Digital BW, The Print

When I was photog for the historical society our photo conservator cringed
at the idea of putting anything on a print.  But who knows.

I am guessing unless Wilhelm or IPI actually does aging tests with the wax,
no one will know.  But, who's to know if their application is done the same
way?

Seth 

==-----Original Message-----
==From: Djon [mailto:westsidemaurice@...] 
==
==Renaissance promo suggests traditional waxes may hurt 
==whatever they're applied to (not just photos) by interacting 
==chemically in a way that their supremely wonderful miracle 
==mystery wax does not. I wonder if there's some truth to that.
==
==The silver print is/was only "sealed" with jello, literal 
==ground up cattle hoofs. Not an impervious seal at all. 
==Epson's encapsulated pigments are sealed with something 
==probably FAR more effective than jello. On the other hand, 
==inkjet's PAPER may be hurt in some way by a particular wax, 
==and non-encapsulated dyes/inks may dissolve or interact.
==
==Some of us used floor wax (carnuba?) on some prints in 
==decades past ...my examples are still in perfect shape today 
==...that MAY suggest that the same wax would be a good gamble 
==with Epson pigments or even the more soluble dyes and inks. 
==
==It'd be easy for someone with the skills to observe very 
==short-term effects of various waxes on Epson OEM pigment, 
==various inks, dyes, and papers microscopically....are they 
==being dissolved or otherwise attacked by the waxes?
==
==My thinking about wax Vs spray has to do with the fact that 
==wax is not noxious and is less tricky to apply. It MAY also 
==be more effective archivally (or less)...museums might 
==already prefer it. Do we have any museum curators here? My 
==sister used to do photo curatorial work in a couple of 
==museums, maybe she can contribute some connections. 
==
==