How to finish, wash and dry fibre paper prints for exhibition and sale

[Kornscharfsteller]

I need to make some 40x50cm prints on (preferably glossy) fibre paper from 4x5 b&w negatives for a small exhibition.
Some of these prints should also be sold there in small editions (5 prints per artwork).
Due to budget reasons, I will need to use some cheaper paper, probably some Foma fixed or variable gradation fibre paper.

So far I have never made fibre prints this big only RC prints of this and larger sizes.
Also, so far my prints rarely had to be gallery/archival quality that could also be sold.

So I feel I really have some catching up to do and learn how to make gallery/archival quality fibre prints.
Especially all the steps that happen after fixing probably need improvement.

So here are my questions:

1. Does it matter whether I use variable or fixed gradation paper when it comes to archival quality?
2. How do all the steps after fixing look like? Should I tone the paper? If so, should I use selenium tone or something else? I heared selenium toner is somewhat dangerous, how is it properly handled? How long and strong should I tone? How often an long should I wash? Should I apply any other chemicals after fixing, e.g. anti-static, anti-fungus wetting agent and/or hypo clear? May I use a squeegee for fibre paper this size?
3. How do I dry the prints?
4. How do I flatten the prints? I don‘t have a press for this size. Do you have some build instructions how I could build a cheap alternative?

You see a lot of question, maybe there are some general learning resources you could point me that help get from start to finish with halfway decent results?

Thank you very much! ��

[koraks]

1: No
2: wash, wash and wash some more. Hypo clear after fixing and initial rinse light be a good idea to make the wash more effective. Washing is a diffusion process, so change water frequently and wash at minimum 20C. Toning is not a necessity, but personally I like how fomabrom responds to selenium. However, the result when dry is only a subtle difference between toned and not toned. Selenium toner isn't too dangerous, don't drink it, ventilate the place somewhat decently and wear gloves or use tongs. No spacesuit necessary.
3: I like to tape them onto a glass surface with gummed paper tape, the kind used by watercolor artists. The prints fry perfectly flat that way, but you'll lose the outer half inch/centimeter because that's where the tape will be. You van matte over that edge though, so it doesn't have to be a problem.
4: see above. I don't think it's a very realistic idea to expect to build a 40x50cm flattening press...well, maybe. A stiff board (e.g. ply, or OSB) and a heavy weight (let's say 100kg or more) and some time will get the job done. But I'd try the tape method if it's small editions anyway. It really flattens out the paper beautifully.
YMMV, see what the others will come up with. There's many ways to skin a cat.

Congrats on the show and anticipated sales, good job!!

[ic-racer]

So I feel I really have some catching up to do and learn how to make gallery/archival quality fibre prints.

I have been trying to do the same for over 30 years and still trying. It is not easy.

[Doremus Scudder]

1. Does it matter whether I use variable or fixed gradation paper when it comes to archival quality?

I've used both the Fomabrom 111 fixed and variable contrast papers. They are both very good. However, there's no real advantage to using the fixed grade papers. The Foma VC papers are very good and offer a finished product very much like the graded papers. Using VC papers has the advantage of not having to stock so many boxes of different grade papers. Fomabrom 111 might be cheaper, but I find it every bit as "premium" as other papers. The only thing I don't like about it is the slight yellowish tint of the emulsion; whites are brighter on Ilford papers. Otherwise, they are fine.


2. How do all the steps after fixing look like? Should I tone the paper? If so, should I use selenium tone or something else? I heared selenium toner is somewhat dangerous, how is it properly handled? How long and strong should I tone? How often an long should I wash? Should I apply any other chemicals after fixing, e.g. anti-static, anti-fungus wetting agent and/or hypo clear? May I use a squeegee for fibre paper this size?

For archival fixing of fiber-base papers, you have two choices. First is the Ilford sequence for optimum permanence that relies on short times in a stronger fixer, a long bath in the wash aid and shorter wash times. You can read about it here: https://www.ilfordphoto.com/ilford-optimum-permanance-wash-sequence-fb-papers/ . Be aware that if you use a one-bath fixing regime (and the Ilford sequence really is best this way), you will only get a capacity of 10 20.3 x 25.4cm (8 x 10-inch) prints per liter. See page 4 of the Ilford tech sheet on their Rapid Fixer here: https://www.ilfordphoto.com/amfile/file/download/file/1833/product/711/ . The entire document is well-worth reading carefully.

Personally, I prefer to use the weaker 1+9 dilution of Rapid Fixer with a two-bath fixing regime, longer fixing times and a longer wash. It is both more economical and less hectic. The fixer capacity effectively doubled this way: 40 20.3 x 25.4cm (8 x 10-inch) prints per liter through the first fixing bath before you need to discard it and replace it with bath 2. If you go through three or four cycles of replacing bath 1 with bath 2, two-bath fixing is even more economical.
prints.

My workflow is as follows: after the stop bath, give 1.5 minutes in fixing bath 1 (Ilford Rapid Fixer 1+9). Drain the print and give it another 1.5 minutes in fixing bath 2. If you want to selenium tone, you can transfer the print directly from bath 2 to the toner. Don't bother to tone just for permanence; the slight toning usually desired only partially protects the print. Better is to process well and not overuse your fixer. Anyway, tone in selenium toner till you get the tone you want (adjust toner dilution to give you a comfortable toning time). After the desired tone change has been reached, transfer the prints to a running water bath (I use a tray with a couple of small holes drilled in the bottom corner and a small hose feeding it with a low flow of water). Rinse for at least two minutes and transfer the print to the wash aid (Hypo Clearing Agent or Ilford Wash Aid, etc.). Treat in wash aid for 5-10 minutes with agitation. You can collect several prints in the water rinse tray and batch-treat them in the wash aid to save time. After the wash aid, transfer the prints to your print washer (I have a 12-slot print washer) and wash with running water for 30-60 minutes. I always use the longer time.

Selenium toner can absorb through the skin, so wear gloves or use tongs (I usually use bare hands and tongs, never touching the toner with my hands). If you get toner on your skin, rinse right away. Clean up well after toning to avoid stains, etc. I filter, reuse and replenish my selenium toner. Use it till the toning times get too long for comfort then add a bit of concentrate to bring it back up to strength. Filter and store till the next toning session. Filter before toning too.

Toning should be done visually, i.e., tone until you get the tone change you like. Experiment with a print or two to find what you like. I prefer just a slight tone change. Toner dilution controls the toning time. I find a toning time of 3-4 minutes comfortable; some like longer times. It's up to you.

I often divide my workflow into two steps, printing and toning. I'll print, give fixing bath one and then wash and dry the prints (same wash time). When I'm ready to tone, soak the prints for five minutes then start with fixing bath 2 and the rest of the steps as described above. This saves space and you can edit out prints you don't like before toning.


3. How do I dry the prints?

After washing, I squeegee my prints with a new, clean auto windshield wiper (reserved only for fully-washed prints). Then the prints are dried on screens, face-up. Some dry them face-down, but I've got screen marks from drying them face-down before. If you don't have screens, you can get simple do-it-yourself screen kits at your local hardware store and make some. Another alternative is to hang the prints, but they curl even worse then. I've never tried the "taping-to-glass" method, but that might be an option as well.


4. How do I flatten the prints? I don‘t have a press for this size. Do you have some build instructions how I could build a cheap alternative?

All my prints are made with a white border around the image. I then dry-mount the prints to museum-quality cotton-rag board. This keeps them flat for display and is the only way I really find acceptable. Dry-mounting tissue is tacked to the back of the print and then the print is trimmed with a rotary paper trimmer, which removes the border and cuts the tissue and print to the same size. I really recommend dry-mounting. If you don't have a press, maybe you can find a graphic arts studio, school darkroom or the like in your area that will either let you use their facilities or dry-mount the prints for you.

If you decide to mount your prints another way, I'm sure there will be some other suggestions coming in subsequent posts.


You see a lot of question, maybe there are some general learning resources you could point me that help get from start to finish with halfway decent results?

Get Ansel Adam's "The Print" (it's available as a pdf online somewhere for cheap) and read it cover-to-cover. There is also a lot of info on the LF homepage. Read that too. Do your homework first and save yourself a lot of time and headaches later!!


Thank you very much! ��

Hope this helps,

Doremus

[Willie]

You might check out Renaissance Wax. Some use it and others don't. Try some on a print and compare to the same print without it. Only way to know if it is for you is to try some.

[Kornscharfsteller]

Wow, thank you all! I am always astonished how deep the answers in this forum are. Thank you again, you are helping a lot!

One more question on the toning:

You have mentioned that it would be feasible to do the toning of the finished prints later, after all prints have been washed at the end of the day or maybe on the next day when all prints have already dried.

Doing the toning later would have the great advantage for me that the whole printing process could become less stressful (one bath, one tray less) and that I would not have an open tray with selenium toner in my darkroom for the whole day, my darkroom is not very well ventilated when it is in dark-mode™. Toning could be done in well ventilated daylight.

If this is a feasible approach, can I leave the prints in the water for multiple hours until I’m done printing for the day or should I start drying the finished prints and then at the end of the day or the next day, re-soak the prints in water and then do the toning?

[koraks]

I don't recommend keeping fomabrom specifically in the water for hours. It softens the gelatin severely. Better take them out and resoak when you start toning. Other papers generally withstand long wet times better, but Foma apparently uses a rather soft top coat.

[neil poulsen]

I like the idea of pivoting off of both what Doremus has recommended, and what Ansel Adams suggested in his books. Both involve fixing prints twice. Versus a 1+9, which results in a 10% solution of Rapid Fixer, I use a stock solution of Rapid Fixer mixed 1+1 with water, which results in a 12.5% solution of Rapid Fixer. Fix for 1.5 minutes in each bath, as Doremus has put forward.

In using two-bath fixing, Ansel Adams suggested putting all prints through the first bath, washing them for some minimal time (15 or 30 minutes?), and then putting them on the drying racks.

After drying, evaluate the prints for keepers, then fix only the keepers a second time. After the second fixing bath, immerse the keepers in hypo-clearing agent for the recommended time, and wash for 60 minutes. In this way, one saves time by fully fixing only the keepers, which comprise a small percentage of the total prints processed. Of course, use different (clean) drying racks for the keepers.

I do not like selenium toning prints, so I don't do it. I don't like what selenium toning does to the tone.

I know that the above washing routine will give one a margin of safety. Years ago, I used to give prints a 3 minute fix in stock Rapid Fixer mixed 1+1 with water, and then washed them without using hypo-clear for 45-60 minutes. After decades, prints that I fixed and washed in that manner still look fine.

[John Layton]

Mostly as above...but during the drying process you need to avoid re-contaminating your work - so definitely do not press your prints under OSB or a stiff board as someone has suggested. Or, if you do use such a board, make sure to create a barrier between this and the prints with a piece of plastic or "sacrificial" archival paper, mat board, or foam core.

To dry reasonably flat...you might try the "two clothesline" method: hang the prints from a tightly stretched cord, then stretch a cord underneath them and use additional clips from the bottom so that the prints are held under slight tension as they dry. If those clips are made of wood, just make sure that the clipped areas of the margins are removed prior to mounting.

To help ensure that the prints stay flat after they are completely dry...you can indeed press them - but under something archival like a piece of museum mat board or foam core...and cover this over with a piece of plastic wrap so you can place a few books on top without contaminating the flattening board.

[koraks]

so definitely do not press your prints under OSB or a stiff board as someone has suggested. Or, if you do use such a board, make sure to create a barrier between this and the prints with a piece of plastic or "sacrificial" archival paper, mat board, or foam core.
If outgassing from the glues in e.g. OSB are a worry (I don't think they need be, but YMMV), the suggestion of a barrier is a good one. I'd recommend something like BO-PET for this.

[Ulophot]

Just two additions here and one to come.

Toning some VC papers can yield a subtle split toned effect, because the two emulsions respond to the toner at different rates. I have not used the Fomabrom; the Fomatone Classic Warmtone seems to exhibit virtually no split toning effect but tones extremely fast. (I use a dilution of 1:80 to slow it down to allow pulling the print between 2-3 minutes, usually, for the kind of tone I prefer.) As someone above said, use practice prints first; they can be small ones or graduated test strips.

Regarding the drying screens, I have followed the advice from others, of using a 10% chlorine bleach solution (washing machine stuff) to periodically wipe down my screens and then, of course, thoroughly rinse them. I am careful with my washing, because I want my prints to last, but I don't have a vertical print washer, and although I occasionally run a residual hypo test on a print or two and get fine results, washing my four screens twice a year takes less than a half hour.

To come: I'll photograph my print flattener.

[Doremus Scudder]

Wow, thank you all! I am always astonished how deep the answers in this forum are. Thank you again, you are helping a lot!

One more question on the toning:

You have mentioned that it would be feasible to do the toning of the finished prints later, after all prints have been washed at the end of the day or maybe on the next day when all prints have already dried.

Doing the toning later would have the great advantage for me that the whole printing process could become less stressful (one bath, one tray less) and that I would not have an open tray with selenium toner in my darkroom for the whole day, my darkroom is not very well ventilated when it is in dark-mode™. Toning could be done in well ventilated daylight.

If this is a feasible approach, can I leave the prints in the water for multiple hours until I’m done printing for the day or should I start drying the finished prints and then at the end of the day or the next day, re-soak the prints in water and then do the toning?

Keeping prints wet for hours is not a good idea. The emulsion softens, the edges frill and the paper base can actually swell too much and degrade. It would be better to give your prints fix 1, a thorough wash and then dry them on screens. If you wash thoroughly, you don't need an extra set of screens (one for "contaminated" prints, one for the clean ones), since the prints will be well-washed.

As Neil points out, once you dry your prints from the printing session (in "dark mode"), then you can discard the prints that don't make the cut and have fewer to tone during the toning session. And, yes, you can do the entire toning session in well-ventilated daylight.

Do note that if you reuse and replenish your toner, the unpleasant ammonia odor all but disappears. The toner is still just as active, thought.

Again, during the printing session you develop, stop and give the prints the first fix, a good wash and then dry them. For the toning session, you soak the prints, give them fix 2, toner, a rinse of a few minutes and then treat them in wash aid before washing them thoroughly again. Note that the several minute rinse before the wash aid is important for a good wash. How long to treat the prints in wash aid is not so clear. Kodak recommends rather short times for its Hypo Clearing Agent, but Ilford likes 10 minutes. Since there can be no disadvantage to treating them longer, I go with the longer time.

Best,

Doremus

[Bernice Loui]

The issue of print "dry down" with fiber based print paper is and can be serious. As the fiber based paper dries, what appears as good tonal range and good whites can dry down into gloomy ick. Suggest setting up a print inspection area just after the fixer rinse tray with a Halogen or similar light source of intensity close to the lighting intensity of how the print would be displayed. Initially squeegee wet print, then apply a hair dryer or similar to the print to get the print dry enough to make printing adjustments as needed. The wet print never looks like the dry print.

Print wash times can be reduced by using a wash aid like Heico "Perma Wash". It appears to work good based on prints made over three decades ago that show nil degradation.

Do NOT soak a print for hour after hour as this will damage the base print paper/emulsion.

Once an acceptable print is done, wash water squeegeed off, place the wet print on a drying screen emulsion up. Make absolute sure these drying screens are clean as they are a easy source of print contamination.. on the back side of the print where slow long term degradation can easily occur but not visiable.

If the print is to be toned (selenium or etc), best to allowed the dried print to be carefully evaluated then re-soaked for the toning process, followed by another wash-dry cycle.

IMO, best way to finish a fiber based paper print is dry mounting the print to a 4 ply acid free mat board. That is a skill and process all it's own. Then the print is ready for an outer mat, signature or print series numbering then framing.


Bernice

[paulbarden]

I use watercolor tape to tape my best few prints to glass for drying. Its easy, it works amazingly well, and as long as the glass is clean, its a benign process.

[Ulophot]

My flattening press is made of two pieces of Formica-covered flat cabinet wood that I found one day in excellent shape. It's just over 15"x20". It was one piece, which my neighbor sawed in two for me and then screwed together. I bought a simple handle at the hardware store. This is one, flat heavy weight!

It sits next to my dry-mounting press, atop a sheet of smooth-side-up Masonite. You can also see that I have a sheet of 2-ply archival card with a little tab for lifting. When I print comes out of the dry-mount press, it goes under here for a few minutes. I also use the flattener for print flattening, leaving dry prints underneath it for several days.

As with dry-mounting, it is essential that all surfaces be pristinely free of any piece of grit that could make an indent in the print surface. I use a microfiber cloth to clean my top surfaces and, periodically, underneath the flattener. I also use a 4-inch anti-static brush on print, board, and mounting tissue before sandwiching for dry-mounting.

I meant to add a caution in my previous post: Someone mentioned using a school darkroom’s dry-mount press as a possibility. The potential red flag here is contamination or dry-mount adhesive from the pad and or heated platen. I would take with me oversized boards to sandwich your dry-mounting assembly in.


229310
229311

[Pieter]

My flattening press is made of two pieces of Formica-covered flat cabinet wood that I found one day in excellent shape. It's just over 15"x20". It was one piece, which my neighbor sawed in two for me and then screwed together. I bought a simple handle at the hardware store. This is one, flat heavy weight!

It sits next to my dry-mounting press, atop a sheet of smooth-side-up Masonite. You can also see that I have a sheet of 2-ply archival card with a little tab for lifting. When I print comes out of the dry-mount press, it goes under here for a few minutes. I also use the flattener for print flattening, leaving dry prints underneath it for several days.

As with dry-mounting, it is essential that all surfaces be pristinely free of any piece of grit that could make an indent in the print surface. I use a microfiber cloth to clean my top surfaces and, periodically, underneath the flattener. I also use a 4-inch anti-static brush on print, board, and mounting tissue before sandwiching for dry-mounting.

I meant to add a caution in my previous post: Someone mentioned using a school darkroom’s dry-mount press as a possibility. The potential red flag here is contamination or dry-mount adhesive from the pad and or heated platen. I would take with me oversized boards to sandwich your dry-mounting assembly in.


229310
229311
You might find a used book press that would do the job.

[Michael R]

You might find a used book press that would do the job.

Also Ulophot can flatten a FB print in the dry mount press in a minute. :)

[Ulophot]

Yes, and he sometimes does that, too.

[jnantz]

I need to make some 40x50cm prints on (preferably glossy) fibre paper from 4x5 b&w negatives for a small exhibition.
Some of these prints should also be sold there in small editions (5 prints per artwork).
Due to budget reasons, I will need to use some cheaper paper, probably some Foma fixed or variable gradation fibre paper.

So far I have never made fibre prints this big only RC prints of this and larger sizes.
Also, so far my prints rarely had to be gallery/archival quality that could also be sold.

So I feel I really have some catching up to do and learn how to make gallery/archival quality fibre prints.
Especially all the steps that happen after fixing probably need improvement.

So here are my questions:

1. Does it matter whether I use variable or fixed gradation paper when it comes to archival quality?
2. How do all the steps after fixing look like? Should I tone the paper? If so, should I use selenium tone or something else? I heared selenium toner is somewhat dangerous, how is it properly handled? How long and strong should I tone? How often an long should I wash? Should I apply any other chemicals after fixing, e.g. anti-static, anti-fungus wetting agent and/or hypo clear? May I use a squeegee for fibre paper this size?
3. How do I dry the prints?
4. How do I flatten the prints? I don‘t have a press for this size. Do you have some build instructions how I could build a cheap alternative?

You see a lot of question, maybe there are some general learning resources you could point me that help get from start to finish with halfway decent results?

Thank you very much! ��

the main thing I would add / stress is do your printing in small batches and have a "test print" that is your "testing for residual fixer" guinea pig". use a split fixer routine (1/2 your fixing in 1 bath and 1/2 in a 2nd bath ) to insure your prints are actually fixed (I'd also do the "clip test" to make sure you aren't fixing your prints in spent fixer whether you split the fixing or not ) and after you fix have your prints in running water that you exchange, not just a tray with water in it.. that will lead to you continuing to fix your prints in dilute fixer until you do your final wash routine. get fixer remover or heico perm-wash and follow their instructions on washing your prints. shuffle and dump your prints to assure front and back of the prints are getting washed, and don't introduce anything into the wash or you will have to start over again. do the residual fixer test on the test print and if it still has fixer in there monitor your washing so you know how much additional washing you need. its not good for prints or film to wash them too much and it doesn't need to be hours and hours ... the exchanges in the post fix and pre fix remove tray will remove some of the fixer through osmosis. I don't bother with selenium or other toners, they are difficult to get rid of, and their toxicity requires precautions and they can lead to problems down the road, I've been submitting images to HABS Collections and never had or the need to do toning. I use as few chemicals in the darkroom as possible.
good luck
John

[Pieter]

the main thing I would add / stress is do your printing in small batches and have a "test print" that is your "testing for residual fixer" guinea pig". use a split fixer routine (1/2 your fixing in 1 bath and 1/2 in a 2nd bath ) to insure your prints are actually fixed (I'd also do the "clip test" to make sure you aren't fixing your prints in spent fixer whether you split the fixing or not ) and after you fix have your prints in running water that you exchange, not just a tray with water in it.. that will lead to you continuing to fix your prints in dilute fixer until you do your final wash routine. get fixer remover or heico perm-wash and follow their instructions on washing your prints. shuffle and dump your prints to assure front and back of the prints are getting washed, and don't introduce anything into the wash or you will have to start over again. do the residual fixer test on the test print and if it still has fixer in there monitor your washing so you know how much additional washing you need. its not good for prints or film to wash them too much and it doesn't need to be hours and hours ... the exchanges in the post fix and pre fix remove tray will remove some of the fixer through osmosis. I don't bother with selenium or other toners, they are difficult to get rid of, and their toxicity requires precautions and they can lead to problems down the road, I've been submitting images to HABS Collections and never had or the need to do toning. I use as few chemicals in the darkroom as possible.
good luck
John
Another reason fro making test prints is fiber tends to show more dry-down effect than RC, at least in my experience. It could be because of the brighter white of the RC base. That applies to Ilford papers, I don't know about others.

[tgtaylor]

I was doing 4 or 5 minutes in the wash aid - sodium sulfite in my case - but just the other day I noticed in the James Christopher Alternative Photography book that he uses one minute in the wash aid. He also advised 1 minute in the fixer but apparently took a lot of heat for that and now recommends 2 fix baths of 1 minute each. I switched to the latter recommendation but the prints that I made 10 years ago using a single 1 minute fix bath look as if they were just printed.

Thomas

[Bernice Loui]

Dry down of the print and lighting intensity and type figures into the print making process. B&W prints rendered variations in the image dependent on how bright the display lighting will be -vs- print making evaluation lighting and the type of lighting used (Daylight, tungsten/halogen, fluorescent, LED and etc..)will also have an effect on perceived print color, tone-contrast. This should be accounted for during the print making process and toning process.

Be aware if Selenium toning is done, it is easy to over tone (will color the print Magenta) the print as the typical time in the Selenium toning solution is about 1 to 2.5/3 minutes MAX. Keep in mind long as the Selenium toning solution is on the print, toning action is happening. This means time needed to pull out the print from the toning solution, drip off then into the water wash must be accounted for. Larger the print, more challenging the entire print making process becomes.

Do keep a toned reference print near by as some means to gauge how much toning should be done to allow some degree of print toning consistency.


Bernice

[Fred L]

...Be aware if Selenium toning is done, it is easy to over tone (will color the print Magenta) the print as the typical time in the Selenium toning solution is about 1 to 2.5/3 minutes MAX...

This is the first I've ever heard about this max time, is there a reference to it as I'm very curious to read up on this. My selenium times are much longer than this and I aim for tonal change which can be very subtle, depending on the paper and toner strength.

thanks

[Michael R]

Maximum toning and the amount of potential colour shift will always depend heavily on the emulsion and the dilution of the toner. Even the developer used to develop the paper can sometimes have an influence on the colour shift in the toner. Most people tend to settle on a dilution that results in a selenium toning time of a few minutes or more to achieve the desired degree of colour shift for a particular paper.


This is the first I've ever heard about this max time, is there a reference to it as I'm very curious to read up on this. My selenium times are much longer than this and I aim for tonal change which can be very subtle, depending on the paper and toner strength.

thanks

[willwilson]

Lots of good stuff on this thread. I use a microwave to dry down test prints and test strips, works great. Also a super low wattage led viewing bulb of 0.5w or less is a good tool to save your night vision.

For selenium toning or any toning I just have to experiment. Paper, Dev, wash aid, timing, etc, all work together to impact my final print. When I change one thing it seems to impact the end product, so I take good notes and tend not to change things that work well. I start with directions on the box and then make up my own method within reason. Toning can definitely be part of the craft of printing. Mistakes and accidents can be pretty rad sometimes too.

A few book suggestions. Darkroom and Darkroom 2. Both Lustrum press. Mckays Bookstore is your friend.
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20220722/bd84a4117c6019259499f0e51782ba96.jpghttps://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20220722/81e65a19023b8ca49c24c504dce035ba.jpg

[Axelwik]

In terms of flattening I dry mount my fiber prints. Back when my large press broke down and all I had was an 11x14 press, I did larger prints in sections, then transferred to the broken press for cool down between sections. Worked fine.

[Kornscharfsteller]

After reading all of the above, I now got two follow up questions.

1. Would it be feasible to put multiple prints at once into the press (that I have yet to build)? I was considering to have multiple prints stacked on top of each other, all separated with some sort of acid free passepartout cardboard or something. It would be cool if I could do some sort of batch processing when flattening my prints.

2. Speaking of batch processing: I read several times in here that it is a good idea to dry the prints on (glass?) screens. How could a fixture / a setup look like that would allow me to dry multiple 40x50cm prints on screens at the same time? The space in my darkroom is somewhat limited and also for security reasons I would not want to place glass screens all over the place. So I would need to build some sort of rack or something with many screens next to each other? How could something like that look like?

[Pieter]

After reading all of the above, I now got two follow up questions.

1. Would it be feasible to put multiple prints at once into the press (that I have yet to build)? I was considering to have multiple prints stacked on top of each other, all separated with some sort of acid free passepartout cardboard or something. It would be cool if I could do some sort of batch processing when flattening my prints.

2. Speaking of batch processing: I read several times in here that it is a good idea to dry the prints on (glass?) screens. How could a fixture / a setup look like that would allow me to dry multiple 40x50cm prints on screens at the same time? The space in my darkroom is somewhat limited and also for security reasons I would not want to place glass screens all over the place. So I would need to build some sort of rack or something with many screens next to each other? How could something like that look like?
To make it clear, the screen material is usually made of fiberglass mesh. I sometimes use a clothes drying rack to stack several screens. You can use a baker's sheet pan rack if you have access to one.
229496229497

[jnantz]

blotter book
retractable clothes line ( and clothes pins )

[Kornscharfsteller]

To make it clear, the screen material is usually made of fiberglass mesh. I sometimes use a clothes drying rack to stack several screens. You can use a baker's sheet pan rack if you have access to one.
Oh, OK a mesh is preferable over glass screens, I guess.
In your second image the prints would dry laying horizontally, isn't horizontal drying of prints prone to stains or "uneven glossiness" of the glossy surface?

[Kornscharfsteller]

blotter book
retractable clothes line ( and clothes pins )


Cloth lines and cloth pins is my preferable way of drying RC prints (see images below). But for fibre prints this large I fear that they'd curl up to much and also as a result the glossy surface would have stains or some sort of uneven glossiness. Is that unlikely? Any tips on keeping them somewhat flat while hanging?

Also the pins must be strong enough holding a wet 40x50cm fibre print.

229502
229503

[jnantz]

What works for me is take them down when they are almost but not completely dry and put them face to face and back to back under something heavy. I use slab of countertop, giant sheet of glass a nipping / cast iron bookbinders press ... depending on the size of the prints. I also have a dry mount press but haven't used it in 15 years. I have dry mounted prints from decades ago that were done professionally, with "archival" paper and they tend to not stay secure years later from my experience, too much trouble. I'll window mat , leave a border around the print, make corner tabs with either LINCO tabs or acid free / archival paper and linen tape then 4 or 8 ply on top with the window. stays plenty flat. ... BTW. according to KODAK and the Image Permanency Institute they claim RC is more archival than FB. so if you like RC might as well keep making RC .. easier to print, easier to dry, can last 900 years, .. you just have to worry about printing ( corners tearing through another the print's emulsion ) and the dreaded "out gassing" and "silvering out". The last prints I made were professionally matted and framed, and RC prints I have made from IDK 1982 look like they were made like 32 minutes ago ... ( you can use STAB or selenium toner on RC prints too if you like that look )
my experience of flattening matting/framing isn't recent, I've concentrated on making hand made books for the past handful of years.
good luck with your exhibit !
John

[Doremus Scudder]

Kornscharfsteller,

You don't say where you are located, but from your screen name, I'm assuming somewhere in the German-speaking world (Germany, Austria, Switzerland).

Hanging prints that large to dry is asking for trouble. What is going to be best for drying fiber-base prints of that size are fiberglass screens (Fliegengitter aus Fiberglasgewebe). You can get kits to make frames (aluminum) for whatever size you need at places like Obi, Bauhaus, Baumax, etc. Since you have 40x50cm prints in mind, slightly larger than that for one-print-per-screen or whatever multiple of that depending on the space you have.

I have a cabinet with wooden rails on the sides that holds my drying screens. In the past, though, I just had a bunch of screens that I separates with wooden blocks when in use, stacking the screens up as I added prints. When not in use, the screens were stored standing on end in the back of a closet (in a plastic bag, of course). There are lots of options for rigging up temporary drying screens.

Your prints won't dry completely flat on screens; you'll have to flatten them later using whatever method you choose.

Really, if you are serious, see if you can find a way to dry-mount your prints, or have someone dry-mount them for you, it's really the best option for display. After dry-mounting to a suitable substrate, the board and photographs together comprise the artwork. Acid-free cotton-rag museum-quality board, 4-ply is what I use (Museumskarton Baumwolle - säurefrei - 1.5mm).

Hope this helps,

Doremus

[Kornscharfsteller]

Kornscharfsteller,

You don't say where you are located, but from your screen name, I'm assuming somewhere in the German-speaking world (Germany, Austria, Switzerland).

Really, if you are serious, see if you can find a way to dry-mount your prints, or have someone dry-mount them for you, it's really the best option for display.


Yes, I am indeed from Germany - Dresden, to be precise.

For the „Fliegengitter“: Does it really not matter what I buy - isn’t there a danger it reacting with the paper while drying? Also: Should I dry with the image upward or downward (facing the screen).

Letting a shop do the dry-mounting is very expensive in Dresden unless I don’t find a cheap way to do it myself it will probably be out of budget. ��
If I dry-mount I suppose I put my stamp and signature on the mounting board instead of the backside of actual print?

[Doremus Scudder]

Yes, I am indeed from Germany - Dresden, to be precise.

For the „Fliegengitter“: Does it really not matter what I buy - isn’t there a danger it reacting with the paper while drying? Also: Should I dry with the image upward or downward (facing the screen).

Letting a shop do the dry-mounting is very expensive in Dresden unless I don’t find a cheap way to do it myself it will probably be out of budget. ��
If I dry-mount I suppose I put my stamp and signature on the mounting board I stead of the backside of actual print?

You should get fiberglass screens (Fiberglasgewebe), not metal. That's neutral enough not to leave any marks on the print. I dry my prints emulsion-side-up after getting marks on the emulsion when drying them face-down. Be careful to keep them clean; only well-washed prints should be dried on the screens to avoid contamination.

The "classic" presentation of fiber-base prints here in the U.S. is dry-mounted on cotton rag board. The print itself is trimmed to exact dimensions before mounting, i.e., no border of photo paper around the image. The signature then goes below the image on the bottom right. The presentation is finished with an window mat (Passepartout) that has a window cut slightly larger than the print (0.5-1 cm or even larger with large prints). I always make the gap a little larger at the bottom to show the signature. The stamp and other print information like title, print number, etc., goes on the back of the board the print is mounted on.

I know that finding dry-mounting possibilities in Europe is difficult, as is finding a dry-mount press. Some have had success using a regular iron (Bügeleisen), but that might be tricky with larger prints. You might do a bit of research and see what type of mounting traditional photographers there tend to use most with fiber-base prints and come up with an alternative.

If you can flatten the prints well enough, you can print them with a wide border (3-4 cm or more) and then cut the window just slightly smaller than the overall print dimensions, which will hold it flat against the backing mat while leaving a stripe of white border around the entire image. The print would then be secured to the bottom mat with adhesive corners or tape hinges. The signature could go just below the image on the exposed border of the photo paper itself (you'll need a pen that writes well on photo emulsion).

Schöne Grüße aus Oregon,

Doremus

[Pieter]

Oh, OK a mesh is preferable over glass screens, I guess.
In your second image the prints would dry laying horizontally, isn't horizontal drying of prints prone to stains or "uneven glossiness" of the glossy surface?
Pretty much the only way to dry prints on a screen is horizontally. I have never had any unevenness. Just remember to squeegee the prints before setting them out to dry.

[Bernice Loui]

Curious to learn how curly fiber-based B&W prints are set up for display in Europe if they are not dry mounted to 4 ply cotton mat board.

Bernice





I know that finding dry-mounting possibilities in Europe is difficult, as is finding a dry-mount press. Some have had success using a regular iron (Bügeleisen), but that might be tricky with larger prints. You might do a bit of research and see what type of mounting traditional photographers there tend to use most with fiber-base prints and come up with an alternative.

Schöne Grüße aus Oregon,

Doremus

[Drew Wiley]

After allowing the prints to dry face-up on the fiberglass screen, they get weighted down under a big sheet of plate glass to get them nice and flat. But I can't imagine displaying glossy fiber-based silver-gelatin prints unless they are dry-mounted, or perhaps quite small. There is a distinct technique to drymounting, and when correctly done, it's quite permanent and actually protects the print itself from mishandling. Unfortunately, museum board itself is getting quite expensive these days. The alternative, RC paper, has always been somewhat suspect in terms of long-term permanence, and doesn't drymount well, so has been understandably shunned by the collector market. Just depends on your personal budget and intended clientele, and what they're willing to pay. Decently mounting and framing a print costs a lot more than making the print itself; but as I once heard it described, you need a proper suit and tie for the right occasion.

[Pieter]

I rarely dry mount prints any more. After flattening the prints in a dry mount press, I will leave them sandwiched between two large sheets of 1/4" acrylic (because that's what I have at hand) and stack 6-8 large, heavy books on top of that. I leave them for a day or so, then mount the prints to museum board using archival linen tape hinges. A window mat is hinged with the same tape to the backing board. Of course, I usually print 10"x10" on 11"x14" so I don't know how well that method might work for larger prints.

[Drew Wiley]

I can't even present my 8X10 contact prints on MGWT without drymounting them. I love that paper; but it sure curls with humidity changes!

[Pieter]

They seem flat enough for me, 10"x10" hinged and matted 16"x20".

229581

[Drew Wiley]

There are just so many damned variables, Pieter. What works acceptably in one climate might not in another, or what is OK in a certain diurnal AC & heating display fluctuation cycle versus another. That's why museums try to keep consistent internal climate-control. Even a switch in the specific brand of mounting and matting board might cause problems due to a hydroscopic differential. Sometimes I've had to mount and frame things quite differently for a subtropical environment than a desert one, for a residential setting versus a commercial one; and now much of the climate is starting to go batty. In other words, there are no pat answers unless, perhaps, your clientele is quite localized and itself predictable. And the bigger prints get, the bigger the potential problems.

[Pieter]

There are just so many damned variables, Pieter. What works acceptably in one climate might not in another, or what is OK in a certain diurnal AC & heating display fluctuation cycle versus another. That's why museums try to keep consistent internal climate-control. Even a switch in the specific brand of mounting and matting board might cause problems due to a hydroscopic differential. Sometimes I've had to mount and frame things quite differently for a subtropical environment than a desert one, for a residential setting versus a commercial one; and now much of the climate is starting to go batty. In other words, there are no pat answers unless, perhaps, your clientele is quite localized and itself predictable. And the bigger prints get, the bigger the potential problems.
And if the photo is moved to a different climate, seems like everything is up for grabs. Maybe Avedon was onto something having his extra large prints dry-mounted on aluminum sheets for In The American West.

[Drew Wiley]

Aluminum can be obtained in a very smooth variety, but is highly thermally conductive, so might be the worst thing unless well insulated from behind. That's the first thing I ask if a print installation is going to be in a commercial building. Are any of the prints going to be hung on a perimeter wall? - and if so, how well insulated are those; and likewise, is there going to be a significant temp/humidity swing between day and night due to daily cycles in humidity, air conditioning on versus off, or even due to cycles in relatively hot display lighting? Individuals who buy prints for their own residences are more likely to treat them with care, especially if they are informed up front about certain deleterious factors like high humidity and excessive UV. For a few really excessive situations, I actually provided true hermetically sealed framing; but that's quite expensive to do.

Cosmetically, hand-coated emulsions onto things like watercolor paper really do look better mounted and framed just like a real watercolor painting, hinged from behind and "float mounted", with an evident deckle edge. But for glossy photographs in particular, keeping them truly flat either by drymounting, or in the case of color and RC prints, via aggressive acrylic adhesive foils onto smooth dimensionally stable substrates. That takes special equipment, and there's no room for error.

[jnantz]

The alternative, RC paper, has always been somewhat suspect in terms of long-term permanence, and doesn't drymount well, so has been understandably shunned by the collector market. .

Yup, everyone has their opinions. I tended to listen Wilhelm and Ron Mowrey ... and personally, I wouldn't dry mount anything if my life depended on it. It is not supposed to be very good for much of anything except enriching the companies that make dry mount tissue.

[Doremus Scudder]

Yup, everyone has their opinions. I tended to listen Wilhelm and Ron Mowrey ... and personally, I wouldn't dry mount anything if my life depended on it. It is not supposed to be very good for much of anything except enriching the companies that make dry mount tissue.

So then, how do you mount your fiber-base prints?

[Michael R]

Yup, everyone has their opinions. I tended to listen Wilhelm and Ron Mowrey ... and personally, I wouldn't dry mount anything if my life depended on it. It is not supposed to be very good for much of anything except enriching the companies that make dry mount tissue.

Some people prefer to just flatten the FB prints (heat flattening in dry mount press works well) and attach them to mount board using those little corner things that hold the print but don’t adhere to it. The downside to this is the overmat has to cover those corners and having the overmat extend onto the paper may or may not be how the photographer wants it to look. You tend to see this more with colour prints on polyester materials. Another possible option is removable buffermount dry mount tissue. Does that still exist?

[Doremus Scudder]

Well, I've been using Buffermount for years with good results. Yes, you have to pay attention to get even bonding when the print comes out of the press, but I don't have problems there. Small prints just get smoothed with cotton-gloved hands, making sure the edges adhere well. Larger prints go under a weighted platten when cooling.

I've had to unmount and remount a print or two over the years and I really liked being able to get the print of the old, damaged board and re-dry mount it onto another. This was especially nice when a good number of prints I had in storage got wet (flooding from a defective overhead air-conditioning unit in the storage unit I was renting - grrr!). Anyway, a lot of boards were damaged, but many of the prints were salvageable by removing them and remounting onto new board. It's really simple; just heat the print in the press, pull it out and quickly peel the print off the board. A bit of adhesive residue remains on the back of the print, but not much. Then, it's just dry mount as usual using new tissue.

I've used Colormount as well, but prefer the Buffermount now. You used to be able to buy pre-cut sheets in lots of sizes, but now I have to buy rolls and cut it to size myself.

Best,

Doremus

[Pieter]

I remember seeing a video once where a curator (SFMOMA?) was going though a box of Lee Friedlander prints. They were each dry-mounted to a debossed sheet of what looked like watercolor or etching paper, with deckled edges if I'm not mistaken.

[Michael R]

George Tice does something similar. The print is dry-mounted to paper which is then affixed to the mounting board.


I remember seeing a video once where a curator (SFMOMA?) was going though a box of Lee Friedlander prints. They were each dry-mounted to a debossed sheet of what looked like watercolor or etching paper, with deckled edges if I'm not mistaken.

[Pieter]

It was LACMA. https://youtu.be/p0M5IvUrkKg

[jnantz]

George Tice does something similar. The print is dry-mounted to paper which is then affixed to the mounting board.

sounds and looks dangerous!
I do that with wheat or rice paste instead of dry mount tissue. Ive tipped pages in books like that but never something that's hung on a wall could probably be done with a hinge. I figure it would probably work seeing billboards use a similar paste ( or used to ) no heat involved and it's 100% reversible, organic pH neutral.

[Michael R]

I hate to bring this up, but realistically does anyone here need to worry that dry-mounting is the reason museums are not acquiring their prints?

[nitroplait]

I find "dry-mounting" destructive and would never pay a premium for a dry-mounted print.
I highly prefer that the print can live & breathe hinged behind the passpartout.

The prints I have purchased from Elliot Erwitt, Gerry Johansson, Alec Soth, Blake Andrews, Anita Lönn, Watabe Yukitchi and others have never been dry-mounted.

[Erik Larsen]

I hate to bring this up, but realistically does anyone here need to worry that dry-mounting is the reason museums are not acquiring their prints?

Dang it, I knew there must be a reason museums aren’t busting down my door to get at my prints. It’s all the dry mountings fault! In all seriousness, mount how you want it to look and let later generations curse or praise your decision if your prints happen to outlive you or just end up in the landfill along with all your other treasures that are important to you but your heirs could care less about.

[Pieter]

Dry-mounted prints decompose slower in the landfill than other mounting methods. Keep that in mind if you are concerned about the future of the planet rather than your ego.

[Erik Larsen]

Dry-mounted prints decompose slower in the landfill than other mounting methods. Keep that in mind if you are concerned about the future of the planet rather than your ego.

Hmmm, good point:)
I wonder if RC paper should be banned because of the plastic lasting forever in a landfill?:confused:

[Maris Rusis]

I looked through some prints I dry mounted on cheap 4-ply board 35 years ago. Yes, I had no money and didn't know better at the time.
The prints are pristine and as good as the day they were made. But the mount boards are mottled, foxed, and downright ugly. Very obviously the old fashioned high temperature dry mount tissue has protected the prints from the nasty boards.
So, is dry mounting a good thing? Maybe not.
The gallery that represented me could not acceptably promote these pictures to collectors. The pictures would have to be unmounted and then be offered in a clean presentation. Which from a conservation point of view is a chancy procedure with lots opportunities for disaster. In effect dry mounting saved the prints but made them worthless at the same time.

[Fred L]

I remember seeing a video once where a curator (SFMOMA?) was going though a box of Lee Friedlander prints. They were each dry-mounted to a debossed sheet of what looked like watercolor or etching paper, with deckled edges if I'm not mistaken.

Very interesting presentation. Curious how does one deboss paper ? Looks like one would need a platten, press or vice ?

[Pieter]

Very interesting presentation. Curious how does one deboss paper ? Looks like one would need a platten, press or vice ?

I'm pretty sure Mr Friedlander does (did?) his own printing, but maybe he left the mounting to an assistant or sent it out. I would imagine some sort of custom debossing die that also allowed dry mounting would be involved, maybe something used in the press printing and binding trade.

[Cor]

Bit late in this thread, but when I had more space and a bathtub I would put 2 40*50 prints back to back when still wet, and hang them on a clothes line above the tub, using wooden cloth pins on all 4 corners, I seem to recall that 2 of those pins were strong enough to hang the 2 prints. The idea is that the back dries much slower than the 2 fronts, thus greatly reduces the curl. It worked, but further flattering is needed to get it really flat. I do have a dry mount press, but rarely use it. I have a collection of various X ray cassettes which I now use to reasonably flatten FB prints.

good luck,

Cor

[Kornscharfsteller]

give it another 1.5 minutes in fixing bath 2

If I may return to this advice again, what dilution does bath 2 have? Same 1+9 as bath 1 or something different?

[Doremus Scudder]

If I may return to this advice again, what dilution does bath 2 have? Same 1+9 as bath 1 or something different?

Hello Kornscharfsteller,

I am assuming that you are referring to my very first post in this thread (on pg. 1) back in 2022.

And, yes, I use Ilford Rapid Fixer or some other similar rapid fixer in the so-called "print dilution" for both fixing baths. My regime is based on the Kodak recommendations and uses two weaker fixing baths, a wash aid (hypo clear), and then a longer wash. It's not the Ilford method that uses a stronger fix (film-strength dilution) for shorter times and then shorter wash times. I find that keeping the fixing time to 60 seconds is impractical with larger prints and when I need to bleach prints locally, which requires refixing.

At any rate, yes, Rapid Fixer 1+9 for both fixing bath one and two, and 1.5-2 minutes in each bath. Before the final wash and after toning I give a running water rinse for a few minutes and then treat the prints in a wash aid (I make my own) for 10 minutes with intermittent agitation. The prints then go directly into the print washer and wash for a minimum of 60 minutes.

Hope that answers your question.

Best,

Doremus

[Kornscharfsteller]

Yes, I was indeed referring to that post.

There you also mention:


(I have a 12-slot print washer)

I don’t have such a washer and they are very expensive at fotoimpex.de, what would a good alternative washing technique be?

[Drew Wiley]

Avoiding outgassing or contaminants is CRUCIAL during both storage and framing, not optional. OSB is outright voodoo; so is particle board and nearly all common plywood. The glues involved contain formaldehyde; and that's why most such sheet goods are now made in China with its lax health rules during manufacture. Formaldehyde is poison to image permanence; so are vinyl plasticizers, so are turpenes and outgassing paint or varnish vapors. All this has been very well known for a long long time. Entire galleries owned by otherwise rich people have gone instantly bankrupt making that mistake just once, when lawsuits showed up from clients angry over how their purchases had soon begun fading or discoloring. I sometimes found myself in a "told you so, and you should have listened" mode, because we carried such goods where I worked, and had big art venues among our customers. There are certain things you don't even want anywhere around photographs. If it's just a pH problem with acidity in a backing, then use a thin sheet of mylar in between. Outgassing -nope; avoid that like the plague.

An inexpensive option to an archival slot washer? Try to find an old Kodak Tray Siphon, and use an oversized tray with water flowing into it.

[faberryman]

Avoiding outgassing or contaminants is CRUCIAL during both storage and framing, not optional. OSB is outright voodoo; so is particle board and nearly all common plywood. The glues involved contain formaldehyde; and that's why most such sheet goods are now made in China with its lax health rules during manufacture. Formaldehyde is poison to image permanence; so are vinyl plasticizers, so are turpenes and outgassing paint or varnish vapors. All this has been very well known for a long long time. Entire galleries owned by otherwise rich people have gone instantly bankrupt making that mistake just once, when lawsuits showed up from clients angry over how their purchases had soon begun fading or discoloring. I sometimes found myself in a "told you so, and you should have listened" mode, because we carried such goods where I worked, and had big art venues among our customers. There are certain things you don't even want anywhere around photographs. If it's just a pH problem with acidity in a backing, then use a thin sheet of mylar in between. Outgassing -nope; avoid that like the plague.

I can't believe any photographer, much less gallery, used or uses plywood, OSB, or particle board, to store and/or frame photographs. Can you tell us which galleries went instantly bankrupt doing so, and when those bankruptcies occurred?

[Drew Wiley]

Yes, I sure could, right down to every detail. But I'm sure not going to tell any troll just trying to taint my reputation out of sheer spite, or whatever it is which obsessively compels you to behave in this manner.

[Pieter]

Avoiding outgassing or contaminants is CRUCIAL during both storage and framing, not optional. OSB is outright voodoo; so is particle board and nearly all common plywood. The glues involved contain formaldehyde; and that's why most such sheet goods are now made in China with its lax health rules during manufacture. Formaldehyde is poison to image permanence; so are vinyl plasticizers, so are turpenes and outgassing paint or varnish vapors. All this has been very well known for a long long time. Entire galleries owned by otherwise rich people have gone instantly bankrupt making that mistake just once, when lawsuits showed up from clients angry over how their purchases had soon begun fading or discoloring. I sometimes found myself in a "told you so, and you should have listened" mode, because we carried such goods where I worked, and had big art venues among our customers. There are certain things you don't even want anywhere around photographs. If it's just a pH problem with acidity in a backing, then use a thin sheet of mylar in between. Outgassing -nope; avoid that like the plague.
Where and how would one use such materials in contact with a photograph? In crating it? Making a wall to display it? Framing materials? I have never heard or read of photographs being mounted on those things.

As a side note, galleries (like restaurants) go bankrupt daily, sometimes absconding with the work as well as money owed.

[faberryman]

Yes, I sure could, right down to every detail. But I'm sure not going to tell any troll just trying to taint my reputation out of sheer spite, or whatever it is which obsessively compels you to behave in this manner.

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Carl Sagan

[Drew Wiley]

Well, I will answer you, Pieter. In that case, it was a high-end photo gallery in a prime high-lease downtown SF location. I got acquainted with the owner when a different and even more pricey venue a little ways away was showing my work. But he specialized in rare, generally one of a kind, very early photos, though not exclusively. Lovely exquisite images, even when he showed modern color work, collectibles. But he could also be an ornery skinflint hoping to cut corners when it came to his storage room. When he sought my advice, and I told him to use either stainless or chrome wire racks with good air circulation for his portfolio box storage, he had the nerve to cuss me out, and insisted he was going to use particle board shelving, and had already hired the carpenter. When the formaldehyde risk finally got through to him, he called a London art conservator who was an expert in marble statures (but knew little about photographs), who advised him to seal the particle board with a highly specialized sealant called Bedacryl, available only to art conservators. So the gallery owner asked if I could get it for him, which I hypothetically could have, since we had an industrial department with a direct 3M industrial account.
But Bedacryl is a solvent product high in sulfur, and even worse. So I informed him I could not in good faith supply it to him for such purposes. So he went ahead anyway, and just stashed his print boxes on raw particleboard shelving. Those prints were sold for around seven to eight thousand dollars per print, and clients often paid around $30,000 per box, quite a sum in the 80's. Opening those boxes six months later, and seeing no image at all on the paper in many instances - the next thing was a phone call to a lawyer, seeking to sue the gallery.

That wasn't a unique case, by any means, but probably the most memorable for its peculiarities. Henceforward I never allowed my own work to be shown in any gallery unless I visited their back room first, and I did see see some horror stories in other venues too, including the entire life work or a famous photographer half-ruined by a leaky back room roof. I hesitate to mention that gallery's name because the second generation has its own gallery of high repute, and serious photo galleries are still relatively uncommon, and I don't want sons held to account for the sins of their fathers. Even the careless guys did photography a real favor by getting serious photographers in the public eye who we here on the West Coast wouldn't have otherwise known. Those galleries were pioneers in that respect, and were willing to lose money for love of the medium. They were mainly people who had already made a ton of money doing something else first. Too bad they trended rather naive when it came to properly handling things.

So no, this was not just another predictable gallery experiment gone wrong. They were well established with a strong collector clientele in a prime location, but then made a huge mistake. It not like now, with downtime crime exploding, and downtown lease pricing gone stratospheric due to techie gentrification driving everything else out. That whole SF crown jewel of Union Square is hollowing out at the moment, and the city is getting pretty alarmed.

Such "claims" are hardly "extraordinary" at all, not for someone who was in the business of supplying materials in volume to an especially wide spectrum of clients. Just another day in the office. Far weirder stories could be told about unreasonable military uses for commodities, often in a distinctly unhealthy manner; it's just that more people have already heard of that category of abuse. And galleries were hardly even worth our time, but they sought me out for technical advice, so we accommodated them. Friends of Photography was a predictable cyclic customer we supplied. But in terms of art galleries, even now there seems to be an almost dismal ignorance of properly handling and displaying what they sell. They might or might not deal with a frame shop offering archival framing. But it's not at all uncommon to find prints thumbtacked or L-pinned to gallery walls repainted just a day or two before, and still outgassing, or put in wooden frames with unsealed rabbets and unsuitable backings. I dealt with museum display facilities too; but they were given very tight parameters by staff conservators; so that was a different situation entirely.

[Pieter]

Well, I will answer you, Pieter. In that case, it was a high-end photo gallery in a prime high-lease downtown SF location. I got acquainted with the owner when a different and even more pricey venue a little ways away was showing my work. But he specialized in rare, generally one of a kind, very early photos, though not exclusively. Lovely exquisite images, even when he showed modern color work, collectibles. But he could also be an ornery skinflint hoping to cut corners when it came to his storage room. When he sought my advice, and I told him to use either stainless or chrome wire racks with good air circulation for his portfolio box storage, he had the nerve to cuss me out, and insisted he was going to use particle board shelving, and had already hired the carpenter. When the formaldehyde risk finally got through to him, he called a London art conservator who was an expert in marble statures (but knew little about photographs), who advised him to seal the particle board with a highly specialized sealant called Bedacryl, available only to art conservators. So the gallery owner asked if I could get it for him, which I hypothetically could have, since we had an industrial department with a direct 3M industrial account.
But Bedacryl is a solvent product high in sulfur, and even worse. So I informed him I could not in good faith supply it to him for such purposes. So he went ahead anyway, and just stashed his print boxes on raw particleboard shelving. Those prints were sold for around seven to eight thousand dollars per print, and clients often paid around $30,000 per box, quite a sum in the 80's. Opening those boxes six months later, and seeing no image at all on the paper in many instances - the next thing was a phone call to a lawyer, seeking to sue the gallery.

That wasn't a unique case, by any means, but probably the most memorable for its peculiarities. Henceforward I never allowed my own work to be shown in any gallery unless I visited their back room first, and I did see see some horror stories in other venues too, including the entire life work or a famous photographer half-ruined by a leaky back room roof. I hesitate to mention that gallery's name because the second generation has its own gallery of high repute, and serious photo galleries are still relatively uncommon, and I don't want sons held to account for the sins of their fathers. Even the careless guys did photography a real favor by getting serious photographers in the public eye who we here on the West Coast wouldn't have otherwise known. Those galleries were pioneers in that respect, and were willing to lose money for love of the medium. They were mainly people who had already made a ton of money doing something else first. Too bad they trended rather naive when it came to properly handling things.

So no, this was not just another predictable gallery experiment gone wrong. They were well established with a strong collector clientele in a prime location, but then made a huge mistake. It not like now, with downtime crime exploding, and downtown lease pricing gone stratospheric due to techie gentrification driving everything else out. That whole SF crown jewel of Union Square is hollowing out at the moment, and the city is getting pretty alarmed.

Such "claims" are hardly "extraordinary" at all, not for someone who was in the business of supplying materials in volume to an especially wide spectrum of clients. Just another day in the office. Far weirder stories could be told about unreasonable military uses for commodities, often in a distinctly unhealthy manner; it's just that more people have already heard of that category of abuse. And galleries were hardly even worth our time, but they sought me out for technical advice, so we accommodated them. Friends of Photography was a predictable cyclic customer we supplied. But in terms of art galleries, even now there seems to be an almost dismal ignorance of properly handling and displaying what they sell. They might or might not deal with a frame shop offering archival framing. But it's not at all uncommon to find prints thumbtacked or L-pinned to gallery walls repainted just a day or two before, and still outgassing, or put in wooden frames with unsealed rabbets and unsuitable backings. I dealt with museum display facilities too; but they were given very tight parameters by staff conservators; so that was a different situation entirely.
Thank you for elaborating. It is a shame that people try to cut corners or can't be bothered to be properly informed about such matters. So many galleries are run by dilettantes for the glamour of it, others to mix with a well-heeled clientele.

[Drew Wiley]

I wouldn't call them exactly that. All these particular ones had a serious interest in photography, and a keen eye for worthy examples. But they were otherwise successful business or tech entrepreneurs first, with little hands-on experience of their own in this field. When you got further south into Carmel, there were certain galleries which billionaires and celebrities basically set up as a hobby to get their trophy wives out of the house. But some of those women collected my prints too on a personal level (not for resale in their own venues), and were actually pretty nice and well-informed, and not stereotypical gold-diggers at all. Community to community interactions were much different than vendor to tourist ones.

SF itself had both high-end galleries catering to a rather exclusive clientele, as well as obscenely overpriced shoreline galleries luring sucker tourists. Both were at very high expense lease locations. The less well-heeled or relatively offensive avant-garde venues had to seek out the proverbial worn-down, crime-ridden art colony type locations, which in turn became gentrified over time, pushing those makeshift galleries and firetrap art colonies still further afield. The "temporarily rent personal wall space" concept has somewhat filled in, and has become a minor source of income to those awaiting sale of their abandoned warehouses.

[Jim Noel]

If you want a glossy surface on fiber paper, it must be dried emulsion down on a very clean, very smooth surface. When I did this I had ferrotype tins. These were chromium plated sheets of steel, or a dryer with appropriate drum. I have heard of people using plate glass, but personally never had success with this method.
You may be able to find Ferrotype Tins at a very good , very old camera store. I haven't seen one for sale in a good many years. Sales people today usually won't know what you are talking about.

[Drew Wiley]

I always dry papers face up on the screens. No ill effect to the gloss whatsoever. Ferrotyping is something else. But if you want a true high gloss, you won't get it with any kind of paper. I been printing Fuji Supergloss color prints lately; like Cibachrome, they're on PET base, just like sheet film, except it's opaque white below the emulsion, and a lot thicker.