Dmax in Pt/Pd increased by wax - process details anyone?

[RobertP]

Loris, Sorry, What I should have said was applying like you would the gelatin sizing. The step prior to applying the gum with a roller. Its obvious I don't do many gum overs.

 

[deisenlord]

I've found a good way to remove swirls was by buffing with a shoe brush....

 

[clay]

I just make sure it is warm enough not to glop and ball up when I smooth it on with the t-shirt material. I tried using molten wax one time and it just sort of went straight through the paper. I am sure with some experimentation on old prints a way could be found to make this work with liquid wax. Then you could call them platino-encaustic prints. Hell, if you can smear wax on an inkjet print and call it an encaustic print, this would be no big deal.

Clay, So is the heated wax applied with a soft cloth in circular motions? Or can the wax be heated to liquid form and then applied with a puddle pusher in one sweeping motion much like a layer of gum is applied? Thanks

 

[RobertP]

I'm wondering if warming it a little with a hair dryer may help in smoothing out the wax marks? I need to experiment a little more with it. I tried it once and I'm sure I put it on a little to thick ( swirl mark city). I then tried it with the wax warmed and almost liquid and it seemed I damaged the fibers of the paper by buffing it. Thanks

 

[sanking]

Well no, I was not kidding. I tried several things to increase sheen of pt/pd prints and while some of them added a bit of Dmax the look after treatment was less appealing to me than before treatment. Like I said, just not worth the trouble IMO.

Sandy

Although I don't see the smilely faces, I can only presume you are joking Sandy (although I agree - I've tried it and the difference in dmax isn't worth the bother to me. As Arentz says - you'll never achieve the high dmaxs of a silver paper, so get used to it or switch to silver. Let the eye be fooled into accepting the dmax on Pt/Pd that you do achieve)

 

[Loris Medici]

Hi Sandy,

Absolutely no objections to your subjective statement below. As a matter of fact, I don't like that "blingy" look too; what draws me to Pt/Pd (and other iron processes) is the matte / easy-to-view result I can have with them. But as I said before, the varnished prints definitely look considerably more punchy/dark (and they'ree more suitable to exhibit w/o glazing). Therefore learning and practicing various procedures to produce shiny/higher dmax alt-process prints can be most useful to photogs who want that particular look...

Regards,
Loris.

... the look after treatment was less appealing to me than before treatment. Like I said, just not worth the trouble IMO.

 

[Lukas Werth]

I don't think I ever tried waxing, but I varnished, and that does not only rise dmax (this is not the reason I do it), but increases shadow differentiation, getting back a bit from the magic the image held when seen under water.

 

[Loris Medici]

Hi Lukas,

If what you're after is just better shadow detail, maybe you can just manipulate the negatives so that the resulting print exhibit good shadow tones separation "without varnising it"... e.g. slightly more exposure (reduction in film speed) and slightly less development with your current coating solution, or, just use negatives with more density range and suit your coating solution to that -> for instance, I use negatives calibrated for cyanotype (having a density range of log 1.5) for printing gum... That way, I have very good shadow separation.

Regards,
Loris.

 

[Lukas Werth]

Hi Lukas,

If what you're after is just better shadow detail, maybe you can just manipulate the negatives so that the resulting print exhibit good shadow tones separation "without varnising it"... e.g. slightly more exposure (reduction in film speed) and slightly less development with your current coating solution, or, just use negatives with more density range and suit your coating solution to that -> for instance, I use negatives calibrated for cyanotype (having a density range of log 1.5) for printing gum... That way, I have very good shadow separation.

Regards,
Loris.

Loris,
I don't think this is a matter of improving the negative/contrast control. It is principally the case that a platinum picture (other alternative prints, too) has a shine and debth, that is, a shadow separation which it loses when dry. This dry-down effect is due to the different light reflection of the paper fibres when dry and can never be mended by optimizing the print, because it is due to the nature of the substrate. If you varnish the print, however, at least a part of that lustre it showed under water may be regained. But the difference is clearly there! The shadows simply shine!
So, I often read that the paper, "haptic" quality of platinum or other alternative prints, including he matte surface, is very much cherished and part of the attraction of these prints. I cannot help thinking, however, that this particular aesthetic perception should not be written in stone, but open to re-evaluation. After all, paintings are also routinely varnished, and nobody complains.

 

[Loris Medici]

Lukas you're right, my suggestion was -> if you don't like the extra step of varnishing and all you care is to have more shadow detail in the print you can just push the shadow tones in the negative to the straight portion of the print's curve by manipulating the negative. I often do this with dig. negatives. If you pay attention to leave some blank parts in the negative (dmax in the print), nobody seems to - notice that and - complaint that the medium is low contrast (because all significant tones are compressed between the upper-shadows and highlights). This practice give the "illusion" of punch and better shadow detail pretty successfully. On the other hand, it's not the same as a properly dark/deep varnished print.

Regards,
Loris.

Loris,
I don't think this is a matter of improving the negative/contrast control. It is principally the case that a platinum picture (other alternative prints, too) has a shine and debth, that is, a shadow separation which it loses when dry. This dry-down effect is due to the different light reflection of the paper fibres when dry and can never be mended by optimizing the print, because it is due to the nature of the substrate. If you varnish the print, however, at least a part of that lustre it showed under water may be regained. But the difference is clearly there! The shadows simply shine!
So, I often read that the paper, "haptic" quality of platinum or other alternative prints, including he matte surface, is very much cherished and part of the attraction of these prints. I cannot help thinking, however, that this particular aesthetic perception should not be written in stone, but open to re-evaluation. After all, paintings are also routinely varnished, and nobody complains.

 

[Don12x20]

I cannot help thinking, however, that this particular aesthetic perception should not be written in stone, but open to re-evaluation. After all, paintings are also routinely varnished, and nobody complains.

Lukas
There is nothing written in stone in alt process -- you do what works for you. Most of us don't like the shine with waxing (or coating with whatever product to produce gloss) but at the end of the day -- you have to please yourself (and/or clients that may purchase your work).
regards
Don

 

[RobertP]

Waxing or coating can not increase the shadow detail in a print. It can create the illusion of raising dmax but technically it can not add any detail that is not already there. If your are after more sheen or shine and want maximum dmax why not just choose a paper like azo to print on? Of course, like Don said, what ever floats your boat.

 

[Lukas Werth]

Waxing or coating can not increase the shadow detail in a print. It can create the illusion of raising dmax but technically it can not add any detail that is not already there. If your are after more sheen or shine and want maximum dmax why not just choose a paper like azo to print on? Of course, like Don said, what ever floats your boat.

Well, I contend it can. The point I tried to make is not about technical properties, but about appearances, about looks. Remember the dry-down effect! You may also say that technically there is nothing more in the picture than when it is dry - but it looks different. Technically I would say that the dry-down compresses shadow tones.

I am grateful, of course, that I am allowed to do as I please; however, this thread looks a bit to me like an effort to nail down a conventional aesthetic standard, this is why I feel I should argue my point.
By the way, I also sometimes like the matte look of a print (though there are also matt and semi-matte varnishes), but this is very much also a matter of what you want to do with a print.

Another thought which occurs to me right now is: do some people cherish the matte look of a print so much because they take it as a distinguishing mark of a hand-crafted print?

 

[Loris Medici]

...this thread looks a bit to me like an effort to nail down a conventional aesthetic standard, this is why I feel I should argue my point...

...Another thought which occurs to me right now is: do some people cherish the matte look of a print so much because they take it as a distinguishing mark of a hand-crafted print?...

Hi Lukas,

Not that I believe that comment was about me, just for the records: I don't believe in strict standards (why to struggle with alt-process if I did?) and use the freedom of both varnishing the prints or not. (Remember my Hydrocote suggestion? Been there done that...)

I personally like the matte surface because it's easy to view and exhibit matte prints. Not every exhibition place has perfect/adequate lighting. For instance in Turkey, specifically, such exhibition places are exceptions!

Regards,
Loris.

 

[sanking]

Well, I for one am not making an effort to nail down a conventional aesthetic standard. I just don't like the look of waxed pt/pd prints and since I have a perfect right to say what I think that is what I have done. I have tried waxing and just don't like the look. Period. If indeed waxing could return the look of a pt/pd print when wet that would be another thing, but it does not in my opinion.

As for what people see as a hand crafted print it has nothing to do with matte look as far a I am concerned. All of my hand made carbon transfer prints have some sheen, and some of them are as glossy as silver gelatin prints on glossy papers, with the added feature of the relief of course.

Sandy

I am grateful, of course, that I am allowed to do as I please; however, this thread looks a bit to me like an effort to nail down a conventional aesthetic standard, this is why I feel I should argue my point.
By the way, I also sometimes like the matte look of a print (though there are also matt and semi-matte varnishes), but this is very much also a matter of what you want to do with a print.

Another thought which occurs to me right now is: do some people cherish the matte look of a print so much because they take it as a distinguishing mark of a hand-crafted print?

 

[Katharine Thayer]

Another thought which occurs to me right now is: do some people cherish the matte look of a print so much because they take it as a distinguishing mark of a hand-crafted print?

Umm, no, not in my case anyway. Back in the days before I took up gum printing as my sole means of photographic expression and was printing in traditional silver materials, I loved printing on matte surface papers, and was very unhappy when manufacturers discontinued them in favor of semigloss or pearl surfaces. I just really LIKE the look of a print without any gloss to it, handcrafted or not.
Katharine

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

I picked up Lee Valley's version of Renaissance Wax, Conservator's Wax. I checked the Dmax which was 1.19 (not a very high Dmax to begin with but that's what this print was), and scanned it. I rubbed on a thin coat, buffed after it had dried. Applied another thin coat and buffed when dried. Checked the Dmax and it read 1.26. So, there is a slight increase in Dmax but visually I couldn't see the difference. It does look a bit richer, but that's probably due to the sheen.
I have scans of before and after, but the difference between the two is so subtle I couldn't see the difference on the monitor.

Would Dmax increase with more coats? It didn't for me. In fact, it decreased to 1.22 after of 6 coats. Visually, I couldn't see this loss. The image did look juicier though. Two coats was good enough. Have any of you waxers out there experienced this loss of Dmax before? Perhaps someone smarter than me can explain. It reminds me of when selenium toning silver prints that papers after a certain time, will begin to lose Dmax.

I have to agree with Sandy's opinion that waxing does not bring the print back to when it was "wet". Just place a waxed print beside a just processed print of the same image and you will see.

I'm going to make two identical kallitype prints. One will get waxed and the other won't. I'll stick them on my wall and observe the waxed print over time to see if there is any discolouration.
Thanks for reading...

 

[Loris Medici]

Can't speak for waxing, but Sandy's comment wasn't just about waxing -> he said "tried all the methods"... Try Hydrocote Polyshield Clear Gloss first (its effect is well documented among b&w inkjet printing community) and then draw the final line. With that product, you should get someting like log 0.3-0.4 increase in dmax.

...I have to agree with Sandy's opinion that waxing does not bring the print back to when it was "wet". Just place a waxed print beside a just processed print of the same image and you will see...

 

[Lukas Werth]

Umm, no, not in my case anyway. Back in the days before I took up gum printing as my sole means of photographic expression and was printing in traditional silver materials, I loved printing on matte surface papers, and was very unhappy when manufacturers discontinued them in favor of semigloss or pearl surfaces. I just really LIKE the look of a print without any gloss to it, handcrafted or not.
Katharine

Katharine,
regarding brom silver printing; when last year I actually made some baryta prints, I tried glossy and matte surfaces and decided that on the whole, I liked matte better - also because they are easier to hand-colour, should I want so.

Katharine and Loris,

Regarding gum prints, with my technique of fixing the paper on a rigid substrate in order to re-register for larger prints, I found I have to varnish them in order to keep the gum from somewhat dissolving again in the hot water bath which is necessary for separating the paper again from the substrate. I used some semi-matte varnish which did not make the prints glossy, nor did it actually obscure the paper surface, it added a silky sheen. I printed a small portfolio last year which was exhibited twice, once in the Pergamon Museum, Berlin, and this winter/spring in the Anthropological Museum, Munich. As I said, this was first by necessity, but I noted an increased luminosity of my prints at home. The ambient light particularly in the Pergamon Museum was somewhat difficult, and even though I had no direct comparison, because all my prints I brought there were varnished, I was very pleased how well they fared there, also being under glass.

All the same, I am somewhat concerned about permanence. For me, the permanence of alt prints is an issue, and I don't want to compromise this through the varnish. On the other hand, a varnished print may possibly also be exhibited without glass. I cannot help thinking this adds an immediacy to many prints, of mine, at least.

Sandy and Andrew, I have never tried waxing, and I don't know how a waxed print looks in comparison to a varnished one. I note that varnishing may bring you back not the whole, yes, but a part of the lost luminosity (I have varnished reject prints partly to check that). I do not have a reflection densitometer, but my point is also not so much about measurable dmax. Of course, then again it is question whether one still likes the feel of a print.