removed account4
Allowing Ads
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2003
- Messages
- 29,810
- Format
- Hybrid
Antonio,
I've always enjoyed your photographs. You will create a trove of family treasures if you make prints of some...
Make enough to go around.
Cheers,
Bill
I also did it. My calculations, unfortunately, are different.
Epson C88+ is under $100, pigment inks are next to nothing and 8.5x11 100 sheets of archival paper is around $50. 100 sheets of 8x10 FB are $100+.
If I have to buy same printer every five years it is $20 per year. So, basically we are comparing Letter sized prints for fifty cents per print, with one dollar 8x10 print. And running water from the tap isn't cheap where I'm.
Larger than 8x10, I just can't afford it as darkroom paper on FB. With current pricing for FB paper people like me are priced out from darkroom and pushed to ink printers. Plastic RC... I'd rather print it from printer on real paper. Actually, something happened and I just can't print on RC anymore. Many of my RC prints are turning grey within few months. It could be same everything. Paper, chemicals. One day prints are fine, week later same everything, prints are turning grey. While FB is not a problem, same chemicals, water, place, enlarger and me
True. Only a few of my hundreds of RC prints from 1973-1975 have deteriotated, and that is probably due to hasty bulk processing for press releases with little concern for longivity.The paper was not properly fixed. The paper needs more time in the hypo and more time being washed.
The paper was not properly fixed. The paper needs more time in the hypo and more time being washed.
Antonio,
I've always enjoyed your photographs. You will create a trove of family treasures if you make prints of some...
Make enough to go around.
I scan and print and wet print.
I don't have an aversion to digital which seems to be almost obligatory around here. Wet printing doesn't have to be 'better' to be valid. I never feel like I have to justify one over the other to myself.
And even when I wet print, it's very convenient for me to have all my negatives scanned and catalogued digitally.
Best of both worlds.
I really like being able to easily share all around the world a digital facsimile of my photography. That is what I consider scans to be.
I really, really enjoy being able to show people my hand-made prints, and to project for people my transparencies.
I also get a kick out of mailing prints to people, but I'm glad I don't have to pay the postage to get those prints to everyone at APUG!!!
I think the anti-digital resentment that sometimes arises here isn't well placed. The rapid rise of digital has harmed film photography in some ways - prices, availability of historical information and materials, uninformed dismissive attitudes (and overly reverential attitudes too), but in many ways this is the best time ever for analogue photography. It is so much easier to access so much. Those of us who are passionate about it do need to continue to advocate for it though - the market forces that made the situation so dire a few years ago are still a problem.
Nothing wrong with scanning negs. If that is all you can do due to time or space constraints, do it. The most important thing is to enjoy yourself. Get them printed some way though.
I scan everything for proofs and it is all organized in Lightroom. I used to scan at low res back when hard drives were 500mb, but now that drives are multiple terabytes I don't see much point in making small proof scans. Might as well see everything that is there, and it is a good backup if there ever is a disaster. I print in the darkroom though. Personally I like darkroom prints more than any inkjet I have seen, but if you print that way I don't look down my nose at it. I scan the print when I am done with it. Most everything I have uploaded here is a completely color managed print scan. I do send out color images to be printed at places like Aspen Creek. Easy to do, and I let them absorb the constant costs associated with color reproduction. Keeping an inkjet printer around for that is stupidly wasteful in both time and money.
To me the only way is to print in the darkroom. But I scan negs all the time, as I often times don't have energy or time to actually print my negatives.
As a solution I'm forcing myself to shoot less and focus my efforts so that I can actually complete a printed portfolio, and then maybe I scan the rest just to see what's there.
Printing brings out quality from the film that I can't get with the scanner, which is probably a result of me not being very good at scanning and/or the quality of my film scanner.
According to Ilford their RC paper is 30 sec in 1:4 fixer. I fix for one minute. And washing is two minutes. No hypo is required by Ilford. I wash two minutes.
http://www.freestylephoto.biz/pdf/product_pdfs/ilford/Ilford_MGIVRC.pdf
Thank you! I'll try two minutes in hypo and five in running water.Hypo is fixer. Hypo is not hypo neutralizer, that is actually called hypo neutralizer.
Hi!Learn to print with RC papers they are cheaper and easier, however maybe try some FB for your best prints. THe difference in Gloss beteew RC and air dried FB is enormous. You've done wel with that print, it's a learning curve but rewarding in the long run.
Ian
Hypo is fixer. Hypo is not hypo neutralizer, that is actually called hypo neutralizer.
I agree, I have two of my first test prints from Christmas time sat unprotected at work on the desk. Every now and then I brush the dust of them but to my amazement they still look identical to basically the same negatives printed and stored in a print storage box at home. This is in a brightly lit office block of a global company. I am looking to see how long it will take till they start to noticeably deteriorate. Paper is MGIV RC glossy fixed for about 1.5 min constant rocking in the weaker ilford rapid fixer dilution and washed for a good few minutes, typically around 2 to 5 in my case (ISTR they say damage after about 15 min) in a Paterson washer fed by an electric shower on cool.The paper was not properly fixed. The paper needs more time in the hypo and more time being washed.
Right!The fundamental principle of film photography is the images can only be appreciated in person. Both of your posted images are digital representations.
According to Ilford their RC paper is 30 sec in 1:4 fixer. I fix for one minute. And washing is two minutes. No hypo is required by Ilford. I wash two minutes.
http://www.freestylephoto.biz/pdf/product_pdfs/ilford/Ilford_MGIVRC.pdf
Hi.I really like being able to easily share all around the world a digital facsimile of my photography. That is what I consider scans to be.
I really, really enjoy being able to show people my hand-made prints, and to project for people my transparencies.
I also get a kick out of mailing prints to people, but I'm glad I don't have to pay the postage to get those prints to everyone at APUG!!!
I think the anti-digital resentment that sometimes arises here isn't well placed. The rapid rise of digital has harmed film photography in some ways - prices, availability of historical information and materials, uninformed dismissive attitudes (and overly reverential attitudes too), but in many ways this is the best time ever for analogue photography. It is so much easier to access so much. Those of us who are passionate about it do need to continue to advocate for it though - the market forces that made the situation so dire a few years ago are still a problem.
Hi,To me the only way is to print in the darkroom. But I scan negs all the time, as I often times don't have energy or time to actually print my negatives.
As a solution I'm forcing myself to shoot less and focus my efforts so that I can actually complete a printed portfolio, and then maybe I scan the rest just to see what's there.
Printing brings out quality from the film that I can't get with the scanner, which is probably a result of me not being very good at scanning and/or the quality of my film scanner.
From my (limited) experience with Fibre based gloss, it looks more like RC Pearl than RC Gloss to me. I prefer RC Pearl to RC gloss, which is a bit too glossy for me. But I've only directly compared Ilford MG IV FB and RC papers.
Comparing my prints on fibre and RC, I found that I much preferred the look and feel of FB paper right up the point it was framed and then I couldn't really tell the difference anymore.
Fibre is lovely, don't get me wrong, but most of the benefits (IMHO) are tactile. The texture is so nice.
But RC is so much easier to work with, needs a fraction of the washing (and water!) and it dries flat. Fibre is great if you have the facilities to make the most of it (i.e. to wash and dry it properly), but RC is perfectly good for me and I don't feel the aesthetic (rather than romantic) benefits of fibre are worth the extra hassle.
RC is more than good enough for to make wet printing worthwhile and satisfying.
There's nothing wrong with RC!
I don't want loose the reflectance by choosing any other surface than glossy. But then matte is equally good.
If you choose Fiber based (FB) you may have that glossy surface but texture will be different compare to RC.
* I prefer FB for its texture. But you may need to consider about getting it flat after drying.
Learn to print with RC papers they are cheaper and easier, however maybe try some FB for your best prints. THe difference in Gloss beteew RC and air dried FB is enormous. You've done wel with that print, it's a learning curve but rewarding in the long run.
Ian
Very nice print, you can make lovely prints with RC, so don't apoligise for it,and it is by far the best paper to learn on, maybe, as Ian says, print some of your best prints on FB paper, as far as the glossy RC paper goses, I never liked glossy RC, for me to glossy, I prefered the Lustre type surfaces, which has a sheen without the high gloss, You will find that air dried glossy FB paper is an entirely different beast, closer to the sheen of RC lustre surface, tghe main thing is to have fun and enjoy you darkroom sessions
Richard
There's no shame in RC!
I scan and chose my prints based off the scan. It's my contact sheet. I then do a contact sheet with the exposures I choose. I've never used fiber yet, RC does a fine job for me.
From my (limited) experience with Fibre based gloss, it looks more like RC Pearl than RC Gloss to me. I prefer RC Pearl to RC gloss, which is a bit too glossy for me. But I've only directly compared Ilford MG IV FB and RC papers.
Comparing my prints on fibre and RC, I found that I much preferred the look and feel of FB paper right up the point it was framed and then I couldn't really tell the difference anymore.
Fibre is lovely, don't get me wrong, but most of the benefits (IMHO) are tactile. The texture is so nice.
But RC is so much easier to work with, needs a fraction of the washing (and water!) and it dries flat. Fibre is great if you have the facilities to make the most of it (i.e. to wash and dry it properly), but RC is perfectly good for me and I don't feel the aesthetic (rather than romantic) benefits of fibre are worth the extra hassle.
RC is more than good enough for to make wet printing worthwhile and satisfying.
Very nice print, keep working at it and try to print the same neg on FB so you can see the difference.
Just to throw in my pennorth - I used to scan all my negs 'properly', but I found it a hell of a chore to be honest. When my film scanner packed up I came to the conclusion it really wasn't worth replacing or fixing it.Hi,
I guess that this will be my next step, just to say !!
Cheers!
I much preferred the scanned print but I suspect that is down to the way the darkroom print was done rather than any inferior quality of darkroom prints per se. The print looks duller and flatter which might simply be due to the lower grade of paper.
pentaxuser
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?