Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,933   Posts: 1,585,508   Online: 849
      
Page 3 of 22 FirstFirst 12345678913 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 217
  1. #21
    Curt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Pacific Northwest
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,554
    Images
    15
    Everytime I find a film or paper that I like, they discontinue it. - Paul Strand - Aperture monograph on Strand

  2. #22

    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,599
    Images
    112
    Quote Originally Posted by hkr View Post
    Please feel free to add to the list. I'll get things started:

    - The merits of today’s FB v. RC papers. Seriously folks, does anyone actually think an RC print won’t archive as well, all else being equal?
    RC paper is not as archival and for a very simple reason. The RC base does not expand and contract like the emulsion does, so eventually the emulsion with the image on it, peels off of the RC base or cracks.

  3. #23

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    16,887
    Quote Originally Posted by Early Riser View Post
    RC paper is not as archival and for a very simple reason. The RC base does not expand and contract like the emulsion does, so eventually the emulsion with the image on it, peels off of the RC base or cracks.
    i dunno -

    according to kodak and the image permanency institute,
    rc photographic paper is more archival than fiber based paper.

  4. #24

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Northern Aquitaine
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    4,913
    Quote Originally Posted by Early Riser View Post
    RC paper is not as archival and for a very simple reason. The RC base does not expand and contract like the emulsion does, so eventually the emulsion with the image on it, peels off of the RC base or cracks.
    Are you sure about this?

    Cheers,

    R.

  5. #25
    Leon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Kent, England
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    2,075
    Quote Originally Posted by copake_ham View Post
    Sorry to go a bit OT but does anyone here know the root and etymology of the word: snob?
    http://www.joppeluiten.nl/snob.htm

    Apparently

  6. #26

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Northern Aquitaine
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    4,913
    Quote Originally Posted by Leon View Post
    If the OED says it is of obscure origin -- and they are noted for some rigour in these matters -- then I have little faith in such a contrived invention as the one quoted.

    Also, what's that filthy row when you click onto the alleged definition? Enough to put anyone off, I'd think.

    Cheers,

    R.

  7. #27

    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,599
    Images
    112
    Quote Originally Posted by Roger Hicks View Post
    Are you sure about this?

    Cheers,

    R.
    Roger, I read it a while ago, possibly Wilhelm. It makes sense though, the emulsion will expand and contract and the RC base will not. Over time that should cause peeling.

  8. #28

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Northern Aquitaine
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    4,913
    Quote Originally Posted by Early Riser View Post
    Roger, I read it a while ago, possibly Wilhelm. It makes sense though, the emulsion will expand and contract and the RC base will not. Over time that should cause peeling.
    It makes some sense, but I think the RH would have to vary very greatly and the adhesion would need to be marginal to begin with (as it is on a glass plate). I'm not arguing with you; it's just not an explanation I'd heard before, and I don't know. I've certainly seen it asserted that under some conditions, RC may be more archivally permanent -- though I don't know whether these are unusually optimized conditions.

    Cheers,

    R.

  9. #29

    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,599
    Images
    112
    Quote Originally Posted by Roger Hicks View Post
    It makes some sense, but I think the RH would have to vary very greatly and the adhesion would need to be marginal to begin with (as it is on a glass plate). I'm not arguing with you; it's just not an explanation I'd heard before, and I don't know. I've certainly seen it asserted that under some conditions, RC may be more archivally permanent -- though I don't know whether these are unusually optimized conditions.

    Cheers,

    R.
    I remember the paper that I read was very detailed and thorough. That's why I think it's Wilhelm. It definitely wasn't on an online forum.

    Regarding adhesion, the recommended method for dry mounting prints is to cook the print and the mat board first before using the dry mount tissue so that the moisture level of the two is the same. You then heat mount them with an adhesive, dry mount tissue. The reason to do this is because if the print and board are mounted with different moisture levels they may shrink at a different rate and then either peel the print or expose the tissue. Now both are made of paper and both are very similarly absorbant of humidity yet this uneven shrinkage/expansion can be a problem. One would think the problem has to be far worse given a water absorbant material, the emulsion, and a water repellent material, the RC base.

  10. #30

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Northern Aquitaine
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    4,913
    Quote Originally Posted by Early Riser View Post
    I remember the paper that I read was very detailed and thorough. That's why I think it's Wilhelm. It definitely wasn't on an online forum.

    Regarding adhesion, the recommended method for dry mounting prints is to cook the print and the mat board first before using the dry mount tissue so that the moisture level of the two is the same. You then heat mount them with an adhesive, dry mount tissue. The reason to do this is because if the print and board are mounted with different moisture levels they may shrink at a different rate and then either peel the print or expose the tissue. Now both are made of paper and both are very similarly absorbant of humidity yet this uneven shrinkage/expansion can be a problem. One would think the problem has to be far worse given a water absorbant material, the emulsion, and a water repellent material, the RC base.
    All fair enough, though I'm not sure how far the dry mount analogy works; it might just be that most people don't dry mount very well, and this is a safety margin. I'd also want to know more about the expansion/contraction of mounting board and prints before I was convonced.

    But as I say, I'm not arguing. If you recall it as a reputable paper, presumably it was, so I'll do some more hunting on this one. Thanks.

    Cheers,

    R.

Page 3 of 22 FirstFirst 12345678913 ... LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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