Archiving and toning -- Options

[MattKing]

The "silvering out" with old RC prints was/is far more common with images that are in sealed frames behind glass.

 

[dcy]

I never liked RC. It's just not the same at all.

I'm sure FB is very nice. To me, as someone who has never used it, it sounds like a huge hassle.

For my darkroom, I've chosen the cheapest RC paper in the NA market (called "MultiTone", by Inkpress). It was discussed in this forum a couple of years ago. It's less than half the price of even a budget RC, but has a more limited contrast range and lower Dmax (@apart found very decent Dmax after selenium toning). I like that it's cheap, so I don't mind burning through paper and making mistakes.

 

[koraks]

I'm sure FB is very nice.

You bet it is. RC is nice for the convenience aspect. But once you've printed on FB, I think you'd find it hard to go back. Give it a try sometime when you've got the basics down.

 

[MattKing]

I'm fully in the RC camp, and have surprised more than one staunch FB advocate with the results I have been able to get.
At the same time, I've admired many FB result from others.
At this stage, I would recommend that @dcy prints using the materials that @dcy finds most encouraging!

 

[Craig]

I'm in the RC camp as well. Especially for Multigrade, the emulsion is identical between RC and FB bases, so I see no reason to go through the inconvenience of FB paper; with the extended washing and very careful handling needed when wet to avoid creases.

 

[koraks]

The surface quality and sheen of an FB print is different from RC. For some that may not matter, but for me (and many others) it's a make-or-break difference.

 

[dcy]

You bet it is. RC is nice for the convenience aspect. But once you've printed on FB, I think you'd find it hard to go back. Give it a try sometime when you've got the basics down.

One day I'll give it a shot, if only to see what FB devotees are so excited about. For the time being, I am very content to use affordable low-hassle materials that encourage me to go out and shoot, and then go home and print. I am shooting the cheapest films, developing with cheap homemade developers, and printing on cheap paper. When I start to feel like I'm being limited by my materials, that will be a good time to try more premium options.

 

[MattKing]

The Ilford Cooltone RC is a great intermediate position - as is the Ilford Warmtone RC.
But the Cooltone RC is definitely my favourite!
And yes, I've printed on lots of FB paper in the past!

 

[koraks]

One day I'll give it a shot, if only to see what FB devotees are so excited about. For the time being, I am very content to use affordable low-hassle materials that encourage me to go out and shoot, and then go home and print. I am shooting the cheapest films, developing with cheap homemade developers, and printing on cheap paper. When I start to feel like I'm being limited by my materials, that will be a good time to try more premium options.

Sounds like a great plan! FB is a bit of a chore with the washing and especially getting (and keeping) the prints flat. Totally worth it IMO, but you can't beat the convenience of RC.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

You bet it is. RC is nice for the convenience aspect. But once you've printed on FB, I think you'd find it hard to go back. Give it a try sometime when you've got the basics down.

absolutely. I never touched RC after getting started with FB.

 

[pentaxuser]

I'm sure FB is very nice. To me, as someone who has never used it, it sounds like a huge hassle.

That's been my sentiments as well. However I note that were are joined here by Matt King so it isn't just you and me

It's on the the "bang for buck" criterion that FB fails for me but not just that as I take into account the time and trouble that appears to be required to get and maintain flat prints

I have on a limited number of occasions been the recipient of an FB print in the form of a print exchange and had the chance to feel its texture and weight but on that limited basis I have not been converted

It may be that only FB paper can be used in certain processes. For instance, it sounds as if there are no RC papers that "lith"

There may be other unique aspects/ qualities of FB that I don't know about such that FB is the only paper with that quality such that it is not just superior to in subjective things such as looks/feel etc but has an aspect that is unique to it


pentaxuser

 

[dcy]

@koraks , @RalphLambrecht : How do you flatten your FB prints?

I've done cyanotype and it's really hard to get the paper to dry flat. I used a pile of books and six clamps (the kind used by woodworkers) to apply pressure for a couple of days and the paper was still wrinkly.

Some people use a t-shirt press (the kind you use to put artistic designs on a t-shirt) to flatten prints. It's supposed to work better than a pile of books because it's heated.

 

[pentaxuser]

@koraks , @RalphLambrecht : How do you flatten your FB prints?

I've done cyanotype and it's really hard to get the paper to dry flat. I used a pile of books and six clamps (the kind used by woodworkers) to apply pressure for a couple of days and the paper was still wrinkly.

Some people use a t-shirt press (the kind you use to put artistic designs on a t-shirt) to flatten prints. It's supposed to work better than a pile of books because it's heated.

Have a look at the list of videos produced by John Finch In one of them, I cannot recall its name, this was suggested to him so he bought a secondhand trouser press I think and that seemed to be quite a convenient way

pentaxuser

 

[koraks]

How do you flatten your FB prints?

I tape them to a mirror using gummed tape. If you do a search on this forum you'll find lots of info: https://duckduckgo.com/?t=ffab&q=site:photrio.com+how+to+flatten+fb+prints&ia=web

 

[MattKing]

I have friends with a mount press - usable for both flattening prints and mounting prints with dry mounting tissue.

 

[Bill Burk]

FB is for people with a Kodak tank and tray siphon.

@koraks , @RalphLambrecht : How do you flatten your FB prints?

I've done cyanotype and it's really hard to get the paper to dry flat. I used a pile of books and six clamps (the kind used by woodworkers) to apply pressure for a couple of days and the paper was still wrinkly.

Some people use a t-shirt press (the kind you use to put artistic designs on a t-shirt) to flatten prints. It's supposed to work better than a pile of books because it's heated.

A pile of books is just fine. I used that for a bunch of 8x10's I did the other day.

I use a dry mount press without turning it on, and I'll put about five prints in from a weekend back to back with paper in between and just leave them pressed for about a week.

There's a sticky thread where people talk about flattening prints.

 

[darkroommike]

FB is for people with a Kodak tank and tray siphon.


A pile of books is just fine. I used that for a bunch of 8x10's I did the other day.

I use a dry mount press without turning it on, and I'll put about five prints in from a weekend back to back with paper in between and just leave them pressed for about a week.

There's a sticky thread where people talk about flattening prints.

Never a fan of the Kodak tray siphon, for many years I used a big Richards round washer and then an Arkay tumbler, I now have a vertical washer. BTW the Arkay is efficient but can be hard on prints and uses a frightening amount of water. At work I had Pako.

 

[snusmumriken]

@dcy, from your various recent threads you seem to want to determine every detail of the process before you have taken the photos! Honestly, FWIW, I would recommend keeping everything basic and simple until you feel a definite need to complicate it. In my own case, at least 35/36 exposures are not worth a second look, and certainly not worth the cost of paper or the effort of toning. (I don't expect anyone to keep the 1/36 after I'm gone, either. There have been threads on that subject here too.)

Making prints at all is quite a hassle compared with making the negative in the first place. With the price of paper these days, it's attractive to make as few prints as possible. But fundamentally, prints are things that can be produced repeatedly, and improved on over time, once you have captured a really good image. And if you have an image so good that you want to make an archival print that will last for decades, you would (surely?) want to make the best possible print in the first place ... which will take several attempts, and probably FB paper too.

In that regard, do you realise that it's perfectly possible to decide to tone prints after they have dried, and after you have decided at leisure which ones are worth the extra effort? The only proviso is that you must anticipate the visual effect of the toner when deciding which ones to put through the extra process.

 

[pentaxuser]

The "silvering out" with old RC prints was/is far more common with images that are in sealed frames behind glass.

It's pretty common for old Photroians as well except the bald ones

pentaxuser

 

[dcy]

@dcy, from your various recent threads you seem to want to determine every detail of the process before you have taken the photos!

I enjoy obsessing over details and refining the process. But rest assured that I am taking photos too, I just don't post them unless I got questions .

Everyone's different. Some people hate taking notes. I actually enjoy it and if I did not try to refine the steps, I would enjoy the hobby less. For every B&W roll that I've shot, I have a brief note about how I shot it, how I developed it, and how I felt about the result.

Honestly, FWIW, I would recommend keeping everything basic and simple until you feel a definite need to complicate it. In my own case, at least 35/36 exposures are not worth a second look, and certainly not worth the cost of paper or the effort of toning. (I don't expect anyone to keep the 1/36 after I'm gone, either. There have been threads on that subject here too.)

Right now, my ratio of prints I care about preserving is 0/36 .

But if the standard is "until you feel a definite need to complicate it", well, I feel a need to refine the process now. You are imagining the process as a means to an end; so if I have zero prints worth preserving, then I shouldn't be thinking about proper fixing and washing.

But I am not you. I'm sure I'm the oddball here, but to me the process is half the fun. I like mixing the chemistry, doing inversions, whooshing paper on the tray, timing every step, etc. It's relaxing.

Making prints at all is quite a hassle compared with making the negative in the first place. With the price of paper these days, it's attractive to make as few prints as possible. But fundamentally, prints are things that can be produced repeatedly, and improved on over time, once you have captured a really good image. And if you have an image so good that you want to make an archival print that will last for decades, you would (surely?) want to make the best possible print in the first place ... which will take several attempts, and probably FB paper too.

You see, that's where you and I are different people. To you, making prints is a chore. To me, it's part of the hobby. I am not remotely tempted by FB. I'm sure I'll try it one day, just to try it. But the truth is that I care little that my budget RC paper is not as good as the nice papers other people use. I care much that it's cheap so I get to play with it more.

Where we do agree is that if I ever do find an image I actually love, I will gladly consider nicer papers. A while ago Matt showed me a gorgeous print with RC Cooltone that I'd love to be able to reproduce one day.

In that regard, do you realise that it's perfectly possible to decide to tone prints after they have dried, and after you have decided at leisure which ones are worth the extra effort?

I do realize that.

 

[snusmumriken]

You see, that's where you and I are different people.

No, that wasn’t the difference.

To you, making prints is a chore.

No it isn’t. It’s more of a hassle than developing film, largely because of setting up the trays, and washing them afterwards, and the need to commit at least half a day. But if I didn’t enjoy the chemistry, the smell of the paper, and all that kind of thing, I wouldn’t have stuck with film.

Some people hate taking notes. I actually enjoy it

Now that’s where we differ!

 

[dcy]

No it isn’t. It’s more of a hassle than developing film, largely because of setting up the trays, and washing them afterwards, and the need to commit at least half a day.

When you say half a day... Do you really mean half a day...? How many hours?

My darkroom is my bathroom and I do not have a realistic way to truly seal it off from light. The only time I can make it dark enough to print is late at night when it's dark outside. So my (infrequent) darkroom sessions are about 2 hours. That time is spent working on 1 print. I haven't yet produced a print that I like, but I'm getting better. I decided that the weakest link in my process was bad negatives, so I posted questions in this forum about negatives. Since then I've noticed my negatives getting better, so I'm optimistic for my next print session.

 

[MattKing]

You will most likely find that as you do more of this, you will arrive at time saving routines that speed set-up and take-down, and that you will be able to make more prints in shorter times.
Organized Rubbermaid style totes and enlargers on rolling carts help a lot - as will be able to leave some things in place between sessions.

 

[snusmumriken]

When you say half a day... Do you really mean half a day...? How many hours?

Four or five. My print-washing capacity is limited to 6 12x16in prints, so a 'full' session is generally about that long. It can be a couple of hours longer if I am struggling with a difficult negative, but then I also use all the capacity of the waste bin.

My darkroom is my bathroom and I do not have a realistic way to truly seal it off from light. The only time I can make it dark enough to print is late at night when it's dark outside.

For many years, I too used the bathroom as a darkroom. I made blackout blinds by cutting plywood sheet to fit the windows, leaving about 1/8 inch clearance all round, and gluing strips of velvet round the edges. The blinds were then a snug light-tight push-fit, and I had to screw eye hooks on the inside to allow them to be pulled out again. However, they were awkward to store when not in use. If I had to do the same nowadays, I think I would use self-adhesive Velcro on the window frames, stitching the other Velcro part onto blackout material, cut and sewn to fit. Then at least one could fold the blinds to store when not in use.