Except in photography "the solution" may be the problem. (Sorry, some
things are not meant to be resisted.) What I gather Bob is saying is
that a thick coating of gelatine on the back of a print is not a good idea.
But that if the print were then soaked in glyoxal, it would be less bad?
As for the "look" of lacquer, I haven't liked the look of such varnishes
as I've tried for gum (& the warning about long-term effects is duly
registered), but as I wrote some months ago, there is a glow and depth to
the wet gum print that is amazingly wonderful & missed in the finished dry
print, no matter how many layers are added. I had read a passage in Puyo
about "vernis Soehnee," which, according to his description, gave that
depth back to the print, deepening the darks, without glassing up the
paper lights.
I've come across reference to it again in French circa 1904, but no one
has been able to tell me what it was. Something diluted with alcohol, so
perhaps some kind of shellac, and perhaps also a way to feed the
fishies. But I sure did want to try it.... Any further suggestions would
be most welcome...
And PS. Please note that given an archival paper, and the absence of
fauna, a gum print in archival pigments is said to be *more* permanent than
platinum...
PPS. My server is under some kind of attack, it seems. The message
received on logging on was ominous, about disruptive signals or messages
sent 150 per second. There is apparently no way to combat this, only for
the perpetrator to tire of the game. From the tone of the opening screen
I was surprised to be able to read and write e-mail. Well, hail, if not
farewell. (Life is *so* interesting.)
Cheers, Judy