Waxing Prints

[edz]

Edward,
Where does someone get photo-quality beeswax, Carnuba wax and Dammar/Damar? What is Damar?

Source really depends upon where you are located. An excellent source in the US and Germany is Kremer Pigments: http://www.kremer-pigmente.de/
They have shops in Munich, Stuttgart and NYC (SoHo) and do mail order. They are very good and one of the premiere vendors of historical pigments on the planet.

What is Damar?
It is a tree resin typically collected in tropical regions such as Indonesia and Malaysia. The best is probably from the island of Sumatera. Dutch master painters of the 19th century took to using the resin-- which had become widely available from trade with their East Indian colonies-- to varnish their paintings. In contrast to mastic-- which too one needs to follow power politics and colonialism as Chios was siezed by Venetians and the Genoeses before it fell to the Ottomans -- it neither tends to bloom, crack or yellow. It not only adds gloss and translucence but also hardens and raises the melting point of the wax.

The "archival" nature of these materials is pretty well understood and under constant study given the observations that much of the artworks in our museums used them--- something that can't be said of the popular acrylic varnishes. The main conservators downside to resins like Damar is that they are difficult to remove. The wax I presented, for instance, is not completely reversable.

 

[kwmullet]

just awesome. Literally so.

The things I've learned from folks like you Edward, on APUG are things I never new existed -- and I've been associated with photography on and off (professional on and off) since about 1977. Things like split filter printing, pyro, and now print waxing have been around forever, but I've never been exposed to them.

I feel like Neo in The Matrix. An entire reality that supercedes the one I thought existed has been revealed, and I get to experience the joy of learning photography all over again from the start. No sarcasm. The cyclical implications of this site are one of its great joys -- being born again in your art.

I fully expect that in about ten or fifteen years, I'll be sharing these joys with others and will experience another insight upheaval. It's like "photography as buddhic koan". Just when you thought you'd "gotten it", the outer layer is shed and a whole new set of truths appears.

-KwM-

 

[Michael Mutmansky]

I suggest you be very careful with the use of damar varnish. It will yellow over time, and as far as I'm concerned, a noticeable yellowing should indicate that it is not truly an archival product.

Here's a reference to an oil painting website with a test for yellowing of various oil media and additives (go most of the way down the page).

http://www.mauigateway.com/~donjusko/oilyellow.htm

The information should not be directly applied to photographic prints, but I think you can get some anecdotal information from the tests done on this site.


---Michael

 

[mobtown_4x5]

this is a very informative thread.

Thanks for posting the link to that German forum- I wish I could read it in detail, but then again those Babel Fish (Douglas Adams rocks) translations are awsome...

 

[edz]

I suggest you be very careful with the use of damar varnish. It will yellow over time, and as far as I'm concerned, a noticeable yellowing should indicate that it is not truly an archival product.

So mastic and amber are not archival. They yellow big time. And the art work they cover? Don't confuse the aging (or patinazation) of the varnish or even its deteriorization with the effects on the underlying art. When these varnishes are used to protect art from the environment (and they do a very good job) they do indeed need to be "replaced", should the painting be intended to survive many milenia, every fractional century or so. The current fashion among conservators is to use reversable synthetic resins designed to mimic the look of the traditional varnish. The pigments used in these painting NEED the varnish not just for aesthetics but also, like the clear coat of modern auto paints, for protection.

Here's a reference to an oil painting website with a test for yellowing of various oil media and additives (go most of the way down the page).

http://www.mauigateway.com/~donjusko/oilyellow.htm

The information should not be directly applied to photographic prints, but I think you can get some anecdotal information from the tests done on this site.

and the slogan of that site is: "Dammar and Wax do not yellow."
So what's wrong with Damar?

And yes Damar does age but we are also talking about photographs and I'd suspect that prints varnished with Damar or even Zapon varnishes will have been better protected from the environmental pollutants of the industrial and especially auto bound society that developed alongside photography.

Also don't confuse my Beeswax polish with a Damar (or any) varnish. It is not 100% reversible but I see no reason why it need be and the wax surface is easily renewed. It also offers significant protection from the environment compared to "untreated" prints so ...
(and recall we are also using it for aesthetic reasons!)

 

[Michael Mutmansky]

Ed,

Damar may help protect oils from the environment, but I suspect that some photographer-types would object to a noticeable yellowing after only five years if it is applied to a photograph. An untreated and properly processed photograph will last better than five years with no coating before any color shift will occur.

I'm not telling people what to do, that's up to them, but I think it is wise to have enough information on the subject before a decision is made that they may live to regret. If people choose to coat with damar, at least they should understand that it may cause some yellowing in relatively little time.

Some people may like the effect, others may want to try another peoduct if the yellowing would be objectionable for their work.

Damar is fourth on the list from this test (very bottom). They place two synthetic varnishes and beeswax ahead of it. I'd think about testing some of the other oprions if I objected to yellowing.

---Michael

 

[edz]

Ed,

Damar may help protect oils from the environment, but I suspect that some photographer-types would object to a noticeable yellowing after only five years if it is applied to a photograph. An untreated and properly processed photograph will last better than five years with no coating before any color shift will occur.

If they used Damar it would not have yellowed in 5 years. The test page you suggested does not show yellowing after 5 years. The reason people varnish fibre papered photographs, I might suggest, is less for protection from the environments (toners have been the choice) but for gloss and texture. Some people, in fact, use Mastic in their photo varnishes FOR the yellowing effect they know from "classic paintings". Amber too is used for its special glow associated, among others, with Russian Ikons. In the last century most photographers that wanted to varnish for high gloss probably anyway went to a Zapon-- and Acrylics as they became available-- varnish. Paper yellows. Cellulose yellows so also cellulose based varnishes will yellow but I'd argue a Zapon coated photograph will survive just as well/long as one without and its patina is part and parcel of the work. The photograph can well survive without it and so a decay of the varnish should not lead to anything much more than a change of the work over time. This too can, and perhaps should, be quite intentional. We are crossing the border into the conservators domain but one needs to distinguish between works intended to "ripen" with age or with the art work as seen upon it completion.

Varnishing is a very intentional and "radical" act. When I want a bit more "glow" I will wax.

I don't see how the resin fortified wax pastes I've presented should shorten rather than indeed strengthen the archival robustness of a photograph. They are also more subtle than varnishes and easy to maintain.

 

[philsweeney]

Gamblin CWM is mostly beeswax and a refined mineral spirit. I think you may find that it is a little too thick for easy application directly (at least I find that to be the case on pt/pd prints). I suggest you get a small bottle of Gamblin OMS also, so you can cut the CWM with the same solvent used in the product. It cuts in fairly easily, and then the wax is much easier to spread in a thin and even coat.

I use a stiff stippling brush for that work, and then switch to a shoe polish brush once evenly applied, and then if I want a higher sheen, will finish with a clean cotton towel for a buffing.

The more coats you put on, the higher the gloss becomes.

As for longevity, you might want to look at the permanence of encaustic painting for a general sense of the archival qualities of beeswax.


---Michael

Once the wax is applied will it hold up if I dry mount the print?

 

[Whiteymorange]

Wax will melt, flatten out and sink deeper into the fiber of the paper in a dry-mount press, as well as sinking into any cover sheet you have over the image when you heat it. Bad idea, I think.

I use microcrystaline wax on matte paper because the tooth of the paper makes it easier to get a smooth, even coat. The final appearance of the image with a coat of wax should not vary much on matte or gloss since the wax is modifying the surface, though I can't swear by that.

Anyone using damar should be aware that it is only soluable in organic solvents (turpentine.) It will lump up and remain solid in any mineral spirit. Again, bad idea, I think, to use damar on a photo. It is used in painting quite a bit, and not just as a cover varnish, but paintings and photos are fundamentally different in physical structure. There are archival varnishes out there that are easily reversed (removed) with solvent at any time - damar is not one of them. Renaissance Wax does not contain any organic solvents as far as I know, and would not truly mix with damar. If you must use damar, English distilled turpentine is a good solvent for it- at room temperature. Do not use hardware store variety turpentine, it leaves a yellow stain all by itself. The traditional test of a solvent for purity is to put a puddle of it on a sheet of clear glass. When it has evaporated there should be no residue left.

By the way, it is quite easy to become allergic to turpentine. I am, after years of painting. Many of the great painters who used turpentine washes ended their own lives. Funny, but the main symptom of overexposure to turps (turpentine poisoning) seems to be depression. Be careful out there. Even the materials that have been around and used by generations of artists are often far more dangerous than we know. I'm not paranoid, but I've been around solvents a lot and have begun to pay for it in my dotage.

 

[hortense]

I'm not familiar with 'waxing' prints, what are the pros & cons of this? Is this considered archival? Seems like the wax would have issues over a long period of time?

The British Museum uses it (good enough for me).

 

[hortense]

.

Franz copied the whole chapter of the book, giving some recipes. You may read it at http://phototec.de/phorum_neu/read.php?f=3&i=46540&t=46416

Unfortunately, I don't read German.

 

[hortense]

The down side to this is that it can't be done until the print is mounted as the print will curl again due to the moisture in the steam...

This is scary but I'll try it on one of my (many) marginal prints and report back.

 

[Louis Nargi]

I know were talking about waxing prints for a better look but I read somewhere about waxing the negative. Is there an advantage to as far as improving the print quality.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

I've heard of waxing paper negatives to make them more transparent, but I don't know about waxing film negatives. Seems like it would attract dust.

 

[sanking]

I know were talking about waxing prints for a better look but I read somewhere about waxing the negative. Is there an advantage to as far as improving the print quality.

You must be thinking of paper negatives. Alternative printes who work with paper negatives sometimes wax or oil them because this make them more translucent and they print faster, and sometims with less texture.

There is no logical reason I could think of to wax to wax negatives on clear plastic base.

Sandy

 

[Mehmet Kismet]

Hi,

What about the polyurethane product" Polyshield"?
http://hoodfinishing.com/hydrocote.htm

Best
Mehmet Kismet

 

[Gerald Koch]

In the past matte surface prints were also protected with lithographic varnish. A stock solution was prepared by diluting the varnish with 4 parts of rectified turpentine. A small amount of this was applied to the print which was then buffed with a clean lint free cloth until all visible trace of excess varnish was removed. This greatly improved the contrast of the print. I have some prints so treated that appear unchanged for 40 years.

 

[donbga]

Hi,

What about the polyurethane product" Polyshield"?
http://hoodfinishing.com/hydrocote.htm

Best
Mehmet Kismet

Mehmet,

I've used the Hydrocoat using a coating road. The coatings were difficult to apply smoothly without streaking. I have read that some digital printers use a compressed air sprayer to spray it on and have had good results increasing DMAX and providing the apperance of depth in the print.

Don Bryant

 

[WarEaglemtn]

Two questions on this topic.

How would you was pt/pd prints without abrading or damaging the paper they are coated on?

How about automotive clearcoat? A friend is printing on large circuit boards & metals using liquid emulsion. He then uses an airbrush to apply automotive ClearCoat products that are not supposed to yellow under harsh outdoor conditions. Any info on what they might do to photographic emulsions?

 

[c6h6o3]

I have waxed Azo prints with a number of furniture waxes (Pledge, Johnson's Paste Wax) and they leave a misty film on the print which only appears after a few days. It goes away if you rebuff the print, but that's not much good to you if the print is framed.

Gamblin Cold Wax Medium exhibits no such side effect and imparts an extra luster to Azo prints which I really like. I rub it in really well with a cloth, just like I would apply polish to a pair of shoes, and then after I've let it sit for about 15 minutes I buff it with a soft shoe brush.

This is of course done to mounted prints only (but before they're matted or signed-matted prints are impossible to buff and the signature will smear). You could hardly put a waxed print back into the dry mount press.

 

[Nicole]

...

 

[Russ Young]

Edward Weston is known to have waxed his platinum prints ...

Most commercial products such as JOHNSON'S have cleaning agents in them, as far as I can tell... or perhaps it is just the solvent but when I waxed my prints thirty years ago, all of the commercial products removed any type of spotting (pencil, Spot-tone, etc.) and the Renaissance Wax did not...

Russ

 

[Neil Poulsen]

The instructor in one of my first photography classes recommended using Tree Wax on Kodak's Polycontrast paper to deepen the blacks a little. It worked. After 30 years, there's nothing that looks remiss about these photographs.

At the same time, I don't have any kind of test over that period of time that side by side compares waxed with unwaxed. I didn't take time to make such a test.

With all that they know about archival products, I wouldn't have a problem using something that's labeled archival and recommended by knowledgeable people. I got my Tree Wax from a hardware store.

 

[CasperMarly]

I know this is an OLD topic - but current information is welcome.
Renaissance Wax for digital prints?

Then, when waxing B&W fibre prints - the whole paper or just the image itself? I print an image - say 8x10 contact print on an 11x14 full sheet. Centered or Weighted, depending on intended display. Will there be any reason to wax the whole surface over just the exposed print area?

 

[koraks]

Will there be any reason to wax the whole surface over just the exposed print area?

Yes, minimize differences in surface sheen and texture. I guess you could carefully tape over (with appropriate tape) the edges and just wax the print surface, but I don't see why it would be beneficial to keep the borders unwaxed.

Renaissance Wax for digital prints?

Well, why not...give it a try. If you like it, who's to stop you from doing it?