Tell me about printing on canvas....

[Darin Boville]

You can also get inkjet on sheets of aluminium. Quality isn't much better than canvas but it has a nice luster like Endura Metallic RA4 (especially under a spotlight), without the need for framing. However, they are generally bolted to the wall.

I thought about aluminum but I can't see how I would store them...

--Darin

[paulr]

I'm with Kirk on how they look. I don't like it. It's not just the esthetics; they look to me like they're trying to be paintings.

However, I understand the practical appeal. I'm working on a project with 60" prints right now. The costs of printing, and especially mounting and framing, are a serious burden. Canvas is much cheaper and easier than the other options. I'm still not using it, but I get the appeal.

[Darin Boville]

I'm with Kirk on how they look. I don't like it. It's not just the esthetics; they look to me like they're trying to be paintings.

However, I understand the practical appeal. I'm working on a project with 60" prints right now. The costs of printing, and especially mounting and framing, are a serious burden. Canvas is much cheaper and easier than the other options. I'm still not using it, but I get the appeal.

I'm not clear on how canvas is cheaper--haven't really priced it out--but I would love to get away from glass and get the image onto something more durable than paper. Big is nice, too. Really big, maybe.

--Darin

[Jim Becia]

Darin,

One option is to use a process like the one from http://www.duraplaq.com/index.html. I have been using them for years. I print my images on paper then send them the piece. They mount and laminate it to HDF that has itself been laminated with melamine on both sides. The melamine is smooth and inert. The mounted piece is then laminated with a luster laminate that is waterproof and has UV protection. The process is frameless. And the laminate I use does not take away form the image. I, like a few others here, do not like canvas for my images. I want to retain the detail, sharpness, and color, and this process seems to do the job. However, obviously the process is not reversible. I do not number my pieces and my customers really seem to like it. Here is a quick and old sample of some pieces. I think I have a better image on my iPad and will try to post it so you can see.

[paulr]

If you're making a big print, it's much cheaper to tack canvas onto a stretcher frame than to dry-mount photo paper (onto sintra or dibond or aluminum plate). And with the stretched canvas, you can be done. With the mounted paper print, you still have to deal with framing and glazing... or with face-mounting.

For prints like what I've been making, the print itself would cost about $40 less on canvas than on baryta paper. I don't know what the stretching would cost, but I think it would be less that the $300ish I'm paying for dibond mounting. And then it's costing customers $800 to $1200 for framing and glazing. The canvas could be hung just by screwing hooks into the back.

I don't know how durable the print on canvas actually is. It seems to me the ink and the coatings are the fragile part. Durability may not be so different between the two substrates. I'm guessing the durability of a canvas print depends on a lot of goop being sprayed over the top ... acrylic or the equivalent.

[Jim Becia]

Here is another photograph of the finished pieces. Jim

[Jakelovesphoto]

Maybe I'm just crazy here, but how would darkroom emulsion on canvas look? I'm talking like Rockland Colloid Ag+ on one of those board-like canvas panels

[polyglot]

I thought about aluminum but I can't see how I would store them...

Same as mounted prints I assume. In a box interleaved with tissue. The one I have on my wall is about 3.5mm thick, it's an Al/polyethylene/Al sandwich with the metal being about 0.7mm thick on each face.

I'm with Kirk on how they look. I don't like it. It's not just the esthetics; they look to me like they're trying to be paintings.

This I don't get. They look nothing like paintings - no lumps of paint, brush strokes, etc. They don't look like inkjets or C-prints or silver prints either, but that doesn't (to me) mean that they're trying to be paintings. They're just canvas prints: big and cheap with a tradeoff on print resolution. Certainly not for everyone, but worth a try IMHO.

[paulr]

This I don't get. They look nothing like paintings - no lumps of paint, brush strokes, etc. They don't look like inkjets or C-prints or silver prints either, but that doesn't (to me) mean that they're trying to be paintings. They're just canvas prints: big and cheap with a tradeoff on print resolution. Certainly not for everyone, but worth a try IMHO.

I see your point. For me there's such a strong association between canvas and paint that I have trouble shaking it. And I do think they look a bit like paintings, at least from a certain distance. Not all paintings on canvas have big globs of oil paint. Some have fairly fine detail, and an obvious texture of canvas.

A question: if it's all for practical reasons, why canvas? There are many other fabric or quasi-fabric substrates that could be rolled and stretched, and which would be smoother, allow finer detail, and a less intrusive surface. In other words, more traditionally photographic, and less traditionally painterly.

[Darin Boville]

A question: if it's all for practical reasons, why canvas? There are many other fabric or quasi-fabric substrates that could be rolled and stretched, and which would be smoother, allow finer detail, and a less intrusive surface. In other words, more traditionally photographic, and less traditionally painterly.

Through an inkjet printer? What do you have in mind?

--Darin