Q: B&W non plastic paper drying
Ilan Ginsburg
I used plastic paper (Ilford Multigrade RCIII usually) and I'm
switching now to fiber paper (Ilford FB or something like it) for better
image quality.
I have problems with drying the pictures, I can't get them really flat.
I know of a machine called "galceuse" in french (metal heating plane
covered by a piece of something I had forgotten the name in english).
I plan to buy such a machine and I'd like to hear your comments on what
kind of machine to buy and how to use it (do you put the paper inside when
it's wet or do you dry it before? etc.)
Thanks a lot.
--
Ilan Ginsburg. LGI-IMAG. Grenoble, France.
E-mail: Ilan.G...@imag.fr
^
Stratton Nauman
: I am an amateur B&W photographer.
: I used plastic paper (Ilford Multigrade RCIII usually) and I'm
: switching now to fiber paper (Ilford FB or something like it) for better
: image quality.
This has *got* to be one of the biggest myths in photography today,
that RC paper is not as good as FB. Don't have the time now to
type up all my sources, but if anyone is interested, we can start
a discussion.
:)
Dave Nauman
Thor Lancelot Simon
Sure, go ahead. I'm particularly interested in how you refute the repeatedly
documented problems of delamination and substrate yellowing under UV exposure.
Polyester "plastic" paper probably _is_ as good as FB. But I don't know of
any such black-and-white paper; do you?
--
Thor Lancelot Simon t...@panix.COM
But as he knew no bad language, he had called him all the names of common
objects that he could think of, and had screamed: "You lamp! You towel! You
plate!" and so on. --Sigmund Freud
Stratton Nauman
: In article <2u6o99$2...@hq.hq.af.mil>, Stratton Nauman <snauman@pafosu1> wrote:
: >Ilan Ginsburg (ginz...@imag.fr) wrote:
: >: I am an amateur B&W photographer.
: >: I used plastic paper (Ilford Multigrade RCIII usually) and I'm
: >: switching now to fiber paper (Ilford FB or something like it) for better
: >: image quality.
: >
: >This has *got* to be one of the biggest myths in photography today,
: >that RC paper is not as good as FB. Don't have the time now to
: >type up all my sources, but if anyone is interested, we can start
: >a discussion.
: Sure, go ahead. I'm particularly interested in how you refute the repeatedly
: documented problems of delamination and substrate yellowing under UV exposure.
: Polyester "plastic" paper probably _is_ as good as FB. But I don't know of
: any such black-and-white paper; do you?
Well, I guess I asked for it, so here goes :)
My sources are:
The Case for RC, Blaker, Darkroom Photography, Sept 1986
The Case for RC Revisited, Darkroom Photograph, Nov 1991
both written by Alfred A. Blaker. He draws also upon some other sources
too numerous to list here.
First of all, I must qualify my origional remark. Only *some*
RC papers are as good as, or better than the average FB paper. Older
RC papers, when they first came out, did have a number of problems
(to include those that you mention above). A Modern, exhibition
quality, Non Developer incorporated (Important) RC paper does not
exhibit these same problems.
Where to start....
1. RC paper has a microscopically thin layer of polyethelene (PE)
extruded on both sides of the paper base. (Not polyester). It
*is* fiber based, i.e. Paper. It just has PE between the emulsion
and the paper. The effects of this are most importantly that
fixer does not permeate the paper, and thus washing times are reduced
from hours and hours to only 3 minutes or so. It also elminiates the
need to have a good archival washer as well :) In these days of
hyper-environmentalism, wasting hundreds of gallons of water doesnt
appear to me to be being a good earth citizen. Note, your FB washing
times may vary, but I have read many articles where the author was
heavy into "archival" processing, and recommended washing for 24 hours
or more.
2. Mr Blaker says that under accelerated age testing, RC papers
won't crack after even a simulated 100 year time. Note again, some
early papers *did*.
3. The actual emulsion of both FB and RC papers is almost exactly
the same. Same stuff. Therefore, It can not be said that one fades
faster or slower than the other. They fade at the same rate. In
either case, both you and I will be long dead before either one of these
types of paper fades on us.
4. Mr Blaker contends that the gloss of a good RC paper is even better
than that of most FB papers.
5. RC papers don't curl. They dry flat, and stay flat for their lives.
Not so with FB papers. Put FB in the sun, and it will curl up on you,
possibly even necessitating resoaking to uncurl it.
6. Mr Blaker conducted a test with a number of students and working
professionals (including some with very anti-RC bias). He made a number
of prints, and asked them to choose the best of them. In his words,
the results were unequivocable. *All* of the viewers chose the RC
prints as being the best. He contends that this is because the gloss
is better on RC prints.
7. Mr Blaker goes into a long detailed explanation for yellowing.
Yellowing can be caused by developer incorporated papers. Yellowing
is *not* caused by the RC papers in general, but by the developer
put into some of them. The solution is simply to use a premium
non developer incorporated RC paper, such as Ilford's Multigrade III
RC Deluxe.
8. Delamination... Mr Blaker tested papers with both a 24 and 72
hour soak, and was unable to find any instance whatsoever of
so called "delamination". This pseudo problem stems from the fact
that manufacturers, when RC papers were first introduced, put
labels on them warning of delamination. In the long term, this
did not turn out to be a problem at all.
9. In a 1979 paper by Mr Timothy Parsons of Kodak, he found that
in accelerated age testing of 100 years, interesting enough,
fiber papers produced cracking in the emulsion, but RC papers did
not. (Personal comment -> Although this is a purely academic
argument, I find it somewhat amusing to think that it is possible
that my RC prints will outlast all of these archival purists FB
prints :)
10. Mr Blaker conducted his own tests. He found that after a
cumulative 60 hours of direct sunlight, the emulsion of FB papers
flaked off. But even at 60 hours, the RC papers remained strong
and flexible.
11. Someone else that he quotes went whole hog. They took some
sample RC prints, and nailed them to their houses for FOUR years
in direct sunlight. There was no change in apearance to those
that were stored as opposed to those that were nailed to the house
except for a minor tanning effect in the gelatin.
Thats enough for now. Except at specifically noted above, these
ideas are all Mr Blakers or his sources, not my own. Although
I agree with his conclusions :)
The bottom line, A modern, non developer incorporated RC paper
will probably outlast most FB papers. And save you a bunch in
your water bill to boot.
Regards :)
Dave Nauman
ّ€ّ€€€ّ€€€€€ّّ€€€€ّ€€€€ّ€ّّ€€€€€€€€ّ€€€€
mike...@austin.ibm.com
Henry Wilhelm has noted some problems with RC paper that was manufactured
about 1985. The problem is that after a while on display the prints develop
red spots. I think that he indicated that it was developer incorporated
RC paper.
His suggestion was to wait and see if the modern RC paper exhibited this
after 5 or so years on display.
I have some paper based prints that are 80 years old, and don't show any
problems. I have some that are mounted on carboard that are over 100 years
old. They look fine to me, but I don't know what they looked like to begin
with. I would say that they have not changed much. They are sepia toned.
The storage of these photos was poor until I got them (hot and cold attic,
in trunk).
--
Michael (Mike) C. Dean
IBM - RISC/6000 Division
Austin, Texas.
Disclaimer - The opinions expressed in this append are mine alone.
NADO000
witnessed a lot of problems with RC papers. A more up to date
analysis is Henry Wilhelm's recent book _The Permanence of Color,
etc...._
Wilhelm's book is still not quite up to date as he believed that
some of the RC papers on the market did not have developing agents
built-in. They did, as I found myself by accident, by feeding one
such paper through an old Ektamatic processor, and it worked!
The IPI (Image Permanence Institute, RIT, Rochester) folks had quite
a discussion going about this on the Conservation DistList (owner:
Walter Henry, Stanford U, which archives the list:
whe...@lindy.Stanford).
Luis Nadeau
>x x ~x ~ xx x x ~xx ~ x ~ ~ ~
>.
>.
Lawrence Akutagawa
: Wilhelm's book is still not quite up to date as he believed that
: some of the RC papers on the market did not have developing agents
: built-in. They did, as I found myself by accident, by feeding one
: such paper through an old Ektamatic processor, and it worked!
Yup....some papers do, and logically enough, some don't. For example,
Ilford's Multigrade RC III does incorporate developing agents, while its
Multigrade RC III Deluxe does not. So not all of them do and - likewise -
not all of them don't. Seems to me that Wilhelm was/is right on the
money with his observation.
btw, for those not in the know, the developer impregnated papers are
designed for quick development using tabletop processors (newspaper work
and the like). They can be used in trays with regular bw developers as
well - Dektol, etc. And boy, do they speed up development! Seems as
though almost as soon as the paper hits the the developer - wham...there's
your image forming. By comparison, the paper without impregnated
developer seems to take forever to get its image started.
Thor Lancelot Simon
Wilhelm's latest, The Permanence of Color Processes, disputes this claim.
I'll just say that in my informal accellerated aging test of choice (leaving a
few sheets of paper X and paper Y outside stapled to my roof, after proper
blank develop/fix/wash, for two or three weeks, come rain or shine) I _have_
seen RC papers peel apart. Where paper X was New Seagull FB glossy, air
dried, and paper Y was Ilford Multigrade RC III Deluxe, the FB paper faded
somewhat, and got various marks on the emulsion from the exposure to rain,
bits-o-tree-stuff and the like, and yellowed very very slightly, I assume as a
consequence of the brightener in the paper base taking a hike.
The RC paper's emulsion seemed a bit tougher, but the paper was noticeably
yellower than a new sheet of the same stuff, and the paper was beginning to
peel apart at the corners. (not around the staple holes, but from the bottom
edge and all corners.
As I don't ordinarily squirt my prints with a water gun, or throw tree
branches at them, the yellowing, which Wilhelm says is because of UV-induced
changes in the polyethylene, worries me much more, as does the peeling at the
edges, though that may be due to water exposure.
YMMV.
Gregory Pease
>Thor Lancelot Simon (t...@panix.com) wrote:
>: In article <2u6o99$2...@hq.hq.af.mil>, Stratton Nauman <snauman@pafosu1> wrote:
>: >Ilan Ginsburg (ginz...@imag.fr) wrote:
>: >: I am an amateur B&W photographer.
>: >: I used plastic paper (Ilford Multigrade RCIII usually) and I'm
>: >: switching now to fiber paper (Ilford FB or something like it) for better
>: >: image quality.
>: >
>: >This has *got* to be one of the biggest myths in photography today,
>: >that RC paper is not as good as FB. Don't have the time now to
>: >type up all my sources, but if anyone is interested, we can start
>: >a discussion.
>: Sure, go ahead. I'm particularly interested in how you refute the repeatedly
>: documented problems of delamination and substrate yellowing under UV exposure.
>: Polyester "plastic" paper probably _is_ as good as FB. But I don't know of
>: any such black-and-white paper; do you?
>Well, I guess I asked for it, so here goes :)
[...much information deleted...]
The truth of the matter is that modern RC papers are excellent, and can
produce excellent prints with good Dmax and lovely grey scale. Further,
if processed at all carefully, they will likely outlast the *average*
fibre based print, since the *average* print is *not* archivally processed.
I have RC prints on the walls of my hallway which look wonderful. They
are exposed to several hours of indirect sun eery day, and an hour or two
of direct sun. There is no evidence o crazing, cracking, delamination
discouloring, or tanning of the gelatin. Some of them have been on display
for 5 or 6 years.
RC prints also lie flat, are less succeptable to damage from atmospheric
contaminants, and can be handled with relative impunity.
The usual argument of fibre vs. RC print quality is one of grey scale.
The argument *should* be graded paper vs. multigrade paper. Most of
the printed arguments compare a graded fibre paper to a multigrade RC
paper. Graded papers clearly have an edge in highlight seperation. A
glance at the D LogE curves for each demonstrates this clearly.
As I have written before, I am glad to have the choice. If you haven't
given the modern RC papers a try, do so. You *might* be surprised.
Cheers,
Gregory
--
| Gregory Pease |
| g...@netcom.com |
| 510/234-2830 |
Thor Lancelot Simon
>snauman@pafosu1 (Stratton Nauman) writes:
>
>>Thor Lancelot Simon (t...@panix.com) wrote:
>>: In article <2u6o99$2...@hq.hq.af.mil>, Stratton Nauman <snauman@pafosu1> wrote:
>>: >Ilan Ginsburg (ginz...@imag.fr) wrote:
>>: >: I am an amateur B&W photographer.
>>: >: I used plastic paper (Ilford Multigrade RCIII usually) and I'm
>>: >: switching now to fiber paper (Ilford FB or something like it) for better
>>: >: image quality.
>>: >
>>: >This has *got* to be one of the biggest myths in photography today,
>>: >that RC paper is not as good as FB. Don't have the time now to
>>: >type up all my sources, but if anyone is interested, we can start
>>: >a discussion.
>
>>: Sure, go ahead. I'm particularly interested in how you refute the repeatedly
>>: documented problems of delamination and substrate yellowing under UV exposure.
>
>>: Polyester "plastic" paper probably _is_ as good as FB. But I don't know of
>>: any such black-and-white paper; do you?
>
>>Well, I guess I asked for it, so here goes :)
>[...much information deleted...]
>
>The truth of the matter is that modern RC papers are excellent, and can
>produce excellent prints with good Dmax and lovely grey scale. Further,
>if processed at all carefully, they will likely outlast the *average*
>fibre based print, since the *average* print is *not* archivally processed.
I don't know about _your_ average prints, but _my_ average prints are most
certainly archivally processed.
Why would I even bother to make prints, if I didn't want them to last?
>I have RC prints on the walls of my hallway which look wonderful. They
>are exposed to several hours of indirect sun eery day, and an hour or two
>of direct sun. There is no evidence o crazing, cracking, delamination
>discouloring, or tanning of the gelatin. Some of them have been on display
>for 5 or 6 years.
That would be "direct sun, through window glass", not "direct sun", right?
The difference is that the pane of glass kills most of the UV.
>RC prints also lie flat, are less succeptable to damage from atmospheric
>contaminants, and can be handled with relative impunity.
As long as you don't mind getting all those little "dings" in them, since they
don't dry stiff.
>The usual argument of fibre vs. RC print quality is one of grey scale.
>The argument *should* be graded paper vs. multigrade paper. Most of
>the printed arguments compare a graded fibre paper to a multigrade RC
>paper. Graded papers clearly have an edge in highlight seperation. A
>glance at the D LogE curves for each demonstrates this clearly.
However, no high-quality graded emulsion is currently available coated on RC,
which once again tilts the balance decidedly in favor of fibre based papers.
>As I have written before, I am glad to have the choice. If you haven't
>given the modern RC papers a try, do so. You *might* be surprised.
I have. I can't stand them. Along with all the other problems, those "dings"
drive me absolutely crazy. At least you've got a reasonable chance of not
wrinkling or cracking FB even if you *do* accidentally drop it, even whilt
it's wet. RC gets kinks in it that just won't ever come out...
Chris Perez
>The truth of the matter is that modern RC papers are excellent, and can
>produce excellent prints with good Dmax and lovely grey scale. Further,
My favorite is Kodak's E surface RC papers. The black is so good i
_really_ have to work FB papers to match it.
>discouloring, or tanning of the gelatin. Some of them have been on display
>for 5 or 6 years.
Believe it or not, 15 years ago I processed a great many images in one
of those automatic kodak processors. They've been hung, moved, packed,
unpacked, thumbed, cleaned, etc ad nauseum and they still look every bit
as good as my archival FB processed images. I didn't think this was
possible.
Also, here in the Great Pathetic North Wet there are a few RC "Art" papers
being sold which promise a higher silver content. I'll be trying these
just to see how they compare with my favored papers.
>given the modern RC papers a try, do so. You *might* be surprised.
I've stayed away from the glossy surfaces as they still appear "milky" to
me. The Ilford Pearl and Kodak E surfaces give a surprising tonal range
and Dmax.
Christopher Perez - ch...@swmerc.rain.com
Ty Monson
Thor Lancelot Simon <t...@panix.com> wrote:
>In article <glpCs7...@netcom.com>, Gregory Pease <g...@netcom.com> wrote:
>>snauman@pafosu1 (Stratton Nauman) writes:
(delete earlier arguments)
>>The truth of the matter is that modern RC papers are excellent, and can
>>produce excellent prints with good Dmax and lovely grey scale. Further,
>>if processed at all carefully, they will likely outlast the *average*
>>fibre based print, since the *average* print is *not* archivally processed.
>I don't know about _your_ average prints, but _my_ average prints are most
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>certainly archivally processed.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
If *your* average prints are truly archivally processed,
then it isn't appropriate to call them average.
It might occur to people that the kind of word-play that
Thor initiated contributes nothing meaningful to the discussion
of RC vs Fiber papers.
(delete more)
>The difference is that the pane of glass kills most of the UV.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Most, maybe, but not all. And if glass was a reliable means
of protecting prints from UV, then that would be taken care of
by the pane in the display frame. I have never seen any report that
photographic prints are completely protected by putting them
behind glass. Indeed, I have seen faded display prints under glass.
As a practical matter, B&W prints a very durable. Unless kept outside,
or in some other extraordinarily severe environment it is difficult
to detect changes even over a decade of display - unless the print
was inadequately washed.
>>RC prints also lie flat, are less succeptable to damage from atmospheric
>>contaminants, and can be handled with relative impunity.
>As long as you don't mind getting all those little "dings" in them, since they
>don't dry stiff.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
??????????? What on earth could this guy be talking about?
Fiber prints ding. Easily and severely.
And RC papers don't dry stiff????
Well, yes they will flex. So do fiber papers.
>However, no high-quality graded emulsion is currently available coated on RC,
>which once again tilts the balance decidedly in favor of fibre based papers.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Only if we accept the notion that RC papers do not have high quality
emulsions.
>>As I have written before, I am glad to have the choice. If you haven't
>>given the modern RC papers a try, do so. You *might* be surprised.
>I have. I can't stand them. Along with all the other problems, those "dings"
>drive me absolutely crazy. At least you've got a reasonable chance of not
>wrinkling or cracking FB even if you *do* accidentally drop it, even whilt
>it's wet. RC gets kinks in it that just won't ever come out...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Kinks don't come out of fiber papers, either. Unfortunately. :-(
If I accidentally drop a fiber print, it invariably gets a crease.
The crease is permanent.
Using fiber paper does not cure the problem of damage through
mishandling.
Gregory Pease
>g...@netcom.com writes:
>>The truth of the matter is that modern RC papers are excellent, and can
>>produce excellent prints with good Dmax and lovely grey scale. Further,
>>if processed at all carefully, they will likely outlast the *average*
>>fibre based print, since the *average* print is *not* archivally processed.
>I don't know about _your_ average prints, but _my_ average prints are most
>certainly archivally processed.
Someone always has to get pedantic...Sure, *my* average fibre print is
archiuvally processed, and apparently yours is as well. *THE* average
fibre print is *not*, however, and the *average* photo buyer wouldn't
pay the price for an archivally processed fibre print.
>Why would I even bother to make prints, if I didn't want them to last?
>>I have RC prints on the walls of my hallway which look wonderful. They
>>are exposed to several hours of indirect sun eery day, and an hour or two
>>of direct sun. There is no evidence o crazing, cracking, delamination
>>discouloring, or tanning of the gelatin. Some of them have been on display
>>for 5 or 6 years.
>That would be "direct sun, through window glass", not "direct sun", right?
>The difference is that the pane of glass kills most of the UV.
I know of very few individuals who routinely use photographs as roofing
tiles. Displayed prints are generally framed, generally behind glass.
There is a lot more to protect prints from than just UV, and many prints
end up exhibited in less than pristine environs.
>>RC prints also lie flat, are less succeptable to damage from atmospheric
>>contaminants, and can be handled with relative impunity.
>As long as you don't mind getting all those little "dings" in them, since they
>don't dry stiff.
>>The usual argument of fibre vs. RC print quality is one of grey scale.
>>The argument *should* be graded paper vs. multigrade paper. Most of
>>the printed arguments compare a graded fibre paper to a multigrade RC
>>paper. Graded papers clearly have an edge in highlight seperation. A
>>glance at the D LogE curves for each demonstrates this clearly.
>However, no high-quality graded emulsion is currently available coated on RC,
>which once again tilts the balance decidedly in favor of fibre based papers.
>>As I have written before, I am glad to have the choice. If you haven't
>>given the modern RC papers a try, do so. You *might* be surprised.
>I have. I can't stand them. Along with all the other problems, those "dings"
>drive me absolutely crazy. At least you've got a reasonable chance of not
>wrinkling or cracking FB even if you *do* accidentally drop it, even whilt
>it's wet. RC gets kinks in it that just won't ever come out...
I have had many RC prints in my exhibits, and have received numerous
accolades for the print quality...even from professionals and others
"in the know" about such things. That RC paper is no good is simply
a load of codswallop. The emprerical evidence bears this out. (The
papers under scrutiny were, by the way, Ilford Multigrade III Deluxe
and Kodak Polymax.)
I really don't see what you have to gain by denegrating an entire class
of product simply because you don't like it. People should use what they
like and not use what they don't like. Frankly, all the papers I use
today are a far cry in terms of highlight seperation from a load of
old Dupont Varigam I scrounged at a jumble sale. The paper base was not
particularly white, but the greyscale was phenomenal, and the blacks
as velvety as any I have seen. Alas, time moves on, materials change,
and we the vigilant must be ever prepared to adapt to modernity.
(But, come to think of it, that Orwo stuff from East Germany was quite
nice...I'll bet the unification will screw that one up!)
Cheerrs,
Thor Lancelot Simon
>t...@panix.com (Thor Lancelot Simon) writes:
>
>>g...@netcom.com writes:
>>>The truth of the matter is that modern RC papers are excellent, and can
>>>produce excellent prints with good Dmax and lovely grey scale. Further,
>>>if processed at all carefully, they will likely outlast the *average*
>>>fibre based print, since the *average* print is *not* archivally processed.
>
>>I don't know about _your_ average prints, but _my_ average prints are most
>>certainly archivally processed.
>
>Someone always has to get pedantic...Sure, *my* average fibre print is
>archiuvally processed, and apparently yours is as well. *THE* average
>fibre print is *not*, however, and the *average* photo buyer wouldn't
>pay the price for an archivally processed fibre print.
I am not convinced that very many people still print on fibre who don't care
enough to process it archivally. I suspect most of the people who wouldn't
now print on RC.
As you've said, RC can give excellent results, and is a lot less work. *I*
don't like it. That's what I said in my article, along with a report of some
results from my informal testing, and some information I'd gathered elsewhere.
*I* don't like RC. That's all. What's wrong with my saying that?
>>Why would I even bother to make prints, if I didn't want them to last?
>
>>>I have RC prints on the walls of my hallway which look wonderful. They
>>>are exposed to several hours of indirect sun eery day, and an hour or two
>>>of direct sun. There is no evidence o crazing, cracking, delamination
>>>discouloring, or tanning of the gelatin. Some of them have been on display
>>>for 5 or 6 years.
>
>>That would be "direct sun, through window glass", not "direct sun", right?
>>The difference is that the pane of glass kills most of the UV.
>
>I know of very few individuals who routinely use photographs as roofing
>tiles. Displayed prints are generally framed, generally behind glass.
Sometimes. A lot of photographers really hate to put their prints behind
glass, since it reduces perceptible contrast somewhat, and also removes most
of the impression of the paper surface. If I liked a paper surface as shiny
as a piece of glass, I'd print on RC glossy or ferrotype my prints, but I
think both those surfaces look ugly.
>There is a lot more to protect prints from than just UV, and many prints
>end up exhibited in less than pristine environs.
>
>>>RC prints also lie flat, are less succeptable to damage from atmospheric
>>>contaminants, and can be handled with relative impunity.
>
>>As long as you don't mind getting all those little "dings" in them, since they
>>don't dry stiff.
Someone waxed incredulous about this before, so I'll explain what I mean by
"dings". RC paper doesn't really dry stiff (nor does it bend any differently
wet than dry, of course. :-). It's always somewhat flexible and springy.
Unfortunately, what this means is that picking up large RC prints the way many
people tend to pick them up (by a single point, or carelessly any way at all)
is prone to cause the paper to flop around such that it leaves a permanent
small "ding" mark at the bottom of one of the small folds it's flopped in and
out of.
I print quite a bit of RC, since I do a lot of work in color. I'm always
amazed at how careless the other people using the darkrooms I work in often
are with their prints after they come out of the Colenta's dryer. I often see
11x14 or even 8x10 prints with three or four such marks on them, and when the
makers of those prints chance to pick up my work, I generally cringe.
Yes, fibre is susceptible to creasing and cracking, but it's a lot harder to
do that to a piece of FB than it is to put those "dings" in the middle of an
RC print just by picking it up. About the worst that it's easy to do to a dry
fibre print is drop it and crush one of the corners, which likely doesn't have
an image in it anyway. Dropping a piece of RC on its corner almost always
puts a ding right in the middle of the image somewhere, and starts the corner
peeling apart.
I also like the variety of surfaces to which fibre can be dried better than I
like any of the prevalent two or three RC surfaces. RC glossy looks awful to
me (of course, this is very subjective), even worse than ferrotyped prints,
which I don't like at all. RC "pearl" or "semi-matte" or Kodak's RC rendition
of "E" is O.K., and does seem to have a nice long tonal range; it's the
surface I use for all my color prints, and it's certainly not at all bad. In
fact, Fuji's version of it is a big reason I don't like to put my color prints
behind glass. RC matte, when you can find it, is nice for writing on, but
that's about all. If I wanted photo paper to write on, I'd go buy
document-weight FB. :-) I don't like any of them nearly as well as several of
the available FB surfaces. It's of course all a subjective thing, but I know
what I like and RC ain't it.
>>>The usual argument of fibre vs. RC print quality is one of grey scale.
>>>The argument *should* be graded paper vs. multigrade paper. Most of
>>>the printed arguments compare a graded fibre paper to a multigrade RC
>>>paper. Graded papers clearly have an edge in highlight seperation. A
>>>glance at the D LogE curves for each demonstrates this clearly.
>
>>However, no high-quality graded emulsion is currently available coated on RC,
>>which once again tilts the balance decidedly in favor of fibre based papers.
I must admit that this statement of mine is incorrect, and I should know
better; when I can find them I do print sometimes on Agfa graded RC papers,
which I think are pretty good. Still, the overwhelming majority of the
emulsions coated on RC paper are multigrade.
[...]
>
>I have had many RC prints in my exhibits, and have received numerous
>accolades for the print quality...even from professionals and others
>"in the know" about such things. That RC paper is no good is simply
>a load of codswallop. The emprerical evidence bears this out. (The
>papers under scrutiny were, by the way, Ilford Multigrade III Deluxe
>and Kodak Polymax.)
You like Polymax? Ilford MGIIID always seemed like a pretty good paper, but
I've never cared for Kodak's RC papers. I also have a lot of trouble printing
on Kodak VC paper, since I use a cold head on my enlarger most of the time. I
haven't tried Polymax, though; is it a lot better than Polycontrast III or IV
or whatever it was?
My largest problem with RC papers is that they're almost all multigrade, and
not very many of the graded papers are of high quality. Agfa make some nice
graded RC papers, but they're often hard to find and expensive. Adorama have
a store brand, and Luminos sell some graded RC papers, too, but having tried
both of the latter I'm entirely convinced that they're junk.
>I really don't see what you have to gain by denegrating an entire class
>of product simply because you don't like it. People should use what they
>like and not use what they don't like. Frankly, all the papers I use
>today are a far cry in terms of highlight seperation from a load of
>old Dupont Varigam I scrounged at a jumble sale. The paper base was not
>particularly white, but the greyscale was phenomenal, and the blacks
>as velvety as any I have seen. Alas, time moves on, materials change,
>and we the vigilant must be ever prepared to adapt to modernity.
I'm really not sure _why_ this is so. There are plenty of printing papers
available which exhibit wonderful highlight separation. They aren't, however,
variable contrast. And I don't think any of the particularly stellar
performers are available on RC. I've seen Varigam; it's nice, but I'd put
Seagull Glossy up against it any time; a look at the DlogE curves _does_ show
that Seagull does better.
Speaking of DlogE curves, another problem I have with VC papers (and therefore
with most RC papers) is that they get all of their "contrast grade change" by
adjusting the placement of the blacks. This leads to funny-shaped DlogE
curves that certainly don't do what _I_ expect a contrast grade change to do,
but just kick the zone II/zone I boundary around a lot instead. This means
that you can't _do_ some things with VC papers that you can do with graded
ones. Of course, the opposite is also true, but since I try not to make
negatives so bad that I'd need to use tricks like dodging or burning with
contrast filters, I consider the former to be much more of a problem.
I also see no reason whatsoever from an archival stanpoint to _not_ use FB.
Procedures for archivally preserving FB prints are well known and reasonably
simple, and I have no difficulty in following them with reasonable confidence
that my prints will, at the very least, look as good 50 years from now as they
do today.
One of the things that particularly worries me about the permanence of RC is
that all of the manufacturers offering the same color emulsions on polyester
and RC bases advise that the permanence of images on the polyester base
"paper" will be substantially longer. Wilhelm's book points out several
possible reasons for this, which would also seem to apply to RC. There is
vast experience in the archival care of polyester-base film. Were polyester
black-and-white materials available, I would feel much more comfortable using
them than I do about using RC.
>(But, come to think of it, that Orwo stuff from East Germany was quite
>nice...I'll bet the unification will screw that one up!)
Probably had loads of cadmium in it, which is a no-no in most Western
countries. You might give the Forte products a try...
DK WORKSHO
Simon) writes:
I'm not gonna quote all that. The subject is RC versus Fiber.
This argument has been going on for far too long. I'll just throw in
a couple of observations:
Tests between RC & Fiber papers generally involve characteristic
curve comparisons. It is foolish to assume that the only
characteristics a paper has are those expressed by the curve, simply
because those are the only characteristics we can currently measure.
It is also foolish to show prints to a group of students or others
who are perhaps less than entirely prepared to judge differences in
print quality and then use their inability to see the large
differences between the two types of paper as proof that there are no
differences.
Unfortunately, every last person who owns a camera and has ever made
a B&W print is absolutely convinced of their ability to judge print
quality and compare one print to another. Not one single person who
reads this will think for even a millisecond that they might be one
of the people not sufficiently experienced to see the differences.
Like anything else worthwhile, seeing the most in a photograph takes
a long time and lots of experience and practice. (Many people widely
considered good printers by the majority of photograhers, are really
only mediocre. But that majority of people can't see that or ever be
convinced of it.)
There are enormous differences in visual and technical quality
between RC and Fiber papers. I have often been tempted to trash a
negative I have first printed on RC paper (I use it for proofs)
because it looks so bad, only to realize on printing it on fiber,
that trashing it would have been a mistake.
I cannot sell these ideas to any of you, it's something each of us
must learn to appreciate on our own. But think of this for a moment:
How many really big name B&W photographers print their serious images
on RC paper?
Perhaps they see something you don't. Keep at it however, and you
will!
David Kachel Workshops
Peter Mustel
that I can feel with my hands - this is really paper. Not plastic. It just
doesn't feel right to make print on plastic.
The second reason is that I like the surface of air-dryed FB papers. I hate
milky glossy RC papers.
/PM
Thomas Niemann
Ilford Multigrade II RC paper was popular. However, I noticed an
objectionable blue cast to it. I like RC paper for its convenience,
but reverted to FB paper for final prints. I can't remember if I
used graded or multigrade FB paper.
Has the blue cast problem been solved? For both graded and non-graded
RC paper?
NADO000
>of those automatic kodak processors. They've been hung, moved, packed,
>unpacked, thumbed, cleaned, etc ad nauseum and they still look every bit
>as good as my archival FB processed images. I didn't think this was
>possible.
>
>Also, here in the Great Pathetic North Wet there are a few RC "Art" papers
>being sold which promise a higher silver content. I'll be trying these
>just to see how they compare with my favored papers.
>
>>given the modern RC papers a try, do so. You *might* be surprised.
>
>I've stayed away from the glossy surfaces as they still appear "milky" to
^ This is caused by your drying method. To get rid of this problem
you need an *infrared* dryer. The best one is made by Ilford and it
is pretty expensive, i.e., about 2 grand
For more on this, consult Wilhelm's book _The Permanence of
Color..._ who also explains why all RC papers are grossly inferior
to fiber base papers.
Luis Nadeau
lna...@unb.ca
>me. The Ilford Pearl and Kodak E surfaces give a surprising tonal range
>and Dmax.
>
>
>Christopher Perez - ch...@swmerc.rain.com
>
>.
>.
Mike Rosenlof
DK WORKSHO <dkwo...@aol.com> wrote:
[... a bunch of very reasonable stuff about paper characteristics
and who can judge good prints deleted. ]
>I cannot sell these ideas to any of you, it's something each of us
>must learn to appreciate on our own. But think of this for a moment:
>How many really big name B&W photographers print their serious images
>on RC paper?
>Perhaps they see something you don't. Keep at it however, and you
>will!
Think of this for a moment:
The really big name B&W photographers are doing this as a business.
Selling a product. This means there is marketing involved, and the
current state of the fine art photography market is that fine art B&W
prints must be on archivally processed fiber based paper. Perhaps
that's the special quality that they see. Now maybe there are good
technical reasons for this, but maybe there aren't. I admit I haven't
really studied this topic in any detail.
Market domination does not necessarily mean technical superiority, as much
as the makers (and users) of the dominating product might wish.
My B&W prints I'm most proud of? Printed on Gallerie, toned lightly
in selenium, and washed forever. Maybe someday I'll try those negs on
Illfospeed deluxe. (The next time I loose some shingles from my roof?)
-mike
--
mike rosenlof (206)455-5932
mi...@neopath.com NeoPath, Bellevue Washington USA
Niels Jensen
: a long time and lots of experience and practice. (Many people widely
: considered good printers by the majority of photograhers, are really
: only mediocre. But that majority of people can't see that or ever be
: convinced of it.)
I'm curious to see if I fall into "the majority of photographers", or
in the minority! Who are some of these mediocre printers that are
"considered good printers by the majority of photograhers"?
Niels Jensen
nie...@sr.hp.com
Chris Perez
>must learn to appreciate on our own. But think of this for a moment:
>How many really big name B&W photographers print their serious images
>on RC paper?
Depends upon what they're doing. Many "big game", er, "name" people
_are_ using RC. It also depends upon what you mean by "big name".
I assume you are refering to the "art" people. In which case their
images _must_ be made on FB because the unknowing public demands it (in
many, _not_ all cases, that is...).
>Perhaps they see something you don't. Keep at it however, and you
>will!
Hmmm... this discussion is very much like the one pianists held around the
turn of the century. "Is the Bosendorfer better than the Steinway...?".
Or the one violinists have been having since the beginning of time.
The facts are these; You take any truely fine artist, give them "reasonable"
materials, and they will _always_ outdo those that haven't the same level
of talent. Period. Recent RC materials are beginning to fall in the
catagory of "reasonable".
Christopher Perez - ch...@swmerc.rain.com
Ty Monson
(Delete a *lot* of preceding discussion.)
>Speaking of DlogE curves, another problem I have with VC papers (and therefore
>with most RC papers) is that they get all of their "contrast grade change" by
>adjusting the placement of the blacks. This leads to funny-shaped DlogE
>curves that certainly don't do what _I_ expect a contrast grade change to do,
>but just kick the zone II/zone I boundary around a lot instead. This means
>that you can't _do_ some things with VC papers that you can do with graded
>ones.
I don't understand the problem here. Current VC filters are balanced
so that printing is greatly simplified. Once an exposure is established
for the brightest white, one simply changes filters to adjust the
deepest gray/black of the scene to the desired level.
I know that this may take some fine tuning at the highest contrast grades,
but it is a great deal easier than opening different packages of paper
and trying to establish a new correct exposures.
(deletions)
> Of course, the opposite is also true, but since I try not to make
>negatives so bad that I'd need to use tricks like dodging or burning with
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>contrast filters, I consider the former to be much more of a problem.
Burning (or dodging) with contrast filters
is not necessarily an act of desperation born of necessity out of
working with a bad negative. It is an expressive technique
used to enhance the visual impact that an image may have.
One might argue that burning and dodging should never be necessary
in a studio shot, where lighting is supposed to be under the
absolute control of the photographer, but it is a terribly useful
technique for the landscape photographer who rarely, if ever,
has any control on the lighting.
DK WORKSHO
Jensen) writes:
>> I'm curious to see if I fall into "the majority of photographers",
or
>>in the minority! Who are some of these mediocre printers that are
>>"considered good printers by the majority of photograhers"?
Sorry,
Some of these guys (and ladies) are friends and/or acquaintances and
some have bigger and better reputations than I. I'm not out to hurt
anyone's feelings or appear to be puffing myself up at someone else's
expense. Let it suffice to say that like in any other field, a lot of
what is held out to an inexperienced and gullible public as the
highest achievement, in reality deserves hardly a second look.
My main personal concern is that a very large number of photographers
who are incapable of seeing the serious quality defects in RC papers
and are therefore willing to declare them "as good as fiber" will
eventually kill off fiber based papers. That will be the day I give
up photography or start making my own papers, because I can't stand
the sight of the awful stuff (mind you I use thousands of sheets of
it for proofing and testing).
David Kachel Workshops
DK WORKSHO
Perez) writes:
>>Recent RC materials are beginning to fall in the
catagory of "reasonable".
Sorry,
They may look reasonable to you. They are not even close for me.
David Kachel Workshops
Thor Lancelot Simon
Annie Leibowitz is a _really, really_ bad color printer. People I know who've
worked for her say that she sometimes has buyers refuse her prints because of
poor print quality. I've heard rumors that she sometimes either then turns to
"work prints" done by her assistants, or has the work re-printed by an outside
artisan.
I can't say I think much of her monochrome printing skills, either.
Most converted photojournalists or commercial photographers simply lack the
skills required to do prints better than those demanded by the limits of the
final reproduction they originally learned to work towards. When
photographers like those become famous or popular and start to show and sell
prints, they often suddenly find that developing proper printing skills is
very difficult and quite time-consuming and, above all, something they simply
cannot take the time to do if they must produce output to satisfy the demand
for their work.
There is a good-sized market for "ghost printers" in New York City. It's
driven by those of the above-mentioned class of photographers who seem to feel
somewhat ashamed about selling prints which don't meet their own standards of
quality -- standards which they often cannot meet at all. There are some
photographers in this city who _do_ print very well, and everyone sees their
work and feels pretty inferior. I'm conceited enough to think that I can do
rather good prints when I put my mind to it, and I know that I've seen some
work that just makes me feel about an inch tall. Take a look at George Tice's
work sometime. Even the reproductions are stunning, but the prints just have
to be seen to be believed. Tice doesn't work Zone System, and he has a very
matter-of-fact simple approach to printing which he combines with consummate
skill to make beautiful prints in a way I only wish I could emulate.
(Incidentally, Tice is in large part a landscape photographer, but says that he
believes that it's usually possible to make a good negative from _any_ scene
such that the print won't require extensive dodging and burning, and that he
generally considers those which do to be mistakes. Though I can't always live
up to it, I consider that philosphy of work to be a very useful one, and I
think my final images have improved a great deal since I took it up.)
Anyway, one thing being a photographer in this city teaches very, very quickly
is that while some people who make a living selling prints _do_ print very
well, a lot of the most popular and famous photographers _don't_. I for one
don't think much of Avedon's printing, though I know many would disagree with
me about that. Remember that becoming famous as a photographer generally has
a lot more to do with the kinds of commercial or journalistic work which get
one's name out and well known and in-demand than it does with photographic
skill, and you'll have a pretty good idea why this is so.
I would be surprised if several of the people who read and post to this group
don't print much better than the overwhelming majority of famous
photographers.
Thor Lancelot Simon
>dkwo...@aol.com (DK WORKSHO) writes:
>>must learn to appreciate on our own. But think of this for a moment:
>>How many really big name B&W photographers print their serious images
>>on RC paper?
>
>Depends upon what they're doing. Many "big game", er, "name" people
>_are_ using RC. It also depends upon what you mean by "big name".
>I assume you are refering to the "art" people. In which case their
>images _must_ be made on FB because the unknowing public demands it (in
>many, _not_ all cases, that is...).
I don't think that's the only reason why, though it's _a_ reason, of course.
>>Perhaps they see something you don't. Keep at it however, and you
>>will!
>
>Hmmm... this discussion is very much like the one pianists held around the
>turn of the century. "Is the Bosendorfer better than the Steinway...?".
That argument is still going on, as far as I know. I thought most people
agreed that the Bosendorfer _is_ better, but that unfortunately it's too soft
to properly be heard in many concert halls. :-)
>Or the one violinists have been having since the beginning of time.
>
>The facts are these; You take any truely fine artist, give them "reasonable"
>materials, and they will _always_ outdo those that haven't the same level
>of talent. Period. Recent RC materials are beginning to fall in the
>catagory of "reasonable".
I certainly agree with that. I personally prefer FB papers and think they're
superior in many ways, but current RC materials are unarguably of "reasonable"
quality.
Thor Lancelot Simon
Mike Rosenlof <mi...@neopath.com> wrote:
>In article <2v03ut$3...@search01.news.aol.com>,
>DK WORKSHO <dkwo...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>[... a bunch of very reasonable stuff about paper characteristics
> and who can judge good prints deleted. ]
>
>>I cannot sell these ideas to any of you, it's something each of us
>>must learn to appreciate on our own. But think of this for a moment:
>>How many really big name B&W photographers print their serious images
>>on RC paper?
>>Perhaps they see something you don't. Keep at it however, and you
>>will!
>
>Think of this for a moment:
>
>The really big name B&W photographers are doing this as a business.
>Selling a product. This means there is marketing involved, and the
A lot of them, yes. But I think it's a big, big, big, big mistake to set
one's standards by the choices of those who choose to view photography as a
business instead of as art.
The overwhelming majority of fine-art photographers that I've met who _do_
print very well, and _do_ view their work as art, and who really care about
the artistic qualities of their work and the process of creating it, also
print on FB. I think in this case there's more than a business decision at
hand.
Frank Kolwicz
[MAJOR DELETION ABOUT PRINTING]
: (Incidentally, Tice is in large part a landscape photographer, but says
: that he
: believes that it's usually possible to make a good negative from _any_ scene
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
: such that the print won't require extensive dodging and burning, and that he
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
: generally considers those which do to be mistakes. Though I can't always live
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
: up to it, I consider that philosphy of work to be a very useful one, and I
: think my final images have improved a great deal since I took it up.)
*** I have always suspected that the ability to "create", "correct" or
"manipulate" an image in the darkroom has tempted some photographers to be
a bit sloppy about getting perfect exposures. The latitude of negative
film and darkroom adjustments make life too easy to take the making of
exact exposures seriously. I'm glad to hear of another photographer who
does and especially one who is good enough to receive the above
endorsement.
As a tonic to a tendency toward sloppy exposures I recommend shooting
transparencies. You will learn to either get the exposures right or get
junk and have damn little ability to fudge it in the darkroom.
Most photographers I have talked to consider the print to be the
culmination of their efforts, the negative is just another step in the
process. My attitude is that the positive transparency is my goal and a
print from it is just a convenient way of being able to share the image
with many others. A slide show is another such way of sharing. But, the
real work of art, if such it be, is the original transparency.
To my mind, then, the negative suffers from being just what it is,
requiring that next step before it becomes usable. Fortunately, I don't
have to use it unless the situation demands it.
I suppose that it follows naturally from the above that I don't make my
own prints. I can't hope to make them myself at the quality level I can
buy without an investment of $10,000-20,000 and years of training, if
then. To some people's minds that makes my work less valuable since a
print isn't a hand-made (by the photographer, who will eventually die)
precious object. It IS hand-made, but by someone who really knows how to
make it, not me and it is the accuracy of the print's reproduction of the
film that I am interested in. That makes life easier for the printer, too,
since he or she has an exact positive image to reproduce: there's no
guessing about what I want.
Frank
Chris Perez
>>>Recent RC materials are beginning to fall in the
>catagory of "reasonable".
>Sorry,
>They may look reasonable to you. They are not even close for me.
>David Kachel Workshops
In a recent post you mentioned FB papers are superior on several technical
points, and then say nothing further about the specifics of this. But
in the same breath you say that even tho the density curve is the only known
source of objective information about density, it isn't all there is to
evaluating a paper.
I agree. However, I'd sure like to know in what other "technical" aspects
FB are superior to RC. If they cannot be measured, how can they be considered
"technical"? Or are you being loose with your definitions? Are you, in
the end, being subjective?
As you appear to know something about the manufacture of papers, why not
start with your technical explaination there? I'm very curious to know
what you think.
Christopher Perez - ch...@swmerc.rain.com
Richard J Fateman
>dkwo...@aol.com (DK WORKSHO) writes:
>
>FB are superior to RC. If they cannot be measured, how can they be considered
>"technical"? Or are you being loose with your definitions? Are you, in
>the end, being subjective?
How about a little catalog of differences:
1. Can an expert always tell if a framed print, under glass,
was made on an RC or FB paper?
(Clearly some paper surfaces are not available in RC, and it is hard
to get a ferrotyped glossy FB paper to match the perfection of RC).
But if (sometimes?)(often?) it is impossible to tell by looking,
then maybe DK's "close" means "impossible to tell by looking".
Or are there certain images in which the density of the silver indicates
it is not RC? Or do RC papers inevitably give themselves away with
whiteners? Or is RC semi-matte just not the same as FB semi-matte?
(I say "framed print" because it is easy to tell RC by feeling the
surface or looking at the edge.).
(I am familiar with arguments about gemstones -- how do you tell
the difference between a "real" and a "synthetic" sapphire that are
chemically and physically identical crystalline structures? Easy.
The "real" gem has imperfections in it. This makes it valuable.
Go figure. Would a FB glossy print be better because it exhibits
little specks in its finish?)
1b. If it is detectable, is being on RC be considered an aesthetic defect,
or a consumer defect ["don't buy it, your great-grandchildren will have
nothing but a mess of peeling yellow plastic?"]?
2. FB and RC papers behave differently in processing. Is there a
difference to the benefit of the darkroom worker in using FB? One
person said he was troubled by "dents" in RC prints. I haven't been
troubled by this myself. Maybe I don't drop prints, or maybe I
dont make such huge enlargements... I know that RC processing
tends to be a lot faster (esp. fix/wash); If you like glossy,
this is MUCH easier to handle than ferrotyping. Even some non-glossy
FB papers work much better when machine (not air) dried. Maybe the
density/exposure scale is different, or maybe FB has more
latitude (pull the print out of developer early for less contrast?)
But is it better or just different? And it this inevitable?
Different toning? Different spotting? [I've never tried toning RC,
but it should be possible. I have not had any trouble spotting RC.]
3. Archival issues. I am willing to believe RC does not last as
long as archivally processed FB. I am also willing to believe that
RC processed by me lasts as long as FB processed by me. I am also
willing to believe that most of my RC and FB prints will not be
used as roof tiles. They will be exhibited between pages of an album. In
such circumstances they will last far longer than the color prints
they share space with. There is an aesthetic appeal for archival
prints, nevertheless. Just not necessarily a decisive appeal, especially
if water is expensive.
4. Just plain prejudices.
RC. It can't be good because even a rank amateur can process it.
RC. It can't be good because you can use a stabilization processor.
RC. It's new (even though it is maybe 25 years old).
5. Other issues.
Who knows. Some imaginary arguments:
RC. I hate it because I can't write on the back with pencil.
(my solution get a waterproof marker, or a paper sticker!)
RC. I hate it because it produces toxic fumes when I microwave it.
(I never tried this..)
RC. It is made from ecologically endangered species.:)
RC. It melts when I dry-mount it.
>
>As you appear to know something about the manufacture of papers, why not
>start with your technical explanation there? I'm very curious to know
>what you think.
Me too.
>
[Incidentally, I think I can usually tell if a print is on RC paper,
but I'm not sure I could tell if it were framed under glass]
--
Richard J. Fateman
fat...@cs.berkeley.edu 510 642-1879
Thor Lancelot Simon
Richard J Fateman <fat...@peoplesparc.Berkeley.EDU> wrote:
>In article <2v9dn3$6...@neon.k9.com>, Chris Perez <ch...@swmerc.rain.com> wrote:
>>dkwo...@aol.com (DK WORKSHO) writes:
>>
>>I agree. However, I'd sure like to know in what other "technical" aspects
>>FB are superior to RC. If they cannot be measured, how can they be considered
>>"technical"? Or are you being loose with your definitions? Are you, in
>>the end, being subjective?
>
>How about a little catalog of differences:
>
>1. Can an expert always tell if a framed print, under glass,
> was made on an RC or FB paper?
I'm no expert, but I've certainly never had any trouble telling, not ever.
[...]
> Different toning? Different spotting? [I've never tried toning RC,
I also don't like RC papers because in my experience one has to use insanely
strong toner solutions to be able to see _any_ change, and then they change
all at once, removing the possibility for slight, by-sight toning, and also
resulting in the expenditure of a lot of money on expensive toner concentrate.
Of course, Ilford Multigrade FB is nearly as bad. I suspect this is a problem
with most _multigrade_ emulsions, not RC paper itself. However, Oriental VC
RP (Their RC multigrade paper) doesn't tone as well as Oriental VC FB, which
in turn doesn't tone as well as Oriental Seagull FB, but even the RC paper is
better than most.
> but it should be possible. I have not had any trouble spotting RC.]
I find it's somewhat harder to work small spots out on RC, but I should
probably just use spotting powder instead of spot-tone; I have trouble with
color prints, but not _as much_ trouble as I have with black-and-white RC
using spot-tone.
[...]
> RC. It melts when I dry-mount it.
No, no, no. Tha only happens when you dry-mount it to foam-core.
:-)
(Someone at Tisch actually tried that once, while I was in the print-finishing
room. He walked up to the 30x40 dry-mount press, which was hot and set to the
right temperature for FB, turned down the heat dial to 180? or so for RC,
stuck an RC print on a piece of foam-core in it, shut it, and walked away. It
made a horrible smell and took most of a day to clean up. :-)
Jerry Tam
> How about a little catalog of differences:
>
> 1. Can an expert always tell if a framed print, under glass,
> was made on an RC or FB paper?
i'm definitely not an expert.
if you use RC glossy, anyone can spot it. Otherwise, RC has so many
surface that's close to FB. A matt RC print is very hard to tell
that it is or it isn't FB unless it's side-by-side with another FB print.
> 1b. If it is detectable, is being on RC be considered an aesthetic defect,
> or a consumer defect ["don't buy it, your great-grandchildren will have
> nothing but a mess of peeling yellow plastic?"]?
it's easy to screw up FB prints but RC's are pretty straight forward.
if a FB paper is not process for archival, it would probably have
a shorter life than a RC paper (that's process correctly or by a machine).
i have shared darkrooms with photographers who only work with FB prints because
they think it's archival. However, they'd under-fix or under-wash their
prints... i doubt some of the prints will last for a year.
> 2. FB and RC papers behave differently in processing. Is there a
> difference to the benefit of the darkroom worker in using FB? One
> person said he was troubled by "dents" in RC prints. I haven't been
> troubled by this myself. Maybe I don't drop prints, or maybe I
> dont make such huge enlargements... I know that RC processing
> tends to be a lot faster (esp. fix/wash); If you like glossy,
> this is MUCH easier to handle than ferrotyping. Even some non-glossy
> FB papers work much better when machine (not air) dried. Maybe the
> density/exposure scale is different, or maybe FB has more
> latitude (pull the print out of developer early for less contrast?)
> But is it better or just different? And it this inevitable?
> Different toning? Different spotting? [I've never tried toning RC,
> but it should be possible. I have not had any trouble spotting RC.]
i notice there're more factory defects in FB papers then RC papers.
FB is more difficult to handle compare to RC. If you are no good with
tongs, you can get cracks and scratches.
a lot of people don't know how to wash FB prints correctly. Most people
than just let it wash for a long time (hours); but they don't know
that they shouldn't mix prints that has been washed for a long time with
prints just came out of the fix, and they don't know they should pull the
prints out of the water to eliminate bubbles on the surface of the prints.
> 3. Archival issues. I am willing to believe RC does not last as
> long as archivally processed FB. I am also willing to believe that
> RC processed by me lasts as long as FB processed by me. I am also
> willing to believe that most of my RC and FB prints will not be
> used as roof tiles. They will be exhibited between pages of an album. In
> such circumstances they will last far longer than the color prints
> they share space with. There is an aesthetic appeal for archival
> prints, nevertheless. Just not necessarily a decisive appeal, especially
> if water is expensive.
> 4. Just plain prejudices.
> RC. It can't be good because even a rank amateur can process it.
> RC. It can't be good because you can use a stabilization processor.
> RC. It's new (even though it is maybe 25 years old).
Here are the reasons why i use FB instead of RC:
1. Being totally prejudices, i like how it feels when holding it.
It seems more "precious" because it is FB and takes more time/care for
me to process -- a challenge or just too much time on my hand.
2. It looks better (could be psychological).
3. Split-toning doesn't work RC papers as far as i know.
i give away my FB prints to my models all the time, and they would put them in
stick-and-peel album or glue them on the walls... there goes all the works & theories
for archival process.
jerry
Sevo Stille
>3. The actual emulsion of both FB and RC papers is almost exactly the
>same. Same stuff. Therefore, It can not be said that one fades faster
>or slower than the other.
This seems to be a question of storage. Contaminated RC papers in stacks,
plastic sheets or under glass, and RC papers in contact with contaminating
surfaces like plywood or fresh laquer will fade faster than FB paper in the
same situations. On the other hand, FB papers can carry more contamination,
absorb contaminants from the air and from mounts, and are more subject to
mould.
>4. Mr Blaker contends that the gloss of a good RC paper is even better
>than that of most FB papers.
It is. High-gloss on FB paper is not built into the paper, but has to be made
in the drying process - with time-consuming methods and a fairly high failure
rate.
>5. RC papers don't curl.
If you don't wash longer than recommended...
>6. Mr Blaker conducted a test with a number of students and working
>professionals (including some with very anti-RC bias). He made a number
>of prints, and asked them to choose the best of them. In his words, the
>results were unequivocable. *All* of the viewers chose the RC prints as
>being the best. He contends that this is because the gloss is better on
>RC prints.
Gloss does not make a print best. For prints > 8x10, I (as well as most of my
customers) prefer matte paper (Agfa Portriga Rapid FB). But all prints for
reproduction in books and magazines are done on RC paper - gloss is preferable
whereever high resolution in small prints is desired.
>7. Mr Blaker goes into a long detailed explanation for yellowing.
>Yellowing can be caused by developer incorporated papers. Yellowing is
>*not* caused by the RC papers in general, but by the developer put into
>some of them.
This is mainly true for the extremely fast three-second Agfa papers from the
early eighties. Another cause of yellowing is the partial leaching out of
brighteners, or insufficient amounts of white pigment in the PE coating. Good
hand-printing papers are free from both problems.
>8. Delamination... Mr Blaker tested papers with both a 24 and 72 hour
>soak, and was unable to find any instance whatsoever of so
>called "delamination".
I can see marginal delamination after one or two hour washing of Ilford and
Kodak multigrade papers. And I have stripped RC papers on purpose (for
mounting) by soaking them overnight in a Photo-Flo solution after lifting off a
corner with a razorblade.
>10. Mr Blaker conducted his own tests. He found that after a
>cumulative 60 hours of direct sunlight, the emulsion of FB papers flaked
>off. But even at 60 hours, the RC papers remained strong and flexible.
Then he should try to improve his FB technique. 60 hours of sunlight might
cause noticeable fading in colour prints. It should never do visible damage to
a b&w print, no matter whether FB, RC, uncoated or in any odd printing process
- even stabilizer prints (which are unwashed, on chemistry-soaked paper) are
guaranteed to stand more light.
>11. Someone else that he quotes went whole hog. They took some sample
>RC prints, and nailed them to their houses for FOUR years in direct
>sunlight. There was no change in apearance to those that were stored as
>opposed to those that were nailed to the house except for a minor
>tanning effect in the gelatin.
Which is rather surprising - not because it should have faded (b&w prints won't
ever fade, unless image silver-destroying chemicals get at them), but because
the gelatin emulsion should have been devoured by mould and bacteria.
Sevo
William Bell
>From: t...@panix.com (Thor Lancelot Simon)
>Subject: Why many "good printers"... aren't.
>Date: 2 Jul 1994 04:52:33 -0400
Amen! I saw the Avedon exhibit at the National Portrait Gallery here in D.
C. about a year ago (stuff shot for Rolling Stone in the 70s) and while I
liked the photos, the printing from Hassy negs was just terrible. I've been
printing (seriously) for about 12 years and I could do much better.
-William Bell
Dean H. Barto
fiber is the only thing that is acceptable.
8^Dean
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dean Barto | (602) 861-7611
FDC Anasazi, Inc. | (602) 861-7687 FAX
7500 N. Dreamy Draw Dr. |
Suite 120 | de...@anasazi.com
Phoenix, AZ 85020 | CompuServe: 71763,2205
William Bell
>From: pm...@lu.erisoft.se (Peter Mustel)
>Subject: Re: B&W RC papers - A rebuttal
>Date: Fri, 1 Jul 1994 06:57:08 GMT
air dried. They don't have quite the amount of optical brighteners, so the
white is not so sterile looking. They are also very silver rich and tone
better and more evenly than anything else I've tried. The least RC-like RC
paper IMHO, and I've tried samples from every manufacturer.
Chris Perez
>Have you checked to see what the galleries accept? You might find that
>fiber is the only thing that is acceptable.
Is this to enhance commercial viability? Or is it based upon something
else? Perhaps unbiased findings found in the public domain?
I sense money at play here.
Christopher Perez - ch...@swmerc.rain.com
Lawrence Akutagawa
benefits of the price differential between FB and RC papers. Now people
like you go and educate the ignorant and the biased into increasing demand
for this stuff. Next thing you know, RC will cost as much as FB - if not
more! Pipe down, keep maintaining a low but steady demand, and let your
pocketbook enjoy the price difference.
Barry Sherman
either paper. I accept that RC papers will last as long as I
need for them to last. (Although as I sell more prints I find
that more customers want FB papers and that, in and of itself
is sufficient reason to use them.) But -
I use FB paper because I prefer the surface texture and sheen of
those FB papers that I like to any RC paper that I've ever seen.
RC papers come in either a glossy surface which looks like a
ferrotyped FB glossy paper or they come in a pearl finish which
really does not approximate the finish of an un-ferrotyped
FB glossy paper.
When RC papers have the surface texture and sheen of Kodak Elite,
Oriental Seagull (either VC or graded) or Ilford MGFB, then I'll
consider using them.
I really don't care whether I or anyone else can tell the difference
under glass. Most of the time I view my prints unglassed and I
find that RC paper looks cheap compared to FB.
End of discussion for me.
Barry
--
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Barry Sherman, Amdahl Corp. | You gotta know happy |
| b...@oes.amdahl.com | and you gotta know glad. |
| | 'Cause you're gonna know lonely |
| | and you're gonna know sad. |
| | |
| | - Mary-Chapin Carpenter |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Amdahl, being a corporation, is a legal fiction. Therefore it is incapable|
| of holding, let alone expressing, opinions. Unfortunately, this has been |
| said of me as well. (I.e. My statments are mine, not Amdahl's.) |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
Ty Monson
Barry Sherman <b...@DUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> wrote:
>I really don't worry about the archival characteristics of
>either paper. I accept that RC papers will last as long as I
>need for them to last. (Although as I sell more prints I find
>that more customers want FB papers and that, in and of itself
>is sufficient reason to use them.) But -
Right or wrong, your customers are displaying a lot more sophistication
than you could find in this part of the country. People around here
think that a photograph is a 4x6 color print that costs $.50.
>I use FB paper because I prefer the surface texture and sheen of
>those FB papers that I like to any RC paper that I've ever seen.
>RC papers come in either a glossy surface which looks like a
>ferrotyped FB glossy paper or they come in a pearl finish which
>really does not approximate the finish of an un-ferrotyped
>FB glossy paper.
Do any Kodak RC papers come with a G surface? Or maybe you
don't like G, either.
>When RC papers have the surface texture and sheen of Kodak Elite,
>Oriental Seagull (either VC or graded) or Ilford MGFB, then I'll
>consider using them.
I must admit that I haven't done a survey of surface textures available
on RC papers these days. Guess I should.
Dean H. Barto
Galleries WANT FB B&W prints. They are concerned with permanence, and feel
that RC isn't archival.
Would you pay $400-1000 for a print that isn't archival? The galleries
sure won't.
Sevo Stille
>Amen! I saw the Avedon exhibit at the National Portrait Gallery here in
>D. C. about a year ago (stuff shot for Rolling Stone in the 70s) and
>while I liked the photos, the printing from Hassy negs was just
>terrible. I've been printing (seriously) for about 12 years and I could
>do much better.
Well, commercial prints have to fulfil other requirements than fine art prints.
Printing for halftone reproduction is a very special thing - the wide range of
tonalities that is so desirable in fine art prints can't be transported in
halftones at all.
Good prints for that business are rather flat - all values that are to be
preserved in the halftone have to be within three to four f-stops. This can be
just as complicated as fine-art printing - I have had an assistant I have
always envied for his striking exhibition prints but he was quite useless when
it came to making good prints for a book.
Sevo
g-ko_no_otaku
> Printing for halftone reproduction is a very special thing - the wide
range of
> tonalities that is so desirable in fine art prints can't be transported
in
> halftones at all.
>
> Good prints for that business are rather flat - all values that are to
be
> preserved in the halftone have to be within three to four f-stops. This
can be
> just as complicated as fine-art printing - I have had an assistant I
have
> always envied for his striking exhibition prints but he was quite
useless when
> it came to making good prints for a book.
>
> Sevo
This is untrue!!! Perhaps you should find a better printer. Fine
duo-tone prints are EXACT replicas of the fine print. They are also
expensive. Take a look at Cartier-Bresson's "Apropos Paris" or Salgado's
"Workers."
g-ko
Chris Perez
>in article <BSOSComput...@bss2.umd.edu> William Bell wrote:
>>Amen! I saw the Avedon exhibit at the National Portrait Gallery here in
>>D. C. about a year ago (stuff shot for Rolling Stone in the 70s) and
>>while I liked the photos, the printing from Hassy negs was just
>>terrible. I've been printing (seriously) for about 12 years and I could
>>do much better.
>Well, commercial prints have to fulfil other requirements than fine art prints.
>Printing for halftone reproduction is a very special thing - the wide range of
>tonalities that is so desirable in fine art prints can't be transported in
>halftones at all.
The basic image _should_ be sharp from edge to edge. You can use the film's
grain to verify the printer's basic requirement for this. What is in
general shocking is that a very great number of the images hung for viewing
don't come up to this basic standard.
>Good prints for that business are rather flat - all values that are to be
While this is true, a "good" print maker should be able to work with his
materials to meet the intended goals. I've known several printers who
could make good prints for either situation. Apparently that talent is
somewhat rare, eh?
For magazine illustration work, I think printers feel they can be more
sloppy in their approach because the resolution of the distributed image
gets lost in the translation to magazine. Poor practise, but it happens
quite frequently.
Also, I have known _many_ printers who _never_ check the alignment of their
enlargers, nor do they ever let the heat from the lamp stablize the focal
plane of the negative (in condenser enlargers where heat can "pop" a
negative, thus moving the focal point over time). The results are less
than good in those cases. This is sad as the very basic technique is
so simple to master. [Much like sensitometery in negative makeing]
Christopher Perez - ch...@swmerc.rain.com
dr8...@albnyvms.bitnet
A BIT HEAVY ON THE EMPHASIS THERE, G-KO !
while what you say is true, it does not make sevo's statement untrue.
i am a full time working photographer, and i print for direct viewing
and i print for repro by halftone, AND I MAKE THE HALFTONES.
our shop does not normally do duotones, and when we do, it is a crude
version, just to double strike the deeper tones so that we can make a
cover image pop. nevertheless i know and apreciate fine duo's, which
while vastly superior to single pass prints, are a craft and aesthetic
unto themselves.
the important thing is that while a duotone can give as striking an
image as a gallery print, it can't quite do it from the gallery print.
you still need to provide a silver print tweeked for repro. saint
ansel himself holds forth that he marked his repro prints "repro only"
because they were not intended as direct viewing prints.
i agree, though, that a print for duotone repro looks pretty good even
by direct view, but it is seldom the same print the artist would make
to bear hir signature.
the fact is, there are no exact reproductions of anything. the subject
image is transformed as it becomes a photo and the photo is transformed
as it get repro'ed. fidelity is a matter of degree.
-dr dr8192@albnyvms
Ty Monson
>In article <2vufm1$d...@umd5.umd.edu>, g-ko no otaku writes:
>>In article <199407072...@f.maus.de> Sevo_...@f.maus.de (Sevo
>>Stille) writes:
>>> Printing for halftone reproduction is a very special thing - the wide
>>range of
(delete lots)
>you still need to provide a silver print tweeked for repro.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
(rest deleted)
An organization of photographers in this area has a member who works
at a printing company. The fellow once gave a talk to help members
get acquainted with some of the basics of getting images ready for
a publication. He stated that it is *no longer* necessary to make special
prints for reproduction. I believe that he was speaking from the
perspective of using digital scanning techniques to take a photographic
print to a printable half tone. The computer can do the tweeking.
I have had no further encounters with the printing business,
so I don't know how accurate was his statement, or my understanding
of it. Can anyone else give us some insight on the state of the art?
Daryl Gibson
>From: mon...@mycroft.ece.orst.edu (Ty Monson)
>>you still need to provide a silver print tweeked for repro.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>(rest deleted)
>
>An organization of photographers in this area has a member who works
>at a printing company. The fellow once gave a talk to help members
>get acquainted with some of the basics of getting images ready for
>a publication. He stated that it is *no longer* necessary to make special
>prints for reproduction. I believe that he was speaking from the
>perspective of using digital scanning techniques to take a photographic
>print to a printable half tone. The computer can do the tweeking.
>
>I have had no further encounters with the printing business,
>so I don't know how accurate was his statement, or my understanding
>of it. Can anyone else give us some insight on the state of the art?
>
I've been making halftones for 23 years.....
This tends to get into the area of a religious war among some photographers,
and turns into folklore with a lot of them. Essentially, it's the
job of the person who's doing the halftone to match the print. He/She can
tweak it whether it's digitally, or photographically. The best thing to do
is to make the print look the way you want it to look.
Nowadays, where we scan photos rather than shoot them for halftones, we
still try and get the thing to match the print, because we figure that's
what the photographer wanted. If the photographer is printing lighter or
darker as some sort of pseudo-compensation, then he/she is likely the cause
of whatever troubles he/she gets.
If a photographer is getting consistently dark results from a particular
paper/scan/engineer combination, then it might make sense to change the
tonal range on the photographer's end; but I would argue that it makes more
sense for the photographer to talk with the people doing the scanning about
it.
Essentially, if you want to get a better halftone, expose and print for
detail. If a lighter or darker area has little detail, no amount of
twiddling is going to render a good halftone of that area. If there's detail
there, it vastly increases the ability of the halftone to print the way you
want it to do, no matter what process is used to make the halftone image.
This is why I tend to tell clients who are shooting diamonds, for example,
to shoot the diamond on a medium blue background, not a black one, which
they tend to like to do...there's more visible detail in the blue, even when
it's changed to a black and white image...then you've taken care of the
detail in the background, and can concentrate on lighting the diamond to
ensure there's some detail within the facets. It's the same with people....
the wrinkles and pores that make faces what they are are a whole lot more
interesting in publication than just a bland, even-toned face, whether it's
badly lit, airbrushed, or digitally manipulated.
Daryl
----------------------------------------------------------------
"As you ramble through life, brother, no matter what your goal,
keep your eye upon the doughnut, and not upon the hole"
--Murray Banks
(801)378- 2950 (801)489-6348
drgi...@du2.byu.edu 71171...@compuserve.com
----------------------------------------------------------------
NADO000
>>In article <2vufm1$d...@umd5.umd.edu>, g-ko no otaku writes:
>>>In article <199407072...@f.maus.de> Sevo_...@f.maus.de (Sevo
>>>Stille) writes:
>>>> Printing for halftone reproduction is a very special thing - the wide
>>>range of
>
>(delete lots)
>>you still need to provide a silver print tweeked for repro.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>(rest deleted)
>
>An organization of photographers in this area has a member who works
>at a printing company. The fellow once gave a talk to help members
>get acquainted with some of the basics of getting images ready for
>a publication. He stated that it is *no longer* necessary to make special
>prints for reproduction. I believe that he was speaking from the
>perspective of using digital scanning techniques to take a photographic
>print to a printable half tone. The computer can do the tweeking.
This is partly true. The prints that most knowledgeable people enjoy
looking at, tend to be fairly contrasty, compared to what you need
for good photomechanical production. The best print for reproduction
is still flat: Little if any real maximum density in the dark areas
and most highlights areas with a definite density (except specular
highlights). With this kind of image, once scanned and in a
computer, you can do anything.
Luis Nadeau
>
>I have had no further encounters with the printing business,
>so I don't know how accurate was his statement, or my understanding
>of it. Can anyone else give us some insight on the state of the art?
>
>.
>.
Gregory Pease
I recently had duotones made of an image for reproduction as a fine
art poster. I worked closely with the printer and the graphics house
who did the duotone, and am quite pleased with the result. The print
made for the scan was *almost* exactly as I would exhibit it; I worked
to get just a bit more highlight seperation, as I expected a bit of
compression, largely due to dot gain at press time.
However, even with the blacks double hit on press, the depth is not
quite what one can expect in a silver print, though a gloss varnish
over the image area helped. Ideally, for fine art work, the printer
and the film house should have a working relationship, each knowing
the shortcomings of the other. Every press is different, as is every
press operator.
I am most excited about the (somewhat) new stochastic half/duo/tritone
technology, which uses random dot patterns instead of linear screens.
The results will be more like photographic grain. The process requires
a high resolution plate and a press that can hold a very small dot...
not something your neighborhood quick-printer is likely to accomplish!
So, if you are going to do repros of your work, establish a relationship
with the folk who will be doing the film and press work. They'll tell
you what they need to make your work snap far more accurately than
anyone not directly involved in the process. But, if the detail isn't
in the print, there'll not be any in the films... ;)
Cheers,
Gregory
--
| Gregory Pease |
| g...@netcom.com |
| 510/234-2830 |
dr8...@albnyvms.bitnet
AS TO THE CLAIM ABOUT DIGITAL scanning i believe that
is correct. i make halftones all the time and am also
a "normal" photographer. i make HT's via a screen and
process camera, the old way.
i have never had benefit of a digital scanner for HT
work, but i have briefly messed with one for image
adjustment/manipulation before inputting to a canon
5000 color copier/printer.
we used "fiery"[?] brand image sw, which which presented
to the user the image capture in the graphic form of a
characteristic response curve, such as one plots to show
the behavior of a film or paper in response to varying
levels of exposure [D log E curve.]
the curve could be manipulated on the graph and this causes
the sw to tweek the way the brightness range is digitized.
crude analogy: when you change polycon printing filters,
you change the response curve of the paper. imagine being
able to draw any curve, and have the paper [or film] behave
in the manner described by the curve. this is reality in
digital imaging.
we actually set a curve that is impossible in chemical
imaging. it had a reverse in the center then a return to
normal. this would mean that the reproduction of the
original scene would be rather accurate, tone for tone,
from the shadows up to the lower mid tones, and also
normal from the upper mids to the highlites. however,
the reverse in the center of the curve means that the
"middle" midrange tones would be in reverse. zone 6 repros
as a zone 4 and viceversa, even though zones 1235790 are
reproed as themselves !
i tend to believe the printer who says digital scanning
handles its own tweeking, when needed.
- dr dr8192@albnyvms
Sevo Stille
>An organization of photographers in this area has a member who works at
>a printing company. The fellow once gave a talk to help members get
>acquainted with some of the basics of getting images ready for a
>publication. He stated that it is *no longer* necessary to make special
>prints for reproduction. I believe that he was speaking from the
>perspective of using digital scanning techniques to take a photographic
>print to a printable half tone. The computer can do the tweeking.
At least theoretically he is right. It's not the computer that will do the
actual tweaking, though, but its operator. And that is where the practice
creeps in - many of them are still adhering to their old habits. After all,
most pictures they get to scan are still being made to the old printers specs.
I am working with one printer who will do good prints off my visually best
prints. The other two I am working regularily with will lose either shadow or
highlight detail unless they get softer pictures with more emphasized knee.
As good printers can handle both, while bad printers will mess up the first, my
occasional customers get softer prints unless they explicitly specify something
different. Anyway, in either case they will get RC paper - all printers prefer
glossy paper to make halftones of, and I loathe making glossy FB prints, a I
would need a wall tap supply of demineralized water and an automatic dryer
(which aren't built any more) to handle the amount of prints I do.
Sevo