Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,550   Posts: 1,544,745   Online: 949
      
Page 7 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 78
  1. #61
    BruceN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Wyoming
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    585
    Quote Originally Posted by aterlecki
    Yes I could have picked many other quotes to demonstrate the general descent into ad hominem attacks, but while it was selective, it was also representative of the general malaise of proper argument in this day and age. Responding in kind hardly keeps you on the moral high ground and, as far as I'm concerned, you might as well just roll up your sleeves and try and beat the crap out of each other to try and win the argument. It simply becomes thuggery.
    ***snip***
    Here's something I learned from my years as a cop - You can't raise someone to your level. If you want to interact with someone you pretty much have to do it on their level or forget about it. It's sort of a "lowest common denominator" thing.

    Now, as far as RC paper goes - I have prints from 1980 - 1985 that look as good as the day they were printed, I dug through my boxes and the only bad ones I could find were attributable to my learning how to properly process them. I use a lot of RC to this day. I use it for contact sheets, tests, quick giveaways for friends and family and general goofing off. I see no problem with it.

    That said, all of my "serious" work (basically anything that is going into a frame) is done on FB paper. If for no other reason than that they just look better to me. The image is richer and has more depth, and it seems that way to me even behind glass. FB paper, processed correctly and treated properly (gloves, etc.) just seems to ooze "quality." It may be just a "feeling" for me, unsupportable by hard science, but that doesn't matter. It's MY work, so MY opinion is the only one that matters. Well, mine and the opinions of a few I hold dear. So, if in YOUR opinion RC paper is best for YOUR serious work, just go with it. No one is going to stop you.

    Besides, if you want to get serious about printing on plastic, something I've got lined up to try when my darkroom remodel is done is to coat small sheets of plexiglass or polycarbonate with emulsion and print on them, then display with backlighting - like an image on a light table. Anyone ever tried this?

    Bruce

  2. #62
    Bob F.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    London
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,984
    Images
    19
    Yerrrrrs... and meanwhile, here on planet Earth, people get annoyed at other people who call them names. Aren't people such a disappointment.

    If sufficiently interested, read the book I referenced earlier and IIRC it will indicate that a properly processed and toned RC print may last about 1/10th the life of a fibre print (100yrs Vs 1,000) in the dark. Thing is, it's all based on accelerated tests that only approximate the life cycle of a real print so the whole debate is highly moot and devoid of hard evidence. About all we can say at the moment is that a properly processed modern quality RC print will probably last over 30 years, because that's how long they have been about and lots of people have them. Anything else is aesthetic consideration and everyone has their own opinion on that one!

    Anyway, I'm off to print some postcards. On RC paper (Shock! Horror! Kill the heretic!)...


    Bob.

  3. #63
    BruceN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Wyoming
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    585
    Quote Originally Posted by Bob F.
    Yerrrrrs... and meanwhile, here on planet Earth, people get annoyed at other people who call them names. Aren't people such a disappointment.
    My point exactly. It's extremely difficult to have any kind of meaningful conversation with someone who is simply calling you names. Your choices are pretty much limited to:

    A. Continue to try to talk until you turn blue in the face, most likely providing a great source of amusement for the other person.

    B. Call them names in return (descend to their level).

    C. Punch them in the face (descend below their level, once one of my all time favorite tactics).

    D. Simply walk away with head held high (I'm now beginning to favor this one).

    No matter which tactic you're is planning to use, if you let such knotheads upset or annoy you then they've already got one up on you. Very difficult, since many people tend to annoy me. That's another reason to have a darkroom (or cave, as my wife calls it), it makes a wonderful place to hole up and forget about annoying people for awhile.

    I've downloaded the book you referenced and am beginning to make my way through it. It promises to be interesting.

  4. #64
    Bob F.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    London
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,984
    Images
    19
    Sorry Bruce - my post was actually responding to aterlecki - our posts overlapped and you got yours in before me (must learn to touch type one of these days! )

    Cheers, Bob.

  5. #65

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    5,240
    Images
    9
    Seems to me the purpose of debateing an issue is to prove yourself right and the other wrong. Why? sounds like a waste of valuable photo taking time. Print on what you want and let the other print on what they want.
    Technological society has succeeded in multiplying the opportunities for pleasure, but it has great difficulty in generating joy. Pope Paul VI

    So, I think the "greats" were true to their visions, once their visions no longer sucked. Ralph Barker 12/2004

  6. #66
    BruceN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Wyoming
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    585
    Ahhhh! No wonder I was confused (a condition I'm getting more and more accustomed to as time goes on, I'm afraid... )

    Bruce

  7. #67

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    4,530
    From what I've seen in this thread people close their minds to proper debate, switch ground when they sense things are going against them, and prefer to take refuge in dogma and their own familarities to argue their point
    Awww jeeez....I guess the moderators and owner of this site died and made this newbee God of APUG so he can tell us what is the "proper" debate mode....

    Listen buddy, while you could be right and APUG is nothing more than a compilation of closed minded, luddite jerks who do not allow anybody into their circle jerk. There is also the slight possibility that there are many here who are knowlgeable photographers who have been using traditional materials for many years and have experienced failures with RC paper, and most importantly who also have the right to express their opinion and dont deserve to be called "jack asses."

    Personally, I think that APUG is popular because we dont let pedantic asses like you and ilford whatever ruin our fun....

  8. #68

    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Albuquerque, New Mexico USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    81
    I'll chime in...

    I made a couple of small prints on Ilford MG IV RC glossy paper about 8 or 9 years ago. One sits in a cheap glass frame with the front surface touching glass and the rear surface resting on the cardboard backing. That print is displayed in a very bright room and is no stranger to direct sunlight. The other print sits in a light-tight box. Both prints were developed normally, fixed for 2 minutes, and washed in siphoned trays for about 10 minutes. To date, there has been no fading, discoloring, or silvering out on either print. I do realize that the prints would last significantly longer if gold or selenium toned.

    If the resin coatings on the front and back of the paper prevent chemical penetration, they also keep harmful pollutants away from the paper (not the emulsion, obviously). With the old manufacturing problem involving brightener chemicals in the paper reacting with the resin (resulting in paper discoloration and resin cracking) fixed, I really see no reason why modern RC prints can't be considered as archival as fiber prints if they are properly processed. I do understand that those who had problems with the initial manufacturing flaws probably would never trust RC papers again. But I think it's sad that so many gallery owners and art buyers will accept fiber B&W, color RC, and digital glicee (fancy for "inkjet"), but won't accept B&W RC because "it's not archival." If the paper no longer reacts with the resin and the emulsion is exactly the same, where do the archival problems come from? Why don't I have problems with my RC prints?

    Personally, I really like the look of Ilford's pearl RC surface. It's not too glossy, not too flat, and has no hot-spot reflections. I also like the super-reflective and smooth look of Ilford's glossy RC for some subjects. I really don't care what the general public thinks of my paper selection - I print on what gives the results I'm looking for. For me, that look is often RC.
    Jacob

  9. #69
    Bob F.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    London
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,984
    Images
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by BruceN
    Ahhhh! No wonder I was confused (a condition I'm getting more and more accustomed to as time goes on, I'm afraid... )

    Bruce
    I'm a lifetime member of that club!

  10. #70
    Dave Miller's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Middle England
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    3,894
    Images
    2
    So we all agree then - RC is best!
    Regards Dave.

    An English Eye


Page 7 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