Re: Question for those selling there photography...

Donald Miller · Sep 28, 2005

quote:

"I'd also be happy offering a lifetime guarantee on the print providing it was properly cared for."

My response:

Interesting use of language...whose lifetime? And if it fails in the terms of the defined lifetime, who assigns responsibility?

At any rate, good luck to you if RC is consistant with what you want to produce.

Bob F. · Sep 28, 2005

According to this (http://www.silverprint.co.uk/info/yespap.html) Ilford introduced RC Ilfospeed and Multigrade in the 1970's.

You can download the Wilhelm Research book "The Permanence and Care of Color Photographs" from here: Dead Link Removed (80MB so you'd better have broadband!). Despite its name, there are mentions of B&W RC (and FB) paper. IIRC, up to 100 years was their suggested lifetime for modern RC paper when properly processed. It also explains some of the reasons for failure of RC prints.

Cheers, Bob.

ilfordrapid · Sep 28, 2005

Donald, respectfully- I don't think it matters both the buyer and the seller will be dead when that happens.

aterlecki · Sep 28, 2005

Donald Miller said:
quote:

"I'd also be happy offering a lifetime guarantee on the print providing it was properly cared for."

My response:

Interesting use of language...whose lifetime? And if it fails in the terms of the defined lifetime, who assigns responsibility?

Well where does responsibility lie in case of a bad fiber print sold by a gallery? You talk as if I'm attempting to be deliberately deceptive in my wording. If anything I would say it is the exact opposite - it at least shows an explicit level of responsibility over a print. We can argue the toss over assignment of responsibility as and when (not forgetting if) there's a problem. No doubt there would be similar examples of prints elsewhere which could be used for comparison - that would probably be a good starting point.

Donald Miller said:
At any rate, good luck to you if RC is consistant with what you want to produce.

Interesting use of language yourself there. As I said, there's still plenty of bigotry around. And if not bigotry then certainly snobbery.

David H. Bebbington · Sep 29, 2005

When I worked for Ilford as a technical writer (1974 - 1976) I was involved with the Ilfospeed launch. I believe this was the first RC paper on the British market at least. I remember that the original internal product brief on which I was basing the advertising material I wrote described Ilfospeed as "archivally permanent" on the basis of its freedom from residual chemicals when correctly processed. Just before launch there was a panic when Ilfospeed prints which were under test exposed to sunlight in a glass case on the roof of the building exhibited problems due (as far as I recall) to breakdown of the plasticizer in the RC base.

We continued with the launch, pulled all references to "archivally permanent" in our literature and started working very hard to fix the problem. This was achieved after a month or two, I still have boxes of prints I made in the Technical Service lab on the old Ilford site which are OK after 30 years (as were others which I had on display in sunlight for a number of years).

I have no qualms today about selling RC prints, although fiber-based paper has a different tactile quality and arguably greater depth as long as it is not under glass (in which case the difference really disappears). One big difference is suitability for toning - any toning process which involves bleach can make the emulsion of RC paper so soft immediately after the bleach that it will wipe off at the touch of a finger!

Steve Roberts · Sep 29, 2005

aterlecki said:
And if not bigotry then certainly snobbery.

I think you've hit the nail on the head!

David Bebbington's post makes very interesting reading. It must be great to have been involved with photography at that kind of level.

I am reminded of the time when I was struggling to repair an early Bush colour television set at work ( a job for the "Home Office"!) A colleague leaned over my shoulder and politely explained where I was going wrong. It turned out that he had been part of the design team for that receiver in his previous career. I was well impressed!

Steve

TheFlyingCamera · Sep 29, 2005

ilfordrapid said:
Donald, With fiber based prints being porous how does anyone really know that every bit of chemical is removed, because the chemicals soak into the print surface. With RC everything stays on the surface and washes off pretty easy. I am not sure why Clyde had a problem, all I know is my own personal experience.

Part of the difference is that most RC papers are made with developer accelerants built into the paper, to make them process faster. Because the Fiber paper is porous, it is as easily penetrated by your wash water as it is by the chemicals, whereas RC, being a very dense plastic (yes, that's what it is, plastic... there's very little if any actual paper in RC paper) it is not only non-absorbent, it is highly retentive. If the water can't get in, the chems can't get out.

I don't trust RC papers because I too have seen from personal experience prints made on RC paper, processed at the same time, handled in the same way, half have gone bad and half have stayed good. I've had RC prints silver out on me in the space of four years, and they weren't even in strong direct daylight. I've NEVER had a fiber print do that.

It seems like you've already made up your mind about what paper you're going to use, and to heck with any opinions or evidence you've been offered about what other people do.

If you're printing for 'the common man' and not for 'collectors' (a market you have eschewed), why are you even making photographic prints? Why not just do poster prints and be done with the whole concern in the first place?

ilfordrapid · Sep 29, 2005

TheFlyingCamera said:
Part of the difference is that most RC papers are made with developer accelerants built into the paper, to make them process faster. Because the Fiber paper is porous, it is as easily penetrated by your wash water as it is by the chemicals, whereas RC, being a very dense plastic (yes, that's what it is, plastic... there's very little if any actual paper in RC paper) it is not only non-absorbent, it is highly retentive. If the water can't get in, the chems can't get out.

I don't trust RC papers because I too have seen from personal experience prints made on RC paper, processed at the same time, handled in the same way, half have gone bad and half have stayed good. I've had RC prints silver out on me in the space of four years, and they weren't even in strong direct daylight. I've NEVER had a fiber print do that.

It seems like you've already made up your mind about what paper you're going to use, and to heck with any opinions or evidence you've been offered about what other people do.

If you're printing for 'the common man' and not for 'collectors' (a market you have eschewed), why are you even making photographic prints? Why not just do poster prints and be done with the whole concern in the first place?

I print for the common man because they are the heart and soul of America.
But I am turned off by the smug self righteousness of most (not all) FB printers, and collectors, and gallerys, who do not take the time to learn the truth about modern RC paper. But I should remind you, that you have also shunned my opinions, and evidence, and not only mine, but other RC printers who have contributed to this thread. As I have said in this thread I don't know why others are having a problem, all I know is my own experience. I have my ideas why some RC goes bad for some, but it would just fall on deaf ears.
I feel the common man (and I consider myself to be one) deserves a quality product at a reasonable price. A RC print well made, and cared for will last up to and over 100 years. I am sure that will satisfy the expectations of the common man. If you want to print on FB, I think that's great. I have no ill feeling, until that snobbish self righteous attitude shows up.

clay · Sep 29, 2005

I saw a Clyde Butcher inkjet show here in town about a year and a half ago. I thought the digital dodging and burning he did was very heavy-handed and amateurish. The way it was done reminds me of the Meriel prints in Lenswork a few issues back. Maybe that is what he intended them to look like, but they were definitely not to my liking. My two cents worth. I know a lot of people think he is a Florida Ansel Adams. I just don't think Butcher's print quality is even close to the same league.

juan said:
For what it's worth, Clyde was in town a couple of weeks ago and I talked to him about what he is doing now. He is printing his exhibition stuff on inkjet. He says he does not trust silver photo paper of any kind anymore. He says he had conversations with manufacturers who told him several times over recent years that they have had to make changes in the paper because of environmental concerns - so he now uses neither fiber nor RC.

We were discussing his present touring shows, which include prints that are 16x20 or so - not the giant 8-foot photos he's also famous for. He says he thinks his inkjet prints are better than his silver prints. I agree with him, although maybe not for the reasons he does. I think he does a better job of controlling the contrast in Photoshop than he does in a wet darkroom, but that's just my opinion.

I have heard the story that he had to replace a large number of prints years ago. I don't remember whether he replaced them with fiber prints or more RC, though.

If you ever get a chance to go to a show and talk with him, do so. He's a very nice guy and very willing to discuss his methods. He also enjoys talking about Florida's environment and wildlife.
juan

ilfordrapid · Sep 29, 2005

Clay, concerning Clyde's black and white prints: I viewed some on the internet. I thought that he was a very accomplished photographer, but not an Ansel Adams. I thought the sky was much to dark, and unnatural looking in most of his prints. I did take into account that I was viewing on the net, but I don't think it takes away that much.

aterlecki · Sep 29, 2005

TheFlyingCamera said:
Part of the difference is that most RC papers are made with developer accelerants built into the paper, to make them process faster. Because the Fiber paper is porous, it is as easily penetrated by your wash water as it is by the chemicals, whereas RC, being a very dense plastic (yes, that's what it is, plastic... there's very little if any actual paper in RC paper) it is not only non-absorbent, it is highly retentive.

I must stay that your idea of the structure of RC paper is very peculiar and I can see why, if others hold the same idea, why there is such hostility to RC.

The whole point of RC paper is that the paper base - and it is paper, not plastic as you seem to suggest - is kept away from chemical contamination by a very thin coating of plastic on either side. And it is very thin - take some RC apart sometime and see how thin both it and the emulsion are. By far the thickest portion of the paper is the paper base. The emulsion is then coated on top of one side of the plastic coating. Essentially then the only parts of the paper base that could suffer chemical contamination are the edges. If you crop off some of the paper's edges then there is essentially no contamination of the paper base and all chemical processing will have been contained to the emulsion. Even if you don't bother cropping edges - and few do - a few minutes wash is sufficient to eliminate any edge seepage of the chemicals as the paper spends so little time in them.

If there is any developer-incorporated component in a particular RC paper then it is in the emulsion not in the paper. There are no chemicals contained in the paper base itself which need to be reached by development. In fact it is non-sensical even to think so since the paper base is designed to be protected from everything by a layer of plastic.

RC paper is designed to keep the chemicals which develop the image only acting upon the part of the paper that needs them: the emulsion. There is no benefit to having chemicals touch the paper base as all you have to do is then spend extra time and effort getting rid of them (and thus all the extended washing etc, that you have to do with fiber).

TheFlyingCamera said:
If the water can't get in, the chems can't get out.

To repeat - nonsense. Every component to do with image creation is contained in the emulsion not in the base and the emulsion is outside of the RC barrier.

All in all it is an elegant design which has had undoubtedly prolonged teething troubles over the years as manufacturers struggled to use one solution to cater for multiple target markets.

ilfordrapid · Sep 29, 2005

TheFlyingCamera said:
Part of the difference is that most RC papers are made with developer accelerants built into the paper, to make them process faster. Because the Fiber paper is porous, it is as easily penetrated by your wash water as it is by the chemicals, whereas RC, being a very dense plastic (yes, that's what it is, plastic... there's very little if any actual paper in RC paper) it is not only non-absorbent, it is highly retentive. If the water can't get in, the chems can't get out.

I don't trust RC papers because I too have seen from personal experience prints made on RC paper, processed at the same time, handled in the same way, half have gone bad and half have stayed good. I've had RC prints silver out on me in the space of four years, and they weren't even in strong direct daylight. I've NEVER had a fiber print do that.

It seems like you've already made up your mind about what paper you're going to use, and to heck with any opinions or evidence you've been offered about what other people do.

If you're printing for 'the common man' and not for 'collectors' (a market you have eschewed), why are you even making photographic prints? Why not just do poster prints and be done with the whole concern in the first place?

I just received an e-mail form Kodak in the USA to make a long story short, they said that in archival quality RC, FB are both the same, as long as the prints are stored under reasonable conditions, and toned with one of the following: Selenium, Sulfide, or Gold to protect the black and white silver image. If some people are having trouble with RC it is related to something that they are not doing, or not doing right.

ilfordrapid · Sep 29, 2005

The Flying Camera - If you think that the general public only deserves poster prints, I am glad that you are not catering to them. In your statement you show your disregard for your fellow man. The general public deserves a quality product at a reasonable price.

Jorge · Sep 29, 2005

ilfordrapid said:
I just received an e-mail form Kodak in the USA to make a long story short, they said that in archival quality RC, FB are both the same, as long as the prints are stored under reasonable conditions, and toned with one of the following: Selenium, Sulfide, or Gold to protect the black and white silver image. If some people are having trouble with RC it is related to something that they are not doing, or not doing right.

Did you actually expect Kodak to say otherwise?.....if so, can you please send me your phone number? I got this really great bridge in Brooklyn I think you should take a look at for possible investment.... :rolleyes:

ilfordrapid · Sep 29, 2005

Jorge said:
Did you actually expect Kodak to say otherwise?.....if so, can you please send me your phone number? I got this really great bridge in Brooklyn I think you should take a look at for possible investment.... :rolleyes:

Smiling... I expected a comment like your's, but oh well.

Donald Miller · Sep 29, 2005

You know, I find it really sort of humorous that someone would come to a site, like Apug, and want to ask questions about photography and marketing their work and then totally disregard the input of the majority to the point of contentiousness.

I haven't used that RC stuff for over twenty years, not even for proofing, and I don't really see the point to begin now. So I wasn't really aware of the relative cost difference between RC and fiber. I was surprised when I checked into it because I figured that there would be a really big difference. Taking Oriental fiber and RC (in 100 sheets of 8X10) the price per sheet is 76.5 cents versus 47 cents for the plastic stuff.

When I checked Forte, the fiber (in the same size and quantity) was 57 cents and the plastic stuff was 43 cents.

I may be wrong but in my fifty years of business experience there is a thing that should be involved and that is value. Value is the relative worth of something. If someone wants to print on plastic for a savings of 29.5 cents a sheet, then I guess that they have a damned site sharper pencil then I have or that I want to have.

I figure that I can get a good print in no more then three sheets so that amounts to what? 88.5 cents...hell, I spill more then that.

I have no argument with those who want to cheapen their product and sell it for less, they know what their product is worth.

Jorge · Sep 29, 2005

ilfordrapid said:
Smiling... I expected a comment like your's, but oh well.

Well, it seems you asked the question with your mind made up and expected people to tell you you were right. Sorry if that did not happen.....do whatever you want, after all they are your prints. Me, I rather give people more than what they pay for, even if I have to sell a little bit more expensive.

roteague · Sep 29, 2005

Jorge said:
Me, I rather give people more than what they pay for, even if I have to sell a little bit more expensive.

I agree as well; I always try to give more than people expect. I value my work enough that I want to present it in the best possible light. To quote Ford "Quality is Job 1".

Louis Mutch · Sep 29, 2005

It seems to me that Mr. ilfordrapid is bating us. The fiber, RC question is not about the archival issue, it is about the aesthetic beauty of the fiber glossy print. RC prints cant touch the beauty of fiber prints in this Ill never be convinced otherwise.

ilfordrapid · Sep 29, 2005

Donald Miller said:
You know, I find it really sort of humorous that someone would come to a site, like Apug, and want to ask questions about photography and marketing their work and then totally disregard the input of the majority to the point of contentiousness.

I haven't used that REC stuff for over twenty years, not even for proofing, and I don't really see the point to begin now. So I wasn't really aware of the relative cost difference between REC and fiber. I was surprised when I checked into it because I figured that there would be a really big difference. Taking Oriental fiber and REC (in 100 sheets of 8XI10) the price per sheet is 76.5 cents versus 47 cents for the plastic stuff.

When I checked Forte, the fiber (in the same size and quantity) was 57 cents and the plastic stuff was 43 cents.

I may be wrong but in my fifty years of business experience there is a thing that should be involved and that is value. Value is the relative worth of something. If someone wants to print on plastic for a savings of 29.5 cents a sheet, then I guess that they have a damned site sharper pencil then I have or that I want to have.

I figure that I can get a good print in no more then three sheets so that amounts to what? 88.5 cents...hell, I spill more then that.

I have no argument with those who want to cheapen their product and sell it for less, they know what their product is worth.[/QUOTE

My smile just got a little bigger. Everything has to come down to money doesn't it. If you think I am worried about money, you are sadly mistaken. And if you think that I need this site your wrong agin. I just made the mistake of thinking that there were more open minded people here than there are.
Seems to me that you are being contentious too. Cheers to you and your pampas friends. I am sure that you are all legends in your own minds. I met some cool people in here to bad there so few.
I suppose your just not used to people standing up for what they believe. I originally came in here with a good attitude, but ran into a bunch of sour grapes.
This is not a community of photographers it is a community of narrow minded jack asses.

lee · Sep 29, 2005

nice talk ilfordwhatever. Do you kiss your mother with that mouth?

he said,"I suppose your just not used to people standing up for what they believe. I originally came in here with a good attitude, but ran into a bunch of sour grapes.
This is not a community of photographers it is a community of narrow minded jack asses."

you can use whatever you want you dont need our narrow minded consent!

lee\c

Jorge · Sep 29, 2005

This is not a community of photographers it is a community of narrow minded jack asses.

Awwww..poor baby, see what you did Don? You made him cry....LOL......

lee · Sep 29, 2005

lol

lee\c

Early Riser · Sep 29, 2005

It all depends on the level of sophistication of your buyer. Experienced collectors want to know if the print is archival, they may ask about the paper, the mat board, whether the print is toned, etc. Less sophisticated buyers just care about the image and may not realize the importance of how the print was made and what it is made of.

David A. Goldfarb · Sep 29, 2005

ilfordrapid said:
Cheers to you and your pampas friends.

Now that's an interesting one. Anyone here from the plains of Argentina? Is it a bad thing to be from the plains of Argentina?

Re: Question for those selling there photography...

Donald Miller

Bob F.

ilfordrapid

aterlecki

David H. Bebbington

Steve Roberts

TheFlyingCamera

Membership Council

ilfordrapid

clay

ilfordrapid

aterlecki

ilfordrapid

ilfordrapid

Jorge

ilfordrapid

Donald Miller

Jorge

roteague

Louis Mutch

ilfordrapid

lee

Jorge

lee

Early Riser

David A. Goldfarb

Moderator

Re: Question for those selling there photography...

Membership Council

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency