Platinum/Palladium prints...varnished

[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.