RE: Gum without glass

Date view Thread view Subject view Author view

From: Keith Gerling (keithgerling@att.net)
Date: 04/04/02-10:59:18 PM Z


And then will you tell the rest of us, Laszlo? >grin<

-----Original Message-----
From: Laszlo_Layton@spe.sony.com [mailto:Laszlo_Layton@spe.sony.com]
Sent: Thursday, April 04, 2002 4:07 PM
To: alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca
Subject: Re: Gum without glass

C'mon Katherine...two people have asked you about your photo sealant
now...I'll be the third. What is it? Is it your own secret recipe?? I
need a sealer that doesn't alter the look of the paper. Can you e-mail
me off-list if you don't want to share with everyone? Thanks!

Laszlo

Halvor <halvorb@mac.com> on 04/03/2002 07:34:32 AM

Please respond to alt-photo-process-l@skyway.usask.ca

To: alt-photo-process-l@skyway.usask.ca
cc: (bcc: Laszlo Layton/LA/SPE)
Subject: Re: Gum without glass

on 02.04.02 23:03, Katharine Thayer at kthayer@pacifier.com wrote:

> Judy Seigel wrote:
>>
>>
>> I'd make a distinction between SHOWING the work and long-term
position on
>> a wall under real-life conditions.
>
> And I for one wouldn't think of showing work that I wasn't pretty sure
> could endure being on a wall longterm under real-life conditions. In
an
> earlier answer to Keith's question I described how I planned to seal
> the work to make it impervious to moisture and other kinds of damage,
> which I tested on a prototype before going ahead and mounting and
> sealing the exhibition prints. The sealant is completely invisible and
> adds no sheen or plastic quality to the print, but seals the paper
both
> front and back.

This sealant, what is it ? sorry if you have already mentioned it but
the
amount of mails going through this list is a bit much sometimes. Would
like
to try something similar with my pt/pd

thanks
 Halvor Bjoerngaard

>I suspect the print is probably better protected against
> moisture this way than if it were framed under glass. On the other
hand,
> it is probably more vulnerable to physical damage; although my testing
> demonstrated that scratches and marks could be wiped off or buffed
out,
> a deep gouge could happen and would be harder to fix. On the other
hand,
> anything that would hit the front of an unframed print hard enough to
> gouge it, might well break the glass if it hit the front of a framed
> print at the same intensity, and the broken glass could gouge the
print.
> So I don't know.... seems like six dozen of one and half a dozen dozen
> of the other.
>
> kt


Date view Thread view Subject view Author view

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 05/01/02-11:43:28 AM Z CST