Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2005/11/11
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Probably old news to some, but http://www.butzi.net Paul Butzi apparently is moving to digital printing big time and he has an article on his site about going off the "Silver Standard" with Inkjet printing.... At 03:29 PM 11/11/2005, Mark wrote: >I got to typing here. I type more than I shoot. Like Ansel. > >The predominate idea in darkroom black and white serious printing for a half >a century had been as we are saying Glossy ferrotype (F) paper dried down to >a golden semi gloss almost mat naturally. >NOT ferrotyped to look like a real glossy as glass surface which the paper >was you'd think primarily intended for.. >Something Bauhaus about Ferrotype though maybe they did it. On very cold >black paper maybe. >How much longer it took them to come out with that prebath to make such >ferrotyping a much more a sure even bet and not the crapshoot it was quite a >while A huge amount of paper was not recycled because of little >imperfections in the obnoxious gloss. > >In my college darkroom there was a big ferrotype drum thing constantly >revolving in the darkroom lobby with that pre ferrotype solution right next >to it and a squeegee glass with squeegee.. You had the option of putting the >print NOT facing the drum but the semi contaminated canvas and this would >really give you a not gloss service but not dried down either. And you'd get >that flavor from the contaminated canvas baked for freshness. Often you'd >get an imprint of the canvas on the surface of the fried print if you were >sloppy with your squeegee. I remember all this amazing. > >Ilford GALLERY was the first paper to save us from the silver scam scandal >in the late 70's when all the papers went down the tubes silver wise with >the exception of Agfa Portriga which was unfashionably warm which we'd try >to counter chemically. And slow. And cost just a little bit more. But >silver rich making we thought for a rich black. >They other companies realized after Gallery people would pay a few more >bucks or more for some non chinsey paper and it became by the end of the >80's a Renaissance of black and white paper paper options. I bet better then >the 50's with those papers made by Dupont and all those companies you'd not >think. Betty Crocker. >Knock knock Varigram! > >RC papers may be as archival as fiber right now. >But the feel is not there in your hands and the SURFACE is not there. >SURFACE SURFACE SURFACE!! (Avedon??) > >They vainly try to duplicate fiber dry down with some fine texture >imprinting embossing and it's just not the same thing. Its a different >thing. Like Apples and Asparagus. >Pearl is the RC version of our beloved fiber dry down fiber. For Ilford. >Which I think dominates the smarter market. > >I hung a show once behind glass as typical and I last minute made some RC >prints for some of them the idea being I'd make them wait a week while I >reprinted it with fiber if anyone bought a print. >Or they'd exhume my casket and yell at me. That was the glossy RC stuff. >Which I hate even more than the Pearl II. But behind the glass no one knew. >Gloss behind glass. Who knew!?! >It was Ilford Multigrade so it was the exact same emulsion as the fiber. >Even the subtle print color matched up. And the plastic pages in a >portfolio sure hides any objectionable surface as well as feel. >Mat doesn't not even come into the picture in darkroom work it dries down a >grade softer and at least on stop or more darker. It's blackest black is a >grey card. But otherwise just fine. They don't even use it for hand coloring >like it says on the box. >Mat and Art both are not with us having gone over the top into a hail of >machine fire. But live on in practically every other of the dozen >"alternate" photo processes including inkjet. Which are not "alternate" to >the people who use them. >Soon it will be silver gelatin which will be called a viable alternate to >inkjet. In case you need a strangely high degree of detail which you see >with a loupe. >It may sound bad and have a bad ring to it but inkjet is a very big deal in >the development of photographic processes. A plural. It's an explosion. I'm >in on it. Like the invention of the silver gelatin process itself which came >32 years after photography was invented with the first Daguerreotype. >1839 minus 1871. >Which happens to be the amount of time I've been printing myself. And which >seems like a long time. > >Why are we still using the silver gelatin process? >Its well known to not match the more major modern Platinum Print. >It's a scandal! > >Taking the easy way out with this high tech enlarger filter garbage. > >Mark Rabiner >Photography >Portland Oregon >http://rabinergroup.com/ > > > > > >_______________________________________________ >Leica Users Group. >See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information // richard (This email is for mailing lists. To reach me directly, please use richard at imagecraft.com)