Varnish on photo paper ?
Andre
social documentary photographer Walter Rosenblum says: "I use a
semi-matter paper which I varnish to provide the depth it would
otherwise lack" Anybody knows what he was talking about ? Regular
varnish or something like McDonald Pro-Tecta-Cote's lacquer ? How was it
applied ? Thanks
Richard Knoppow
I don't know what he was using but coating a print with a lacquer or
varnish or with wax was common at one time to increase shadow density.
You can get the same effect by simply using glossy paper instead of
matt. The matt surface scatters some of the light hitting the surface
washing out the shadows. The best contrast and shadow detail is gotten
with fully glossy paper and controlled lighting of the print. For
fiber paper an un-ferrotyped glossy surface comes near enough and is
generally considered more pleasant than the mirror smooth ferrotyped
surface. For RC paper a "pearl" type surface comes closest.
lacquering of prints was at one time recomended practice to protect
the image from atmospheric gasses. It is no longer recommended since
it may trap gasses originating in the paper and prevents after
treatment of prints. Its good for display prints which are not
expected ot have a long lifetime since you can clean them easily.
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, Ca.
dick...@ix.netcom.com
Norman Strand~
varnished his platnium prints in the 50's. The varnish has since turned
brown. The prints look like they have been brown toned. I spoke to a person
at the Center for Creative Photography and she had no idea of how to restore the
prints.
Nornan Strand
This is not the opinion of intel corp.
In article <378B25E7...@videotron.ca>, Andre <am1...@videotron.ca> writes:
|> In an October 1991 interview to the defunct Camera & Darkroom magazine,
|> social documentary photographer Walter Rosenblum says: "I use a
|> semi-matter paper which I varnish to provide the depth it would
|> otherwise lack" Anybody knows what he was talking about ? Regular
|> varnish or something like McDonald Pro-Tecta-Cote's lacquer ? How was it
|> applied ? Thanks
|>
--
Intel, Corp.
5000 W. Chandler Blvd.
Chandler, AZ 85226
Andre
more than 40 years. Both belonged to the famous Photo League of New York.
Michael Liczbanski
He probably used something wax or shellac based on his prints...Not a good
idea in terms of archival qualities...
I sometimes use the McDonald Pro-Tecta-Cote for fun on prints that I hang at
home (yeah, I know...it is tacky...) #931 (Matte Special) on B&W matte or
semi-gloss FB prints gives a deep, "velveteen" shadow, especially if the
print is well illuminated. I wouldn't put it on anything archival, though,
as the lacquer tends to detoriate with time and the prints turn sickly
brownish-yellow with a slight magenta hue, even if covered with a UV
Inhibitor lacquer.. (I don't worry too much about archival qualities of my
prints...)
McDonald Pro-Tecta-Cote is (was...?) widely used by wedding photographers of
questionable taste to "intensify" larger (framed) prints. The effect is
very "blah" in my opinion...
Michael
Andre wrote in message <378B25E7...@videotron.ca>...
Gene Alan Townsend
Andre wrote:
> In an October 1991 interview to the defunct Camera & Darkroom magazine,
> social documentary photographer Walter Rosenblum says: "I use a
> semi-matter paper which I varnish to provide the depth it would
> otherwise lack" Anybody knows what he was talking about ? Regular
> varnish or something like McDonald Pro-Tecta-Cote's lacquer ? How was it
> applied ? Thanks
I'll add a few comments of my own:
The only varnishes that are archival are known as "damar" varnishes. These
are often used to protect chrcoal, or pastel drawings in the art world. In
years past, they were used to protect hand-tinted photographs,as well as the
old daguerreotypes and tintypes. This stuff is very expensive, like $10 for
a few ounces.
Modern polyurethane varnishes are fairly permanent, and much less
expensive. All varnishes impart a slight yellowish tint. I often varnish
b+w R/C prints on matte paper using a glossy polyurethan varnish using a
soft bristle brush. These varnishes will last 5-8 years when applied to
wood in brite sunlight, so should last for 50 years or so on the inside of a
house, provided window exposure is minimized.
Regards,
Gene A. Townsend
Jimfinkle1
>From: Gene Alan Townsend <wi...@dakotacom.net>
>Date: Thu, 15 July 1999 09:41 AM EDT
>Message-id: <378DE519...@dakotacom.net>
There are also waterbase sprays that can be washed off, at photo labs, I
believe. This is mostly in the color print finishing process.
Jim
Mr. Muckle
Michael Liczbanski wrote:
> In addition to other answers:
> He probably used something wax or shellac based on his prints...Not a good
> idea in terms of archival qualities...
>
> I sometimes use the McDonald Pro-Tecta-Cote for fun on prints that I hang at
> home (yeah, I know...it is tacky...) #931 (Matte Special) on B&W matte or
> semi-gloss FB prints gives a deep, "velveteen" shadow, especially if the
> print is well illuminated. I wouldn't put it on anything archival, though,
> as the lacquer tends to detoriate with time and the prints turn sickly
> brownish-yellow with a slight magenta hue, even if covered with a UV
> Inhibitor lacquer.. (I don't worry too much about archival qualities of my
> prints...)
>
> McDonald Pro-Tecta-Cote is (was...?) widely used by wedding photographers of
> questionable taste to "intensify" larger (framed) prints. The effect is
> very "blah" in my opinion...
>
> Michael
>
> Andre wrote in message <378B25E7...@videotron.ca>...
DaveHodge
me they put all sorts of things on prints to change their appearance and give
them more "depth." He used to print on Ektalure G and then coat the prints
with Johnson's Paste Wax, dried and then buffed to a high gloss. It must have
worked--he earned his Ph. Cr. and Master of Photography degrees from PPofA.