From: Katharine Thayer (kthayer@pacifier.com)
Date: 02/15/02-07:44:29 AM Z
Actually, now that I give it one more thought, if I'd thought of
sending the prints to Darryl unprotected I no doubt would have rejected
the idea, out of fear of the prints being damaged. In fact we may have
actually had that conversation at the time. I'm going to shut up now; it
seems like I'm too rushed and tired at the moment to make sense and
need a "spokesperson" like presidents have, to come after me and say
"What she really meant was..." Catch you all later,
kt
Bill Collins wrote:
>
> Does the mylar have less glare than glass?
>
> Bill
> ---------- Original Message ----------------------------------
> From: "Robert W. Schramm" <schrammrus@hotmail.com>
> Reply-to: alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca
> Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 14:43:05 -0500
>
> >
> >I think all alt process prints look better without glass but, of course,
> >then they have no protection. I put some platinum prints on display last
> >year without glass but the surface was protected with very thin sheet of
> >mylar (polyester D) under the mat. I was pleased with the result.
> >
> >Isn't there an old story about a student who asked his instructor how to
> >display platinum prints so that they looked their best and the instructor
> >said , "under two inches of water."
> >
> >I confess that I have put multiple coats of acrylic spray on a platinum
> >print to make it look better. Of course I know that is heresy and I run the
> >risk of being drummed out of platinum printers corps for confessing that.
> >;-)
> >
> >In Paris I saw some Demachy gum prints without glass. They were, to take
> >your breath away. What a shame it would have been to cover them with glass.
> >
> >Glass is not a solid and has some unusual properties. Old glass on
> >daguerreotypes tends to get darker with time and has to be replaced. Perhaps
> >this is a chemical reaction between the silver, mercury and glass.
> >
> >Bob Schramm
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 03/08/02-09:45:21 AM Z CST