Thank you. I could not find the english version of the site. I did speak with a
framer in NY and they said it was not a problem with the silicone adhesive. I do
not think anyone is convinced of the archival quality of this process. Some
c-prints mounted in this process came back to the mounter having turned blue
over time but not many. The inkjet prints are too new to know I guess.

If you know of any specific issue with the silicone, I'd love to hear about it.

Thank you.

Lisa

--- In Wide_Inkjet_Printers@yahoogroups.com, Ernst Dinkla <edinkla@...> wrote:
>
> lisawalking schreef:
> > Thanks Andrew. I will check out those links. I was referring to plexi over
the face of the print. It is called Diasec in Germany- well that is the patented
name. It is put on with a silicone adhesive- not by me but a professional
framing/mounting business. I was wondering if anyone had experience with this
and Hahnemuhle photo rag paper.
> >
> > Best-
> >
> > Lisa
>
> I have mentioned Wilcovak in The Netherlands more often. It looks like
> they are the only ones using Diasec (or a development based on that) to
> face mount textured matte inkjet papers.
>
> But this evening I also came across a short text on a Dutch site
> discussing conservation technology where the acid character of silicone
> glues in the Diasec process was seen as a possible problem.  Something I
> feared already. Yet I do not know Wilcovak's methods precisely and they
> may have gone to another binder altogether. There must be alternatives
> in aliphatic urethanes and even UV curing resins (acrylic, polyester)
> are a possibility too. I did some experiments in the past with both types.
>
>
> http://www.icn.nl/kenniscentrum/alle%20projecten/project-face-mounted-fotos
>
>
> --
> Met vriendelijke groeten,   Ernst
>
>
> Dinkla Gallery Canvas Wrap Actions
>
> |      Dinkla Grafische Techniek      |
> |         www.pigment-print.com        |
> |                 ( unvollendet )                 |
>

Thanks Andrew. I was told by a mounter in NY and by Hahnemuhle that it works
fine with the photo rag and a silicone adhesive.
We'll see. C prints I believe use a film adhesive.

Thanks again.

Lisa

--- In Wide_Inkjet_Printers@yahoogroups.com, Andrew Darlow <ad@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Lisa:
>
> They do a lot of that work as well, but usually with C-prints. I'm not
> sure about how the prints will look and whether the adhesive will hold
> well with Photo Rag.
>
> All the best,
>
> Andrew
>
> ---------------------------------------------------
> Andrew Darlow
> Editor, The Imaging Buffet
> http://www.imagingbuffet.com
> Author, 301 Inkjet Tips and Techniques:
> An Essential Printing Resource for Photographers - http://www.inkjettips.com
>
>
>
> On Nov 24, 2009, at 4:39 PM, lisawalking wrote:
>
> > Thanks Andrew. I will check out those links. I was referring to
> > plexi over the face of the print. It is called Diasec in Germany-
> > well that is the patented name. It is put on with a silicone
> > adhesive- not by me but a professional framing/mounting business. I
> > was wondering if anyone had experience with this and Hahnemuhle
> > photo rag paper.
> >
> > Best-
> >
> > Lisa
> >
> > --- In Wide_Inkjet_Printers@yahoogroups.com, Andrew Darlow <ad@>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Lisa:
> > >
> > > I assume you want the Photo Rag on the top of the plexi? I saw a lot
> > > of great techniques from a company in NYC which you can read about
> > here:
> > >
> > >
http://imagingbuffet.com/2009/10/24/photoplus-expo-new-york-city-2nd-day-observa\
tions-5-more-trade-show-booth-suggestions/
> > > or
> > > http://tinyurl.com/yhlq887
> > >
> > > it is number 1 on the list and here is the full text:
> > >
> > > LR Fine Art Mounting and Framing (Booth #165)
> > >
> > > Have you ever wanted to get your work face mounted to Plexiglas,
> > > mounted on dibond (a relatively lightweight and very stable
> > material)
> > > or other material? If so, you may know that it is not an easy
> > process
> > > to do well. LR Fine Art Mounting and Framing of New York City has
> > > large printed and mounted samples, as well as a table full of
> > samples
> > > of their mounting processes. One especially impressed me. It was a
> > > matte inkjet print mounted on a board, which was then mounted on
> > > either aluminum or dibond.
> > >
> > > website: http://www.l2mounting.com
> > >
> > >
> > > All the best,
> > >
> > > Andrew
> > >
> > > On Nov 24, 2009, at 9:06 AM, lisawalking wrote:
> > >
> > > > Has anyone successfully face mounted plexi on a porous fine art
> > > > paper such as Hahnemuhle photo rag? I would have this
> > professionally
> > > > done and I believe they use a silicone adhesive.
> > > >
> > > > Thank you-
> > > > Lisa
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > >
> >
> > Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use
> > .
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Hi Lisa:

They do a lot of that work as well, but usually with C-prints. I'm not
sure about how the prints will look and whether the adhesive will hold
well with Photo Rag.

All the best,

Andrew

---------------------------------------------------
Andrew Darlow
Editor, The Imaging Buffet
http://www.imagingbuffet.com
Author, 301 Inkjet Tips and Techniques:
An Essential Printing Resource for Photographers - http://www.inkjettips.com



On Nov 24, 2009, at 4:39 PM, lisawalking wrote:

> Thanks Andrew. I will check out those links. I was referring to
> plexi over the face of the print. It is called Diasec in Germany-
> well that is the patented name. It is put on with a silicone
> adhesive- not by me but a professional framing/mounting business. I
> was wondering if anyone had experience with this and Hahnemuhle
> photo rag paper.
>
> Best-
>
> Lisa
>
> --- In Wide_Inkjet_Printers@yahoogroups.com, Andrew Darlow <ad@...>
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Lisa:
> >
> > I assume you want the Photo Rag on the top of the plexi? I saw a lot
> > of great techniques from a company in NYC which you can read about
> here:
> >
> >
http://imagingbuffet.com/2009/10/24/photoplus-expo-new-york-city-2nd-day-observa\
tions-5-more-trade-show-booth-suggestions/
> > or
> > http://tinyurl.com/yhlq887
> >
> > it is number 1 on the list and here is the full text:
> >
> > LR Fine Art Mounting and Framing (Booth #165)
> >
> > Have you ever wanted to get your work face mounted to Plexiglas,
> > mounted on dibond (a relatively lightweight and very stable
> material)
> > or other material? If so, you may know that it is not an easy
> process
> > to do well. LR Fine Art Mounting and Framing of New York City has
> > large printed and mounted samples, as well as a table full of
> samples
> > of their mounting processes. One especially impressed me. It was a
> > matte inkjet print mounted on a board, which was then mounted on
> > either aluminum or dibond.
> >
> > website: http://www.l2mounting.com
> >
> >
> > All the best,
> >
> > Andrew
> >
> > On Nov 24, 2009, at 9:06 AM, lisawalking wrote:
> >
> > > Has anyone successfully face mounted plexi on a porous fine art
> > > paper such as Hahnemuhle photo rag? I would have this
> professionally
> > > done and I believe they use a silicone adhesive.
> > >
> > > Thank you-
> > > Lisa
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>
> Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use
> .
>
>




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

lisawalking schreef:
> Thanks Andrew. I will check out those links. I was referring to plexi over the
face of the print. It is called Diasec in Germany- well that is the patented
name. It is put on with a silicone adhesive- not by me but a professional
framing/mounting business. I was wondering if anyone had experience with this
and Hahnemuhle photo rag paper.
>
> Best-
>
> Lisa

I have mentioned Wilcovak in The Netherlands more often. It looks like
they are the only ones using Diasec (or a development based on that) to
face mount textured matte inkjet papers.

But this evening I also came across a short text on a Dutch site
discussing conservation technology where the acid character of silicone
glues in the Diasec process was seen as a possible problem.  Something I
feared already. Yet I do not know Wilcovak's methods precisely and they
may have gone to another binder altogether. There must be alternatives
in aliphatic urethanes and even UV curing resins (acrylic, polyester)
are a possibility too. I did some experiments in the past with both types.


http://www.icn.nl/kenniscentrum/alle%20projecten/project-face-mounted-fotos


--
Met vriendelijke groeten,   Ernst


Dinkla Gallery Canvas Wrap Actions

|      Dinkla Grafische Techniek      |
|         www.pigment-print.com        |
|                 ( unvollendet )                 |

Thanks Andrew. I will check out those links. I was referring to plexi over the
face of the print. It is called Diasec in Germany- well that is the patented
name. It is put on with a silicone adhesive- not by me but a professional
framing/mounting business. I was wondering if anyone had experience with this
and Hahnemuhle photo rag paper.

Best-

Lisa

--- In Wide_Inkjet_Printers@yahoogroups.com, Andrew Darlow <ad@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Lisa:
>
> I assume you want the Photo Rag on the top of the plexi? I saw a lot
> of great techniques from a company in NYC which you can read about here:
>
>
http://imagingbuffet.com/2009/10/24/photoplus-expo-new-york-city-2nd-day-observa\
tions-5-more-trade-show-booth-suggestions/
> or
> http://tinyurl.com/yhlq887
>
> it is number 1 on the list and here is the full text:
>
>   LR Fine Art Mounting and Framing (Booth #165)
>
> Have you ever wanted to get your work face mounted to Plexiglas,
> mounted on dibond (a relatively lightweight and very stable material)
> or other material? If so, you may know that it is not an easy process
> to do well. LR Fine Art Mounting and Framing of New York City has
> large printed and mounted samples, as well as a table full of samples
> of their mounting processes. One especially impressed me. It was a
> matte inkjet print mounted on a board, which was then mounted on
> either aluminum or dibond.
>
> website: http://www.l2mounting.com
>
>
> All the best,
>
> Andrew
>
> On Nov 24, 2009, at 9:06 AM, lisawalking wrote:
>
> > Has anyone successfully face mounted plexi on a porous fine art
> > paper such as Hahnemuhle photo rag? I would have this professionally
> > done and I believe they use a silicone adhesive.
> >
> > Thank you-
> > Lisa
> >
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Hi Lisa:

I assume you want the Photo Rag on the top of the plexi? I saw a lot
of great techniques from a company in NYC which you can read about here:

http://imagingbuffet.com/2009/10/24/photoplus-expo-new-york-city-2nd-day-observa\
tions-5-more-trade-show-booth-suggestions/
or
http://tinyurl.com/yhlq887

it is number 1 on the list and here is the full text:

   LR Fine Art Mounting and Framing (Booth #165)

Have you ever wanted to get your work face mounted to Plexiglas,
mounted on dibond (a relatively lightweight and very stable material)
or other material? If so, you may know that it is not an easy process
to do well. LR Fine Art Mounting and Framing of New York City has
large printed and mounted samples, as well as a table full of samples
of their mounting processes. One especially impressed me. It was a
matte inkjet print mounted on a board, which was then mounted on
either aluminum or dibond.

website: http://www.l2mounting.com


All the best,

Andrew

On Nov 24, 2009, at 9:06 AM, lisawalking wrote:

> Has anyone successfully face mounted plexi on a porous fine art
> paper such as Hahnemuhle photo rag? I would have this professionally
> done and I believe they use a silicone adhesive.
>
> Thank you-
> Lisa
>



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Although this topic is a year old I was wondering if it turned out to be
possible to facemount Hahnemuhle photo rag with plexi?

Thank you-
Lisa

--- In Wide_Inkjet_Printers@yahoogroups.com, "marielacadiz" <marielacadiz@...>
wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> i work for a company based in Paris, France. One of our activities is
> making large format prints for artists and photographers. We have 2
> wide inkjet printers: an Epson 11880 (Ultrachrome K3 pigment inks) and
> an HP Z3100 (Vivera pigment inks).
>
> Some of our clients would like to facemount their inkjet prints under
> plexiglass. This technique is commonly known for its registered
> trademark name: Diasec. In France, companies that don't use the
> patented system call it "plexicollage". Basically the technique
> consists of face mounting the print to acrylic glass with a silicone
> sealant.
>
> We've been told that only glossy inkjet papers can be facemounted.
> That tests made with fine art matte papers (such as Hahnemühle Photo
> Rag), luster and baryté type papers are not successfull, since the
> silicone leaves tiny bubbles of air due to the texture of the paper.
>
> Nevertheless, a couple weeks ago at the Epson stand in Photokina we
> saw a very colourful photograph printed on Epson double weight matte
> paper facemounted with Diasec. And the company that provides Diasec in
> France referred me to this page for a choice of papers that work with
> Diasec (sorry, this page is only in french)
> http://www.graphiline.com/index.php?page=article&idnewsarticle=10718
> according to this article, Epson's "Traditional Photo Paper" can be
> facemounted with Diasec. Has anyone tried Diasec on this paper? What
> is your opinion?
>
> And has anyone successfully facemounted papers other than glossy
> inkjet papers? Which ones?
>
> Thanks in advance for your feedback,
> Mariela
>

Lisa,
If I read you right your mounting your print "on" rag matt then that is being
mounted on foam core.. Rag matt is acid free and is fine. You can get acid free
archival foam core also.. it's a little more costly. I suspect however that you
mounting on acid free foam core then putting a rag matt mat on top over the
image.
The outgassing will only as function then by the inks on the piece printed..
Epsons ink will always have what is called a half life  to their inks .. By that
I mean, as I understand it, that the inks will always have the potential to out
gas in given situations but not as much as a fresh print. How their displayed
has a lot to do with it.. It's typically the darker hues that out gas as they
can absorb the heat much better and of course it's typically more ink density to
get the darker hues.
I see it teh most when prints are exposed to a lot of light/ heat from the sun
or lights.. You really can't get it to go away but when prints are cured a bit
prior to getting put behind glass and displayed properly it works..
If you search I'm sure many ideas will shoqw up from other posters that you may
want to try..

jimbo


----- Original Message -----
   From: lisawalking
   To: Wide_Inkjet_Printers@yahoogroups.com
   Sent: Tuesday, November 24, 2009 6:04 AM
   Subject: [Wide_Inkjet_Printers] any issue with outgassing and foamcore?



   If a print is mounted on archival rag matt board and that is then supported
with archival foamcore are there any issues with outgassing in the frame over
time with the foam in the foamcore? I understood only the paper is archival on
archival foamcore.
   This would be an alternative to mounting on cintra.
   I am using Hahnemuhle Photo rag which is sensitive to contaminants even when
sprayed with Print Shield.

   Thank you






------------------------------------------------------------------------------



   No virus found in this incoming message.
   Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
   Version: 8.5.425 / Virus Database: 270.14.79/2522 - Release Date: 11/23/09
19:45:00

   ----------


No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.425 / Virus Database: 270.14.80/2523 - Release Date: 11/24/09
07:46:00


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Has anyone successfully face mounted plexi on a porous fine art paper such as
Hahnemuhle photo rag? I would have this professionally done and I believe they
use a silicone adhesive.

Thank you-
Lisa

Thank you-


--- In Wide_Inkjet_Printers@yahoogroups.com, Richard Sjolund <rdsjolund@...>
wrote:
>
> Try the Artcare foam board
>
> http://www.nielsen-bainbridge.com/Bainbridge/NB-Foamboard.html
>
>
>
> Dick
>
>
> On Nov 24, 2009, at 7:04 AM, lisawalking wrote:
>
> If a print is mounted on archival rag matt board and that is then supported
with archival foamcore are there any issues with outgassing in the frame over
time with the foam in the foamcore? I understood only the paper is archival on
archival foamcore.
> This would be an alternative to mounting on cintra.
> I am using Hahnemuhle Photo rag which is sensitive to contaminants even when
sprayed with Print Shield.
>
> Thank you
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Try the Artcare foam board

http://www.nielsen-bainbridge.com/Bainbridge/NB-Foamboard.html



Dick


On Nov 24, 2009, at 7:04 AM, lisawalking wrote:

If a print is mounted on archival rag matt board and that is then supported with
archival foamcore are there any issues with outgassing in the frame over time
with the foam in the foamcore? I understood only the paper is archival on
archival foamcore.
This would be an alternative to mounting on cintra.
I am using Hahnemuhle Photo rag which is sensitive to contaminants even when
sprayed with Print Shield.

Thank you





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

If a print is mounted on archival rag matt board and that is then supported with
archival foamcore are there any issues with outgassing in the frame over time
with the foam in the foamcore? I understood only the paper is archival on
archival foamcore.
This would be an alternative to mounting on cintra.
I am using Hahnemuhle Photo rag which is sensitive to contaminants even when
sprayed with Print Shield.

Thank you

Which Arches WC were you using,  90, 140, 260, 300, 400 or 555lb?

--- In Wide_Inkjet_Printers@yahoogroups.com, "exmas55" <cfweh@...> wrote:
>
> I have a grad student who wants to print photographs on watercolor paper and
then watercolor over the top of the print.  We will be printing them on a 44"
z3200.
>
> We tried tests on uncoated arches, which worked well, but the paper we had was
far too too stiff and sheet feeding turned out to be a serious pain.
>
> Anybody have a recommendation for a reasonably thick textured watercolor paper
in rolls which will feed well on a z3200 and will receive watercolor after
printing?  Cost is always a factor for a Grad student, but what works well is
the real question - thanks
>
> Bill H.
>

exmas55 schreef:
> I have a grad student who wants to print photographs on watercolor paper and
then watercolor over the top of the print.  We will be printing them on a 44"
z3200.
>
> We tried tests on uncoated arches, which worked well, but the paper we had was
far too too stiff and sheet feeding turned out to be a serious pain.
>
> Anybody have a recommendation for a reasonably thick textured watercolor paper
in rolls which will feed well on a z3200 and will receive watercolor after
printing?  Cost is always a factor for a Grad student, but what works well is
the real question - thanks
>
> Bill H.
>
>

Did you feed the sheet like you would feed a roll, the normal lid for
sheet feeding closed, a dummy roll at the back and feeding the thick
sheet over that roll?  That is the first thing to do with stiff papers.

You could try Bockingford Tub Sized. It exists in sheets and rolls.
There is even an inkjet variety though I have my questions whether it
really is different to the original Bockingford. Possibly not the nicest
watercolor paper but not expensive.



--
Met vriendelijke groeten,   Ernst


Dinkla Gallery Canvas Wrap Actions

|      Dinkla Grafische Techniek      |
|         www.pigment-print.com        |
|                 ( unvollendet )                 |

I have a grad student who wants to print photographs on watercolor paper and
then watercolor over the top of the print.  We will be printing them on a 44"
z3200.

We tried tests on uncoated arches, which worked well, but the paper we had was
far too too stiff and sheet feeding turned out to be a serious pain.

Anybody have a recommendation for a reasonably thick textured watercolor paper
in rolls which will feed well on a z3200 and will receive watercolor after
printing?  Cost is always a factor for a Grad student, but what works well is
the real question - thanks

Bill H.

Shrinkage on any natural fiber fabric will be uneven in terms of length and
width.  The reason is that the warp (length fibers) are under tension while the
fill (width) fibers are moved back and forth across the fabric.  While the fill
is added there is a device used to push the fibers in tight to each other thus
adding more tension to the warp threads.  Add to this a bath of pretreatment and
then drying and then further tension while it's placed on a paper backing.   The
fabric goes back to it's "natural" size once it's wet yet again via ink,
varnishing, steam and/or varnishing.  I routinely have a shrinkage rate on the
length of approx. 16- 18% yet only about 3% on the width.  To get my images to
look correctly sized I disproportionally size my image.  It looks weird when
it's printing but after all the post processing I do it looks quite normal. 
However the shrinkage is brutal when trying to order fabric and figuring what I
will actually get
  versus what I order.  There really is no way around this.  In fact the
shrinkage gets worse if you add any specialty finishings like tea dyeing or sand
washing.  Canvas is the worst with this problem.  With an 18% shrinkage rate if
I want to get 25 yards printed I need to order 30.5 yards and that's a perfect
world where the printhead never drips or crashes so add a further 5 yards for
security.  Natural fibers shrink and shrink disproportionately; cotton is worse
but silk will shrink disproportionately too.




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

In my experience shrinkage is greatly influenced by how much ink is laid down - 
how soaked with density the canvas becomes.

I also have seen it disappear on the Z3100 vs earlier Epsons. But I also
switched to BC canvas on that machine.

john



--- In Wide_Inkjet_Printers@yahoogroups.com, "John" <jrnolly@...> wrote:
>
> Shrinkage on Epson printers (in the direction of paper feed)using canvas has
been an ongoing subject for a long time. Since switching to the HPZ3100, I
notice that I don't experience such shrinkage at all!
>
> John Nollendorfs
>
> --- In Wide_Inkjet_Printers@yahoogroups.com, "john castronovo" <jc@> wrote:
> >
> > You're right. Can his paper be that much different? If paper is coming
> > out the right length, then I don't know what to say. That's more than
> > typical slippage or shrinkage for the usual size canvas, but on an
> > something eight feet long it's possible
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "mrjimbo" <mrjimbo@>
> > To: <Wide_Inkjet_Printers@yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Sunday, November 15, 2009 5:56 PM
> > Subject: Re: [Wide_Inkjet_Printers] Re: How much shrinkage on PremierArt
> > matte 22ml?
> >
> >
> > > John your probably right here.. but the poster stated his print size
> > > and they really weren't huge in my estimation.. but 11/16 is a bunch..
> > > on my end I'm just not accustomed to those numbers and I'm in what
> > > might be construed as a bad place from a humidity point of view.. We
> > > don't use the same material but we do use a couple of cotton
> > > materials...simply put I have to keep them humidified but loosing 3/4
> > > quarter inch.. well that's something I haven't experienced and I'm
> > > living in the land of 20% humidity.. thus we run humidifiers..Simply
> > > put if I lost 3/inch over 50 inches .. well I'd just have to solve it
> > > or I'd be in trouble as you can't get that out of a stretch.. So I say
> > > something else is going on.. like printer feed or??? 3/4 inch is
> > > huge.. I mean totally huge.. something is wrong with the printer set
> > > up .. not the stock... If an adjustment
> > > needs to be made regarding the length then simply do it..  The stock
> > > just simply doesn't shrink that much..
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > jimbo
> > >  ----- Original Message -----
> > >  From: john castronovo
> > >  To: Wide_Inkjet_Printers@yahoogroups.com
> > >  Sent: Sunday, November 15, 2009 8:39 AM
> > >  Subject: Re: [Wide_Inkjet_Printers] Re: How much shrinkage on
> > > PremierArt matte 22ml?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >  It would be useful to speak in terms of a percentage of shrink rather
> > >  than in inches. 11/16" could be a typical amount for a very long
> > >  canvas.
> > >
> > >  ----- Original Message -----
> > >  From: "mrjimbo" <mrjimbo@>
> > >  To: <Wide_Inkjet_Printers@yahoogroups.com>
> > >  Sent: Sunday, November 15, 2009 7:20 AM
> > >  Subject: Re: [Wide_Inkjet_Printers] Re: How much shrinkage on
> > > PremierArt
> > >  matte 22ml?
> > >
> > >  > You mention that you get as much as11/16 of an inch of shrink..
> > > That
> > >  > is a really a bunch and really doesn't sound right as it's almost
> > > 3/4
> > >  > inch... RU really getting that much? Realistically a small amount
> > > of
> > >  > size change on Cotton material is normal if for nothing else then
> > >  > humidity changes.. If your getting that after spraying then maybe
> > > try
> > >  > something different.. Once the coating has set it is not feasible
> > > to
> > >  > get that much stretch out of the canvas.. We use Clearstar and
> > > Bulldog
> > >  > an never see the numbers your seeing..
> > >  >
> > >  > jimbo
> > >  > ----- Original Message -----
> > >  > From: eclaird100
> > >  > To: Wide_Inkjet_Printers@yahoogroups.com
> > >  > Sent: Wednesday, November 11, 2009 3:25 AM
> > >  > Subject: [Wide_Inkjet_Printers] Re: How much shrinkage on
> > > PremierArt
> > >  > matte 22ml?
> > >  >
> > >  >
> > >  >
> > >  > Hey Thanks Randall - valuable information!
> > >  >
> > >  > --- In Wide_Inkjet_Printers@yahoogroups.com, "Randall" <lgrrrb@>
> > >  > wrote:
> > >  > >
> > >  > >
> > >  > > Your shrinkage measurements are pretty typical for woven fabrics.
> > >  > During weaving, yarns in the lengthwise direction (warp yarns) are
> > >  > under a lot of tension whereas yarns in the crosswise direction
> > > (weft
> > >  > yarns) are under considerably less tension. If a woven fabric has a
> > >  > chance to relax its tension (most commonly when fiber/yarn swelling
> > >  > occurs from wetting during laundering), shrinkage occurs and it is
> > >  > greatest in the lengthwise direction. "Preshrunk" fabrics have been
> > >  > subjected to an extra process in the textile mill which has allowed
> > >  > most tension in the fabric to be relaxed.
> > >  > >
> > >  > > I suspect that the coating process used in the case discussed
> > > here
> > >  > effectively "wets" the fibers/yarns so they swell and allow
> > > relaxation
> > >  > of tension to occur. A different coating substance which does not
> > >  > "wet" the fibers as much or a different fiber composition with the
> > >  > same coating substance may not induce shrinkage.
> > >  > >
> > >  > > Consequently, just about everyone's practical observations could
> > > be
> > >  > right in this argument.
> > >  > >
> > >  > > Randall R. Bresee.
> > >  > >
> > >  > >
> > >  > > --- In Wide_Inkjet_Printers@yahoogroups.com, "eclaird100"
> > >  > <eclaird100@> wrote:
> > >  > > >
> > >  > > > I'm very careful measuring the canvas before varnishing and
> > > after
> > >  > varnishing, the numbers do not lie. I lose 1 to 2/16 off the width
> > > but
> > >  > on the length I can lose up to 11/16. I think the canvas itself
> > > seems
> > >  > to to be the main variable. It seems a 100% cotton canvas like
> > >  > PremierArt matte 22ml has more problems with shrink than the
> > > blended
> > >  > canvases. I need to find another matte WR canvas that is a
> > > poly/cotton
> > >  > blend.
> > >  > > >
> > >  > > > Any more canvas suggestions would be welcome.
> > >  > > >
> > >  > > > Thanks for all the comments
> > >  > > > Campbell
> > >  > > >
> > >  > > > --- In Wide_Inkjet_Printers@yahoogroups.com, "john castronovo"
> > >  > <jc@> wrote:
> > >  > > > >
> > >  > > > > That isn't always true. Cloth can certainly shrink in one
> > >  > > > > dimension.especially artist canvas that's a 2 over 1 weave,
> > > but
> > >  > I
> > >  > > > > usually see the problem is present with or without coating.
> > >  > It's
> > >  > > > > probably due to how tightly it was wrapped on the roll which
> > >  > explains
> > >  > > > > why it's a variable factor. There's also a tiny bit of
> > > slippage
> > >  > while
> > >  > > > > going through some printers. The only defense is to distort
> > > the
> > >  > files.
> > >  > > > >
> > >  > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > >  > > > > From: "Richard Sjolund"
> > >  > > > >
> > >  > > > > So, I need to ask again.
> > >  > > > >
> > >  > > > > If the shrinkage is due to the coating - then the shrinkage
> > >  > should
> > >  > > > > (MUST) be true for BOTH the length and the width.
> > >  > > > >
> > >  > > > > I'll bet, again, that your problem is ONLY in the length -
> > > and
> > >  > NOT the
> > >  > > > > width.
> > >  > > > >
> > >  > > > > So - it is a printing problem and NOT a coating problem.
> > >  > > > >
> > >  > > >
> > >  > >
> > >  >
> > >  >
> > >  >
> > >  >
> > >  >
> > >  >
> > >  > ----------------------------------------------------------
> > >  >
> > >  >
> > >  >
> > >  > No virus found in this incoming message.
> > >  > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> > >  > Version: 8.5.425 / Virus Database: 270.14.65/2503 - Release Date:
> > >  > 11/14/09 19:42:00
> > >  >
> > >  > ----------
> > >  >
> > >  >
> > >  > No virus found in this outgoing message.
> > >  > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> > >  > Version: 8.5.425 / Virus Database: 270.14.65/2503 - Release Date:
> > >  > 11/14/09 19:42:00
> > >  >
> > >  >
> > >  > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > >  >
> > >  >
> > >  >
> > >  > ------------------------------------
> > >  >
> > >  > To visit your group on the web, go to:
> > >  > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/
> > >  >
> > >  > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > >  > Wide_Inkjet_Printers-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> > >  >
> > >  > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
> > >  > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >  >
> > >  >
> > >  >
> > >
> > >  ----------------------------------------------------------
> > >
> > >  No virus found in this incoming message.
> > >  Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> > >  Version: 8.5.425 / Virus Database: 270.14.65/2503 - Release Date:
> > >  11/14/09 19:42:00
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >  No virus found in this incoming message.
> > >  Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> > >  Version: 8.5.425 / Virus Database: 270.14.66/2504 - Release Date:
> > > 11/15/09 07:50:00
> > >
> > >  ----------
> > >
> > >
> > > No virus found in this outgoing message.
> > > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> > > Version: 8.5.425 / Virus Database: 270.14.66/2504 - Release Date:
> > > 11/15/09 07:50:00
> > >
> > >
> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------
> > >
> > > To visit your group on the web, go to:
> > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/
> > >
> > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > > Wide_Inkjet_Printers-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> > >
> > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
> > > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >
> >
> > No virus found in this incoming message.
> > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> > Version: 8.5.425 / Virus Database: 270.14.66/2504 - Release Date:
> > 11/15/09 07:50:00
> >
>

Shrinkage on Epson printers (in the direction of paper feed)using canvas has
been an ongoing subject for a long time. Since switching to the HPZ3100, I
notice that I don't experience such shrinkage at all!

John Nollendorfs

--- In Wide_Inkjet_Printers@yahoogroups.com, "john castronovo" <jc@...> wrote:
>
> You're right. Can his paper be that much different? If paper is coming
> out the right length, then I don't know what to say. That's more than
> typical slippage or shrinkage for the usual size canvas, but on an
> something eight feet long it's possible
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "mrjimbo" <mrjimbo@...>
> To: <Wide_Inkjet_Printers@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Sunday, November 15, 2009 5:56 PM
> Subject: Re: [Wide_Inkjet_Printers] Re: How much shrinkage on PremierArt
> matte 22ml?
>
>
> > John your probably right here.. but the poster stated his print size
> > and they really weren't huge in my estimation.. but 11/16 is a bunch..
> > on my end I'm just not accustomed to those numbers and I'm in what
> > might be construed as a bad place from a humidity point of view.. We
> > don't use the same material but we do use a couple of cotton
> > materials...simply put I have to keep them humidified but loosing 3/4
> > quarter inch.. well that's something I haven't experienced and I'm
> > living in the land of 20% humidity.. thus we run humidifiers..Simply
> > put if I lost 3/inch over 50 inches .. well I'd just have to solve it
> > or I'd be in trouble as you can't get that out of a stretch.. So I say
> > something else is going on.. like printer feed or??? 3/4 inch is
> > huge.. I mean totally huge.. something is wrong with the printer set
> > up .. not the stock... If an adjustment
> > needs to be made regarding the length then simply do it..  The stock
> > just simply doesn't shrink that much..
> >
> >
> >
> > jimbo
> >  ----- Original Message -----
> >  From: john castronovo
> >  To: Wide_Inkjet_Printers@yahoogroups.com
> >  Sent: Sunday, November 15, 2009 8:39 AM
> >  Subject: Re: [Wide_Inkjet_Printers] Re: How much shrinkage on
> > PremierArt matte 22ml?
> >
> >
> >
> >  It would be useful to speak in terms of a percentage of shrink rather
> >  than in inches. 11/16" could be a typical amount for a very long
> >  canvas.
> >
> >  ----- Original Message -----
> >  From: "mrjimbo" <mrjimbo@...>
> >  To: <Wide_Inkjet_Printers@yahoogroups.com>
> >  Sent: Sunday, November 15, 2009 7:20 AM
> >  Subject: Re: [Wide_Inkjet_Printers] Re: How much shrinkage on
> > PremierArt
> >  matte 22ml?
> >
> >  > You mention that you get as much as11/16 of an inch of shrink..
> > That
> >  > is a really a bunch and really doesn't sound right as it's almost
> > 3/4
> >  > inch... RU really getting that much? Realistically a small amount
> > of
> >  > size change on Cotton material is normal if for nothing else then
> >  > humidity changes.. If your getting that after spraying then maybe
> > try
> >  > something different.. Once the coating has set it is not feasible
> > to
> >  > get that much stretch out of the canvas.. We use Clearstar and
> > Bulldog
> >  > an never see the numbers your seeing..
> >  >
> >  > jimbo
> >  > ----- Original Message -----
> >  > From: eclaird100
> >  > To: Wide_Inkjet_Printers@yahoogroups.com
> >  > Sent: Wednesday, November 11, 2009 3:25 AM
> >  > Subject: [Wide_Inkjet_Printers] Re: How much shrinkage on
> > PremierArt
> >  > matte 22ml?
> >  >
> >  >
> >  >
> >  > Hey Thanks Randall - valuable information!
> >  >
> >  > --- In Wide_Inkjet_Printers@yahoogroups.com, "Randall" <lgrrrb@>
> >  > wrote:
> >  > >
> >  > >
> >  > > Your shrinkage measurements are pretty typical for woven fabrics.
> >  > During weaving, yarns in the lengthwise direction (warp yarns) are
> >  > under a lot of tension whereas yarns in the crosswise direction
> > (weft
> >  > yarns) are under considerably less tension. If a woven fabric has a
> >  > chance to relax its tension (most commonly when fiber/yarn swelling
> >  > occurs from wetting during laundering), shrinkage occurs and it is
> >  > greatest in the lengthwise direction. "Preshrunk" fabrics have been
> >  > subjected to an extra process in the textile mill which has allowed
> >  > most tension in the fabric to be relaxed.
> >  > >
> >  > > I suspect that the coating process used in the case discussed
> > here
> >  > effectively "wets" the fibers/yarns so they swell and allow
> > relaxation
> >  > of tension to occur. A different coating substance which does not
> >  > "wet" the fibers as much or a different fiber composition with the
> >  > same coating substance may not induce shrinkage.
> >  > >
> >  > > Consequently, just about everyone's practical observations could
> > be
> >  > right in this argument.
> >  > >
> >  > > Randall R. Bresee.
> >  > >
> >  > >
> >  > > --- In Wide_Inkjet_Printers@yahoogroups.com, "eclaird100"
> >  > <eclaird100@> wrote:
> >  > > >
> >  > > > I'm very careful measuring the canvas before varnishing and
> > after
> >  > varnishing, the numbers do not lie. I lose 1 to 2/16 off the width
> > but
> >  > on the length I can lose up to 11/16. I think the canvas itself
> > seems
> >  > to to be the main variable. It seems a 100% cotton canvas like
> >  > PremierArt matte 22ml has more problems with shrink than the
> > blended
> >  > canvases. I need to find another matte WR canvas that is a
> > poly/cotton
> >  > blend.
> >  > > >
> >  > > > Any more canvas suggestions would be welcome.
> >  > > >
> >  > > > Thanks for all the comments
> >  > > > Campbell
> >  > > >
> >  > > > --- In Wide_Inkjet_Printers@yahoogroups.com, "john castronovo"
> >  > <jc@> wrote:
> >  > > > >
> >  > > > > That isn't always true. Cloth can certainly shrink in one
> >  > > > > dimension.especially artist canvas that's a 2 over 1 weave,
> > but
> >  > I
> >  > > > > usually see the problem is present with or without coating.
> >  > It's
> >  > > > > probably due to how tightly it was wrapped on the roll which
> >  > explains
> >  > > > > why it's a variable factor. There's also a tiny bit of
> > slippage
> >  > while
> >  > > > > going through some printers. The only defense is to distort
> > the
> >  > files.
> >  > > > >
> >  > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> >  > > > > From: "Richard Sjolund"
> >  > > > >
> >  > > > > So, I need to ask again.
> >  > > > >
> >  > > > > If the shrinkage is due to the coating - then the shrinkage
> >  > should
> >  > > > > (MUST) be true for BOTH the length and the width.
> >  > > > >
> >  > > > > I'll bet, again, that your problem is ONLY in the length -
> > and
> >  > NOT the
> >  > > > > width.
> >  > > > >
> >  > > > > So - it is a printing problem and NOT a coating problem.
> >  > > > >
> >  > > >
> >  > >
> >  >
> >  >
> >  >
> >  >
> >  >
> >  >
> >  > ----------------------------------------------------------
> >  >
> >  >
> >  >
> >  > No virus found in this incoming message.
> >  > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> >  > Version: 8.5.425 / Virus Database: 270.14.65/2503 - Release Date:
> >  > 11/14/09 19:42:00
> >  >
> >  > ----------
> >  >
> >  >
> >  > No virus found in this outgoing message.
> >  > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> >  > Version: 8.5.425 / Virus Database: 270.14.65/2503 - Release Date:
> >  > 11/14/09 19:42:00
> >  >
> >  >
> >  > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >  >
> >  >
> >  >
> >  > ------------------------------------
> >  >
> >  > To visit your group on the web, go to:
> >  > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/
> >  >
> >  > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> >  > Wide_Inkjet_Printers-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> >  >
> >  > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
> >  > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/Yahoo! Groups Links
> >  >
> >  >
> >  >
> >
> >  ----------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >  No virus found in this incoming message.
> >  Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> >  Version: 8.5.425 / Virus Database: 270.14.65/2503 - Release Date:
> >  11/14/09 19:42:00
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >
> >
> >  No virus found in this incoming message.
> >  Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> >  Version: 8.5.425 / Virus Database: 270.14.66/2504 - Release Date:
> > 11/15/09 07:50:00
> >
> >  ----------
> >
> >
> > No virus found in this outgoing message.
> > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> > Version: 8.5.425 / Virus Database: 270.14.66/2504 - Release Date:
> > 11/15/09 07:50:00
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > To visit your group on the web, go to:
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/
> >
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > Wide_Inkjet_Printers-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
> > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 8.5.425 / Virus Database: 270.14.66/2504 - Release Date:
> 11/15/09 07:50:00
>

You're right. Can his paper be that much different? If paper is coming
out the right length, then I don't know what to say. That's more than
typical slippage or shrinkage for the usual size canvas, but on an
something eight feet long it's possible

----- Original Message -----
From: "mrjimbo" <mrjimbo@...>
To: <Wide_Inkjet_Printers@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, November 15, 2009 5:56 PM
Subject: Re: [Wide_Inkjet_Printers] Re: How much shrinkage on PremierArt
matte 22ml?


> John your probably right here.. but the poster stated his print size
> and they really weren't huge in my estimation.. but 11/16 is a bunch..
> on my end I'm just not accustomed to those numbers and I'm in what
> might be construed as a bad place from a humidity point of view.. We
> don't use the same material but we do use a couple of cotton
> materials...simply put I have to keep them humidified but loosing 3/4
> quarter inch.. well that's something I haven't experienced and I'm
> living in the land of 20% humidity.. thus we run humidifiers..Simply
> put if I lost 3/inch over 50 inches .. well I'd just have to solve it
> or I'd be in trouble as you can't get that out of a stretch.. So I say
> something else is going on.. like printer feed or??? 3/4 inch is
> huge.. I mean totally huge.. something is wrong with the printer set
> up .. not the stock... If an adjustment
> needs to be made regarding the length then simply do it..  The stock
> just simply doesn't shrink that much..
>
>
>
> jimbo
>  ----- Original Message -----
>  From: john castronovo
>  To: Wide_Inkjet_Printers@yahoogroups.com
>  Sent: Sunday, November 15, 2009 8:39 AM
>  Subject: Re: [Wide_Inkjet_Printers] Re: How much shrinkage on
> PremierArt matte 22ml?
>
>
>
>  It would be useful to speak in terms of a percentage of shrink rather
>  than in inches. 11/16" could be a typical amount for a very long
>  canvas.
>
>  ----- Original Message -----
>  From: "mrjimbo" <mrjimbo@...>
>  To: <Wide_Inkjet_Printers@yahoogroups.com>
>  Sent: Sunday, November 15, 2009 7:20 AM
>  Subject: Re: [Wide_Inkjet_Printers] Re: How much shrinkage on
> PremierArt
>  matte 22ml?
>
>  > You mention that you get as much as11/16 of an inch of shrink..
> That
>  > is a really a bunch and really doesn't sound right as it's almost
> 3/4
>  > inch... RU really getting that much? Realistically a small amount
> of
>  > size change on Cotton material is normal if for nothing else then
>  > humidity changes.. If your getting that after spraying then maybe
> try
>  > something different.. Once the coating has set it is not feasible
> to
>  > get that much stretch out of the canvas.. We use Clearstar and
> Bulldog
>  > an never see the numbers your seeing..
>  >
>  > jimbo
>  > ----- Original Message -----
>  > From: eclaird100
>  > To: Wide_Inkjet_Printers@yahoogroups.com
>  > Sent: Wednesday, November 11, 2009 3:25 AM
>  > Subject: [Wide_Inkjet_Printers] Re: How much shrinkage on
> PremierArt
>  > matte 22ml?
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  > Hey Thanks Randall - valuable information!
>  >
>  > --- In Wide_Inkjet_Printers@yahoogroups.com, "Randall" <lgrrrb@...>
>  > wrote:
>  > >
>  > >
>  > > Your shrinkage measurements are pretty typical for woven fabrics.
>  > During weaving, yarns in the lengthwise direction (warp yarns) are
>  > under a lot of tension whereas yarns in the crosswise direction
> (weft
>  > yarns) are under considerably less tension. If a woven fabric has a
>  > chance to relax its tension (most commonly when fiber/yarn swelling
>  > occurs from wetting during laundering), shrinkage occurs and it is
>  > greatest in the lengthwise direction. "Preshrunk" fabrics have been
>  > subjected to an extra process in the textile mill which has allowed
>  > most tension in the fabric to be relaxed.
>  > >
>  > > I suspect that the coating process used in the case discussed
> here
>  > effectively "wets" the fibers/yarns so they swell and allow
> relaxation
>  > of tension to occur. A different coating substance which does not
>  > "wet" the fibers as much or a different fiber composition with the
>  > same coating substance may not induce shrinkage.
>  > >
>  > > Consequently, just about everyone's practical observations could
> be
>  > right in this argument.
>  > >
>  > > Randall R. Bresee.
>  > >
>  > >
>  > > --- In Wide_Inkjet_Printers@yahoogroups.com, "eclaird100"
>  > <eclaird100@> wrote:
>  > > >
>  > > > I'm very careful measuring the canvas before varnishing and
> after
>  > varnishing, the numbers do not lie. I lose 1 to 2/16 off the width
> but
>  > on the length I can lose up to 11/16. I think the canvas itself
> seems
>  > to to be the main variable. It seems a 100% cotton canvas like
>  > PremierArt matte 22ml has more problems with shrink than the
> blended
>  > canvases. I need to find another matte WR canvas that is a
> poly/cotton
>  > blend.
>  > > >
>  > > > Any more canvas suggestions would be welcome.
>  > > >
>  > > > Thanks for all the comments
>  > > > Campbell
>  > > >
>  > > > --- In Wide_Inkjet_Printers@yahoogroups.com, "john castronovo"
>  > <jc@> wrote:
>  > > > >
>  > > > > That isn't always true. Cloth can certainly shrink in one
>  > > > > dimension.especially artist canvas that's a 2 over 1 weave,
> but
>  > I
>  > > > > usually see the problem is present with or without coating.
>  > It's
>  > > > > probably due to how tightly it was wrapped on the roll which
>  > explains
>  > > > > why it's a variable factor. There's also a tiny bit of
> slippage
>  > while
>  > > > > going through some printers. The only defense is to distort
> the
>  > files.
>  > > > >
>  > > > > ----- Original Message -----
>  > > > > From: "Richard Sjolund"
>  > > > >
>  > > > > So, I need to ask again.
>  > > > >
>  > > > > If the shrinkage is due to the coating - then the shrinkage
>  > should
>  > > > > (MUST) be true for BOTH the length and the width.
>  > > > >
>  > > > > I'll bet, again, that your problem is ONLY in the length -
> and
>  > NOT the
>  > > > > width.
>  > > > >
>  > > > > So - it is a printing problem and NOT a coating problem.
>  > > > >
>  > > >
>  > >
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  > ----------------------------------------------------------
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  > No virus found in this incoming message.
>  > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>  > Version: 8.5.425 / Virus Database: 270.14.65/2503 - Release Date:
>  > 11/14/09 19:42:00
>  >
>  > ----------
>  >
>  >
>  > No virus found in this outgoing message.
>  > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>  > Version: 8.5.425 / Virus Database: 270.14.65/2503 - Release Date:
>  > 11/14/09 19:42:00
>  >
>  >
>  > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  > ------------------------------------
>  >
>  > To visit your group on the web, go to:
>  > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/
>  >
>  > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>  > Wide_Inkjet_Printers-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>  >
>  > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
>  > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/Yahoo! Groups Links
>  >
>  >
>  >
>
>  ----------------------------------------------------------
>
>  No virus found in this incoming message.
>  Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>  Version: 8.5.425 / Virus Database: 270.14.65/2503 - Release Date:
>  11/14/09 19:42:00
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>  No virus found in this incoming message.
>  Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>  Version: 8.5.425 / Virus Database: 270.14.66/2504 - Release Date:
> 11/15/09 07:50:00
>
>  ----------
>
>
> No virus found in this outgoing message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 8.5.425 / Virus Database: 270.14.66/2504 - Release Date:
> 11/15/09 07:50:00
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> To visit your group on the web, go to:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> Wide_Inkjet_Printers-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.425 / Virus Database: 270.14.66/2504 - Release Date:
11/15/09 07:50:00

John your probably right here.. but the poster stated his print size and they
really weren't huge in my estimation.. but 11/16 is a bunch.. on my end I'm just
not accustomed to those numbers and I'm in what might be construed as a bad
place from a humidity point of view.. We don't use the same material but we do
use a couple of cotton materials...simply put I have to keep them humidified but
loosing 3/4 quarter inch.. well that's something I haven't experienced and I'm
living in the land of 20% humidity.. thus we run humidifiers..Simply put if I
lost 3/inch over 50 inches .. well I'd just have to solve it or I'd be in
trouble as you can't get that out of a stretch.. So I say something else is
going on.. like printer feed or??? 3/4 inch is huge.. I mean totally huge..
something is wrong with the printer set up .. not the stock... If an adjustment
needs to be made regarding the length then simply do it..  The stock just simply
doesn't shrink that much..



jimbo
   ----- Original Message -----
   From: john castronovo
   To: Wide_Inkjet_Printers@yahoogroups.com
   Sent: Sunday, November 15, 2009 8:39 AM
   Subject: Re: [Wide_Inkjet_Printers] Re: How much shrinkage on PremierArt matte
22ml?



   It would be useful to speak in terms of a percentage of shrink rather
   than in inches. 11/16" could be a typical amount for a very long
   canvas.

   ----- Original Message -----
   From: "mrjimbo" <mrjimbo@...>
   To: <Wide_Inkjet_Printers@yahoogroups.com>
   Sent: Sunday, November 15, 2009 7:20 AM
   Subject: Re: [Wide_Inkjet_Printers] Re: How much shrinkage on PremierArt
   matte 22ml?

   > You mention that you get as much as11/16 of an inch of shrink.. That
   > is a really a bunch and really doesn't sound right as it's almost 3/4
   > inch... RU really getting that much? Realistically a small amount of
   > size change on Cotton material is normal if for nothing else then
   > humidity changes.. If your getting that after spraying then maybe try
   > something different.. Once the coating has set it is not feasible to
   > get that much stretch out of the canvas.. We use Clearstar and Bulldog
   > an never see the numbers your seeing..
   >
   > jimbo
   > ----- Original Message -----
   > From: eclaird100
   > To: Wide_Inkjet_Printers@yahoogroups.com
   > Sent: Wednesday, November 11, 2009 3:25 AM
   > Subject: [Wide_Inkjet_Printers] Re: How much shrinkage on PremierArt
   > matte 22ml?
   >
   >
   >
   > Hey Thanks Randall - valuable information!
   >
   > --- In Wide_Inkjet_Printers@yahoogroups.com, "Randall" <lgrrrb@...>
   > wrote:
   > >
   > >
   > > Your shrinkage measurements are pretty typical for woven fabrics.
   > During weaving, yarns in the lengthwise direction (warp yarns) are
   > under a lot of tension whereas yarns in the crosswise direction (weft
   > yarns) are under considerably less tension. If a woven fabric has a
   > chance to relax its tension (most commonly when fiber/yarn swelling
   > occurs from wetting during laundering), shrinkage occurs and it is
   > greatest in the lengthwise direction. "Preshrunk" fabrics have been
   > subjected to an extra process in the textile mill which has allowed
   > most tension in the fabric to be relaxed.
   > >
   > > I suspect that the coating process used in the case discussed here
   > effectively "wets" the fibers/yarns so they swell and allow relaxation
   > of tension to occur. A different coating substance which does not
   > "wet" the fibers as much or a different fiber composition with the
   > same coating substance may not induce shrinkage.
   > >
   > > Consequently, just about everyone's practical observations could be
   > right in this argument.
   > >
   > > Randall R. Bresee.
   > >
   > >
   > > --- In Wide_Inkjet_Printers@yahoogroups.com, "eclaird100"
   > <eclaird100@> wrote:
   > > >
   > > > I'm very careful measuring the canvas before varnishing and after
   > varnishing, the numbers do not lie. I lose 1 to 2/16 off the width but
   > on the length I can lose up to 11/16. I think the canvas itself seems
   > to to be the main variable. It seems a 100% cotton canvas like
   > PremierArt matte 22ml has more problems with shrink than the blended
   > canvases. I need to find another matte WR canvas that is a poly/cotton
   > blend.
   > > >
   > > > Any more canvas suggestions would be welcome.
   > > >
   > > > Thanks for all the comments
   > > > Campbell
   > > >
   > > > --- In Wide_Inkjet_Printers@yahoogroups.com, "john castronovo"
   > <jc@> wrote:
   > > > >
   > > > > That isn't always true. Cloth can certainly shrink in one
   > > > > dimension.especially artist canvas that's a 2 over 1 weave, but
   > I
   > > > > usually see the problem is present with or without coating.
   > It's
   > > > > probably due to how tightly it was wrapped on the roll which
   > explains
   > > > > why it's a variable factor. There's also a tiny bit of slippage
   > while
   > > > > going through some printers. The only defense is to distort the
   > files.
   > > > >
   > > > > ----- Original Message -----
   > > > > From: "Richard Sjolund"
   > > > >
   > > > > So, I need to ask again.
   > > > >
   > > > > If the shrinkage is due to the coating - then the shrinkage
   > should
   > > > > (MUST) be true for BOTH the length and the width.
   > > > >
   > > > > I'll bet, again, that your problem is ONLY in the length - and
   > NOT the
   > > > > width.
   > > > >
   > > > > So - it is a printing problem and NOT a coating problem.
   > > > >
   > > >
   > >
   >
   >
   >
   >
   >
   >
   > ----------------------------------------------------------
   >
   >
   >
   > No virus found in this incoming message.
   > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
   > Version: 8.5.425 / Virus Database: 270.14.65/2503 - Release Date:
   > 11/14/09 19:42:00
   >
   > ----------
   >
   >
   > No virus found in this outgoing message.
   > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
   > Version: 8.5.425 / Virus Database: 270.14.65/2503 - Release Date:
   > 11/14/09 19:42:00
   >
   >
   > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
   >
   >
   >
   > ------------------------------------
   >
   > To visit your group on the web, go to:
   > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/
   >
   > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
   > Wide_Inkjet_Printers-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
   >
   > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
   > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/Yahoo! Groups Links
   >
   >
   >

   ----------------------------------------------------------

   No virus found in this incoming message.
   Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
   Version: 8.5.425 / Virus Database: 270.14.65/2503 - Release Date:
   11/14/09 19:42:00






------------------------------------------------------------------------------



   No virus found in this incoming message.
   Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
   Version: 8.5.425 / Virus Database: 270.14.66/2504 - Release Date: 11/15/09
07:50:00

   ----------


No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.425 / Virus Database: 270.14.66/2504 - Release Date: 11/15/09
07:50:00


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

It would be useful to speak in terms of a percentage of shrink rather
than in inches.  11/16" could be a typical amount for a very long
canvas.

----- Original Message -----
From: "mrjimbo" <mrjimbo@...>
To: <Wide_Inkjet_Printers@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, November 15, 2009 7:20 AM
Subject: Re: [Wide_Inkjet_Printers] Re: How much shrinkage on PremierArt
matte 22ml?


> You mention that you get as much as11/16 of an inch of shrink..  That
> is a really a bunch and really doesn't sound right as it's almost 3/4
> inch... RU really getting that much? Realistically a small amount of
> size change on Cotton material is normal if for nothing else then
> humidity changes.. If your getting that after spraying then maybe try
> something different.. Once the coating has set it is not feasible to
> get that much stretch out of the canvas.. We use Clearstar and Bulldog
> an never see the numbers your seeing..
>
> jimbo
>  ----- Original Message -----
>  From: eclaird100
>  To: Wide_Inkjet_Printers@yahoogroups.com
>  Sent: Wednesday, November 11, 2009 3:25 AM
>  Subject: [Wide_Inkjet_Printers] Re: How much shrinkage on PremierArt
> matte 22ml?
>
>
>
>  Hey Thanks Randall - valuable information!
>
>  --- In Wide_Inkjet_Printers@yahoogroups.com, "Randall" <lgrrrb@...>
> wrote:
>  >
>  >
>  > Your shrinkage measurements are pretty typical for woven fabrics.
> During weaving, yarns in the lengthwise direction (warp yarns) are
> under a lot of tension whereas yarns in the crosswise direction (weft
> yarns) are under considerably less tension. If a woven fabric has a
> chance to relax its tension (most commonly when fiber/yarn swelling
> occurs from wetting during laundering), shrinkage occurs and it is
> greatest in the lengthwise direction. "Preshrunk" fabrics have been
> subjected to an extra process in the textile mill which has allowed
> most tension in the fabric to be relaxed.
>  >
>  > I suspect that the coating process used in the case discussed here
> effectively "wets" the fibers/yarns so they swell and allow relaxation
> of tension to occur. A different coating substance which does not
> "wet" the fibers as much or a different fiber composition with the
> same coating substance may not induce shrinkage.
>  >
>  > Consequently, just about everyone's practical observations could be
> right in this argument.
>  >
>  > Randall R. Bresee.
>  >
>  >
>  > --- In Wide_Inkjet_Printers@yahoogroups.com, "eclaird100"
> <eclaird100@> wrote:
>  > >
>  > > I'm very careful measuring the canvas before varnishing and after
> varnishing, the numbers do not lie. I lose 1 to 2/16 off the width but
> on the length I can lose up to 11/16. I think the canvas itself seems
> to to be the main variable. It seems a 100% cotton canvas like
> PremierArt matte 22ml has more problems with shrink than the blended
> canvases. I need to find another matte WR canvas that is a poly/cotton
> blend.
>  > >
>  > > Any more canvas suggestions would be welcome.
>  > >
>  > > Thanks for all the comments
>  > > Campbell
>  > >
>  > > --- In Wide_Inkjet_Printers@yahoogroups.com, "john castronovo"
> <jc@> wrote:
>  > > >
>  > > > That isn't always true. Cloth can certainly shrink in one
>  > > > dimension.especially artist canvas that's a 2 over 1 weave, but
> I
>  > > > usually see the problem is present with or without coating.
> It's
>  > > > probably due to how tightly it was wrapped on the roll which
> explains
>  > > > why it's a variable factor. There's also a tiny bit of slippage
> while
>  > > > going through some printers. The only defense is to distort the
> files.
>  > > >
>  > > > ----- Original Message -----
>  > > > From: "Richard Sjolund"
>  > > >
>  > > > So, I need to ask again.
>  > > >
>  > > > If the shrinkage is due to the coating - then the shrinkage
> should
>  > > > (MUST) be true for BOTH the length and the width.
>  > > >
>  > > > I'll bet, again, that your problem is ONLY in the length - and
> NOT the
>  > > > width.
>  > > >
>  > > > So - it is a printing problem and NOT a coating problem.
>  > > >
>  > >
>  >
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>  No virus found in this incoming message.
>  Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>  Version: 8.5.425 / Virus Database: 270.14.65/2503 - Release Date:
> 11/14/09 19:42:00
>
>  ----------
>
>
> No virus found in this outgoing message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 8.5.425 / Virus Database: 270.14.65/2503 - Release Date:
> 11/14/09 19:42:00
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> To visit your group on the web, go to:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> Wide_Inkjet_Printers-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.425 / Virus Database: 270.14.65/2503 - Release Date:
11/14/09 19:42:00

You mention that you get as much as11/16 of an inch of shrink..  That is a
really a bunch and really doesn't sound right as it's almost 3/4 inch... RU
really getting that much? Realistically a small amount of size change on Cotton
material is normal if for nothing else then humidity changes.. If your getting
that after spraying then maybe try something different.. Once the coating has
set it is not feasible to get that much stretch out of the canvas.. We use
Clearstar and Bulldog an never see the numbers your seeing..

jimbo
   ----- Original Message -----
   From: eclaird100
   To: Wide_Inkjet_Printers@yahoogroups.com
   Sent: Wednesday, November 11, 2009 3:25 AM
   Subject: [Wide_Inkjet_Printers] Re: How much shrinkage on PremierArt matte
22ml?



   Hey Thanks Randall - valuable information!

   --- In Wide_Inkjet_Printers@yahoogroups.com, "Randall" <lgrrrb@...> wrote:
   >
   >
   > Your shrinkage measurements are pretty typical for woven fabrics. During
weaving, yarns in the lengthwise direction (warp yarns) are under a lot of
tension whereas yarns in the crosswise direction (weft yarns) are under
considerably less tension. If a woven fabric has a chance to relax its tension
(most commonly when fiber/yarn swelling occurs from wetting during laundering),
shrinkage occurs and it is greatest in the lengthwise direction. "Preshrunk"
fabrics have been subjected to an extra process in the textile mill which has
allowed most tension in the fabric to be relaxed.
   >
   > I suspect that the coating process used in the case discussed here
effectively "wets" the fibers/yarns so they swell and allow relaxation of
tension to occur. A different coating substance which does not "wet" the fibers
as much or a different fiber composition with the same coating substance may not
induce shrinkage.
   >
   > Consequently, just about everyone's practical observations could be right in
this argument.
   >
   > Randall R. Bresee.
   >
   >
   > --- In Wide_Inkjet_Printers@yahoogroups.com, "eclaird100" <eclaird100@>
wrote:
   > >
   > > I'm very careful measuring the canvas before varnishing and after
varnishing, the numbers do not lie. I lose 1 to 2/16 off the width but on the
length I can lose up to 11/16. I think the canvas itself seems to to be the main
variable. It seems a 100% cotton canvas like PremierArt matte 22ml has more
problems with shrink than the blended canvases. I need to find another matte WR
canvas that is a poly/cotton blend.
   > >
   > > Any more canvas suggestions would be welcome.
   > >
   > > Thanks for all the comments
   > > Campbell
   > >
   > > --- In Wide_Inkjet_Printers@yahoogroups.com, "john castronovo" <jc@>
wrote:
   > > >
   > > > That isn't always true. Cloth can certainly shrink in one
   > > > dimension.especially artist canvas that's a 2 over 1 weave, but I
   > > > usually see the problem is present with or without coating. It's
   > > > probably due to how tightly it was wrapped on the roll which explains
   > > > why it's a variable factor. There's also a tiny bit of slippage while
   > > > going through some printers. The only defense is to distort the files.
   > > >
   > > > ----- Original Message -----
   > > > From: "Richard Sjolund"
   > > >
   > > > So, I need to ask again.
   > > >
   > > > If the shrinkage is due to the coating - then the shrinkage should
   > > > (MUST) be true for BOTH the length and the width.
   > > >
   > > > I'll bet, again, that your problem is ONLY in the length - and NOT the
   > > > width.
   > > >
   > > > So - it is a printing problem and NOT a coating problem.
   > > >
   > >
   >






------------------------------------------------------------------------------



   No virus found in this incoming message.
   Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
   Version: 8.5.425 / Virus Database: 270.14.65/2503 - Release Date: 11/14/09
19:42:00

   ----------


No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.425 / Virus Database: 270.14.65/2503 - Release Date: 11/14/09
19:42:00


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Campbell,
Glanced at the posts maybe missed one.. Have you checked your width also? If
that is shrinking too then your legit in what your saying if not then you have
another issue I think. As a note all cotton materials behave oddly in places
with low or little humidity. They tighten up.. Check your humidity.. Cotton
needs  45 % plus to relax.. I doubt that what's going on however with the amount
you stated. I use all cotton canvas along with others and don't have the issues
your getting.

jimbo
   ----- Original Message -----
   From: eclaird100
   To: Wide_Inkjet_Printers@yahoogroups.com
   Sent: Sunday, November 08, 2009 2:24 AM
   Subject: [Wide_Inkjet_Printers] Re: How much shrinkage on PremierArt matte
22ml?



   Thanks for your comments

   I have an epson 9880 and my Paper Feed Adjustment is set to -50 as Premier Art
recommends and most pieces come out about 1/16 or so too short which is within
acceptable limits. So all the shrink is due to the 2 coats of Eco Print Shield
varnish which I apply with a roller- I apply as thin a coat as possible and thin
the actual product as PremierArt suggests for rolling.

   What is puzzling to me is that this doesn't seem to happen to anyone else.

   I did get less shrink with the Fredrix 901 WR, I think because it a polyflax
cotton blend and the PremierArt is all cotton.

   Any other thoughts would be greatly appreciated
   Campbell

   --- In Wide_Inkjet_Printers@yahoogroups.com, Bob Smith <lists@...> wrote:
   >
   >
   > On Nov 7, 2009, at 9:31 AM, Richard Sjolund wrote:
   >
   > > I don't know what printer you are using, but with my Epson 9800 or
   > > 9900 printers I need to adjust the length of the paper by using a
   > > factor of 100.8 %. To do that, I multiple the length by 1.018 - for
   > > example, 50 inches is 50.9 inches (I round to the nearest tenth). I
   > > then uncheck "constrain proportions" in the size adjustment window -
   > > and make the new length 50.9 inches.
   >
   > Or use the "Paper Feed Adjustment" setting under the "Paper
   > Configuration" tab of the driver. I have it set to +50 for Epson
   > Premiere Satin Canvas on a 9800. I believe that setting came from
   > Epson recommendations included with the canvas for that particular
   > printer. Without specific recommended settings a little trial and
   > error testing is in order. Once you get a good setting just include
   > it as part of a saved setting and call it up whenever printing to that
   > canvas. No need to mess around with special image sizing.
   >
   > Bob
   >
   > Accurate Image . Bob Smith Photographer . Waco Texas USA
   > http://www.accurateimage.org
   >






------------------------------------------------------------------------------



   No virus found in this incoming message.
   Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
   Version: 8.5.425 / Virus Database: 270.14.65/2503 - Release Date: 11/14/09
19:42:00

   ----------


No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.425 / Virus Database: 270.14.65/2503 - Release Date: 11/14/09
19:42:00


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Yea, I know what you mean about Gallerie. I tried it for awhile. Both gloss
differential and bronzing are for me totally unacceptable with the Z. You would
think with a gloss enhancer channel it would handle all of these papers. I
actually think some of them look better with K3.  I just did a test of the Epson
Exhibition Fine Art on someone's 3800 and it looked far better in all respects
than the Ilford on the Z. Go figure.  You can spray it with a uv spray but that
is more trouble that it is worth, and then you are back in the price range of
Photorag Baryta which is a much better paper. I also found this Gallerie stuff
scratches way too easy for me, both in the printer on rolls, and out of the
printer in handling.

j



--- In Wide_Inkjet_Printers@yahoogroups.com, "marygk46" <MaryKonchar@...> wrote:
>
> Yes, thank you both.  I'm aware that I can use the existing presets to do the
profiling.  But I like Ilford Gallary Gold Fiber Silk paper, and noticed that it
is one of the new Z3200 presets available in the link that John had provided. 
Just wanted to give it a try to see if it would do a little better job with
gloss differential.
>
> Mary
>
> --- In Wide_Inkjet_Printers@yahoogroups.com, "john" <deanwork2003@> wrote:
> >
> > Yes Mary,
> >
> > I'm sorry. Neal was correct. I totally messed up and didn't see that.
> >
> > If this is any help, as he said, you can use the existing presets and do the
internal profiling and linearization ( and do just as well.)
> >
> > I've done comparitive tests and for the fiber gloss media like Photorag
Baryta or Innova Semi-Matte, use either the Fine Art Pearl preset or the HP
Baryta preset and they get you to the exact same place.
> >
> > For Hahnemuhle Photorag 308 and similar papers like Crane Portfolio Rag, the
Smooth Fine art Hahnemuhle preset is what you want. For textured papers like
William Turner or Museum Etching, use the HP Hah. Textured Fine Art. For Epson
Premium Luster or Epson Semi Gloss, and similar rc media,  use the HP Pro Satin
preset and do a "calibration" for each. For Breathing Color Chromata Canvas, use
the HP fine art canvas preset etc.
> >
> > John
> >
> > --- In Wide_Inkjet_Printers@yahoogroups.com, Mary Konchar <MaryKonchar@>
wrote:
> > >
> > > Right, John, I do remember now that it was you that posted the link.  I
have
> > > downloaded the presets from the link you provided, but they are only for
the
> > > Z3200 -- and will not work on the Z3100.  I called HP tech support and
asked
> > > them if they had the presets available for the Z3100, and they couldn't
even
> > > find the ones for the Z3200 until I sent them the link.  Anyway, as far as
I
> > > know they have not released presets for these papers that will work on the
> > > Z3100.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Mary
> > >
> > > --
> > > Mary Konchar
> > > http://marykonchar.naturescapes.net
> > >
> > > All outgoing e-mail scanned with AVG Internet Security
> > >
> > >
> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > >
> >
>

Yes, thank you both.  I'm aware that I can use the existing presets to do the
profiling.  But I like Ilford Gallary Gold Fiber Silk paper, and noticed that it
is one of the new Z3200 presets available in the link that John had provided. 
Just wanted to give it a try to see if it would do a little better job with
gloss differential.

Mary

--- In Wide_Inkjet_Printers@yahoogroups.com, "john" <deanwork2003@...> wrote:
>
> Yes Mary,
>
> I'm sorry. Neal was correct. I totally messed up and didn't see that.
>
> If this is any help, as he said, you can use the existing presets and do the
internal profiling and linearization ( and do just as well.)
>
> I've done comparitive tests and for the fiber gloss media like Photorag Baryta
or Innova Semi-Matte, use either the Fine Art Pearl preset or the HP Baryta
preset and they get you to the exact same place.
>
> For Hahnemuhle Photorag 308 and similar papers like Crane Portfolio Rag, the
Smooth Fine art Hahnemuhle preset is what you want. For textured papers like
William Turner or Museum Etching, use the HP Hah. Textured Fine Art. For Epson
Premium Luster or Epson Semi Gloss, and similar rc media,  use the HP Pro Satin
preset and do a "calibration" for each. For Breathing Color Chromata Canvas, use
the HP fine art canvas preset etc.
>
> John
>
> --- In Wide_Inkjet_Printers@yahoogroups.com, Mary Konchar <MaryKonchar@>
wrote:
> >
> > Right, John, I do remember now that it was you that posted the link.  I have
> > downloaded the presets from the link you provided, but they are only for the
> > Z3200 -- and will not work on the Z3100.  I called HP tech support and asked
> > them if they had the presets available for the Z3100, and they couldn't even
> > find the ones for the Z3200 until I sent them the link.  Anyway, as far as I
> > know they have not released presets for these papers that will work on the
> > Z3100.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Mary
> >
> > --
> > Mary Konchar
> > http://marykonchar.naturescapes.net
> >
> > All outgoing e-mail scanned with AVG Internet Security
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>

Yes Mary,

I'm sorry. Neal was correct. I totally messed up and didn't see that.

If this is any help, as he said, you can use the existing presets and do the
internal profiling and linearization ( and do just as well.)

I've done comparitive tests and for the fiber gloss media like Photorag Baryta
or Innova Semi-Matte, use either the Fine Art Pearl preset or the HP Baryta
preset and they get you to the exact same place.

For Hahnemuhle Photorag 308 and similar papers like Crane Portfolio Rag, the
Smooth Fine art Hahnemuhle preset is what you want. For textured papers like
William Turner or Museum Etching, use the HP Hah. Textured Fine Art. For Epson
Premium Luster or Epson Semi Gloss, and similar rc media,  use the HP Pro Satin
preset and do a "calibration" for each. For Breathing Color Chromata Canvas, use
the HP fine art canvas preset etc.

John

--- In Wide_Inkjet_Printers@yahoogroups.com, Mary Konchar <MaryKonchar@...>
wrote:
>
> Right, John, I do remember now that it was you that posted the link.  I have
> downloaded the presets from the link you provided, but they are only for the
> Z3200 -- and will not work on the Z3100.  I called HP tech support and asked
> them if they had the presets available for the Z3100, and they couldn't even
> find the ones for the Z3200 until I sent them the link.  Anyway, as far as I
> know they have not released presets for these papers that will work on the
> Z3100.
>
> Thanks,
> Mary
>
> --
> Mary Konchar
> http://marykonchar.naturescapes.net
>
> All outgoing e-mail scanned with AVG Internet Security
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Right, John, I do remember now that it was you that posted the link.  I have
downloaded the presets from the link you provided, but they are only for the
Z3200 -- and will not work on the Z3100.  I called HP tech support and asked
them if they had the presets available for the Z3100, and they couldn't even
find the ones for the Z3200 until I sent them the link.  Anyway, as far as I
know they have not released presets for these papers that will work on the
Z3100.

Thanks,
Mary

--
Mary Konchar
http://marykonchar.naturescapes.net

All outgoing e-mail scanned with AVG Internet Security


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

--- In Wide_Inkjet_Printers@yahoogroups.com, "marygk46" <MaryKonchar@...> wrote:
>
> A couple of days ago someone posted this link to third party paper presets for
the HP Z3200:
>
>
http://h10088.www1.hp.com/cda/gap/display/main/index.jsp?zn=gap&cp=20000^149976_\
4041_100__
>
> I have tried to find out if these presets are also available for the Z3100,
but a search of the HP site turned up no results.  Does anyone know if these
presets are available for the Z3100, and where I might find them?
>
> Thanks, Mary
>
They are not the same. The set ups for the 3100 are either included in the
driver or you add a custom media set up.

There is a document with all the different settings , what they are for, what
papers they are used on.

Hey Thanks Randall - valuable information!

--- In Wide_Inkjet_Printers@yahoogroups.com, "Randall" <lgrrrb@...> wrote:
>
>
> Your shrinkage measurements are pretty typical for woven fabrics. During
weaving, yarns in the lengthwise direction (warp yarns) are under a lot of
tension whereas yarns in the crosswise direction (weft yarns) are under
considerably less tension. If a woven fabric has a chance to relax its tension
(most commonly when fiber/yarn swelling occurs from wetting during laundering),
shrinkage occurs and it is greatest in the lengthwise direction. "Preshrunk"
fabrics have been subjected to an extra process in the textile mill which has
allowed most tension in the fabric to be relaxed.
>
> I suspect that the coating process used in the case discussed here effectively
"wets" the fibers/yarns so they swell and allow relaxation of tension to occur.
A different coating substance which does not "wet" the fibers as much or a
different fiber composition with the same coating substance may not induce
shrinkage.
>
> Consequently, just about everyone's practical observations could be right in
this argument.
>
> Randall R. Bresee.
>
>
> --- In Wide_Inkjet_Printers@yahoogroups.com, "eclaird100" <eclaird100@> wrote:
> >
> > I'm very careful measuring the canvas before varnishing and after
varnishing, the numbers do not lie. I lose 1 to 2/16 off the width but on the
length I can lose up to 11/16. I think the canvas itself seems to to be the main
variable. It seems a 100% cotton canvas like PremierArt matte 22ml has more
problems with shrink than the blended canvases. I need to find another matte WR
canvas that is a poly/cotton blend.
> >
> > Any more canvas suggestions would be welcome.
> >
> > Thanks for all the comments
> > Campbell
> >
> > --- In Wide_Inkjet_Printers@yahoogroups.com, "john castronovo" <jc@> wrote:
> > >
> > > That isn't always true. Cloth can certainly shrink in one
> > > dimension.especially artist canvas that's a 2 over 1 weave, but I
> > > usually see the problem is present with or without coating. It's
> > > probably due to how tightly it was wrapped on the roll which explains
> > > why it's a variable factor. There's also a tiny bit of slippage while
> > > going through some printers. The only defense is to distort the files.
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Richard Sjolund"
> > >
> > > So, I need to ask again.
> > >
> > > If the shrinkage is due to the coating - then the shrinkage should
> > > (MUST) be true for BOTH the length and the width.
> > >
> > > I'll bet, again, that your problem is ONLY in the length - and NOT the
> > > width.
> > >
> > > So - it is a printing problem and NOT a coating problem.
> > >
> >
>

A couple of days ago someone posted this link to third party paper presets for
the HP Z3200:

http://h10088.www1.hp.com/cda/gap/display/main/index.jsp?zn=gap&cp=20000^149976_\
4041_100__

I have tried to find out if these presets are also available for the Z3100, but
a search of the HP site turned up no results.  Does anyone know if these presets
are available for the Z3100, and where I might find them?

Thanks, Mary