fiberbased vs resin based
XOSNI
What is the difference between FB & resin based B&W paper? What is the
effect I get printing on either?
--
Xosni
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Sheldon D. Stokes
> What is the difference between FB & resin based B&W paper? What is the
> effect I get printing on either?
Resin based paper is essentially plastic covered paper (it's got real
paper inside though) which washes fast and dries quickly and flat. Fiber
based paper requires a lot of washing to get the chemicals out of the
permiable paper base and tends to curl and generally be a pain after
drying.
Why use fiber paper then? Because myself and a lot more notable
photographers feel that it produces much better images.
I use RC paper for non critical stuff, but pull out the "good stuff" for
display prints.
Sheldon
Gene A. Townsend
>
>
>What is the difference between FB & resin based B&W paper? What is the
>effect I get printing on either?
When mounted and framed with glass, you would be very hard pressed to
tell the difference. Without a cover glass, you would notice the
surface of the RC print is more regular in pattern. The emulsions are
the same, only the support is different.
RC printing is much easier, and probably more permanent when processed
imperfectly.
Regards,
Gene A. Townsend
Sir Phingh D'Nette
fiber.
Once you've acquired taste for the finest aspects of life, be they
foods, cars, clothes, music or arts, you're hard-pressed to settle for
the pale imitations.
RC papers were invented for reproduction purposes and for snapshots:
they look cheap. They're great if the "image" is more important than
the "piece of art".
But if you've ever handled or closely studied a gorgeous photographic
print, one which is a "collectable work of art" worthy of existing
among engravings, etchings, serigraphs and other fine graphic prints,
then you'll never again be satisfied with RC prints.
Personally, I wear polyester when I print RC, and I wear tweeds and
worsteds when I print real photos on fiber.
Just my tupence.
Sheldon D. Stokes
> There is a big difference in the look of RC vs FB papers. You can see
> it from across the room. FB has a lot of subtleties that are not found
> in RC. FB has a lot of depth and luminosity that RC can't compare to. RC
> is very shiny and flat. FB has texture. RC does not last very long
> especially when mounted under glass. Ctein published a lengthy article
> about the silvering out of RC papers. If you want quality use a FB
> paper. If you just want a print, use RC.
I'd say there is a definate place for RC paper though. I always contact
print on RC paper, and if I'm printing non-critical things, I use it as
well. It's easy and doesn't waste a ton of water on non-critical things.
For contact sheets, I can see a dried down print in less than half an hour
after making it. So I can get right back into the darkroom.
Sheldon
jjame...@my-deja.com
it from across the room. FB has a lot of subtleties that are not found
in RC. FB has a lot of depth and luminosity that RC can't compare to. RC
is very shiny and flat. FB has texture. RC does not last very long
especially when mounted under glass. Ctein published a lengthy article
about the silvering out of RC papers. If you want quality use a FB
paper. If you just want a print, use RC.
MC
垂There is a big difference in the look of RC vs FB papers. You can see
it from across the room. FB has a lot of subtleties that are not found
in RC. FB has a lot of depth and luminosity that RC can't compare to....遙
I know this is the received wisdom, but in many--maybe even most--cases I
prefer the look of RC. I don't personally care for soft, warm prints all
that much, and with fiber you sometimes get a tiny hint that it might not
strictly speaking be a black and white print -- there are subtle shades of
sepia or something else cereping in... in the end, all a matter of taste,
I guess.
Tom Reinhardt
>
> Don't forget to mention that ALL of the beautiful papers are still
> fiber.
>
> Once you've acquired taste for the finest aspects of life, be they
> foods, cars, clothes, music or arts, you're hard-pressed to settle for
> the pale imitations.
>
art than expensive automobiles --unless, of course, that appreciation
extends to magazine gazing.
> RC papers were invented for reproduction purposes and for snapshots:
> they look cheap. They're great if the "image" is more important than
> the "piece of art".
>
Unless, of course, the artist is interested in exploiting the 'snapshot'
quality of the photograph. ;-) I prefer Gary W's photographs to Edward
W's compositions, but this is a 'personal' problem.
> But if you've ever handled or closely studied a gorgeous photographic
> print, one which is a "collectable work of art" worthy of existing
> among engravings, etchings, serigraphs and other fine graphic prints,
> then you'll never again be satisfied with RC prints.
>
More seriously, the 'tactile' quality of these two mediums, I suspect,
has a lot to do with overall perceptions. An interesting experiment
might be to print a good negative on both fibre and RC papers. Really
make an attempt to print it well. Mount, matt and frame both prints.
Hang them in a viewing area and walk away for a few weeks. Maybe even
have someone threaten to rearrange them before you view them again.
Then, at varying distances, see if you can tell the difference. And, if
so, try and characterise those differences.
> Personally, I wear polyester when I print RC, and I wear tweeds and
> worsteds when I print real photos on fiber.
>
I wear black denim when I print either.
> Just my tupence.
I thought that England had dispensed with the 'old' currency? How much
is a tupence (three penny?) these days, anyway?
Cheers,
TomR
Dan Smith, Photographer
> Sir Phingh D'Nette wrote:
> >
> > Don't forget to mention that ALL of the beautiful papers are still
> > fiber.
> >
> > RC papers were invented for reproduction purposes and for snapshots:
> > they look cheap. They're great if the "image" is more important than
> > the "piece of art".
> >
I think some are repeating what they have heard, not what they have
experienced.
RC papers cannot currently be considered "archival" for museum purposes and
are not generally used for long term photo storage. That is the province of
Fibre papers.
I do take issue to the "invented for snapshots" baloney.
RC papers on the high end have a greater tonal range than most fibre papers.
They can have the 'snap' and clarity one wants for some images, impossible
to match with fibre unless you want to ferrotype your fibre paper.
Any good artist chooses their materials for the purpose of furthering their
expression(at least partly), and if RC gives you the freedom to be more
creative, use it.
As to the silvering & brown spotting, it doesn't show up with every print,
even when framed, matted and mounted. It seems to be unpredictable at best.
No real rhyme or reason as to when it will rear its ugly head. This makes it
doubly dangerous to work with fine images in RC, unless you are prepared to
take the risk.
But to keep pushing the same old myths about the papers is foolish at best.
There are many applications for RC papers, even some in the realms of fine
art & display images. Don't sit back & be a snob about it, especially when
trying to justify it by repeating the reasons that aren't accurate.
DAN SMITH
Jim Post
<xo...@gega.net> wrote:
>
>
>What is the difference between FB & resin based B&W paper?
What is the
>effect I get printing on either?
>Xosni
>
>
Hi Xosni:
Besides Sheldon's comment on image quality, there is the
issue of how long a print will last when done on RC paper.
Ctein and others have said RC will not give archival
results, perhaps not even when toned with selenium. While I
have RC prints that have lasted more than a decade so far
without any problems, I would prefer to be safe and put my
important work on fiber paper. Prints I give my family as
gifts should last for generations and fiber will give me
that for a known fact. Until RC meets or exceeds the
standard set by FB, I'll stay with the FB!
Jim
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
John
>
Which RC papers are the higher end ones? I have not done any reseach but a
little help would be great.
John
C. J. Morgan
> print, one which is a "collectable work of art" worthy of existing
> among engravings, etchings, serigraphs and other fine graphic prints,
> then you'll never again be satisfied with RC prints.
Yeah, you will. And particularly when you realize that even if an image
isn't quite worth museum quality, it nevertheless might still be worth
enlarging and hanging in your home.
C.J.
--
C.J. Morgan
ch...@torfree.net
Sheldon D. Stokes
<jimpostpo...@netscape.net.invalid> wrote:
> Besides Sheldon's comment on image quality, there is the
> issue of how long a print will last when done on RC paper.
> Ctein and others have said RC will not give archival
> results, perhaps not even when toned with selenium. While I
> have RC prints that have lasted more than a decade so far
> without any problems, I would prefer to be safe and put my
> important work on fiber paper.
Iv'e got a barn picture in our bathroom that I printed in 1986 that is
still going strong. It's on Kodak's polycontrast RC or polycontrast II
RC. It sees humidity and all sorts of temperature swings.
Drop me a line in 50 years and I'll let you know how it's doing. :)
I agree with you, if you process fiber properly, it's a work of art that
will last. But I'd rather have RC than fiber that wasn't processed well
though.
Sheldon
Gene A. Townsend
>In article <3849ccb6...@spamkiller.dakotacom.net>,
> wi...@dakotacom.net (Gene A. Townsend) wrote:
>> On Sat, 04 Dec 1999 15:09:15 GMT, XOSNI <xo...@gega.net> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >What is the difference between FB & resin based B&W paper? What is
>the
>> >effect I get printing on either?
>>
>> When mounted and framed with glass, you would be very hard pressed to
>> tell the difference. Without a cover glass, you would notice the
>> surface of the RC print is more regular in pattern. The emulsions are
>> the same, only the support is different.
>>
>> RC printing is much easier, and probably more permanent when processed
>> imperfectly.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Gene A. Townsend
>> There is a big difference in the look of RC vs FB papers. You can see
>it from across the room. FB has a lot of subtleties that are not found
>in RC. FB has a lot of depth and luminosity that RC can't compare to. RC
>is very shiny and flat. FB has texture. RC does not last very long
>especially when mounted under glass. Ctein published a lengthy article
>about the silvering out of RC papers. If you want quality use a FB
>paper. If you just want a print, use RC.
>
jjames:
When beginner asks a simple question, I tend to give a simple answer.
I am personally, very sick and tired of all the ludite garbage about
how superior fiber based paper is to RC.
Most of what you say is simply not true, and constitutes modern
mythology. Just because something is repeated often enough does not
make it true.
Since you challenge my assertions on RC paper, which I was trying to
do without stepping on anyone's toes, I'll now give it back to you:
RC paper is vastly superior to fiber based, that's why fiber based
papers are approaching obsolescense. GLOSSY RC papers are shiny, in
fact shinier than ferrotyped fiber based papers. You might try a matt
or luster surfaced RC paper, which is amazingly similar to luster
surfaced fiber-based papers.
Modern studies done under carefully controlled scientific conditions
have shown RC paper to be MORE ARCHIVAL than fiber based. This is due
to the enhanced chemical clenlilness of the material. RC papers also
produce superior whites.
I repeat that behind a cover glass, nobody can tell the difference
between a fiber based and an RC print. Nobody puts glossy prints
behind glass.
Ctein writes articles, which does not necessarily qualify him as an
expert. He has a vested interest, as do many, who are attempting to
inflate the values of their photographs by exhaulting them as "fine
art" if they are on fiber based paper, like this is some sort of
panacea. Frankly, I think Ctein should do more towards improving the
aesthetics of his photography, and worrying less about the craft
approach to photography, which adds little or nothing to its value.
Move forward into the future: TMAX films are superior, RC paper is
superior, and eventually, digital cameras and printing will take over.
This is called progress. Things never stay the same, which is an
inherently good thing.
Regards,
Gene A. Townsend
Richard Knoppow
As an occasional defender of RC paper I must respond to this.
I don't think RC is "vastly superior" to fiber in any way except
ease of use. It still has some problems with the stability of the
reflelctive coating under the emulsion. For details see the article
"How Stable are Photos on RC Papers?" Doug Nishimura (of the Image
Permanence Institute) Abbey Newsletter, volume 21, Number 4, November
1997. This is available from the Conservation On Line site at
http://palimpsest.stanford.edu I don't have the exact URL but the
Abbey archives are arranged by date so it should be easy to find.
Nishimura states that although the scavengers introduced into the
reflective coating are effective in absorbing the gasses emitted by
the Titanium dioxide he believes them to have a limited life. As a
result he recommends fiber paper for maximum life, especially for
displayed prints.
The fact that fiber can be washed more effectively may not have an
effect on life since a small residue of thiosulfate has been shown to
provide some protection against oxidation of the silver image. In any
case sulfide toning is equally effective for both types of paper.
I don't know of any research which shows RC to be superior to fiber
for permanence. The IPI work shows that given decent storage it is
likely equal, but see the above note from one of the formost
researchers in the field.
I don't believe RC has an inherant advantage in brightness of
whites. Most, if not all, RC on the market today contains a brightner
which increases the brightness of whites. Some fiber paper also
includes the same brightners. They do tend to stay in RC paper at
higher levels due to the very short total wet times.
The effeciveness of whiteners depends on the light. They work by
flourescing when energized by UV light. Under low level incandescent
light there may not be enough UV to activate the brightner. Compare
virtually any RC paper with Kodabromide, which has no brightner in it.
In daylight the Kodabromide will look definitely dingy, under
incandescent light the two prints will look about the same. In any
case most current fiber papers include brighteners.
As far as surfaces, its a matter of personal taste. The baryta layer
in fiber paper makes it easier to provide highly textured surfaces
because it can be calendared. I'm not sure this is really an advantage
since texturing fell out of style long ago. RC certainly has the
advantage in producing uniform surfaces, some fiber, especially Agfa,
is far from uniform.
I have in my collection of stuff some old paper catalogues. One is a
pre- ww-2 Agfa catalogue with samples of most of the paper surfaces in
it. The prints have held up surprizingly well. I suspect most of the
textured surfaces would not be acceptable by photgraphers today. The
really heavy ones dominate the image regardless of the lighting of the
print. sixty years ago Agfa, Defender, and Kodak had probably around
twenty to thirty combinations of textures and base colors for their
papers. I think they were discontinued over the years simply because
people came to prefer plain surfacles and white or nearly white paper.
I print mostly with RC paper because the extended processing cycle
for fiber is a pain in the fanny and I don't think it has enough
advantage to justify the extra work. I also don't print portfolio
editions, I just do it to amuse myself and amaze my friends. I am a
pretty good printer. If I were doing serious work which I knew had to
last I would still use fiber in preference to RC but only because the
permanence of RC is not _quite_ established yet.
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, Ca.
dick...@ix.netcom.com
Paul and Paula Butzi
Knoppow) wrote:
> As an occasional defender of RC paper I must respond to this.
> I don't think RC is "vastly superior" to fiber in any way except
>ease of use. It still has some problems with the stability of the
>reflelctive coating under the emulsion. For details see the article
>"How Stable are Photos on RC Papers?" Doug Nishimura (of the Image
>Permanence Institute) Abbey Newsletter, volume 21, Number 4, November
>1997. This is available from the Conservation On Line site at
>http://palimpsest.stanford.edu I don't have the exact URL but the
>Abbey archives are arranged by date so it should be easy to find.
> Nishimura states that although the scavengers introduced into the
>reflective coating are effective in absorbing the gasses emitted by
>the Titanium dioxide he believes them to have a limited life. As a
>result he recommends fiber paper for maximum life, especially for
>displayed prints.
I think it's interesting that much of the brouhaha surrounding RC
papers stems from the TiO2 used to provide the white base.
How long will it be, I wonder, before we can buy B&W emulsions
like the one used on Kodak PolyMax IIRC coated onto a textured
base made from the sort of voided polyester that is used as the
base for Ilfochrome and Fuji Super-gloss?
If Kodak were to produce such a material with surface finish that
approached that of the current E finish for PolyMax IIrc, I would
abandon FB paper and never look back.
I expect that such a material would have longevity rivaling that
of properly washed film, with about the same amount of effort
and resource demand.
In addition, it would have:
1. Great dimensional stablity in the face of temp and humidity
changes.
2. It would lay flat without heroic effort to flatten it.
3. Being non-absorbent, it might well resist staining and other
enivironmental hazards better than FB.
4. To my eye, such a material manages to be quite a bit
whiter and brighter than existing B&W bases wthout
resorting to optical brighteners.
5. Great batch to batch surface uniformity.
> I don't believe RC has an inherant advantage in brightness of
>whites. Most, if not all, RC on the market today contains a brightner
>which increases the brightness of whites. Some fiber paper also
>includes the same brightners. They do tend to stay in RC paper at
>higher levels due to the very short total wet times.
I think that I disagree on both counts. A while ago, I went through
the painful process of selecting a new set of materials for printing.
I did a lot of comparing of the same image printed carefully on
many different materials, including RC papers. In some cases,
my materials testing led me to believe that two products were the
same emulsion coated onto different bases (this is true of, for
instance, the Forte PolyWarmTone RC and FB products, but not
the Ilford products).
My conclusions were:
1. RC bases can be substantially 'whiter' than FB bases, even
under non-UV rich illumination.
2. A bright white RC base is substantially brighter (more reflective,
lower Dmin) than a bartya FB base.
In addition, in my testing with long wash times, I've never managed
to demonstrate optical brighteners washing out, even with wet times
as long as 24 hours. While I'm sure that it's happened in the past,
it no longer seems to be an issue.
-Paul
--
Articles on B&W photography, camera and equipment reviews, and photographs at:
http://www.asymptote.com/butzi (updated 10/21/99)
(Latest change - review of lenses for Leica M cameras)
jjame...@my-deja.com
In my opinion RC paper is garbage. Plain and simple. If RC paper was a
good paper to print on then professional printers would print their
exhibition prints on it. This is not the case. Professional printers
print on fiber base paper because it is a superior product. That is one
of the reasons that there is but one type RC paper but 30 different
kinds of FB paper. And FB becoming obsolete? Give me a break. The
manufacturers introduce a new FB paper every year. And as for your
assertion that RC papers are archival at all is ludicrous. I don't know
where you dug up such garbage. And everyone who prints can tell an RC
print from a FB print from way across the room. And Ctein has more
photographic talent in his fingernail than you have in your whole being.
He makes a very good living as a photographer and printer. I've never
heard of you. Simple as that. Ctein made exhaustive tests on RC paper
and wrote about his findings in Darkroom Magazine. RC paper is an
unstable photographic material that silvers out in as little as six
months. It is made of plastic which continually produces organic
gasses which contribute to it's eventual demise. It does not have a
superior black. It has at best a flat black. Apparently you have never
printed for max black on each and held both of them side by side and
seen how much blacker FB is than RC. No where near professional quality
max black. You say FB has a warm cast to it? It's true. Some do. And
some have as cold a tone as can be found on any paper made anywhere in
the world today. But all you get with RC is one tone. Awful. There are
many shades of tone with FB paper and this is one of the things that
make FB so attractive. So many different characteristics. This is why
professional printers, and most amateur printers for that matter, print
on FB paper. The surface of RC is shiny alright. And flat as a board. It
has no depth whatsoever. The whites on RC paper are white. And nothing
more. No subtle shading. No texture. All of the things that FB has in
abundance. I wouldn't even proof print on RC. The difference between RC
and FB is just too great to make any worthwhile comparisons between a
proof print and a finished fine art print. RC takes half the water to
wash than does FB. But that is inconsequential compared to the positive
attributes that FB has to offer. Apparently you have never printed
anything worthwhile on a good FB paper. If you are so concerned with the
cost of materials, then stick with RC paper. That's not a problem. There
are many people out there that print on RC paper. They just don't ever
get the maximum benefit out of the photographic process. Too many
beginning printers ask the question of which is the better type paper to
use and they see the cost of RC vs FB and they want to scrimp right
away. The cost difference is what, 10-15%. And so they take the advice
of photographers like you who obviously don't know their warm tone from
there chlorobromide and never see the difference for themselves. FB
paper is vastly superior to RC unless the only thing you care about in
your printing is cost. You should pick up some modern FBVC paper and see
the difference it makes in your prints. Then you could get your foot out
of your mouth and see what you've been missing. Your prints might
actually look good for a change. Stepping hard enough? Next time make
sure you know what you're talking about before you write such assinine
comments. James
Gene A. Townsend
> I don't think RC is "vastly superior" to fiber in any way except
>ease of use. It still has some problems with the stability of the
>reflelctive coating under the emulsion. For details see the article
>"How Stable are Photos on RC Papers?" Doug Nishimura (of the Image
>Permanence Institute) Abbey Newsletter, volume 21, Number 4, November
>1997. This is available from the Conservation On Line site at
>http://palimpsest.stanford.edu
Richard:
I have recently decided to become an ardent defender of RC papers, due
to the preponderance of postings to the contrary, which I believe are
against the best interests of most amature photographers.
I agree that RC is not universally superior to fiber, however I will
state it as so as a counterbalance to those saying the same of fiber.
I'll never forget the first time I tried RC, back in about 1973-74 or
so. It was a Kodak RC product with a matte surface, and looked
absolutely horrible. The emulsion scratched off the surface in a
number of places even though it was fairly carefully handled. In only
two or three years, the surface had dark yellow stains all the way
across, and then began peeling off in places. The white base became a
sort of beige color. A real mess.
I have read several articles in the last ten years concerning aging
tests of photographic materials, all of which state that RC materials
are slightly superior to fiber in terms of permanence. I do not have
the references to quote, however.
These tests involved accelerated aging using artificial suns of
extremely high intensity under carefully controlled temperature and
illumination conditions, and applying the results to various aging
models. Several were funded by Kodak, and several were independant.
I disagree concerning the brightness of RC prints, which are think are
brighter in general than fiber.
Another big advantage of RC rarely discussed, is that, due to its'
inherent flatness, it is extremely easy to mount. A couple pieces of
double sticky tape on the upper corners, and a matte, and your done.
With fiber, you need an expensive press and dry mount tissue, etc.
Now, lets' talk about mural sized prints. RC can be hung on a wall
using double sticky foam tape at the corners, while fiber need a 1/2
inch thich or thicker plywood board, and must be glued in place, a
real mess.
At home, for my own use, I use luster surface RC paper, sepia toned
with a sulfide toner, then varnished with glossy polyurethane. Works
for me.
Regards,
Gene A. Townsend
Richard Knoppow
>On Wed, 08 Dec 1999 04:29:09 GMT, dick...@ix.netcom.com (Richard
>Knoppow) wrote:
>>>
>> As an occasional defender of RC paper I must respond to this.
>> I don't think RC is "vastly superior" to fiber in any way except
>>ease of use. It still has some problems with the stability of the
>>reflelctive coating under the emulsion. For details see the article
>>"How Stable are Photos on RC Papers?" Doug Nishimura (of the Image
>>Permanence Institute) Abbey Newsletter, volume 21, Number 4, November
>>1997. This is available from the Conservation On Line site at
>>http://palimpsest.stanford.edu
>
RC certainly has some practical advantages over fiber base. I also
agree that fiber has no real advantage in appearance, I've made
virtually identical prints on both many times. However, ther is a
problem with very long term permanence. The type of aging tests you
refer to are not valid for testing for archival life, UV fading is not
the enemy. The greatest cause of fading and staining of prints is
attack by peroxides in the atmosphere and from poor storage or
mounting materials.
This assumes a print has recieved reasonable fixing and washing. It
is not necessary to wash residual thiosulfate down to zero, in fact
doing so reduces lifetime as determined by research done by T.H.James
at Kodak in 1961 and many others since. This applies to both RC and
fiber. The fact that fiber is easier to wash out is of little
significance in light of this.
Complete fixing is very important but, again, neither base has an
advantage this way.
According to Nishamura, in the notes I cited earlier, there is a
greater problem with concentration of peroxides and other polutants in
RC paper than in fiber due to the greater permeability of the fiber
support which allows the escape of oxidizing products generated in the
emulsion or absorbed by it from the air.
The accelerated aging tests which demonstrate this difference are
long exposure to peroxide gas and baking in high humidity ovens.
Properly processed, and especially properly toned, prints of both
kinds will have very long lives. In proper archival storage conditions
there is likely little difference between the two but unde display
conditions fiber has some advantage, at least according to Nishimura,
who is a principle investigator for the Image Permanence Institute.
Nishimura is specifically concerned with the life of the
anti-oxidants included in the upper plastic coating. These
anti-oxidants are there to prevent damage to the plastic and the image
form gasses emmitted by the Tio in this coating. There may also be a
problem with long term life of developer incorporated RC paper,
although the manufacturers claim to have cured that. IF this is a
concern a paper without the developer should be used. I believe Ilford
MG IV Deluxe is the only paper by a major manufacturer without
incorporated developer.
I will say that I think the concern for archival life, whatever that
is, is must overstressed. Given competent conventional processing and
reasonable storage or mounting conditions either RC or fiber is going
to have a lifetime approaching 100 years. For maximum life prints and
film should be stored in the dark, at low temperatures, and under
minimal humidity conditions. The storage containers must meet rather
stringent requirements for neutrality and absense of out gassing.
It is also important that the air in the storage area be free of
atmospheric polutants. This is the sort of storage the LDS gives its
microfilm archives. Not too practical for ordinary photography.
OTOH a print stuck on the kitchen wall above a gas stove and near a
window where direct sunlight will fall on it isn't going to have much
of a life regardless of what it is printed on or how its processed.
I think I am repeating stuff over again.
My argument with you is not that I think RC paper is inferior, I
don't. Rather I think describing is a highly superior to fiber is
wrong. I think the two are nearly equal, with the nod going to RC as
far as practical use is concerned, but to fiber for maximum life where
some assurance of that life is required.
In any case, as suggested above, storage and mounting conditions
will are likely to have a much greater effect on image life than the
type of paper, or even processing provided it isn't positively
horrible.
Matthew Ferson
heat/humidity chambers... Sometime I'll make identical prints on fiber
and rc, and process them appropriately. Then I'll include them in the
chamber with whatever electronic gadget I'm testing, and let it run for
a few months and report back.
Anyone interested in seeing the results of this?
I don't have the equipment to quantitatively measure image quality, so
does anyone have suggestions as to what my standards of evaluation
should be?
Cheers,
-Matt
--
______
\ /__( Matthew Ferson )__( phu...@wpi.edu )___
\ / efnet: phuzzy IM: phuzzykins ICQ: 12871293 \
\/_______( http://www.wpi.edu/~phuzzy/ )_______/
Cor Breukel
IMHO:
^^^^
FB paper reacts better and more beautifull (to my eye) to toners.
FB paper is easier to spot and knife.
FB paper, glossy, dried to air at room temperature has a much nicer
appearance then glossy RC paper.
--
Cor Breukel
http://ruly70.medfac.leidenuniv.nl/~cor/cor.html
Gene A. Townsend
I believe you post is very close to a flame, and will be disregarded
by most intelligent readers.
You are clearly wrong. "Professional printers" , since you haven't
qualified them, are dominantly color labs printing amature snap shots
and professional work on color RC paper. When was the last time you
saw a fiber based color print?
And how, may I ask, do you have any knowledge of my skill as a
photographer? Probably the same way you have knowlegde of all things,
by guessing.
The main reason that "art photography" exhibition printers use FB
paper, is because the ignorant public demands it, due to the influence
of people like yourself who blindly repeat the mantra over, and over
without conscious thought.
Myself, I print primarily on luster surfaced Ilford MGIV-RC paper, and
use sulphide sepia toner. I also use "alternate processes", like
cyanotype and gum-bichromate, which truly do give superior results
with better archival qualities, rather than middle of the road and
dull old FB silver paper. But these are just too much work most of
the time.
It is the nature of the image itself that is important. The printing
process is irrelevant.
Regards,
Gene A. Townsend
C. J. Morgan
**************
jjame...@my-deja.com wrote:
: >I really don't care if I step on your toes with an attitude like yours.
: In my opinion RC paper is garbage. Plain and simple.
James, you're certainly entitled have your opinion, although respectfully,
I disagree. It seems an extreme and unreasonable view to just label RC
paper as garbage. Not to deny you your opinion, but only to say taken to
such an extreme, it seems questionable at best.
**************
: If RC paper was a
: good paper to print on then professional printers would print their
: exhibition prints on it. This is not the case.
This seems a sweeping generalization. What is based on? For my own part,
printing for 25+ years, and the majority of that being serious printing,
I find myself using RC papers today. And I simply wouldn't do that if I
wasn't confident in tests I've done and the studies I've read.
***************
: And as for your
: assertion that RC papers are archival at all is ludicrous.
The studies I've read likewise suppost Gene's claims. So there's
nothing ludicrous about it at all.
****************
: And everyone who prints can tell an RC
: print from a FB print from way across the room.
Not when it's framed and under glass. I have both such images hanging in
my home, and people would be hard pressed to tell the difference without
very careful examination.
*****************
: And Ctein has more
: photographic talent in his fingernail than you have in your whole being.
An assult on Gene's character hardly gives any further credibility to
your arguments.
*****************
: RC paper is an unstable photographic material that silvers out in as
: little as six months.
This seems in contrast to the RC prints that I made 15 years ago which
to date haven't changed a bit.
*****************
: I wouldn't even proof print on RC. The difference between RC
: and FB is just too great to make any worthwhile comparisons between a
: proof print and a finished fine art print.
This suggests that you have an aversion to RC paper which goes even deeper
than reasonable practicality. And I say this only to then question the
objectivity of your views on the matter.
*****************
: Apparently you have never printed anything worthwhile on a good FB
: paper.
I haven't seen anything in Gene's post that might reasonably lead to that
conclusion.
******************
: FB paper is vastly superior to RC unless the only thing you care about in
: your printing is cost.
As I said at the start James, you're certainly entitled to have your
opinion, even if some of us might not agree with you.
Russell
There seems to be no RC paper that responds to toners of all kinds like the
warmtone fiber-based papers do. If/when there is, I'll be tempted . . . .
--Russell
"Cor Breukel" <c...@rulyeh.medfac.leidenuniv.nl> wrote in message
news:82o8r3$7nu$1...@highway.leidenuniv.nl...
. . .
> IMHO:
> ^^^^
>
> FB paper reacts better and more beautifull (to my eye) to toners.
. . .
> Cor Breukel
> http://ruly70.medfac.leidenuniv.nl/~cor/cor.html
chmc
>
>
> ****************
>
> : And everyone who prints can tell an RC
> : print from a FB print from way across the room.
>
> Not when it's framed and under glass. I have both such images hanging in
> my home, and people would be hard pressed to tell the difference without
> very careful examination.
>
I have some prints made on Oriental Seagull Warmtone paper, which used to come
with the same emusion on Fiber and RC. You can't tell the difference between
them today. Not even if you touch them and look at them up close. If they
weren't hot pressed, you might be able to tell by how flat they were. These
are mat papers, RC gives higher gloss so you could probably tell with glossy.
Adam
Mike
First, I'll start off with a little hearsay. This is from a friend who is
a professional photographer. His primary market is selling color
photographs to art museums. He has work at MOMA and many other museums.
He tells me that museums actually prefer prints on RC paper, and they
especially like the Ilford "Portfolio" heavy weight paper. They consider
it more likely to be properly washed and the paper is heavy enough to
stand being handled. Treat this as "my friend said..." an unstantiated
source, but there it is.
Now my experience: The only prints I've had problems with were RC prints.
I believe the problem was -- get this -- improper washing. Since you
don't soak RC prints for hours and hours, you need to have them in running
water, and I may very well be introducing a new print loaded with fixer at
the wrong times compared to when I take prints out. I have no science to
back this up, it's just a hunch.
I print occasionally on RC, but usually on fiber. I don't know which is
going to last longer. I really think both will outlive me. I also don't
believe that the image on one type is inherently superior to the same
image on the other type. I use fiber for two main reasons.
1) I think it's easier to wash. OK, I've exposed myself as a lunatic here,
but with RC, I need to keep up a good flow rate through my wash system,
and need to worry about how recently a print was added before I remove
one. I actually think I use more water to continuously wash RC than to
keep a tiny trickly through the wash until I'm done with a printing
session then do bulk washing.
2) I like the feel of a fiber print in my hands. I just think it feels
more like something important.
Those are my reasons. Framed and matted and behind glass, I'm not sure I
can pick out which is which.
Bottom line, do what pleases you most. Unless you've got paying customers,
then you have to please them too.
--
Mike
Sorry, no more valid return addresses.
Robert L. Vervoordt
Townsend) wrote:
>On Thu, 09 Dec 1999 06:39:29 GMT, jjame...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
>
>>>I really don't care if I step on your toes with an attitude like yours.
>>In my opinion RC paper is garbage. Plain and simple. If RC paper was a
>>good paper to print on then professional printers would print their
>>exhibition prints on it. This is not the case. Professional printers
>>print on fiber base paper because it is a superior product.
(Snip)
>>away. The cost difference is what, 10-15%. And so they take the advice
>>of photographers like you who obviously don't know their warm tone from
>>there chlorobromide and never see the difference for themselves. FB
>>paper is vastly superior to RC unless the only thing you care about in
>>your printing is cost. You should pick up some modern FBVC paper and see
>>the difference it makes in your prints. Then you could get your foot out
>>of your mouth and see what you've been missing. Your prints might
>>actually look good for a change. Stepping hard enough? Next time make
>>sure you know what you're talking about before you write such assinine
>>comments. James
>>
>
>I believe you post is very close to a flame, and will be disregarded
>by most intelligent readers.
Come on, Gene. Your tone in your first post was belligerent and
definitely flame inducing.
In addition, you do not speak for me in that I will not disregard
Jim's post. He rebutted your emotional assertions with emotional
assertions of his own. That seems like fair play.
>You are clearly wrong. "Professional printers" , since you haven't
>qualified them, are dominantly color labs printing amature snap shots
>and professional work on color RC paper. When was the last time you
>saw a fiber based color print?
You are missing or dodging the point here. He was, as were most of
the rest of the participants, speaking to the question of fine art
black and white printing.
>And how, may I ask, do you have any knowledge of my skill as a
>photographer? Probably the same way you have knowlegde of all things,
>by guessing.
No, he was noting that Ctein has a history and recognition for his
work that is public. You do not.
>The main reason that "art photography" exhibition printers use FB
>paper, is because the ignorant public demands it, due to the influence
>of people like yourself who blindly repeat the mantra over, and over
>without conscious thought.
No, there are a number of us who look at the results and have made the
judgment call in favor of fibre.
>Myself, I print primarily on luster surfaced Ilford MGIV-RC paper, and
>use sulphide sepia toner. I also use "alternate processes", like
>cyanotype and gum-bichromate, which truly do give superior results
>with better archival qualities, rather than middle of the road and
>dull old FB silver paper. But these are just too much work most of
>the time.
What is the point? You have some knowledge, and solely because it is
you, we all have to accept your assertions? That is how your postings
are beginning to sound.
>It is the nature of the image itself that is important. The printing
>process is irrelevant.
The printiong process is of concern in order to obtain the results the
artist intended. Why be concerned at all if you really believed what
you just wrote?
Robert L. Vervoordt
<rl...@mindspring.com>
jjame...@my-deja.com
> by most intelligent readers.
>
> qualified them, are dominantly color labs printing amature snap shots
> and professional work on color RC paper. When was the last time you
> saw a fiber based color print?
>
> photographer? Probably the same way you have knowlegde of all things,
> by guessing.
>
> paper, is because the ignorant public demands it, due to the influence
> of people like yourself who blindly repeat the mantra over, and over
> without conscious thought.
>
> use sulphide sepia toner. I also use "alternate processes", like
> cyanotype and gum-bichromate, which truly do give superior results
> with better archival qualities, rather than middle of the road and
> dull old FB silver paper. But these are just too much work most of
> the time.
>
> process is irrelevant.
>
>
> Gene A. Townsend
> This last reply shows your ignorance in the printing of fine art
photography. Most labs that service the amateur photographer whether
color or black and white use machines to print. You need to go to art
galleries that house fine art photography and take a close look at what
is on the wall. The use of FB papers as a printing medium is not some
"myth" propagated by a small segment of the photographic community. It
is the medium of choice for nearly all photographic printers that know
what material is best for depositing their images onto. Your arguments
for RC are unfounded in reality. And you need to look at the prices of
color prints in the art market as compared to black and white. The art
collector is very knowlegable when it comes to what they spend their
money on and it isn't color work by and large due to the fact that color
materials have shown little longevity without fading. But our little
differences of opinion shouldn't sway anyone reading this from using
what works for them. I say if they question any of my assertions they
should go out and find some professional printers of fine art black and
white photography and see for themselves what they are using to make a
living. Send off a letter or fax to the Royal Photographic Society or
look in a magazine such as Camera and Darkroom, Lenswork Quarterly, View
Camera and ask what materials are used most in printing black and white
fine art photography. Also go to their nearest photographic museum and
look on the walls. And by the way, I think you should do these things
too so you will stop standing here making these silly statements
you feel are factual. Beginners in this hobby we call photography don't
need to sit here listening to "our" relative positions. They need to get
up off their duffs and go out and see what is out there for them to use
with confidence. Your turn. James
Paul and Paula Butzi
>The biggest real, material difference, the one that truly affects the image.
>There seems to be no RC paper that responds to toners of all kinds like the
>warmtone fiber-based papers do. If/when there is, I'll be tempted . . . .
>
In my recent round of material testing (trying to select a paper for
my current project) I tried both Ilford MGWT RC and MGWT FB.
My conclusion on those too papers was:
1. MGWT RC is a beautiful paper, with a pleasingly warm
image tone, neutral bright white base, and reasonably
high highlight contrast. If I were going to pick an RC
paper for warmtone printing, I'd pick this one. MGWT RC
tones easily and beautifully in Kodak RST at a dilution of
1:19 almost instantly.
2. MGWT FB is a different emulsion. It tones in RST only at long
times and more concentrated dilutions. The image color
is not, to my eye, as pleasing as that of the RC version.
The base is a creamy white which is far too yellow for
my tastes. The highlight contrast is lower than the RC
version, if I recall, although mostly what I remember is
the ghastly yellow base cast.
Had both the RC and FB versions looked like the RC version, I'd
be printing on the RC stuff now, with final prints on FB to meet
gallery demands. Alas, the RC paper is beautiful but the
FB version looks like dreck - purely a personal opinion, I agree,
but there you go.
chmc
Russell wrote:
> The biggest real, material difference, the one that truly affects the image.
> There seems to be no RC paper that responds to toners of all kinds like the
> warmtone fiber-based papers do. If/when there is, I'll be tempted . . . .
>
> --Russell
>
I've heard this before, and it might be true, but I don't see any logical reason
why having plasic coated paper under the emulsion would have any effect on
tonability. Do you think that the coating has an effect, or that it is just
coincidence?
Adam
Richard Knoppow
I think this is due to most RC papers having cold or neutral tone
emulsions. They don't tone well regardless of the support. Some of the
newer warm tone RC papers tone very well.
Toners are very dependant of the crystaline structure of the image.
The same qualities which make an untoned image brownish also make it
easier for the toner to work on. As a rule of thumb, the browner the
untoned image the yellower or warmer the toned image will be. Cold
toned papers generally respond only to bleach-and-redevelop toner, not
well to single bath toners.
OTOH bleach-and-redevelop toner may be too yellow in tone for
warm-tone paper.
The variation of tone with emulsion, development, effects of
hardener (or lack thereof), and toner formulas is so great that it is
possible to make only pretty broad generalizations, which may not be
true for some combinations.
Russell
"Richard Knoppow" <dick...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:38513872....@news.mindspring.com...
. . .
> Some of the
> newer warm tone RC papers tone very well.
Could you name some names, Richard? Particularly if they produce warm
browns with sepia toning.
. . .
> Cold
> toned papers generally respond only to bleach-and-redevelop toner, not
> well to single bath toners.
> OTOH bleach-and-redevelop toner may be too yellow in tone for
> warm-tone paper.
. . .
I take a slightly different approach to this; I like the golden yellow tones
possible with the warm-tone papers, and don't usually bleach to completion,
sometimes just a tiny bit, to warm the highlights. The colder browns are
possible too, by manipulating the developer/combination, so to me the warm
tone FB papers are much more versatile. Just changing the developer has a
very visible effect on the warmtones, much greater than the cold ones. Most
cold tone papers (at least those several that I have tried) can't be made to
have the golden brown, and are mostly limited to a linoleum-looking cold
brown, with the possible exception of Luminos flexicon, and it has some
other unfortunate idiosyncrasies such as very high contrast.
Gene A. Townsend
Gene A. Townsend:
>>
>> I believe you post is very close to a flame, and will be disregarded
>> by most intelligent readers.
>>
>> You are clearly wrong. "Professional printers" , since you haven't
>> qualified them, are dominantly color labs printing amature snap shots
>> and professional work on color RC paper. When was the last time you
>> saw a fiber based color print?
>>
>> And how, may I ask, do you have any knowledge of my skill as a
>> photographer? Probably the same way you have knowlegde of all things,
>> by guessing.
>>
>> The main reason that "art photography" exhibition printers use FB
>> paper, is because the ignorant public demands it, due to the influence
>> of people like yourself who blindly repeat the mantra over, and over
>> without conscious thought.
>>
>> Myself, I print primarily on luster surfaced Ilford MGIV-RC paper, and
>> use sulphide sepia toner. I also use "alternate processes", like
>> cyanotype and gum-bichromate, which truly do give superior results
>> with better archival qualities, rather than middle of the road and
>> dull old FB silver paper. But these are just too much work most of
>> the time.
>>
>> It is the nature of the image itself that is important. The printing
>> process is irrelevant.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Gene A. Townsend
jjames7774:
Yes, I am being argumentative. :-)
I recently reverted to using Agent for newsgrouping, and need some
practice in using it.
Early in this thread, I made a simple statement that RC and fiber
prints look very similar, especially when displayed under a glass
mount. They also have similar archival performance (not very good),
and my own logic tells me that, therefore, the fiber prints are not
worth the trouble.
99.9% of the photographer who read these posts are not "art
photographers", but rather, amatures like myself who enjoy photography
for its own sake. The conversion of photography, one of the most
widely practiced hobbies in the world, practiced by probably 90% of
the population at one time or another, to art is difficult. Few
people can be convinced that something so commonpolace as photography
can be viewed as art, other than through the perspective that all
things are art. Therefore, marketers, in an attempt to "embelish" the
commonplace to the status of "art" will employ whatever devices are
available. Hence, the "I'm not gonna drop fiber prints for RC 'cause
artists use it" attitude.
Another attitude is from the photographer who wants to be an art
photographer in the future, the not yet recognized as an artist art
photographer, who fears lack of acceptance in the future based on his
use of RC papers in the present. This is probably a large group.
Photography is viewed by most people as "decor art", which is much
more appropriate. And certainly, RC prints are good enough to hang on
the wall for a few years.
I have stacks of old warped fiber prints stored in boxes from the
sixties and seventies. Most of them have yellowed, are mildewed, and
frankly, stink. This is because I was not careful to store them
"properly" for art purposes. However, they are NOT art, as most
photographs are NOT. They are almost garbage.
RC prints remain mould free for long periods, without attention. due
to their waterproof nature, which is mainly their superiority. This
quality alone makes them vastly superior to fiber prints for casual
storage.
To summarize, I don't feel that photography is fine art, except to a
miserably small minority. Photography is a technology, and a craft
that is widely practiced. Beginning photographers should have
reasonable expectations. Go to college, get a degree in engineering
or computer science, then get a good job, and take pictures as a
hobby. It's much better doing things because you enjoy them rather
than for the money. Sell your decor art photographs on the web at
reasonable prices, and a little hobby income may come your way.
Regards,
Gene A. Townsend
Dan Smith, Photographer
> prints look very similar, especially when displayed under a glass
> mount. They also have similar archival performance (not very good),
> and my own logic tells me that, therefore, the fiber prints are not
> worth the trouble.
Sorry Charlie, but this one is only accurate if you aren't a good darkroom
worker. Properly processed, matted and stored, the fibre papers we KNOW will
last. RC is still a crap shoot.
I speak as one who championed RC papers & believed what The Yellow Peril,
Ilford and the others told us about the 'archival properties' of RC papers.
Well, it came back big time again in the past few years & bit all of us in
the butt. RC is not as archival as fibre papers.
That said, I will repeat what I have said over and over(and you mention in
your post as well). The sooner many images fade the better off we all will
be. Too many shoot junk, often using less than excellent technique and/or
vision and it is nothing more than mediocre photography. BUT, if they will
work at the craft as well as the vision, they can do excellent work that
can, will and SHOULD last.
>
> 99.9% of the photographer who read these posts are not "art
> photographers", but rather, amatures like myself who enjoy photography
> for its own sake. The conversion of photography, one of the most
> widely practiced hobbies in the world, practiced by probably 90% of
> the population at one time or another, to art is difficult. Few
> people can be convinced that something so commonpolace as photography
> can be viewed as art, other than through the perspective that all
> things are art. Therefore, marketers, in an attempt to "embelish" the
> commonplace to the status of "art" will employ whatever devices are
> available. Hence, the "I'm not gonna drop fiber prints for RC 'cause
> artists use it" attitude.
Sorry, but this is pure BS and nothing more. Take a stroll through the
galleries and look at the images of Weston, Adams, Strand, Caponigro and
even many photojournalists who print fine images from their work and you
will see ART at its highest. Go in and look and you will come away with a
different opinion on this one.
>
> Another attitude is from the photographer who wants to be an art
> photographer in the future, the not yet recognized as an artist art
> photographer, who fears lack of acceptance in the future based on his
> use of RC papers in the present. This is probably a large group.
Not just lack of acceptance, but lack of integrity as well. RC is NOT an
archival medium at present. IF you can produce excellent images, why in hell
would you print them on a medium that pretty much insures their
impermanence? If it is good, print it well and print it to last. This
includes how you display the images.
>
> Photography is viewed by most people as "decor art", which is much
> more appropriate. And certainly, RC prints are good enough to hang on
> the wall for a few years.
Yep, RC is 'good enough' for those who don't understand and won't take the
extra time needed to produce excellent work.
>
> I have stacks of old warped fiber prints stored in boxes from the
> sixties and seventies. Most of them have yellowed, are mildewed, and
> frankly, stink. This is because I was not careful to store them
> "properly" for art purposes. However, they are NOT art, as most
> photographs are NOT. They are almost garbage.
>
You have chosen the name for your work. It is becoming obvious you
understand your talent and production techniques and where they fit in the
photographic world.
Take time to do it right & you might be able to rise above this.
> RC prints remain mould free for long periods, without attention. due
> to their waterproof nature, which is mainly their superiority. This
> quality alone makes them vastly superior to fiber prints for casual
> storage.
>
> To summarize, I don't feel that photography is fine art, except to a
> miserably small minority. Photography is a technology, and a craft
> that is widely practiced. Beginning photographers should have
> reasonable expectations. Go to college, get a degree in engineering
> or computer science, then get a good job, and take pictures as a
> hobby. It's much better doing things because you enjoy them rather
> than for the money. Sell your decor art photographs on the web at
> reasonable prices, and a little hobby income may come your way.
Anyone who tries to judge quality images, especially the B&W fine print, on
a computer screen is foolish at best. The screen is a fine viewing tool as
long as quality isn't important. The fine print has to be seen to be
appreciated. Just as a fine painting. Most visual art loses big time once
you are removed from the original.
If you want it to last, print it to last. If your vision and your images
aren't worth the effort, what does it matter what you print them on?
Most fine B&W printers use fibre papers & the finest technique possible to
produce images that will last. They do so because they know they have a
vision to share with the world.
DAN SMITH
Richard Knoppow
>On Fri, 10 Dec 1999 13:37:28 GMT, jjame...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
>Gene A. Townsend:
Very long thread snipped here....
This is what I am questioning. The fact that the support for RC is
water proof (except around the edges) does not change the fact that
the _emulsion_ is not. The emulsion, being gelatin, is a very culture
medium, just the sort of stuff mold an mildew love. RC _may_ be more
resistant to mold (I haven't seen any studies, have you) but the
conditions which cause mold infection are likely to affect even
resistant things. Remember, mold can grow on glass if its humid
enough.
Properly processed prints on any support should have a life of
longer than thirty five years. Poor storage conditions are going to
affect RC paper too, again the emulsion is no more protected than it
is on fiber base.
I must say I have fiber prints from the mid 1950's, made when I was
in highschool, which are still good condition. They show no signs of
fading or discoloring, and are not curled or cracking. I used pretty
conventional processing at the time but was careful about keeping
solutions fresh and washing enough. I think I also used a print
flattener routinely. Some of these are 5x7 proofs stored in the
envelopes the paper came in. This is not supposed to be archival but
the prints have survived nonetheless. They _have_ been kept away from
excessive humidity.
As far as pictures not being art, I agree, at least for me. I love
photography but am not much of an artist. BUT, I think the artistic
merit, or lack of it, is not by itself, a sufficient criteria for the
value of a picture. Certainly family pictures, which may be simple
snapshots, are often among the most treasured possesions we have. So,
there are some cases where a non-artistic photograph deserves at least
the liftime of some masterpiece.
>To summarize, I don't feel that photography is fine art, except to a
>miserably small minority. Photography is a technology, and a craft
>that is widely practiced. Beginning photographers should have
>reasonable expectations. Go to college, get a degree in engineering
>or computer science, then get a good job, and take pictures as a
>hobby. It's much better doing things because you enjoy them rather
>than for the money. Sell your decor art photographs on the web at
>reasonable prices, and a little hobby income may come your way.
>
>Regards,
>
>Gene A. Townsend
I am afraid the above is true of all media and good advise.
New Yorker cartoon: Two waiters talking, " I finally got a part; I
play a waiter."
C. J. Morgan
> Early in this thread, I made a simple statement that RC and fiber
> prints look very similar, especially when displayed under a glass
> mount. They also have similar archival performance (not very good),
> and my own logic tells me that, therefore, the fiber prints are not
> worth the trouble.
In defense of James, <jjame...@my-deja.com>, I would have to say that
fiber prints are sometimes worth the trouble. Not always, but sometimes.
I've had many a night where I've toiled for eight straight hours to an
exacting FB print. And while the practice is certainly an act of
patience, looking back in retrospect, it has sometimes been well worth
it.
There is a textured quality and depth to FB prints which I have never
quite been able to achieve using RC paper. And while I agree with you
that one might not notice this difference from across the room when an RC
print & a FB print are both framed under glass, the visual difference is
noticable when one holds two such prints in one's hands and views them
for comparison.
***************
> 99.9% of the photographer who read these posts are not "art
> photographers", but rather, amatures like myself who enjoy photography
> for its own sake.
By your view then, I suppose I am that one in a thousand here. But I
better imagine there are more "art photographers" here than your own stats
might presume. In a sense, most serious amateur photographera -- of which
I sure there are a lot here -- are at one time or another the "art
photographer" themselves. And while they all might not aspire to have
their work shown in galleries & museums, many I imagine are trying to
better themselves as image makers who communicate well with their images.
***************
> The conversion of photography, one of the most
> widely practiced hobbies in the world, practiced by probably 90% of
> the population at one time or another, to art is difficult.
To quote from Robert Persig, from his book "Zen And the Art of Motorcycle
Maintenance":
Actually a root word of technology, techne, originally
meant "art." The ancient Greeks never separated art from
the manufacture in their minds, and so never developed
separate words for them... This divorce of art from
technology is completely unnatural.
***************
> Few people can be convinced that something so commonpolace as photography
> can be viewed as art, other than through the perspective that all
> things are art.
Again, from Persig:
The craftsman isn't ever following a single line of
instruction. He's making decisions as he goes along. For
that reason he'll be absorbed and attentive to what he's
doing even though he doesn't deliberately contrive this.
His motions and the machine are in a kind of harmony.
He isn't following any set of written instructions
because the nature of the material at hand determines
his thoughts and motions, which simultaneously change
the nature of the material at hand. The material and
his thoughts are changing together in a progression of
changes until his mind's at rest at the same time the
material's right.
Sounds like art. Well it is art.
Now if you read these lines, and see the craftsman as photographer, the
machine as camera, and the material as film, chemicals, paper, etc., then
you also soon recognize that a good number of us are artist perhaps more
often than we give ourselves credit for. And if you can understand that,
then it's not such a quantum leap to then see photography as an art form.
And I think most folks could get that if it were just explained this way.
*****************
> Therefore, marketers, in an attempt to "embelish" the
> commonplace to the status of "art" will employ whatever devices are
> available. Hence, the "I'm not gonna drop fiber prints for RC 'cause
> artists use it" attitude.
I never used FB paper because it was "the artist's thing," but rather
because, for all it's extra efforts, it is a material which produces good
results. Simple as that.
***************
> Another attitude is from the photographer who wants to be an art
> photographer in the future, the not yet recognized as an artist art
> photographer, who fears lack of acceptance in the future based on his
> use of RC papers in the present. This is probably a large group.
I have no doubt that this tide will change (if it hasn't started already),
and there will come a time when you might see as many "artists" using RC
as you might otherwise see using FB.
**************
> Photography is viewed by most people as "decor art", which is much
> more appropriate. And certainly, RC prints are good enough to hang on
> the wall for a few years.
No arguement here -- RC certainly has its place. And I imagine all the
more so in the future.
But I am constantly amazed how many people hold to their strong views of
using either FB or RC. And do such people devote at least as much energy
to asking themselves, "Are my images communicating with clarity,
directness, and impact?"
c._downs
Among fine art photographers that I talk to about their feelings and
results of using RC paper one thing stands out - in the very recent
past many photographers have had to replace "silvered out" RC prints.
One photographer I know stands to loose at least $300,000. and all the
prints aren't in yet!
This doesn't seem to happen with Kodak papers { yet! - I mean no
advertizement for Kodak } but as far as I know many of the other paper
manufactures have had poor results. This is well known in the industry
- even Kodak will talk about the problem but they feel that they have
licked the problem and all you are likely to get is a "you should use
Kodak paper" type of answer to most questions.
Setting aside the question of tonality and surface appearance and
thinking only of permanence the real problem is that we only have had
the current types of RC paper for a short while and even Kodak will
state only that "in accelerated aging test" has the new types of paper
been tested to equal Fiberbase. This may turn out to be true but as of
yet we have no real proof. Probably won't for at least 30 more years!
This scares collectors and photographers alike!
Some of us remember when silver photographic prints were considered to
be "risky" collection pieces - due to their perceived stability
problems. Color was not accepted as very stable until very recently.
Only time and continued research will allow for the use of RC prints
in the "fine art" world to be widely accepted.
Many of us that do large prints would greatly welcome the use of RC
paper so we could run it in a roller-transport machine. 42 inch MGIV
fiberbase is a real pain to do by hand!
A discussion of print characteristics can provide an interesting
discussion but permanence can only be proved by the actual aging of
prints in all environments. "Accelerated Aging Test" are great but not
100% reliable.
Most folks that plop down a couple of grand on some photo image want
to have an assurance that RC will last. It may well outlast Fiber but
I'll bet Fiber will still command higher prices in the foreseeable
future. If RC takes over then fiber will be worth even more, all
things equal - look at the price differences between modern silver and
plat. or other antique type prints.
I do think that a good part of the reluctance of photographers to
switch to RC is the prospect of lower sales or price. This has nothing
to do with the photographers themselves but is due to the fact that in
the B&W "fine art" collecting world fiber is and has been the
benchmark of quality for decades. For most the better sales and price
is well worth the trouble. If you are concerned with the image only
then the choice of media is yours alone but to exist as an artist
selling silver prints will require adherence to the standards present
in the "marketplace".
When patrons start asking about having prints made on RC you will
quickly see a switch over for many.
{got your flames ready?}
As to the "Art" and photography statements : "Still" or so called
"Silver Print" photography is not only art but the defining art from
the last of the 1800's to early 1930's when it began to be recognized
world wide for its influence on all of the other arts. In painting
several disciplines such as Futurism, Cubism, and to an extent Dadaism
all gave the work of early photo "artist" as the basics for their
vision.
This is in no way to be taken as an endorsement that most or even
small amounts of photography are be considered art. Very little of the
work of any discipline is really deserving of the "Art" label.
What does constitute "art" is the same in all types of media or
discipline - whether it is Photography, Music, Painting, Motion
Picture, Sculpture or Dance.
When someone speaks of photography as "Yes- an art" or "No-a craft"
they are completely missing the concept of art.
Art is not media dependent!
The longevity of a chosen medium for art is also not part of the
equation.
Art can be words on a page or concepts only described where the
description becomes the "Art".
Art is absolutely _not_ "In the eye of the beholder."
The concepts that define "art" are internationally universal and allow
diverse populations such as the Asians to enjoy Bach and the western
world to enjoy Haiku. Even philosophers as diverse as George
Santayanna and Beaumont Newhall agree on most of the perimeters. We
have several centuries of literature concerning the nature of art.
The M.O.M.A. as well as all of the leading galleries and museums
warmly welcome photography as one of the leading arts.
You will not find art in the type of paper you use to print
photographs on or whether you are a painter or singer.
Art will be found in the concept, vision and quality of expression of
people whatever their discipline or media.
In most circles "motion picture" or "video" works will be considered
"the art" of the last half of this century. Computer "art" will
probably develop into a recognized discipline before long and will
probably be the next "in" medium of expression. The Computer or
Digital products that best exemplify the qualities we define as "Art"
will be as valid in the art world as the marble statues of the Greeks.
Gene A. Townsend
>
...stuff snipped...
>
>{got your flames ready?}
>As to the "Art" and photography statements : "Still" or so called
>"Silver Print" photography is not only art but the defining art from
>the last of the 1800's to early 1930's when it began to be recognized
>world wide for its influence on all of the other arts. In painting
>several disciplines such as Futurism, Cubism, and to an extent Dadaism
>all gave the work of early photo "artist" as the basics for their
>vision.
...more snips...
Wow!
Thanks for the GREAT post on the subject of art and RC prints!
Regards,
Gene A. Townsend