Re: Gum without glass

Date view Thread view Subject view Author view

From: Bob Kiss (bobkiss@caribsurf.com)
Date: 04/04/02-09:24:25 PM Z


DEAR LAZLO KATHERINE,
    When you get it , please send it to me off list and I will send it to...
Just kidding! ;-))
                CHEERS!
                    BOB

> 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
############################################################################
#########
> This e-mail message has been scanned for Viruses and Content and cleared
> by MailMarshal
> For more information please visit www.marshalsoftware.com
>
############################################################################
#########


Date view Thread view Subject view Author view

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