Matte Photo Paper and Contrast?

Gerald C Koch · Oct 13, 2017

Sal Santamaura said:
On the contrary, yellowing is common. See these for example:

https://books.google.com/books?id=5xnLCQAAQBAJ&pg=PT169&lpg=PT169&dq=varnish+photographic+prints+yellowing&source=bl&ots=EFApfFUkQt&sig=kjYo4ZgXsz9WjVUDzHiuQGBcQuM&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwin9emh7u3WAhUb3YMKHcvZCfIQ6AEItgEwGA#v=onepage&q=varnish photographic prints yellowing&f=false

https://books.google.com/books?id=pjzbRRXSIpQC&pg=PA231&lpg=PA231&dq=varnish+photographic+prints+yellowing&source=bl&ots=rybltV5yJ5&sig=Fo1I5eYPPUG62sXf1T2w1guOMks&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwin9emh7u3WAhUb3YMKHcvZCfIQ6AEIvQEwGw#v=onepage&q=varnish photographic prints yellowing&f=false

https://www.summitprintingpro.com/resources/paper-coatings.html

An excerpt from the last one:

"...varnishes have other drawbacks too. One problem is that over time, they tend to yellow..."
In "The Print," Adams cautions that, while there are advantages to varnishing prints, adverse effects on archival qualities are of concern.

None of the articles cited really apply to what AA described. The key here is in the amount of varnish applied. Obviously if you paint it on there will be problems. However the lithographer's varnish is diluted with a much larger volume of solvent. This is applied sparingly to the print and immediately wiped off. Wiping with a clean cloth continues until no varnish is visible. We're talking about a coating a few molecules thick. As I said the amount is so small that even if it should yellow you would never be able to see it. From my own experience there is no yellowing even after decades nor was there any other effects visible. The advantage of using the technique is an increase in contrast and an increase in the Dmax of the darker blackss.

Your concern is appreciated but does no seem to apply to the AA technique. Now other s may have done things incorrectly and experienced problems.

CMoore · Oct 13, 2017

Well, that was awful.
This was a brand new member.
I understand the Rules/Reason/Concern, but i also did not know we are required to cite the ownership of a photo.

MattKing · Oct 13, 2017

CMoore said:
Well, that was awful.
This was a brand new member.
I understand the Rules/Reason/Concern, but i also did not know we are required to cite the ownership of a photo.

I think the concern arose because the wording of her post made it possible to take more than one meaning from it, and one reasonable choice was to infer that she was claiming that the linked to photo was her own.
I didn't read it that way. Others might have.

Gerald C Koch · Oct 13, 2017

I don't find anything in the OP where the poster is claiming ownership of the image. Indeed I believe that most everyone considered it to be used as an illustration. As far as a rule is concerned please cite it here I'd like to read it!.

Unless the OP is in possession of a time machine it is so obvious that she couldn't have taken it. I would seriously suggest that there are better things to complain about.

jvo · Oct 16, 2017

welcome tp photrio!

RalphLambrecht · Oct 16, 2017

Lucy_the_magic_panda said:
View attachment 188131

Hello,

I prefer to use fiber paper but I have never purchased matte coating. I have been told by some that it is very hard, if not impossible to get strong contast with matte fiber paper. Is there any truth to that? I prefer to print with more contrast and rich, dark blacks. I am looking at Ilford's Matt Fiber Multigrade right now. Would I be able to get good contrast with this paper and some help from my filters? Any tips for achieving that or other paper recommendations?

I've included the picture as an example of the range I like to work in.

Thank you!

Due to the surface structure of matte paper , it reflects more stray light than other surface finishes and the measured Dmax is lower; justas inherent characteristic of matte paper. The highest Dmax values are always observed in a glossy paper finish but, that doesn't mean that a matte paper isn't a good fit for a certain image.

MattKing · Oct 16, 2017

This looks good on a matte surface:

M Carter · Oct 17, 2017

Gerald C Koch said:
However the lithographer's varnish is diluted with a much larger volume of solvent. This is applied sparingly to the print and immediately wiped off. Wiping with a clean cloth continues until no varnish is visible. We're talking about a coating a few molecules thick.

I dunno about everyone else, but this is right up my alley. I google for an hour today and found no recipes or technique - anyone have the scoop on what this procedure is, what the materials are, and if they're still available? (Sorry, I just really like sort of obscure processes).

Smudger · Oct 17, 2017

M Carter said:
I dunno about everyone else, but this is right up my alley. I google for an hour today and found no recipes or technique - anyone have the scoop on what this procedure is, what the materials are, and if they're still available? (Sorry, I just really like sort of obscure processes).

If you want to try the "Varnish Effect" I would advise you read up on "Renaissance Wax". Solvent free,micro-crystalline.

Gerald C Koch · Oct 18, 2017

M Carter said:
I dunno about everyone else, but this is right up my alley. I google for an hour today and found no recipes or technique - anyone have the scoop on what this procedure is, what the materials are, and if they're still available? (Sorry, I just really like sort of obscure processes).

As I mentioned the recipe and technique is in the Ansel Adams book The Print, First Edition. The information is in the back of the book.

You can also wax the prints. You need a hard wax like carnauba. It is found in car waxes and many photographers Simonized their prints.

M Carter · Oct 19, 2017

Smudger said:
If you want to try the "Varnish Effect" I would advise you read up on "Renaissance Wax". Solvent free,micro-crystalline.

I've seen that, but I see it's made for protecting metal, and is said to have a cleaning and protecting effect when buffed. Is this in any way like a polishing grit, or is it simply wax?

Gerald C Koch said:
As I mentioned the recipe and technique is in the Ansel Adams book The Print, First Edition. The information is in the back of the book. You can also wax the prints. You need a hard wax like carnauba. It is found in car waxes and many photographers Simonized their prints.

Is it only in the first edition? Googled it but no info I could find. I don't have my copy of "The Print", think it was loaned out at some point.

Gerald C Koch · Oct 19, 2017

M Carter said:
I've seen that, but I see it's made for protecting metal, and is said to have a cleaning and protecting effect when buffed. Is this in any way like a polishing grit, or is it simply wax?

Is it only in the first edition? Googled it but no info I could find. I don't have my copy of "The Print", think it was loaned out at some point.

The Print was completely rewritten for the second edition. I have not seen the formula there.

pentaxuser · Oct 19, 2017

M Carter said:
I've seen that, but I see it's made for protecting metal, and is said to have a cleaning and protecting effect when buffed. Is this in any way like a polishing grit, or is it simply wax?
Is it only in the first edition? Googled it but no info I could find. I don't have my copy of "The Print", think it was loaned out at some point.

I have the 1968 edition published by Morgan and Morgan Inc, Hasting-on -Hudson N.Y. On Page 118 there is a section on Print Varnish which is about a paragraph long. It mentions buying a bottle of Carbona ( Carbon Tetrachloride) and a can of Lithographer's varnish No 1. Is this the varnish that is being referred to here.

If Gerald can confirm I have the correct section I am happy to correspond further in a PM. .

pentaxuser

Gerald C Koch · Oct 19, 2017

pentaxuser said:
I have the 1968 edition published by Morgan and Morgan Inc, Hasting-on -Hudson N.Y. On Page 118 there is a section on Print Varnish which is about a paragraph long. It mentions buying a bottle of Carbona ( Carbon Tetrachloride) and a can of Lithographer's varnish No 1. Is this the varnish that is being referred to here.

If Gerald can confirm I have the correct section I am happy to correspond further in a PM. .

pentaxuser

Yes, that's the one for those who wish to try the method do not use Carbona or carbon tetrachloride as it is very toxic to the liver. Use trichlorethylene instead.

pentaxuser · Oct 19, 2017

Gerald C Koch said:
Yes, that's the one for those who wish to try the method do not use Carbona or carbon tetrachloride as it is very toxic to the liver. Use trichlorethylene instead.

Yes, Gerald, I did wonder about the mention of Carbon Tetrachloride, given its now-known toxicity. It was a common cleaner for engine parts in the 50s and early 60s. It was amazing stuff in terms of its cleaning power. Mechanics such as my Dad used it happily then

Anyway it talks of adding the Lithographer's varnish until the Carbona is a lemon-yellow colour after shaking. Does this colour still apply with trichlorethylene?

I have no intention of using the varnish myself but if MCarter wants to try it he needs to know if the use of trichlorethylene changes anything

Thanks

pentaxuser

ic-racer · Oct 19, 2017

Use pure carnauba wax; the kind one puts on candy.

Gerald C Koch · Oct 19, 2017

Yes you get the same lemon yellow solution color with TCE.

Sal Santamaura · Oct 20, 2017

M Carter said:
...Is it only in the first edition? Googled it but no info I could find...

The later edition is where one finds Adams to have cautioned that, while there are advantages to varnishing prints, adverse effects on archival qualities are of concern. He no longer provided any varnish formula. Draw your own conclusions.

Gerald C Koch · Oct 20, 2017

Since lithographer's varnish is used and lithography has been shown as an archival process I would expect its use on prints to be archival too. I have prints which are over half way to being archival that exhibit no ill effects. I would concentrate on the advantages of the process. Does anyone on APUG have any physical proof (ie damaged prints) that varnishing with AA method causes physical harm to prints?

BTW tintypes were usually varnished to protect them. Some are over 150 years old and they show no adverse effect. So draw your own conclusions. However I would conclude that varnishing qualifies as archival.

M Carter · Oct 20, 2017

pentaxuser said:
I have no intention of using the varnish myself but if MCarter wants to try it he needs to know if the use of trichlorethylene changes anything

Oh yeah, I understand that's nasty stuff. Not sure if I'd include varnish or wax in my overall workflow, but I usually prefer matte prints to gloss. I've gathered up the usual ton of notes from various discussions, at some point I may dry mount a couple duplicate prints, coat half of both of them, and then experiment with how they look under glass. Curious as to gaining any sense of deeper blacks that would be visible under glass, I'm sure I could come up with some empirical testing.

pentaxuser · Oct 20, 2017

M Carter: Hell, it's late here in downtown U.K. but I take it from the above post that you have no need of the paragraph from what appears to be edition 1 of AA's "Print"
If you change your mind then let me know, he says as he saddles up to leave town at Sunset.

I have just invoked the spirit of "The Duke" in another post and it is difficult to get out of character

pentaxuser

Sirius Glass · Oct 21, 2017

All this varnish talk is making me wax eloquent.

Matte Photo Paper and Contrast?

Gerald C Koch

CMoore

MattKing

Moderator

Gerald C Koch

jvo

RalphLambrecht

MattKing

Moderator

M Carter

Smudger

Gerald C Koch

M Carter

Gerald C Koch

pentaxuser

Gerald C Koch

pentaxuser

ic-racer

Gerald C Koch

Sal Santamaura

Gerald C Koch

M Carter

pentaxuser

Sirius Glass

Matte Photo Paper and Contrast?

Moderator

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency