RC/FB printing paper concern

Gerald Koch · Mar 22, 2006

esanford said:
Good point! However, what I was really getting to (and not stating very clearly) is that printing has to start with a good negative. Too often the colleges focus on printing without helping the students expose and develop film properly....

I agree totally. You cannot get a good print from a bad negative.

thefizz · Mar 22, 2006

Ref drydown

nyx said:
Are you compensating for drydown factor?
(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

Does the method of drying a print effect the drydown factor?

Peter

Photo Engineer · Mar 22, 2006

Bruce (Camclicker) said:
PE
What is the solution for preparing the print to be ferrotyped?
My drum dryer has the polished chrome surface required but I've never tried ferrotyping and do not use glossy papers. But always interested in something old/new again.

Bruce, a release agent is needed. They are available on the market. I have really never investigated the nature of these, but they seem to be surfactants and waxes.

PE

Andrew Laverghetta · Mar 22, 2006

Well, I seem to be doing better at least at the moment. I think coming here might have inspired me to put in a little more, plus I did add take away a small amount of time to compensate for drying since I didn't have time to actually make a better test.

http://photobucket.com/albums/v417/laverghetta/Intermediate Photo/

That will take you to three of the photos that I scanned from last night's printing binge. I have one more but it's larger than my scanner so I'd need to take a photo which I haven't been able to set up yet.

The way I understand it, I can pay to get some kind of metal sheet that has been shined to a high gloss, buy some kind of miracle goup and put it on the plate, squeegee the print emulsion down to the plate and let it dry like that? Normally I just squeegee the print and put it face down on a screen drying rack.

Not knowing much about papers, can anyone recommend another good brand and type of multigrade fiber paper that I could try out?

TheFlyingCamera · Mar 22, 2006

Andrew Laverghetta said:
Well, I seem to be doing better at least at the moment. I think coming here might have inspired me to put in a little more, plus I did add take away a small amount of time to compensate for drying since I didn't have time to actually make a better test.

http://photobucket.com/albums/v417/laverghetta/Intermediate Photo/

That will take you to three of the photos that I scanned from last night's printing binge. I have one more but it's larger than my scanner so I'd need to take a photo which I haven't been able to set up yet.

The way I understand it, I can pay to get some kind of metal sheet that has been shined to a high gloss, buy some kind of miracle goup and put it on the plate, squeegee the print emulsion down to the plate and let it dry like that? Normally I just squeegee the print and put it face down on a screen drying rack.

Not knowing much about papers, can anyone recommend another good brand and type of multigrade fiber paper that I could try out?

Looking at the prints you showed at that link, I can't tell if it is from the scanning or if it is from your printing, but your prints look quite contrasty, and the highlights look actually rather blown out, especially the man's hand at the phonebooth and the girl's breast in the sweater, and the ceiling lights in the hall in the third. I don't mind the ceiling lights so much, but the other two are noticeable hotspots.

I don't know that changing your paper at this point will do anything other than muddy the waters, so to speak. While what PhotoEngineer says about ferrotyping is accurate as far as producing a high gloss, it is not necessary to achieve a good clean sharp print tone. Most folks don't have a stainless steel drum dryer at home, so we can't ferrotype. The reason most people who prefer fiber over RC have that preference (in addition to the archival issue which we're not going into here) is that even the glossy finish on fiber paper doesn't look like it is embedded in shiny plastic.

Have you seen many finished prints on fiber paper other than work by fellow students? I'd try to get in to a gallery or museum where you can see top-quality printing.

jim appleyard · Mar 22, 2006

Back in high school, we used to soak the print in, IIRC, Edwal Print Flattener. That would provide the sheen needed for ferrotyping and help[ flatten the paper. We used to use Luminos SWFB, Grade 3, the least expensive paper our teacher could buy. We used to complain about how bad that paper was, but the paper was really ok. It was our skills of the day that were bad.

Andrew Laverghetta · Mar 22, 2006

Yeah, most of the hotspots were due to scanning, especially the girl and the right side of her sweater. There's still a fair amount of detail in the print. While the one with the phone next to the window had a fairly bright hand, in the print you can still pick out the knuckles and some of the muscles on the side. It still is a little bright but I didn't tone it down as much mostly because the light above is almost a spotlight and I wanted to show a situation similar to missing out on a something since the window is closed (ticket window). I see myself as a fan of higher contrast though (but the scan isn't very good), and I like the actual prints of these, the instructor also commented that they were contrasty but didn't say it was a problem. I think I was actually at a 2 contrast filter with a condenser enlarger. Normally I'm higher than that so maybe that has been what was throwing me off?

Gerald Koch · Mar 23, 2006

Years ago Kodak recommended paraffin dissolved in benzene as a release agent. One part of paraffin was placed in a jar and covered with 5 parts of benzene. The paraffin would dissolve in a day or so. A very small amount of this mixture was applied to the ferrotype plate. The plate was then rubbed with a clean cloth until any visible trace of the wax was removed. This prevented prints from sticking to the plate. The treatment was repeated when prints started to stick again.

Be advised the benzene is dangerous when inhaled and is a carcinogen. A different solvent such as xylene or hexane is probably safer. A good source of paraffin is that used in putting up jams and jellies.

Bruce Osgood · Mar 23, 2006

I don't mean to move this thread off topic (RC/FB printing paper concern) but I don't think my question requires another Topic.

On the Pure Silver list there is presently a discussion of Renaissance wax. Do any of you have experience that would suggest ferrotyping is 'like' waxing in the finished product, or a different animal all together and the two should not be confused.

Jim Jones · Mar 23, 2006

Back to common causes of muddy photos; a finger print on the enlarging lens can contribute to that. In a communal photo lab, gear requires more frequent cleaning than in a carefully used private darkroom. Underdevelopment of paper and safelights have already been covered. Try borrowing sheets of somewhat similar paper and make comparison prints. There are many suggestions on testing safelights in books. Most of those tests are not precise. A dimmer on safelight circuits is a good precaution.

Photo Engineer · Mar 23, 2006

Bruce (Camclicker) said:
I don't mean to move this thread off topic (RC/FB printing paper concern) but I don't think my question requires another Topic.

On the Pure Silver list there is presently a discussion of Renaissance wax. Do any of you have experience that would suggest ferrotyping is 'like' waxing in the finished product, or a different animal all together and the two should not be confused.

Ferrotyping and waxing are not comparable. Ferrotyping imparts a sheen to the paper by drying it on a very hard smooth surface, whereas waxing leaves a wax finish on the surface which does nothing to the physical character of that surface.

PE

Mark Layne · Mar 23, 2006

I'm sure the main reason prints are no longer ferrotyped is that the galleries don't like em. For me I like ferrotyped small prints but the job of ferrotyping a 16x20 print is daunting, and it would be garish.
All said I would not make a FA print on RC but recently I made a proof print on Multigrade pearl in Ilford Cooltone developer. I have been unable to match the highlight separation in that print with any paper in my inventory.
Mark

Andrew Laverghetta · Mar 23, 2006

Something interesting, I was looking a for a light stand amongst some other things near a box of 25 year old (or more) darkroom equipment I was given, I found a can of Arkey Freez-It Ferrotype Conditioner and Cleaner (For No-Stick Print Drying). The price on the top says $3.39. I can't get it open so I can't tell if the person who bought it has used it or not, even so, I don't see any kind of a shiny, or semishiny piece of metal or anything else.

So if people don't really do this, how do you get a print that you like? Is there a glossy paper that doesn't require ferrotyping? Is there a matte paper that doesn't look flat and boring but more like what most people think matte to look like (that isn't RC)?

Photo Engineer · Mar 23, 2006

Andrew, a glossy FB paper print is supposed to be as glossy or more glossy than an RC glossy print. (I guess I said that above.)

That being the case, it may be one factor in your print experience, but maybe not as seen in the other posts. All I have to go by is the fact that a glossy FB print is not done until it is ferrotyped, a practice that seems to have been forgotten amongst all of the newbies here and even the old timers. (This makes me feel really old.)

The ferrotype plates were either jet black or looked like a chrome mirror (there were 2 types) and were both characterized by being as smooth as glass. AAMOF, I have heard of people using glass as a ferrotype plate, but have never done it myself, nor seen it done.

I hope you get your problem resolved, but finding that conditioner and cleaner sounds like a step forward in at least this part of the problem.

PE

chiller · Mar 23, 2006

Photo Engineer said:
Andrew, a glossy FB paper print is supposed to be as glossy or more glossy than an RC glossy print. (I guess I said that above.)

That being the case, it may be one factor in your print experience, but maybe not as seen in the other posts. All I have to go by is the fact that a glossy FB print is not done until it is ferrotyped, a practice that seems to have been forgotten amongst all of the newbies here and even the old timers. (This makes me feel really old.)

The ferrotype plates were either jet black or looked like a chrome mirror (there were 2 types) and were both characterized by being as smooth as glass. AAMOF, I have heard of people using glass as a ferrotype plate, but have never done it myself, nor seen it done.

I hope you get your problem resolved, but finding that conditioner and cleaner sounds like a step forward in at least this part of the problem.

PE

And here is me thinking I'm still 25

Soak a print in a photo flo solution and place it face down on a very - very - very clean piece of glass and squeegee the print to remove the air.

Allow it to air dry normally and after it is dry it will [should// may ] free itself from the glass. Some people place a towel and a collection of heavy books on the back of the print as well.

If after say 24 hours it has shown no signs of naturally freeing from the glass move to this next step ----

If it doesnt soak it in water and eventually it will remove from the glass but it will then dry semi gloss.

Try this with a print you don't mind loosing.

RC/FB printing paper concern

Gerald Koch

thefizz

Photo Engineer

Andrew Laverghetta

TheFlyingCamera

Membership Council

jim appleyard

Andrew Laverghetta

Gerald Koch

Bruce Osgood

Membership Council

Jim Jones

Photo Engineer

Mark Layne

Andrew Laverghetta

Photo Engineer

chiller

RC/FB printing paper concern

Membership Council

Membership Council

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency