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.

Well you certainly haven't seen my coated prints apparently.  My coated
prints NEVER look worse than the uncoated ones.  With Hahnemuhle papers it
is necessary to do some tonal corrections...but this done they always looks
as good or better...they ain't velvety though!

>> 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. ;-)

Just collecting data.
 
> 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?

Don't know...I'm a digital photographer...conventional darkroom prints don't
interest me...not friendly to my workflow.

> 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 hate glass...I'm a painter and a sculptor in addition to a
photographer...for me glass is evil...
> 
> 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?

Yes...but under the conditions I described earlier...there is nothing
tactile about the uncoated print behind glass...at least that I can
perceive.
> 
> 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?

I say lets get another print exchange going.  I'll print 2 5x7's of the same
image...one coated one uncoated and everyone can play with their plastic,
glass and mattes to their hearts content.

In the mean time I'll coat some matte board.

Robert