Re: Maxim/Ultra print coatings

[Michael Greer <mgreer@cwixmail.com>]

Thanks for the post Jon. It's this kind of experience that I personally gain a
lot from. It gives me a lot to think about. I have another question for you. The
air born particles from aerosol sprays drives me crazy. Plus there just seems
like a lot of waste. Have you tried brushing on liquid coatings? If so, which
one(s)? I'm looking for one that will dry to a smooth surface and have the high
glossy acrylic finish of Krylons Crystal Clear. I'm interested more in look than
UV/fade protection. Any ideas?

Jon Cone wrote:

> I agree that it is a difficult call to both lump all products together, rely
> soley on Henry WIlhelm's testing, and make a statement like Maxim is going
> to produce X results.
>
> I first put hindered Amine Light Stabilizers into a coating (CEP UV/HALS) in
> 1993. I also saw incredible gains on various dye sets. But what I didn't
> take into consideration was the results which produce end of testings by
> Henry Wilhelm. He and I both looked at some startling test results from my
> own testing which contradicted his. Mine were in a south facing window - his
> under 45,000 fluorescent.
>
> But what I learned was that in his testing, coatings with both UV absorbers
> and HALS can produce unpredictable results. The main throw off is that one
> of the dye components is protected to a greater degree than the other three.
> The result is that the other 3 begin to fade while the forth doesn't - and
> the end of test is reached earlier than without the coating in which all 4
> components faded at the same result. It is better that all 4 dyes fade at
> about the same result. This is why Lysonic inks tested so well.
>
> The criteria here in all this - is not how a "picture" looks, or how good
> the color bars hold up, but rather (in Henry's testing) how quickly a
> neutral gray or CMY patch shifts. He does this because the eye notices
> overall cast changes sooner than individual component failures. Of course if
> a color component fails sooner than a mixture the test ends as well.
>
> So I remain a bit skeptical because of experience.
>
> Best test would be to make a neutral gray patch of approx. 1.0 density. Coat
> it and compare to one kept in dark storage. Put both the test and an
> uncoated test in a sunny window and see what happens. If you add color bars
> with your tests you may be suprised to find that the color bars change much
> more slowly than mixed colors.
>
> Henry uses scientific procedures to determine fading - not how "good" a
> picture looks.
>
> On the other hand (being my own devils advocate) - how "good" a picture
> looks is what it is all about!
>
> So - where do I stand then??   just here - I'll let you all sort it out.
>  I actually still coat my Iris prints with HALS. I've learned that if you
> are going to err. Err on the side of danger!!  : )
>
> -_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-
>
> Jon Cone
> http://www.inkjetmall.com
> http://www.cone-editions.com/workshops
>
> -_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-
> -
> Please: Stay on topic. Trim quoted messages.
> http://www.leben.com/lists for list instructions.



--
Mike Greer

Come visit my web site on digital photography and other
interesting topics at http://www.greer.simplenet.com .
I have been extremely lazy, so many of the topics are
not finished yet. But they will be, some day.


-
Please: Stay on topic. Trim quoted messages.
http://www.leben.com/lists for list instructions.