aol2901@acf4.UUCP (adam lee) (04/17/85)
<<<insert responds>>>
how do you rate your normal darkroom paper?rob@asgb.UUCP (Rob Greenbank) (04/23/85)
> > <<<insert responds>>> > > how do you rate your normal darkroom paper? On recommedation of a professional photographer of about 20 years, I've been using Kodak Elite paper. I have compared it to a number of others, and I've always been satified with it. I've never tried Ilford Galarie, which was rated by Modern Photography (apr '85) as being a cut above the others (it's blacks are considerably blacker that the competition, and it's whites are as white as any). I intend to try galerie next, based on that report. In any case, RC paper is considerably easier to work with than fiber based paper. No matter what I'm printing, I always print a negative on pearly RC paper until I "learn" how to print that negative (contrast, burning, dodging, etc.). I chose pearly for this because I find its lower gloss easier to look at. A lot of the time I decide during this stage that the negative I'm working with isn't really that special, in which case I stop there. If it turns out to be a good negative, I then will make my final print(s) on fiber, carefully recording exactly what I've done for future printing (including burning and dodging times). I know many who feel that fiber paper isn't worth the extra hassles in processing (MUCH longer times, and unless you have a fiber dryer it will curl when it dries). I like the results fiber gives, but also don't like the extra hassle, so I've chosen this method as a comprimise. The best thing to do is, as always, experiment. Rob Greenbank (decvax!ittvax!dcdwest!sdcsvax!bmcg!asgb)
sasaki@harvard.ARPA (Marty Sasaki) (04/25/85)
I've found that the Elite paper doesn't have enough contrast for many of
my negatives. Galerie is very good, very easy to print on and it has a
good black, and more contrast range than the Elite. I've played with
Polyfiber but can't say much, not enough experience.
I too use the method of printing first on an RC paper before going with
a fiber paper. Not only is it easier, but it is cheaper as well.
Has anyone tried the Mitsubishi paper? Photographic had a review and the
reviewer liked it very much.
--
----------------
Marty Sasaki net: sasaki@harvard.{arpa,uucp}
Havard University Science Center phone: 617-495-1270
One Oxford Street
Cambridge, MA 02138johnm@python.UUCP (J. Montgomery) (04/25/85)
> > how do you rate your normal darkroom paper?
While RC papers are certainly convenient to use, I think they leave much
to be desired esthetically. The range of tones (especially blacks) is
not as wide as a premium fiber paper, and the surface usually has an
unplesant metallic sheen to it.
My favorite papers currently are Oriental Seagull and Zone VI Brilliant
(the latter is only available by mail from Zone VI Studios in VT). Both
display a beautiful range of tones from brilliant whites down to really
solid, rich blacks. Both tone nicely in dilute selenium toner, and have
a nice glossy surface when air dried. Seagull has the advantages of being
easier to find, and cheaper (~$40/100 sheet box vs. $59 for Brilliant).
I have not used either Gallerie or Elite, so I can't compare directly.
One or the other of these 4 papers seem to be the choice of most large
format fine-art photographers. According to his book, "The Print",
Ansel Adams used a lot of Seagull in his last years, Brett Weston is
also using it. Oliver Gagliani and Alan Ross are using Brilliant, I
think. Adams also mentions uusing Gallerie occasionally. This is just
a random sampling from memory.
--
John Montgomery
Bell Communications Research
...!{bellcore, allegra, ihnp4}!nvuxd!python!johnmkanner@tymix.UUCP (Herb Kanner) (04/26/85)
de during this stage >that the negative I'm working with isn't really that special, in which >case I stop there. If it turns out to be a good negative, I then will >make my final print(s) on fiber, carefully recording exactly what I've >done for future printing (including burning and dodging times). > >I know many who feel that fiber paper isn't worth the extra hassles in >processing (MUCH longer times, and unless you have a fiber dryer it will >curl when it dries). I like the results fiber gives, but also don't like >the extra hassle, so I've chosen this method as a comprimise. The best >thing to do is, as always, experiment. > A new Kodak RC paper called Polyprint came out about six months ago, but the straight dope about how it differs from Polycontrast RC lagged behind the appearance of the paper. I have been using it and like it. Polycontrast RC has developing agent in the emulsion, so that as soon as it is immersed in the high pH developing bath, the image comes up. After thirty seconds, you don't notice much more apparent development. Polyprint is like fiber papers. The first vestige of an image in 30 sec. Considerable darkening between one and two minutes, and a noticeable additional effect between two and three minutes. On drying fiber paper: I love the Kodak blotter roll. It is a scam to have to pay $25 for what is in effect a long sheeting of blotting paper, a long sheet of linen finish paper, 2/3 of a corrugated board, and a cardboard cylindrical core, but it does the most wonderful job. No crinkly edges and the prints come out curled emulsion side out. I remember when you could get them for $5! -- Herb Kanner Tymnet, Inc.
barad@brand.UUCP (Herb Barad) (04/30/85)
> I too use the method of printing first on an RC paper before going with > a fiber paper. Not only is it easier, but it is cheaper as well. > > -- > ---------------- > Marty Sasaki net: sasaki@harvard.{arpa,uucp} I don't understand how you can "learn" to print a negative on RC and then print it on fiber paper. The different papers have different characteristics and will not at all give the same results. As soon as you get the print you want on RC (if that is possible), you will not get the same on fiber paper. Also, why is this method cheaper? Has anybody tried paper from ZONE VI? They not only sell Brilliant, but also Oriental. Oriental, for example, costs $48.87 for a box of 8x10 (100) (only $43.87 in larger quantities). How much will you save when you use up many sheets of RC paper, and then have to make several prints on fiber. I used to print on RC paper (Ilford MGII) and I don't anymore. I have since converted to fiber paper (mostly Oriental Seagull). I have seen much better results with Oriental and it is archival (no RC paper is...). Any responses... Herb Barad [USC - Signal and Image Processing Institute] ...!lbl-csam!trwspf!herb -- Herb Barad [USC - Signal and Image Processing Institute] ...!lbl-csam!trwspf!herb or ...!uscvax!oberon!brand!barad
eric@rtech.ARPA (Eric Lundblad) (04/30/85)
> According to his book, "The Print", > Ansel Adams used a lot of Seagull in his last years, Brett Weston is > also using it. Oliver Gagliani and Alan Ross are using Brilliant, I > think. Adams also mentions uusing Gallerie occasionally. This is just > a random sampling from memory. You have this backwards, Adams used Gallerie more than he did Seagull. To quote "The Print": "ILFORD GALLERIE. This is a paper of very high quality which I use extensively." I don't think it's important, however. Seagull, Gallerie, Portriga, and Elite are all great papers that react differently to negatives (there are others, but I haven't used them). For example, I have found that Seagull holds a better contrast in dark shadow values than Gallerie does. With some of my negatives, if I print with Gallerie for good blacks I seem to lose detail in the shadows. If I look carefully, the detail is there but it's all so dark that it doesn't show up. Ray Metzker, who is at the SF M of Modern Art, has been able to pack an amazing amount of information in his shadows. I believe that he uses Seagull, and his images are really fantastic. My bottom line recommendation (assuming someone out there cares) is to try out as many papers that interest you and that you can afford. You may find a paper(s) that reflects your view of the world. -- Eric Lundblad
eric@rtech.ARPA (Eric Lundblad) (05/08/85)
> > I too use the method of printing first on an RC paper before going with > > a fiber paper. Not only is it easier, but it is cheaper as well. > > Marty Sasaki net: sasaki@harvard.{arpa,uucp} > > I don't understand how you can "learn" to print a negative on RC and then > print it on fiber paper. The different papers have different > characteristics and will not at all give the same results. As soon as you > get the print you want on RC (if that is possible), you will not get the > same on fiber paper. > > Herb Barad [USC - Signal and Image Processing Institute] *** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR PAPER *** For me, learning to print a negative is not as much a matter of figuring out how long to leave it under the enlarger and in the developer. Instead, learning a negative involves deciding what values are pleasing for that image. Although I use fiber paper exclusively because I think it is better for fine images (which is not to say that I produce any :-)), I can see the argument for using RC paper in the early stages. On the other hand, if, as you say, fiber paper can be had for as little a RC paper, then why not use fiber? I don't buy the time to process fiber argument, since fiber can be processed in a marginally greater time than RC. (I do an initial 3 minute fix alone, and a final 3 minute fix with all photos together, as per Ansel Adams suggestion). Is my stand sufficently confusing? -- Eric Lundblad
kanner@tymix.UUCP (Herb Kanner) (05/09/85)
In article <117@brand.UUCP> barad@brand.UUCP (Herb Barad) writes: >> I too use the method of printing first on an RC paper before going with >> a fiber paper. Not only is it easier, but it is cheaper as well. >> >> -- >> ---------------- >> Marty Sasaki net: sasaki@harvard.{arpa,uucp} > >I don't understand how you can "learn" to print a negative on RC and then >print it on fiber paper. The different papers have different >characteristics and will not at all give the same results. As soon as you >get the print you want on RC (if that is possible), you will not get the >same on fiber paper. For your consideration: I make a contact proof print of 36 exposures on one sheet of RC glossy. If examined with a magnifying glass, it is good enough for partial evaluation. The proof printer is a Patterson, which has a high-quality glass plate, not a crummy plastic one, and that makes a tremendous difference. The prints are not big enough to judge sharpness, but one can judge things like facial expressions, posture, etc. I then tick mark those in which I am interested. Next, I go into mass production mode and print that subset on RC paper, 8 x 10. I am now using Polyprint; formerly used Polycontrast Rapid. In this mass production exercise, I do pay attention to framing and cropping, so the degree of enlargement varies. Having put into a programmable calculator the formula for exposure ratio as a function of distance from film to easel, I am not in the dark (no pun intended) as to the exposure required when I change magnification. If and when I have a few negs that are worth mounting on a board and hanging on the wall, I go into a session using fiber paper. I like to go to 11 x 14, but that has the disadvantage that you run out of wall space a hell of a lot faster than with 8 x 10. I agree, papers are different, and any effort spent on getting the best possible print on RC for a given neg does not help when I move to fiber. I consider the RC prints just another step in the selection process and a way of getting prints quickly for a sentimental look-see once a year or for giving away. -- Herb Kanner Tymnet, Inc.
sasaki@harvard.ARPA (Marty Sasaki) (05/11/85)
It usually takes me several prints to get an image right. I learn a lot about a negative by making a print, especially with 35mm negatives. Things like contrast, overall tonality, sharpness, shadow detail can transfer from RC to fiber, especially if you are familiar with both types of paper. It used to be that there was a lot of difference between the cost of RC and fiber paper, especially the better papers (Medalist and Portriga were my favorites). It has been years since I bought RC and fiber paper at the same time and I just carried the old idea forward. But Herb Barad is right. These days the difference is only a few dollars for a box of 100 sheets. So, I'm changing to fiber base all of the time. Fiber paper is a pain to wash and dry. Even with a decent washer it still takes hours. Does anyone have suggestions on how to make this easier? > > > I too use the method of printing first on an RC paper before going with > > > a fiber paper. Not only is it easier, but it is cheaper as well. > > > Marty Sasaki net: sasaki@harvard.{arpa,uucp} > > > > I don't understand how you can "learn" to print a negative on RC and then > > print it on fiber paper.... > > Herb Barad [USC - Signal and Image Processing Institute] > > For me, learning to print a negative is not as much a matter of figuring > out how long to leave it under the enlarger and in the developer. Instead, > learning a negative involves deciding what values are pleasing for that > image... -- ---------------- Marty Sasaki net: sasaki@harvard.{arpa,uucp} Havard University Science Center phone: 617-495-1270 One Oxford Street Cambridge, MA 02138
kanner@tymix.UUCP (Herb Kanner) (05/11/85)
> For me, learning to print a negative is not as much a matter of figuring >out how long to leave it under the enlarger and in the developer. Instead, >learning a negative involves deciding what values are pleasing for that image. >Although I use fiber paper exclusively because I think it is better for fine >images (which is not to say that I produce any :-)), I can see the argument >for using RC paper in the early stages. On the >other hand, if, as you say, fiber paper can be had for as little a RC paper, >then why not use fiber? I don't buy the time to process fiber argument, since >fiber can be processed in a marginally greater time than RC. (I do an initial >3 minute fix alone, and a final 3 minute fix with all photos together, as per >Ansel Adams suggestion). > > Is my stand sufficently confusing? Forget processing time. Let's talk about washing time and drying time. RC washes in 5 minutes. After sponging off the free water, I can dry the print in 30 seconds flat with a $12 hair dryer. I therefore can keep a production line going with RC, and only one print at a time is in the washing tray. Fiber requires at least a 30 min wash (Ilford claims 5 mins is sufficient after a one-minute immersion in their hypo-removing agent--I don't know whether to believe this; are there any experts out there?). Then we have the delightful problem of how to dry the damn stuff. Back in the days before RC, I became a staunch advocate of the Kodak blotter roll, because it was the only way known to man of drying a fiber print without any wrinkles around the edges (please dont flame me about ferrotying!). Nowadays, anything that I print on fiber is going to be mounted on a board, so perfection is not required. Well, last week I got up the ambition to make a couple of 11 x 14s, and before putting them in the blotter roll, ran my hand over the surface of linen finish paper that the emulsion side was going to touch just to be sure it was free of foreign material. Well, apparently it wasn't, because when the prints came out my first reaction was "hey, there, I don't remember seeing that many dust spots on them." On taking a close look, I saw that those white hickies were not dust spots but indentations in the emulsion clear through to the underlying fiber, and therefore impossible to retouch out with dye. There must have been some grains of sand in the blotter roll! I paid about $6 for my first blotter roll, $25 for my second. When I went out looking for a new one I found that the price had risen to $33. Regardless of the utility of the thing, I just plain refuse to pay Kodak $33 for a goddam piece of cardboard. So, I'm going to try my luck at air drying the next batch on a window screen. I had an aluminum screen of impressive size (nine 8x10 worth) made up. If it leaves marks, I'll write it off and have the same people make me one with a nylon mesh. I will report my success or lack thereof, and would like to hear from anyone with experience in air drying fiber paper. -- Herb Kanner Tymnet, Inc.
barad@brand.UUCP (Herb Barad) (05/14/85)
> It usually takes me several prints to get an image right. I learn a lot > about a negative by making a print, especially with 35mm negatives. > Things like contrast, overall tonality, sharpness, shadow detail can > transfer from RC to fiber, especially if you are familiar with both > types of paper. > > It used to be that there was a lot of difference between the cost of RC > and fiber paper, especially the better papers (Medalist and Portriga > were my favorites). It has been years since I bought RC and fiber paper > at the same time and I just carried the old idea forward. But Herb Barad > is right. These days the difference is only a few dollars for a box of > 100 sheets. So, I'm changing to fiber base all of the time. > > Fiber paper is a pain to wash and dry. Even with a decent washer it > still takes hours. Does anyone have suggestions on how to make this > easier? > As far as washing goes, I have two methods I use. If I want archival quality, I will be washing for at least 20 minutes after the last print goes into the wash tray. These prints (with only a mini-wash) can sit for a few days until you are ready for toning. Then comes an archival wash (>1 hour). This also brings up the advantage of fiber paper over RC - RC is not archival. If you do not wish "archival" processing, then a one-hour wash in a tray of running water is good enough. Another method is that you can leave the prints in a tray filled with water and just change the water every so often over several hours of watching TV. Start this after (at least) a 20 minute running wash. I realize the pain of the long processing (mostly washing) times for fiber paper. I used to print on RC (Multigrade II). But processing time is a two-edged sword - I can leave the prints that I have done so far in the wash tray as long as I need to while I am printing other negs. If you leave RC paper in the wash too long, bad things can result. Not only do I recommend fiber based paper, but also graded paper. You can get much better contrast from #2 Oriental then from Multigrade II (with a number 5 filter). If you don't believe me, try it! Also, you might think that you are stuck with only one grade of contrast (per box of graded paper), but that is also not true. You can vary the contrast tremendously by just changing the developement time. You can barely do that with Multigrade II (as there are already developing agents in the paper and it developes fully so quickly). Try it, -- Herb Barad [USC - Signal and Image Processing Institute] ...!{lbl-csam,trwrb}!trwspf!herb or ...!{lbl-csam,trwrb}!trwspf!brand!barad
wunder@wdl1.UUCP (05/15/85)
Here is how I dry fiber paper. You need a good squeegee and a good surface to squeegee against. At home I use an old ferrotype plate, but the best surface is a slanted chunk of stainless that drains into your washing sink. Basically, always use double wieght paper, and squeegee like a madman, then air dry on screens. There will be some curl, but you can press that out. If you can get to a dry mount press, those are great for flattening prints, otherwise you get to leave your prints under a book for a while. When squeegeeing, make sure that you sqeegee the water off of your surface before putting down a print, and that you gt the extra water off of the squeegee blade before each pass. I squeegee a print three times, face down, face up, and face down. I've used this at a real darkroom (art dept. at Rice U.) and at home. Seems to work both places. wunder
sasaki@harvard.ARPA (Marty Sasaki) (05/18/85)
I have used the Falcon roller gizmo that was originally intended for RC
paper on fiber paper with good results. I then use David Vestal's
blotter drying method. This gets your prints flat, almost as flat as
when you put them through a dry mount press.
--
----------------
Marty Sasaki net: sasaki@harvard.{arpa,uucp}
Havard University Science Center phone: 617-495-1270
One Oxford Street
Cambridge, MA 02138