Digital BW, The Print

Stephen Kundell wrote:

> ...
>Has anyone come up with a system that works with large images, and
>truly prevents UV and ozone degradation similar to the benefit of
>framed images. I hate that glass between me and the image!!!!

Jeff wrote:

>  Have you considered lamination? ...

I've been mildly interested in coatings and lamination also.  It appears
that oxidizers and UV are responsible for considerable long-term damage to
images, so if these alternatives protect the image at a reasonable cost
(price, labor and all considered) they could be of interest to me.

Of course, how one intends to use the image is a variable that probably
determines as much as any factor whether the process is useful or not.  My
prints include 16 x 20 display prints, snapshots, and family photos that I
hope last a long time.

I've thought maybe vacuum lamination would be the ultimate if it were doable
and looked good, but I have no samples or knowledge of such a system.

I just tried the Lyson Print Guard spray, and test samples of Epson Archival
Matte with it (and a control strip without any spray) are currently in my
fader.  It's too early to know the results, but the quick look at 100 hours
indicates no advantage to the spray.  So, since it lowers the Dmax, it seems
like a useless process for my purposes.

I downloaded the Golden MSA Varnish information from their website.  This
Golden Varnish has received generally good comments here, and it was among
the very few samples in the group of coated photos that was distributed that
I though might be something I would be able to live with.  (Especially if
Eclipse gives it more of a satin look.)

However, for my purposes, I'm inclined to think that any varnish or other
material that touches the image must be able to be removed without any
damage to the image.  (Conservationist, I beleive, prefer that prints not be
dry-mounted and otherwise be pristine, as far as I know.  I would guess that
they would insist that any covering be removable.)

Golden outlines a method of removing it's varnish with solvents.  But it's
not a process to be taken lightly.  I must say that I'm skeptical it can be
done without damaging the image and paper.

Frankly, for purposes of extending longevity, it seems strange to me that we
worry about whether the cellulose in our paper comes from the purest cotton
as opposed to highly-processed wood pulp; yet, we're talking about soaking
the paper with solvents and varnishes.  These are chemicals I'm not sure I
even want my archival prints close to.  I sure don't want to even breath
them.

I note that the Golden materials indicate, "MOST curing will occur within
two weeks." [Emphasis added by me.]  This sounds to me like we're talking
about a long out-gassing period.  (Sorry, this just does not sound like it's
"archival" to me.)

For my purposes, I remain interested in protection, but varnishes are going
to be a hard sell.  I'll probably stay with glass or acrylic for the display
prints -- which is probably the fine-art standard for some very good
reasons.  When the prints are not on display, they can be sealed in bags in
dark storage.  For family albums, I'll use mylar protectors.

So, keeping in mind that I'm just talking about my how I'll maximize the
life of my photographs, and not outdoor advertising signs, the varnishes do
not look likely to be useful.  A vacuum laminate might be very interesting.
But the best I know of now is UV glass/acrylic and sealed, dark storage if
longevity and archival life are important.

Paul
http://www.PaulRoark.com

Paul,

I have done a bit of laminating for mundane purposes such as Photo ID badges
and signs. Basically the Dmax goes up, the photos are very well protected
and they look like they have been, well, plastic laminated. Not very
appealing I am afraid.

If you are interested in this then look to companies that sell products to
the sign making industry, which is very inkjet oriented. You can get small
size laminating equipment and supplies from places like Office Max.

The Golden coatings Robert and I tried were the water based acrylic vanishes
and so the odor is low and the cure times shorter. Robert and Mark tried the
Golden solvent base varnishes and found them difficult to work with in part
due to the long dry time.

You will never remove a coating from an ink jet print. It will soak into the
paper. What you can do is create an initial sealer coat over which you apply
the final varnish. It would be conceivable to remove the upper coats without
harming the lower ones and then replace the upper ones as is done in
painting. This is only something that would be done if the upper coating was
damaged. If this were the case an uncoated print by comparison would be in
very bad shape.

I have seen heavily varnished albumen prints from the 1870's and the varnish
appeared to be in very good condition. The overall effect of the print was
rather yellow and may in part be the result of the varnish yellowing. None
of the materials available at that time for varnishing come close to the
quality of things like the Golden acrylics so keep that in mind.

My though is that a well varnished inkjet print will most likely out last
those that are not coated. It is more a question of whether you like the
effect or not.

Martin Wesley
http://www.borderless-photos.de/guests.html


----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Roark" <paul.roark@...>
To: "DigitalB&WPrint" <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, April 13, 2002 11:48 AM
Subject: [Digital BW] Re: Coating revisited


> Stephen Kundell wrote:
>
> > ...
> >Has anyone come up with a system that works with large images, and
> >truly prevents UV and ozone degradation similar to the benefit of
> >framed images. I hate that glass between me and the image!!!!
>
> Jeff wrote:
>
> >  Have you considered lamination? ...
>
> I've been mildly interested in coatings and lamination also.  It appears
> that oxidizers and UV are responsible for considerable long-term damage to
> images, so if these alternatives protect the image at a reasonable cost
> (price, labor and all considered) they could be of interest to me.
>
> Of course, how one intends to use the image is a variable that probably
> determines as much as any factor whether the process is useful or not.  My
> prints include 16 x 20 display prints, snapshots, and family photos that I
> hope last a long time.
>
> I've thought maybe vacuum lamination would be the ultimate if it were
doable
> and looked good, but I have no samples or knowledge of such a system.
>
> I just tried the Lyson Print Guard spray, and test samples of Epson
Archival
> Matte with it (and a control strip without any spray) are currently in my
> fader.  It's too early to know the results, but the quick look at 100
hours
> indicates no advantage to the spray.  So, since it lowers the Dmax, it
seems
> like a useless process for my purposes.
>
> I downloaded the Golden MSA Varnish information from their website.  This
> Golden Varnish has received generally good comments here, and it was among
> the very few samples in the group of coated photos that was distributed
that
> I though might be something I would be able to live with.  (Especially if
> Eclipse gives it more of a satin look.)
>
> However, for my purposes, I'm inclined to think that any varnish or other
> material that touches the image must be able to be removed without any
> damage to the image.  (Conservationist, I beleive, prefer that prints not
be
> dry-mounted and otherwise be pristine, as far as I know.  I would guess
that
> they would insist that any covering be removable.)
>
> Golden outlines a method of removing it's varnish with solvents.  But it's
> not a process to be taken lightly.  I must say that I'm skeptical it can
be
> done without damaging the image and paper.
>
> Frankly, for purposes of extending longevity, it seems strange to me that
we
> worry about whether the cellulose in our paper comes from the purest
cotton
> as opposed to highly-processed wood pulp; yet, we're talking about soaking
> the paper with solvents and varnishes.  These are chemicals I'm not sure I
> even want my archival prints close to.  I sure don't want to even breath
> them.
>
> I note that the Golden materials indicate, "MOST curing will occur within
> two weeks." [Emphasis added by me.]  This sounds to me like we're talking
> about a long out-gassing period.  (Sorry, this just does not sound like
it's
> "archival" to me.)
>
> For my purposes, I remain interested in protection, but varnishes are
going
> to be a hard sell.  I'll probably stay with glass or acrylic for the
display
> prints -- which is probably the fine-art standard for some very good
> reasons.  When the prints are not on display, they can be sealed in bags
in
> dark storage.  For family albums, I'll use mylar protectors.
>
> So, keeping in mind that I'm just talking about my how I'll maximize the
> life of my photographs, and not outdoor advertising signs, the varnishes
do
> not look likely to be useful.  A vacuum laminate might be very
interesting.
> But the best I know of now is UV glass/acrylic and sealed, dark storage if
> longevity and archival life are important.
>
> Paul
> http://www.PaulRoark.com
>
>
>
>
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and
other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or "flames."
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
resources on the homepage.

>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>

Martin,

I'll have to take a look at the water-based Golden acrylic varnish.  For
certain purposes, such coating could definitely be useful if application is
not too burdensome.  I'd like to see some evidence that a particular coating
has archival properties before I used it, however.  Golden may well have
such testing evidence.

I just sealed a print in Light Impressions mylar with archival clear tape.
For refrigerator display of a print that may have long term value (two uses
that may be mutually exclusive), it looks good.  But, like you describe the
lamination look, it is less than optimal.

Of course, I don't really like a glossy finish, which is the main thing I
notice about the mylar-encased print I just did.  Since, like an un-mounted
glossy print, it is not totally flat, the reflections are even more
irritating than the glass-covered prints that are the norm for fine art.

On the other hand, it was easy to use the Light Impressions mylar, and the
print is very well protected from the problems I expect in a kitchen (no
direct sun).

(The again, in my family a steel-plate mount board and a vapor-deposited
diamond coating would probably be needed for true protection.)

Paul

___________________________

-----Original Message-----
From: Martin Wesley [mailto:mwesley250@...]
Sent: Saturday, April 13, 2002 11:28 AM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: Coating revisited


  Paul,

  I have done a bit of laminating for mundane purposes such as Photo ID
badges
  and signs. Basically the Dmax goes up, the photos are very well protected
  and they look like they have been, well, plastic laminated. Not very
  appealing I am afraid.

  If you are interested in this then look to companies that sell products to
  the sign making industry, which is very inkjet oriented. You can get small
  size laminating equipment and supplies from places like Office Max.

  The Golden coatings Robert and I tried were the water based acrylic
vanishes
  and so the odor is low and the cure times shorter. Robert and Mark tried
the
  Golden solvent base varnishes and found them difficult to work with in
part
  due to the long dry time.

  You will never remove a coating from an ink jet print. It will soak into
the
  paper. What you can do is create an initial sealer coat over which you
apply
  the final varnish. It would be conceivable to remove the upper coats
without
  harming the lower ones and then replace the upper ones as is done in
  painting. This is only something that would be done if the upper coating
was
  damaged. If this were the case an uncoated print by comparison would be in
  very bad shape.

  I have seen heavily varnished albumen prints from the 1870's and the
varnish
  appeared to be in very good condition. The overall effect of the print was
  rather yellow and may in part be the result of the varnish yellowing. None
  of the materials available at that time for varnishing come close to the
  quality of things like the Golden acrylics so keep that in mind.

  My though is that a well varnished inkjet print will most likely out last
  those that are not coated. It is more a question of whether you like the
  effect or not.

  Martin Wesley
  http://www.borderless-photos.de/guests.html


  ----- Original Message -----
  From: "Paul Roark" <paul.roark@...>
  To: "DigitalB&WPrint" <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
  Sent: Saturday, April 13, 2002 11:48 AM
  Subject: [Digital BW] Re: Coating revisited


  > Stephen Kundell wrote:
  >
  > > ...
  > >Has anyone come up with a system that works with large images, and
  > >truly prevents UV and ozone degradation similar to the benefit of
  > >framed images. I hate that glass between me and the image!!!!
  >
  > Jeff wrote:
  >
  > >  Have you considered lamination? ...
  >
  > I've been mildly interested in coatings and lamination also.  It appears
  > that oxidizers and UV are responsible for considerable long-term damage
to
  > images, so if these alternatives protect the image at a reasonable cost
  > (price, labor and all considered) they could be of interest to me.
  >
  > Of course, how one intends to use the image is a variable that probably
  > determines as much as any factor whether the process is useful or not.
My
  > prints include 16 x 20 display prints, snapshots, and family photos that
I
  > hope last a long time.
  >
  > I've thought maybe vacuum lamination would be the ultimate if it were
  doable
  > and looked good, but I have no samples or knowledge of such a system.
  >
  > I just tried the Lyson Print Guard spray, and test samples of Epson
  Archival
  > Matte with it (and a control strip without any spray) are currently in
my
  > fader.  It's too early to know the results, but the quick look at 100
  hours
  > indicates no advantage to the spray.  So, since it lowers the Dmax, it
  seems
  > like a useless process for my purposes.
  >
  > I downloaded the Golden MSA Varnish information from their website.
This
  > Golden Varnish has received generally good comments here, and it was
among
  > the very few samples in the group of coated photos that was distributed
  that
  > I though might be something I would be able to live with.  (Especially
if
  > Eclipse gives it more of a satin look.)
  >
  > However, for my purposes, I'm inclined to think that any varnish or
other
  > material that touches the image must be able to be removed without any
  > damage to the image.  (Conservationist, I beleive, prefer that prints
not
  be
  > dry-mounted and otherwise be pristine, as far as I know.  I would guess
  that
  > they would insist that any covering be removable.)
  >
  > Golden outlines a method of removing it's varnish with solvents.  But
it's
  > not a process to be taken lightly.  I must say that I'm skeptical it can
  be
  > done without damaging the image and paper.
  >
  > Frankly, for purposes of extending longevity, it seems strange to me
that
  we
  > worry about whether the cellulose in our paper comes from the purest
  cotton
  > as opposed to highly-processed wood pulp; yet, we're talking about
soaking
  > the paper with solvents and varnishes.  These are chemicals I'm not sure
I
  > even want my archival prints close to.  I sure don't want to even breath
  > them.
  >
  > I note that the Golden materials indicate, "MOST curing will occur
within
  > two weeks." [Emphasis added by me.]  This sounds to me like we're
talking
  > about a long out-gassing period.  (Sorry, this just does not sound like
  it's
  > "archival" to me.)
  >
  > For my purposes, I remain interested in protection, but varnishes are
  going
  > to be a hard sell.  I'll probably stay with glass or acrylic for the
  display
  > prints -- which is probably the fine-art standard for some very good
  > reasons.  When the prints are not on display, they can be sealed in bags
  in
  > dark storage.  For family albums, I'll use mylar protectors.
  >
  > So, keeping in mind that I'm just talking about my how I'll maximize the
  > life of my photographs, and not outdoor advertising signs, the varnishes
  do
  > not look likely to be useful.  A vacuum laminate might be very
  interesting.
  > But the best I know of now is UV glass/acrylic and sealed, dark storage
if
  > longevity and archival life are important.
  >
  > Paul
  > http://www.PaulRoark.com
  >
  >
  >
  >
  > Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and
  other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
  >
  > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
  >
  > Please follow these basic guidelines:
  > - Include your full name with your message.
  > - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
  > - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to
keep
  them short.
  > - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject
header.
  > - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or
"flames."
  > - Complete your Yahoo profile.
  > - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
  resources on the homepage.
  >
  >
  >
  >
  > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
  >
  >
  >



        Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
              ADVERTISEMENT




  Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and
other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:

  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint

  Please follow these basic guidelines:
  - Include your full name with your message.
  - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
  - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
them short.
  - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
  - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or "flames."
  - Complete your Yahoo profile.
  - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
resources on the homepage.




  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



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

Marin

Were did you get Golden water based acrylic vanishe and how did you 
apply it?

Steve



--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Martin Wesley" <
mwesley250@e...> wrote:

> Paul,
> 
> I have done a bit of laminating for mundane purposes such as Photo ID badges
> and signs. Basically the Dmax goes up, the photos are very well protected
> and they look like they have been, well, plastic laminated. Not very
> appealing I am afraid.
> 
> If you are interested in this then look to companies that sell products to
> the sign making industry, which is very inkjet oriented. You can get small
> size laminating equipment and supplies from places like Office Max.
> 
> The Golden coatings Robert and I tried were the water based acrylic vanishes
> and so the odor is low and the cure times shorter. Robert and Mark tried the
> Golden solvent base varnishes and found them difficult to work with in part
> due to the long dry time.
> 
> You will never remove a coating from an ink jet print. It will soak into the
> paper. What you can do is create an initial sealer coat over which you apply
> the final varnish. It would be conceivable to remove the upper coats without
> harming the lower ones and then replace the upper ones as is done in
> painting. This is only something that would be done if the upper coating was
> damaged. If this were the case an uncoated print by comparison would be in
> very bad shape.
> 
> I have seen heavily varnished albumen prints from the 1870's and the varnish
> appeared to be in very good condition. The overall effect of the print was
> rather yellow and may in part be the result of the varnish yellowing. None
> of the materials available at that time for varnishing come close to the
> quality of things like the Golden acrylics so keep that in mind.
> 
> My though is that a well varnished inkjet print will most likely out last
> those that are not coated. It is more a question of whether you like the
> effect or not.
> 
> Martin Wesley
> http://www.borderless-photos.de/guests.html
> 
>

Steve,

Try Dick Blick art supplies.

http://www.dickblick.com/

The system I last used was two part. The first and critical part is a sealer
coat and the second is the actual varnish.

As a sealer "Morrison's Mix":
   1 part Golden Acrylic Medium Gloss
   1 part Golden GAC 700
   1 part water

  As a varnish:
   1 part dilute Golden Acrylic Flow Release
   (1 part Release to 4 parts water)
   2 parts Golden Polymer Varnish UVLS

Use distilled water. You may need to play with the dilution rates depending
upon the paper you want to coat.

See: Files > Coating inkjet prints

Parts 3 and 4.

Martin Wesley
http://www.borderless-photos.de/guests.html



----- Original Message -----
From: "steven0356" <stevenr@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, April 13, 2002 4:22 PM
Subject: [Digital BW] Re: Coating revisited


> Marin
>
> Were did you get Golden water based acrylic vanishe and how did you
> apply it?
>
> Steve
>
>
>
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Martin Wesley" <
> mwesley250@e...> wrote:
> > Paul,
> >
> > I have done a bit of laminating for mundane purposes such as Photo ID
badges
> > and signs. Basically the Dmax goes up, the photos are very well
protected
> > and they look like they have been, well, plastic laminated. Not very
> > appealing I am afraid.
> >
> > If you are interested in this then look to companies that sell products
to
> > the sign making industry, which is very inkjet oriented. You can get
small
> > size laminating equipment and supplies from places like Office Max.
> >
> > The Golden coatings Robert and I tried were the water based acrylic
vanishes
> > and so the odor is low and the cure times shorter. Robert and Mark tried
the
> > Golden solvent base varnishes and found them difficult to work with in
part
> > due to the long dry time.
> >
> > You will never remove a coating from an ink jet print. It will soak into
the
> > paper. What you can do is create an initial sealer coat over which you
apply
> > the final varnish. It would be conceivable to remove the upper coats
without
> > harming the lower ones and then replace the upper ones as is done in
> > painting. This is only something that would be done if the upper coating
was
> > damaged. If this were the case an uncoated print by comparison would be
in
> > very bad shape.
> >
> > I have seen heavily varnished albumen prints from the 1870's and the
varnish
> > appeared to be in very good condition. The overall effect of the print
was
> > rather yellow and may in part be the result of the varnish yellowing.
None
> > of the materials available at that time for varnishing come close to the
> > quality of things like the Golden acrylics so keep that in mind.
> >
> > My though is that a well varnished inkjet print will most likely out
last
> > those that are not coated. It is more a question of whether you like the
> > effect or not.
> >
> > Martin Wesley
> > http://www.borderless-photos.de/guests.html
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and
other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or "flames."
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
resources on the homepage.

>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>

At 12:28 PM -0700 4/13/02, Martin Wesley wrote:
>Paul,
>
>
>...The Golden coatings Robert and I tried were the water based 
>acrylic vanishes
>and so the odor is low and the cure times shorter. Robert and Mark tried the
>Golden solvent base varnishes and found them difficult to work with in part
>due to the long dry time.
>
>...I have seen heavily varnished albumen prints from the 1870's and 
>the varnish appeared to be in very good condition. The overall 
>effect of the print was rather yellow and may in part be the result 
>of the varnish yellowing. None
>of the materials available at that time for varnishing come close to the
>quality of things like the Golden acrylics so keep that in mind.

Martin,

I have used my own custom mixes of acrylic varnishes and mediums, 
sprayed on with a high quality automotive paint gun.  Additionally, I 
have had some success with the product Deft, Satin Finish, which is 
solvent based.  The latter works better with thin materials as they 
don't tend to wrinkle as much as you might get using water base. 
However, if careful with the water base and spray very light coats 
you usually can avoid wrinkling...,but, I prefer using thick stock 
with the acrylic.

While I have not tested this scientifically, I feel that this spray 
process encapsulates the photo and protects it from the elements.  In 
recent years I have been mounting photos without using glazing.  I 
hate the reflections. This is what got me started using spray 
coatings. I always shoot for a matte / semi-matte finish, but you can 
alter the degree of gloss depending on the mix.

Bill
-- 

b i l l  a g e e  s t u d i o
c a p i s t r a n o  b e a c h  c a l i f o r n i a

billagee@...
http://www.redsilver.com

Paul, Martin, Robert, et al:

Given all the negatives associated with coatings, does anyone EVER 
use the museum glass (I think this is the correct terminology) as an 
alternative when framing photographs?

I've never used it. I don't know much about it, but I'm told there 
are a handful of brands and it's expensive. I've never checked prices 
and probably couldn't afford to use it often--if ever.

Given the current state-of-the-art with respect to papers and inks 
and the potential long-term problems that coatings may cause (both to 
our prints and our health), isn't the use of high quality museum glass
a better option than coating when the print is to be framed? Or is 
the cost so extravagant that it's just not a practical solution?

Just curious...

Tom Keesling
Intelligent Design, Inc.

Bill,

That is interesting. There was talk last summer about using automotive paint
spray systems for coating prints. You are the first I have heard from that
actually tried it with good results.

One of this issues with any application method, especially brush and quality
spray, is that use of the particular tools is a skill you have to spend some
time mastering. People have to realize that there is a learning curve to
this. Those who are experienced with a particular application tool may not
know just how difficult or impossible it may be for a beginner to get good
results.

I would be cautious with non-art grade coatings after seeing how some of the
stuff I tried yellowed on me. I am not familiar with the Deft. Is it an
acrylic or a polyurethane or something else?

Are you spraying in a spray booth? How do you control fumes, dust, etc.?

Martin Wesley
http://www.borderless-photos.de/guests.html


----- Original Message -----
From: "Bill Agee" <billagee@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, April 14, 2002 12:48 AM
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: Coating revisited


> At 12:28 PM -0700 4/13/02, Martin Wesley wrote:
> >Paul,
> >
> >
> >...The Golden coatings Robert and I tried were the water based
> >acrylic vanishes
> >and so the odor is low and the cure times shorter. Robert and Mark tried
the
> >Golden solvent base varnishes and found them difficult to work with in
part
> >due to the long dry time.
> >
> >...I have seen heavily varnished albumen prints from the 1870's and
> >the varnish appeared to be in very good condition. The overall
> >effect of the print was rather yellow and may in part be the result
> >of the varnish yellowing. None
> >of the materials available at that time for varnishing come close to the
> >quality of things like the Golden acrylics so keep that in mind.
>
> Martin,
>
> I have used my own custom mixes of acrylic varnishes and mediums,
> sprayed on with a high quality automotive paint gun.  Additionally, I
> have had some success with the product Deft, Satin Finish, which is
> solvent based.  The latter works better with thin materials as they
> don't tend to wrinkle as much as you might get using water base.
> However, if careful with the water base and spray very light coats
> you usually can avoid wrinkling...,but, I prefer using thick stock
> with the acrylic.
>
> While I have not tested this scientifically, I feel that this spray
> process encapsulates the photo and protects it from the elements.  In
> recent years I have been mounting photos without using glazing.  I
> hate the reflections. This is what got me started using spray
> coatings. I always shoot for a matte / semi-matte finish, but you can
> alter the degree of gloss depending on the mix.
>
> Bill
> --
>
> b i l l  a g e e  s t u d i o
> c a p i s t r a n o  b e a c h  c a l i f o r n i a
>
> billagee@...
> http://www.redsilver.com
>
>
>
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and
other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or "flames."
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
resources on the homepage.

>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>