Platinum/Palladium prints...varnished

[bob carnie]

I will add one slightly off topic but I think relevant observation:
I never really liked pt pd prints as I am first a Silver printer, the dmax of any straight pt pd print is lacking IMO. But I love adding colour and depth to silver prints and toning for me is a decent method but nothing like separation negatives to add gum coloured tonal areas.
Irving Penn tried to wrap around this by various means, I have had the pleasure at my shop seeing in my hand a PT PD by Irving Penn of Luke 56 the hells angel series. Since I was not present at the printing I can only guess from my own testing is that the negative that eventually was made was super contrasty to give dead and I mean dead blacks which in my eyes lacked any shadow detail. It amazes me that he never tried multiple gum over Pt Pd like Edward Steichen did with moonrise over Lilly pond and the Fliariton Building in New York.

I have found a few benefits from printing gum over palladium that are relevant to this topic. I use a shadow separation negative to print in register overtop of a Palladium coating. The pigment I use is a mixture that is complimentary colour to the tone of the Palladium thus creating when combined a deeper black, I do not allow the pigment to enter any other area than the shadows and if I want to I can do multiple coats . A second benefit is that by using a layered gum process the print itself thickens and has a nice texture that IMO mimics adding a waxing.
The over all benefits are, deeper blacks that still maintain good shadow separation, great highlight upper midtone detail from the Pd, the ability to add colour where I want and the calmative effect of layered gum (tree sap) over the image.

[Drew Wiley]

I was going to add that beeswax is not a consistent commodity. Just like there are many secondary ingredients to honey, and therefore many kinds of honey, some of that inevitable transfers into the wax itself. And beeswax is not something highly purified and separated out for specific qualities like paraffin can potentially be at an industrial level.

[Drew Wiley]

At least Bostick and Sullivan informs you up front that their version of Sandarac involving lavender oil requires Hazmat shipping. I don't know how they get around an MSDS sheet, or if you need to call them to get it. Anyway, much of traditional 16th & 17the C pre-photography sandaracs were dispersed in linseed oil instead, which is a rather unstable short-chain polymer. Hand-rubbed, the heat of the friction itself changes it into a longer more stable chain, analogous to how linseed is turned into more stable alkyd polymers by large-volume industrial methods. Then there were "long-oil" versions which basically don't dry at all if capped in by a top layer of similar flexibility, used both for traditional oil painting purposes and former oil-based exterior wood primers. But there are all kinds of variations. Art materials per se have special exemptions from many current enviro laws due to their smaller amount of usage.

Now, just for fun, go back in time and hazard a guess what extraordinarily pricey ingredient was in that Louis IV furniture finish I mentioned previously, in lieu of sandarac as the prime ingredient, and what oil instead of linseed might have been realistically chosen. And no, it wouldn't be a good choice for coating paper unless you like the look of a quarter-inch thick piece of amber glass on it; that's another clue.

[Durst L184]

1. There's probably good information about such things in the paper conservation trade, if you hunt down their own trade journals and articles. Just like any other topic, you're going to find differing opinions; but some of that is due to the fact that papers can differ from one another quite a bit.


2. Liquified oil/wax finishes per se are a just plain bad idea.

Right. I fully expect (1) above to be the case. That's why I want to take a look myself in order to evaluate exactly the real factual basis for worry or the wisdom of dismissing the worry. The considerations that you added re: undetermined levels of purification of bees wax in a subsequent post I gathered from your initial response. I tend to fall back upon bees wax vs paraffin wax because I do not like the look of the paraffin waxes that I have tried.


With respect to (2) above, I so far quite agree. The commercial wax-varnish mixtures that I have experimented with have so far led to garish results. And besides, I like to use materials (including developers) that I can produce exactly myself for fun and creative control.

Ultimately, my own approach is somewhat in line with the Bob Carnie post.

For the moment (i.e. until I look into this further) the bees wax worry falls into a category of disproportionate (maybe even radical) concern for archival quality. With respect to the broader scope of this tread I think that it is important to keep the the archival question in perspective. Archival quality is certainly important. But it is very far from my primary objective: beauty. And I am quite willing to sacrifice some level of archival quality for beauty (especially when the archival worry is not firmly established and clearly defined). To be sure, I do not make photographs for archives or collectors or for that matter anyone else but me. So if I can enhance the beauty of a photograph that I make today in a variety of ways, and the photograph lasts for say 50 to 100 years that is actually an excess of success. In fact, the more I think about this, perhaps even a moment of beauty realized in a lifetime should not be sacrificed in the interest of permanence.

[Len Middleton]

I have found a few benefits from printing gum over palladium that are relevant to this topic. I use a shadow separation negative to print in register overtop of a Palladium coating. The pigment I use is a mixture that is complimentary colour to the tone of the Palladium thus creating when combined a deeper black, I do not allow the pigment to enter any other area than the shadows and if I want to I can do multiple coats . A second benefit is that by using a layered gum process the print itself thickens and has a nice texture that IMO mimics adding a waxing.
The over all benefits are, deeper blacks that still maintain good shadow separation, great highlight upper midtone detail from the Pd, the ability to add colour where I want and the calmative effect of layered gum (tree sap) over the image.

I can confirm the effectiveness of Bob's efforts, as I have a Pt/Pd print on the wall that Bob printed up for me where the shadow areas are darker than the Pt/Pd alone will provide.

[higherres]

I will add one slightly off topic but I think relevant observation:
I never really liked pt pd prints as I am first a Silver printer, the dmax of any straight pt pd print is lacking IMO. But I love adding colour and depth to silver prints and toning for me is a decent method but nothing like separation negatives to add gum coloured tonal areas.
Irving Penn tried to wrap around this by various means, I have had the pleasure at my shop seeing in my hand a PT PD by Irving Penn of Luke 56 the hells angel series. Since I was not present at the printing I can only guess from my own testing is that the negative that eventually was made was super contrasty to give dead and I mean dead blacks which in my eyes lacked any shadow detail. It amazes me that he never tried multiple gum over Pt Pd like Edward Steichen did with moonrise over Lilly pond and the Fliariton Building in New York.

I have found a few benefits from printing gum over palladium that are relevant to this topic. I use a shadow separation negative to print in register overtop of a Palladium coating. The pigment I use is a mixture that is complimentary colour to the tone of the Palladium thus creating when combined a deeper black, I do not allow the pigment to enter any other area than the shadows and if I want to I can do multiple coats . A second benefit is that by using a layered gum process the print itself thickens and has a nice texture that IMO mimics adding a waxing.
The over all benefits are, deeper blacks that still maintain good shadow separation, great highlight upper midtone detail from the Pd, the ability to add colour where I want and the calmative effect of layered gum (tree sap) over the image.

Fantastic. Now I just need to learn gum over Pt/Pd

[higherres]

Right. I fully expect (1) above to be the case. That's why I want to take a look myself in order to evaluate exactly the real factual basis for worry or the wisdom of dismissing the worry. The considerations that you added re: undetermined levels of purification of bees wax in a subsequent post I gathered from your initial response. I tend to fall back upon bees wax vs paraffin wax because I do not like the look of the paraffin waxes that I have tried.


With respect to (2) above, I so far quite agree. The commercial wax-varnish mixtures that I have experimented with have so far led to garish results. And besides, I like to use materials (including developers) that I can produce exactly myself for fun and creative control.

Ultimately, my own approach is somewhat in line with the Bob Carnie post.

For the moment (i.e. until I look into this further) the bees wax worry falls into a category of disproportionate (maybe even radical) concern for archival quality. With respect to the broader scope of this tread I think that it is important to keep the the archival question in perspective. Archival quality is certainly important. But it is very far from my primary objective: beauty. And I am quite willing to sacrifice some level of archival quality for beauty (especially when the archival worry is not firmly established and clearly defined). To be sure, I do not make photographs for archives or collectors or for that matter anyone else but me. So if I can enhance the beauty of a photograph that I make today in a variety of ways, and the photograph lasts for say 50 to 100 years that is actually an excess of success. In fact, the more I think about this, perhaps even a moment of beauty realized in a lifetime should not be sacrificed in the interest of permanence.

Beautifully said. I agree wholeheartedly.

[higherres]

Hello again all who have posted on my thread regarding varnishing Platinum prints. Well today I received my (tiny) bottle of Renaissance Wax and got excited to try it on one of my prints. Wow did I go from elation to sheer disappointment in under 5 minutes. The wax stinks like a paint thinner factory, and does almost nothing to enhance the blacks. The varnish is for me...if it cracks or crazes or whatevers in 50 years cool. I'll be dead anyway. Long live creativity...

[paulbarden]

Hello again all who have posted on my thread regarding varnishing Platinum prints. Well today I received my (tiny) bottle of Renaissance Wax and got excited to try it on one of my prints. Wow did I go from elation to sheer disappointment in under 5 minutes. The wax stinks like a paint thinner factory, and does almost nothing to enhance the blacks. The varnish is for me...if it cracks or crazes or whatevers in 50 years cool. I'll be dead anyway. Long live creativity...

That Renaissance Wax crap ruined a salt print when I tested it on one. I’m sure it has a place in some processes, but it’s not appropriate for salted paper prints. Apparently it’s not good on Platinum either.

[Tin Can]

I mostly use Ren Wax for OLD wood cameras

Leather

My 2 cans are hard, white color with NO smell

Soon I will use on my biggest print