Re: Print Club

[Peter De Smidt <pdesmidt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

George L Smyth wrote:


> > 1.  I think that one should show only one's best efforts, and I think
> >         that fiber paper's surface is better than the surface of rc papers.
> 
> The choice of surface is a personal one.  It is quite possible that one
> would choose an RC's surface over that of fiber.  Also, the choice of
> paper would not necessarily mean that one is not offering their best.
> 

Fair enough.  I was simply stating my opinion that fiber based papers
(glossy air dried) have a better surface.  I've used a number of papers,
both rc and fb, and have not yet seen an rc paper that would be better
for the prints that I make.  I've not used them all, so maybe there is
some rc paper that would in fact be superior.  What I was mainly arguing
against was sending out 'work' prints.  I know a number of people who
put contact sheets on rc (and prints for newspapers)but use fiber for
their "better" prints.  I don't think we as photographers should get in
the habit of sending out inferior quality prints.  By this I mean prints
not made to the best of our abilities, whether rc or fb.  This of course
doesn't mean that our images have to be the same quality of a Strand,
Adams, Weston ... But we should strive to do the best we can.  

> > 2.  My ultimate goal is to produce prints for collectors.  They prefer
> >         fiber based papers, and the best way to practice is to do the
> > activity exactly as one would when one is 'really' doing it.
> 
> There are plenty of well made RC prints out there.  I can't speak for
> collectors (perhaps these prints would be sold to collectors?), but I
> would think that a real collecctor would look for an interesting image
> first, and the paper choice would be well down the list.

I agree and disagree. Of course a collector will not consider perfectly
printed bad image, on platinum or whatever.  The image is paramount. 
But I know that I would not put down a large chunk of change (assuming I
had one of course!) for an excellent print made on paper that has not
been proven to last.  I'd see if the artist could make the print on
fiber paper.  If he or she objected that this paper might fit his/her
art the best, I might buy it, but I wouldn't pay near the same money as
I would for an archivally processed print.  Every book that I've read on
the conservation of photographs has not accepted RC prints as archival.

> > 3.  Fiber based papers are easier to spot.
> 
> Okay, but isn't that something the person sending the print would do?

Okay.  I was just pointing this out to people who have not used fiber
paper.

> > 4.  One of the benefits of such a club is for people to get samples of
> >         paper/developer combinations, especially ones that they might
> > use to produce exhibition quality prints.
> 
> Exhibition quality prints can be made on RC paper.  There appears to be
> some kind of bias here that RC papers are inferior.  This (to me)
> indicates some kind of snobbery.
> 
I think that my response to your first point answers this.  I agree with
the second sentence but the third appears to be strictly ad hominum. 
I'm not accusing you of being pedestrian for arguing for the inclusion
of rc paper, so why should you call me a snob?

> > 5.  Making fb papers is more work, although not that much more if one
> >         uses Ilfords fixing process, and I personally don't want to make a
> > whole   bunch of fiber based prints only to get rc prints in return.
> 
> Well, the fixing process is only one part of it.  You are forgetting
> that the wash times are about tenfold, the drying times even longer, and
> unless you want to imitate a flag in the breeze, some kind of press is
> required to maintain some semblance of flat.  Also, I wouldn't mind
> sending a fiber print and getting an RC print in return.  Again, isn't
> the image quality the real issue?  Would you be upset if someone sent
> you a print where the image was inferior to yours?
> 
Using the Ilford method, washing times aren't that long, and you don't
have to stand there.  In addition, one doesn't have to stand around
while the prints are drying.  Third, If  you do not over dry your print,
and you sleave it in a archival print sleave, I've found that my papers
do not curl that much.  Finally, no I would not be upset if the I didn't
cotton to the content of a print sent to me.  In that case I could
sharpen my vision by considering exactly what I don't like about the
print.  I also expect that I will receive prints that are much better
than mine.  My main point is that I would like club members to strive to
produce the best prints that they can.  I have no idea why this wouldn't
be fun.

> > 6.  Many infrared images lend themselves to toning, which is usually
> >         accomplished more easily on fiber based paper.
> 
> I've heard this before and wonder where it comes from.  I have yet to
> find a paper that tones the way Ilford MGIV RC pearl finish tones in
> selenium.  Fiber papers are no easier to tone than RC.  Quite on the
> other hand, they are more difficult in that they have to go through the
> extended wash/dry/flatten procedures.
> 
Sorry.  Just relating what I thought was a truism--all the books that
I've read have said this.  If this is wrong, I apologize.

> > 7.  I personally would like to mount and hang some of the photos that I
> >         receive, and I hope that others might occasionally do this to mine!  So
> > the purpose of the club is not just to receive comments, but also to share
> > your vision.
> 
> You can hang RC prints.  I have RC prints next to fiber prints on my
> wall.  I'm not sure what the problem is here.
> 
Longevity. Plus if your next comment is right, then most of your prints
would be on fb because you think it is the best there is for most of
your prints.

> For the record, the paper I think is the bestin the world and that I use
> more of than everything else combined is Forte Polygrade Fiber, so I
> normally print on fiber, but also like the choice of other paper on
> occasion.
> 


> The above reasoning is the reason I suggested that we exchange post
> cards.  We don't have to worry about "value," can send them cheaply, can
> make multiples readliy, can more easily share our visions, etc.  I know
> someone on Compuserve (who I traded numerous time with) that got over
> 200 postcards last year.  Talk about fun!  And isn't that what this is
> supposed to be all about?  Get a lousy print - so what.  Get a print on
> RC - who cares.  When value is removed from the formula I think that
> things get better.
> 
> BTW, I'm not against trading prints (this is the only way I have been
> able to afford some of the prints I have), I'm just thinking that
> scalling down would allow for more participation.  If anyone wants to
> send me a print (or postcard), I'd be more than happy to reciprocate.
> 

This sounds like a good idea, but I think that the print exchange would
serve a slightly different purpose.  Thus I think that both ideas are
compatible.  Bye the way, are you interested in joining the club, or are
you just being helpful?

Pete


PS.  If someone wants to join the club and thinks that RC papers best
express his/her vision on the image in question, you are more than
welcome in joining.

PPS  I didn't think that limiting the club to archivally processed black
and white prints would be considered all that limiting.  My mistake.
*
****
*******
******************************************************
*  To remove yourself from this list, send:          *
*         UNSUBSCRIBE INFRARED                       *
*       to                                           *
*         MAJORDOMO@xxxxx                            *
*----------------------------------------------------*
*   For the IR-FAQ, IR-Gallery and heaps of links:   *
*  http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/mainpage.htm  *
******************************************************

------------------------------

End of Infrared-Digest V0 #130
******************************