Digital BW, The Print

Mark,

>Paul Roark wrote:
>>... I coated my first Eclipse 16x20 (17x22 paper)
>>with a wire-wound rod and polyurethane....

>I have been coating with a Winsor Newton oil glaze called
>Wingel. It dries to a gloss, whereas my other
>product, Oleopasto, dries to more of a satin.
>I have not been going for that
>"uniform/perfection" technique that you and Robert have been;
>I've been going for a more hand done, funky, human look.
>I apply it to the print with a plastic 5" putty knife,
> spread it around somewhat evenly, then I dab the end
>of a 3" paintbrush into the varnish to add a texture.

>Probably not what most people would do, but it works for me.

I think that your more artistic approach could help make your work more
unique.  As an old silver printer, I'm at least initially inclined in that
direction.  There is a lot of room for creativity here.

>I've been applying it onto either ESFA sheets,

I'm trying to get some samples of roll ESFA.  The sheets are too thick for
my 3000.  However, the roll 225 thickness might work.

> Museo sheets

My printer seems to produce blotchy results with that paper.

> PhotoRag sheets

With the #15 rod, this paper seems to take 2 coats.  Also, it shows the
pizza wheel marks worse than the other papers with the 3000 (even after
removing most of them).

> I like the coating because it de-computerizes the
>print by adding a human
>touch, and it also deepens the WEAK BLACKS of the
>9600 with matteblack loaded.

I agree.  Even with the rod coating that has no obvious artistic value
besides darker blacks, the fact that the print is more than just a straight
inkjet output will, I think, help separate it from the masses.  It at least
has some "hand-made" content to it.

>The lack of black in the Ultras is obviously an issue
>for me, but therapy is taking off the sharp edges.
>(RIGHT? Answer me, Paul, dammit!)

Yes, let's hope there is a cure.  If you really like black and artistic
look, try Arches Hot Press.  It hit 2.51 with several coats.  (The "several
coats" ends my interest in it.)  With these uncoated papers hot pressing
them between coatings flattens the paper fibers.  They all, also, have a
grainy look that I don't want.  But, for artistic effect (and snob appeal --
very important in some markets) having the Arches embossed label might be a
plus.

>...There's just nothing like a dye black.

I'm afraid you're right.  However, getting over 2.0 helps.  The eye is much
less sensitive to the black end of the scale.  So, we get diminishing
marginal returns to our efforts there.

The Eclipse coats easily, but it is at the low end of the acceptable
spectrum on the black depth issue.  I've ordered a couple more rods to see
if I can get a one-coat workflow going with some of the papers that have a
better black but now take two coats.

However, some of the dyes are apparently getting over 3.0.  I don't happen
to like glossy papers, however, and the fading is then an issue.  So, I'm
going to continue to try to get the coating to a point where it's easy and
at least gets me a silver-print depth of black.

>But my point is: I'm bailing from the whole coating
>thing, just because of the huge amount of post-production
>that it adds. With Wingel, I apply either three or four coats,
>...

I'm going with a one-coat approach.  It dries so quickly that dust has not
been a problem.  The PUR is pulled straight from the can without dilution.
So, that can is open for only a moment.  The bead is laid down and the print
given a final shot of air to blow off any dust.  After coating the
micro-porous surface that is designed to dry ink "instantly" does it's thing
with the PUR also.  So, the coating is dry enough to handle very quickly.
It can be hung vertically almost immediately.  I sometimes dry it a bit more
with a hair drier, but it's not really necessary.  Most of the moisture has
been pulled into the paper/inkjet-receptor coating.

I think once the first coating has sealed the paper, the subsequent coatings
that are not quickly soaked up by the paper/receptor-coating are the
problematic ones with respect to dust.  That is a big reason a one-coat
workflow is, for me, the only thing I'm interested in.

>I had to make a decision that I'm a photographer, and not a
>printmaker. ...

But Mark, you and I are a printmakers.  Whether in the computer, darkroom,
or wherever, the post-image-acquisition work is what really separates us
from the snap-shot folks.  If some one is not interested in this part of the
process, why not just have a lab print your negatives?  I did this once with
color, and found it very unsatisfying.  I think much of the value-added and
fun is in the post-image-acquisition work.

That said, having a studio full of wet, coated prints with dust settling on
them is not appealing at all.  The process has to be easy enough to not be a
hassle.  The 16x20 I did yesterday took 10 minutes.  I can hang a lot of
prints vertically in my darkroom.

>...I had to come back to the fact that it's
>about THE IMAGE. Yes, the print should be compelling, but it's
>about the image.

I agree.  I do need to watch that I'm not getting totally lost in technical
nonsense.  It's the image that counts.  But, those darker blacks (especially
with no glass reflections in front of them) really make me happy.

Paul
http://www.PaulRoark.com