Fading away or is it..

Harvey said:

@The Hat I know what you mean about paper, the bad paper I mentioned here which is Royal Brites is my guinea pig for testing ink. When it is used with Epson L800 ink I had no problem, neither with Hobbicolors, and Canon CLI 221 genuine ink.

I have no other ink to test it, but the problem is only reflecting with IS ink. Now that I remember I printed a picture with IS ink, and then I stored in the middle of a ream of paper, guess what? Same horrid colors after a few days. If am able to find the prints I will scan it for all of the members to see it.

Click to expand...

I take issue with Royal Brites being a "bad" paper. In fact, I wrote a thread praising it. You just have to understand that it's not a microporous photo paper, it's a "mere" clay coated paper. Just like brochure papers and all those inexpensive ones.

I think a more accurate descriptor would be "not photo quality," or, "consumer grade." Certainly one should never print a "keeper" on it, but for printing album type pages, checking settings, you can't beat it. Heavy weight, double sided, for about 20 cents a sheet here in USA from Amazon.

OP, if you are up to experimenting, try some lacquer coating, front and back.

In my Test Print Farm, in the bright Florida sunshine, sixty feet from salt water,I have a page printed on a Canon paper, four quadrants, each with a color and a B&W identical portion. The B&W portion is where you REALLY see color shifts since no ink color set fades at the same rate. In fact, if you look at the four color test images, you'd be hard pressed to see fading with about three weeks on the board.

This particular print has one quadrant "raw," nothing done to it. Upper right, three brushed applications of a fabric UV blocker. Lower left, hardware store Deft clear lacquer. Lower right, both the UV blocker and the lacquer.

Only the lower right (blocker and lacquer) is visually unchanged in the B&W zone. Nice grays, no color shift. The interpretation is obvious: UV blocking alone experiences moisture or other chemical degradations. Lacquer alone doesn't stop UV fading. Together, a winning combination.

Since your display locations are very low in UV, you might see a change for the better by putting on a moisture barrier. Lacquer is very low permeability to water vapor. In fact, cellophane is semi-permeable until they finish it with lacquer, resulting in perfect long term food packaging. Shellac is the other great moisture barrier, but even "Clear" shellac isn't. It's slightly yellow when applied to adequate thickness. YMMV.

If your paper is textured, like Pearl or Semi-Gloss, you shouldn't even see a change. Again, spray the back, too. Poly is not a perfect moisture barrier, either.

Cold, Hot laminating is better then lacquers etc.

did you do a compartive test on laminating vs. lacquers ? With differnt papers ? When looking to the data of the Wilhelm Research Instuítute - there is actually to much of it - there are several factors to fading - the ink - o.k., everybody would assume that , the paper, the type of coating, and there is not just UV radiation but as well ozone specifically in the summer, close to the beach , and specifically some microporous, quick dry papers let the ozone do its work much more than UV light, much more than even UV filter glass could compensate for. The lacquer may possibly inhibit the ozone effect on microporous papers. So that's a game with several variables - not even to ask whether all lacquers are alike or at least similar in their effect, whether laminating provides primarily an UV filter effect, or as well ozone protection.

laminating far exceeds the capabilities of any coating applied to your photos whether it’s used hot or cold it seals the contents air and water tight and is not subject to any errors that might apply during their coating..

re laminating: Yes, it's about as much of a lock as anything can get. However, some observations:

1. Not all laminates claim to have UV filtering capabilities. Be sure that you get one that does.
2. Having said that, despite lots and lots of research, I've not found any numbers to put behind those products, i.e., what percent reduction at what wavelengths. Contrast that to window tint products, plenty of information. Virtually all of the latter stop 99% of all UV, all wavelengths. (Which of course, makes optical paper brighteners moot!)
3. The UV filtering chemical can be either mixed into the film or be in the adhesive. The latter certainly offers a manufacturer more flexibility in product design and sourcing. If the filter is in the adhesive, the mil thickness of the laminate doesn't matter. If in the film, it does.
4. No poly film is absolutely moisture impermeable. Gas permeability can be very different than moisture permeability. My references show that unplasticized PVC - laminating film is heavily plasticized, obviously - has a Perm rating of 275. (Perm rating is independent of thickness.) Plexiglas/acrylic is 3200. Surprise! PET (mylar) film is 130, and shellac is .4 . I don't know what lacquer is, but the fact that it is the coating, very, very thin, used to make cellophane moisture impervious speaks for itself. Surely similar to shellac, maybe better.
4. All conventional laminate materials are plasticized PVC. There has been a lot of concern for many years that said material outgases chlorine. Whether this is valid in the real world I don't know.
5. Inexpensive laminates often have a less than uniform finish. Sort of bubbly, lumpy. Obvious with the "correct" lighting angles.
6. Hot laminating obviously requires hardware. I have seen a 13" wide laminator on eBay for $35. How good? No idea.
7. Laminating just the front is like locking the front door and leaving the back door unlocked. Be sure to spray shellac or lacquer on the back after laminating. The very thin PE used on better papers is almost transparent to moisture.

Ink stained Fingers said:

did you do a compartive test on laminating vs. lacquers ? With differnt papers ? When looking to the data of the Wilhelm Research Instuítute - there is actually to much of it - there are several factors to fading - the ink - o.k., everybody would assume that , the paper, the type of coating, and there is not just UV radiation but as well ozone specifically in the summer, close to the beach , and specifically some microporous, quick dry papers let the ozone do its work much more than UV light, much more than even UV filter glass could compensate for. The lacquer may possibly inhibit the ozone effect on microporous papers. So that's a game with several variables - not even to ask whether all lacquers are alike or at least similar in their effect, whether laminating provides primarily an UV filter effect, or as well ozone protection.

Click to expand...

No I just have few posters on cheap HP paper, HP dye ink, cold laminated. They are very old like 12 years or so. I can't say they did not fade, but colors are like on the box they were scanned from. So that means they not faded much.

The Hat said:

laminating far exceeds the capabilities of any coating applied to your photos whether it’s used hot or cold it seals the contents air and water tight and is not subject to any errors that might apply during their coating..

Click to expand...

Anyone can apply cold laminate on glass table with rubber roller Just keep pressure even else you will never finish laminating as you will see better and better transparency so to say.

Now for my observations from researching preservative sprays and liquids:

1. There are two broad categories, as you probably know. Solvent based and water based. Solvent based can be anything from old fashioned varnish to modern acrylic. Water based are all acrylic. Solvent based can be used on pigment or dye prints, water based only on pigment.
2. My research shows that water based acrylic adhesives are hugely inferior to solvent based. However, I don't know if the same applies to coating durability.
3. The vast majority of protective coatings, fixatives, etc. out there are one of the two types described. Which is which is obvious by either the instructions for clean up and/or flammability warnings or the lack thereof.
3. Beware the incorrect labeling, especially if you veer away from the artist's products. Or, ordinary incorrect sales person's vernacular. Brushing Lacquer isn't. Isn't lacquer, it's a solvent/mineral spirits based clear finish.
4. The only sprays I've found that isn't one of the above are Hanemuhle and Premier Print Shield.They are lacquer based with a UV additive. Being lacquer, you can probably spray light enough to still have paper texture show through while offering a good barrier.
5. To date, I'm not terribly impressed with the UV shielding ability of the sprays I've tested, including a UV blocking one for fabrics. Not even a fraction of UV blocking ability of a physical UV barrier. Perhaps they are just fine indoors in indirect lighting where window glass has killed the UVB rays. But under fluorescent lighting? Ouch. The reviews of Hanemuhle and Premier where people did actual durability testing seem to confirm my observations of other sprays I've bought and tested.

YMMV, of course.

Paul Verizzo said:

Now for my observations from researching preservative sprays and liquids:

1. There are two broad categories, as you probably know. Solvent based and water based. Solvent based can be anything from old fashioned varnish to modern acrylic. Water based are all acrylic. Solvent based can be used on pigment or dye prints, water based only on pigment.
2. My research shows that water based acrylic adhesives are hugely inferior to solvent based. However, I don't know if the same applies to coating durability.
3. The vast majority of protective coatings, fixatives, etc. out there are one of the two types described. Which is which is obvious by either the instructions for clean up and/or flammability warnings or the lack thereof.
3. Beware the incorrect labeling, especially if you veer away from the artist's products. Or, ordinary incorrect sales person's vernacular. Brushing Lacquer isn't. Isn't lacquer, it's a solvent/mineral spirits based clear finish.
4. The only sprays I've found that isn't one of the above are Hanemuhle and Premier Print Shield.They are lacquer based with a UV additive. Being lacquer, you can probably spray light enough to still have paper texture show through while offering a good barrier.
5. To date, I'm not terribly impressed with the UV shielding ability of the sprays I've tested, including a UV blocking one for fabrics. Not even a fraction of UV blocking ability of a physical UV barrier. Perhaps they are just fine indoors in indirect lighting where window glass has killed the UVB rays. But under fluorescent lighting? Ouch. The reviews of Hanemuhle and Premier where people did actual durability testing seem to confirm my observations of other sprays I've bought and tested.

YMMV, of course.

Click to expand...

Thanks Paul, very useful and timely advice.

I have been producing a few gallery wraps over the last year of so, and have have been concerned about the lack of surface protection.

Investigating available coatings is a veritable minefield for the uninitiated. Also complicated by shipping restrictions in some cases.

Your summary is very informative and gives an excellent base for my renewed search.

RS