View Full Version : Inexpensive printer for carbon pigment prints?
Will Frostmill
7-Feb-2014, 16:11
I saw Ken Lee's reply in another thread pointing out that carbon inks are inexpensive and have phenomenal longevity. I was wondering if anyone has tried to use them in inexpensive dye-based printers? I need a lot more practice doing B&W printing, but I'm reluctant to shell out lots of money just to make thousands of 8x10 test prints. (I'm likewise reluctant to spend time perfecting a dye based workflow in order to have to redo my best work with a pigment based printer in a few years to combat fading.)
Will
Did someone tell you that you will have to make thousands of 8x10 test prints ?
Will Frostmill
7-Feb-2014, 18:51
No, that was hyperbole. :) I do think that it's going to take quite a few to get where I'd like to be.
Kirk Gittings
7-Feb-2014, 23:36
Really? Many people here just think you push a button and presto an adequate print. I must be a really bad printer because I still do a lot of test prints.
Jim collum
7-Feb-2014, 23:53
Really? Many people here just think you push a button and presto an adequate print. I must be a really bad printer because I still do a lot of test prints.
yup.. just like a camera.. push a button, and you have art :D
i'd be careful of putting pigment inks in a printer designed specifically for dye inks. If it's an inexpensive printer, I don't think a lot of research & testing would have been done by the manufacturer using pigments. I do know some of the earlier dye printers would clog when using pigments.
(oh.. i'd also be careful of calling them 'carbon prints'... especially if you happen to be selling them)
I saw Ken Lee's reply in another thread pointing out that carbon inks are inexpensive and have phenomenal longevity. I was wondering if anyone has tried to use them in inexpensive dye-based printers? I need a lot more practice doing B&W printing, but I'm reluctant to shell out lots of money just to make thousands of 8x10 test prints. (I'm likewise reluctant to spend time perfecting a dye based workflow in order to have to redo my best work with a pigment based printer in a few years to combat fading.)
Will
Will, I'd suggest you take a workshop in Carbon Transfer Photography. A Carbon Transfer photograph is the most archival image you can make. Fading won't be an issue. Since you are on the east coast I would suggest the George Eastman House.
http://www.eastmanhouse.org/events/detail.php?title=photo-workshop-17-2013
Doug Howk
8-Feb-2014, 02:48
You might want to check out a yahoo group that concerns digital B&W prints (https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/info). As to uniqueness of carbon prints, I wonder about applicability of 3D printing. Its already being used to render landscape scenes (http://cameras.reviewed.com/features/artist-engineer-prints-3d-sculptures-from-2d-photographs)
No, that was hyperbole. :) I do think that it's going to take quite a few to get where I'd like to be.
Like you I didn't want to sink a lot of money into it initially, so I started by purchasing an Epson 1400 because Paul Roark had already make profiles for that printer. Once I was convinced, I purchased an Epson 3880 - for which no profiles were available - and made my own profile. It required the purchase of a sensitometer and learning how to use the Quadtone RIP program, for which I got invaluable help from a fellow LF forum member and from Paul Roark (http://www.paulroark.com/BW-Info/) himself. It also required the purchase and configuration of refillable ink cartridges. See Carbon Pigment Prints (http://www.kenleegallery.com/html/carbon/index.php) for details.
If you don't care to "roll your own" you can use a turnkey solution created by Inkjet Mall (see http://shopping.netsuite.com/s.nl/c.362672/.f). Consult their site for a list of supported printers, papers etc.
Attracted to Aardenburg's test results which showed superior light-fastness of the Eboni 6 inkset over even the Inkjet Mall carbon inks, I am glad I invested the extra time required to profile my chosen printer/paper combinations because I prefer the appearance of my prints to the sample Carbon pigment images I purchased from Inkjet Mall.
I still make test prints from time to time, but not because the image looks wrong. I make them because the image looks wrong :cool:
Jim Fitzgerald
8-Feb-2014, 08:30
The nomenclature is confusing at its best. Carbon print? There are a lot of great ink sets out there I'll bet. You have gotten some good advice. If you want to make your life simple make carbon transfer prints. After a few years you will understand everything and be making "one and done prints!" :-) We all practice a lot. Good luck!
Relief is a possible characteristic, and a potentially interesting one, of carbon printing. But that is not what makes a carbon print unique IMO. A carbon print is unique because it is a hand crafted print that requires a fairly time consuming and laborious work flow that involves a fair amount of implicit and tacit knowledge. And each print is slightly different because it is virtually impossible to make exact duplicates.
Sandy
Lenny Eiger
8-Feb-2014, 10:25
At minimum I think it is responsible to call what comes out of an inkjet print with Cone's inks a "carbon pigment" print. As the others have said, a carbon print is something that is used to describe a carbon transfer print, something quite hand-made.
There are a couple of groups on Yahoo that are specific to piezography, where you will often get an answer directly from Jon Cone. He also has his own blog, etc. Plenty of places to get help.
I don't know about the dye based printers. It might work, but the cost to just try something is prohibitive. Better to just get a printer that works with QTR and get going. pay it off over time...
Lenny
bob carnie
8-Feb-2014, 11:39
Simple question - Is the pigment load of a hand made carbon print the same pigment load of a Cone (carbon pigment ) print?
Simple question - Is the pigment load of a hand made carbon print the same pigment load of a Cone (carbon pigment ) print?
There is no set pigment loading with a given carbon print because of the fact that tissue can be made to varying thickness and still give a full tone print. And I don't know how to calculate pigment loading for a carbon print, even with a specific tissue, because some of it is lost in printing, depending on the tonal values of the specific image.
However, the agglomerate size of the pigments used in carbon transfer size is much larger than that of pigments used in ink jet printers. That is why the use of pigments other than lampblack does not significantly decrease image permanence with carbon transfer printing. In other word, assuming pigments of the same light fastness, agglomerate size is a major factor in stability.
Sandy
"Attracted to Aardenburg's test results which showed superior light-fastness of the Eboni 6 inkset over even the Inkjet Mall carbon inks, I am glad I invested the extra time required to profile my chosen printer/paper combinations because I prefer the appearance of my prints to the sample Carbon pigment images I purchased from Inkjet Mall."
Was the specific Aardenburg test to which you refer comparing Eboni 6 to Cone carbon pigment inks made on the same paper?
Sandy
If you just want to make prints then the Piezography solution is the way. I have printed a wedge and measured it with a spectro and found the supplied profiles to be very good, the Hahnmule PhotRag profile is pretty true on Canson Rag Photographique and even some others for which profiles are not supplied free. If you want to make glossy prints then It is the only way, and glossy is very good. If you dont mind the tech stuff then Eboni 6 is a beautiful tone, less warm than Piezo Carbon. One potential problem with Eboni 6 is water, moisture makes the ink run, Piezography inks are encapsulated and dont seem to. So maybe Aardenburg exagerates the archiveability of Eboni 6, light fastness is good but not everything. Dont buy ink carts from ink supplies.
Will Frostmill
8-Feb-2014, 15:44
Dont buy ink carts from ink supplies.
I don't understand this last bit.
Was the specific Aardenburg test to which you refer comparing Eboni 6 to Cone carbon pigment inks made on the same paper?
That's an excellent question. Perhaps I have misunderstood, so I refer you to http://www.paulroark.com/BW-Info/Eboni-6.pdf, particularly section A, "Background - Lightfastness and Tonal Stability". If I have confused matters, I welcome your correction and insight.
On the topic in general, here's a direct quote from Paul Roark's site, which points out that in the Aardenburg tests, carbon pigment inks faded less than the paper on which they were printed, and less than "Silver-gelatin fiber-based wet process prints".
Note that in the second paragraph he acknowledges that other carbon inksets give "outstanding" fade test results, even if they are less neutral in their color.
"MIS "Eboni" matte-paper-only carbon has now been used for a number of years and continues to be the most neutral carbon pigment as well as producing the most lightfast prints tested so far. In the most detailed and sophisticated fade testing, by Aardenburg Imaging & Archives, the best performance yet was by an Eboni print on PremierArt Fine Art Smooth paper, also sold as Epson Scrapbook paper. After 100 mega-lux hours of exposure (equivalent to 51 years of display as used by Wilhelm Research), the average delta-e (a measure of total fade and color change - lower is better) for all test patches was 0.2. The paper base delta-e was 0.5. The 50% test patch delta-e was 0.1. See ID#144 at Aardenburg-Imaging, where fade test data for many papers and inks is available from free (but I urge you to make a contribution to this tremendous photographic resource).
Note that other good quality 100% carbon inksets, though warmer, would also produce outstanding fade test results. Eboni is not unique in that respect."
I don't understand this last bit.
I think he's warning us to avoid purchasing ink carts from inksupply.com (http://www.inksupply.com)
I have purchased Eboni6 ink from them several times. Their customer service has room for improvement, but the ink I have purchased has been fine.
While we're on the subject, I strongly recommend ink carts from inkjetcarts.us (http://www.inkjetcarts.us). Their customer service and products are top-shelf.
So maybe Aardenburg exagerates
You may be right, but I'd be surprised if Aardenburg exaggerates anything.
Because the OP asked about printers, I have taken the liberty of changing the title of this thread to "...carbon pigment prints", to avoid any possible confusion with carbon prints, carbon transfer prints, etc.
Tyler Boley
8-Feb-2014, 19:22
regarding the original question, it would be much easier to provide information if the model or make of this "dye" printer were suggested. I'm not sure what those models might be any more, so many of the photo printers are pigment now anyway. I can say from personal experience that the Epson 1400s, 1800s, and 1900s work fine with Piezography inks, and they might be considered "cheap" since they are office printers rather than the more expensive 3 black photo models. Can you say what printer you are thinking of?
Tyler
Kirk Gittings
8-Feb-2014, 19:51
You may be right, but I'd be surprised if Aardenburg exaggerates anything.
IMHO Aardenburg does the most exhausting test currently available.They may not be perfect but they are the best we have available.
They are testing light fastness, thats fine I have no argument, but I know from experience that eboni 6 smudges easily and epson and piezography dont seem to. Maybe if you live in the desert you dont care but perhaps in a humid environment in the long run you might, maybe most of all on an unsized paper like arches watercolour. Perhaps if your print ends up in a stack in the attic or basement it wont survive. Of course if its in a stack in the basement you probably would not care.
bob carnie
9-Feb-2014, 06:54
I am seeing silver gelatin prints on a daily basis from around 1914 period, I guess a lot of our great grand parents and grandparents took a lot of photos. Most of these prints exhibit great quality.
Does this mean the tests mean that these eboni inks just got a 50 year bump. I believe the printing I am doing today is the same process as what was done in 1914 with the same chemicals and silver gelatin paper.
So exactly how is Paul Roark coming up with these numbers that inkprints will last longer than silver gelatin. I do both and could be considered to be on both sides of the
fence, but I am hesitant to believe such statements, as I can see prints here that are 100 years old and in great condition. Piezo ink prints are no more than 20 years old.
Intaglio prints , an area I am investigating have a heavy pigment load , and I would be interested in sending Aardenburg-Imaging a series of print on different media and process
to see their findings.
There is $$$ at stake when the large Manufacturer sends in their tests, with heavy pressure on results. I would like to see how handmade prints stand up alongside my inkjet prints.
Sandy thank you for your answer on pigment load, I think this is a point most manufactures gloss over , but since there is some carbon in it magnify its value.
That's an excellent question. Perhaps I have misunderstood, so I refer you to http://www.paulroark.com/BW-Info/Eboni-6.pdf, particularly section A, "Background - Lightfastness and Tonal Stability". If I have confused matters, I welcome your correction and insight.
On the topic in general, here's a direct quote from Paul Roark's site, which points out that in the Aardenburg tests, carbon pigment inks faded less than the paper on which they were printed, and less than "Silver-gelatin fiber-based wet process prints".
Note that in the second paragraph he acknowledges that other carbon inksets give "outstanding" fade test results, even if they are less neutral in their color.
"MIS "Eboni" matte-paper-only carbon has now been used for a number of years and continues to be the most neutral carbon pigment as well as producing the most lightfast prints tested so far. In the most detailed and sophisticated fade testing, by Aardenburg Imaging & Archives, the best performance yet was by an Eboni print on PremierArt Fine Art Smooth paper, also sold as Epson Scrapbook paper. After 100 mega-lux hours of exposure (equivalent to 51 years of display as used by Wilhelm Research), the average delta-e (a measure of total fade and color change - lower is better) for all test patches was 0.2. The paper base delta-e was 0.5. The 50% test patch delta-e was 0.1. See ID#144 at Aardenburg-Imaging, where fade test data for many papers and inks is available from free (but I urge you to make a contribution to this tremendous photographic resource).
Note that other good quality 100% carbon inksets, though warmer, would also produce outstanding fade test results. Eboni is not unique in that respect."
I know from experience that eboni 6 smudges easily and epson and piezography dont seem to.
My prints made with Epson Matte Black ink are prone to smudging and scratching: I had to provide replacements to a gallery which mounted my prints for an exhibition because they were damaged during the framing process. I've learned to keep all matte prints in separate protective envelopes until they are framed behind glass.
No process is perfect of course. Matte inks are less prone to clogging the printer nozzles and matte prints don't have bronzing issues (or hot spots or reflections) - but they are easily damaged. Glossy prints can have better dMax (before mounting behind glass) and are less easily scratched, but are more likely to exhibit bronzing and may not be suitable for all subjects.
I believe the printing I am doing today is the same process as what was done in 1914 ... So exactly how is Paul Roark coming up with these numbers
The numbers come from Aardenburg Imaging and Archives (http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com/) via http://www.paulroark.com/BW-Info/Eboni-6.pdf section A, "Background - Lightfastness and Tonal Stability".
I'm no expert in archival preservation issues - so please correct me if I'm wrong - but would be pleasantly surprised to learn that modern commercial silver-gelatin papers are the same as they were 100 years ago, particularly with respect to resin coatings, optical brightening agents, buffers and other ingredients which may affect their image stability when exposed to light over long periods of time.
Note that in the above-referenced article, Paul Roark mentions the following (emphasis mine):
"The best inkjet papers appear to be significantly more stable than the wet process print. At the top end, the quality of the paper is often the key, and inkjet technology allows many excellent options. With the 100% carbon and silver, it’s the paper that is probably the limiting factor in print longevity."
bob carnie
9-Feb-2014, 09:09
Ken
I am no expert on archival preservation issues as well, I would be surprised if any of the inkjet prints currently being made will be around in 100 years. I do know that silver prints are indeed capable of this 100 year standard, I have about 100 prints in house that I am scanning right now that date back to that period. The first silverprint I ever made was given to my father and now I have it back, it has not shown any change, that print has been in open light display for 40 years, I made it in 1974/
I am not trying to start a flame war , but frankly I think some here are touting inkjet longevity due to their current printing methods using inkjet light room workflows, and I find it disturbing that claims are being made that *** the best inkjet papers appear to be significantly more stable than wet process print** which I believe to be a bullshit statement meant to appease those who have made inkjet their only way of making prints, as well those who are giving some of these processes fancy names like permanent carbon pigment colour prints. Carbon Transfer and Pigment prints have been around for a long time and these processes names should not be polluted . my 2cents
Go to most gallery shows these days and the labels describing these prints are tremendously confusing .... I don't buy the manufactures hype , never have, Remember the 200 year Ciba chrome pledge, Remember the Golden Kodak moments... there may be some cibas in dark storage that will make it but not on display.
But then again I do not believe man landed on the Moon so what the hell do I know.
I think pigment load ratio should be considered in the conversation and I have heard from Sandy , and would like to hear from others their thoughts on this aspect of print longevity.
Bob - I respect your good advice to maintain a healthy dose of skepticism. Thank you.
As you rightly point out, once money and marketing pressures enter the equation, people find ways to distort the facts into hype.
I am not trying to start a flame war , but frankly I think some here are touting inkjet longevity due to their current printing methods using inkjet light room workflows, and I find it disturbing that claims are being made that *** the best inkjet papers appear to be significantly more stable than wet process print** which I believe to be a bullshit statement meant to appease those who have made inkjet their only way of making prints, as well those who are giving some of these processes fancy names like permanent carbon pigment colour prints. Carbon Transfer and Pigment prints have been around for a long time and these processes names should not be polluted . my 2cents
+1¢.
I'm glad that as someone who's personal objectivity and livelihood are directly related to a great many printing processes, commercial and otherwise, you said it so succinctly. Although I've made the point a few times of late (e.g., here), after being required to explain and defend my process in open forum (e.g., not here), that the purveyors of digital processes are both subtly and not so subtly pushing aside historical reality in favor of (not as good as, but better than) experimental validation, my experiences cannot possibly have the weight of someone walking the line of both commercial and fine art realms.
Tyler Boley
9-Feb-2014, 12:18
Mark at Aardenburg primarily tests material submitted by artists and printers, and certainly receives no "$$$" from manufacturers along with pressure for results. Financially he has struggled to keep the testing going and his commitment in the face of the ongoing challenges is unassailable. I've spent some time with his materials, have had several exchanges with him, and he visited with me for several hours a few years ago. His default in all conversations was to dismiss anything suggesting what any of us might want to hear, and insist on the factual outcome of the testing, a scientist. He has also redefined this kind of testing and the meaning of the results in a way that finally makes sense, refusing to state how long something will last, as ridiculous a proposition as calling something "archival". Regarding all this trouble some have with "believing" the results, they speak for themselves, so what is, again, the reality being pushed aside by evil purveyors? He can't do it all, if someone wants to commit as much as he has to do highly controlled comparative tests for waterfastness, physical durability, or other issues, my best to you. Mark has a long history in the world of printing, and is more than experienced with pre-digital processes. To suggest that Marc's reported results are skewed by some agenda reflects poorly on the "suggester".
"We all believe what we want to believe"
I wonder if we chased off the OP or can we still help with make some decisions?
Tyler
Kirk Gittings
9-Feb-2014, 12:33
And as Ken so succinctly pointed out:
I'm no expert in archival preservation issues - so please correct me if I'm wrong - but would be pleasantly surprised to learn that modern commercial silver-gelatin papers are the same as they were 100 years ago, particularly with respect to resin coatings, optical brightening agents, buffers and other ingredients which may affect their image stability when exposed to light over long periods of time.
I print both silver and ink. Some images print better one way or the other-some collectors prefer silver because they believe it is more archival. While I will make a silver print to satisfy their belief, in all honesty I cannot defend their belief in silver archivability because we have no idea how archival modern silver papers are. They are largely a very different beast than the papers I was using in the 60's in college and I tell them that.
bob carnie
9-Feb-2014, 14:22
That is interesting, in what ways are modern papers lets say Ilford Warmtone different from lets say Kodak Ectalure. the obvious VC difference comes to mind but can you explain the differences further?
And as Ken so succinctly pointed out:
I print both silver and ink. Some images print better one way or the other-some collectors prefer silver because they believe it is more archival. While I will make a silver print to satisfy their belief, in all honesty I cannot defend their belief in silver archivability because we have no idea how archival modern silver papers are. They are largely a very different beast than the papers I was using in the 60's in college and I tell them that.
bob carnie
9-Feb-2014, 14:26
I am quite interested in supplying Mark some prints for testing, I have the luxury of presenting same image on many medias. I think its time for me to pony up to Aardenburg.
My doubts are mainly aimed at Manufactures claims (Epson- Cone-HP } who want you to purchase their inks and those who use these manufactures claims on permanance as their source.
Mark at Aardenburg primarily tests material submitted by artists and printers, and certainly receives no "$$$" from manufacturers along with pressure for results. Financially he has struggled to keep the testing going and his commitment in the face of the ongoing challenges is unassailable. I've spent some time with his materials, have had several exchanges with him, and he visited with me for several hours a few years ago. His default in all conversations was to dismiss anything suggesting what any of us might want to hear, and insist on the factual outcome of the testing, a scientist. He has also redefined this kind of testing and the meaning of the results in a way that finally makes sense, refusing to state how long something will last, as ridiculous a proposition as calling something "archival". Regarding all this trouble some have with "believing" the results, they speak for themselves, so what is, again, the reality being pushed aside by evil purveyors? He can't do it all, if someone wants to commit as much as he has to do highly controlled comparative tests for waterfastness, physical durability, or other issues, my best to you. Mark has a long history in the world of printing, and is more than experienced with pre-digital processes. To suggest that Marc's reported results are skewed by some agenda reflects poorly on the "suggester".
"We all believe what we want to believe"
I wonder if we chased off the OP or can we still help with make some decisions?
Tyler
Kirk Gittings
9-Feb-2014, 14:34
But Bob if you have looked at Aardenberg (spend some time and do it if you haven't already) you must know that he has already shown that most manufacturers claims and Wilhelm's testing ARE greatly exaggerated. One simple point of his testing shows this just in how its structured-that Wilhelm's standard for acceptable fading would be totally unacceptable to most artists-therefore.........
Kirk Gittings
9-Feb-2014, 14:38
That is interesting, in what ways are modern papers lets say Ilford Warmtone different from lets say Kodak Ectalure. the obvious VC difference comes to mind but can you explain the differences further?
As I thought I stated. Did my papers in the 60's have optical brighteners, buffers, similar coatings, similar paper base etc. I know they didn't have optical brighteners and buffers. What else?
That is interesting, in what ways are modern papers lets say Ilford Warmtone different from lets say Kodak Ectalure. the obvious VC difference comes to mind but can you explain the differences further?
Heavy metals and whiteners would be two big differences. It does seem that papers with heavy metals seem to store longer (less fog) than modern papers. How this affects the post-processing life-span, I do not know.
Whiteners these days do not wash out as fast during processing, but probably have no archival effects (just a guess).
Paper base and top-layer coating aside, there's also the emulsion to consider: the middle of the sandwich so to speak.
I remember complaints back in the early 1970's about manufacturers cutting back on the silver content of papers, that the depth and subtlety of the older lines were going away and being replaced by... junk. That was before resin-coated papers even appeared. Didn't Paul Strand lament that every time he found a paper he liked, they discontinued it ?
I also remember an article in a photo magazine (in the 70's or early 80's) -- someone graphed the silver content of the paper to the max black it achieved. There was no cause/effect between the two.
bob carnie
9-Feb-2014, 14:53
And these things shorten life span? If so could you elaborate?
I would like to compile the list and then approach Ilford/Harman directly and ask them to explain this new to me change in life expectancy, on another site I frequent I believe this topic has come up and the manufacturer of the paper has stated that the new paper can exhibit the same lifespan results as the old paper.
As I thought I stated. Did my papers in the 60's have optical brighteners, buffers, similar coatings, similar paper base etc. I know they didn't have optical brighteners and buffers. What else?
Kirk Gittings
9-Feb-2014, 14:55
Vaughn but you know what they mean right? Yes you could still get an ok black. I'm not sure how old you are or whether you were trying to do fine b&w printing back then BUT there was definitely a drop in tonal quality back then. We all thought it was silver content and maybe we were wrong but a drop in quality was patently obvious to me and everyone photographer I knew in NM. Unfortunately I was not one who could afford to stockpile a ton of paper.
bob carnie
9-Feb-2014, 14:55
I have Wilhelms book on this topic, I have not investigated Aardenber, in fact I will send prints.
But Bob if you have looked at Aardenberg (spend some time and do it if you haven't already) you must know that he has already shown that most manufacturers claims and Wilhelm's testing ARE greatly exaggerated. One simple point of his testing shows this just in how its structured-that Wilhelm's standard for acceptable fading would be totally unacceptable to most artists-therefore.........
bob carnie
9-Feb-2014, 14:59
Ok thanks , more points to consider and put together a list to provide the manufacturer.
I remember Cycora a great paper discontinued in the 60's , I have seen thousands of prints on this paper, Ilford Warmtone is right up there with it.
Was Paul Strand lamenting the archival aspects or just the tonality structure? I never met the guy so I am not sure how he fits into this discussion.
UOTE=Ken Lee;1108251]Paper base and top-layer coating aside, there's also the emulsion to consider: the middle of the sandwich so to speak.
I remember complaints back in the early 1970's about manufacturers cutting back on the silver content of papers, that the depth and subtlety of the older lines were going away and being replaced by... junk. That was before resin-coated papers even appeared. Didn't Paul Strand lament that every time he found a paper he liked, they discontinued it ?[/QUOTE]
Whiteners these days do not wash out as fast duirng processing, but probably have no archival effects (just a guess).
OBAs cause metamerism in the short-term, and color shifts in the long-term as they fade, changing the color of the print.
Kirk Gittings
9-Feb-2014, 15:01
And these things shorten life span? If so could you elaborate?
I would like to compile the list and then approach Ilford/Harman directly and ask them to explain this new to me change in life expectancy, on another site I frequent I believe this topic has come up and the manufacturer of the paper has stated that the new paper can exhibit the same lifespan results as the old paper.
I didn't say they did. I'm saying silver papers have changed and one can't assume that they will age the same as papers from 50 years ago without testing or waiting another 50 years. Maybe they are? And maybe they aren't-why would we assume they are?
Cow's milk is not the same as it was 50 years ago either and IMHO I would not assume that off the shelf products like that are as just as safe today.
bob carnie
9-Feb-2014, 15:08
Ilford Ilformar, Kodak Ectalure, Kodak Elite, then Brilliant, these were the papers of my time, All gone and now replaced with Ilford Warmtone, Ilford Matt, Ilford Art 300.
I am really happy with the current papers and I have old prints to compare with...... the only thing that would explain the logic of the paper quality dropping in the 70's and 80's is maybe I am a much better printer than I was then .
By the mid 80's I had over 20 thousand prints under my belt and thought I was pretty good back then. I have always made my living by printing for others and the photographers back then did not have lower expectations than now , so this leads me to believe that though the paper is different , the quality of offerings has always been good- not that I am a better printer.
I cannot speak about the paper lines of the 40's 50's and 60's. But for me the papers of my working life have been pretty good.
Kirk Gittings
9-Feb-2014, 15:23
Were you unaware of all that discussion back then? It was still going on when I was in graduate school in Canada in the late 70's.
Tyler Boley
9-Feb-2014, 15:24
OBAs cause metamerism in the short-term, and color shifts in the long-term as they fade, changing the color of the print.
yes, and there are some Ilford Silver Halide prints in progress tests on the site right now. How quickly the OBAs change and in exactly what manor will be easy to track. I can't log in from home to see myself right now.
Vaughn but you know what they mean right? Yes you could still get an ok black. I'm not sure how old you are or whether you were trying to do fine b&w printing back then BUT there was definitely a drop in tonal quality back then. We all thought it was silver content and maybe we were wrong but a drop in quality was patently obvious to me and everyone photographer I knew in NM. Unfortunately I was not one who could afford to stockpile a ton of paper.
As I remember it, the test was only for how much light was reflected off of the deepest black the paper was capable of. In other words, there was not a one-to-one relationship between the amount of silver in the emulsion (grams of silver per unit of emulsion) and the reflective quantity of a paper's black. How that black looked compared to the rest of the tones, etc was not part of the test. Other factors such as the thickness of the emulsion and such might play a big factor in the subjective quality of a paper's black.
bob carnie
10-Feb-2014, 05:50
Sorry I was too busy making a living printing during that period, the only discussions that I was witnessing was the Fred Pikcer notes.
Were you unaware of all that discussion back then? It was still going on when I was in graduate school in Canada in the late 70's.
Kirk Gittings
10-Feb-2014, 08:47
If I remember right. That was a long time ago. Picker in his news letters was very active in those discussions and Brilliant paper was a response to it. I do remember after trying Brilliant that it was the best paper I had used in a decade and it quickly became my paper of choice, different from my favorite papers from a decade earlier but a superb paper in its own right.
bob carnie
10-Feb-2014, 08:56
I liked brilliant for its cold tone look , most of my work was done on Portriga, or Ectalure, before that Ilfomar which were all more Warmtone.
Since I switched to split filter printing I would not want to print on graded unless of course I make the digital negatives with precision curves for the paper grade. wbt is in our plans.
I have Fred Pickers notes sitting right beside me on a shelf, someday I want to re - read them.
For my money I think the Ilford Warmtone is as good as any of them, I will look back into this thread and compile a list of things that changed with silver gelatin paper . I will be meeting with some of the big cheezes of Harmon this year, and would be interested in their take on the differences between silver gelatin paper of 1920 and that of silver gelatin paper of 2014.
If I remember right. That was a long time ago. Picker in his news letters was very active in those discussions and Brilliant paper was a response to it. I do remember after trying Brilliant that it was the best paper I had used in a decade and it quickly became my paper of choice, different from my favorite papers from a decade earlier but a superb paper in its own right.
Kirk Gittings
10-Feb-2014, 09:13
I never really got into multi-grade papers until about the mid 90's. I agree there are many superb papers at the moment and in general all the Ilford products are first rate now. Although I had trouble with a very unpleasant greenish cast to the regular IM a few years ago with some developers.
bob carnie
10-Feb-2014, 09:28
Slightly off topic but interesting tit bit.. I have been scanning a series of negatives of a photographer who worked between 1945 - 1985
At this point I have high rez scanned about 200 negatives.. the very early negatives 1945-55 seem to have a different contrast rendering.. I am constantly raising the shadow section of the curve to get information, the highlights render quite the same.
All the more current negatives 1960 and onwards do not require a boost in the shadows to get detail. I am a bit perplexed at what could be the difference.
At the end of the day I will be able to place tone where I want but this difference is noteworthy.
sanking
10-Feb-2014, 16:42
Bob,
Many of the older type films had curves with a very long toe. Perhaps the photographer was using one of these films, then switched to one with a more linear toe?
For fun, you might try exposing the same scene with Tri-X 320 and TMY and comparing the scans. Tri-X is a film known for its very long toe, TMY for a straight line curve with short toe and shoulder.
Sandy
Will Frostmill
10-Feb-2014, 18:37
This has turned out to be a really neat thread as it has meandered. I wanted to thank you guys for answering my questions. Now I'll go off and ponder the true meaning of the term "archival" for a while.
Ron McElroy
11-Feb-2014, 13:20
......I remember Cycora a great paper discontinued in the 60's.....
I bought all of the out of date paper from a camera store in the 70s and Cycora was by far the best of the bunch.
bob carnie
11-Feb-2014, 13:35
My first boss, used this paper exclusively and it really was nice.. but then he was always shooting 4x5 hand held, and 8x10 studio so the quality was outstanding
He is the person who taught me to dodge and burn properly and as well the use of the red dye to bring out the shadows.
I bought all of the out of date paper from a camera store in the 70s and Cycora was by far the best of the bunch.
sanking
11-Feb-2014, 14:52
[QUOTE=Ken Lee;1108150]The numbers come from Aardenburg Imaging and Archives (http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com/) via http://www.paulroark.com/BW-Info/Eboni-6.pdf section A, "Background - Lightfastness and Tonal Stability".
Hi Ken,
Thanks for the link. What I am not able to find is any specific test from www.aardenburg-imaging.com that directly compares lightfastness and tonal stability of the Eboni 6 inkset with a Cone K7 carbon inkset, using the same final substrate.
I mention this because there appears to be some presumption that the Eboni 6 inkset is the ultimate in lightfastness and stability, when in fact there does not appear to be any specific test result that supports the presumption by comparison with other 100% carbon black inksets.
Sandy
Ken Lee
11-Feb-2014, 15:35
What I am not able to find is any specific test from www.aardenburg-imaging.com that directly compares lightfastness and tonal stability of the Eboni 6 inkset with a Cone K7 carbon inkset, using the same final substrate.
http://www.kenleegallery.com/images/forum/carbontest.png
I presumed - perhaps wrongly - that both the Eboni and Cone tests were made on the same paper: "HPR" or Hahnemule Photo Rag.
Even so, I agree that without a side-by-test, it is wrong to presume that one pigment set is more stable than another. And even if it is, that's only on one paper - and only one person's test results for that matter.
In the same vein, even if we read that such-and-such is the most archival paper/pigment combination ever tested by Aardenburg, we shouldn't jump to the conclusion that it's the most archival combination in existence.
sanking
11-Feb-2014, 16:27
"I presumed - perhaps wrongly - that both the Eboni and Cone tests were made on the same paper: "HPR" or Hahnemule Photo Rag."
You are probably right. I seem to have been confused by the method of reporting results.
In any event I agree with your conclusions.
Sandy
mdarnton
11-Feb-2014, 17:29
That is interesting, in what ways are modern papers lets say Ilford Warmtone different from lets say Kodak Ektalure. the obvious VC difference comes to mind but can you explain the differences further?
I should probably stay out of this, because I haven't printed silver in about 15 years, but in the 60s I was working in a portrait/wedding studio, printing, and we did everything on Ektalure G or Medalist F. I didn't much care for Ektalure, myself for a bunch of reasons that might have been me as much as anything else--I didn't like the color or texture, and I could never get a really velvety black with it. But when I printed for myself, I used Agfa Brovira 118, and Portriga Rapid. Portriga Rapid was incredible, and I discovered some old prints made with it in my closet recently. They have the shadow separation and velvety gradations of 4x5. . . but I was shooting 35mm Tri-X.
When I went to college, I stopped photography for about three years, and when I came back went immediately to Polycontrast, and then RC when it came out. The prints were always adequate, in a journalistic sort of way (and I was interested in journalism at that point) without the lovely Portriga shadows that wouldn't have printed in halftone, anyway. People talk bad about early RC, but all of my RC from that time, boxes and boxes of prints, is still completely unchanged from the way it was then (including the occasionally-silvered shadows that I now realize was from my habit of using my fixer too long).
Recently I've been looking into carbon printing (the real kind) and the reason is that the things I see people putting up on the web (scans, then--I haven't seen a real print in person as far as I know) have a lot of the personality of that Portriga Rapid that I now appreciate more than I did in 1965. :-)
Ken Lee
11-Feb-2014, 18:40
I remember those 1960's papers. Portriga Rapid had nice brown tones and a deep black, especially after a bit of Selenium toning.
The Cone carbon pigment samples I purchased look similar, especially on semi-gloss paper. The Eboni 6 pigments are only suitable for matte paper, so they give a similar look, but matte. Once framed under glass, the differences between matte and glossy are lessened.
With carbon pigment printing via inkjet printers, choice of paper influences final color. When making carbon transfer prints, you devise our own pigment mix, so depending on the pigments used the result can be chocolate (like Portriga) if you like, or whatever you want.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.