Platinum/Palladium prints...varnished

[higherres]

Hello all,
I have been doing large format photography since 1987, but only silver processes. For about 10 years I have wanted to try platinum printing, but had my hands full, so never tried it. Finally a few weeks ago I took the plunge, and with Bostick and Sullivan's excellent resources on Photoshop curves, chemistry and supplies, I was able to get started with pleasant results. Coming from a 35+ year background of printing on Double weight fiber based glossy silver gelatin paper, the platinum prints looked a bit empty. I know what you're going to say..."The matt finish of the Platinum print is part of its beauty." I won't disagree, but I decided to try some Museum grade varish (which won't color over time) and I brushed on a coat of satin finish. Immediately the blacks in the print came alive, and the print had new life. I might be the only odd ball wanting satin finish Platinum prints, and I'm happy to keep it that way.



245753

245754

245755

[Drew Wiley]

What on earth is a "museum grade varnish"? What are the ingredients? What is the brand? What is the solvent? Butyl acetate print lacquers do yellow over time. Shellacs eventually cross-link and craze. Polycrystalline wax is wax. Were you using some kind of acrylic? Damar varnish? To hold up, the coating would need the same expansion/contraction coefficient as the paper, and that would be a tall order unless the paper itself is firmly glued down to a dimensionally stable substrate.

[popdoc]

Although we await more “technical“ information as to the varnish, and how you applied it, my compliments on the beautiful images!

Well seen, and executed!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[higherres]

The varnish is made by Breathing Color and is called Timeless Varnish. The ingredients are proprietary, though it is water based and advertised to last over 100 years. I am experimenting at this point, and I do love the rich blacks on the Platinum prints. I will see what I decide to do. I am attaching some of the images I made and framed.

245773
245774
245775

245776


And thank you popdoc for your kind words.

[higherres]

Drew-I'm not sure why you seem so exasperated by my experimentation with varnish. Though I appreciate your seeming technical familiarity with varnishes/waxes/shellacs, I would appreciate you keeping a more open-minded approach on a public forum. Thank you

[John Layton]

Renaissance Wax would likely a good bet...and heck - just go ahead and try it!

[paulbarden]

Drew-I'm not sure why you seem so exasperated by my experimentation with varnish. Though I appreciate your seeming technical familiarity with varnishes/waxes/shellacs, I would appreciate you keeping a more open-minded approach on a public forum. Thank you

Christopher, Drew likes to disapprove of anything that deviates from his narrow view of photography; ignore him.

It was common - in fact almost universal - that salted paper prints were "varnished" with a beeswax and lavender oil finish upon completion, for exactly the same reasons you opted to varnish your prints. I'm not familiar with the product you're experimenting with, but if it is designed for this kind of usage, then why not? The prints look great, and I know from my experience with salted paper prints, the wax finish amplifies the contrast and appearance of D-max of the print.

Do it your own way and be happy with the results!

[Jason Greenberg Motamedi]

I have been using Renaissance Wax for many years on Kallitype prints, and have been pleased with the results. Previous to that I used beeswax and lavender oil, as Paul described above. I tried a damar based varnish once, and found that it sometimes cracked or crazed.

[radiantstills]

Thanks for sharing higherres! I think I will experiment a bit inspired by your work. I do appreciate all of you and technical questions/points like Drew brings up because I am learning.

[Tracy Storer]

Yep, +1 on the historical precedent of beeswax with a very small amount of lavender oil, you want to wax the prints not oil them. It gives a little sheen and deepens the look of the Dmax.


Christopher, Drew likes to disapprove of anything that deviates from his narrow view of photography; ignore him.

It was common - in fact almost universal - that salted paper prints were "varnished" with a beeswax and lavender oil finish upon completion, for exactly the same reasons you opted to varnish your prints. I'm not familiar with the product you're experimenting with, but if it is designed for this kind of usage, then why not? The prints look great, and I know from my experience with salted paper prints, the wax finish amplifies the contrast and appearance of D-max of the print.

Do it your own way and be happy with the results!

[bob carnie]

To the OP if you are using Pt Pd like some of us to have your prints last for Centuries, I would be cautious with Store Brand overcoats. back in the 70's 80' a product called Pro Texture was applied on prints to make them sparkle , and sparkle they did, but over time this product severely affected the print and is no longer a product people use.

[John Layton]

Hmmm...I'd tried PT/PD many years ago, and came away wanting just a bit more D-Max with perhaps a bit of sheen (which Albumen did provide but I liked the PT/PD tonality and delicacy a bit more). Never thought about applying a bit of Renaissance Wax to a PT/PD print...and seeing as how I'm dusting off my 11x14 gear...maybe I'll give this a try!

But oh that delicacy...would such a waxing/varnishing have, potentially, a negative affect on this?

[Drew Wiley]

Well, the product at least claims to be for sake of paper, so that is off to the right start, at least for experimental purposes. Whether it is actually "timeless" or not will take till the end of time to verify. I always time test anything at least a decade or two before I trust it. But one has to start somewhere. There are thousands of kinds of acrylic resin, experimentally developed, looking for an appropriate application. Many are proprietary. Of course, the resin itself will come from a major plastics manufacturer, and then might get licensed or exclusively sold only to a particular blender and marketing entity.

Having been involved with coating industries for quite awhile, I learned that about 80% of them apply a BS coefficient quite heavily to their products. Then there is a far lesser quantity of companies who work especially hard to protect their long-term reputation for quality and honesty. Art supplies are no doubt analogous. I see they offer a Gesso too. Most art store gesso isn't much better than toothpaste, as my Aunt would contemptuously say - someone who really really understood her materials, and even held a phD in Art History.

You could also do comparison experiments with gelatin overcoats, also Renaissance Wax (microcrytalline paraffin). But what will collectors think?

Beeswax is voodoo. You don't want that even on wooden furniture, traditional or not. That's actually common knowledge. For every pint of varnish my naysayer has ever used in his life, I've probably sold $20,000 worth at a time, and to some of the most finicky historical restorations you can think of, along with the tech advice. No - I don't have any specific experience with the product line you are currently trying. But what advice I can give out of sheer analogous experience is worth its weight in gold - test, test, test!

[Tracy Storer]

Salt Prints were often waxed in the 19th C, and it seems to have helped protect the from deterioration from environmental contaminants. PL/PT is much more stable than Salt though, so, maybe not necessary, but perhaps benign if done properly.


Hmmm...I'd tried PT/PD many years ago, and came away wanting just a bit more D-Max with perhaps a bit of sheen (which Albumen did provide but I liked the PT/PD tonality and delicacy a bit more). Never thought about applying a bit of Renaissance Wax to a PT/PD print...and seeing as how I'm dusting off my 11x14 gear...maybe I'll give this a try!

But oh that delicacy...would such a waxing/varnishing have, potentially, a negative affect on this?

[Conrad . Marvin]

Just for the record,
I have seen an enormous number of Pt prints in museum archives that are pretty faded.

[Jason Greenberg Motamedi]

It is possible to abrade the surface when applying wax and remove some of the "delicacy," so you do need to do so carefully with a soft cloth.

[paulbarden]

Beeswax is voodoo.

No, it's not. Beeswax and lavender has been used to "varnish" salt prints since they were first invented. Most historic salt prints in collections/archives have been finished with beeswax.

[Drew Wiley]

People from that past era also performed Civil War amputations using unsterilized bloody handsaws. Yes, beeswax is the kind of wax they easily had access to, so it made sense in those days. But way better options now exist. Wax and varnish are totally different categories anyway, though blends of both still exist, as anachronistic as those are - now mostly air quality or fire code prohibited in the US. I had to jump through hoops to import them for that handful of customers who wanted a particular vintage authenticity. Antique wood cameras were often coated with analogous oil n' wax blends. Voodoo is an understatement when it comes to their fire risk, especially if linseed oil is mixed in. Many many a shop has burned down due to it - the very year I retired there were two fires on the very same block from that source totaling around 20 million dollars in damages.

[higherres]

Thank you for the information. I just ordered some Renaissance wax and will try that too.

[higherres]

Faded due to what?

[higherres]

Great information-I just ordered some Renaissance wax and will give it a try.

[higherres]

I appreciate your well thought out reply. Renaissnace wax it is...

[Serge S]

Just for the record,
I have seen an enormous number of Pt prints in museum archives that are pretty faded.

Would love to hear more details, as I always thought this process to be more archival/stable.

[Durst L184]

Beeswax is voodoo

Voodoo is certainly strange enough, but is it actually bad for photographs? What exactly is the problem with bee's wax, Drew, in your view --other than the fact that it belongs to the bees? I am actually quite curious; I have never read objections to bees wax before. I have experimented with a nearly endless list of various kinds of waxes, and I still find myself coming back to bees wax. This of course is entirely a matter of taste. But is bees wax somehow harmful to photographs (black and white, silver gelatin, fiber based paper) in your view? Is your objection simply a matter of taste or is it based upon photo preservation considerations? Thanks

[Conrad . Marvin]

Would love to hear more details, as I always thought this process to be more archival/stable.

Time will be well spent looking at original Pt prints in museum collections and in archives of various ages made by different photographers. It is too easy to adjust contrast and intensity on a computer screen, so whenever you can you need to look at original prints. The Platinum print is exquisite in its tonalities, but be careful of thinking that it will last for centuries without the same care in processing and storage as other types of prints.

[Drew Wiley]

Bees wax breaks down over time and traps contaminants too. It's not a purified wax either. Given the fact that the use of it in relation to antique photos is such an incredibly minor application. I'm not speaking in a framework of aesthetic taste. There are numerous separate issues on this thread. One is the assumption that old time Pt/Pd ingredients were as consistent as they might be today. Another is assumptions about paper.
Then you've got old pre-emulsion salt prints which were especially susceptible to atmospheric pollutants. Raw paper in any form absorbs from the air, more so than gelatin-coated emulsions. I've seen an entire collection of those ruined simply by storing the portfolio boxes on modern particle board shelving outgassing formaldehyde glue - about the worst thing possible! Many 19th cities had terrible coal-based air pollution. The whole concept of "archival" this or that is pretty much new to the second half of the 20th century.

I don't like waxing prints at all; but Renaissance Wax claims to have been developed by the British Museum in the 1950's as a superior and pH neutral replacement to both beeswax and carnauba wax, which acidify and discolor over time. I have experimented with it on prints, however, along with other potential overcoats like gum arabic and various art store lacquers. I do all kinds of experiments, but not with any prized "keeper" prints.

Now what was a truly time tested overcoat varnish? I won't give it away, except to state that only Louis XIV could afford it for his own furniture, and if made today, it would probably cost more than $200,000 per gallon. I've actually seen an example of it in a museum.

[higherres]

To the OP if you are using Pt Pd like some of us to have your prints last for Centuries, I would be cautious with Store Brand overcoats. back in the 70's 80' a product called Pro Texture was applied on prints to make them sparkle , and sparkle they did, but over time this product severely affected the print and is no longer a product people use.

Thanks Bob, Duly noted. I am going to try Renaissance Wax and will likely abandon the varnish.

[higherres]

Bees wax breaks down over time and traps contaminants too. It's not a purified wax either. Given the fact that the use of it in relation to antique photos is such an incredibly minor application. I'm not speaking in a framework of aesthetic taste. There are numerous separate issues on this thread. One is the assumption that old time Pt/Pd ingredients were as consistent as they might be today. Another is assumptions about paper.
Then you've got old pre-emulsion salt prints which were especially susceptible to atmospheric pollutants. Raw paper in any form absorbs from the air, more so than gelatin-coated emulsions. I've seen an entire collection of those ruined simply by storing the portfolio boxes on modern particle board shelving outgassing formaldehyde glue - about the worst thing possible! Many 19th cities had terrible coal-based air pollution. The whole concept of "archival" this or that is pretty much new to the second half of the 20th century.

I don't like waxing prints at all; but Renaissance Wax claims to have been developed by the British Museum in the 1950's as a superior and pH neutral replacement to both beeswax and carnauba wax, which acidify and discolor over time. I have experimented with it on prints, however, along with other potential overcoats like gum arabic and various art store lacquers. I do all kinds of experiments, but not with any prized "keeper" prints.

Now what was a truly time tested overcoat varnish? I won't give it away, except to state that only Louis XIV could afford it for his own furniture, and if made today, it would probably cost more than $200,000 per gallon. I've actually seen an example of it in a museum.

Your knowledge is impressive. I'm glad I posted my varnish experiments here as I have learned so much.

[Durst L184]

Thank you Drew. The case against bees wax does not appear to be terribly strong, but I will dig into the matter a bit myself to see if I can find some specific studies on the question before I say goodbye to my beloved bees. I will try to be objective in my analysis for my own good, but it will be hard. I am very invested in its use. I used to think of myself as essentially a three tone printer. Now I think that I am actually the first black photographer.

Many thanks also, by the way, to Higherres for posting your varnish experiments, which inadvertently produced the anti-bees wax claim.

[Drew Wiley]

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.

My own understanding of beeswax comes from the woodworking and architectural restoration side of things. None of these waxes are necessarily permanent, and beeswax builds up pretty messily over time. The only lingering usage for it is in fashion of lubricant sticks for wooden sash windows; and even there, paraffin is preferable. Traditional use of it seems to be more common in parts of Europe, however.

Liquified oil/wax finishes per se are a just plain bad idea, due to the high risk of spontaneous combustion. Once the tough enforcer Fire Marshall in this area retired, and then people like me, refusing to warehouse that kind of thing at all, also retired, along with other experienced people, then the industrial and residential fires started breaking out like crazy - BIG fires. There was a six million dollar fire even in my own former workplace when one of the neophytes left a few oily rags from merely sampling that kind of finish laying around.

[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

[BrianShaw]

It’s a good product but isn’t it ironic that Renaissance
Wax derives from crude oil and was invented to avoid acidity in natural waxes? To be a paste some sort of hydrocarbon thinner is required. Apparently “natural “ isn’t always best. Better living through chemistry… sometimes. :)

Its intended use on paper artifacts is protection from fingerprints. Using it for increasing apparent density is “off label” so these trials are worthwhile and very interesting knowledge!

[paulbarden]

My little container of RenWax does indeed stink like paint thinner. It clearly uses a petroleum solvent to give it that "paste" consistency.
When I applied it to a salt print, it gave a very uneven, mottled finish that was semi-gloss in areas and more matte in others. No amount of polishing or spreading more wax would fix the bad texture problem. I do NOT recommend it for use on any kind of alt/POP prints without testing it on scraps first.

[BrianShaw]

Trying not to overthink this, but what paper did you try it on? The “intended use” on paper is book jackets, I believe, which are often either varnished paper or heavily printed… essentially a coated paper. Perhaps the poor performance is due to paper porisity?

Testing first… for sure!

[paulbarden]

trying not to overthink this, but what paper did you try it on? The “intended use” on paper is book jackets, i believe, which are often either varnished paper or heavily printed… essentially a coated paper. Perhaps the poor performance is due to paper porisity?

Testing first… for sure!

hpr

[Jason Greenberg Motamedi]

Trying not to overthink this, but what paper did you try it on? ... Perhaps the poor performance is due to paper porisity?

That is an interesting point. I notice that Renaissance Wax does not work so well on my current paper of choice, Legion Revere, and works better on other papers I have used. Have to think about which those were. All that said, in my typical printing process (gold-toned kallitypes) have not seen much of a difference between Renaissance Wax and beeswax/lavender, and neither created a huge difference in the dark tones.

[Fred L]

I have a small tin of RW and have used it on postcards printed on old Kodak fiber based stock. No idea how it will, if at all, affect the print, but it's a postcard so I don't expect a long lifespan.

btw-I'm not familiar with the hpr acronym, can someone shed some...light ;)

[Jason Greenberg Motamedi]

Hahnemühle Platinum Rag?

[Fred L]

ah right. response to a paper query. thanks. I've settled on Revere Platinum. Still have some Hahnemühle around so may end up giving it away to friends.

[Drew Wiley]

Brian - there's a lot of irony to all kinds of finishes. Take for example, eco friendly acrylic water based paints - they're petroleum based. But most traditional oil paints were derived from vegetable oils (soy, tung, oiticica, linseed, etc). Now many kinds of hybrid finishes exist too. Waxes are in a different category. And then there are shellacs - basically shed aphid raincoats scraped off trees in India. But most people eat a fair amount of insect shellac without even knowing it. The biggest importer of all is See's Candy.

I try to avoid the whole issue when it comes to prints. Sometimes I have to use a tiny amount of retouching color to a color print, and the sheen dries wrong. And for that kind of application I've tried all kinds of supplemental clear treatments, with nothing truly satisfactory yet. And I've salvaged scuffed ordinary glossy silver gelatin prints using Renaissance Wax, but certainly wouldn't include something like that in a serious portfolio. Same with gum arabic wipe-ons on RC color chromogenic prints. Fine for a gift print, but not otherwise.
I don't know the truly long-term effects.

Textured papers impose a whole other dimension of challenge.

[paulbarden]

Hahnemühle Platinum Rag?

That's what I meant by HPR, yes.

[bob carnie]

ah right. response to a paper query. thanks. I've settled on Revere Platinum. Still have some Hahnemühle around so may end up giving it away to friends.

I like to think I am your friend Fred , you can give the HPR to me

[Fred L]

I like to think I am your friend Fred , you can give the HPR to me:)

[Erik Larsen]

Not sure if this is relevant to the discussion but I have used a product called Dorland Wax Medium on various types of alt prints. I apply crudely a thin layer with my finger over the print and then use a hairdryer to melt the medium and it flows out nicely. It does enhance the blacks a bit. According to the label it contains numerous waxes including paraffin and beeswax as well as resin and mineral spirits. I have no idea how archival it is and I have no delusions my work needs to last centuries. Just another option…

[Fred L]

I like to think I am your friend Fred , you can give the HPR to me

just a heads up Bob, I couldn't find the HPR (11x15 size) I had but will keep digging around the darkroom.