Digital BW, The Print

As I was straightening up my darkroom I ran across a bottle of "Sprint  
End Run Print Brightener Converter" that I bought sometime in the  
mid-80's.

The label gives no indication of the ingredient(s), but it was pretty  
cheap, easy to use, and effective with silver-gelatin papers. (And if  
I brightened a print too much it produced an astonishingly ugly print!)

For those of us not put off by the very idea of optical brighteners,  
it might add another level of control to some inkjet papers (assuming  
your inks can survive a water soak).

In my years of darkroom printing I don't recall people being wound up  
at all about the presence or absence of brighteners, except as a  
matter of aesthetics. We all knew that if you washed brightened papers  
too long you could wash out the brighteners, and that this would  
probably occur in an uneven fashion, but no one that I know of advised  
against using brightened papers for archival purposes.

Are we being pickier than we (ie photographers) used to be, or are  
inkjet papers more susceptible to degradation because of "brightener  
breakdown"???

BTW, Sprint actually touted its brightener as enhancing archival  
qualities of the print by preventing UV from damaging the image or  
paper (presumably by converting the UV energy into visible light).

I just checked, and Sprint is still in existence... and still offers  
End Run Print Brightener Converter:

http://sprintsystems.com/productmenu.htm

You'll notice that most of their products are diluted the same 1:9 for  
a working solution. I think this is one of the reasons Sprint was  
popular around photo schools and workshops. I first saw it at the  
Maine Photographic Workshop in Rockport, Maine.

But enough of this simple *chemistry*...  back to those maddening ink  
clogs    :-)

Myron

>In my years of darkroom printing I don't recall people being 
>wound up at all about the presence or absence of brighteners, 
>except as a matter of aesthetics. We all knew that if you 
>washed brightened papers too long you could wash out the 
>brighteners, and that this would probably occur in an 
>uneven fashion, but no one that I know of advised 
>against using brightened papers for archival purposes.

I agree with the above.  Moreover, when I've put fiber-based silver print
samples in the fader, I've never seen evidence of significant yellowing.

>Are we being pickier than we (ie photographers) used to be, 
>or are inkjet papers more susceptible to degradation because 
>of "brightener breakdown"???

I was curious about this so pulled some silver prints from the files -- both
fiber based and RC.  I also pulled some samples of brightened and
un-brightened inkjet paper.  I help all of them under the UV light to
compare if they fluoresced.  The brightened inkjet paper "glows" under the
UV light, the un-brightened paper does not.  With the silver prints, the RC
glowed and the fiber based did not.

My memory is that the fiber based papers used titanium dioxide (TO2) as a
whitener that was referred to as a "brightener," but it does not appear to
be the same as the OBAs in the inkjet prints.  TO2 (or at least the paint I
have) does not fluoresce.  

When they put TO2 in the first of the RC papers, the result was cracking of
the polyethylene barrier caused by the free radicals that are catalyzed by
the TO2.  That is when, I believe, they started to use these dye-based,
fluorescing brighteners in RC silver prints.  However, I'd guess they only
used them in the RC prints, where they could be sandwiched between the
polyethylene sheets and not washed away.  As a dye, I think an OBA might
have been washed away very quickly in a fiber print.

They again, maybe in my silver prints they simply were all washed away.

At any rate, I did not detected significant if any fluorescing in the fiber
based silver print samples I've looked at under the UV light, and I have not
seen the significant yellowing of FB silver prints in fade testing.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

Myron Gochnauer wrote:

> For those of us not put off by the very idea of optical brighteners,
> it might add another level of control to some inkjet papers (assuming
> your inks can survive a water soak).

Mightn't it be better to treat the paper and dry it before
printing?

(I suspect that any treatment that involves soaking an
inkjet paper will positively ruin it, but, hey, I could
be wrong :-))

Dana

Myron, I too still have a bottle of Sprint's brightener in my darkroom. It
was the magic "lightener" that I use if a print was a tad too flat. An old
business partner worked there before he moved to Taos. I'd add a little to
my RA4 process in the end to give those prints a touch of pop. We had talked
about using it as our water mark, mostly visible under UV. It is nice to
know that they still have it. My first and only 1 liter bottle has lasted
nearly 14 years. : ) 

 

Eric

 

Eric Neilsen Photography

4101 Commerce Street

Suite 9

Dallas, TX 75226

http://e.neilsen.home.att.net

http://ericneilsenphotography.com

Skype ejprinter

  _____  

From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Dana H.
Myers
Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2007 9:52 PM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Optical Brighteners

 

Myron Gochnauer wrote:

> For those of us not put off by the very idea of optical brighteners,
> it might add another level of control to some inkjet papers (assuming
> your inks can survive a water soak).

Mightn't it be better to treat the paper and dry it before
printing?

(I suspect that any treatment that involves soaking an
inkjet paper will positively ruin it, but, hey, I could
be wrong :-))

Dana

 



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Paul Roark wrote:

> My memory is that the fiber based papers used titanium dioxide (TO2) as a
> whitener that was referred to as a "brightener," but it does not appear to
> be the same as the OBAs in the inkjet prints.  TO2 (or at least the paint I
> have) does not fluoresce.  
> 
> When they put TO2 in the first of the RC papers, the result was cracking of
> the polyethylene barrier caused by the free radicals that are catalyzed by
> the TO2.  That is when, I believe, they started to use these dye-based,
> fluorescing brighteners in RC silver prints.  However, I'd guess they only
> used them in the RC prints, where they could be sandwiched between the
> polyethylene sheets and not washed away.  As a dye, I think an OBA might
> have been washed away very quickly in a fiber print.

TiO2 has varieties, mainly differences in the crystal 
formation, one more amorf I think. Part of the RC barrier 
problem was solved by using another TiO2 variety and the 
polyethylene was also changed. I do not believe that started 
the use of OBA between the polyethylene layers as the front 
polyethylene barrier will contain the TiO2 whitener and that 
doesn't allow much UV through, making the OBA less 
effective. Either the OBA is in the polyethylene or in the 
emulsion if it is used.

With inkjet fiber papers and matte art papers OBA will be in 
the paper and in the coating. The new Epson Exhibition has 
OBAs according to Wilhelm, I have seen it in more fiber papers.

Barite in contrast will let OBA's do their work as it blocks 
the UV less. But you need a far thicker layer of barite to 
get the same whiteness TiO2 delivers.

-- 
Met vriendelijke groeten,  Ernst


|  Dinkla Grafische Techniek  |
|     www.pigment-print.com    |
|             ( unvollendet )            |