Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 69,885   Posts: 1,520,580   Online: 1036
      
Page 4 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 78
  1. #31

    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Near Tavistock, Devon, on the edge of Dartmoor.
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,022
    Quote Originally Posted by aterlecki
    And if not bigotry then certainly snobbery.
    I think you've hit the nail on the head!

    David Bebbington's post makes very interesting reading. It must be great to have been involved with photography at that kind of level.

    I am reminded of the time when I was struggling to repair an early Bush colour television set at work ( a job for the "Home Office"!) A colleague leaned over my shoulder and politely explained where I was going wrong. It turned out that he had been part of the design team for that receiver in his previous career. I was well impressed!

    Steve

  2. #32
    TheFlyingCamera's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Washington DC
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    8,194
    Blog Entries
    51
    Images
    435
    Quote Originally Posted by ilfordrapid
    Donald, With fiber based prints being porous how does anyone really know that every bit of chemical is removed, because the chemicals soak into the print surface. With RC everything stays on the surface and washes off pretty easy. I am not sure why Clyde had a problem, all I know is my own personal experience.
    Part of the difference is that most RC papers are made with developer accelerants built into the paper, to make them process faster. Because the Fiber paper is porous, it is as easily penetrated by your wash water as it is by the chemicals, whereas RC, being a very dense plastic (yes, that's what it is, plastic... there's very little if any actual paper in RC paper) it is not only non-absorbent, it is highly retentive. If the water can't get in, the chems can't get out.

    I don't trust RC papers because I too have seen from personal experience prints made on RC paper, processed at the same time, handled in the same way, half have gone bad and half have stayed good. I've had RC prints silver out on me in the space of four years, and they weren't even in strong direct daylight. I've NEVER had a fiber print do that.

    It seems like you've already made up your mind about what paper you're going to use, and to heck with any opinions or evidence you've been offered about what other people do.

    If you're printing for 'the common man' and not for 'collectors' (a market you have eschewed), why are you even making photographic prints? Why not just do poster prints and be done with the whole concern in the first place?

  3. #33

    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    70
    Quote Originally Posted by TheFlyingCamera
    Part of the difference is that most RC papers are made with developer accelerants built into the paper, to make them process faster. Because the Fiber paper is porous, it is as easily penetrated by your wash water as it is by the chemicals, whereas RC, being a very dense plastic (yes, that's what it is, plastic... there's very little if any actual paper in RC paper) it is not only non-absorbent, it is highly retentive. If the water can't get in, the chems can't get out.

    I don't trust RC papers because I too have seen from personal experience prints made on RC paper, processed at the same time, handled in the same way, half have gone bad and half have stayed good. I've had RC prints silver out on me in the space of four years, and they weren't even in strong direct daylight. I've NEVER had a fiber print do that.

    It seems like you've already made up your mind about what paper you're going to use, and to heck with any opinions or evidence you've been offered about what other people do.

    If you're printing for 'the common man' and not for 'collectors' (a market you have eschewed), why are you even making photographic prints? Why not just do poster prints and be done with the whole concern in the first place?
    I print for the common man because they are the heart and soul of America.
    But I am turned off by the smug self righteousness of most (not all) FB printers, and collectors, and gallerys, who do not take the time to learn the truth about modern RC paper. But I should remind you, that you have also shunned my opinions, and evidence, and not only mine, but other RC printers who have contributed to this thread. As I have said in this thread I don't know why others are having a problem, all I know is my own experience. I have my ideas why some RC goes bad for some, but it would just fall on deaf ears.
    I feel the common man (and I consider myself to be one) deserves a quality product at a reasonable price. A RC print well made, and cared for will last up to and over 100 years. I am sure that will satisfy the expectations of the common man. If you want to print on FB, I think that's great. I have no ill feeling, until that snobbish self righteous attitude shows up.
    A negative, can always be turned into a positive.

  4. #34
    clay's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Asheville, North Carolina
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,118
    Images
    8
    I saw a Clyde Butcher inkjet show here in town about a year and a half ago. I thought the digital dodging and burning he did was very heavy-handed and amateurish. The way it was done reminds me of the Meriel prints in Lenswork a few issues back. Maybe that is what he intended them to look like, but they were definitely not to my liking. My two cents worth. I know a lot of people think he is a Florida Ansel Adams. I just don't think Butcher's print quality is even close to the same league.

    Quote Originally Posted by juan
    For what it's worth, Clyde was in town a couple of weeks ago and I talked to him about what he is doing now. He is printing his exhibition stuff on inkjet. He says he does not trust silver photo paper of any kind anymore. He says he had conversations with manufacturers who told him several times over recent years that they have had to make changes in the paper because of environmental concerns - so he now uses neither fiber nor RC.

    We were discussing his present touring shows, which include prints that are 16x20 or so - not the giant 8-foot photos he's also famous for. He says he thinks his inkjet prints are better than his silver prints. I agree with him, although maybe not for the reasons he does. I think he does a better job of controlling the contrast in Photoshop than he does in a wet darkroom, but that's just my opinion.

    I have heard the story that he had to replace a large number of prints years ago. I don't remember whether he replaced them with fiber prints or more RC, though.

    If you ever get a chance to go to a show and talk with him, do so. He's a very nice guy and very willing to discuss his methods. He also enjoys talking about Florida's environment and wildlife.
    juan

  5. #35

    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    70
    Clay, concerning Clyde's black and white prints: I viewed some on the internet. I thought that he was a very accomplished photographer, but not an Ansel Adams. I thought the sky was much to dark, and unnatural looking in most of his prints. I did take into account that I was viewing on the net, but I don't think it takes away that much.
    A negative, can always be turned into a positive.

  6. #36

    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    7
    Quote Originally Posted by TheFlyingCamera
    Part of the difference is that most RC papers are made with developer accelerants built into the paper, to make them process faster. Because the Fiber paper is porous, it is as easily penetrated by your wash water as it is by the chemicals, whereas RC, being a very dense plastic (yes, that's what it is, plastic... there's very little if any actual paper in RC paper) it is not only non-absorbent, it is highly retentive.
    I must stay that your idea of the structure of RC paper is very peculiar and I can see why, if others hold the same idea, why there is such hostility to RC.

    The whole point of RC paper is that the paper base - and it is paper, not plastic as you seem to suggest - is kept away from chemical contamination by a very thin coating of plastic on either side. And it is very thin - take some RC apart sometime and see how thin both it and the emulsion are. By far the thickest portion of the paper is the paper base. The emulsion is then coated on top of one side of the plastic coating. Essentially then the only parts of the paper base that could suffer chemical contamination are the edges. If you crop off some of the paper's edges then there is essentially no contamination of the paper base and all chemical processing will have been contained to the emulsion. Even if you don't bother cropping edges - and few do - a few minutes wash is sufficient to eliminate any edge seepage of the chemicals as the paper spends so little time in them.

    If there is any developer-incorporated component in a particular RC paper then it is in the emulsion not in the paper. There are no chemicals contained in the paper base itself which need to be reached by development. In fact it is non-sensical even to think so since the paper base is designed to be protected from everything by a layer of plastic.

    RC paper is designed to keep the chemicals which develop the image only acting upon the part of the paper that needs them: the emulsion. There is no benefit to having chemicals touch the paper base as all you have to do is then spend extra time and effort getting rid of them (and thus all the extended washing etc, that you have to do with fiber).

    Quote Originally Posted by TheFlyingCamera
    If the water can't get in, the chems can't get out.
    To repeat - nonsense. Every component to do with image creation is contained in the emulsion not in the base and the emulsion is outside of the RC barrier.

    All in all it is an elegant design which has had undoubtedly prolonged teething troubles over the years as manufacturers struggled to use one solution to cater for multiple target markets.

  7. #37

    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    70
    Quote Originally Posted by TheFlyingCamera
    Part of the difference is that most RC papers are made with developer accelerants built into the paper, to make them process faster. Because the Fiber paper is porous, it is as easily penetrated by your wash water as it is by the chemicals, whereas RC, being a very dense plastic (yes, that's what it is, plastic... there's very little if any actual paper in RC paper) it is not only non-absorbent, it is highly retentive. If the water can't get in, the chems can't get out.

    I don't trust RC papers because I too have seen from personal experience prints made on RC paper, processed at the same time, handled in the same way, half have gone bad and half have stayed good. I've had RC prints silver out on me in the space of four years, and they weren't even in strong direct daylight. I've NEVER had a fiber print do that.

    It seems like you've already made up your mind about what paper you're going to use, and to heck with any opinions or evidence you've been offered about what other people do.

    If you're printing for 'the common man' and not for 'collectors' (a market you have eschewed), why are you even making photographic prints? Why not just do poster prints and be done with the whole concern in the first place?
    I just received an e-mail form Kodak in the USA to make a long story short, they said that in archival quality RC, FB are both the same, as long as the prints are stored under reasonable conditions, and toned with one of the following: Selenium, Sulfide, or Gold to protect the black and white silver image. If some people are having trouble with RC it is related to something that they are not doing, or not doing right.
    A negative, can always be turned into a positive.

  8. #38

    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    70
    The Flying Camera - If you think that the general public only deserves poster prints, I am glad that you are not catering to them. In your statement you show your disregard for your fellow man. The general public deserves a quality product at a reasonable price.
    A negative, can always be turned into a positive.

  9. #39

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    4,530
    Quote Originally Posted by ilfordrapid
    I just received an e-mail form Kodak in the USA to make a long story short, they said that in archival quality RC, FB are both the same, as long as the prints are stored under reasonable conditions, and toned with one of the following: Selenium, Sulfide, or Gold to protect the black and white silver image. If some people are having trouble with RC it is related to something that they are not doing, or not doing right.
    Did you actually expect Kodak to say otherwise?.....if so, can you please send me your phone number? I got this really great bridge in Brooklyn I think you should take a look at for possible investment.... :rolleyes:

  10. #40

    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    70
    Quote Originally Posted by Jorge
    Did you actually expect Kodak to say otherwise?.....if so, can you please send me your phone number? I got this really great bridge in Brooklyn I think you should take a look at for possible investment.... :rolleyes:
    Smiling... I expected a comment like your's, but oh well.
    A negative, can always be turned into a positive.

Page 4 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin