Re: Lacquering of Platinum/palladium prints

Judy Seigel (jseigel@panix.com)
Sun, 8 Sep 1996 08:54:44 -0400 (EDT)

On Sat, 7 Sep 1996 SCHRAMMR@WLSVAX.WVNET.EDU wrote:
> do anything that can't be undone. I suppose there are worse things
> than coating a platinium print with stuff, but offhand and right now
> I can't think of any and now that I have gotten into this I will risk
> commenting that I can't imagine why anyone would want a glossy
> platinium print or even think that it is a good idea and yes, I know
> all about F, E, G, S surface paper and how it changes the appearence
> of the image, but we are talking platinium print here.

As for the gelatine on factory paper, that's so heavily hardened (isn't
that what "super-coating" means?) bugs don't usually trouble to lunch on
it -- except if you've softened it up by soaking in floodwater (or
whatever) for several days....

As for the lacquer-look on hand-coated prints: However we may think we have a
personal esthetic, unless we fight it step by step and even then it's
uphill -- we take on the values of our time. Today photography
expects/demands a wide contrast range -- our gods are D-max and paper
white. But I recall Paul Anderson, circa 1930, describing a particular
size/colloid combination with the promise that the print surface would be
*absolutely* mat. In those days a mat surface was the ideal -- as was, in
large degree, *lack* of contrast. It was common to put an overall tone
under a print, or to work on toned paper. (And to "soft focus" platinum
prints, though that's another story....)

Cheers,
Judy