Are you sure about this?
Cheers,
R.
Roger, I read it a while ago, possibly Wilhelm. It makes sense though, the emulsion will expand and contract and the RC base will not. Over time that should cause peeling.
It makes some sense, but I think the RH would have to vary very greatly and the adhesion would need to be marginal to begin with (as it is on a glass plate). I'm not arguing with you; it's just not an explanation I'd heard before, and I don't know. I've certainly seen it asserted that under some conditions, RC may be more archivally permanent -- though I don't know whether these are unusually optimized conditions.
Cheers,
R.
I remember the paper that I read was very detailed and thorough. That's why I think it's Wilhelm. It definitely wasn't on an online forum.
Regarding adhesion, the recommended method for dry mounting prints is to cook the print and the mat board first before using the dry mount tissue so that the moisture level of the two is the same. You then heat mount them with an adhesive, dry mount tissue. The reason to do this is because if the print and board are mounted with different moisture levels they may shrink at a different rate and then either peel the print or expose the tissue. Now both are made of paper and both are very similarly absorbant of humidity yet this uneven shrinkage/expansion can be a problem. One would think the problem has to be far worse given a water absorbant material, the emulsion, and a water repellent material, the RC base.
My, we're all bored today. Cranky, too.
At one point in time, even St. Ansel qualified for this opprobium. Richard Avedon was once an unknown. I find this item insulting to the efforts of so many different folks here who are trying to build a career as an artist. Frankly, this sounds like just a bit of jealousy from someone who must have tried, but failed, to sell anything, and so resents those folks who are selling work for more than his failed to sell for.
Yes, indeed. I was compelled to read this in a college course. A book on photography without any photographs is immediately suspect. Living with a notorious photographer did not qualify Sontag as an expert on the subject. On Photography is proof that an otherwise successful author can write almost anything on any subject, and suckers will buy it.
Dear Flying Camera:
My sincerest apologies - I really did not mean to undermine or demean the extraordinary efforts and artistry engaged by all those practicing our craft. I am sincerely humbled by so much of what I see, not only on this website, but also from those looking to sell their art at the prices I alluded to in my OP.
However, if I can clarify my point - I am aware that all artists start from unkown, humble origins. Despite my awe of many of the pics I refer to, it is not jealousy that makes me question the prices being charged. I understand that there are many who are trying to build careers as artists, but there is a significant difference in an uknown artist or photographer offering images for, say, $100-$200, versus thinking that they are going to sustain a living by charging upwards of $1,000 and higher.
In recent edition of B&W, I noted a number of limited edition 16 X 20 prints with asking prices of over $3,000. I would really like to know how many of these unknown artists have sold prints at that price. My point is that if the answer as suspected is "not many", I would then like to undestand why these photogs think that asking a price like this is still reasonable.
Dear Flying Camera:
My sincerest apologies - I really did not mean to undermine or demean the extraordinary efforts and artistry engaged by all those practicing our craft. I am sincerely humbled by so much of what I see, not only on this website, but also from those looking to sell their art at the prices I alluded to in my OP.
However, if I can clarify my point - I am aware that all artists start from unkown, humble origins. Despite my awe of many of the pics I refer to, it is not jealousy that makes me question the prices being charged. I understand that there are many who are trying to build careers as artists, but there is a significant difference in an uknown artist or photographer offering images for, say, $100-$200, versus thinking that they are going to sustain a living by charging upwards of $1,000 and higher.
In recent edition of B&W, I noted a number of limited edition 16 X 20 prints with asking prices of over $3,000. I would really like to know how many of these unknown artists have sold prints at that price. My point is that if the answer as suspected is "not many", I would then like to undestand why these photogs think that asking a price like this is still reasonable.
Roger, I didn't think you were arguing. We're having a discussion.
Regarding pre drying the print and mat board, it states it in paragraph 2 of the Bienfang Buffermount dry mount tissue instruction sheet. But I first heard that as far back as High School and College. I thought it was pretty universally accepted.
FWIW, about a year ago there was an essay in Lenswork that also dealt with this subject. It was basically in agreement with the OP.
In recent edition of B&W, I noted a number of limited edition 16 X 20 prints with asking prices of over $3,000. I would really like to know how many of these unknown artists have sold prints at that price. My point is that if the answer as suspected is "not many", I would then like to undestand why these photogs think that asking a price like this is still reasonable.
Back to the original question....
About the only bit of photographic snobbery that drives me nuts is the prohibition against cropping, and particularly the inclusion of the rebate in a print to drive home the point. If you choose not to crop as a matter of personal discipline or print the rebate as an aesthetic choice, fine. But to print the notch codes just to say to other photographers (the only ones who could possibly get the message), Gee, aren't I great -- I didn't crop! ...well, what better example of snobbery is there than that?
George- I am aware of Brooks' opinion piece on the price for photography. He is welcome to his opinion about giving away his work for $50 a photo. I choose to disagree with him. I will also show you quite a few galleries that will not touch work priced below a certain threshold, not only because there is little profit in it, but also because there are few sales of it. It depends on your market for your work. People selling, or at least trying to sell, in Black and White magazine are NOT going after a mass-market. They are trying to sell to the limited-edition, gallery-viewing art consumer. It has been proven time and again that that customer base doesn't buy $50 or even $250 photos. They buy $2500 photos.
Snobbery in photography for me is when the photographer believes his or her photographs are better or more important or more pure due to the choice of materials and tools they use.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?