Seagull..or not?

g'day Wayne,
i hoped to raise several questions and responses such as;
does the use of a particular material determine your work's value?

do you, and many others here, ever consider that the imaging and the art may be more important than the materials/equipment/technique used?

is effective photography only about technical aspects?

Well, since photography is a visual medium, and materials/equipment/technique used affect the outcome visually, I think technical aspects are a very pertinent part of photography. It's sort of like asking a painter if color is really all that important a part of his art since the idea is the really important thing, not it's realiztion.

W.

Ray Heath said:

g'day Wayne,
i hoped to raise several questions and responses such as;
does the use of a particular material determine your work's value?

do you, and many others here, ever consider that the imaging and the art may be more important than the materials/equipment/technique used?

is effective photography only about technical aspects?

Click to expand...

Ray Heath said:

g'day Wayne,
i hoped to raise several questions and responses such as;
does the use of a particular material determine your work's value?

do you, and many others here, ever consider that the imaging and the art may be more important than the materials/equipment/technique used?

is effective photography only about technical aspects?

Click to expand...

My answer is yes for your first question, and I don't understand the second one. Artists need good workable materials to begin with; if there aren't any, make things work for themselves in the first place. It taks some experiment, of course. It's part of the process, and I've come a long way in my own search (not on this particular product or darkroom printing, but the materials, methods, and the media in visual arts in general), just to let you know.

Back to the response to the original post in this thread, the new Oriental paper is apparently different in quality and no even close (but somewhat comparable) to other available products. I have only used the new VC kind, not the Graded one, and I will likely keep using it but only with a certain formula and equipment setting. That's my 2 cents worth the information that's perhaps desired here.

Like it or not photography is a technical medium. Choices of film, paper, and developers all play are part in producing a final image. One can spend considerable time tuning the process to produce consistent results from a particular film in a specific developer on a specific paper. When a paper or film that is our primary materials for producing fine work is discontinued we can either search for something similar to take its place and adjust accordingly or start the whole process over.

Any painter I know has a specific favorite mfg of materials or may even mix their own oils. Could they work with just any paint? Probably, but it might take them some time to adjust to the new materials.

As far as Seagull goes, I recently bought a box of the VC paper and could not see any advantages or real difference over Ilford. Does not seem to have a clean a white as the old Agfa papers or as good a Dmax as Kodak Fine Art but alas those papers are gone.

Jim Chinn said:

As far as Seagull goes, I recently bought a box of the VC paper and could not see any advantages or real difference over Ilford. Does not seem to have a clean a white as the old Agfa papers or as good a Dmax as Kodak Fine Art but alas those papers are gone.

Click to expand...

The new Oriental VC paper has a slight blue cast, that is colder and about a half grade harder (more contrast) compared to our unarguably favorite Ilford MG FB paper, according my test.

Ray Heath said:

g'day Wayne,
i hoped to raise several questions and responses such as;
does the use of a particular material determine your work's value?

do you, and many others here, ever consider that the imaging and the art may be more important than the materials/equipment/technique used?

is effective photography only about technical aspects?

Click to expand...

I used Seagull for very specific purposes to get a certain look, that cant easily be duplicated by other materials. I have a car and a bicycle, they are both transportation but they arent always interchangeable. I will not throw up my hands in despair and quit photography because the old Seagull is no more, but I will seek the path of least resistance to obtain similar results.


Wayne

Since getting my darkroom back up and running I have been able to do some more extensive printing with the Seagull VC that I bought. Did discover that by bleaching I could get excellent highlight seperation that I was not able to achieve through exposure or preflashing the paper. Giving about 1/2 stop extra exposure and then a quick emersion in a 25% ferri solution (dip, dunk, rinse) gave me highlights equal to what I could get with Agfa MC without sacrificing mid to dark tones.

I seem to remember that the older Seagull graded achieved somewhat of an increase in D-max with a selenium bath. I could see no change with the current VC version. Not even a slight cooling although the current Seagull is a neutral almost cool to start with.

Hello Jim,

With the newer Seguall I noticed that you have to use a dil of Sel no greater of 1:10 to see the effect. I may even start gogin 1:5. With 1:20 I saw nothing...

With the feri solution how long did you put the print in for?

Thanks,

Kev

kjsphoto said:

Hello Jim,

With the newer Seguall I noticed that you have to use a dil of Sel no greater of 1:10 to see the effect. I may even start gogin 1:5. With 1:20 I saw nothing...

With the feri solution how long did you put the print in for?

Thanks,

Kev

Click to expand...

Kev,

Actually it was a 10% ferri solution (25g potassium ferricyanide in 250 ml water) and then diluted 1-4 to make 1 litre of working solution. That is pretty strong, I think a lot of books recommend more like 10-1 dillution. I like using the stronger dillution for about 3 -4 seconds (immerse the print wait 2 seconds and pull) and then a quick dunk in hypo and then rinse in running water and repeat to get the results you want.



I don't think it makes any difference about dillution or time but I always would waste a couple of prints going to long in higher dillutions when working with a new image. For me the strong quick dunk works best.

Your are probably right about the selenium. I was using 1-15 that works perfect to remove the greenish tinge on Ilford MC fiber. I will mix up a 1-5 and a 1-2 batch and see how that does.

Since you have been working with the Seagull what do you notice for drydown? It seems to me comparing wet and dryed prints side by side that it has about the least amount of dry down of any paper I remeber except for Kodak Polycontrast which was minimal IMO.

For me 8% less time is just about right for drydown. With prints that are more high key I noticed the drydown is about 12-15%. Mid and shadows really dont change at all, mainly just the highlights I have noticed.

Normally I back off about 8%, 90% of the time and it dries down almost matching the wet print.