be sure what the differences are.

--
Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst

http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
January 2014, 600+ inkjet media white spectral plots.

That's not what I was getting at.

What I'm getting at is that the acrylic spray isn't merely an overlaminate applied onto the inkjet coating, like the inkjet coating is a laminate applied to the paper. Rather, acrylic sprays form hydrogen bonds with the polyvinyl alcohol chains that make up the bulk of the inkjet coating, as well as the resin coating of the encapsulated pigment particles. Essentially, the coating, ink and spray can be treated as a single mass of material - a single layer - rather than two separate layers each laminated on top of the other. And the inkjet/spray layer is far stronger and far less susceptible to cracking than the ink-loaded inkjet layer alone.
Logged
Ernst Dinkla
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2854


« Reply #24 on: March 16, 2014, 07:52:34 AM »
ReplyReply

Alright. So I aim at an extra property of that varnish coating, not only bonding inkjet coating+(encapsulated) pigment particles+the varnish layer but also the paper base top in that sandwich.

--
Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst

http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
January 2014, 600+ inkjet media white spectral plots.
Logged
shadowblade
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 689


« Reply #25 on: March 16, 2014, 08:24:27 AM »
ReplyReply

Alright. So I aim at an extra property of that varnish coating, not only bonding inkjet coating+(encapsulated) pigment particles+the varnish layer but also the paper base top in that sandwich.

--
Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst

http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
January 2014, 600+ inkjet media white spectral plots.

Not sure how you'd do that, unless part of the inkjet layer was already soaked into the face of the paper in the first place.

I've been wondering what sort of result you'd get if the inkjet layer was applied not as a coating on a paper base, but as a coating on top of a nice, thick layer of polyvinyl alcohol sheet, impregnated with baryta particles for a white base.
Logged
bill t.
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2693


WWW
« Reply #26 on: March 16, 2014, 03:28:59 PM »
ReplyReply

^Timeless creates a small amount of yellowing, Polycrylic much less.  IMHO either of those varnishes is far less compromising to image presentation than glazing over an unvarnished print.

It's difficult not to get considerable paint absorption deep into Pura and the Epson "Press" papers which can feel like wet towels all the way through when too much paint is applied.  That is different than my experience with say Rag Photographique which seems to resist deep absorption, perhaps because of the microporous coatings and/or the much denser substrate.

Provided the paint is not going tacky in the air from very bad spraying technique, Prua and the Press papers will go completely limp and feel moist on the back with even moderate painting, within less than a minute.  If the back is moist feeling, and the surface after the first coat looks "matte" rather than "powdered" then deep absorption is indicated.  I do an ad hoc test on every print I make during production, when I first apply and then remove masking tape along the edges during the mounting process.  In the rare case when the tape comes off with some of the print, the tear occurs deep in the paper, rather than on the surface.
Logged
Ernst Dinkla
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2854


« Reply #27 on: March 16, 2014, 04:54:09 PM »
ReplyReply

Bill,


That sounds good. If the varnish polymer penetrates accordingly then it should add to the total bond.

For papers that have a barrier between the inkjet coating and the paper base it will not work like that. Barriers like that do not have to be like the polyethylene film in RC papers. Rag Photographique could have that.


--
Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst

http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
January 2014, 600+ inkjet media white spectral plots.

Logged
hugowolf
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 633


« Reply #28 on: March 16, 2014, 06:09:54 PM »
ReplyReply

What's to gain is, the varnished prints are extremely resistant to wear and can even be gently washed.  

I can put a Epson K3 VM print on fine art paper under a hot water tap for several minutes without any harmful effect on the print, as long as the print has cured for a few days.

Brian A
Logged
shadowblade
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 689


« Reply #29 on: March 16, 2014, 11:29:26 PM »
ReplyReply

^Timeless creates a small amount of yellowing, Polycrylic much less.  IMHO either of those varnishes is far less compromising to image presentation than glazing over an unvarnished print.

Isn't Timeless supposed to be non-yellowing over time? Or are you referring to the initial slight yellowness after coating, which doesn't change over time and can be accounted for with a profile?

I thought Polycrylic was a non-archival acrylic coating meant to be applied to wood...
Logged
bill t.
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2693


WWW
« Reply #30 on: March 16, 2014, 11:55:03 PM »
ReplyReply

I believe the main difference between "for wood" acrylic coatings like Polycrylic and "for canvas" coatings like Timeless is that the canvas coatings are made with longer polymers, which has some advantage when it's time stretch.  Or maybe it's shorter polymers...hmm.  Anyway, don't use Polycrylic when you have to stretch.

I don't worry a whole lot about minor yellowing over time, or about jumping through hoops trying to make fancy profiles and other types of gyrations to correct minutiae.  I do care about are large scale issues such as how the print presents itself, which for me includes framing, placement, in-situ lighting, etc.  I prefer not to just toss the print into the wild once it's made.  And I care that it will last a reasonable amount of time, for which I try to apply framing techniques not so much of the "archival" school but of the "long lasting" school.  So far in the field, my oldest "long lasting" pieces are doing far better than my same-aged "archival" pieces.  By a lot.
Logged
shadowblade
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 689


« Reply #31 on: March 17, 2014, 02:53:29 AM »
ReplyReply

Fair enough. So, for paper (which is flexible, as well as dimensionally variable with humidity), wouldn't you want to go with the Timeless rather than Polycrylic, so that it can move with the paper as it expands, contracts and flexes, rather than staying rigid?

Timeless being very slightly yellow when applied to paper isn't a problem - a simple profile can fix that. It's yellowing over time that you can't profile for - I thought Timeless was supposed to not yellow over time.

I guess another advantage of the Timeless is that it makes it safe to ship the paper rolled (something I wouldn't do with a print on coated paper sprayed with Hahnemuhle Protective Spray, for instance).

So, you've noticed that Timeless seems to penetrate deep into the paper base, through the inkjet receptive layer? Sounds like a good sign, then - if the spray laminate, inkjet layer, image and part of the paper base all all basically embedded in a single, thick layer of Timeless, then delamination and cracking should be next-to-impossible. Is this with undiluted Timeless, or do you have to thin it with water?

How does it dry? Does it dry like inks, soaking in through the paper to the other side, or does it dry by evaporation from the sprayed surface? If it's the latter (meaning that carrier chemicals won't get trapped in the paper, between the two layers of Timeless), have you thought about spraying the reverse side as well, to prevent curling and to seal the back of the print from humidity and atmospheric pollutants?
Logged
Ernst Dinkla
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2854


« Reply #32 on: March 17, 2014, 04:07:50 AM »
ReplyReply

I believe the main difference between "for wood" acrylic coatings like Polycrylic and "for canvas" coatings like Timeless is that the canvas coatings are made with longer polymers, which has some advantage when it's time stretch.  Or maybe it's shorter polymers...hmm.  Anyway, don't use Polycrylic when you have to stretch.

I don't worry a whole lot about minor yellowing over time, or about jumping through hoops trying to make fancy profiles and other types of gyrations to correct minutiae.  I do care about are large scale issues such as how the print presents itself, which for me includes framing, placement, in-situ lighting, etc.  I prefer not to just toss the print into the wild once it's made.  And I care that it will last a reasonable amount of time, for which I try to apply framing techniques not so much of the "archival" school but of the "long lasting" school.  So far in the field, my oldest "long lasting" pieces are doing far better than my same-aged "archival" pieces.  By a lot.

It is the initial yellowing I did not like with other papers and varnishes when I tried similar protection methods in the past. Could be that the UV inhibitor in the Timeless adds a bit to the initial yellowing but if you think it is acceptable I trust you on your words. Acrylics and aliphatic polyurethanes do not yellow much in time, good paper bases can stand the time too and barriers like acrylic varnishes suppress oxygen/ozone attack too on the paper and the inks.  I have to go through my paper samples to find papers with an effect Pura Velvet has, no sample of that in my collection and I doubt it is easy to get in Europe, UK being the easiest I see. Does it resemble the Epson Cold Press Natural in surface texture and whiteness but the backside is rougher?

Next to molecule weight, hydrolysis etc of the varnish polymer the way a dispersion is made could have an influence on the penetration. There is no need to find out if you write that Gloss Timeless does the job but I have to get it in the UK like the Pura.


--
Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst

http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
January 2014, 600+ inkjet media white spectral plots.
Logged
shadowblade
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 689


« Reply #33 on: March 17, 2014, 12:59:17 PM »
ReplyReply

Better that it starts off a bit yellow and doesn't change with time than a coating that starts off completely neutral, but yellows with time. You can compensate for the former, but not the latter.

I'd be interested in seeing a cross-sectional micrograph of a print sprayed in this manner, to see if the spray actually penetrates the inkjet layer and encases the image and part of the paper base in a thick layer of acrylic. The images on websites such as Graphics Atlas only show unsprayed prints.

Re: gloss vs matte - if matte tends to obscure the image, have you tried lustre? or a mixture of matte and gloss? Obviously, this is more applicable to photos to be framed behind glass - you want the durability of the coating, but you also don't want any extra reflections.
Logged
huguito
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 231


« Reply #34 on: March 18, 2014, 01:10:55 PM »
ReplyReply

Since the application of Timeless or Plycrylic covers and protect the front surface of the print.
Does it make sense to use either one of them also on the back, as an adhesive and a protectant at the same time, to mount the print or a sheet of canvas, on a backing board?
Could it be a preferable method to using dry mounting tissue?

Hugo
Logged
shadowblade
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 689


« Reply #35 on: March 19, 2014, 01:59:58 AM »
ReplyReply

Since the application of Timeless or Plycrylic covers and protect the front surface of the print.
Does it make sense to use either one of them also on the back, as an adhesive and a protectant at the same time, to mount the print or a sheet of canvas, on a backing board?
Could it be a preferable method to using dry mounting tissue?

Hugo

I'd like to know this too - not for use as glue, but to seal the back of the print from humidity and atmospheric pollutants.

It certainly works as a glue and is safe to use on a print, but I'd be hesitant to use it on both sides of a print without knowing how it dries and whether any solvent/carrier fluid it contains evaporates through the drying layer of Timeless or whether the solvents soak into the paper and are trapped there (due to layers of Timeless on each side). Trapping solvents inside the paper can't be good for its longevity...
Logged
huguito
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 231


« Reply #36 on: March 19, 2014, 12:14:29 PM »
ReplyReply

I remember reading in their website that Breathing Color describes Glamour II as being perfectly ok to be used as adhesive for mounting prints.
I imagine Timeles its a similar formula and would share that capability as well, just my guess.

I am doing a test now coating a few versions of the same print on the new Epson Watercolor Textured, to chose what coating I like best, as soon as I find the one I like better I will try to find out if the coating can be used in the back as an adhesive or a sealer.

Hugo
Logged
shadowblade
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 689


« Reply #37 on: April 07, 2014, 09:02:14 PM »
ReplyReply

I remember reading in their website that Breathing Color describes Glamour II as being perfectly ok to be used as adhesive for mounting prints.
I imagine Timeles its a similar formula and would share that capability as well, just my guess.

I am doing a test now coating a few versions of the same print on the new Epson Watercolor Textured, to chose what coating I like best, as soon as I find the one I like better I will try to find out if the coating can be used in the back as an adhesive or a sealer.

Hugo

How did the test go? Did you also find that Timeless soaks through the receptive layer and deep into the paper base, or did it just stay on the surface?
Logged
huguito
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 231


« Reply #38 on: April 08, 2014, 12:24:05 AM »
ReplyReply

I end up tearing the edges and dry mounting to a bard, held perfectly flat and look great.

As coating I had the best visual result, keeping the velvet surface of the paper, using a spray from Clear-Jet, is a solvent based. the name is AFA Fine Art Low Gloss. The surface still very fragile, I just ruined one by barely touching it with the edge of a board. May be enough for UV protection but is definitely not enough for protection against abrasion.

I will try something more substantial like Timeless later, my idea is to show it without glass

I keep reporting as I test

Hugo
Logged
shadowblade
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 689


« Reply #39 on: April 08, 2014, 01:24:29 AM »
ReplyReply

I end up tearing the edges and dry mounting to a bard, held perfectly flat and look great.

As coating I had the best visual result, keeping the velvet surface of the paper, using a spray from Clear-Jet, is a solvent based. the name is AFA Fine Art Low Gloss. The surface still very fragile, I just ruined one by barely touching it with the edge of a board. May be enough for UV protection but is definitely not enough for protection against abrasion.

I will try something more substantial like Timeless later, my idea is to show it without glass

I keep reporting as I test

Hugo

I'm guessing the spray you used is similar to Hahnemuhle Protective Spray, which applies an ultra-thin acrylic layer to the surface as a barrier against atmospheric pollutants. These don't really provide any physical protection, merely UV and chemical protection. But, then again, papers sprayed using these are designed to be displayed under glass.

I'd be very interested to see if the Timeless really soaks through and encapsulates the image (as well as the upper layers of the paper base) or if it merely sits on the surface. If it turns out to be the former, encasing the image layer and some of the paper in a thick layer of acrylic, it should stabilise the image against delamination and make for an extremely-durable image that will last as long as the pigments last, rather than being potentially lost due to the image layer peeling or cracking despite the pigments not having faded.

Incidentally, Timeless seems to work as an adhesive, but nowhere near as well as Glamour II. This is because Glamour II is normally mixed with water (but is left undiluted when used as an adhesive), while Timeless comes pre-mixed. There's nothing stopping you from using Glamour II as an adhesive and Timeless as the surface coating, though.
Logged
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad