Re: Question for those selling there photography...

[Dave Wooten]

Met a young lovely there in days gone by....if a body meet a body comin through the pampas...such sweet memories....not a bad thing at all.

 

[Bob F.]

Sorry: there is something I don't understand here.... what does Cortaderia selloana have to do with anything? I suppose you could make paper from it...

So, I'm a little confused: please explain the "Pampas friends" reference.

Cheers, Bob.

 

[Pastiche]

I'm from Rio....
and I print only FB.....

if those Pampas muchachos like to print in FB as well...
well then... they must know what they are doing...

I'll take as manh Pampas Friends as I can find.... ;.)

 

[aterlecki]

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

I honestly thought I would come here to APUG to get away from all the childishness and tendentiousness of USENET and photo.net. I see that people here are just the same, it's just that they now have their own more narrowly defined group in which to operate. It's a shame really and I see my quest for a civilised group with open minds is still ongoing. Not that anyone here will care. You all seem to have found your niche and are happy operating within it, excluding or driving away anyone who doesn't fit the profile.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

You know, I originally read that "pampas" reference as some obscure ethnic slur, but after a night's sleep and a cup of coffee I'm thinking, maybe it was just bad spelling for "pompous."

 

[Struan Gray]

I have a lot of friends in Pampers. Good photo models, but useless when it comes to money.

 

[Early Riser]

The whole RC versus Fiber paper thing is similar in a way to the digital versus analog print thing. Expediancy versus longevity/quality. It seems that most people who sell their photos can be broken down into 2 major groups, those that want true archival durability for their prints and that last bit of quality, and are willing to go to the extra steps needed, and those who just care about their prints lasting long enough to satisfy a buyer and are not willing to go to the extra length to give their buyer that added benefit.

Personally I don't see how using fiber prints is that much more inconvenient than using fiber. So big deal they have to wash longer and need to be toned, to me that is just a minor increase in my work load and having the piece of mind that my prints will long out live me is worth it to me as I don't view my life's work as being disposable. I have to say, and I could be very wrong, but the fact that someone would cut corners in their printing by using RC makes me wonder about the level of commitment that they have when they are printing and if they wash and fix their RC paper sufficiently to even have RC's maximum life expectancy.

Some of us really care about our work, the quality of it, and whatever legacy we leave behind. There are those who handle their prints and mats with white gloves knowing that an invisible fingerprint on a print today will be a highly visible one in 20-30 years. I got into the glove habit when I assisted for Arnold Newman. He told me on the first day that if he ever saw me handle a print, a negative or even a magazine that had his work without gloves, I'd be fired on the spot.

I feel that when someone buys your work they are inviting you into their life. They will hang your print in their home, they will see it everyday, their children may grow up with that print being a small part of their life. I know for some people just the act of buying the print was a small occasion. I know that when I buy art I am making in essence a lifetime commitment. To be fair I will live with that art longer than my dog, my heirs may end up with that art. You never know. So when I produce a print for sale or as a gift, I produce it with the intention that it can be passed down through generations. Aren't we all glad that Ansel Adams and Weston's prints were produced archivally? Can you imagine if they weren't and if their work started dissappearing before our eyes 30 years ago?

 

[Bob F.]

You know, I originally read that "pampas" reference as some obscure ethnic slur, but after a night's sleep and a cup of coffee I'm thinking, maybe it was just bad spelling for "pompous."

Good thinking: "pompous" would fit, and given that he could not even spell the thread title correctly... (just one entry in my bestseller: "Things That Irritate Me", see Volume 3, page 716)...

aterlecki: very selective quote there. Read back and recall that Jorge's repost was in reply to ilfordrapid calling everyone on this forum a jackass and one in particular "pompous" (? actually "pampas" :rolleyes: ). You can hardly be amazed if someone takes a swipe back. You may also care to note that several people spoke up in favour of RC prints and that no one felt any need to attack them. It only got personal when ilfordrapid got personal: not before.


Cheers, Bob.

 

[Early Riser]

Having read the whole "common man" sthick I can't help but smile. It just seems like reverse pretention to me. Like the rest of us who produce our prints with greater effort and expense and who may have the audacity to charge for that greater time and effort don't care about the "common man". I don't direct my work towards any particular audience, I charge what I charge for my prints because that is what I need to get paid for my work in order to be able to continue to do it.
At the same time I do make my work available in a very accessible way to all, many of my images are widely available as posters.

 

[aterlecki]

Good thinking: "pompous" would fit, and given that he could not even spell the thread title correctly... (just one entry in my bestseller: "Things That Irritate Me", see Volume 3, page 716)...

aterlecki: very selective quote there. Read back and recall that Jorge's repost was in reply to ilfordrapid calling everyone on this forum a jackass and one in particular "pompous" (? actually "pampas" :rolleyes: ). You can hardly be amazed if someone takes a swipe back. You may also care to note that several people spoke up in favour of RC prints and that no one felt any need to attack them. It only got personal when ilfordrapid got personal: not before.


Cheers, Bob.

Yes I could have picked many other quotes to demonstrate the general descent into ad hominem attacks, but while it was selective, it was also representative of the general malaise of proper argument in this day and age. Responding in kind hardly keeps you on the moral high ground and, as far as I'm concerned, you might as well just roll up your sleeves and try and beat the crap out of each other to try and win the argument. It simply becomes thuggery.

From what I've seen in this thread people close their minds to proper debate, switch ground when they sense things are going against them, and prefer to take refuge in dogma and their own familarities to argue their point. If that should fail then attacking the person is the last resort and is really beneath contempt. Of course it's not just this thread. Politicital debate is the the paragon of this type of argumentation.

I would happily debate my position endlessly as there are many things that are in this thread that deserve addressing but I would rather do so with people who are willing to entertain other opinions and alter their own positions as they become more informed by the vast knoweldge that is out there. That is how we progress as people. Insisting on holding a position based upon experience 20 years ago seems very strange to me and doesn't give me much hope for meaningful debate.

 

[BruceN]

Yes I could have picked many other quotes to demonstrate the general descent into ad hominem attacks, but while it was selective, it was also representative of the general malaise of proper argument in this day and age. Responding in kind hardly keeps you on the moral high ground and, as far as I'm concerned, you might as well just roll up your sleeves and try and beat the crap out of each other to try and win the argument. It simply becomes thuggery.
***snip***

Here's something I learned from my years as a cop - You can't raise someone to your level. If you want to interact with someone you pretty much have to do it on their level or forget about it. It's sort of a "lowest common denominator" thing.

Now, as far as RC paper goes - I have prints from 1980 - 1985 that look as good as the day they were printed, I dug through my boxes and the only bad ones I could find were attributable to my learning how to properly process them. I use a lot of RC to this day. I use it for contact sheets, tests, quick giveaways for friends and family and general goofing off. I see no problem with it.

That said, all of my "serious" work (basically anything that is going into a frame) is done on FB paper. If for no other reason than that they just look better to me. The image is richer and has more depth, and it seems that way to me even behind glass. FB paper, processed correctly and treated properly (gloves, etc.) just seems to ooze "quality." It may be just a "feeling" for me, unsupportable by hard science, but that doesn't matter. It's MY work, so MY opinion is the only one that matters. Well, mine and the opinions of a few I hold dear. So, if in YOUR opinion RC paper is best for YOUR serious work, just go with it. No one is going to stop you.

Besides, if you want to get serious about printing on plastic, something I've got lined up to try when my darkroom remodel is done is to coat small sheets of plexiglass or polycarbonate with emulsion and print on them, then display with backlighting - like an image on a light table. Anyone ever tried this?

Bruce

 

[Bob F.]

Yerrrrrs... and meanwhile, here on planet Earth, people get annoyed at other people who call them names. Aren't people such a disappointment.

If sufficiently interested, read the book I referenced earlier and IIRC it will indicate that a properly processed and toned RC print may last about 1/10th the life of a fibre print (100yrs Vs 1,000) in the dark. Thing is, it's all based on accelerated tests that only approximate the life cycle of a real print so the whole debate is highly moot and devoid of hard evidence. About all we can say at the moment is that a properly processed modern quality RC print will probably last over 30 years, because that's how long they have been about and lots of people have them. Anything else is aesthetic consideration and everyone has their own opinion on that one!

Anyway, I'm off to print some postcards. On RC paper (Shock! Horror! Kill the heretic!)...


Bob.

 

[BruceN]

Yerrrrrs... and meanwhile, here on planet Earth, people get annoyed at other people who call them names. Aren't people such a disappointment.

My point exactly. It's extremely difficult to have any kind of meaningful conversation with someone who is simply calling you names. Your choices are pretty much limited to:

A. Continue to try to talk until you turn blue in the face, most likely providing a great source of amusement for the other person.

B. Call them names in return (descend to their level).

C. Punch them in the face (descend below their level, once one of my all time favorite tactics).

D. Simply walk away with head held high (I'm now beginning to favor this one).

No matter which tactic you're is planning to use, if you let such knotheads upset or annoy you then they've already got one up on you. Very difficult, since many people tend to annoy me. That's another reason to have a darkroom (or cave, as my wife calls it), it makes a wonderful place to hole up and forget about annoying people for awhile.

I've downloaded the book you referenced and am beginning to make my way through it. It promises to be interesting.

 

[Bob F.]

Sorry Bruce - my post was actually responding to aterlecki - our posts overlapped and you got yours in before me (must learn to touch type one of these days! )

Cheers, Bob.

 

[mark]

Seems to me the purpose of debateing an issue is to prove yourself right and the other wrong. Why? sounds like a waste of valuable photo taking time. Print on what you want and let the other print on what they want.

 

[BruceN]

Ahhhh! No wonder I was confused (a condition I'm getting more and more accustomed to as time goes on, I'm afraid... )

Bruce

 

[Jorge]

From what I've seen in this thread people close their minds to proper debate, switch ground when they sense things are going against them, and prefer to take refuge in dogma and their own familarities to argue their point

Awww jeeez....I guess the moderators and owner of this site died and made this newbee God of APUG so he can tell us what is the "proper" debate mode....

Listen buddy, while you could be right and APUG is nothing more than a compilation of closed minded, luddite jerks who do not allow anybody into their circle jerk. There is also the slight possibility that there are many here who are knowlgeable photographers who have been using traditional materials for many years and have experienced failures with RC paper, and most importantly who also have the right to express their opinion and dont deserve to be called "jack asses."

Personally, I think that APUG is popular because we dont let pedantic asses like you and ilford whatever ruin our fun....

 

[dalahorse]

I'll chime in...

I made a couple of small prints on Ilford MG IV RC glossy paper about 8 or 9 years ago. One sits in a cheap glass frame with the front surface touching glass and the rear surface resting on the cardboard backing. That print is displayed in a very bright room and is no stranger to direct sunlight. The other print sits in a light-tight box. Both prints were developed normally, fixed for 2 minutes, and washed in siphoned trays for about 10 minutes. To date, there has been no fading, discoloring, or silvering out on either print. I do realize that the prints would last significantly longer if gold or selenium toned.

If the resin coatings on the front and back of the paper prevent chemical penetration, they also keep harmful pollutants away from the paper (not the emulsion, obviously). With the old manufacturing problem involving brightener chemicals in the paper reacting with the resin (resulting in paper discoloration and resin cracking) fixed, I really see no reason why modern RC prints can't be considered as archival as fiber prints if they are properly processed. I do understand that those who had problems with the initial manufacturing flaws probably would never trust RC papers again. But I think it's sad that so many gallery owners and art buyers will accept fiber B&W, color RC, and digital glicee (fancy for "inkjet"), but won't accept B&W RC because "it's not archival." If the paper no longer reacts with the resin and the emulsion is exactly the same, where do the archival problems come from? Why don't I have problems with my RC prints?

Personally, I really like the look of Ilford's pearl RC surface. It's not too glossy, not too flat, and has no hot-spot reflections. I also like the super-reflective and smooth look of Ilford's glossy RC for some subjects. I really don't care what the general public thinks of my paper selection - I print on what gives the results I'm looking for. For me, that look is often RC.

 

[Bob F.]

Ahhhh! No wonder I was confused (a condition I'm getting more and more accustomed to as time goes on, I'm afraid... )

Bruce

I'm a lifetime member of that club!

 

[Dave Miller]

So we all agree then - RC is best!

 

[jmdavis]

We have real life examples of 100+ year old PT prints. We have real life examples of 90+ year old fiber prints. We have real life examples of 30 year old RC prints.

I use RC paper, but I don't believe it is as good as fibre. I like that it dries fast and flat.

After having seen Jorge's PT prints, Alex H's and M. Smith's azo prints and comparing my own RC to fibre prints, I reach the conclusion that for me fibre looks better.

If Stieglitz's prints had been on 100 year paper, they would be lost by now. Lost forever. While the negatives or plates could be reprinted, we could not know they were the same. While 100 years may seem like a long time, it's not as long as 1000. Maybe its long enough, maybe not. Regardless, my good prints will go on fibre.

Mike

 

[Gay Larson]

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.

It seems to me that you started out asking opinions of your question and yet you seem to be constantly defending your position. Why ask in first place. I only use fiber base. I know what is professional and what is not.

 

[David H. Bebbington]

I use RC paper myself frequently when I need paper that is quick to use, self-glazing and self-flattening. I also believe that RC permanency is quite good these days, but I wouldn't back it against FB. FB is more expensive, but not to any significant degree, it takes longer to process (particularly washing), but again this is not an issue, it's MUCH easier to retouch and tone, and it's implanted in buyers' minds (rightly or wrongly) as being a superior more permanent product, which for me is reason enough to use FB for prints for sale.

 

[mmcclellan]

Archival qualities aside, the best prints on fiber-based paper look much better than the best prints on RC paper. However good you are as a printer, your work will look better on fiber than it will on plastic across the board.

A more important point, perhaps, is the pride one takes in one's work. If a photographer is proud of his/her work, and believes in presenting the best craft possible as a means of artistic expression, then that work deserves the best possible presentation -- and that is on quality, fiber-based paper, well-printed, and archivally processed.

 

[sajianphotos]

It only got personal when ilfordrapid got personal: not before.
Cheers, Bob.

Seems to me Donald Miller threw the first stone. It's true Ilfordrapid was defending his position but it seems I've seen Donald do the same. More than one post here is responsible for rapid fire insults. Fortunately there were some clear heads explaining their ideas well and not taking offense. Anyway, I'm just a newbie trying to learn a little bit in between the personnality landmines.