Add group to favorites
Back to post list
Send new message to group Search:
Post Subject:
Did I mess up big time? (Ilford MC filtering)
Re: Did I mess up big time? (Ilford MC filtering)
In article <13p763k789ufa74@corp.supernews,com >,
Richard Knoppow <dickburk@ix,net com,com > wrote:
>
> Since I can get very good glossy surfaces from RC paper
>when I want that finish the discussion is sort of academic
>but I still like to be able to make processes work right.
Aren't those big drum dryers for FB paper which everyone uses with
the emulsion facing the canvas these days really meant for ferrotyping
with the emulsion facing the drum? We had several at Tisch (I have never
cared for them since the canvas gets dirty and spreads contaminants to
other prints) one of which was seldom switched on, gleamed a bit more
brightly from the drum than the others, and was marked "Ferrotype --
emulsion side DOWN only". I tried it once and it did seem to produce
the advertised results...
--
Thor Lancelot Simon tls@rek.tjls,com
"The inconsistency is startling, though admittedly, if consistency is to
be abandoned or transcended, there is no problem." - Noam Chomsky
In article <13p763k789ufa74@corp.supernews,com >,
Richard Knoppow <dickburk@ix,net com,com > wrote:
>
> Since I can get very good glossy surfaces from RC paper
>when I want that finish the discussion is sort of academic
>but I still like to be able to make processes work right.
Aren't those big drum dryers for FB paper which everyone uses with
the emulsion facing the canvas these days really meant for ferrotyping
with the emulsion facing the drum? We had several at Tisch (I have never
cared for them since the canvas gets dirty and spreads contaminants to
other prints) one of which was seldom switched on, gleamed a bit more
brightly from the drum than the others, and was marked "Ferrotype --
emulsion side DOWN only". I tried it once and it did seem to produce
the advertised results...
--
Thor Lancelot Simon tls@rek.tjls,com
"The inconsistency is startling, though admittedly, if consistency is to
be abandoned or transcended, there is no problem." - Noam Chomsky
Re: Did I mess up big time? (Ilford MC filtering)
"Thor Lancelot Simon" <tls@panix,com > wrote in message
news:fn5ae0$l4r$1@reader2.panix,com ...
> In article <13p763k789ufa74@corp.supernews,com >,
> Richard Knoppow <dickburk@ix,net com,com > wrote:
>>
>> Since I can get very good glossy surfaces from RC
>> paper
>>when I want that finish the discussion is sort of academic
>>but I still like to be able to make processes work right.
>
> Aren't those big drum dryers for FB paper which everyone
> uses with
> the emulsion facing the canvas these days really meant for
> ferrotyping
> with the emulsion facing the drum? We had several at
> Tisch (I have never
> cared for them since the canvas gets dirty and spreads
> contaminants to
> other prints) one of which was seldom switched on, gleamed
> a bit more
> brightly from the drum than the others, and was marked
> "Ferrotype --
> emulsion side DOWN only". I tried it once and it did seem
> to produce
> the advertised results...
>
> --
> Thor Lancelot Simon
> tls@rek.tjls,com
>
Yes, these large dryers were meant to operate
continuously on a photofinishing line although there were
smaller ones for home darkrooms. The large ones were
available with gas heat as well as electric. The
manufacturers of these things also supplied a post washing
treatment for the paper. I think this was mainly a wetting
agent. The chrome must be absolutely perfect for the finish
to be good. As you say the paper is put in the dryer with
the emulsion side against the drum for glossy and with the
support side against the drum for matte finish.
If the prints are well washed the canvas will not pick
up much of anything but they should be cleaned every so
often.
Its interesting just how good the finish quality of
"drugstore" photofinished print was. The longevity varies
all over the place because some plants were careful about
fixing and washing and some were not. Since very small
amounts of residual hypo can reduce oxidation of image
silver these prints may actually have been more stable and
long lived than those given "archival" processing.
--
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@ix,net com,com
"Thor Lancelot Simon" <tls@panix,com > wrote in message
news:fn5ae0$l4r$1@reader2.panix,com ...
> In article <13p763k789ufa74@corp.supernews,com >,
> Richard Knoppow <dickburk@ix,net com,com > wrote:
>>
>> Since I can get very good glossy surfaces from RC
>> paper
>>when I want that finish the discussion is sort of academic
>>but I still like to be able to make processes work right.
>
> Aren't those big drum dryers for FB paper which everyone
> uses with
> the emulsion facing the canvas these days really meant for
> ferrotyping
> with the emulsion facing the drum? We had several at
> Tisch (I have never
> cared for them since the canvas gets dirty and spreads
> contaminants to
> other prints) one of which was seldom switched on, gleamed
> a bit more
> brightly from the drum than the others, and was marked
> "Ferrotype --
> emulsion side DOWN only". I tried it once and it did seem
> to produce
> the advertised results...
>
> --
> Thor Lancelot Simon
> tls@rek.tjls,com
>
Yes, these large dryers were meant to operate
continuously on a photofinishing line although there were
smaller ones for home darkrooms. The large ones were
available with gas heat as well as electric. The
manufacturers of these things also supplied a post washing
treatment for the paper. I think this was mainly a wetting
agent. The chrome must be absolutely perfect for the finish
to be good. As you say the paper is put in the dryer with
the emulsion side against the drum for glossy and with the
support side against the drum for matte finish.
If the prints are well washed the canvas will not pick
up much of anything but they should be cleaned every so
often.
Its interesting just how good the finish quality of
"drugstore" photofinished print was. The longevity varies
all over the place because some plants were careful about
fixing and washing and some were not. Since very small
amounts of residual hypo can reduce oxidation of image
silver these prints may actually have been more stable and
long lived than those given "archival" processing.
--
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@ix,net com,com
Re: Did I mess up big time? (Ilford MC filtering)
"Richard Knoppow" <dickburk@ix,net com,com > wrote in message
news:13oqv37s0m22i7e@corp.supernews,com ...
snip
> I have a couple of very old Agfa/Ansco paper sample books. Agfa and
> Ansco had some very distinctive surfaces which I think would be completely
> unacceptable today. Kodak also had some extreme surfaces but not quite as
> destructive to the image. For the most part these highly textured papers
> were intended to reduce the amount of retouching needed on portraits by
> simply supressing fine detail. I've seen portraits from the 1930s where so
> much soft focus, texture, retouching, has been done as to make the image
> nearly generic, i.e., you can't recognize the person.
>
I've got an old Kodak Darkroom Dataguide from the 1970's. It has a selection
of paper samples bound in it. I knida wish some of those papers were still
available, like the canvas-look ones. Might be an interesting change from
the usual 'E' and 'F' surfaces.
"Richard Knoppow" <dickburk@ix,net com,com > wrote in message
news:13oqv37s0m22i7e@corp.supernews,com ...
snip
> I have a couple of very old Agfa/Ansco paper sample books. Agfa and
> Ansco had some very distinctive surfaces which I think would be completely
> unacceptable today. Kodak also had some extreme surfaces but not quite as
> destructive to the image. For the most part these highly textured papers
> were intended to reduce the amount of retouching needed on portraits by
> simply supressing fine detail. I've seen portraits from the 1930s where so
> much soft focus, texture, retouching, has been done as to make the image
> nearly generic, i.e., you can't recognize the person.
>
I've got an old Kodak Darkroom Dataguide from the 1970's. It has a selection
of paper samples bound in it. I knida wish some of those papers were still
available, like the canvas-look ones. Might be an interesting change from
the usual 'E' and 'F' surfaces.
Re: Did I mess up big time? (Ilford MC filtering)
"Ken Hart" <kwhart1@verizon,net > wrote in message
news:fmk8bk$ctl$1@aioe.org...
>
> "Richard Knoppow" <dickburk@ix,net com,com > wrote in
> message news:13oqv37s0m22i7e@corp.supernews,com ...
> snip
>> I have a couple of very old Agfa/Ansco paper sample
>> books. Agfa and Ansco had some very distinctive surfaces
>> which I think would be completely unacceptable today.
>> Kodak also had some extreme surfaces but not quite as
>> destructive to the image. For the most part these highly
>> textured papers were intended to reduce the amount of
>> retouching needed on portraits by simply supressing fine
>> detail. I've seen portraits from the 1930s where so much
>> soft focus, texture, retouching, has been done as to make
>> the image nearly generic, i.e., you can't recognize the
>> person.
>>
> I've got an old Kodak Darkroom Dataguide from the 1970's.
> It has a selection of paper samples bound in it. I knida
> wish some of those papers were still available, like the
> canvas-look ones. Might be an interesting change from the
> usual 'E' and 'F' surfaces.
At one time Kodak had something like 25 combinations of
surfaces, textures, and stock tints available. Of course,
not all combinations for all papers. Some of this went away
with the introduction of economical color printing methods
and others due to simple lack of market. There were some
unique surfaces available in some papers. One famous one was
Gevaert Gevaluxe Velours which had a velvet surface
supposedly made with rabbit fur. It looked like a velvet
painting. The stock tint was ivory and if used for low key
portraits looked almost like a color print. I've not seen a
print on this stuff for 40 years.
--
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@ix,net com,com
"Ken Hart" <kwhart1@verizon,net > wrote in message
news:fmk8bk$ctl$1@aioe.org...
>
> "Richard Knoppow" <dickburk@ix,net com,com > wrote in
> message news:13oqv37s0m22i7e@corp.supernews,com ...
> snip
>> I have a couple of very old Agfa/Ansco paper sample
>> books. Agfa and Ansco had some very distinctive surfaces
>> which I think would be completely unacceptable today.
>> Kodak also had some extreme surfaces but not quite as
>> destructive to the image. For the most part these highly
>> textured papers were intended to reduce the amount of
>> retouching needed on portraits by simply supressing fine
>> detail. I've seen portraits from the 1930s where so much
>> soft focus, texture, retouching, has been done as to make
>> the image nearly generic, i.e., you can't recognize the
>> person.
>>
> I've got an old Kodak Darkroom Dataguide from the 1970's.
> It has a selection of paper samples bound in it. I knida
> wish some of those papers were still available, like the
> canvas-look ones. Might be an interesting change from the
> usual 'E' and 'F' surfaces.
At one time Kodak had something like 25 combinations of
surfaces, textures, and stock tints available. Of course,
not all combinations for all papers. Some of this went away
with the introduction of economical color printing methods
and others due to simple lack of market. There were some
unique surfaces available in some papers. One famous one was
Gevaert Gevaluxe Velours which had a velvet surface
supposedly made with rabbit fur. It looked like a velvet
painting. The stock tint was ivory and if used for low key
portraits looked almost like a color print. I've not seen a
print on this stuff for 40 years.
--
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@ix,net com,com
Re: Did I mess up big time? (Ilford MC filtering)
In article <13ot3kik0uirid1@corp.supernews,com >,
"Richard Knoppow" <dickburk@ix,net com,com > wrote:
> "Ken Hart" <kwhart1@verizon,net > wrote in message
> news:fmk8bk$ctl$1@aioe.org...
> >
> > "Richard Knoppow" <dickburk@ix,net com,com > wrote in
> > message news:13oqv37s0m22i7e@corp.supernews,com ...
> > snip
> >> I have a couple of very old Agfa/Ansco paper sample
> >> books. Agfa and Ansco had some very distinctive surfaces
> >> which I think would be completely unacceptable today.
> >> Kodak also had some extreme surfaces but not quite as
> >> destructive to the image. For the most part these highly
> >> textured papers were intended to reduce the amount of
> >> retouching needed on portraits by simply supressing fine
> >> detail. I've seen portraits from the 1930s where so much
> >> soft focus, texture, retouching, has been done as to make
> >> the image nearly generic, i.e., you can't recognize the
> >> person.
> >>
> > I've got an old Kodak Darkroom Dataguide from the 1970's.
> > It has a selection of paper samples bound in it. I knida
> > wish some of those papers were still available, like the
> > canvas-look ones. Might be an interesting change from the
> > usual 'E' and 'F' surfaces.
> At one time Kodak had something like 25 combinations of
> surfaces, textures, and stock tints available. Of course,
> not all combinations for all papers. Some of this went away
> with the introduction of economical color printing methods
> and others due to simple lack of market. There were some
> unique surfaces available in some papers. One famous one was
> Gevaert Gevaluxe Velours which had a velvet surface
> supposedly made with rabbit fur. It looked like a velvet
> painting. The stock tint was ivory and if used for low key
> portraits looked almost like a color print. I've not seen a
> print on this stuff for 40 years.
Yes they hare one day and gone the other :)
--
Reality is a picture perfected and never looking back.
In article <13ot3kik0uirid1@corp.supernews,com >,
"Richard Knoppow" <dickburk@ix,net com,com > wrote:
> "Ken Hart" <kwhart1@verizon,net > wrote in message
> news:fmk8bk$ctl$1@aioe.org...
> >
> > "Richard Knoppow" <dickburk@ix,net com,com > wrote in
> > message news:13oqv37s0m22i7e@corp.supernews,com ...
> > snip
> >> I have a couple of very old Agfa/Ansco paper sample
> >> books. Agfa and Ansco had some very distinctive surfaces
> >> which I think would be completely unacceptable today.
> >> Kodak also had some extreme surfaces but not quite as
> >> destructive to the image. For the most part these highly
> >> textured papers were intended to reduce the amount of
> >> retouching needed on portraits by simply supressing fine
> >> detail. I've seen portraits from the 1930s where so much
> >> soft focus, texture, retouching, has been done as to make
> >> the image nearly generic, i.e., you can't recognize the
> >> person.
> >>
> > I've got an old Kodak Darkroom Dataguide from the 1970's.
> > It has a selection of paper samples bound in it. I knida
> > wish some of those papers were still available, like the
> > canvas-look ones. Might be an interesting change from the
> > usual 'E' and 'F' surfaces.
> At one time Kodak had something like 25 combinations of
> surfaces, textures, and stock tints available. Of course,
> not all combinations for all papers. Some of this went away
> with the introduction of economical color printing methods
> and others due to simple lack of market. There were some
> unique surfaces available in some papers. One famous one was
> Gevaert Gevaluxe Velours which had a velvet surface
> supposedly made with rabbit fur. It looked like a velvet
> painting. The stock tint was ivory and if used for low key
> portraits looked almost like a color print. I've not seen a
> print on this stuff for 40 years.
Yes they hare one day and gone the other :)
--
Reality is a picture perfected and never looking back.
Re: Did I mess up big time? (Ilford MC filtering)
"Ken Hart" <kwhart1@verizon,net > wrote in message
news:fmk8bk$ctl$1@aioe.org...
> I've got an old Kodak Darkroom Dataguide from the 1970's.
So the thread is dead. Are you so friggin clueless that you don't know how
to make a new subject line?
"Ken Hart" <kwhart1@verizon,net > wrote in message
news:fmk8bk$ctl$1@aioe.org...
> I've got an old Kodak Darkroom Dataguide from the 1970's.
So the thread is dead. Are you so friggin clueless that you don't know how
to make a new subject line?
Re: Did I mess up big time? (Ilford MC filtering)
On 1/16/2008 6:11 PM jjs spake thus:
> "Ken Hart" <kwhart1@verizon,net > wrote in message
> news:fmk8bk$ctl$1@aioe.org...
>
>> I've got an old Kodak Darkroom Dataguide from the 1970's.
>
> So the thread is dead. Are you so friggin clueless that you don't know how
> to make a new subject line?
JJ! Did you forget to take your Geritol this morning? Poor baby.
On 1/16/2008 6:11 PM jjs spake thus:
> "Ken Hart" <kwhart1@verizon,net > wrote in message
> news:fmk8bk$ctl$1@aioe.org...
>
>> I've got an old Kodak Darkroom Dataguide from the 1970's.
>
> So the thread is dead. Are you so friggin clueless that you don't know how
> to make a new subject line?
JJ! Did you forget to take your Geritol this morning? Poor baby.
Re: Did I mess up big time? (Ilford MC filtering)
"David Nebenzahl" <nobody@but.us.chickens> wrote in message
news:478ec295$0$1198$822641b3@news.adtechcomputers,com ...
> On 1/16/2008 6:11 PM jjs spake thus:
>
>> "Ken Hart" <kwhart1@verizon,net > wrote in message
>> news:fmk8bk$ctl$1@aioe.org...
>>
>>> I've got an old Kodak Darkroom Dataguide from the 1970's.
>>
>> So the thread is dead. Are you so friggin clueless that you don't know
>> how to make a new subject line?
>
> JJ! Did you forget to take your Geritol this morning? Poor baby.
Okay for you, ya big baby. Arm wrestling tomorrow at Kennedy's Pub. Eh? :)
Okay, it's not my favorite place, either. A biker bar maybe?
"David Nebenzahl" <nobody@but.us.chickens> wrote in message
news:478ec295$0$1198$822641b3@news.adtechcomputers,com ...
> On 1/16/2008 6:11 PM jjs spake thus:
>
>> "Ken Hart" <kwhart1@verizon,net > wrote in message
>> news:fmk8bk$ctl$1@aioe.org...
>>
>>> I've got an old Kodak Darkroom Dataguide from the 1970's.
>>
>> So the thread is dead. Are you so friggin clueless that you don't know
>> how to make a new subject line?
>
> JJ! Did you forget to take your Geritol this morning? Poor baby.
Okay for you, ya big baby. Arm wrestling tomorrow at Kennedy's Pub. Eh? :)
Okay, it's not my favorite place, either. A biker bar maybe?
