Waxing pt/pd prints

[Kimberly Anderson]

Hey, I am re-reading through Christopher James alt photo book and am going through the platinum/palladium chapter. I am reading about waxing the prints and am slightly intrigued. Is anyone waxing their prints? The only art wax I have is 'Renaissance Wax', and that is for treating the wood on my Canham camera.

So, just wondering if anyone is trying this, what would I expect, and are there any examples online? I have a ton of test prints I could play with, and I just might try the Ren Wax just for fun this week.

[Ken Lee]

My 2 cents, and please correct me if I'm wrong:

In an effort to increase dMax, I tried every wax and finish I could find, but eventually reached the same conclusion that smarter people had already reached: there's uncertainty over potential damage and degradation to the image over time - particularly with modern waxes and finishes. Because non-coated Pt/Pd images have their own inherent charm, it may be best to leave them as they are and enjoy a greater certainty concerning their permanence and enduring beauty.

[sanking]

My 2 cents, and please correct me if I'm wrong.

In an effort to increase dMax, I tried every wax and finish I could find, and eventually gave up.

I reached the same conclusion that smarter people had already reached: there's uncertainty over potential damage and degradation to the image over time - particularly with modern waxes and finishes. Pt/Pd images have their own inherent charm and it's best to leave them as they are, and enjoy the relative certainty of their permanence and enduring beauty.

Some photos don't work best in Pt/Pd or other processes of similar appearance... but some do.

I agree with Ken. Some years ago I experimented extensively with waxing pt/pd prints in an effort to give them a bit more punch. Renaissance wax did give a bit more punch, but not enough in my opinion to overcome the potential for damage to the print when waxing, and the long term effects of wax. Pt/Pd prints on rag papers are among the most stable of all photographic processes so why screw them up a coat of wax the long term effects of which are not known. Remember, the enemy of good is better!

On the other hand, there is a procedure where you add a product called fused silica to coating. They promote it on the B&S web site and while it does not appear to work well with every paper, the general consensus is that you will get a bit more Dmax by using fumed silica in your coating. I don't have a link but you should be able to find directions with a simple search on the B&S site.

Sandy

[Kimberly Anderson]

Ken and Sandy,

Thank you for your feedback and experimentation. On a whim I just tried a good heavy coat of Ren Wax on a print that was made on Arches Platine. I used a rough paper towel and knew that I would be risking the surface, so I used a step-wedge. The wax was thick and I still took off enough platinum to notice a stain on the towel. D-max was increased...marginally...maybe? Maybe it just looks a *little* shinier.

As to fused silica and D-max increase. Yes, it does work, but again, not with every paper. I am pre-soaking my paper with Oxalic Acid at 3% and letting it dry before doing my coating and exposing. With the low humidity here in Utah in the summer I feel that it is helping a bit. I also soak the entire floor of the room I'm printing in and spread out my paper I plan to be coating. With this combination of voodoo, witchcraft and plain ol' wishful-thinking, this latest round of platinum prints is turning out about as well as I have ever done...perhaps better.

I was reading James chapter and just thought that I'd give it a shot. YMMV.

Thanks again guys. I appreciate it.

[ridax]

My 2 cents, and please correct me if I'm wrong:

In an effort to increase dMax, I tried every wax and finish I could find, but eventually reached the same conclusion that smarter people had already reached: there's uncertainty over potential damage and degradation to the image over time - particularly with modern waxes and finishes. Because non-coated Pt/Pd images have their own inherent charm, it may be best to leave them as they are and enjoy a greater certainty concerning their permanence and enduring beauty.

wax did give a bit more punch, but not enough in my opinion to overcome the potential for damage to the print when waxing, and the long term effects of wax. Pt/Pd prints on rag papers are among the most stable of all photographic processes so why screw them up a coat of wax the long term effects of which are not known.

Two points here. Both are perhaps far more then 2 cents worth...

First, Platinum and Palladium prints (as well as Pt and Pd toned silver prints) are actually not that stable. The popular belief is, as Pt and Pd are extremely stable themselves, the prints should be just as stable. That's actually not true. Both Pt and Pd are enormously powerful catalyzes that speed up any possible degradation of all the stuff in reasonably close contact with Pt and/or Pd, and the degradation speed increase is at least 1,000 times compared to no Pt/Pd, and may be way more. In fact, archivists routinely report not only the paper of a Pt and Pd prints degrading with enormous rapidity; even a peace of paper put next to a Pt or Pd print deteriorates that fast, forming a mirror image of brownish paper degradation products formed proportionally to the amount of Pt or Pd in the print being in contact with the unlucky piece of that other paper.

The reason is, both Pt and Pd are too fond of dissolving atmospheric gasses such as Oxygen and Hydrogen in the solid metal. The gasses come into the metallic catalyzes as the usual O₂ and H₂ molecules and just as easily go out again - but in the form of single atoms. Remember how terribly aggressive an oxidizer Oxygen becomes when it's the single atom form?

That's why putting a decent barrier between a Pt/Pd image and the atmosphere is actually a pretty good idea.


And the second point. Waxes are about the most stable substances known on Earth. Those are not all equal of course but for example beeswax put onto the outer walls of Egyptian temples and pyramids, after some 5,500 years under the sun and winds and rains, upon careful examination turned out to be exactly the same as the stuff bees produce today.

[William Whitaker]

...Both Pt and Pd are enormously powerful catalyzes that speed up any possible degradation of all the stuff in reasonably close contact with Pt and/or Pd, and the degradation speed increase is at least 1,000 times compared to no Pt/Pd, and may be way more. In fact, archivists routinely report not only the paper of a Pt and Pd prints degrading with enormous rapidity; even a peace of paper put next to a Pt or Pd print deteriorates that fast, forming a mirror image of brownish paper degradation products formed proportionally to the amount of Pt or Pd in the print being in contact with the unlucky piece of that other paper.

I double-checked the calendar to make sure it isn't April 1st. Amazing that a Pt print made last week would still be around, much more so work from a hundred years ago! Can you document those claims? I assume that by "catalyzes", you mean catalysts.

[Erik Larsen]

Hi Michael, you can get a similar dmax enhancement by over printing with gum. It will give a slight sheen to the print similar to wax. It might be worth experimenting with if you get the itch?

[Ken Lee]

"First, Platinum and Palladium prints (as well as Pt and Pd toned silver prints) are actually not that stable."

According to Wikipedia:

Platinum prints are the most durable of all photographic processes. The platinum group metals are very stable against chemical reactions that might degrade the print—even more stable than gold. It is estimated that a platinum image, properly made, can last thousands of years.

According to the Collectors Guide:

Platinum prints are not only exceptionally beautiful, they are among the most permanent objects invented by human beings! The platinum metals (platinum and palladium) are more stable than gold. Incredibly, a platinum image, properly made, can last thousands of years. It is as enduring as steel or stone and will even outlive the fine paper it is printed upon.

[ridax]

I double-checked the calendar to make sure it isn't April 1st. Amazing that a Pt print made last week would still be around, much more so work from a hundred years ago! Can you document those claims? I assume that by "catalyzes", you mean catalysts.

Yes the proper word is catalysts. Thank you for the correction. Sorry English isn't my native language so I have troubles spelling some special terms from time to time. And the above is also the reason I'm afraid I'm not able to post a lot if links for proof. I've done my personal research on the art materials stability a decade ago, and most of the data was not in English and not on-line. But still a slight but a clear enough hint can be found here: http://www.nedcc.org/free-resources/...of-photographs : "Platinotype, Palladiotype... very stable images, no fading or silvering; paper often very acidic and discolored." Sorry but seeking for any more special on-line evidence is up to those who doubt Pt and Pd are catalysts. I just do not.

So no it is not April 1st. It's still July 29. And yes Pt prints do last centuries if made on a good rag paper - because rag papers (without Pt/Pt) would last for millennia perhaps (at least the 14th century papers made of linen and cotton rags are just fine now), and their deterioration is extremely slow even with that catalytic boost. The point is actually not that Pt/Pd prints aren't good in the long term. The points are, (1) only the best rag papers are to be chosen for Pt/Pd printing, and (2) waxing is not at all bad for any print's stability. In fact, waxing is more then useful.

P.S.: Yes I know that sounds too strange and unfamiliar for the most of Pt/Pd printers out there. Actually, I just would not bother posting it if it wasn't...

[ridax]

Platinum... will even outlive the fine paper it is printed upon.

That is perfectly true. ;)