Digital BW, The Print

I'm reluctant to spray my prints. It seems archival wise to be opening up a
can of worms we have no way of anticipating.
When I look at my stack of matt prints, mostly Epson enhanced or earlier but
now the Epson Velvet I don't see them lacking.
And that stack is right next to my stack of darkroom prints. Air dried
glossy fiber of course. Sometimes the stack consists of both darkroom and
inkjet prints intertwined. You know when you hit an inkjet you know it
mainly because it's matt but it doesn't look worse because of it.
It doesn't look worse at all. In some ways they look better.


So my thought is this:
Many darkroom glossy papers are/were called "F" papers, the f standing for
"ferrotype". Which we don't do any more.
Its not considered archival and otherwise long considered "tacky"
in more ways than one!:)
BUT!
You DO get a better Dmax and tonal range when you ferrotype your glossy
paper. 
When you air dry it, which has been the standard in darkroom for decades it
just doesn't match up to the "Zing" a ferrotyped print has.
Do we get all upset bout it?! Nooooo!.
And figure our blacks are good enough and we can live without it.

Same certainly with platinum prints. Those are matt watercolor paper and no
one to put it mildly complains about the blacks. The blacks I believe are
considered better than darkroom.

Why cant we approach our inkjet prints with this philosophy.
The blacks we get as part of the process are great!
I don't feel like I'm getting worse blacks then I do with my darkroom
prints. I'm constantly wowed by them.

Some day I'll see the results of these sprays and have a better idea what is
going on but so far my feeling is let well enough alone.
And let the paper get down with it's natural paperlikeness.
I like my prints NAKED!

(but behind glass of course)
:)


Mark Rabiner
Photography
Portland Oregon
http://rabinergroup.com/