Drying fiber based prints
Jean-David Beyer
CaMeRa1234 wrote:
>
> Can some experienced b&w printer please give me some suggestions on how to
> dry my prints without an expensive dryer and have them dry FLAT? I've
> heard about print flattening solutions but have never tried them. I've
> been growling about curly prints now for years...maybe someone can help.
> Thanks!
The only print flattening solution I know of was made by Kodak and
as far as I know, the active ingredient was glycerin. It tends to
flatten the print by absorbing moisture from the environment. This is
not always a good thing. I tried it in about 1975 and it did not help
much (perhaps because New Jersey is so humid anyway). If the curly
aspect of the prints is like I get, the best solution is to forget
about print flattening solutions. Waste of time and money. Instead,
wipe the prints as dry as you can with a squeegie and dry face down
on fibreglass screens. This will not result in very flat prints.
(BTY, use only double-weight paper.) When dry, press them with a large
book or flattening plate (such as available from Light Impressions).
This will make them fairly flat, but if you are as fussy as I am
(not all that fussy), that will still not be enough. I then flatten
them in a dry-mount press. This is pretty good in the short-term,
but the only really satisfactory solution for me is to then dry-mount
them on 4-ply mount board.
--
Jean-David Beyer
Shrewsbury, New Jersey
CaMeRa1234
Eberhard Funke
Jean-David Beyer wrote:
> as far as I know, the active ingredient was glycerin. It tends to
> flatten the print by absorbing moisture from the environment. This is
> Jean-David Beyer
> Shrewsbury, New Jersey
I agree that glycerine doesn't sound as a good solution. I have read
(never tried by myself) that some people bathe their prints after water
wash in methanol (beware, it's toxic) or ethanol. Both are alcohols
which will take the water out of the paper.
Eberhard
bob rogers
Jean-David Beyer caught me on a couple of points: one technical,
one linguistic.
> > you need to be more careful in handling, esp. if you squeegee,
> > because the emulsion is not protected with a resin layer.
>
> I do not understand this. Neither Fiber-based nor Resin Coated
> paper have the emulsion protected by a resin layer. The polyethylene
> coating is between the emulsion and the paper.
however the papers are constructed, i find the emulsion is easy to
tear on fb prints with a squeege, but rc papers are nearly indestructable.
sorry if i got my reasons confused.
> > fb is much cooler, though, imho, just because if you process it
> > correctly, your prints will outlive even a memory of you
>
> Here, too, the color of the emulsion is a function of the emulsion,
i meant cooler in the sense that people who make their own prints
have sophistication, are collected and self assured. people who
print on fb papers even more so :)
--
bob rogers: anderson, south carolina
b...@carol.net
http://members.carol.net/~bob/home.htm <photo homepage
Jean-David Beyer
Eberhard Funke wrote:
>
> Jean-David Beyer wrote:
> >
> > CaMeRa1234 wrote:
> > >
> > > Can some experienced b&w printer please give me some suggestions on how to
> > > dry my prints without an expensive dryer and have them dry FLAT? I've
> > > heard about print flattening solutions but have never tried them. I've
> > > been growling about curly prints now for years...maybe someone can help.
> > > Thanks!
> >
> > The only print flattening solution I know of was made by Kodak and
> > as far as I know, the active ingredient was glycerin. It tends to
> > flatten the print by absorbing moisture from the environment. This is
> > not always a good thing.....
> > --
>
> (never tried by myself) that some people bathe their prints after water
> wash in methanol (beware, it's toxic) or ethanol. Both are alcohols
> which will take the water out of the paper.
>
the emulsion to absorb the water so it will be as long as the paper
underneath. When the emulsion gets too dry, it contracts and curls the
paper much as a bimetallic strip in a thermostat curls when the
temperature changes (in that case, it is deliberate and desired).
Use of dessicated alcohols will enable you to dry films and papers
quicker, but this can overdry them and cause other problems.
I suggest doing the best you can by squeegieing the stuff, drying
face down on screens, flattening under weights, and dry mounting
the prints that deserve it.
Mark Bergman
Eberhard Funke wrote:
> Can some experienced b&w printer please give me some suggestions on how to dry my prints without an expensive dryer and have them dry FLAT?
Yes, use RC paper. Actually I just wanted to get a thread going. I've
been in the darkroom for at least 20 years and KNEW fiber papers were
better. I did learn to use RC multispeed for the quick jobs though.
However in the last couple of years I think the new papers are as good
or better than the fiber based paper. I got hooked on Ilford but last
Fall I swapped to the new Kodak paper and don't think I will ever go
back. The only downside is spotting RC paper.
Bob Ingraham
Regarding the use of glycerin in drying fibre-base prints:
I soak my prints for 5-10 minute in a 10% solution of glycerin, squeegee
them as dry as possible, and drying them slowly on screens. To flatten
them I place the dry prints between the pages of the Smithsonian Aviation
Museum book that my dad gave me. This book is out of print, I believe,
so you may not achieve the same success that I do. :^)
Seriously, the prints come out even flatter than a filbert after a few
days. I sometimes use a dry-mounting press if I'm in a hurry, but I
never clamp the press down. No matter how clean it seems, there's always
a little piece of grit that manages to make a little pit in the emulsion
or in the back of the print and ruin hours of work.
My thanks, by the way, to the poster (postperson?) who commented on the
"coolness" of fibre-base printers. We are indeed far more cool than the
resin-coated gang, who probably think the Zone System is a method of
birth control. Uh oh, perhaps I shouldn't have said that... Oh well, I
don't get much e-mail...
Ain't photography fun? :^)
--
Bob Ingraham / Prince George, B.C., Canada / ae...@pgfn.bc.ca
"All that I have achieved are these dreams locked in silver."--Paul Caponigro
Bryan Remer
Adding print flattening solution just puts another chemical on the print
to degrade the image, if only slightly. There is no certain way I've
found to flatten fiber prints except to put them in a warm-to-hot dry
mount press. You can usually pick up a decent used one at a photo swap
for not too much money.
BR
Michiel Fierst van Wijnandsbergen
> I've
>been in the darkroom for at least 20 years and KNEW fiber papers were
>better. I did learn to use RC multispeed for the quick jobs though.
>However in the last couple of years I think the new papers are as good
>or better than the fiber based paper. I got hooked on Ilford but last
>Fall I swapped to the new Kodak paper and don't think I will ever go
>back. The only downside is spotting RC paper.
I agree. I have done my own test a few months ago. I made several
prints of the same few negs on a variety of papers:
Sterling RC MG
Sterling FB MG
Ilford MG -IV RC
Ilford MG - FB
Ilford MG-IV FB
My conclusion was that I cannot justify the burden of handling Fibre
for the quality difference. I found that I can make prints on RC paper
that are as good as on fibre. However, you must set your mind to it
and find the optimum grade, time and development for all papers
specifically. If you want all papers to have an equally fair chance,
that is.
I have decided to go for Ilford MG-IV RC for the time being. I like
the Sterling RC MG as well though, but I happen to have more Ilford on
stock at the moment.
I think that if you put in the effort to reach an optimal result for
every paper, they are remarkably equal in quality. In other words, it
doesn't matter what you use, as long as you are used to it.
Michiel
WM11835
RC paper spots as well as Fiber, maybe better. Don't use a fix with
hardener in it.
Wayne
MarBau
Michiel wrote:
<<<I think that if you put in the effort to reach an optimal result for
every paper, they are remarkably equal in quality. In other words, it
doesn't matter what you use, as long as you are used to it.>>>
Whilst step wedge tests show that RC papers have caught up to the best
fiber papers I feel there is an intangible, unmeasureable, "look" to fiber
papers that give the image a "dimensionality" I have never seen or
acheived with RC papers.
It may be the horrid "GLOSS" surface on RC papers that I don't like but
somehow they just don't approach the look and feeling of depth of a fiber
print.
God how I wish they were the same as I love the processing conveinience of
RC!
Mark.
The above thoughts are opinions, flame me for errors in fact but do not flame me for having an opinion.
Michiel Fierst van Wijnandsbergen
On 22 Apr 1997 04:17:54 GMT, mar...@aol.com (MarBau) wrote:
>Whilst step wedge tests show that RC papers have caught up to the best
>fiber papers I feel there is an intangible, unmeasureable, "look" to fiber
>papers that give the image a "dimensionality" I have never seen or
>acheived with RC papers.
>It may be the horrid "GLOSS" surface on RC papers that I don't like but
>somehow they just don't approach the look and feeling of depth of a fiber
>print.
I have heard this many times. Hence my testing.
However, no matter how hard I looked, I didn't see it. Please, anyone,
make me see the light. I want to see the difference between fibre and
RC. Who can show me what to look for?
Michiel
Roger Hein
In article <19970422041...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, mar...@aol.com
(MarBau) wrote:
> Whilst step wedge tests show that RC papers have caught up to the best
> fiber papers I feel there is an intangible, unmeasureable, "look" to fiber
> papers that give the image a "dimensionality" I have never seen or
> acheived with RC papers.
>
> It may be the horrid "GLOSS" surface on RC papers that I don't like but
> somehow they just don't approach the look and feeling of depth of a fiber
> print.
I agree and find all the RC surfaces to be 'horrid'. I wonder if it's due
to difficulty in manufacturing?
Roger...
Jean-David Beyer
Michiel Fierst van Wijnandsbergen wrote:
>
> On 22 Apr 1997 04:17:54 GMT, mar...@aol.com (MarBau) wrote:
>
> >Whilst step wedge tests show that RC papers have caught up to the best
> >fiber papers I feel there is an intangible, unmeasureable, "look" to fiber
> >papers that give the image a "dimensionality" I have never seen or
> >acheived with RC papers.
> >It may be the horrid "GLOSS" surface on RC papers that I don't like but
> >somehow they just don't approach the look and feeling of depth of a fiber
> >print.
>
> However, no matter how hard I looked, I didn't see it. Please, anyone,
> make me see the light. I want to see the difference between fibre and
> RC. Who can show me what to look for?
>
> Michiel
When Dr. Richard J. Henry ran single-blind tests like this, he came to
the same conclusions. It was extremely difficult to tell the differences
in image quality, especially if the pictures were far enough from the
observers so they could not feel the plastic (this was necessary only
when photographers with strong opinions were viewing the images).
Some viewers even preferred the prints made on RC papers to those on
conventional fiber-base. Whatever the differences, they must be very
subtle.
IMO, it is the differences in surface that make the greatest
difference in what I see. I would imagine the F surface is too glossy
for many of us; I found Kodak's N surface much to matte for my taste.
Perhaps the Pearl or K surfaces would be better, but I am still looking
for a VC paper I can stand, so am not testing RC papers at present.
i
Adam
The old Oriental Seagull warmtone papers used to look exactly the same in
FB and RC versions. It is possible to make RC look just like FB, if it isn't
happening it's because the manufacterers aren't trying.
Adam
> >
> >The paper of glossy RC papers, is sandwiched between two smooth plastic
> >laminates, and hide the paper texture. The emulsion is coated on the
> >plastic, and therefore one sees the ferrotyped look of glossy RC paper.
>
> The glossiest (non-ferrotyped) fiber paper looks like a semi-matte RC ;-)
>
> >To avoid that look when I want to use RC paper, I often use Agfa or
> >Luminos (Kentmere) semi-matte RC VC/MG papers. The D-max,
> >tonal range and surface texture are closer to non-ferotyped FB papers
> >than glossy or matte papers, and they don't hide detail like the
> >ugly "pearl" RC papers, designed to hide fingerprints.
>
> I've found that I rather like the Kodak luster (E) surface myself,
> but it is certainly not like any fiber surface that I've encountered.
>
> --
> * Dana H. Myers K6JQ, DoD#: j | Views expressed here are mine and should *
> * (310) 348-6043 | not be interpreted or represented as *
> * Dana....@West.Sun.Com | those of Sun Microsystems, Inc. *
>
Michael Gudzinowicz
Roger Hein <rog...@interlog.com> writes:
>In article <19970422041...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, mar...@aol.com
>(MarBau) wrote:
>
>> Whilst step wedge tests show that RC papers have caught up to the best
>> fiber papers I feel there is an intangible, unmeasureable, "look" to fiber
>> papers that give the image a "dimensionality" I have never seen or
>> acheived with RC papers.
>>
>> It may be the horrid "GLOSS" surface on RC papers that I don't like but
>> somehow they just don't approach the look and feeling of depth of a fiber
>> print.
>
>I agree and find all the RC surfaces to be 'horrid'. I wonder if it's due
>to difficulty in manufacturing?
It makes one wonder about the observational abilities of the vocal group
which claims that they can see "no difference" between RC and FB.
The paper of glossy RC papers, is sandwiched between two smooth plastic
laminates, and hide the paper texture. The emulsion is coated on the
plastic, and therefore one sees the ferrotyped look of glossy RC paper.
George Ling
I have recently found the Agfa *Multi-contrast Premium Semi-matt* RC
paper to be very pleasant for viewing - nicely subdued from the regular
RC's glossy-ness.
*****************
MarBau wrote:
>
> Whilst step wedge tests show that RC papers have caught up to the best
> fiber papers I feel there is an intangible, unmeasureable, "look" to fiber
> papers that give the image a "dimensionality" I have never seen or
> acheived with RC papers.
>
> It may be the horrid "GLOSS" surface on RC papers that I don't like but
> somehow they just don't approach the look and feeling of depth of a fiber
> print.
Dana Myers
In article <5jii15$m...@freenet-news.carleton.ca>,
Michael Gudzinowicz <bg...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote:
>
>The paper of glossy RC papers, is sandwiched between two smooth plastic
>laminates, and hide the paper texture. The emulsion is coated on the
>plastic, and therefore one sees the ferrotyped look of glossy RC paper.
The glossiest (non-ferrotyped) fiber paper looks like a semi-matte RC ;-)
>To avoid that look when I want to use RC paper, I often use Agfa or
>Luminos (Kentmere) semi-matte RC VC/MG papers. The D-max,
>tonal range and surface texture are closer to non-ferotyped FB papers
>than glossy or matte papers, and they don't hide detail like the
>ugly "pearl" RC papers, designed to hide fingerprints.
I've found that I rather like the Kodak luster (E) surface myself,
Greg VanSickle
My procedure is as follows:
1) Dry them in pairs. If I have only on print, I'll soak an old
test print as a second.
2) Squeegee them dry.
3) Hang them just long enough for the emulsions to become not tacky.
4) place two prints together, emulsion side together. Put some paper
towels on a flat surface, put the prints on the towels, more
paper towels, add a sheet of glass on top of this and put some
weights on top.
5) replace the towels every so often.
The purpose of the second print is to protect the emulsions. If you
stick the prints together too early, they bond and you'll wreck them
pulling them apart.
This takes a over night and the following day to dry, as the water
has to be taken up by the towels, but at least they dry flat. The
time depends on how often you replace the towels. (You can re-use them
after they dry out.
My only concern is that some 'acid' from the towels may diffuse
back into the print, making this less than a completely archival
process.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Greg VanSickle Northern Telecom Electronics
Custom Technology Access 185 Corkstown Rd.
phone: (613) 763-5160 Nepean, Ontario
esn: 393-5160 Canada K2H 8V4
email: vans...@bnr.ca
fax: (613) 763-5730
Tim Burress
> Can some experienced b&w printer please give me some suggestions on how to
> heard about print flattening solutions but have never tried them. I've
> been growling about curly prints now for years...maybe someone can help.
What I've been doing is to dry the prints first on screens, then pop them
into a dry mount press (between a couple of mount boards) for a couple of
minutes. This doesn't make them flat, exactly, but it comes close enough
for the prints to then be easily handled without the corners catching on
everything.
Is this a bad idea?
Tim
Jarinb
I too know the 'look' of fiber to be more dimensional. The plastic coating
on RC seems to make the image look like it is sitting on the surface.
Also, there is much less you can do to an RC print. Toning is limited.
Contrast through development is pretty much determined after 45 seconds .
Developers have less affect in the tonality or contrast with RC. There is
also a wider variety of fiber-based paper as far as tone goes. Most RC
papers are just neutral tone.
Jean-David Beyer
While I share the view of many (but not all), and prefer the look of
fiber-based paper to RC, I do not think it fair to malign the RC papers
with undeserved criticisms.
If coated with the same emulsion, toning should
be the same irrespective of the substrate. Contrast control through development
with paper is extremely limited, since they are (almost) always developped to
completion. This has nothing to do with the substrate upon which the emulsion
is coated. Extending development just makes the print darker until you overdo
it and start getting fog. For the same emulsion, the developers affect the
tonality and contrast the same, irrespective of the substrate. It seems that
there is less variety of surfaces, and image and base tone, but many
manufacturers are starting to bring out more variety in surfaces, image tones,
and base tones. E.g., Luminos in USA and British specialty manufacturers,
such as Forte.
SPECTRUM
margaret brezden wrote:
>
> Hi
>
> Does anyone know what the achieval difference is
> between fb and rc papers????
>
> Margaret
Not enough for you or I to worry ourselves about ! When properly
processed RC has a life around 175 years, on the conservative side. And
the same goes for any properly processed FB, of which I have several
dating to 1880.
Regards,
John S. Douglas
Spectrum Photographic Inc.
416 Washington Ave.
Pine Beach, N.J. 08741
908.505.8393
margaret brezden
Jean-David Beyer
In the old days (early 1970's) RC papers had poor archival properties.
As I recall, the problem had to do with the polyethylene cracking
on exposure to ozone or ultra-violet rays (I forget which: perhaps
both). Since that time, the manufacturers have changed the composition
of the material and perhaps its processing so that the lifetimes are
considerably longer. I have not seen recent studies that compare
the lifetimes of the two types of papers. I would suspect, however,
that these days, differences in processing by the user would be the
greatest influence on archival properties, not the original materials.
I suggest you check "The Permanence and Care of Color Photographs"
by Henry Wilhelm and Carol Brower. While I have not yet had the time
to read it, it is highly regarded in the field, and is likely to have
the information you need.
Manny Bhuta
I just checked in Henry Wilhelm's book. He supports Jean-David's
statement that the RC papers used to have the cracking problems but
this has been corrected. However, he makes the statement that the
weakest link is likely to be significant fading of dyes. His
report in this book is only on color films and papers and does not
include black and white.
Manny Bhuta
Randolph, NJ
_________
Jean-David Beyer <jdb...@exit109.com> wrote in article
<336494...@exit109.com>...
Adam
Jean-David Beyer <jdb...@exit109.com> writes: >
> margaret brezden wrote:
> >
> > Hi
> >
> > Does anyone know what the achieval difference is
> > between fb and rc papers????
> >
> > Margaret
>
> In the old days (early 1970's) RC papers had poor archival properties.
> As I recall, the problem had to do with the polyethylene cracking
> on exposure to ozone or ultra-violet rays (I forget which: perhaps
> both). Since that time, the manufacturers have changed the composition
> of the material and perhaps its processing so that the lifetimes are
> considerably longer. I have not seen recent studies that compare
> the lifetimes of the two types of papers. I would suspect, however,
> that these days, differences in processing by the user would be the
> greatest influence on archival properties, not the original materials.
>
> I suggest you check "The Permanence and Care of Color Photographs"
> by Henry Wilhelm and Carol Brower. While I have not yet had the time
> to read it, it is highly regarded in the field, and is likely to have
> the information you need.
> --
> Jean-David Beyer
> Shrewsbury, New Jersey
Kodak's accelerated aging studies show that RC is equal in permenance to
fiberbase papers. These studies are not nessesarily perfect, but probably
pretty accurate.
Kathleen Lytle
Ron Walton (ro...@kiva.net) wrote:
: I have some of Ilford MGIV Satin paper which I plan to try
: soon. Ilford claims it's surface to be like air dried FB glossy of a
: few years ago.
I've used both these papers, the FB extensively. I always air-dried my
FB. The Satin is a nice enough paper, but if you're talking about the
Satin RC, Ilford's claim is bullshit.
Ron Walton
:
:
: When Dr. Richard J. Henry ran single-blind tests like this, he came
to
: the same conclusions. It was extremely difficult to tell the
differences
: in image quality, especially if the pictures were far enough from
the
: observers so they could not feel the plastic (this was necessary
only
: when photographers with strong opinions were viewing the images).
: Some viewers even preferred the prints made on RC papers to those
on
: conventional fiber-base. Whatever the differences, they must be
very
: subtle.
:
: IMO, it is the differences in surface that make the greatest
: difference in what I see. I would imagine the F surface is too
glossy
: for many of us; I found Kodak's N surface much to matte for my
taste.
: Perhaps the Pearl or K surfaces would be better, but I am still
looking
: for a VC paper I can stand, so am not testing RC papers at present.
: i
: --
: Jean-David Beyer
: Shrewsbury, New Jersey
I have some of Ilford MGIV Satin paper which I plan to try
soon. Ilford claims it's surface to be like air dried FB glossy of a
few years ago.
If you havn't tried Afga MC Classic FB, this may be a good
choice to check out.
Ron Walton
:
SPECTRUM
Ron Walton wrote:
>
> :
> :
I've found the 'E' surface that E.K. produces to be the closest thing
to a fibre-looking RC. In trying the new Polymax II and the 'E' surface
I found that thier was no need for me to look any further. It's the
perfect combo .
Tom Lismer
Adam wrote:
>
> Jean-David Beyer <jdb...@exit109.com> writes: >
> > margaret brezden wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi
> > >
> > > Does anyone know what the achieval difference is
> > > between fb and rc papers????
> > >
> > > Margaret
> >
> > In the old days (early 1970's) RC papers had poor archival properties.
> > As I recall, the problem had to do with the polyethylene cracking
> > on exposure to ozone or ultra-violet rays (I forget which: perhaps
> > both). Since that time, the manufacturers have changed the composition
> > of the material and perhaps its processing so that the lifetimes are
> > considerably longer. I have not seen recent studies that compare
> > the lifetimes of the two types of papers. I would suspect, however,
> > that these days, differences in processing by the user would be the
> > greatest influence on archival properties, not the original materials.
> >
> > I suggest you check "The Permanence and Care of Color Photographs"
> > by Henry Wilhelm and Carol Brower. While I have not yet had the time
> > to read it, it is highly regarded in the field, and is likely to have
> > the information you need.
> > Jean-David Beyer
> > Shrewsbury, New Jersey
>
> fiberbase papers. These studies are not nessesarily perfect, but probably
> pretty accurate.
Another point - In order to get the maximum archival properties, a print must
be well washed of the chemicals they were developed. It is far easier to wash
RC papers then fiber papers, so unless one is meticulous with your washing,
there is a good chance that FB prints will have more contaminents than an RC
print. Hence in many home darkroom setups, FB prints will NOT be as archival as
RC prints.
Msherck
Drying fiber prints face down on screens results in 'sorta' flat prints -
the corners tend to curl quite a bit although not so much as to prevent
drymounting (I'm poor: I drymount with a clothes iron.) Screens can be
made very inexpensively with lumber and fibreglass window screen.
Drying in blotter books results in prints which are flatter than drying
them on screens, but still not absolutely flat. Blotter books, however,
are not cheap and have finite lifetimes.
I've tried someone's flattening solution... "Ultra flat" or something like
that. I believe it was an Edwal product. I didn't notice any help
whatsoever and haven't even finished the bottle I bought.
Hope this helps!
Kathleen Lytle
Tom Lismer (lis...@bnr.ca) wrote:
: Another point - In order to get the maximum archival properties, a print must
: RC papers then fiber papers, so unless one is meticulous with your washing,
: there is a good chance that FB prints will have more contaminents than an RC
: print. Hence in many home darkroom setups, FB prints will NOT be as archival as
: RC prints.
apart. From my experience, 15 minutes total wet time is pushing it.
Fiber-based paper can be left in the print washer for hours with no ill
effect.
MarBau
RC papers have the added problem that no one is sure about the plastic
base and how long it will last.
Even Ilford refuses to state that RC is archivall, due to the fact that
everyones definition of the term archival, is different!
Richard Knoppow
mar...@aol.com (MarBau) wrote:
This is an interesting point. I have seen "archival" defined as 75
years, 100 years, more than 100 years. Since "silver gelatin"
printing paper is only about 100 years old now I rather think those
expecting very long lifetimes for these material are on somewhat
shakey ground. Other than surviving old prints whose processing and
storage conditions are known, the main source of information for
archival processing comes from various accellerated aging tests.
These have been criticized for not really duplicating real world
conditions.
The interesting thing is that there are plenty of old prints
processed without multiple hypo baths, clearing agents and 10 hour
soaks. There is also lots of conflicting information on such basic
subjects as how much hypo should remain in the emulsion after washing.
The traditional popular wisdom is none at all but papers published by
Kodak and other researchers about twenty years ago make it clear than
very small amounts of hypo remaining in emulsions protect them from
attack by sulfiding gasses. RC paper in principle should be a better
archival medium than FB paper although it may not achieve that in
practice because of shortcomings in the resin coatings. It would seem
from the literature that most of the problems of early RC paper have
been solved. In any case early RC started to come apart within a
relatively short time and modern paper doesn't seem to do that. We
will all have to live for another hundred years to find out:-)
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, Ca.
dick...@ix.netcom.com
Jean-David Beyer
Richard Knoppow wrote:
>
> mar...@aol.com (MarBau) wrote:
>
> >RC papers have the added problem that no one is sure about the plastic
> >base and how long it will last.
> This is an interesting point. I have seen "archival" defined as 75
> years, 100 years, more than 100 years. Since "silver gelatin"
> printing paper is only about 100 years old now I rather think those
> expecting very long lifetimes for these material are on somewhat
> shakey ground. Other than surviving old prints whose processing and
> storage conditions are known, the main source of information for
> archival processing comes from various accellerated aging tests.
> These have been criticized for not really duplicating real world
> conditions.
> The interesting thing is that there are plenty of old prints
> processed without multiple hypo baths, clearing agents and 10 hour
> soaks. There is also lots of conflicting information on such basic
> subjects as how much hypo should remain in the emulsion after washing.
> The traditional popular wisdom is none at all but papers published by
> Kodak and other researchers about twenty years ago make it clear than
> very small amounts of hypo remaining in emulsions protect them from
> attack by sulfiding gasses. RC paper in principle should be a better
> archival medium than FB paper although it may not achieve that in
> practice because of shortcomings in the resin coatings. It would seem
> from the literature that most of the problems of early RC paper have
> been solved. In any case early RC started to come apart within a
> relatively short time and modern paper doesn't seem to do that. We
> will all have to live for another hundred years to find out:-)
> ---
Many of my prints will be "improved" by fading to completion, and the world
may be better of when they disappear entirely. I have only a few images that
I think should survive me. Who knows if anyone would agree that this is true
even of those? ;-)
One medium has survived even longer than silver-gelatine on paper. This is
printing ink on paper. If you learn to make half-tones yourself, so that
you can control how the final print will look, you can have a printer
print your images on archival paper with good inks and expect the results
to last at least 500 years. Some paper documents are known that have lasted
over 1000 years. These figures are the result of normal, not accelerated,
aging tests.
Also, once the plate is made, you can easily run off 6000 prints an hour for
little more than the cost of conventional paper and ink. With a 150 line screen,
the images can look very good except to print sniffers (like me).
It is difficult to attain a Dmax of 2.0 or greater, but it turns out that many
images do not need it. Multiple impression B&W printing can be used to raise
the Dmax somewhat, but is more trouble. If your images really deserve to last
centuries, however, this can be considered. (You will need to consider the paper
texture and coating, and the gloss of the ink used, with some care.)
Richard J. Fateman
>mar...@aol.com (MarBau) wrote:
>
>>RC papers have the added problem that no one is sure about the plastic
>>base and how long it will last.
>>everyones definition of the term archival, is different!
You don't have to define archival to state that properly processed
RC and FB (B&W) paper have equivalent permanence. I believe that Ilford
and Kodak both state such opinions in their recent literature.
Permanence (or archivalness?) clearly depends on lots of things
including material, processing, storage conditions (temperature,
light, mechanical protection, and the passage of time).
I think that is why the term archival is officially out of favor. What does
it mean to archivally matt a newspaper clipping? It will turn
brown given a few days in the sun.
--
Richard J. Fateman
fat...@cs.berkeley.edu http://http.cs.berkeley.edu/~fateman/
Jean-David Beyer
Richard J. Fateman wrote:
> You don't have to define archival to state that properly processed
> RC and FB (B&W) paper have equivalent permanence. I believe that Ilford
> and Kodak both state such opinions in their recent literature.
>
> Permanence (or archivalness?) clearly depends on lots of things
> including material, processing, storage conditions (temperature,
> light, mechanical protection, and the passage of time).
>
> I think that is why the term archival is officially out of favor. What does
> it mean to archivally matt a newspaper clipping? It will turn
> brown given a few days in the sun.
>
If you need to preserve a newspaper clipping, it is best to de-acidify
it first by treating it in Bookkeeper or Wei T'o solutions first*. I do
not know how long this will work, due to the crummy nature of the paper,
but it is a step in the right direction.
---
*These can be obtained from some graphic arts suppliers, including
Light Impressions (1-800-828-6216).
Richard J. Fateman
In article <33672B...@exit109.com>,
Jean-David Beyer <jdb...@exit109.com> wrote:
> Some paper documents are known that have lasted
>over 1000 years. These figures are the result of normal, not accelerated,
>aging tests.
Another way of making a permanent version of an image is to digitize
it, and send your image to one of those news groups that allows binary
images. Then trust that some fool out on the internet will save it
forever. (perhaps in a platinum bottle :)
John Sparks
Tom Lismer (lis...@bnr.ca) wrote:
>Another point - In order to get the maximum archival properties, a print must
>be well washed of the chemicals they were developed. It is far easier to wash
>RC papers then fiber papers, so unless one is meticulous with your washing,
>there is a good chance that FB prints will have more contaminents than an RC
>print. Hence in many home darkroom setups, FB prints will NOT be as archival as
>RC prints.
I've read/heard that several times before, but I don't think I believe
it. I don't really know in general, but I've seen lots of my own RC
prints that show some damage (silvering, yellowing, stain spots, etc.),
but have never seen any damage in any of my fiber prints. For the most
part, I am more careful with processing my fiber prints (that is
certanly true now, but wasn't really true when I first started print 20
years ago). All my fiber prints have been washed far longer than the RC
prints, but even some haphazardly processed fiber prints from 20 years
ago have held up better than some RC prints from as little as a year or
two ago. As a counter example, I also have some RC prints from as long
ago as 20 years with no damage (many more prints are undamaged than
damaged, but a disturbing number of my RC prints show real problems and
that's even with current RC papers in very short times, not suspect ones
from 20 years ago).
I think a fiber print that is washed for 45min or more is more likely to
have a uniform, reasonably good wash than a RC print that is only washed
for 2-5 minutes unless a great deal of care is used in washing the RC
print. Another possibility is that the fiber paper base itself absorbs
some of the contaminates and removes them from contact with the
emulsion. RC papers, on the other hand, trap in the emulsion any
contaminates that might be present after processing or absorbed from
contact with the air or other contaminated prints later.
I don't really know what is going on, but from personal experience, I've
found fiber prints to show much fewer problems than RC prints.
John Sparks
Richard Knoppow
Michiel...@nlrtdfsc.origin.nl (Michiel Fierst van Wijnandsbergen)
wrote:
>On 29 Apr 1997 20:40:48 GMT, msh...@aol.com (Msherck) wrote:
>
>>I've tried someone's flattening solution... "Ultra flat" or something like
>>that. I believe it was an Edwal product. I didn't notice any help
>>whatsoever and haven't even finished the bottle I bought.
>
>That's funny. I experience exactly the same thing. Used a different
>manufacturers flattener though.
>Are we doing something wrong here, or do the chemical aids simply not
>work?
>
>Michiel
I am another who has had no success with print flattener solutions
with modern paper. The usual flattener is a solution of Glycerin in
water. Some commercial flatteners use something called Carbitol
Acetate, possibly a softening agent. I don't have any information
about actual formulae using it. I rely on a dry mounting press for
flattening, it seems to work about as well as anything. Some brands
of paper, notably AGFA, seem to have a particular problem with the
edges frilling. The only cure for this seems to be to leave large
borders and trim the print after putting it through the mounting
press.
Phil Herring
In article <5k6nre$d58$1...@mark.ucdavis.edu> Kathleen Lytle, fin...@wheel.dcn.davis.ca.us writes:
>There is a limit to the time you can wash RC paper before it starts coming
>apart. From my experience, 15 minutes total wet time is pushing it.
>Fiber-based paper can be left in the print washer for hours with no ill
>effect.
I've left RC prints in my print washer overnight, with no ill effects at
all. The prints didn't come apart and at the end of the wash were just as
tough as they were when they went in.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright 1997 Phil Herring. This article may not be reproduced for profit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adam
fin...@wheel.dcn.davis.ca.us (Kathleen Lytle) writes: > Tom Lismer (lis...@bnr.ca) wrote:
> : Another point - In order to get the maximum archival properties, a print must
> : be well washed of the chemicals they were developed. It is far easier to wash
> : RC papers then fiber papers, so unless one is meticulous with your washing,
> : there is a good chance that FB prints will have more contaminents than an RC
> : print. Hence in many home darkroom setups, FB prints will NOT be as archival as
> : RC prints.
> apart. From my experience, 15 minutes total wet time is pushing it.
> Fiber-based paper can be left in the print washer for hours with no ill
> effect.
>
RC and Fiber in a number of ways, including resistance to washing. The author
(Alfred Blacker, if I remember right), soaked RC paper for 72 hours, and reported no
separation.
Adam
Michiel Fierst van Wijnandsbergen
Gregory Pease
Kathleen Lytle (fin...@wheel.dcn.davis.ca.us) wrote:
: Tom Lismer (lis...@bnr.ca) wrote:
: : print. Hence in many home darkroom setups, FB prints will NOT be as archival as
: : RC prints.
: There is a limit to the time you can wash RC paper before it starts coming
: apart. From my experience, 15 minutes total wet time is pushing it.
: Fiber-based paper can be left in the print washer for hours with no ill
: effect.
Two things. First, what is being argued is the permanence of the print. RC
papers are free from chemistry after a scant 2 minutes in a simple running
water wash. In my tests, as little as 30-seconds under running water is
sufficient to show no residual thiosulfates. Fibre papers require anywhere
from 20-minutes to 1-hour, depending on how long the print was in the fixer,
the weight of the paper, and the type of washer being used. So, in the
average case, an RC print is likely to be more permanent than a fibre print.
Some workers are meticulous with their washing, but many are not.
Second, I routinely have RC prints wet for as long as an hour with no
deleterious effects. This depends on the quality of the paper, I'm sure,
but with Ilford MG{III,IV} I have not experienced any separation. Neither
have I seen it with Agfas new RC papers. I'm about to do some testing on
Sterling, since I can't get MGIII Deluxe anymore, and I really don't like
MGIV...I the results are different, I'll let you know.
Regards,
Gregory
Phil Herring
In article <5k8e4p$fmu$1...@nonews.col.hp.com> John Sparks, spa...@col.hp.com writes:
>I think a fiber print that is washed for 45min or more is more likely to
>have a uniform, reasonably good wash than a RC print that is only washed
>for 2-5 minutes unless a great deal of care is used in washing the RC
>print.
2 to 5 minutes isn't really long enough, even for RC, but on the other hand,
I do have plenty of 15 year old RC prints that were just rinsed a few times
in a bucket, and they have yet to go brown.
>Another possibility is that the fiber paper base itself absorbs
>some of the contaminates and removes them from contact with the
>emulsion.
Or, the paper acts as a source of contaminants that slowly leaks them into
the emulsion for years to come.
>RC papers, on the other hand, trap in the emulsion any
>contaminates that might be present after processing or absorbed from
>contact with the air or other contaminated prints later.
No they don't. Both RC and FB papers have the same gelatin emulsion on the
print surface; on RC, that emulsion is no more able to 'trap' anything than
the emulsion on FB.
What happens with RC is extremely simple: the paper base is sealed, top and
bottom, with plastic. The emulsion is *on top* of that plastic, i.e., in
contact with air, not paper. The paper is clean to start with (and no
reputable manufacturer would have it otherwise), and no contaminants can
reach it. No developer, no fixer, nothing. Therefore, the only part of the
paper that participates in the processing is the emulsion, a very thin
permeable layer of gelatin. This can be washed out in under ten minutes.
Now, aside from paranoia about contaminants sneaking into the cut edges of
the print (which is demonstrably false), what have you got to worry about,
apart from shorter wash times?
margaret brezden
fat...@peoplesparc.cs.berkeley.edu (Richard J. Fateman) wrote:
>>mar...@aol.com (MarBau) wrote:
>>
>>>RC papers have the added problem that no one is sure about the plastic
>
>
>You don't have to define archival to state that properly processed
>RC and FB (B&W) paper have equivalent permanence. I believe that Ilford
>and Kodak both state such opinions in their recent literature.
If this is the case maybe this question shoulc be approached from a different
perspective. If any of us were buying a print which would we sooner choose....
..an FB print or a resin coated print??
Margaret
Kelvin
I read a paper in Camera and Darkroom a couple of years ago in which they
compared RC and Fiber in a number of ways, including resistance to washing.
The author (Alfred Blacker, if I remember right), soaked RC paper for 72
hours, and reported no separation.
Adam
====================================
Do you remember which papers were tested? I recently bought some Kodak
Polycontrast III (Gloss & Matte) RC and using the recommended times from
Kodak I got extreme separation. I sent it to them, they tested it, said
nothing was wrong, and sent a couple of new packs back. I haven't used
them though. I'm quite happy with my Ilford MG4 RC paper & chemicals.
** To reply, remove the X from Xbe...@sk.sympatico.ca **
Cees de Groot
In article <5k8pc9$1pi$1...@carrera.intergate.bc.ca>,
margaret brezden <brez...@intergate.bc.ca> wrote:
>
>If this is the case maybe this question shoulc be approached from a different
>perspective. If any of us were buying a print which would we sooner choose....
>..an FB print or a resin coated print??
>
Apart from esthetical reasons, an FB print. Mainly because most other collectors
would make the same choice, which simply means that FB has a better reselling
value than RC.
People are resistant to change. So, even when all the scientists of the world
agree on the keeping properties of RC paper, it will be some time before the
market at large accepts a change from FB to RC.
Personally, I won't touch FB for environmental reasons. My pictures are not
important enough to warrant spoiling inordinate amounts of drinking water
on them. But then, I don't need to make a living from my prints so it is easy
for me to have principles :-).
--
Cees de Groot http://pobox.com/~cg <c...@pobox.com>
Principal Consultant
OpenLink Software http://www.openlinksw.com/ <c...@openlink.co.uk>
Robert E. Smith
>
>cut<
> I think a fiber print that is washed for 45min or more is more likely to
> have a uniform, reasonably good wash than a RC print that is only washed
> for 2-5 minutes unless a great deal of care is used in washing the RC
> some of the contaminates and removes them from contact with the
> contaminates that might be present after processing or absorbed from
> contact with the air or other contaminated prints later.
>
> found fiber prints to show much fewer problems than RC prints.
>
> John Sparks
Dear John and other interested parties:
Speaking form the point of view of a professional chemical engineer
(Va Tech ‘58, Catholic U. ‘85 and ‘89) Your assessment of the physical
and chemical aspects of the archival dilemma are close to mine.
Dissolved chemicals in fiber paper must diffuse out; which means that
you will never get them all out. It is analogous to the frog jumping
half way to the pond with each attempt - it will never make it all the
way because there is always half the distance to go. Any barrier to
this process will slow it down - especially a water-proof plastic. So
if any chemicals *do* penetrate the resin coat, removal will be
exceedingly difficult, if not impossible. OBTW Kodak somewhere has made
the suggestion that a little (probably danged little) hypo remaining in
fiber paper *helps* to maintain archival quality by protecting the
silver from certain air pollutants. (No comment).
Personally, I prefer the “look” and “feel” of fiber prints.
Earlier trials with RC paper was rewarding, but when it comes time for
the show, my preference is the fiber look. My washing technique is
based on experience and tests and designed to reduce the water use to a
minimum. So far, I’ve experienced problems only with Kodak “Elite Fine
Art” papers due to improper washing (or something). I use RC papers for
proofs only (the majority volume),
dr bob.
Michiel Fierst van Wijnandsbergen
On 30 Apr 1997 23:04:51 GMT, sky...@value.net (Gregory Pease) wrote:
>Kathleen Lytle (fin...@wheel.dcn.davis.ca.us) wrote:
>Second, I routinely have RC prints wet for as long as an hour with no
>deleterious effects. This depends on the quality of the paper, I'm sure,
>but with Ilford MG{III,IV} I have not experienced any separation. Neither
>have I seen it with Agfas new RC papers. I'm about to do some testing on
>Sterling, since I can't get MGIII Deluxe anymore, and I really don't like
>MGIV...I the results are different, I'll let you know.
My experience too. Sometimes I keep prints in water over two hours. No
problems with Ilford.
I have used Sterling as well. I must admit I did not pay attention to
the time they were in water before getting rinsed. Probably half an
hour or more. No problems either.
I like Sterling paper, by the way. They have several different types.
Michiel
Mark Bergman
Kelvin wrote:
>
> I read a paper in Camera and Darkroom a couple of years ago in which they
> compared RC and Fiber in a number of ways, including resistance to washing.
> The author (Alfred Blacker, if I remember right), soaked RC paper for 72
> hours, and reported no separation.
>
> Adam
>
> ====================================
>
> Do you remember which papers were tested? I recently bought some >Kodak Polycontrast III (Gloss & Matte) RC and using the recommended >times from Kodak I got extreme separation. I sent it to them, they >tested it, said nothing was wrong, and sent a couple of new packs back.
I have never had any edge seperation with any paper. I switched from
Ilford to Kodak last year and have been very happy. I wash the prints
from 2 to 30 minutes or whenever I get around to taking them out of the
washer. I would look to another problem though I can't imagine what.
MarBau
Adam wrote:
<<<The author
(Alfred Blacker, if I remember right), soaked RC paper for 72 hours, and
reported no
separation>>>
Unfortunately, what works in one persons darkroom may not work in anothers
due to innumerable variables. I've been printing on RC since Ilford's
"Ilfospeed" came out and agree with a previous poster that RC wet times
have to be closely watched. Typically, I get separation at the corners
after about 10 to 15 mins.
There is no doubt RC paper can be very thouroughly washed but both Kodak
and Ilford have stated that a minute amount of hypo left in the paper
fibers may actually be better for longevity than none.
<<<so unless one is meticulous with your washing,
there is a good chance that FB prints will have more contaminents than an
RC
print Hence in many home darkroom setups, FB prints will NOT be as
archival as
RC prints>>>
Anyone who takes print longevity seriously will also be very thorough when
it comes to correctlly handling fiber papers. The above comment is nothing
more than a sweeping over generalisation! It could also be said that most
RC users simply give the print a quick swish in water, squeegee it and dry
it and never giving a thought to thorough washing!
The only difference in washing between the two papers is time, and proper
timimg of the wash sequence can only be arrived at by testing.
Richard Knoppow
The issue of residual hypo protecting the image is one I have
posted on several times in the past. The residue is in the emulsion,
not in the support. There is a good deal of uncertainty in the
published material about this effect with paper because most of the
work was done on film emulsions not paper. For those interested in
learning more here are some sources"
1, "The Stability of Silver Filaments" T.H. James, Photographic
Sceince and Engineering, Vol.9, No.2, March-April 1965
2, "Stability of Residual Thiosulfate in Processed Micorfilm" C.I.
Pope, Journal of Research of the National Bureau of Standards-
C.Engineering and Instrumentation, Vol. 67C, No.1, January-March 1963
For some additional comments see also:
3, "Toner Treatments for Photographic Images to Enhance Image
Stability" W.E. Lee, Beverly Wood, and F.J. Drago, Journal of
Imaging Technology, Vol.10, No.3, June 1984
BTW, Washing hypo out of paper is more than a simple diffusion
process because the hypo can become "mordanted" to the paper. Wash
aids, which consist mostly of Sodium sulfite, help washing of the
emulsion by adjusting it to its isoelectric point but I have never
seen anything in print about its effects, if any, on paper fibers. It
must also be remembered that FB paper has a layer of Baryta (Barium
sulfate) under the paper to provide a smooth reflecting layer.
Migration of hypo from the paper support to the emulsion must be
through this layer. Although there must have been formal research on
the part this layer plays in the stability of the image I have not
been able to find any reference to it, although I have seen some
speculation in informal papers.
With all the discussion of print stability one sees little here
regarding negative stability. This is probably because negatives have
proven to much more stable than prints over time. This is due to the
more effective washing possible because of the impermiable support and
also to the more coarse grained emulsions. RC paper is closer to film
in its construction than to FB paper and is likely to resemble film in
its stability with time. It sould be pointed out that FB, in its
early days, also suffered from mechanical problems until the industry
learned how to make it better. This is probably no longer an issue
with RC either.
Adam
Mark Bergman <BMWR100...@mwci.net> writes: > Kelvin wrote:
> >
> > I read a paper in Camera and Darkroom a couple of years ago in which they
> > compared RC and Fiber in a number of ways, including resistance to washing.
> >
> > Adam
> >
> > ====================================
> >
> > Do you remember which papers were tested? I recently bought some >Kodak Polycontrast III (Gloss & Matte) RC and using the recommended >times from Kodak I got extreme separation. I sent it to them, they >tested it, said nothing was wrong, and sent a couple of new packs back.
>
> I have never had any edge seperation with any paper. I switched from
> Ilford to Kodak last year and have been very happy. I wash the prints
> from 2 to 30 minutes or whenever I get around to taking them out of the
> washer. I would look to another problem though I can't imagine what.
I also have never had any problems with seperation with any paper either.
Other people here have been saying that they have had problems, so there
must be something to it. I wonder if water hardness has anything to do
with it.
Adam
Justina Lee
>
>In article <5k6nre$d58$1...@mark.ucdavis.edu> Kathleen Lytle, fin...@wheel.dcn.davis.ca.us writes:
>>There is a limit to the time you can wash RC paper before it starts coming
>>apart. From my experience, 15 minutes total wet time is pushing it.
>>Fiber-based paper can be left in the print washer for hours with no ill
>>effect.
>
Ummm. Are you sure about this?
Jean-David Beyer
I am sure that, except for Kodabromide and any other papers you can find with
no incorporated brighteners, the brightener starts washing out as soon as you
put the paper in the water, so the less wet time the better, consistent with
washing out all the chemicals you want removed. The brighteners will probably
be long gone before the F.B. paper starts falling apart. I have never seen RC
paper fall apart, but I seldom wash it more than 4 minutes (one sheet at a time
in a tray with Kodak syphon). Dr. Henry measured brightener loss vs. time
for Ilfobrom paper (among others) and found that about 50% was gone after
one hour, and that in 6 hours, about 70% was gone.
I would not think RC paper would fall apart in soaking until an appreciable
amount of water got between the plastic layers. This happens extremely slowly;
I would guess much slower than 1/16" per hour (although I have not measured it).
In the time to process RA-4 at 38C, including a 4-minute wash, I can detect no
soaking into the paper with my calibrated eyeball. The only RC papers I have
used were by Kodak, if that makes any difference.
John Sparks
Phil Herring (rev...@uow.edu.au) wrote:
>In article <5k8e4p$fmu$1...@nonews.col.hp.com> John Sparks, spa...@col.hp.com writes:
>>I think a fiber print that is washed for 45min or more is more likely to
>>have a uniform, reasonably good wash than a RC print that is only washed
>>for 2-5 minutes unless a great deal of care is used in washing the RC
>>print.
>2 to 5 minutes isn't really long enough, even for RC, but on the other hand,
I wash my RC prints for at least 8 to 10 minutes, some soak as long as an
hour. However, the data sheets all seem to say 2 to 5 minutes. Even some
of the prints washed for more that 10 minutes have shown problems, some are
also fine.
>>RC papers, on the other hand, trap in the emulsion any
>>contaminates that might be present after processing or absorbed from
>>contact with the air or other contaminated prints later.
>No they don't. Both RC and FB papers have the same gelatin emulsion on the
>print surface; on RC, that emulsion is no more able to 'trap' anything than
>the emulsion on FB.
It's not a matter of the gelatin, but the plastic layer between the
emulsion and the paper. With RC papers, there is probably less of a
problem of harmful substances remaining in the print after processing
than with a fiber print because of the plastic coating on the paper.
The emulsion itself is washed clean in either fiber papers or RC papers
in the same amount of time. The problem with fiber papers is contanimates
trapped in the paper fibers in the backing. Any problems with a complete
wash for RC prints is a problem in the emulsion not the backing. Any
problem with fiber prints with their much longer wash times is very unlikely
to be in the emulsion but in the backing which would take longer to become
a visible problem than in the RC case.
The plastic layer in RC prints provides no additional protection from
airborn pollution than a fiber print and in fact may cause any
contaminates that do get into the emulsion or were left in the emulsion
from insufficient washing to be trapped there rather than diffuse into
the absorbent paper backing on a fiber based print. Substances will
diffuse from areas of high concentration to areas of lower concentration
(basic chemistry). Presumably the encapsilated paper an RC print has a
lower concentration of harmful substances that the emulsion, but the RC
layer is mostly impermable. This prevents most of the normal reduction
in concentration from diffusion into the backing. The effect of
contamination on the paper backing is much less harmful than it's effect
on the sensitive emulsion. This is what I meant by "trapping".
>What happens with RC is extremely simple: the paper base is sealed, top and
>bottom, with plastic. The emulsion is *on top* of that plastic, i.e., in
>contact with air, not paper. The paper is clean to start with (and no
>reputable manufacturer would have it otherwise), and no contaminants can
>reach it. No developer, no fixer, nothing. Therefore, the only part of the
>paper that participates in the processing is the emulsion, a very thin
>permeable layer of gelatin. This can be washed out in under ten minutes.
This doesn't address the problem of airborn pollution. Also, any problems
with the evenness of the wash are more likely to leave junk in the emulsion
than when you have problems with a 1 hour wash for fiber prints (which may
well leave junk in the paper base if not done reasonably carefully).
John Sparks
Richard Knoppow
Jean-David Beyer <jdb...@exit109.com> wrote:
I've had occasional problems with corners starting to come apart in
normal ten minute wet times. This was, I think, Arista paper sold by
Freestyle, I don't actually know who made the stuff but it doesn't
look like Ilford paper. I have also had some of this paper turn
sllightly brownish after a couple of years. Not emulsion, the support
paper. This was the Arist of two to four years ago so the current
stuff probably isn't the same. I rarely leave RC prints wet for more
than about ten minutes but have run longer wet times sometimes when
toning or bleaching a print. With the exception mentioned I don't
remember any separating.
tanya
Michiel...@nlrtdfsc.origin.nl (Michiel Fierst van Wijnandsbergen)
wrote:
>On 29 Apr 1997 20:40:48 GMT, msh...@aol.com (Msherck) wrote:
>Michiel
I am a student. My teacher says the solution is "lots of heavy books
for a day or two - which doesnt help if you're in a hurry I guess!
tanya
Michiel Fierst van Wijnandsbergen
On Thu, 01 May 1997 10:33:08 -0700, "Robert E. Smith" <rsm...@dmv.com>
wrote:
> Any barrier to
>this process will slow it down - especially a water-proof plastic. So
>if any chemicals *do* penetrate the resin coat, removal will be
>exceedingly difficult, if not impossible.
Right. On the other hand, IF any chemicals do penetrate the resin
coat, they are in the paper and cannot get into contact with the
emulsion due to the resin coat.
Right?
Michiel
DFStein
Dry mount press, then the rule of "time and weight," once dry, store under
plenty of books for a while.
MarBau
Phil wrote:
<<<Now, aside from paranoia about contaminants sneaking into the cut edges
of
the print (which is demonstrably false), what have you got to worry about,
apart from shorter wash times?>>>
The plastic coating! It is my understanding that Ilfords reticence in
proclaiming RC as archival has to do with what the pastic coating will do
over time.
<<<<> : When Dr. Richard J. Henry ran single-blind tests like this, he
came
> to
> : the same conclusions. It was extremely difficult to tell the
> differences
> : in image quality, especially if the pictures were far enough from
> the
> : observers so they could not feel the plastic (this was necessary
> only
> : when photographers with strong opinions were viewing the images).
> : Some viewers even preferred the prints made on RC papers to those
> on
> : conventional fiber-base. Whatever the differences, they must be
> very
> : subtle.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I read the Henry tests too and think they prove nothing, what did he mean
by "far enough from the observers"???
Did he mean, 12"? 5 '? across the room? Were the observers lay people or
knowledgable photographic people that appreciate the sublteties?
I have yet to see or make any RC print on any surface that even approaches
the beauty of properly printed and selenium toned print on Iford MGFB.
Mark.
Some people make art to impress others.
I make art to impress myself.
margaret brezden
I let my FB prints dry completely out in the open, afterwhich I dampen the
back with a moistened sponge then I place books on top to flatten.
Because the prints aren't soaking wet they tend to dry much quicker.
Marg
Jason Wesch
Good idea. Thanks
Normalist
For my money the BEST way to dry these prints is simply to place them on a
flat surface and allow them to dry in thier own sweet time ... a few clean
window screens fitted as shelves into a box constructed to hold them works
FINE.
The prints will not be flat ... but this is readily fixed by giving each
about 15 seconds in a dry mounting press ... at about 150 deg F
(experiment with this)
Use a layer of CLEAN brown kraft paper in the press ... to protect the
emulsion side of the print. When they have had this short treatment . they
will be flat and ready to trim and mount.
Good Luck
Jean-David Beyer
A piece of kraft paper came with my dry mount press, but I have never
thought it might be archival, so I just use a spare sheet of archival
mat board. It is thicker and presses the inevitable dust into
the surface of the print with less force than I imagine a sheet of
kraft paper would do. Also less likely to have residue from the paper
making process (I am told thiosulfate is one of these) in it that would
get transferred to the print.
Ruth Griffith
Michiel Fierst van Wijnandsbergen <Michiel...@nlrtdfsc.origin.nl> wrote
in article <335c8375...@news.nlrtdfsc.origin.nl>...
> On 22 Apr 1997 04:17:54 GMT, mar...@aol.com (MarBau) wrote:
>
> >Whilst step wedge tests show that RC papers have caught up to the best
> >fiber papers I feel there is an intangible, unmeasureable, "look" to
fiber
> >papers that give the image a "dimensionality" I have never seen or
> >acheived with RC papers.
> >It may be the horrid "GLOSS" surface on RC papers that I don't like but
> >somehow they just don't approach the look and feeling of depth of a
fiber
> >print.
>
> I have heard this many times. Hence my testing.
> However, no matter how hard I looked, I didn't see it. Please, anyone,
> make me see the light. I want to see the difference between fibre and
> RC. Who can show me what to look for?
>
> Michiel
>
I have some prints I made on the old warmtone Seagull paper in both its FB
and RC versions, and they are completely the same. When they are mounted,
there is no way to tell them apart.
I'm afraid that I don't believe in the fabled FB "dimensionality," in as
much as I have used both kinds of paper and never seen it. Maybe it exists
for people with a keener perception than mine, but it is invisible to me,
so I can see no reason to worry about it.
Adam
Jean-David Beyer
When I first tried printing on RC paper (in about 1974) it was Kodak's
Polycontrast Rapid RC F surface. It is hard to describe what was wrong with
that paper. I also printed on Kodak's Polycontrast Rapid F surface fibre-based
paper that I ferrotyped glossy on a little Premier print dryer. I know what the
first poster said about dimensionality, but have no good idea how to describe it
to people who do not have both in front of them. With the RC, it appeared that
I was looking at the print through a glass window, where the fibre-base print looked
as though I were looking at it through a picture frame with no glass in it.
It was not a case of the Dmin of the paper being different. It gave the impression
that the Dmax was less, but measuring it showed that was not so. I assume that
there was either a subtle difference between the plastic paper and the ferrotyped
paper, or that there was a difference in the character of the reflecting surface
beneath the emulsion. On fibre-base paper, this is a layer of barium sulfate;
on RC paper, it is my understanding that the plastic is loaded with titanium
dioxide or some other whitener. The degree of diffusion may be different and
account for the difference of appearance. But this is conjecture on my part,
not based on knowledge or experimentation.
I printed recently on RC Kodak Polycontrast III RC for some images needed quickly
for reproduction in a newspaper and did not get that "through a glass window"
effect. The paper is much improved. But I still do not care for it for normal
work. I suspect it is just a prejudice of mine; if it is more than that, it is
something very subtle.
FoxyTheLad
Two cents worth...
A lot of technical types choose the resin paper because some of their
processes use the emulsion layer removed from the paper, and I am to
understand this is possible with resin paper.. I think this is done
BEFORE drying, too...
I have not done this, but a pal who does antique method photos tells me it
is so...
I can tell you that ya can't remove the emulsion from the fiber-based...
not by any Normal means, anyway..
Morgan
Morgan, for JAMES
The Famous Space Pirate:
Capt...@aol.com
Citizens UNITE!
"Fight Crime: Shoot BACK!"
SPECTRUM
One thing that has not come up in this thread is that RC prints
,especially glossy, offer a higher apparent resolution that most FB's.
This is a result of flatness of the substate and the eveness of the
emulsion. I love FB's and will probably never switch to RC for
everything but when I want maximum detail I reach for PolyMax II RC
glossy. The difference is pretty astounding when viewd side by side.
--
Regards,
John S. Douglas
Spectrum Photographic Inc.
416 Washington Ave.
Pine Beach, N.J. 08741
908.505.8393
http://www.cybercomm.net/~spectrum/
"In life, quality is something that either exist or doesn't, there are
no compromises."
Kathleen Lytle
Justina Lee (jus...@expert.cc.purdue.edu) wrote:
: >
: >In article <5k6nre$d58$1...@mark.ucdavis.edu> Kathleen Lytle, fin...@wheel.dcn.davis.ca.us writes:
: >>There is a limit to the time you can wash RC paper before it starts coming
: >>apart. From my experience, 15 minutes total wet time is pushing it.
: >>Fiber-based paper can be left in the print washer for hours with no ill
: >>effect.
: >
:
: Ummm. Are you sure about this?
:
:
Much as I like good RC paper, it starts coming apart on the corners in an
alarmingly short time(wet). I've left fiber in water overnight, just to
see what would happen, and had no problem with image or base integrity.
Kathleen Lytle
Adam (agr...@chmc.org) wrote:
: I also have never had any problems with seperation with any paper either.
: Other people here have been saying that they have had problems, so there
: must be something to it. I wonder if water hardness has anything to do
: with it.
I live in a place with extremely hard water. My RC separates.
GLMeador
fin...@wheel.dcn.davis.ca.us (Kathleen Lytle) responded:
I live in a part of West Texas where the water is so hard that most folks
do not drink it. Because of the problem, this area is the bottled water
capitol of Texas.
(For more discussion about other problems with Odessa, check out the
rantings at:
http://www.whytel.com/ftp/users/rhudson/odessa.html )
My RC does not separate unless I carelessly allow the corners to get
damaged.
Gary L. Meador
Odessa, TX
Martin Rosenberg
Hi
A big aesthetic plus for me, with RC paper (other things being
almost equal) is their perfect flatness, I find this difficult
to achieve with FB paper unless supported on heavy mount card.
Martin
MarBau
Richard wrote:
<<<You don't have to define archival to state that properly processed
RC and FB (B&W) paper have equivalent permanence. I believe that Ilford
and Kodak both state such opinions in their recent literature.>>>
Coud you give some references to the abovementioned literature. I keep up
to date fairy well with Industry news but these 2 must have slipped past
me. I'd be very interested to read them!
Kathleen Lytle
GLMeador (glme...@aol.com) wrote:
: fin...@wheel.dcn.davis.ca.us (Kathleen Lytle) responded:
: > I live in a place with extremely hard water. My RC separates.
:
: I live in a part of West Texas where the water is so hard that most folks
: do not drink it. Because of the problem, this area is the bottled water
: capitol of Texas.
: damaged.
Our water is contaminated with radioactive beagle remains. Let's see you
top that, Gary. ;-)
Richard J. Fateman
In article <19970506230...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
MarBau <mar...@aol.com> wrote:
>Richard wrote:
>
><<<You don't have to define archival to state that properly processed
>RC and FB (B&W) paper have equivalent permanence. I believe that Ilford
>and Kodak both state such opinions in their recent literature.>>>
>
>Coud you give some references to the abovementioned literature.
Ilfopro newsletter volume 3 number 3 summer 1995 has an
article entitled
Stability of black and white photographs: RC vs FB
... corrected processed and stored RC prints
have as good, if not better, keeping qualities than fiber
base equivalents...
I can't spot the Kodak statement exactly but if you look, starting
at
http://www.kodak.com/ciHome/products/techInfo/e30/e30Contents.shtml
I believe a similar statement is there somewhere.
--
Richard J. Fateman
fat...@cs.berkeley.edu http://http.cs.berkeley.edu/~fateman/
LFORMAT
Eltalure (by Kodak) is one of the best papers for toning. I have sepia
toned Panalure RC and even blue toned Panalure. Panalure gives a
wonderful quality from large format color negatives. At normal viewing
distances, various papers, but RC and fiber base, can give good results to
appropriate negatives.
CMathis227
I've always dried FB face down on fiberglass screens and used a drymount
press to flatten them. In absence of a press I'll follow Brett Weston's
advice and carefully pull the print face up across a rounded table edge.
This will get rid of the minor lumps and bumps common to air drying and
give the print a gentle backward curve.
Chuck
CMa...@aol.com
GLMeador
I have found the information on this thread truly informative. The debate
over the lifetime of the plastic coated papers have not touched upon the
environmental aspects. Many environmentalists have criticized the use of
plastics in other products due to the very long life in landfills, but I
have not seen that angle discussed in regards to RC prints. Perhaps those
examples of discarded work on RC paper may be around for others to
critique at the landfills for many years. :-)
Gary