Digital BW, The Print

> If coating and glazing gave equivalent protection would you...
> 
> 1) take the benefit of seeing the print bare and skip the glass

Some coated prints looked worse than their uncoated counter part-- Those I'd
want to hide behind glass.

 
> Or
> 
> 2) want to "double" the lightfastness by coating and glazing

Those coated prints which looked better than their uncoated counter part I'd
prefer to not be behind glass, I suppose. I'm still hashing that out, and
remember I was asking you first. ;-)

I know, I'm not the only person you want to hear from. ;-)

Let me ask you this. In the case of air dried glossy fiber silver prints,
you had a product with good longevity, and no flaking problems, but we still
hung them behind glass. Why? You could wipe their surface with a soft cloth
too, more or less. Would you "coat" your silver prints too for extra
handling protection and not glaze them? Why/not?

Once we are loosing that velvety tactile feel of our inkjets anyway, isn't
their a certain other kind of tactile/perceptual kind of protection we then
want? Isn't there something about an object behind glass we respect as
valuable?

I don't know, I'm just exploring this concept spontaneously as I write, I'm
not trying to convince you, just throwing it out there for discussion. My
intuition, which is probably just born out of habit, tells me to hold prints
raw, but to hang prints behind glass.

And I do think papers still reveal their tactile characteristics even behind
glass, under the right light. A coated sheet of Orwell will look different
than an uncoated sheet, even behind glass, no?

But again, until I really try it a few times I don't think I can speak about
this with any kind of certainty.

But you have more coated prints than any of us, and as you say you don't get
brush marks, you have more properly coated prints than any of us. What say
you?

Todd