My prints look so good in the wash, and then they dry.

[Andrew O'Neill]

Clear, glossy acrylic medium, diluted 1+1, and applied in four coats with a high density roller. Liquitex brand, but there are others.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

So what % changes have you found you meed to make, Matt with RC?

Thanks

pentaxuser

Depending on the paper, for me it's been about an 8 to 10 percent reduction in base exposure.

 

[MattKing]

So what % changes have you found you meed to make, Matt with RC?

Thanks

pentaxuser

A smidge .
Actually, it isn't a flat percentage, because to deal with it properly you often need to treat the highlights differently than the shadows.
It isn't all that unusual to have to decrease the exposure in the highlights, and increase the exposure in the shadows.
And localized, very specific high contrast filter burns are very useful too.

 

[mshchem]

If you want gloss on the wonderful Ilford RC papers you need a real print dryer. I've only used the Ilford units. The ones I have will handle up to 20 inch wide papers. 3 quartz heating elements and a fan, will dry an 8x10 in about 15 seconds. The intense radiant heat literally heats the gelatin to the point that it "levels" almost melts. In fact one caution from Ilford is you have it too hot if matte surface prints come out glossy.
Squeegee off any excessive water. These unit work with color too.
Jobo USA (Michigan) sold a similar unit 20 years back too.

 

[eddie]

Years ago, I had a friend who waxed his FB matte prints. They had a lot more depth than unwaxed prints.

 

[mshchem]

Years ago, I had a friend who waxed his FB matte prints. They had a lot more depth than unwaxed prints.

We have a Professor friend who teaches alternative processes. She waxes her salt prints with some concoction of beeswax with a bit of Lavender oil. She's accomplished, I've never really tried it. Her prints are beautiful.

 

[Paul Howell]

If you find books on printing from the 40 and 50s there is often a mention on waxing, shellac, and ferrotyping, I have a heated ferrotype dryer, but when I want a glossy print I don't plug it in, I squeegee the print onto the plate, and let it dry until it pops off. I use a distilled water final soak with Kodak print flattener, I have a few bottles left that seem to work after decades of storage. Still, maybe 50% are perfect, the others I rewash and redry. And I clean the plate with auto chrome polish, the old fashion stuff used on classic cars.

 

[pentaxuser]

Thanks Matt and Andrew. Andrew's certainly sounds easier to use - it's an easier bang for buck. I use Kentmere and Ilford RC Glossy papers and really haven't noticed any difference when dry but to be fair I haven't done two identical prints and kept one in water while the other dried so it may be I'd see the difference then. It is worth a comparison just to see if there is a difference that is worth pursuing

Les McLean in his book shows FB dry-down and clearly there is an appreciable difference there. Les believes it varies between 8-12% for FB but while he mentions RC that is all he does. Almost as if RC was an afterthought that on balance merited no more text

pentaxuser

 

[MattKing]

When FB paper dries, the paper substrate and attached emulsion changes physically - shrinks slightly, IIRC. The dry-down effect relates to that change, and does result in a darkening of the image.
RC papers have a substrate that is dimensionally stable, and doesn't change appreciably during drying. As a resut, no dry-down. That doesn't mean that w wet print looks the same as a dry one - see above.
If you are printing multiple copies of a print, it can be helpful to prepare one that is acceptable when dry, and then put that print back into a tray with water. You can then use it as q wet print reference as you make th3 rest of your prints,
Having a good reference print in the wet can be helpful in general, but be warned that repeated re-wetting of RC prints causes them to de-laminate .

 

[gone]

Print more with contrast, deeper blacks.

Good idea, but the contrast and blacks are as deep as they can get w/o going over the top and looking bad. It's the sheen the water makes on the print that I love. Knowing what the prints look like when they're dry compared to when they're wet isn't really the thing, I already adjust for that (or just pull out the hair dryer and see what it looks when dry). After a while, if you use the same papers you know what it will do, and then you don't have to do that.

I "know" there's no way to get that look w/o the print being wet, but there may be a way to get a similar look, I just don't know how to go about it.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

I've coated kallitype prints using the method I mentioned above. The coating makes the image look richer with deeper blacks, and adds a bit more contrast.

 

[gone]

Clear, glossy acrylic medium, diluted 1+1, and applied in four coats with a high density roller. Liquitex brand, but there are others.

Thank you very much Andrew. I'll do just that. I've sprayed prints before w/ clear (many years ago, and they were inkjets) and that worked so-so, but the idea of using a roller sounds better. Never would have thought of that.

 

[MattKing]

Good idea, but the contrast and blacks are as deep as they can get w/o going over the top and looking bad. It's the sheen the water makes on the print that I love. Knowing what the prints look like when they're dry compared to when they're wet isn't really the thing, I already adjust for that (or just pull out the hair dryer and see what it looks when dry). After a while, if you use the same papers you know what it will do, and then you don't have to do that.

I "know" there's no way to get that look w/o the print being wet, but there may be a way to get a similar look, I just don't know how to go about it.

FWIW, I find it more important to adjust the highlights - it is the difference between the appearance of the highlights and the shadows that is most important.
I also do a fair bit of toning. With some papers (not Ilford MGIV RC) Selenium toner makes a difference. Brown toning also helps - warmer tones have an important subjective effect.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Thank you very much Andrew. I'll do just that. I've sprayed prints before w/ clear (many years ago, and they were inkjets) and that worked so-so, but the idea of using a roller sounds better. Never would have thought of that.

Thin coats are the way to go. The trick is to not apply pressure. Let the roller do the work. Keep rolling (north/south, east/west) until all the wee bubbles are gone. Keep your work space clean, otherwise little linties and hairs will end up on the print.

 

[MattKing]

Here is a simulation of the effect of toning.
Without any warming:

With warming:

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Hey! I know that old house!

 

[gone]

This is a terrible phone shot of the prints, but it's an example of the blacks and contrast being as deep as they can go already. There are a lot of reflections my phone caught, they're not on the print at all, so sorry about the poor quality of the phone shot. The prints are actually nice, and sharp as a tack. When I tried to make the prints look more like when they were wet by adding more contrast, the bottom one is what I got. It doesn't show on this rezzed down pic, but in person, it just looks too black. Lost too much detail. Andrew's idea may work though.

 

[Doremus Scudder]

I've often wanted to design a photography exhibit where all the prints were sitting in trays of water and illuminated with strong light from above. Prints never look better than when in the fixing tray under the viewing light

I evaluate my prints dry before deciding on a final exposure; not all of them, of course, but the final couple as I'm zeroing in my final exposure, contrast, bleaching and manipulation scheme. With RC paper, you can do this easily and quickly with a blow dryer. With fiber-base paper, you need to wait... (or use that microwave...). Still, I have found no better way to correct for drydown. Drydown affects different prints differently. Just subtracting a percentage (however you arrived at that) from the exposure won't work in all cases. Plus, toning affects the print as well, so leaving some room for the density changes that toning causes becomes a factor as well.

BTW, I do think drydown affects RC prints as well, just to a lesser extent than fiber-base prints. Fiber-base papers expand when wet and then shrink back when dry. When fully expanded, the whites look less detailed and the darker tones look greyer. Everything gets darker and more "separated" looking when dry. Although the RC substrate doesn't change dimensionally when wet, the emulsion does swell and then shrink back when dry. This gives a less-pronounced dry-down effect, but it's still there.

Plus, prints just look different when wet.

And, lighting makes a huge difference in how print tonalities are perceived. At some point, the variables get too nuanced to control. All we can do is make prints we like under the light we like. For me, sometimes several versions of a print look fine -- just different. Like different performances of a piece of music can all be satisfying, so can different performances of the print.

Getting that "wet look," though is not really practical.

Best,

Doremus

 

[gone]

Here is a simulation of the effect of toning.
Without any warming:
View attachment 280688

With warming:
I
View attachment 280689

With warming:
I like the toned print a lot more, but I don't tone anything. Just straight B&W, and try to keep the image as neutral as possible in terms of shades or color.

 

[Anon Ymous]

@Doremus Scudder Yes, drydown affects RC papers as well, just not as much as FB papers. And matte papers, regardless of type, will be affected even more. IMHO, drydown affects shadows more than highlights. Details that are clearly visible when wet tend to get muddy when dry. Printing somewhat lighter will mostly cure this, but a slight contrast adjustment may also be beneficial. But I agree, getting the "wet" look isn't really practical.

 

[gone]

But I agree, getting the "wet" look isn't really practical.

I'll try photographing a car in the rain and see what that looks like too. If you can't bring the wet look to the print, bring the wet to the subject. Small problem w/ this though, as I live in the desert.

Yes, it may indeed be impractical, but it also may be possible. Just because I don't know how to do it doesn't mean there's not a way to do it (or make it look similar).

 

[gone]

There's always framing it w/ museum quality, anti reflective glass. I just don't like to frame stuff.

 

[gone]

Problem solved. Sorta.

I could have an open studio or gallery show like this. Maybe place 10 or 20 trays w/ water in them around the gallery. Some small plastic ferns here and there would be nice, driftwood perhaps, maybe put some goldfish in the trays w/ the prints, add tiny pieces of plastic floating in there like in our oceans. Lots of possibilities. In fact, this does allow viewing the prints while wet......except for that vertical thing.

 

[pentaxuser]

@Doremus Scudder Yes, drydown affects RC papers as well, just not as much as FB papers. And matte papers, regardless of type, will be affected even more.

What did you find to be the actual dry-down factor to be for RC? Andrew for instance rates the factor as being very similar to that suggested by Les McLean of 8-12%

Always difficult to show this accurately on a forum but do you have any examples of prints without drydown compensation and the same prints with correct drydown?

Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[NB23]

Another of my findings:

Foma fb matte has zero drydown effect. Or if it does, it’s much less than Ilford RC.