From: Judy Seigel (jseigel@panix.com)
Date: 01/30/01-02:46:49 AM Z
On Mon, 29 Jan 2001, Peter Fredrik wrote:
> Judy's preference however has been proved over a greater period of time for
> > instance Fox Talbot used the method in his Calotype process which has
> stood the test of time, although I believe it has problems with laser
> prints causing smearing of the heat sensitive ink/tonor.
>
The problem was that the toner semi-melted in the wax & tended to offset
onto whatever it lay on during the waxing. I found that for the purposes
of tri-color gum, where there was not only the dot gain of gum, but also
at least 3 layers angled over one another on a textured paper, didn't
show, didn't matter. But for a dainty platinum print on totally smooth, it
might (I've never printed dainty anything so can't say).
I did eliminate let's say 3/4 of the offsetting by laying the print being
waxed face down on a sheet of silicon release paper, just wiping the
back, and not moving the print until finished. There might still be some
visible unevenness in the darkest darks of the neg when held to the
light, but that could also have been texture of the paper fiber (fibre to
you, I believe). In any event, tho texture was visible in the neg, it
never seemed visible in the print.
However, that is one of the reasons for torture by inkjet at this moment:
the inkjet ink doesn't offset in hot paraffin -- at all.
I was under the impression, incidentally, that Fox Talbot used beeswax,
which I also believe operates differently. If I were to wax again, think
I'd start with beeswax & see where that got to.
Judy
............................................................................
Judy Seigel, Editor
World Journal of Post-Factory Photography ===== "HOW-TO and WHY"
<http://rmp.opusis.com/postfactory/postfactory.html>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 02/05/01-11:45:24 AM Z CST