Digital BW, The Print

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paul Roark [mailto:paul.roark@verizon.net] 
> Sent: Friday, December 12, 2003 2:14 PM
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: RE: [Digital BW] Re: Holy Grail, Double Standard, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> > ... I don't think we are ever going to see any inkjet 
> technology that 
> >produces a print identical or even close to an air dried 
> silver fiber 
> >print.
> 
> I would expect that each medium will always have its unique 
> look.  Some will be closer than others.
> 
> As a B&W photographer, the more options I have for output, 
> the better.  
> 
> I've obviously been a huge fan of the traditional air-dried 
> silver print.  I like the neutral tone and high dynamic 
> range.  As a life-long visitor to the areas where A. Adams 
> made many of his great photos, I've always had a great love 
> for the subject matter as well as the craft and artistry of his work. 
> 
> The air-dried, glossy, fiber-based paper surface has been 
> widely accepted as a good compromise between the mirror-like 
> glossy prints with their distracting reflections and matte 
> prints that, especially when viewed with good cross lighting, 
> can suffer a dmax/dynamic-range disadvantage.

Paul,

One of the things that puzzles me is that we know that the technology exists
to build laser printers that would exposure silver fiber paper yet none of
the major producers of silver fiber paper seem to have pursued this. Instead
they seem to have put all their efforts into producing inkjet papers.
Neither have the enlarger companies shown any signs of taking this on.
Probably too far outside the expertise and RD budgets of either but the
appeal is pretty obvious.

> 
> I, personally, don't like the process of matting & framing, 
> nor the look of prints behind glass.  Glazing too often 
> results in reflections that rob dynamic range and are 
> distracting, similar to a real glossy print surface. The 
> gelatin coating of the silver print, however, seems too 
> delicate and not sufficiently cleanable to leave 
> un-protected.  Whether spraying a protective coating is less 
> of a hassle than framing is an open question.

I can't imagine displaying any paper art without glazing. The surface is too
fragile and the materials vulnerable to insect damage among other things.
> 
> The use of a "barrier-paper" to protect the pigments has 
> appeal.  Between a barrier at the back of the pigments and a 
> tough barrier that is sprayed on the front, I think I can get 
> a good encapsulation of the image-forming pigments.  It's 
> possible that encapsulated carbon could be better than 
> carbon-on-cotton in terms of protecting the image from 
> damage, including from moisture, air pollution, and oxidizing 
> gasses.  Moisture seems to be a major factor in fading, for example.

Aren't the UltraChrome inks were resin encapsulated pigments? In regard to
the black inks this does not seem to offer any significant fade resistance
but perhaps the coating is too thin.
> 
> What I have been and will continue to pursue, among other 
> things, is a way to get a high-dynamic-range, durable, 
> long-lived B&W medium that allows me to easily and safely 
> display my photos without glass -- maybe not a Holy Grail, 
> but a worthwhile goal.  Encapsulated carbon pigments may be a 
> good way to get there.
> 
> > The problem is that with a silver print your pigment,
> >the silver particles, are suspended in a transparent gelatin.
> 
> I think that is where my inkjet display experiments are 
> leading me also.
> 
> A few months ago I thought some of the nicest inkjet prints 
> for display that satisfied my "wet paper towel" test (being 
> washable) was the polyurethane-coated, matte inkjet print.  
> Several of us were very enthused about that process of using 
> a wire-wound rod to apply the coating.  Other priorities came 
> along, however, and I was never successful at scaling the 
> system up to large prints.
> 
> Now I think some of the Epson barrier-papers (I hope to try 
> the semi-matte today), when coated with an appropriate spray 
> might be an interesting option to explore.  I'm impressed so 
> far, but I don't want to say it's in the bag.

In 2001 when I circulated the varnished prints that Mark Romine and I had
done independently I included a single print that was on Kodak Ultima Satin
with two coats of Krylon Clear spray. This was with the original Piezo inks
and the plug-in on a 1200. As comments came back this seemed to be the print
most people preferred over the varnished matte papers. At that point we were
mostly coating by brush and the impact of the less than perfect coating may
have been a big factor.

I still have the coated prints and I remain ambiguous myself. The Dmax is in
silver fiber range. I measure 2.05 on the coated inkjet prints and 2.1 to
2.2 on silver fiber. There is just something about the overall feel/texture
of the coated prints that doesn't appeal to me. That was pretty much the
consensus of everyone who viewed the collection. They seem to have held up
well in dark storage for two years and the coated prints warmed noticeably
less than the uncoated. The Varathane was a bust as it yellowed strongly.

I am sure what has been done with the Myer rods is far superior to what I
did though.

Speaking of coating, Robert has not posted anything in quite some time and I
gather he never was able to bring his coating process to market.
> 
> 
> (Perhaps I should avoid the "RC" label.  It carries a lot of 
> negative baggage from the past, un-happy experiences some of 
> us had with RC silver prints.  Polyethylene (the 
> barrier/resin) is, according to my chemist brother, a large 
> generic category within which there are many different 
> materials.  The past mixes may have little in common with the 
> many modern variations.  My reading suggests that some of 
> these can be very tough and durable materials.  To dismiss 
> all barrier-papers as "RC" may be wrongly disparaging them as 
> inferior.  Wilhelm rates several Epson barrier-papers at 
> display and dark storage lives that are very good -- >200 
> years of dark storage for both barrier-papers and cotton.)

Well silver fiber paper is a barrier paper with a clay coating under the
gelatin and the clay is inert. Polymers are likely to outgas monomers and
plasticizers with time. Especially under exposure to UV and heat. Whether
this will be an issue with the carbon inks I don't know. I would   be very
careful in framing and glazing these papers to provide adequate back
ventilation so that unwanted chemicals can escape. Sealing any art up in an
air tight container is unwise. I remain much more comfortable with the life
expectancy of prints on quality non-barrier papers than on barrier or RC
paper.

> 
> On the other hand, traditionally-matted prints under 
> glass/acrylic are where the fine-art sales will probably be 
> for a while.

I would be willing to bet that this will be the case indefinitely. Even if
you coat the print your mats would degrade pretty quickly without the
protection of glass.

>  (I just received a call for the SLO gallery 
> that one of mine sold.)  I'm not dropping carbon-on-cotton.  

Congratulations and it is great to see carbon pigment inkjet gaining
acceptance!

Martin Wesley
www.carolynfrayn.com/Guests/MartinWesley/pages/MW_01.html
www.borderless-photos.de/guests.html