Paul Verizzo
Print Addict
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2011
- Messages
- 427
- Reaction score
- 88
- Points
- 173
- Location
- Sarasota, FL, USA
- Printer Model
- Canon ip4500, 9000 MK II, PRO-
The latest in my series of tests in the Florida sun. As before, Canon PRO-100 CLI-42 ink images taped to windows on the SW side of the house. Not as before, the windows are now open, so the angularity in relationship to the sun is more direct. Probably a nuance and not critical to the results.
Without picking nits about the changing level of light during the various hours of the day, the lux/years in an indoor, indirect light environment compared to the sunlight is about 230:1. So, 30 days outside is about 7,000 inside, about 20 years. Your situation WILL vary.
For the first time, two test panels were under glass, the gold standard that also pretty much eliminates gas fading. And they were taped to the glass on all sides, so no ingress/egress of air. These were B&W images, since my prior research shows that B&W is the canary in the fading/color shift coal mine. The third panel was not under glass and consisted of my previously discussed color and B&W image in a quad form, divided top and bottom halves.
The glass used was what came with some frames from the Salvation Army. Only after running the tests did I notice that on edge, one frame was the green I expected, and the other was warm, kinda yellowish. WTH? Of course, this may have effected the outcomes, but I have no way of knowing without more tests. Which don’t matter to me.
I ran a fresh print to make A/B comparisons, I laid it next to the torture survivors.
Various combinations of no treatment, lacquer, .004 Mylar, Low Density Polyethylene (a.k.a. grocery store food wrap), aluminum foil, and Photo Shield were used. Photo Shield? That’s my short hand for a UV blocking, nano ceramic, clear window “tint.” Something I’m experimenting with.
The envelope, please:
1. No Glass: As I’ve observed before, it’s amazing how well plain lacquer goes in preserving a photo. I’ve already determined in previous tests, rather logically, that it stops gas fading. Period. It’s as good a moisture/gas barrier as any common substance. The color portion of my test image looks great if you don’t have a fresh print to compare it with. No observable color shifts. The B&W portion has gone warm, but still has good contrast. The half with lacquer plus the Photo Shield has no color shift in the B&W, yet the flesh tone in the color part is redder. Go figger.
2. Under glass #1: B&W, top, no treatment, bottom, Photo Shield. The PS bottom is a bit less faded, but w/o the opportunity to compare to the top half, there is effectively no difference.
3. Under glass #2: The quad image, all B&W. One quarter had a double fold of aluminum foil, one had the .004 Mylar, one had the Photo Shield, and one had the LDPE. The foil covered quadrant was less faded, as expected, but there is a definite color shift towards green. ????? The differences between the other three transparent treatments are minimal. The Photo Shield is the least faded, but not by a whole lot more than Mylar or LDPE.
Conclusion: Glass performs as advertised.
The bottom lines:
1. Unless you are fixated on your paper texture, always use a lacquer coating, front and back. I have an opinion that it’s good to dehydrate the print by either silica gel or gentle heat first, but I’ve no tests on this. Yet.
2. If your print will be mounted under glass, you can lacquer if you want, but not necessary. You can get a slight bump with a product like Photo Shield. The downside of PS is that there is a 10% light loss...........in two directions.
3. For reasons I’m yet to fathom, PS seems to protect no-glass B&W very well, but causes a reduction in contrast and a color shift, even after the PS is removed. Yes, I’m puzzled.
The Bottom Line of The Bottom Line: Spray with lacquer, you can’t go wrong. Perhaps mount behind glass, you can’t go wrong. Go have a glass of wine. Enjoy for decades.
Will I be posting images? Not likely, too much work. And you may or may not be able to see the nuances in a scan. Trust my narrative?
Are the Chromalife 100 Plus inks as good as Canon claims. No. And I very much want them to be. Are they good enough for many or most purposes, especially if lacquer sprayed or kept in albums? Certainly.
Without picking nits about the changing level of light during the various hours of the day, the lux/years in an indoor, indirect light environment compared to the sunlight is about 230:1. So, 30 days outside is about 7,000 inside, about 20 years. Your situation WILL vary.
For the first time, two test panels were under glass, the gold standard that also pretty much eliminates gas fading. And they were taped to the glass on all sides, so no ingress/egress of air. These were B&W images, since my prior research shows that B&W is the canary in the fading/color shift coal mine. The third panel was not under glass and consisted of my previously discussed color and B&W image in a quad form, divided top and bottom halves.
The glass used was what came with some frames from the Salvation Army. Only after running the tests did I notice that on edge, one frame was the green I expected, and the other was warm, kinda yellowish. WTH? Of course, this may have effected the outcomes, but I have no way of knowing without more tests. Which don’t matter to me.
I ran a fresh print to make A/B comparisons, I laid it next to the torture survivors.
Various combinations of no treatment, lacquer, .004 Mylar, Low Density Polyethylene (a.k.a. grocery store food wrap), aluminum foil, and Photo Shield were used. Photo Shield? That’s my short hand for a UV blocking, nano ceramic, clear window “tint.” Something I’m experimenting with.
The envelope, please:
1. No Glass: As I’ve observed before, it’s amazing how well plain lacquer goes in preserving a photo. I’ve already determined in previous tests, rather logically, that it stops gas fading. Period. It’s as good a moisture/gas barrier as any common substance. The color portion of my test image looks great if you don’t have a fresh print to compare it with. No observable color shifts. The B&W portion has gone warm, but still has good contrast. The half with lacquer plus the Photo Shield has no color shift in the B&W, yet the flesh tone in the color part is redder. Go figger.
2. Under glass #1: B&W, top, no treatment, bottom, Photo Shield. The PS bottom is a bit less faded, but w/o the opportunity to compare to the top half, there is effectively no difference.
3. Under glass #2: The quad image, all B&W. One quarter had a double fold of aluminum foil, one had the .004 Mylar, one had the Photo Shield, and one had the LDPE. The foil covered quadrant was less faded, as expected, but there is a definite color shift towards green. ????? The differences between the other three transparent treatments are minimal. The Photo Shield is the least faded, but not by a whole lot more than Mylar or LDPE.
Conclusion: Glass performs as advertised.
The bottom lines:
1. Unless you are fixated on your paper texture, always use a lacquer coating, front and back. I have an opinion that it’s good to dehydrate the print by either silica gel or gentle heat first, but I’ve no tests on this. Yet.
2. If your print will be mounted under glass, you can lacquer if you want, but not necessary. You can get a slight bump with a product like Photo Shield. The downside of PS is that there is a 10% light loss...........in two directions.
3. For reasons I’m yet to fathom, PS seems to protect no-glass B&W very well, but causes a reduction in contrast and a color shift, even after the PS is removed. Yes, I’m puzzled.
The Bottom Line of The Bottom Line: Spray with lacquer, you can’t go wrong. Perhaps mount behind glass, you can’t go wrong. Go have a glass of wine. Enjoy for decades.
Will I be posting images? Not likely, too much work. And you may or may not be able to see the nuances in a scan. Trust my narrative?
Are the Chromalife 100 Plus inks as good as Canon claims. No. And I very much want them to be. Are they good enough for many or most purposes, especially if lacquer sprayed or kept in albums? Certainly.
It's cool that glass works as advertised.
